"Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified. I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science...."
It's the test-market of any “free” people: the will to establish governmental eugenics' boards; to fish from bridges; to bury Mom in the basement. The pocks that flush our faces; the crud that aggregates our agri-forms; the holds on stocks; the tendency of women to wash their waist-length hair in the kitchen sink for the sake of convenience—these are what we as men & lesbians file north from as they are in popery's limbo between tolerance & toleration.
Good video. Here's a nice quote. "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." Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory. Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes," 1983, Norton, New York.
Just saying we happen to live in a universe that could potentially come from nothing. Hence the pinhead situation (big bang) has a little bit of credence. Doesn't rule out a creator either because maybe he just loves mathematical beauty. Just saying the universe origins argument is null and void because it could come from nothing but it also still could have been directed.
@lfaivor21, do bear in mind that the idea of the Big Bang being from "nothing" is just one idea among many. The reality is that we don't know the cause of the Big Bang. The philosophical point is that a lot of religious people use the God-of-the-gaps idea in their minds, despite the fact that it is an obvious fallacy. This "We/scientists don't know X, therefore God did it" plays a huge factor in the creationist mind.
@greeneto Right understood. It is also the most trusted theory of them since it sticks with what we can observe. There is the acknowledgement that for the universe to come from nothing that we need a flat universe (implies zero net gravitational energy). Which leaves open the POSSIBILITY for it coming from nothing but does not mean or prove it came from nothing. Often misquoted as proof against a creator. Fallacies are everywhere and on both sides.
"his "We/scientists don't know X, therefore God did it" plays a huge factor in the creationist mind."
of course this is the usual greento nonsense. But intelligence and complexity & especially information is rarely if ever the result of random chance.
u may get one but not all of them.
Therefore logic says there is probably intelligence involved in the beginning of life. This is not proof of it but neither is understanding how nature works proof that it happened spontaneously.
@arsjth, (1) It is a fact that the God-of-the-gaps fallacy is used frequently by creationists in their rhetoric. As usual, we see you call facts "nonsense". (2) "Complexity...is rarely if ever the result of random chance." That's right. No one says otherwise. So now besides using your god-of-the-gaps fallacy we see you using the false dichotomy fallacy. Standard for creationist rhetoric: Use one fallacy right after another one.
I'm a strong supporter of puncuated equilibrium (in fact, I came up with the idea entirely independently and only later learnt others had named it "punctuated equilibrium"), however I find it hard to take Stephen Jay Gould seriously as an individual. His strongly politically influenced views on anthropology are widely dismissed by the scientific community. It puzzles me why people keep bringing him up as a defense for evolution...
@thelordmemnoch, I liked that scene in the movie where he's watching the video on the television and realizes that what he's seeing is in the very room that he is in. That brings on a real sense of imminent danger.
@CelestialBlessings - as long as your lectures didn't contain scientific facts you should be able to teach evolution in most churches. You can keep it brief too. You just need to say things like "God made it all happen and all the evidence opposing the creation view was put there to keep the non-believers happy. End of lecture."
Alright, can anyone explain 3 things. 1) If we are not the center of the universe, then how is it that we see Hubble's redshift from all sides, expansion all around and not some expansion beyond us and some blueshift coming towards us from the center? 2) How is it that we Must be equal part matter and anti-matter yet we see very very very little anti-matter and not evenly dispersed anywhere in the universe. 3)Zwicky's dark matter, is it testable? Is it even reasonable? Is it plausible?
@apathy7170 - go read a decent astronomy book and you'll see where we sit in the universe. Trying to make things fit your blind faith version of things such a waste of time.
I have studied Astronomy at the university level, have you? Do you just make non valid ad hominem attacks hoping to make yourself feel better? Because unless you have something valid to rebut all it does it strengthen your opponents arguments when you attack the person and not the argument.
@apathy7170, I already answered your first question, but you failed to comprehend it. That your still asking the question means you don't even understand the concept. Beyond that, there are always a million questions to ask in science, and that's what science is for, to analyze and research questions and try to come up with answers. The question for you is this: We all know that there are always a million outstanding scientific questions. So what is your point?
"I already answered your first question, but you failed to comprehend it."
i am always amazed at how poor at communicating scientists are. Is this why they are social rejects?
They have all these facts but cant communicate them & always blame the listener.
greento cant communicate well enough 4 anyone to comprehend his thoughts...hell he cant even tell us if he has seen the Oort Cloud or not yet he claims we hate it.
Sounds more like he believes in things he cant see&wont admit it
@arsjth, "poor at communicating scientists are", "they are social rejects", etc.
Of course, they're not trying to communicate with people who aren't able to comprehend basic elements of logic and basic scientific ideas. What would be the point? It would be like a calculus professor trying to communicate the concept of integration to someone who struggles mightily just to get a C or D grade in math and has never even taken an algebra class.
@arsjth most lay people are convinced - at least in countries with decent school education. But a lay person like you, who can't even accept when he is wrong (like you stupid and relentless conflation of the big bang and the theory of evolution) cannot be convinced. All of the empirical data that has been collected regarding the history of life supports evolution. The observations of: astronomy; geology; paleontology; biology; physics and all other fields actually rule out the YEC position,
@teddansonLA, we should point out that it is standard YEC rhetoric to pretend that EVERYTHING in science contrary to young earth creationism (the religious doctrine that the universe and earth did not exist more than about 6,000 years ago or so) - including astronomy/astrophysics and geology/geophysics is all just part of a worldwide evolutionist/atheist conspiracy against fundamentalist Christian religious belief. Yes, it's really a zany notion, but their rhetoric is FILLED with such remarks.
@arsjth, "hung up on the young earth bit". No, young earth creationists are the ones hung up on the young earth bit, and the fact that they are is precisely what demonstrates their utter incompetence when it comes to dealing with science. Which is the point.
And then you use two fallacies back to back. The fact that abiogenesis is an outstanding area of scientific research doesn't imply a god, or an intelligence. That's your god-of-the-gaps showing again. Additionally, just because...
@arsjth, Additionally, just because abiogenesis is an outstanding are of research doesn't mean that nothing is known about biological evolution. That's your second fallacious argument (and it's another fallacy that creationists use often in their rhetoric). Creationists love fallacies, because they promote false beliefs and a false position, and creationists love their personal religious beliefs far more than dealing with the truth, which explains their reliance on fallacious rhetoric.
again you prattle on like a child. if you were well researched you would know that these things that dont fit with YEC are acknowledged and in some cases there are reasons put up.
just as when soft tissue of a 130 m yr old dinosaur turns up...you have to explain it away. cos it doenst fit with scientific fact as we know about the length of time soft tissue can last.
which science was wrong? that soft tissue couldnt last or that the fossil was 130 m yrs old?
@arsjth, I always enjoy the humorous irony of idiots making remarks like telling me I'm supposedly "prattling on like a child". What I know is that young earth creationism is a great demonstration of how a lot of people due to their determination to cling to their personal religious beliefs no matter show that they rely on a large degree of irrational thinking and arbitrary denial of facts they don't like.
Incidentally, the tissue wasn't soft until treated with chemicals in the laboratory.
If you make it a rule of science that you may have no other explanation for events other than natural explanations then dont be surprised when the explanations exclude anything other than natural.
some evidence would appear to rule out YEC & other would suggest its more likely but i think there is nothing to suggest that information arises from accidents of nature, especially prior to nature existing.
@arsjth how can science include non-natural explanations? Intelligent design is not a theory. It uses one argument - what can't be explained at present must imply a designer (God). And what do you mean by "information"?
"how can science include non-natural explanations?"
there you go, u prove the point. That science cannot deal with the the truth if the truth is anything other than natural. Therefore in an effort to answer everything such as the origins of life then you cannot entertain a non natural solution regardless of whether it is likely or even true.
So science is closed off from the truth & limite to what is natural. there4 on the Q of origins perhaps science should say 'we dont know' ???
@arsjth OH and observationally using the Microwave Background Radiation and some geometry it seems our universe might actually have zero curvature. Another test of the curvature of space involved Gravitational Lensing due to the mass energy of a galactic group which came very close (but not quite) to zero curvature. Seems to be that the 'pinhead' universe might have just a little bit of credence after all. (not saying it's perfect just that it has a basis and dismissing it is just idiocy)
@arsjth any chance you'll explain what you mean by information?
Science already takes the position "we don't know". The point of science is to find out more.
But there are something we do know. We know species evolve and that new species arise as a result. We know the earth is very old. The point of view you have taken is that you do know, only now the facts need to change.
"Science already takes the position "we don't know". The point of science is to find out more."
you will need to point out that fact to those mates who say that you do know the origins of the universe & that you do know how life originated and that you do know how all diversity appeared & that you do know that no God or supernatural being or force was involved.
not all facts fit in with the old earth/universe theory....Saturn’s moon Enceladus appears to be young. how can that be?
@arsjth "Saturn’s moon Enceladus appears to be young. how can that be?". You can only find this claim on creationist websites. Not in the science literature. Just find the paper where someone claims Enceladus is young, then get back to me.
@teddansonLA, re: "Saturn’s moon Enceladus appears to be young. how can that be?"
Creationists, and young earth creationists especially, LOVE to make things up based on nothing more than their scientific illiteracy and general lack of comprehension of the details of the science they like to make things up about. It must have something to do with their "moral standard" that "lying for Jesus" is a virtue rather than a vice.
@teddansonLA, re: Enceladus, it's another example of the YEC Niagra Falls argument: "The features of Niagra Falls created by erosion along that river can't have been going on for more than a few tens of thousands of years (at most), therefore the Earth can't be older than that." It's a blatant demonstration of the irrationality of the young earth creationist mind. There is no logic there.
@arsjth, re: scientific explanations. In fact, the terminology Ted and you are using is awkward. Science can, and does, deal with supernatural explanations just fine. The issue is TESTING, and EVIDENCE. Claims must be TESTABLE by TESTING them against the relevant EVIDENCE. Many supernatural claims have undergone such EMPIRICAL TESTING (and, of course, they have always failed the tests).
Creationists want to redefine science to permit their manner of making things up without evidential testing.
its an hypothesis. These are legitimate in science, see multiverse theory, ET search (SETI) and other hypothesis that have no empirical evidence for their ideas and yet millions/billions are invested in the ideas with the hope of discovering evidence.
I trust you outrage at these not being science is expressed directly to those who advocate them like hawking & others.
@arsjth If you're talking about the universe coming from nothing... from what I understand if our universe is anything but a flat one (having negative or positive curvature) then it couldn't have come from nothing. But a flat universe through Einstein's General Relativity implies a universe which has ZERO net energy and hence is in it's entirety nothing. Each individual piece is something but in the case of the universe 0 = 1-1. All this is well within the realms of observational science.
@arsjth Quantum Mechanics gives possible methods for which nothing can look like something... (random background fluctuations) which have been indirectly (not directly) confirmed through observations. The theory is not just based on a load of crap it has a basis and a reason for being a theory for origins of the universe. Nobody knows or acknowledges knowing how life started in evolution only that it seems that animals have evolved over time.
"most lay people are convinced - at least in countries with decent school education."
"According to a survey conducted recently, 75% of British people don't get Charles Darwin."
just thought i would let u know. Evolution has become a philosophy of the origins of life and not a science about the diversification of species. All creationists & IDers accept evolution as fact. it happens quickly and is observable.
What is lacking is the intermediate transitions across many creatures.
@arsjth, not understanding a subject is not the issue. I.e., plain ignorance is not the issue. We are all quite ignorant of a great many things. The issue, with respect to creationists and how they behave, is that we have a whole lot of people who thinks it's perfectly okay, based on their religious beliefs, to attack whole fields of science based on their ignorance of the details of the facts about what they attack. Creationism is religion, not science.
@arsjth, the fact of the matter is that there is an abundance of examples of transitional fossils at higher levels than the species level (such as Genus, Family, and Order). The problem of the rarity (i.e., not "absence") of examples of transitional fossils at the species level is what Gould is talking about. If creationists actually read what Gould said, they'd already know this. Of course, they have not actually read Gould, but are merely repeating out of context quotes by other creationists.
"that there is an abundance of examples of transitional fossils at higher levels than the species level"
i guess you will just accept anything as fact.
You dont need conclusive evidence, you will accept near enough as good enough. Dont worry about God of the gaps....worry about the gaps & why they exist?
you accept shoddy evidence as fact on anti religious grounds & desire to have it as established fact. Lets just see the empirical evidence that conclusively proves your case
@arsjth, I always laugh at ironic hypocrisy young earth creationists, who accept all kinds of bogus pseudoscience crap from their fellow fraudulent YECs as "fact", when they spout stupid remarks about their critics such as "I guess you will just accept anything as fact". That's called self-projection.
Unlike you, obviously, I actually know something about the science, in this case paleontology, and in this case, in particular, I've read a lot of Stephen Jay Gould, the subject of my video.
@arsjth, you wrote, "so u should have no problem doing as asked..."
I already did. In response to you. Just a few months ago. Only a complete liar would now just a few months later pretend otherwise.
And only a complete idiot would except a lengthy detailed discussion in a 500-character limited posts comment section like this. You could of course study something about the subject from a real paleontologist like Donald Prothero. But you're to busy lying for that, obviously.
@arsjth, you provide great examples of the sheer idiocy of creationist rhetoric. First you denigrate my point that you shouldn't merely tell lies by falsely pretending someone didn't already porivide examples they already provided. Thus showing how creationists uphold tactics of deceitfulness in their rhetoric. Then you denigrate the fact that it's stupid to expect a lengthy detailed discussion of something in posts limited to merely 500 CHARACTERS. Thus showing how stupid creationists are.
@arsjth, regarding Prothero, the issue is not whether you'd read Prothero. The issue is COMPREHENSION, besides sheer ignorance. The fact is that creationists, and young earth creationists especially, love to make bold proclamatations based on sheer ignorance or things that are miles over their heads. And they prove this all the time by their own words. Just as you've been doing.
@arsjth, " just show us the scales turning into feathers & the intermediate stages. fins turning into legs etc."
Here you sit pretending I didn't not already give you SPECIFIC examples of transitional fossils on EXACTLY those. Showing how creationists LOVE to blatantly tell lies whenever they feel like it.
Thanks for demonstrating your so-called "moral standards": Lying for Jesus is a virtue, not a vice.
rather than just actually putting up these self evident facts again...you prefer to launch into a barrage of adhominem attacks proving that your argument is not scientific but anti-religiously motivated.
You show yourself to be a hateful angry person.
A simple restating of the proof would be sufficient.
looks like smoke and mirrors to avoid the fact that you have very little empirical truths but plenty of biased interpretations of data.
@arsjth, I always laugh when creationists pretend their critics are "hateful angry" people. Pseudoscience pushers hate their critics and they hate the facts and they thrive on their conspiracy theory martyr complex rhetoric. And they're utter hypocrites as well, since it is in the creationist rhetoric that we find creationists saying things like their critics are servants of Satan and going to hell for going against God's Word.
@arsjth, I always laugh when creationists such as yourself toss out a remark such as "smoke and mirrors" against a critic of your pseudoscience. Historical geology has, quite literally, THOUSANDS of science research articles relevant to all kinds of various aspects of the subject EVERY YEAR in the professional science literature, while YECs have ZERO science research articles published.in the professional science literature.
@apathy7170 - you have studied astronomy but you haven't learned astronomy, otherwise you'd see that astronomy, like all the other fields of science supports the fact of a very old universe and provides no valid information for the narrow creationist view of the world.
@apathy7170 -1. you can position yourself almost anywhere in the universe and see the red shift because of the expanding universe. 2. What has anti-matter got to do with the ridiculous creationist view of the world? 3. Who cares?
"arsjth" demonstrates incompetence yet again, claiming that ZoeMarks' question ("Who cares?") "sums up a faith position". arsjth in his typical moronic manner is apparently incapable of answering the question that both ZoeMarks and I asked. I asked, "So what is your point?" Zoe asked "What has anti-matter got to do with the ridiculous creationist view of the world?"
In other words, the creationists don't even have a point, because logic - let alone science - has never been their strong suit.
@arsjth , geeze you creationists are really angry people. You get asked, "What is the relevance of your question to the topic?" and instead of simply answering the question, you spout diversionary lies because you don't want to simply admit the fact that (1) your question has nothing whatsoever to do with supporting your view, and (2) you don't want to reveal the fact that when you asked the question in the first place you didn't realize its irrelevance because your grasp of logic is so poor.
"arsjth" writes "you have refused to answer any question" <-- which demonstrates - again - how much he enjoys telling lies for his religious beliefs, and also demonstrates - again - his inability to comprehend basic science since he obviously doesn't even know what the apogee of a comet is. The poor creationist doesn't even know what the word "apogee" means. Typical creationist - ignorant, scientifically illiterate, and stupid besides.
@greeneto - thanks for your support. Arguing with a creationist is not only pointless and fruitless it is not going to change their blind faith approach to reality.
@ZoeMarks, actually, I do believe that disputing and refuting creationists is not completely pointless, but I agree with you that it has nothing to do with attempting to get creationists to deal with science and reason (because they are going to believe what they believe on the basis of religious dogma, regardless of fact and logic). What is useful is instigating creationists to open their mouths and demonstrate by example how scientifically ignorance and logically incompetent they really are.
@greeneto - I agree, but sometimes I get so frustrated with these clowns. They ask a thousand questions that they don't really want to hear the answer for just to bog down the dialogue. I have asked dozens of them to read "Origin of the Species" and get back to me with all the flaws. It hasn't happened yet. They have no means of arguing against research other than to say it simply isn't true because it contradicts their dogma.
"I agree, but sometimes I get so frustrated with these clowns."
i would say that you lack convincing evidence to convince people about your argument or you are just ignorant of your own topic and cant convey the faith message that you believe.
Facts speak very loudly.
A nice range of intermediate fossils would be very convincing. Some creatures that had wings developing as they must have done would be convincing. To have stasis as the dominant feature of the fossil record is not.
@arsjth You, like all your tribe don't want to accept evidence. That is the point. You just have quoted one of the classic misconceptions by creationists as an example of how you don't get it. "Intermediate fossils" - for you information all fossils are intermediate. Even if we found a fossil half way between another two you would say there is no intermediate between that new fossil and the other two. You are obstinate.
arsjth <-- typical young earth creationist telling lies left and right, writes, "intermediate fossils would be very convincing. Archaeopteryx has wings with claws. Other obvious intermediates: Acanthostega gunnari, Trithelodon, Liaoceratops, Rodhocetus, Homo habilis, are just a few. But creationists would rather continue to spout deliberate lies to try to prop up their particular religious belief rather than deal with the scientific facts.
" "intermediate fossils would be very convincing. Archaeopteryx has wings with claws"
OMG a platypus is a mammal that lays eggs so it must be intermediate to something.
you are not stupid enough to not know that Dr Alan Feduccia considers Archaeopteryx to be a bird. Now if evolutionists cant even agree its intermediate then why should we consider it an icon of evolution.
A sheepshead fish has teeth like a human...are they intermediate to humans?
@arsjth, re: your remark about Archaeopteryx. Previously you said you wanted such an example. When presented with one you immediately start back-pedaling, also known as "moving the goalposts". Typical deceitful YEC behavior. Thanks for demonstrating it for everyone.
I never said Archaeopteryx was not a bird. It's a bird with primitive characteristics - geeze, that's what a transitional fossil is. Obviously YECs can't comprehend even the obvious.
"Previously u said u wanted such an example.When presented with 1 u immediately start back-pedaling, also known as "moving the goalposts".
no back pedalling. Feduccia says its not transitional.Of course to u who believes everything is transitional then u claim that claws on wings is transitional.
Its not a link between dinosaurs & birds.There is still much 2 b proved before u can claim such a link.The obvious similarities btw small dinosaurs & birds makes it possible there is a link tho
@arsjth, Feduccia said, "Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, and they've put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn't bother me a bit. Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
@arsjth, or maybe young earth creationists are idiotically ignorant when it comes to knowing anything about the details of the science and comprehending them.
"or maybe young earth creationists are idiotically ignorant when it comes to knowing anything about the details of the science and comprehending them."
of course being an ignorant evolutionist u like to argue against non-experts.
an expert creationist would chew u up and spit u out.
still u make no serious case but just let go tirades of abuse.
i seriously wonder what happened to you to make you so angry.
its a sad story....like Darwins death of his daughter.
@arsjth Creationism is theology. Everyone can accept creationism, but only as theological doctrine, not science. Science can offer nothing on metaphysics. These are two separate disciplines. So creationist vs. evolutionist debates have missed the point entirely.
creationism is a view on how the world began...was created & when.
The scientific data is studied and tested to see whether it supports that belief or not.
ToE is the same....a belief that the earth was created billions of years ago by a singularity expanding, a pin head turning into everything we see today.
neither can be proved so its a matter of both sides testing evidence to see where it fits.
@arsjth One side is absolutely wrong. The other is, to the best of our knowledge, correct. If we find more evidence to the contrary, our views will change. If we find more evidence that supports it, you can bet the bible will not change.
@arsjth looks like you have confused the big bang theory, the theory of how the solar system formed and the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution can be tested. No scientific theory can be proved - only disproved.
@arsjth : it is a principle of science that you cannot prove a theory. If you do not understand this, then you need desperately to educate yourself. Until that time, you will never understand how far short of the mark creationist criticism of modern science is. I note that you didn't respond to my pointing out that you had confused three separate theories of science... we will stop saying you are not real scientists when you start bringing science to the discussion, not before.
@arsjth and just to make sure you understand my criticism, here is a direct quote from you:
"ToE is the same....a belief that the earth was created billions of years ago by a singularity expanding, a pin head turning into everything we see today."
Where on earth does the theory of evolution discuss the creation of the earth (theory of solar system formation), or singularities (general relativity)? I'll give you the answer: it doesn't, you simply don't know what you are talking about.
The theory of evolution is an explanation for the origin of the cosmos and life on Earth through natural processes. More formally known as the General Theory of Evolution, it encompasses chemical evolution, biological evolution, and cosmic evolution via the Big Bang.
The concept dates back to the ancient Greeks,and was repopularized in modern times by naturalists such as Alfred Wallace and Charles Darwin who provided the biological aspect with a mechanism (natural selection).
cont...Much of its theoretic development was based on philosophical materialism (matter is the only reality), and it either implicitly or explicitly denies the existence of God (atheism). As a worldview, it serves as the antithesis of religious creationism, and is supported evangelically today by what is known as scientific naturalism.
sorry to spoil your party but it is you that doesnt understand your own theory....or worse than that, u do & u are deliberately hiding from ur beliefs.
@arsjth your post is nonsense. The theory of the big bang, and the theory of evolution are independent of each other, and furthermore your description of the "general theory of evolution" appears to be a cut and paste from creationwiki org. So which text book has a chapter on Einstein's General of relativity, Guth's inflationary model, the standard model of particle physics AND the theory of evolution? lol @ your made up "general theory of evolution".
of course its nonsense to you. because they are all interlinked and part of the same theory, big bang, chemical evolution, common ancestry = life as we see it today.
u think drawing a line between them as separate areas of study makes them unrelated?
yeah good luck!
Please confirm now that you believe that abiogenesis did not happen independently and was the working of an intelligent source. failure to do so confirms that you believe that it was random and totally self generating
@arsjth The big bang theory has nothing to do with the evolution of life. You can ignore it completely and not change the results of biology. Likewise you can ignore biology and not change the results of cosmology. You don't seem to understand what any of these theories are about.
The origin of life is a NECESSARY precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began. The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred.
NECESSARY...remember that next time you think its irrelevant
@arsjth just remind me where I mentioned abiogenesis? Are you still insisting that the theory of evolution includes the big bang or are you arguing about something else now... by the way, yeah, you do need to have an origin of life, in order to have evolution. But so far, we don't know how life formed, but we do know how it subsequently evolved, so that should tell you something about how science is structured. Maybe we could continue this privately?
@arsjth I am a professional scientist, and so I know, from actually working in this community that nobody believes the big bang theory and the theory of evolution are actually the same theory. Sorry, you are plainly wrong. Denial is a waste of time, so why keep insisting the big bang and evolution are the same theory? Why don't you pick a biology text book and read it?
I do not believe in God, so there is the answer to your utterly irrelevant question.
@arsjth, you write "you make no serious case but just let go tirades of abuse", "what happened to make you so angry", "sad story...like Darwin", etc.
First, thank you for showing your absolute hypocrisy. Second, the problem is that we are dealing with people like you who tell lies obstinately and defiantly. You fill your rhetoric with lies about me, lies about Darwin, lies about Feduccia, lies about Gingerich and Thewissen, lies about transitional fossils, etc. Creationism is deceitfulness.
"In Eichstätt, Germany, in 1984 there was a major meeting of scientists who specialize in bird evolution, the International Archaeopteryx Conference. They disagreed on just about anything that was covered there on this creature, but there was very broad agreement on the belief that Archaeopteryx was a true bird. Only a tiny minority thought that it was actually one of the small, lightly built coelurosaurian dinosaurs [small lightly framed dinosaurs]."
Yes i forgot that evolutionists back in 1984 were complete idiots that had no idea.
whereas now they are all brilliant.
however in 20 years time they will be looking back at the idiots of today who claimed neanderthals were ignorant cavemen & Indohyus was an early whale.
Now that miracles are providing flesh of dinosaurs that died 100 mill yrs ago we should be able to study them and start to find out some interesting info.
@arsjth, I was making fun of you about 1984. In fact, what you quoted IS WRITTEN BY A YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST MORON. Sorry, but I don't buy deliberate misrepresentations written by people who deliberately intend to tell lies about everything in sight for the purpose of trying to prop up their empirically false religious myths.
of course you were, just like we made fun of the scientists in 1984 who thought they evolved from fish...lol.
and that we laugh at your beliefs now as in the future they will be shown to be ludicrously silly but you will distance yourself by saying you moved on with science.....when you were just plain wrong.
If only we were so lucky as to ever find preserved, non-fossilized flesh, intact and not rotted. I don't know if I'd call that a miracle though. Maybe some fossils coming to life and regenerating back in to whole, living dinosaurs. That might be a miracle.
perhaps we will know y some creatures make millions of morphological changes while others remain unchanged over 100 million years.
Perhaps we will understand more about meta information & how it acts on DNA & how it is genuinely impossible to evolve information let alone meta information.
or perhaps you will have managed to have some inorganic chemicals turning into an intelligent life form.
of course this will never happen & u know it...becos it never did & never will.
""Is Archaeopteryx a 'missing link'?" quotes Feduccia on Archaeopteryx:
Was Archaeopteryx a feathered dinosaur? Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that."
@arsjth - Feduccia said, "Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, and they've put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn't bother me a bit. Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
"Feduccia said, "Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up,"
feduccia contradicts himself often then.
he is clearly running scared of the angry lynch mob. ofc he supports evolution...but archaeopetryx is a perching bird and thats what he believes. He believes birds evolved from different dinosaurs.
hide behind what ever you like. he disagrees on archaeopetryx as do many others.
the fraudulent fossil trade in china is something else u need to be aware of.
@arsjth, I always laugh at young earth creationists who use remarks like "You are an angry man, poor at arguing your points to the level that you resort to abuse", because of its sheer irony. Young earth creationists are angry at science and anyone who dares to confront them about their promotion of ignorance and pseudoscience misinformation. They are angry at science and at scientists for contradicting their religious beliefs, which is why they abuse scientists and creationist critics.
Rodhocetus is a land based mammal. Has no features transitional to a whale & is a figment of Gingerich's imagination & yours.
Its evolutionary wishful thinking.
if you think you can take a fossil that looks a bit like a small cow & claim that its an ancestor of a whale & that a skeptic would be convinced then u r deluded.
only the truly faithful will believe it. If Joe public saw what u believed they would laugh....not the make believe drawings but the real skeletons.
@arsjth, you claim "Rodhocetus...has no features transitional to a whale". Typical YEC, loves to tell lies about everything in sight. The fossil displays a number of skeletal features unique to whales, such as, for example, specific features of the ear bones. Also, seals are "land-based animals" too - that doesn't mean they don't have specialized adaptations for interacting with a water environment. So we see you playing word games to be deceptive - typical YEC.
"The fossil displays a number of skeletal features unique to whales, such as, for example, specific features of the ear bones."
yes sonar hearing like the shrew!
did the whale evolve from the shrew?
lets face it...your a believer...im a skeptic. You dont need proof except a vague similarity in hearing. I want solid scientific evidence that is indisputable.
You dont require that.
You operate in the area of faith.
check out pakicetus and an otter. almost identical skeletons....lol
@arsjth, Rodhocetus has specific features of the ear bones that are unique to whales, not shrews. Thank you for demontrating, yet again, that YECs will play all manner of word games to tell lies about everything in sight.
On your other point, Pakicetus was not actually otter-like. However, later transitional fossils related to whales were otter-like, in some ways. That's because the whale ancestors were land animals, becoming adapted over time to living more in water. Duh.
"Rodhocetus has specific features of the ear bones that are unique to whales"
there4 whales evolved from them?
would u care2 tell us what other features r similar?i would hate2 b convicted on the skinny evidence u r prepared2 accept.
U swallow it becos u accept that only common ancestry can explain any similarity in creatures.
The same features that arise differently r given another name 'convergent evolution' or as we call it evolutionist lies2 explain y their theory doesnt hold water
1. Therefore whales evolved from them or they had a common ancestor.
2. No. I'm not going to attempt to carry on a lengthy detailed discussion in a place where posts have 500-character limits, you moron. Would you care to actually read any of the relevant scientific research articles by Philip Gingerich or J.G.M. Thewissen? No, of course you wouldn't, because young earth creationists absolutely despise the idea of really, actually looking at real science research.
Only an evolutionist can look at2 creatures that are almost identical & see huge differences & look at 2 creatures who are completely different & see 1 feature that is similar & claim its related.
we all know the evolutionary story changes from week2 week.
This weeks fact is next weeks forgotten story...mesonychids were the ancestor of the whale up until it was decided they were not & Artiodactyla were.
@arsjth, you wrote, "sheepshead fish have specific features of the mouth that are unique to humans".
Please do keep right on demonstrating to everyone just how ignorant of anatomy and paleontology you young earth creationists really are. I appreciate it.
The most common ‘neat’ story of human evolution has australopithecines (such as ‘Lucy’) evolving into Homo habilis, which evolves into Homo erectus, which evolves into Homo sapiens. Australopithecines have no clear connection to humans, but museums, popular articles and text-books for schools and universities commonly claimed that Homo habilis linked them with humans (Homo erectus and Homo sapiens). While one camp of paleontologists argued that Homo habilis was not a valid taxon, ...
@arsjth, you write, "one camp of paleontologists argued that Homo habilis was not a valid taxon". Quoting some other YEC without attribution, I see. Of course, typical YEC idiot that you are, ignorant not only of the relevant science, but even clueless about the meaning of the scientific terminology, you apparently don't even comprehend the fact that arguing that H. habilis is not a valid taxon has nothing to do with arguing that it isn't a transitional fossil.
@arsjth, I always laugh at young earth creationists who tell flagrant lies like "Darwin's theory came out of his personal grief over his daughter". You're not only ignorant of paleontology and other aspects of science, but you demonstrate ignorance of science history, specifically about what went into Darwin's book *Origin of Species*. Here you deceitfully pretend, for example, that Darwin didn't do all kinds of studies while on a trip around the world on the Beagle. YECs just love to tell lies.
@arsjth, I wrote, "Here you deceitfully pretend, for example, that Darwin didn't do all kinds of studies while on a trip around the world on the Beagle".
You reply, "No, I didn't".
I went back and read what you wrote again.
Yes, you did, Mr. Bullshitter.
And now with your further remarks you continue to prove that you don't even have a clue what Darwin did on the Beagle voyage that was relevant to his ideas on evolution.
YECs love to spout made-up stupidity based on their ignorance.
@arsjth, I also always laugh when young earth creationist spout silly remarks about the critics of their creationism pseudoscience misinformation and fallacies and deceitful tactics being "angry" and "bitter" - it's so ironic! It is the very tactics and behavior of you young earth creationists that shows just how angry and bitter you people are against science and scientists and pseudoscience critics because they contradict your religious beliefs and dare to confront your arrogant ignorance.
we just simply argue the evidence. We also know that not all evidence fits our ideas perfectly...just as we know that it doesnt fit yours either.
I am not sprouting...lies , deceit, bullshitter bla bla bla.....that is you.
i would never speak to you that way. But u do becos your beliefs allow you to belittle, ridicule & direct hate & bullying to those who disagree with you.
@arsjth, you wrote, "We just simply argue the evidence."
Young earth creationists can't argue the evidence because not only don't they know what it is, but they even deliberately and defiantly refuse to actually learn what it is.
All of us - including you - know fully well that you believe what you believe because of your RELIGIOUS doctrines.
Additionally, when people routinely tell lies and spout bullshit, I do indeed belittle them FOR DOING SO. Lying for Jesus is a vice, not a virtue.
.....being a waste bin of mixed ape and human fossil bits, other evolutionists clung to H. habilis as being valid. Now even those who still claim it was valid are putting it aside. That effectively leaves a gaping hole in the story of human evolution, with nothing left to link humans with apes.
you sprout off these names as if there is no debate in the evolutionary world let alone the creationist world.
u are so obsessed with lying that i assume u are projecting....u must be a liar yourself
@arsjth, quoting Philip Bell, without attribution, I see. I always laugh when ignorant YECs quote other lying YECs pretending they're magically somehow scientific authorities on some science subject despite them never having done any professional scientific research on what they're lying about.
There is no debate in the "evolutionary world" (i.e., in professional science) that the examples I cited are transitional fossils, because that's what they are.
"There is no debate in the "evolutionary world" (i.e., in professional science) that the examples I cited are transitional fossils"
yes in the evolutionary world where everything is now deemed transitional that term can be applied to every fossil without it really having its true meaning which is intermediate from one species to another.
Feduccia says archaeopteryx is not the transitional of birds to dinosaurs....so stop lying and admit there is controversy.
@arsjth, It's obvious to everyone - except to complete idiots, like young earth creationists, of course - that our posts here are severely limited. I shorten what I can when I can. The fact of the matter is that I did not misrepresent what you wrote. In pretending I did, so what you have done here is given us another perfect example of how you creationists love to take things out of context and then tell lies based on that.
@arsjth - how on earth do you expect to be treated with anything resembling respect when you use such terms as "creation scientist". That is a first class oxymoron. Do you even know what science is really all about? I doubt it. I'll start agreeing with you when you stop hiding behind blind faith and factless made up arguments.
Name one science that supports the young earth theory; cite the references in a reputable journal to support your claim.
@arsjth - a "creation scientist" is not as you attempt to describe. We both know that. A person that attempts to promote creationism as a science and misuses proper qualifications in an attempt to fool people into believing that somehow science and creationism should sit in the same room needs a good therapy session.
@arsjth - so tell us all which arm of science actually supports the notion of a young earth, citing papers and references published in a recognised scientific journal. Please don't include creation science. LOL
Your lack of creditable responses and playing the poor hurt individual just doesn't wash.
@arsjth, when a young earth creationist makes a remark like "Your ignorance is now on display for all to see", we're laughing at the total irony. But some people are so utterly foolish that they'd much rather keep their foolishness and ignorance and irrationality on public display than shut up or even consider the possibility of getting their facts straight and modifying their beliefs in correspondence with the facts that prove what they believe is wrong.
@arsjth, there is no such thing as a "creation scientist". There is no doubt that there are some people who do research in science (such as in, say, cancer research, or meteorological research, or pharmaceutical chemistry, and so on) who believe in the religious doctrine of young earth creationism. That does not make them "creation scientists" because they're not doing any genuine scientific research on YEC and publishing it in the professional peer-reviewed science literature.
@arsjth, yes, you happen to be correct that a people who have chosen to attack science and engage in flagrant lying tactics all to try to prop up a religious dogma (young earth creationism) that was empirically falsified over 200 years ago deserve to be slapped. Some of us who take science seriously and appreciate what science has achieved, and who think that rationality is superior to blind faith in primitive made up notions, are happy to oblige.
@arsjth, of course, we're talking about creationism pseudoscience, and in the case of young earth creationists in particular, it is they who display an inordinately high degree of spouting lying statements and demonstrating a deceitful attitude to promote their empirically false religious beliefs.
The irony is creationists are descended from apes. And by an almost impossible quirk of nature creationists inherited the same brain capacity as those apes.
This reminds me of a geeky joke on the Transcendental Argument. "Logical thinking cannot exist without God existing" goes the argument. But, then, creationists demonstrate that, at least for them, logical thinking is not possible. ;-)
Not only are you trying to belittle, but your ignorance shines through clearly as well. Considering that what we see today show creationism not evolutionism. And the quotes used by Creationist about Gould or Eldridge etc. are used in context not out of context.
u people will never get your head out of the sand will u?...i mean what will it take?..did u even watch the fucking video beofr u commented?..creationists claimed that Gould said there weren't any transitional fossils..but in court, Gould said they misrepresented him..he said that there are an ABUNDANCE of transitional fossils..so, HOW THE HELL did they quote him in context?
OMG!! Wally Cox has been reincarnated!!!!
tbdonnelly67 5 months ago
another quote from gould
"Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified. I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science...."
GodsArePeopleToo 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's the test-market of any “free” people: the will to establish governmental eugenics' boards; to fish from bridges; to bury Mom in the basement. The pocks that flush our faces; the crud that aggregates our agri-forms; the holds on stocks; the tendency of women to wash their waist-length hair in the kitchen sink for the sake of convenience—these are what we as men & lesbians file north from as they are in popery's limbo between tolerance & toleration.
TheManWithTVEyes 1 year ago
Good video. Here's a nice quote. "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." Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory. Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes," 1983, Norton, New York.
heathdwatts 1 year ago
Just saying we happen to live in a universe that could potentially come from nothing. Hence the pinhead situation (big bang) has a little bit of credence. Doesn't rule out a creator either because maybe he just loves mathematical beauty. Just saying the universe origins argument is null and void because it could come from nothing but it also still could have been directed.
lfaivor21 1 year ago
@lfaivor21, do bear in mind that the idea of the Big Bang being from "nothing" is just one idea among many. The reality is that we don't know the cause of the Big Bang. The philosophical point is that a lot of religious people use the God-of-the-gaps idea in their minds, despite the fact that it is an obvious fallacy. This "We/scientists don't know X, therefore God did it" plays a huge factor in the creationist mind.
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto Right understood. It is also the most trusted theory of them since it sticks with what we can observe. There is the acknowledgement that for the universe to come from nothing that we need a flat universe (implies zero net gravitational energy). Which leaves open the POSSIBILITY for it coming from nothing but does not mean or prove it came from nothing. Often misquoted as proof against a creator. Fallacies are everywhere and on both sides.
lfaivor21 1 year ago
@greeneto
"his "We/scientists don't know X, therefore God did it" plays a huge factor in the creationist mind."
of course this is the usual greento nonsense. But intelligence and complexity & especially information is rarely if ever the result of random chance.
u may get one but not all of them.
Therefore logic says there is probably intelligence involved in the beginning of life. This is not proof of it but neither is understanding how nature works proof that it happened spontaneously.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth what do you mean by information?
teddansonLA 1 year ago
@arsjth, (1) It is a fact that the God-of-the-gaps fallacy is used frequently by creationists in their rhetoric. As usual, we see you call facts "nonsense". (2) "Complexity...is rarely if ever the result of random chance." That's right. No one says otherwise. So now besides using your god-of-the-gaps fallacy we see you using the false dichotomy fallacy. Standard for creationist rhetoric: Use one fallacy right after another one.
greeneto 1 year ago
I'm a strong supporter of puncuated equilibrium (in fact, I came up with the idea entirely independently and only later learnt others had named it "punctuated equilibrium"), however I find it hard to take Stephen Jay Gould seriously as an individual. His strongly politically influenced views on anthropology are widely dismissed by the scientific community. It puzzles me why people keep bringing him up as a defense for evolution...
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
arsjth: "and sheepshead fish have specific features of the mouth that are unique to humans but we dont assume that they are ancestral to humans."
.
If the "specific features of the mouth" are *unique* to humans then they cannot, by definition, also be present in the fish. Bad syntax, there.
.
Many fish have human LIKE dentition but that is not the reason we know they are indeed ancestral to all mammals. Try getting your facts straight.
Noisegator 1 year ago
Comment removed
Noisegator 1 year ago
You look like the bad guy from the movie Vacancy with Luke Wilson and Kate Beckingsale.
thelordmemnoch 1 year ago
@thelordmemnoch, I liked that scene in the movie where he's watching the video on the television and realizes that what he's seeing is in the very room that he is in. That brings on a real sense of imminent danger.
greeneto 1 year ago
I want to teach evolution at church.
CelestialBlessings 1 year ago 5
@CelestialBlessings, what denomination are you a member of?
greeneto 1 year ago
@CelestialBlessings - as long as your lectures didn't contain scientific facts you should be able to teach evolution in most churches. You can keep it brief too. You just need to say things like "God made it all happen and all the evidence opposing the creation view was put there to keep the non-believers happy. End of lecture."
ZoeMarks 1 year ago
@CelestialBlessings
you would need to go to a catholic church. they would embrace you warmly.
arsjth 1 year ago
Q: How many light bulbs does it take to change a creationist?
A: Doesn't matter, no matter how many were lit they wouldn't be illuminated unless the bible said so.
LiamXaoh 1 year ago 4
Alright, can anyone explain 3 things. 1) If we are not the center of the universe, then how is it that we see Hubble's redshift from all sides, expansion all around and not some expansion beyond us and some blueshift coming towards us from the center? 2) How is it that we Must be equal part matter and anti-matter yet we see very very very little anti-matter and not evenly dispersed anywhere in the universe. 3)Zwicky's dark matter, is it testable? Is it even reasonable? Is it plausible?
apathy7170 1 year ago
@apathy7170 - go read a decent astronomy book and you'll see where we sit in the universe. Trying to make things fit your blind faith version of things such a waste of time.
ZoeMarks 1 year ago 2
@ZoeMarks
I have studied Astronomy at the university level, have you? Do you just make non valid ad hominem attacks hoping to make yourself feel better? Because unless you have something valid to rebut all it does it strengthen your opponents arguments when you attack the person and not the argument.
apathy7170 1 year ago
@apathy7170, I already answered your first question, but you failed to comprehend it. That your still asking the question means you don't even understand the concept. Beyond that, there are always a million questions to ask in science, and that's what science is for, to analyze and research questions and try to come up with answers. The question for you is this: We all know that there are always a million outstanding scientific questions. So what is your point?
greeneto 1 year ago 2
@greeneto
"I already answered your first question, but you failed to comprehend it."
i am always amazed at how poor at communicating scientists are. Is this why they are social rejects?
They have all these facts but cant communicate them & always blame the listener.
greento cant communicate well enough 4 anyone to comprehend his thoughts...hell he cant even tell us if he has seen the Oort Cloud or not yet he claims we hate it.
Sounds more like he believes in things he cant see&wont admit it
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, "poor at communicating scientists are", "they are social rejects", etc.
Of course, they're not trying to communicate with people who aren't able to comprehend basic elements of logic and basic scientific ideas. What would be the point? It would be like a calculus professor trying to communicate the concept of integration to someone who struggles mightily just to get a C or D grade in math and has never even taken an algebra class.
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto
if you cant convince a lay person then your science sucks.
stick to global warming and rising sea levels.
its another science that deals with the future so it can never be verified just like your ideas of the past cant be.
dont worry about empirical data its not important when you truly believe.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth most lay people are convinced - at least in countries with decent school education. But a lay person like you, who can't even accept when he is wrong (like you stupid and relentless conflation of the big bang and the theory of evolution) cannot be convinced. All of the empirical data that has been collected regarding the history of life supports evolution. The observations of: astronomy; geology; paleontology; biology; physics and all other fields actually rule out the YEC position,
teddansonLA 1 year ago
@teddansonLA, we should point out that it is standard YEC rhetoric to pretend that EVERYTHING in science contrary to young earth creationism (the religious doctrine that the universe and earth did not exist more than about 6,000 years ago or so) - including astronomy/astrophysics and geology/geophysics is all just part of a worldwide evolutionist/atheist conspiracy against fundamentalist Christian religious belief. Yes, it's really a zany notion, but their rhetoric is FILLED with such remarks.
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto
of course you are hung up on the young earth bit, because you have no explanation for the origin of information.
if you have proof of the origins of life then you can claim a million dollar prize.
please dont hesitate to claim this prize should you have any such proof.
of course its all talk.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, "hung up on the young earth bit". No, young earth creationists are the ones hung up on the young earth bit, and the fact that they are is precisely what demonstrates their utter incompetence when it comes to dealing with science. Which is the point.
And then you use two fallacies back to back. The fact that abiogenesis is an outstanding area of scientific research doesn't imply a god, or an intelligence. That's your god-of-the-gaps showing again. Additionally, just because...
greeneto 1 year ago
@arsjth, Additionally, just because abiogenesis is an outstanding are of research doesn't mean that nothing is known about biological evolution. That's your second fallacious argument (and it's another fallacy that creationists use often in their rhetoric). Creationists love fallacies, because they promote false beliefs and a false position, and creationists love their personal religious beliefs far more than dealing with the truth, which explains their reliance on fallacious rhetoric.
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto
again you prattle on like a child. if you were well researched you would know that these things that dont fit with YEC are acknowledged and in some cases there are reasons put up.
just as when soft tissue of a 130 m yr old dinosaur turns up...you have to explain it away. cos it doenst fit with scientific fact as we know about the length of time soft tissue can last.
which science was wrong? that soft tissue couldnt last or that the fossil was 130 m yrs old?
either way it was wrong
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, I always enjoy the humorous irony of idiots making remarks like telling me I'm supposedly "prattling on like a child". What I know is that young earth creationism is a great demonstration of how a lot of people due to their determination to cling to their personal religious beliefs no matter show that they rely on a large degree of irrational thinking and arbitrary denial of facts they don't like.
Incidentally, the tissue wasn't soft until treated with chemicals in the laboratory.
greeneto 1 year ago
@teddansonLA
interesting that you only dam the YEC position.
what about ID and OEC?
If you make it a rule of science that you may have no other explanation for events other than natural explanations then dont be surprised when the explanations exclude anything other than natural.
some evidence would appear to rule out YEC & other would suggest its more likely but i think there is nothing to suggest that information arises from accidents of nature, especially prior to nature existing.
arsjth 1 year ago
Comment removed
teddansonLA 1 year ago
@arsjth how can science include non-natural explanations? Intelligent design is not a theory. It uses one argument - what can't be explained at present must imply a designer (God). And what do you mean by "information"?
teddansonLA 1 year ago
@teddansonLA
"how can science include non-natural explanations?"
there you go, u prove the point. That science cannot deal with the the truth if the truth is anything other than natural. Therefore in an effort to answer everything such as the origins of life then you cannot entertain a non natural solution regardless of whether it is likely or even true.
So science is closed off from the truth & limite to what is natural. there4 on the Q of origins perhaps science should say 'we dont know' ???
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth OH and observationally using the Microwave Background Radiation and some geometry it seems our universe might actually have zero curvature. Another test of the curvature of space involved Gravitational Lensing due to the mass energy of a galactic group which came very close (but not quite) to zero curvature. Seems to be that the 'pinhead' universe might have just a little bit of credence after all. (not saying it's perfect just that it has a basis and dismissing it is just idiocy)
lfaivor21 1 year ago
@lfaivor21
what is your point here?
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth that last comment was for you :)
lfaivor21 1 year ago
@arsjth any chance you'll explain what you mean by information?
Science already takes the position "we don't know". The point of science is to find out more.
But there are something we do know. We know species evolve and that new species arise as a result. We know the earth is very old. The point of view you have taken is that you do know, only now the facts need to change.
teddansonLA 1 year ago
@teddansonLA
"Science already takes the position "we don't know". The point of science is to find out more."
you will need to point out that fact to those mates who say that you do know the origins of the universe & that you do know how life originated and that you do know how all diversity appeared & that you do know that no God or supernatural being or force was involved.
not all facts fit in with the old earth/universe theory....Saturn’s moon Enceladus appears to be young. how can that be?
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth "Saturn’s moon Enceladus appears to be young. how can that be?". You can only find this claim on creationist websites. Not in the science literature. Just find the paper where someone claims Enceladus is young, then get back to me.
teddansonLA 1 year ago
@teddansonLA, re: "Saturn’s moon Enceladus appears to be young. how can that be?"
Creationists, and young earth creationists especially, LOVE to make things up based on nothing more than their scientific illiteracy and general lack of comprehension of the details of the science they like to make things up about. It must have something to do with their "moral standard" that "lying for Jesus" is a virtue rather than a vice.
greeneto 1 year ago
@teddansonLA, re: Enceladus, it's another example of the YEC Niagra Falls argument: "The features of Niagra Falls created by erosion along that river can't have been going on for more than a few tens of thousands of years (at most), therefore the Earth can't be older than that." It's a blatant demonstration of the irrationality of the young earth creationist mind. There is no logic there.
greeneto 1 year ago
@arsjth, re: scientific explanations. In fact, the terminology Ted and you are using is awkward. Science can, and does, deal with supernatural explanations just fine. The issue is TESTING, and EVIDENCE. Claims must be TESTABLE by TESTING them against the relevant EVIDENCE. Many supernatural claims have undergone such EMPIRICAL TESTING (and, of course, they have always failed the tests).
Creationists want to redefine science to permit their manner of making things up without evidential testing.
greeneto 1 year ago
@teddansonLA
" Intelligent design is not a theory."
its an hypothesis. These are legitimate in science, see multiverse theory, ET search (SETI) and other hypothesis that have no empirical evidence for their ideas and yet millions/billions are invested in the ideas with the hope of discovering evidence.
I trust you outrage at these not being science is expressed directly to those who advocate them like hawking & others.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth If you're talking about the universe coming from nothing... from what I understand if our universe is anything but a flat one (having negative or positive curvature) then it couldn't have come from nothing. But a flat universe through Einstein's General Relativity implies a universe which has ZERO net energy and hence is in it's entirety nothing. Each individual piece is something but in the case of the universe 0 = 1-1. All this is well within the realms of observational science.
lfaivor21 1 year ago
@arsjth Quantum Mechanics gives possible methods for which nothing can look like something... (random background fluctuations) which have been indirectly (not directly) confirmed through observations. The theory is not just based on a load of crap it has a basis and a reason for being a theory for origins of the universe. Nobody knows or acknowledges knowing how life started in evolution only that it seems that animals have evolved over time.
lfaivor21 1 year ago
@teddansonLA
"most lay people are convinced - at least in countries with decent school education."
"According to a survey conducted recently, 75% of British people don't get Charles Darwin."
just thought i would let u know. Evolution has become a philosophy of the origins of life and not a science about the diversification of species. All creationists & IDers accept evolution as fact. it happens quickly and is observable.
What is lacking is the intermediate transitions across many creatures.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, not understanding a subject is not the issue. I.e., plain ignorance is not the issue. We are all quite ignorant of a great many things. The issue, with respect to creationists and how they behave, is that we have a whole lot of people who thinks it's perfectly okay, based on their religious beliefs, to attack whole fields of science based on their ignorance of the details of the facts about what they attack. Creationism is religion, not science.
greeneto 1 year ago
@teddansonLA
"All of the empirical data that has been collected regarding the history of life supports evolution."
depends what you mean by this?
all the data lead Gould to decide that evolution happened quickly in periods that were not captured by the fossil record.
So the data supports rapid appearance of species fully formed and then extinction without much directional change in their lifespan.
However you dont like this data so u ignore it.
Gould built a theory around a lack of data.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, the fact of the matter is that there is an abundance of examples of transitional fossils at higher levels than the species level (such as Genus, Family, and Order). The problem of the rarity (i.e., not "absence") of examples of transitional fossils at the species level is what Gould is talking about. If creationists actually read what Gould said, they'd already know this. Of course, they have not actually read Gould, but are merely repeating out of context quotes by other creationists.
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto
"that there is an abundance of examples of transitional fossils at higher levels than the species level"
i guess you will just accept anything as fact.
You dont need conclusive evidence, you will accept near enough as good enough. Dont worry about God of the gaps....worry about the gaps & why they exist?
you accept shoddy evidence as fact on anti religious grounds & desire to have it as established fact. Lets just see the empirical evidence that conclusively proves your case
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, I always laugh at ironic hypocrisy young earth creationists, who accept all kinds of bogus pseudoscience crap from their fellow fraudulent YECs as "fact", when they spout stupid remarks about their critics such as "I guess you will just accept anything as fact". That's called self-projection.
Unlike you, obviously, I actually know something about the science, in this case paleontology, and in this case, in particular, I've read a lot of Stephen Jay Gould, the subject of my video.
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto
"I always laugh at ironic hypocrisy young earth creationists"
yes i guess laughing is easier than doing science.
" I actually know something about the science, in this case paleontology,"
how wonderful for you...so u should have no problem doing as asked...
" Lets just see the empirical evidence that conclusively proves your case"
please just show us the scales turning into feathers & the intermediate stages. fins turning into legs etc.
please dont reply that u dont have it....
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, you wrote: "i guess laughing is easier than doing science."
Only a complete idiot would rhetorically pretend that hypocritical statements by creationists is science.
greeneto 1 year ago
@arsjth, you wrote, "so u should have no problem doing as asked..."
I already did. In response to you. Just a few months ago. Only a complete liar would now just a few months later pretend otherwise.
And only a complete idiot would except a lengthy detailed discussion in a 500-character limited posts comment section like this. You could of course study something about the subject from a real paleontologist like Donald Prothero. But you're to busy lying for that, obviously.
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto
"Only a complete liar would now just a few months later pretend otherwise."
"And only a complete idiot would except a lengthy detailed discussion in a 500-character limited posts comment section like this."
yes these are wonderful scientific arguments.
i guess then your comments are just useless ad hominem insults as you cant prove any science in such a short amount of characters.
Yes i could study from Donal Prothero
And you know that i dont....how?
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, you provide great examples of the sheer idiocy of creationist rhetoric. First you denigrate my point that you shouldn't merely tell lies by falsely pretending someone didn't already porivide examples they already provided. Thus showing how creationists uphold tactics of deceitfulness in their rhetoric. Then you denigrate the fact that it's stupid to expect a lengthy detailed discussion of something in posts limited to merely 500 CHARACTERS. Thus showing how stupid creationists are.
greeneto 1 year ago
@arsjth, regarding Prothero, the issue is not whether you'd read Prothero. The issue is COMPREHENSION, besides sheer ignorance. The fact is that creationists, and young earth creationists especially, love to make bold proclamatations based on sheer ignorance or things that are miles over their heads. And they prove this all the time by their own words. Just as you've been doing.
greeneto 1 year ago
@arsjth, " just show us the scales turning into feathers & the intermediate stages. fins turning into legs etc."
Here you sit pretending I didn't not already give you SPECIFIC examples of transitional fossils on EXACTLY those. Showing how creationists LOVE to blatantly tell lies whenever they feel like it.
Thanks for demonstrating your so-called "moral standards": Lying for Jesus is a virtue, not a vice.
greeneto 1 year ago
@greenetooth
rather than just actually putting up these self evident facts again...you prefer to launch into a barrage of adhominem attacks proving that your argument is not scientific but anti-religiously motivated.
You show yourself to be a hateful angry person.
A simple restating of the proof would be sufficient.
looks like smoke and mirrors to avoid the fact that you have very little empirical truths but plenty of biased interpretations of data.
Just the facts please!!!!
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, I always laugh when creationists pretend their critics are "hateful angry" people. Pseudoscience pushers hate their critics and they hate the facts and they thrive on their conspiracy theory martyr complex rhetoric. And they're utter hypocrites as well, since it is in the creationist rhetoric that we find creationists saying things like their critics are servants of Satan and going to hell for going against God's Word.
greeneto 1 year ago
@arsjth, I always laugh when creationists such as yourself toss out a remark such as "smoke and mirrors" against a critic of your pseudoscience. Historical geology has, quite literally, THOUSANDS of science research articles relevant to all kinds of various aspects of the subject EVERY YEAR in the professional science literature, while YECs have ZERO science research articles published.in the professional science literature.
Smoke and mirrors. That's all creationists have.
greeneto 1 year ago
@apathy7170 - you have studied astronomy but you haven't learned astronomy, otherwise you'd see that astronomy, like all the other fields of science supports the fact of a very old universe and provides no valid information for the narrow creationist view of the world.
ZoeMarks 1 year ago
@apathy7170 -1. you can position yourself almost anywhere in the universe and see the red shift because of the expanding universe. 2. What has anti-matter got to do with the ridiculous creationist view of the world? 3. Who cares?
ZoeMarks 1 year ago
@ZoeMarks
"3. Who cares?"
this sums up a faith position.
of course you dont care about scientific questions that have implications for what you believe.
arsjth 1 year ago
"arsjth" demonstrates incompetence yet again, claiming that ZoeMarks' question ("Who cares?") "sums up a faith position". arsjth in his typical moronic manner is apparently incapable of answering the question that both ZoeMarks and I asked. I asked, "So what is your point?" Zoe asked "What has anti-matter got to do with the ridiculous creationist view of the world?"
In other words, the creationists don't even have a point, because logic - let alone science - has never been their strong suit.
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto
gee your an angry man.
you have refused to answer any question.
when did you see the Oort cloud ? can you give me a paper by anyone who has seen it?
why am i afraid of the oort cloud?
i am not.
how many times do i have to say it.
are you hard of reading?
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth , geeze you creationists are really angry people. You get asked, "What is the relevance of your question to the topic?" and instead of simply answering the question, you spout diversionary lies because you don't want to simply admit the fact that (1) your question has nothing whatsoever to do with supporting your view, and (2) you don't want to reveal the fact that when you asked the question in the first place you didn't realize its irrelevance because your grasp of logic is so poor.
greeneto 1 year ago
"arsjth" writes "you have refused to answer any question" <-- which demonstrates - again - how much he enjoys telling lies for his religious beliefs, and also demonstrates - again - his inability to comprehend basic science since he obviously doesn't even know what the apogee of a comet is. The poor creationist doesn't even know what the word "apogee" means. Typical creationist - ignorant, scientifically illiterate, and stupid besides.
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto - thanks for your support. Arguing with a creationist is not only pointless and fruitless it is not going to change their blind faith approach to reality.
ZoeMarks 1 year ago
@ZoeMarks, actually, I do believe that disputing and refuting creationists is not completely pointless, but I agree with you that it has nothing to do with attempting to get creationists to deal with science and reason (because they are going to believe what they believe on the basis of religious dogma, regardless of fact and logic). What is useful is instigating creationists to open their mouths and demonstrate by example how scientifically ignorance and logically incompetent they really are.
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto - I agree, but sometimes I get so frustrated with these clowns. They ask a thousand questions that they don't really want to hear the answer for just to bog down the dialogue. I have asked dozens of them to read "Origin of the Species" and get back to me with all the flaws. It hasn't happened yet. They have no means of arguing against research other than to say it simply isn't true because it contradicts their dogma.
"Creationism: truth to the ignorant." Adam Peenum
ZoeMarks 1 year ago
@ZoeMarks
"I agree, but sometimes I get so frustrated with these clowns."
i would say that you lack convincing evidence to convince people about your argument or you are just ignorant of your own topic and cant convey the faith message that you believe.
Facts speak very loudly.
A nice range of intermediate fossils would be very convincing. Some creatures that had wings developing as they must have done would be convincing. To have stasis as the dominant feature of the fossil record is not.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth You, like all your tribe don't want to accept evidence. That is the point. You just have quoted one of the classic misconceptions by creationists as an example of how you don't get it. "Intermediate fossils" - for you information all fossils are intermediate. Even if we found a fossil half way between another two you would say there is no intermediate between that new fossil and the other two. You are obstinate.
ZoeMarks 1 year ago
arsjth <-- typical young earth creationist telling lies left and right, writes, "intermediate fossils would be very convincing. Archaeopteryx has wings with claws. Other obvious intermediates: Acanthostega gunnari, Trithelodon, Liaoceratops, Rodhocetus, Homo habilis, are just a few. But creationists would rather continue to spout deliberate lies to try to prop up their particular religious belief rather than deal with the scientific facts.
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto
" "intermediate fossils would be very convincing. Archaeopteryx has wings with claws"
OMG a platypus is a mammal that lays eggs so it must be intermediate to something.
you are not stupid enough to not know that Dr Alan Feduccia considers Archaeopteryx to be a bird. Now if evolutionists cant even agree its intermediate then why should we consider it an icon of evolution.
A sheepshead fish has teeth like a human...are they intermediate to humans?
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, re: your remark about Archaeopteryx. Previously you said you wanted such an example. When presented with one you immediately start back-pedaling, also known as "moving the goalposts". Typical deceitful YEC behavior. Thanks for demonstrating it for everyone.
I never said Archaeopteryx was not a bird. It's a bird with primitive characteristics - geeze, that's what a transitional fossil is. Obviously YECs can't comprehend even the obvious.
greeneto 1 year ago
"Previously u said u wanted such an example.When presented with 1 u immediately start back-pedaling, also known as "moving the goalposts".
no back pedalling. Feduccia says its not transitional.Of course to u who believes everything is transitional then u claim that claws on wings is transitional.
Its not a link between dinosaurs & birds.There is still much 2 b proved before u can claim such a link.The obvious similarities btw small dinosaurs & birds makes it possible there is a link tho
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, Feduccia said, "Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, and they've put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn't bother me a bit. Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto
Der!!!! he is an evolutionist. lol.
So he believes that Archaeopteryx is the intermediate between dinosaurs and birds?
He really shouldnt have said all those lies where he says its not.
Maybe he is a compulsive liar?
or is he running scared of the angry evolutionary lynch mobs who want blood cause creationists use his teachings?
what is his evidence that its half reptile and half bird and why has he stated prior that its a bird?
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, or maybe young earth creationists are idiotically ignorant when it comes to knowing anything about the details of the science and comprehending them.
Yeah, that's it.
As you continue to demonstrate for us.
Thank you.
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto
"or maybe young earth creationists are idiotically ignorant when it comes to knowing anything about the details of the science and comprehending them."
of course being an ignorant evolutionist u like to argue against non-experts.
an expert creationist would chew u up and spit u out.
still u make no serious case but just let go tirades of abuse.
i seriously wonder what happened to you to make you so angry.
its a sad story....like Darwins death of his daughter.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth Creationism is theology. Everyone can accept creationism, but only as theological doctrine, not science. Science can offer nothing on metaphysics. These are two separate disciplines. So creationist vs. evolutionist debates have missed the point entirely.
DirectInjected 1 year ago
@DirectInjected
creationism is a view on how the world began...was created & when.
The scientific data is studied and tested to see whether it supports that belief or not.
ToE is the same....a belief that the earth was created billions of years ago by a singularity expanding, a pin head turning into everything we see today.
neither can be proved so its a matter of both sides testing evidence to see where it fits.
its possible both sides are wrong.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth One side is absolutely wrong. The other is, to the best of our knowledge, correct. If we find more evidence to the contrary, our views will change. If we find more evidence that supports it, you can bet the bible will not change.
DirectInjected 1 year ago
@DirectInjected
"One side is absolutely wrong."
not at all. when one side is shown to be wrong the evidence is swept under the carpet and explained away.
let me know when you can prove that life wasnt designed....its impossible.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth looks like you have confused the big bang theory, the theory of how the solar system formed and the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution can be tested. No scientific theory can be proved - only disproved.
teddansonLA 1 year ago
@teddansonLA
"No scientific theory can be proved - only disproved."
oh dear and its you guys who complain when creationists set about disproving the general theory of evolution.
constant gripes about us pointing out the gaps, flaws & other short comings.
telling us we are not real scientists....when you are claiming that we are doing the only think that can be done.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth : it is a principle of science that you cannot prove a theory. If you do not understand this, then you need desperately to educate yourself. Until that time, you will never understand how far short of the mark creationist criticism of modern science is. I note that you didn't respond to my pointing out that you had confused three separate theories of science... we will stop saying you are not real scientists when you start bringing science to the discussion, not before.
teddansonLA 1 year ago
@arsjth and just to make sure you understand my criticism, here is a direct quote from you:
"ToE is the same....a belief that the earth was created billions of years ago by a singularity expanding, a pin head turning into everything we see today."
Where on earth does the theory of evolution discuss the creation of the earth (theory of solar system formation), or singularities (general relativity)? I'll give you the answer: it doesn't, you simply don't know what you are talking about.
teddansonLA 1 year ago
@teddansonLA
The theory of evolution is an explanation for the origin of the cosmos and life on Earth through natural processes. More formally known as the General Theory of Evolution, it encompasses chemical evolution, biological evolution, and cosmic evolution via the Big Bang.
The concept dates back to the ancient Greeks,and was repopularized in modern times by naturalists such as Alfred Wallace and Charles Darwin who provided the biological aspect with a mechanism (natural selection).
arsjth 1 year ago
Comment removed
teddansonLA 1 year ago
cont...Much of its theoretic development was based on philosophical materialism (matter is the only reality), and it either implicitly or explicitly denies the existence of God (atheism). As a worldview, it serves as the antithesis of religious creationism, and is supported evangelically today by what is known as scientific naturalism.
sorry to spoil your party but it is you that doesnt understand your own theory....or worse than that, u do & u are deliberately hiding from ur beliefs.
arsjth 1 year ago
Comment removed
teddansonLA 1 year ago
@arsjth your post is nonsense. The theory of the big bang, and the theory of evolution are independent of each other, and furthermore your description of the "general theory of evolution" appears to be a cut and paste from creationwiki org. So which text book has a chapter on Einstein's General of relativity, Guth's inflationary model, the standard model of particle physics AND the theory of evolution? lol @ your made up "general theory of evolution".
teddansonLA 1 year ago
@teddansonLA
of course its nonsense to you. because they are all interlinked and part of the same theory, big bang, chemical evolution, common ancestry = life as we see it today.
u think drawing a line between them as separate areas of study makes them unrelated?
yeah good luck!
Please confirm now that you believe that abiogenesis did not happen independently and was the working of an intelligent source. failure to do so confirms that you believe that it was random and totally self generating
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth The big bang theory has nothing to do with the evolution of life. You can ignore it completely and not change the results of biology. Likewise you can ignore biology and not change the results of cosmology. You don't seem to understand what any of these theories are about.
teddansonLA 1 year ago
Origin of life
Abiogenesis & RNA world hypothesis
The origin of life is a NECESSARY precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began. The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred.
NECESSARY...remember that next time you think its irrelevant
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth just remind me where I mentioned abiogenesis? Are you still insisting that the theory of evolution includes the big bang or are you arguing about something else now... by the way, yeah, you do need to have an origin of life, in order to have evolution. But so far, we don't know how life formed, but we do know how it subsequently evolved, so that should tell you something about how science is structured. Maybe we could continue this privately?
teddansonLA 1 year ago
@teddansonLA
Ted you need to make something clear. do u believe God created life and then evolution was the process that he used to create mankind?
if not then u have nothing but abiogenesis.
to the evolutionist if he denies God then he has no other option but to accept it.
your attempts to separate them are futile, its widely acknowledged by scientists that its linked.
Denial is a waste of valuable debating time.
state your belief if its not abiogenesis please
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth I am a professional scientist, and so I know, from actually working in this community that nobody believes the big bang theory and the theory of evolution are actually the same theory. Sorry, you are plainly wrong. Denial is a waste of time, so why keep insisting the big bang and evolution are the same theory? Why don't you pick a biology text book and read it?
I do not believe in God, so there is the answer to your utterly irrelevant question.
teddansonLA 1 year ago
@arsjth, you write "you make no serious case but just let go tirades of abuse", "what happened to make you so angry", "sad story...like Darwin", etc.
First, thank you for showing your absolute hypocrisy. Second, the problem is that we are dealing with people like you who tell lies obstinately and defiantly. You fill your rhetoric with lies about me, lies about Darwin, lies about Feduccia, lies about Gingerich and Thewissen, lies about transitional fossils, etc. Creationism is deceitfulness.
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto
have you seen the oort cloud lately?
look forward to your straight forward honesty on this one....as only evolutionists can do.
arsjth 1 year ago
@greeneto
"In Eichstätt, Germany, in 1984 there was a major meeting of scientists who specialize in bird evolution, the International Archaeopteryx Conference. They disagreed on just about anything that was covered there on this creature, but there was very broad agreement on the belief that Archaeopteryx was a true bird. Only a tiny minority thought that it was actually one of the small, lightly built coelurosaurian dinosaurs [small lightly framed dinosaurs]."
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, 1984.
Geeze, what year is it now?
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto
Yes i forgot that evolutionists back in 1984 were complete idiots that had no idea.
whereas now they are all brilliant.
however in 20 years time they will be looking back at the idiots of today who claimed neanderthals were ignorant cavemen & Indohyus was an early whale.
Now that miracles are providing flesh of dinosaurs that died 100 mill yrs ago we should be able to study them and start to find out some interesting info.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, I was making fun of you about 1984. In fact, what you quoted IS WRITTEN BY A YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST MORON. Sorry, but I don't buy deliberate misrepresentations written by people who deliberately intend to tell lies about everything in sight for the purpose of trying to prop up their empirically false religious myths.
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto
"I was making fun of you about 1984"
of course you were, just like we made fun of the scientists in 1984 who thought they evolved from fish...lol.
and that we laugh at your beliefs now as in the future they will be shown to be ludicrously silly but you will distance yourself by saying you moved on with science.....when you were just plain wrong.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth
If only we were so lucky as to ever find preserved, non-fossilized flesh, intact and not rotted. I don't know if I'd call that a miracle though. Maybe some fossils coming to life and regenerating back in to whole, living dinosaurs. That might be a miracle.
onigojira 1 year ago
@onigojira
yes they have sot tissue of dinosaurs. which clearly is impossible for it survive 130 million years.
so which is wrong the knowledge that soft tissue cant last that long or our measuring of time?
arsjth 1 year ago
@greeneto
perhaps we will know y some creatures make millions of morphological changes while others remain unchanged over 100 million years.
Perhaps we will understand more about meta information & how it acts on DNA & how it is genuinely impossible to evolve information let alone meta information.
or perhaps you will have managed to have some inorganic chemicals turning into an intelligent life form.
of course this will never happen & u know it...becos it never did & never will.
arsjth 1 year ago
@greeneto
"1984.
Geeze, what year is it now?"
on that basis we can toss out Darwins nonsense too.
arsjth 1 year ago
@greeneto
a very confused man is feduccia.
""Is Archaeopteryx a 'missing link'?" quotes Feduccia on Archaeopteryx:
Was Archaeopteryx a feathered dinosaur? Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that."
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth - Feduccia said, "Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, and they've put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn't bother me a bit. Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto
"Feduccia said, "Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up,"
feduccia contradicts himself often then.
he is clearly running scared of the angry lynch mob. ofc he supports evolution...but archaeopetryx is a perching bird and thats what he believes. He believes birds evolved from different dinosaurs.
hide behind what ever you like. he disagrees on archaeopetryx as do many others.
the fraudulent fossil trade in china is something else u need to be aware of.
arsjth 1 year ago
@greeneto
"Typical deceitful YEC behavior. Thanks for demonstrating it for everyone."
you are an angry man. poor at arguing your points to the level that you resort to abuse.
clearly something bad has happened in your life.
your attempts to discredit creationists who have as many if not more degrees as you is simply bullyboy school yard tactics.
U want to believe that creationists say there are no transitional fossils when that is not their case.
Its suits u to believe this
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, I always laugh at young earth creationists who use remarks like "You are an angry man, poor at arguing your points to the level that you resort to abuse", because of its sheer irony. Young earth creationists are angry at science and anyone who dares to confront them about their promotion of ignorance and pseudoscience misinformation. They are angry at science and at scientists for contradicting their religious beliefs, which is why they abuse scientists and creationist critics.
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto
Rodhocetus is a land based mammal. Has no features transitional to a whale & is a figment of Gingerich's imagination & yours.
Its evolutionary wishful thinking.
if you think you can take a fossil that looks a bit like a small cow & claim that its an ancestor of a whale & that a skeptic would be convinced then u r deluded.
only the truly faithful will believe it. If Joe public saw what u believed they would laugh....not the make believe drawings but the real skeletons.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, you claim "Rodhocetus...has no features transitional to a whale". Typical YEC, loves to tell lies about everything in sight. The fossil displays a number of skeletal features unique to whales, such as, for example, specific features of the ear bones. Also, seals are "land-based animals" too - that doesn't mean they don't have specialized adaptations for interacting with a water environment. So we see you playing word games to be deceptive - typical YEC.
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto
"The fossil displays a number of skeletal features unique to whales, such as, for example, specific features of the ear bones."
yes sonar hearing like the shrew!
did the whale evolve from the shrew?
lets face it...your a believer...im a skeptic. You dont need proof except a vague similarity in hearing. I want solid scientific evidence that is indisputable.
You dont require that.
You operate in the area of faith.
check out pakicetus and an otter. almost identical skeletons....lol
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, Rodhocetus has specific features of the ear bones that are unique to whales, not shrews. Thank you for demontrating, yet again, that YECs will play all manner of word games to tell lies about everything in sight.
On your other point, Pakicetus was not actually otter-like. However, later transitional fossils related to whales were otter-like, in some ways. That's because the whale ancestors were land animals, becoming adapted over time to living more in water. Duh.
greeneto 1 year ago
@green
"Rodhocetus has specific features of the ear bones that are unique to whales"
there4 whales evolved from them?
would u care2 tell us what other features r similar?i would hate2 b convicted on the skinny evidence u r prepared2 accept.
U swallow it becos u accept that only common ancestry can explain any similarity in creatures.
The same features that arise differently r given another name 'convergent evolution' or as we call it evolutionist lies2 explain y their theory doesnt hold water
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth,
1. Therefore whales evolved from them or they had a common ancestor.
2. No. I'm not going to attempt to carry on a lengthy detailed discussion in a place where posts have 500-character limits, you moron. Would you care to actually read any of the relevant scientific research articles by Philip Gingerich or J.G.M. Thewissen? No, of course you wouldn't, because young earth creationists absolutely despise the idea of really, actually looking at real science research.
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto
yes i have read Gingerich & thewissen.
very entertaining stuff.
Thewissen found that Indohyus had dense bones & an ear canal similar to a whale.
Therefore it must be a relative?
Why?
only if u invoke common ancestry is there any connection.
So common ancestry is the foundation to find a connection that is then used to support evolution & common ancestry.
Its circular reasoning that you accept becos u believe it.
Gingerich brought us the Ida debacle/deception as well.
arsjth 1 year ago
@green
"Pakicetus was not actually otter-like."
agreed it was more like a tasmanian tiger.
Only an evolutionist can look at2 creatures that are almost identical & see huge differences & look at 2 creatures who are completely different & see 1 feature that is similar & claim its related.
we all know the evolutionary story changes from week2 week.
This weeks fact is next weeks forgotten story...mesonychids were the ancestor of the whale up until it was decided they were not & Artiodactyla were.
arsjth 1 year ago
@greeneto
" Rodhocetus has specific features of the ear bones that are unique to whales"
and sheepshead fish have specific features of the mouth that are unique to humans but we dont assume that they are ancestral to humans.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, you wrote, "sheepshead fish have specific features of the mouth that are unique to humans".
Please do keep right on demonstrating to everyone just how ignorant of anatomy and paleontology you young earth creationists really are. I appreciate it.
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto
The most common ‘neat’ story of human evolution has australopithecines (such as ‘Lucy’) evolving into Homo habilis, which evolves into Homo erectus, which evolves into Homo sapiens. Australopithecines have no clear connection to humans, but museums, popular articles and text-books for schools and universities commonly claimed that Homo habilis linked them with humans (Homo erectus and Homo sapiens). While one camp of paleontologists argued that Homo habilis was not a valid taxon, ...
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, you write, "one camp of paleontologists argued that Homo habilis was not a valid taxon". Quoting some other YEC without attribution, I see. Of course, typical YEC idiot that you are, ignorant not only of the relevant science, but even clueless about the meaning of the scientific terminology, you apparently don't even comprehend the fact that arguing that H. habilis is not a valid taxon has nothing to do with arguing that it isn't a transitional fossil.
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto
" that it isn't a transitional fossil."
no they are all transitional.
cant falsify that one then can we????
if we declare all fossils transitional then please show me one that isnt transitional & explain why its not.
You would be better off in climate science where rampant bias & bullyboy tactics are a standard part of operations.
you are an angry man.
i really wonder what happened to u....just like Darwins theory came out of his personal grief over his daughter, u r bitter.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, I always laugh at young earth creationists who tell flagrant lies like "Darwin's theory came out of his personal grief over his daughter". You're not only ignorant of paleontology and other aspects of science, but you demonstrate ignorance of science history, specifically about what went into Darwin's book *Origin of Species*. Here you deceitfully pretend, for example, that Darwin didn't do all kinds of studies while on a trip around the world on the Beagle. YECs just love to tell lies.
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto
" Here you deceitfully pretend, for example, that Darwin didn't do all kinds of studies while on a trip around the world on the Beagle"
no i didnt.
but what did he discover on that trip?
beaks that get bigger during droughts??
like wow man we must have evolved from apes.
What a dumb idea. it had been around for thousands of years...the mayans believed we evolved from fish.
He just refined it to allow for steps in between the fish and apes.
You are obsessed with lies...projection!
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, I wrote, "Here you deceitfully pretend, for example, that Darwin didn't do all kinds of studies while on a trip around the world on the Beagle".
You reply, "No, I didn't".
I went back and read what you wrote again.
Yes, you did, Mr. Bullshitter.
And now with your further remarks you continue to prove that you don't even have a clue what Darwin did on the Beagle voyage that was relevant to his ideas on evolution.
YECs love to spout made-up stupidity based on their ignorance.
greeneto 1 year ago
@arsjth, I also always laugh when young earth creationist spout silly remarks about the critics of their creationism pseudoscience misinformation and fallacies and deceitful tactics being "angry" and "bitter" - it's so ironic! It is the very tactics and behavior of you young earth creationists that shows just how angry and bitter you people are against science and scientists and pseudoscience critics because they contradict your religious beliefs and dare to confront your arrogant ignorance.
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto
we are not angry or bitter.
we just simply argue the evidence. We also know that not all evidence fits our ideas perfectly...just as we know that it doesnt fit yours either.
I am not sprouting...lies , deceit, bullshitter bla bla bla.....that is you.
i would never speak to you that way. But u do becos your beliefs allow you to belittle, ridicule & direct hate & bullying to those who disagree with you.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, you wrote, "We just simply argue the evidence."
Young earth creationists can't argue the evidence because not only don't they know what it is, but they even deliberately and defiantly refuse to actually learn what it is.
All of us - including you - know fully well that you believe what you believe because of your RELIGIOUS doctrines.
Additionally, when people routinely tell lies and spout bullshit, I do indeed belittle them FOR DOING SO. Lying for Jesus is a vice, not a virtue.
greeneto 1 year ago
.....being a waste bin of mixed ape and human fossil bits, other evolutionists clung to H. habilis as being valid. Now even those who still claim it was valid are putting it aside. That effectively leaves a gaping hole in the story of human evolution, with nothing left to link humans with apes.
you sprout off these names as if there is no debate in the evolutionary world let alone the creationist world.
u are so obsessed with lying that i assume u are projecting....u must be a liar yourself
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, quoting Philip Bell, without attribution, I see. I always laugh when ignorant YECs quote other lying YECs pretending they're magically somehow scientific authorities on some science subject despite them never having done any professional scientific research on what they're lying about.
There is no debate in the "evolutionary world" (i.e., in professional science) that the examples I cited are transitional fossils, because that's what they are.
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto
"There is no debate in the "evolutionary world" (i.e., in professional science) that the examples I cited are transitional fossils"
yes in the evolutionary world where everything is now deemed transitional that term can be applied to every fossil without it really having its true meaning which is intermediate from one species to another.
Feduccia says archaeopteryx is not the transitional of birds to dinosaurs....so stop lying and admit there is controversy.
arsjth 1 year ago
@greeneto
"typical young earth creationist telling lies left and right, writes, "intermediate fossils would be very convincing."
here is the example of misquoting and lies from the evolutionists who have no qualms about lying.
arsjth said...
"A nice range of intermediate fossils would be very convincing."
a nice range was deliberately left off the quote.
caught in your deception.
i wondered why u were so obsessed with liars & lying. now i know that its cause u r one.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, It's obvious to everyone - except to complete idiots, like young earth creationists, of course - that our posts here are severely limited. I shorten what I can when I can. The fact of the matter is that I did not misrepresent what you wrote. In pretending I did, so what you have done here is given us another perfect example of how you creationists love to take things out of context and then tell lies based on that.
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto
"given us another perfect example of how you creationists love to take things out of context and then tell lies based on that."
you misquoted me...you dropped off the qualifier in order to try and make your point look stronger.
Deception seems to be your method. Lying your obsession.
Misrepresenting your specialty.
anger is your motive. you hate God...what did he do to you?
beauty is skin deep but ugly is all the way to the bone.
arsjth 1 year ago
@ZoeMarks
you wouldnt even know what its like to argue with a creationist because you simply abuse people with whom you disagree.
You wouldnt even be able to accurately describe the position of any creation scientist.
its just pure ignorance & you want others to slap you on the back the way bullies do when they approve of the kicking of a weaker child.
weak moral fiber indeed.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth - how on earth do you expect to be treated with anything resembling respect when you use such terms as "creation scientist". That is a first class oxymoron. Do you even know what science is really all about? I doubt it. I'll start agreeing with you when you stop hiding behind blind faith and factless made up arguments.
Name one science that supports the young earth theory; cite the references in a reputable journal to support your claim.
Waiting...
waiting...
ZoeMarks 1 year ago
@ZoeMarks
"how on earth do you expect to be treated with anything resembling respect when you use such terms as "creation scientist".
how can you be treated as anything other than a rabid atheist when you make such stupid statements as this?
You think that a guy who gets a degree, then works as a scientist is somehow less than a scientist becos he believes in God & creation?
just put a cap on & sit in the corner.
u demonize people becos it suits u so u dont have to consider their arguments
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth - that's right, don't get the main point. Creation scientist = oxymoron.
Believing in gods and creation says a lot about someone. You base your ideas on faith, not facts. Get over it.
It could be worse - you could believe in astrology and numerology too.
ZoeMarks 1 year ago
@arsjth - a "creation scientist" is not as you attempt to describe. We both know that. A person that attempts to promote creationism as a science and misuses proper qualifications in an attempt to fool people into believing that somehow science and creationism should sit in the same room needs a good therapy session.
LiamXaoh 1 year ago
@LiamXaoh
even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise.
your ignorance is now on display for all to see.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth - so tell us all which arm of science actually supports the notion of a young earth, citing papers and references published in a recognised scientific journal. Please don't include creation science. LOL
Your lack of creditable responses and playing the poor hurt individual just doesn't wash.
LiamXaoh 1 year ago
@arsjth, when a young earth creationist makes a remark like "Your ignorance is now on display for all to see", we're laughing at the total irony. But some people are so utterly foolish that they'd much rather keep their foolishness and ignorance and irrationality on public display than shut up or even consider the possibility of getting their facts straight and modifying their beliefs in correspondence with the facts that prove what they believe is wrong.
greeneto 1 year ago
@arsjth, there is no such thing as a "creation scientist". There is no doubt that there are some people who do research in science (such as in, say, cancer research, or meteorological research, or pharmaceutical chemistry, and so on) who believe in the religious doctrine of young earth creationism. That does not make them "creation scientists" because they're not doing any genuine scientific research on YEC and publishing it in the professional peer-reviewed science literature.
greeneto 1 year ago
@arsjth, yes, you happen to be correct that a people who have chosen to attack science and engage in flagrant lying tactics all to try to prop up a religious dogma (young earth creationism) that was empirically falsified over 200 years ago deserve to be slapped. Some of us who take science seriously and appreciate what science has achieved, and who think that rationality is superior to blind faith in primitive made up notions, are happy to oblige.
greeneto 1 year ago
I see the president of the United states encourages prayer & wants the Flying Spaghetti Monster to bless the United states with his goodness.
Seems like he is under some strong delusion.
He must by definition also be a liar.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth, of course, we're talking about creationism pseudoscience, and in the case of young earth creationists in particular, it is they who display an inordinately high degree of spouting lying statements and demonstrating a deceitful attitude to promote their empirically false religious beliefs.
greeneto 1 year ago
The irony is creationists are descended from apes. And by an almost impossible quirk of nature creationists inherited the same brain capacity as those apes.
zzytrewq 1 year ago
This reminds me of a geeky joke on the Transcendental Argument. "Logical thinking cannot exist without God existing" goes the argument. But, then, creationists demonstrate that, at least for them, logical thinking is not possible. ;-)
greeneto 1 year ago
@greeneto - plus here is a good one.
Creationism is an anagram for "So I'm a cretin"
LOL
zzytrewq 1 year ago
@zzytrewq
Not only are you trying to belittle, but your ignorance shines through clearly as well. Considering that what we see today show creationism not evolutionism. And the quotes used by Creationist about Gould or Eldridge etc. are used in context not out of context.
apathy7170 1 year ago
@apathy7170
u people will never get your head out of the sand will u?...i mean what will it take?..did u even watch the fucking video beofr u commented?..creationists claimed that Gould said there weren't any transitional fossils..but in court, Gould said they misrepresented him..he said that there are an ABUNDANCE of transitional fossils..so, HOW THE HELL did they quote him in context?
itzahazylife 1 year ago