yes i did, it's interesting no doubt, i'm sorry if i had misrepresented, i was under the impression that protein was needed to produce the process that allowed carbon dating to work. I understand there are more methods for dating, but there are methods against it to. For instance, i have personally seen an exactly well drawn depiction of a human riding a triceratops made around 1600, before there was any accurate understanding of current description based on study.
simply because all research i've done shows me for carbon to be present there has to be proteins, but with a half life of 5,700 years and complete dissipation of 50,000 years, we can postulate that it is an unreliable tool for measurement past that time.
Proteins are irrelevant to carbon dating. Carbon is required for carbon dating. I find your conlcusion accurate though, but we use more than just carbon dating. Usually specimens are tested using several methods at once, in order to get a more accurate date since Did you get a look at HeLa?
How would carbon dating show proteins, and why do you throw up a red flag at carbon dating?
Yes, I know it is highly improbable, and most(myself included) thought it was impossible to find dinosaur soft tissue, but that's what it appears to be.
the problem i have with those instances is the missing link factor, like agnostic/atheist choose not to believe in a deity, i choose to to simply believe partial evidence in science, not saying it has happened but bones can be misrepresented unless each instance of change is there for representation itself, agreed? Not arguing some about whether some evidence is there, i just prefer it to be complete.
Well because of climate and chemistry issues, a complete fossil record is unlikely. It's kind of like a jury requiring a video confession from a murderer, who's blood was found under the victims fingernails and who's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, you know? I've got to get some sleep.
ok, so actually, we agree that most evolutionists have a misconception of what macroevolution really is, meaning they alot choose to think a dinosaurs evolved into a bird?
However, the theory does state that birds evolved from a dinosaur yes, and if you look at the fossil record we can see several intermediary forms, such as Archeopteryx, Microraptor, Anchiornis(I hope I'm spelling that one right)and Pedopenna. Another thing to look at is the sequencing of soft tissue found inside dinosaur fossils. Some studies have shown that the proteins found in this soft tissue is closer to birds than to anything else.
we can't debate creationism, because it is in reference to the supernatural. Meaning by scientific standard there can be no evidence to support either side of the arguement
well, i want proof that a finch become something other than a finch, or that a great dane and chihuhua found a way to breed and became something other than a dog instead of simple a different breed withing the species, doesn't have to be exact, but i am talking about actual speciation, NOT DIFFERENT BREED, some "intelligent evolutionists" can not discern the difference of the two.
Ah, then you don't quite get the theory. Small gradual changes occur, which result in speciation. After thousands of these speciation events, we're left with an organism that no longer closely resembles the original ancestor. I object yet again to your use of the word "proof" because in science it means something else.
HeLa is a great example of what your asking for, although it is an atypical example.
The problem is, Humans don't live very long on a geographic scale, so we're not going to be able to see the process play out long enough to see new genera being formed. What we can do though, is compare bone structures found in fossils, and notice small variations over successive generations(fossils found in earlier vs later strata).
Please do keep in mind though, macro evolution is only speciation. It does not mean change from say, dinosaur to modern birds.
How about we use a rainbow as an analogy. We see the different colors very clearly, but in between the main colors we see shades. We can see clearly where it is red, green, yellow etc. However, at certain points there is a blending of the two colors. At what point do we call one part yellow? Is it when the rainbow is 51% yellow and 49% red?
Does this analogy make sense? Sorry I've been awake for close to 20 hours now.
it is possible that because of different communities our perceptions of synonyms in the English language are different, and that may be what is enveloped the arguementative situation before a debate could even begin, so how about i just agree to clarify myself more accurately to definition?
Not a falsehood, you did just that, there is no way to agree/disagree on whether the terminology you used for definition, or laymen's terminology i used are the same, because technical understanding of multiple words used descriptively in the same subject is relative and matter of opinion. for instance not to be perverse, penetration is sex, that is fact, but oral sex is a matter of opinion as to whether it is actually sex. I said proof, you said evidence, your opinion is they are different.
He will likely use some personal attacks. He will question your real motives for doubting evolution. He will attack the credibility of any authorities you cite . He will attempt to get you to defend yourself, defend the authorities he has maligned, or attack him. If he can get you to do any of these things, he has achieved his objective (which is to avoid talking about the theory of evolution).
The evolutionist will probably try to bring religion into the discussion
Another blatant falsehood from you. Also, nice job on copy and pasting.
I first asked questions to see if you understood the basics of science. You did not answer the questions appropriately, and showed a lack of understanding of the terminology. If you can't get the terminology right, how can you know anything about the subject?
Again, if you admit your definitions were wrong, I'd be willing to listen to some of the evidence for your side.
Debating isn't attacking the person, i just showed you it has nothing to do with the subject and i can do that to you as well, Talking at people and makings false accusations "proves" nothing except your socially retarted
You've shown nothing other than a strong will to deny reality.
I can see you don't want to give up, and I don't see a reason to ban you, so I don't see a reason for not having a discussion, given that you admit your definitions were fallacious.
If you admit your definitions were wrong(as I've already demonstrated), then give me evidence for creationism.
you are simply being ignorant to reality, i wanted to debate and see if i could stick up for the creationalist side, not even being a part of it, but because i made you look like an idiot by attacking simple speech instead of simply admitting i put it in laymen's terms meaning exactly what you said you have to pretend someone on the other side of the arguement knows nothing, so you won't have to debate showing your very weak in the subject.
No. I asked you simple questions so that I could decide whether or not you knew your stuff. You obviously don't, as I've said multiple times. Look at your original comments and the look at the definitions. You did not paraphrase, you were completely off the mark.
I do not need to pretend, you have demonstrated you don't know enough for a debate.
I challenge you to explain how a "theory" is in any way similar to an "educated guess". As it stands you've made the fallacy of equivocation.
lol, really there isn't any real proof to evolution, just what you see that simply as an explanation that seems to make more sense to you than creation or intelligent design, fact is, some of science is right, some of religion is two, some of both are wrong, and proof doesn't matter both sides have offered some, noone has been swayed in either direction, so no proof will change anyones opinion that doesn't want it changed.
Proof is only a term that applies to mathematics. I can,however, give you plenty of evidence for the theory of evolution.
I do not "want" or not "want" to be changed. I simply react to the best evidence presented. The best evidence present shows the theory of evolution by means of natural selection to be the best explanation for the complexity of life as we see it today.
Several times you have proven your ignorance on the subject, must we continue?
Since paraphrasing cant be trusted when you get your hands on it to manipulate i'll give you the exact definition since it's been brought up,
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. An example is you made a hypothesis about my understanding of science and it's terminology meaning you had no satisfactory evidence for your basis.
I've manipulated nothing. I asked you simple and direct questions which could..
A: Be answered Correctly.
or
B: Be answered incorrectly.
You took option B.
Actually, I had satisfactory evidence for my hypothesis, you are a creationist. The simple fact that you are a creationist expounds the validity of my position, and thus my hypothesis. My hypothesis was then validated when you demonstrated a lack of knowledge in scientific terms.
i didn't misunderstand anything, you simply used that manipulation of text, to create a false sense of my misunderstanding of science and its terminology, retreating from a debate because you think i have no knowledge? wow, your accusations and attacks are exactly like you claim of creationalists, isn't that hypocritical? You said you want to stick with facts, yet you twist the words out of my mouth attempting to discredit me, then blately lie about my understanding of a hypothesis.
Where in my comments did I say this? Not a single place. The facts(again observable evidence sing you don't understand what a fact is in scientific terms) show that you do not understand the vocabulary of science, so why should I have any interest in holding a discussion on the substance of science?
when did i say a hypothesis is a theory? is that how you win debates? by saying someone said one thing which i've never said the word hypothesis, let alone referrred to it, or by trying to manipulate the english language by changing the terminology in words spoken.... yes many similar words can be used in place of one another to create a completely different meaning entirely, and that is exactly what your doing, that's not debating it is trying to manipulate what you think is a weaker mind...
No. You have demonstrated multiple times that you do not even understand the most basic part of science, the language. You gave a definition for "theory" that can be compared to "hypothesis". It is clear from your messages and comments that you are not qualified to debate anything in the realm of science.
Well, the problem is, you misunderstood the basic terminology on even the most basic level. I have no emotional attachment to science. You think that a hypothesis is a theory.
unlike some ppl i will not make an uneducated assumption that you have no education or understanding of religion or theology, i just wanted a simply offer some questions for you to provide answers to, and me do the same, from an actual nonbiased viewpoint, because the fact is, neither party, evolutionists nor creationalists "usually" keep thier emotional intricacies out of the discussion without making wild accusations about lack of intelligence toward the other side of the discussion.
i understand it completely, even in scientific terminology, im stating that some ppl do not, particularly creationalists, thats why i've chosen to speak with say i'll estimate 7th grade grammar.
i said i paraphrased it, meaning i said the same thing you did just in my words, and not the wikipedia version, the purpose for a public debate is so all parties can understand the discussion at hand, i kept it simple so all public eyes could understand without confusion, why would you try to say what you said is different?
A theory is a model supported by evidence, facts are observable pieces of evidence, evolution is a change in allelic frequencies, micro evolution is change below the species level, and macro evolution is speciation.
Thanks, but it's clear you don't understand the basics of science.
i said i paraphrased it, meaning i said the same thing you did just in my words, and not the wikipedia version, the purpose for a public debate is so all parties can understand the discussion at hand, i kept it simple so all public eyes could understand without confusion, why would you try to say what you said is different?
clearly not all youtubers have an education, you've stated this yourself, so i'm using extreme intellect to dumb it down for them, which you knew i was doing, but you start off imediately trying to make yourself sound more intelligent. Stay off wikipedia, and just have a debate.
If you would like you can read through any of my comments on any of my videos. I don't change the way I type just to make creationists look less educated then they already are, that would be like picking on a child.
I'm not going to debate you because your ignorant of the subject matter.
Well, the problem is creationists can't refute claims posited by scientists, because they don't understand the scientific method, scientific terminology, or the relevant fields of science.
actually sorry, micro meaning alot of generations macro meaning alot x 1000, exacts are impossible considering different changes in differents species and different purposes, i tried to make that too short
i never said it was proof, i stated their was for sure evidence that supported possible cohabitation.
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
Actually no. Nowhere in the comments have you made this statement until THIS(bold text because we don't have italics) comment.
jesuriah 2 years ago
yes i did, it's interesting no doubt, i'm sorry if i had misrepresented, i was under the impression that protein was needed to produce the process that allowed carbon dating to work. I understand there are more methods for dating, but there are methods against it to. For instance, i have personally seen an exactly well drawn depiction of a human riding a triceratops made around 1600, before there was any accurate understanding of current description based on study.
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
I've seen pictographs of men with dog's heads, minotaurs, or anything from any ancient mythos.
jesuriah 2 years ago
is that resolution inaccurate?
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
simply because all research i've done shows me for carbon to be present there has to be proteins, but with a half life of 5,700 years and complete dissipation of 50,000 years, we can postulate that it is an unreliable tool for measurement past that time.
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
Proteins are irrelevant to carbon dating. Carbon is required for carbon dating. I find your conlcusion accurate though, but we use more than just carbon dating. Usually specimens are tested using several methods at once, in order to get a more accurate date since Did you get a look at HeLa?
jesuriah 2 years ago
hold on proteins? proteins in an organism older than say 50,000 years is more than improbable please don't refer to carbon dating
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
How would carbon dating show proteins, and why do you throw up a red flag at carbon dating?
Yes, I know it is highly improbable, and most(myself included) thought it was impossible to find dinosaur soft tissue, but that's what it appears to be.
jesuriah 2 years ago
i'm just stating some evolutionist (in my experience) misrepresent macro because they get emotionally involved.
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
the problem i have with those instances is the missing link factor, like agnostic/atheist choose not to believe in a deity, i choose to to simply believe partial evidence in science, not saying it has happened but bones can be misrepresented unless each instance of change is there for representation itself, agreed? Not arguing some about whether some evidence is there, i just prefer it to be complete.
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
Well because of climate and chemistry issues, a complete fossil record is unlikely. It's kind of like a jury requiring a video confession from a murderer, who's blood was found under the victims fingernails and who's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, you know? I've got to get some sleep.
Cheers.
jesuriah 2 years ago
ok, so actually, we agree that most evolutionists have a misconception of what macroevolution really is, meaning they alot choose to think a dinosaurs evolved into a bird?
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
No. I think most creationists don't know what macro evolution means. Macro evolution is speciation. It's like calling a chair a teapot.
jesuriah 2 years ago
However, the theory does state that birds evolved from a dinosaur yes, and if you look at the fossil record we can see several intermediary forms, such as Archeopteryx, Microraptor, Anchiornis(I hope I'm spelling that one right)and Pedopenna. Another thing to look at is the sequencing of soft tissue found inside dinosaur fossils. Some studies have shown that the proteins found in this soft tissue is closer to birds than to anything else.
jesuriah 2 years ago
ok then i will ask for direct beginning to evidence of macro evolution without any missing pieces?
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
Do a google search for "observed instances of speciation". Click on the first link, at talkorigins. There are quite a few on that page alone.
If you're looking for something a little more dramatic, look at HeLa, like I referenced you to in an earlier post.
jesuriah 2 years ago
we can't debate creationism, because it is in reference to the supernatural. Meaning by scientific standard there can be no evidence to support either side of the arguement
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
So then what would it be about?
jesuriah 2 years ago
how about the macro evolution
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
Speciation? What about it?
jesuriah 2 years ago
well, i want proof that a finch become something other than a finch, or that a great dane and chihuhua found a way to breed and became something other than a dog instead of simple a different breed withing the species, doesn't have to be exact, but i am talking about actual speciation, NOT DIFFERENT BREED, some "intelligent evolutionists" can not discern the difference of the two.
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
Ah, then you don't quite get the theory. Small gradual changes occur, which result in speciation. After thousands of these speciation events, we're left with an organism that no longer closely resembles the original ancestor. I object yet again to your use of the word "proof" because in science it means something else.
HeLa is a great example of what your asking for, although it is an atypical example.
jesuriah 2 years ago
The problem is, Humans don't live very long on a geographic scale, so we're not going to be able to see the process play out long enough to see new genera being formed. What we can do though, is compare bone structures found in fossils, and notice small variations over successive generations(fossils found in earlier vs later strata).
Please do keep in mind though, macro evolution is only speciation. It does not mean change from say, dinosaur to modern birds.
jesuriah 2 years ago
How about we use a rainbow as an analogy. We see the different colors very clearly, but in between the main colors we see shades. We can see clearly where it is red, green, yellow etc. However, at certain points there is a blending of the two colors. At what point do we call one part yellow? Is it when the rainbow is 51% yellow and 49% red?
Does this analogy make sense? Sorry I've been awake for close to 20 hours now.
Cheers.
jesuriah 2 years ago
evidence on what exactly jesuriah
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
Creationism.
jesuriah 2 years ago
it is possible that because of different communities our perceptions of synonyms in the English language are different, and that may be what is enveloped the arguementative situation before a debate could even begin, so how about i just agree to clarify myself more accurately to definition?
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
Not a falsehood, you did just that, there is no way to agree/disagree on whether the terminology you used for definition, or laymen's terminology i used are the same, because technical understanding of multiple words used descriptively in the same subject is relative and matter of opinion. for instance not to be perverse, penetration is sex, that is fact, but oral sex is a matter of opinion as to whether it is actually sex. I said proof, you said evidence, your opinion is they are different.
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
I clearly asked you for the scientific definition. In science words have a different meaning than they do in common language.
Lets hear your evidence.
jesuriah 2 years ago
The evolutionist knows he can't win a scientific debate of the theory. His only hope is to divert the discussion to something else
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
.
He will likely use some personal attacks. He will question your real motives for doubting evolution. He will attack the credibility of any authorities you cite . He will attempt to get you to defend yourself, defend the authorities he has maligned, or attack him. If he can get you to do any of these things, he has achieved his objective (which is to avoid talking about the theory of evolution).
The evolutionist will probably try to bring religion into the discussion
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
Another blatant falsehood from you. Also, nice job on copy and pasting.
I first asked questions to see if you understood the basics of science. You did not answer the questions appropriately, and showed a lack of understanding of the terminology. If you can't get the terminology right, how can you know anything about the subject?
Again, if you admit your definitions were wrong, I'd be willing to listen to some of the evidence for your side.
jesuriah 2 years ago
Debating isn't attacking the person, i just showed you it has nothing to do with the subject and i can do that to you as well, Talking at people and makings false accusations "proves" nothing except your socially retarted
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
You've shown nothing other than a strong will to deny reality.
I can see you don't want to give up, and I don't see a reason to ban you, so I don't see a reason for not having a discussion, given that you admit your definitions were fallacious.
If you admit your definitions were wrong(as I've already demonstrated), then give me evidence for creationism.
jesuriah 2 years ago
you are simply being ignorant to reality, i wanted to debate and see if i could stick up for the creationalist side, not even being a part of it, but because i made you look like an idiot by attacking simple speech instead of simply admitting i put it in laymen's terms meaning exactly what you said you have to pretend someone on the other side of the arguement knows nothing, so you won't have to debate showing your very weak in the subject.
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
No. I asked you simple questions so that I could decide whether or not you knew your stuff. You obviously don't, as I've said multiple times. Look at your original comments and the look at the definitions. You did not paraphrase, you were completely off the mark.
I do not need to pretend, you have demonstrated you don't know enough for a debate.
I challenge you to explain how a "theory" is in any way similar to an "educated guess". As it stands you've made the fallacy of equivocation.
jesuriah 2 years ago
lol, really there isn't any real proof to evolution, just what you see that simply as an explanation that seems to make more sense to you than creation or intelligent design, fact is, some of science is right, some of religion is two, some of both are wrong, and proof doesn't matter both sides have offered some, noone has been swayed in either direction, so no proof will change anyones opinion that doesn't want it changed.
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
Proof is only a term that applies to mathematics. I can,however, give you plenty of evidence for the theory of evolution.
I do not "want" or not "want" to be changed. I simply react to the best evidence presented. The best evidence present shows the theory of evolution by means of natural selection to be the best explanation for the complexity of life as we see it today.
Several times you have proven your ignorance on the subject, must we continue?
jesuriah 2 years ago
Since paraphrasing cant be trusted when you get your hands on it to manipulate i'll give you the exact definition since it's been brought up,
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. An example is you made a hypothesis about my understanding of science and it's terminology meaning you had no satisfactory evidence for your basis.
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
I've manipulated nothing. I asked you simple and direct questions which could..
A: Be answered Correctly.
or
B: Be answered incorrectly.
You took option B.
Actually, I had satisfactory evidence for my hypothesis, you are a creationist. The simple fact that you are a creationist expounds the validity of my position, and thus my hypothesis. My hypothesis was then validated when you demonstrated a lack of knowledge in scientific terms.
jesuriah 2 years ago
i didn't misunderstand anything, you simply used that manipulation of text, to create a false sense of my misunderstanding of science and its terminology, retreating from a debate because you think i have no knowledge? wow, your accusations and attacks are exactly like you claim of creationalists, isn't that hypocritical? You said you want to stick with facts, yet you twist the words out of my mouth attempting to discredit me, then blately lie about my understanding of a hypothesis.
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
"You said you want to stick with facts"
Where in my comments did I say this? Not a single place. The facts(again observable evidence sing you don't understand what a fact is in scientific terms) show that you do not understand the vocabulary of science, so why should I have any interest in holding a discussion on the substance of science?
jesuriah 2 years ago
when did i say a hypothesis is a theory? is that how you win debates? by saying someone said one thing which i've never said the word hypothesis, let alone referrred to it, or by trying to manipulate the english language by changing the terminology in words spoken.... yes many similar words can be used in place of one another to create a completely different meaning entirely, and that is exactly what your doing, that's not debating it is trying to manipulate what you think is a weaker mind...
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
No. You have demonstrated multiple times that you do not even understand the most basic part of science, the language. You gave a definition for "theory" that can be compared to "hypothesis". It is clear from your messages and comments that you are not qualified to debate anything in the realm of science.
jesuriah 2 years ago
you just proved that
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
Well, the problem is, you misunderstood the basic terminology on even the most basic level. I have no emotional attachment to science. You think that a hypothesis is a theory.
jesuriah 2 years ago
unlike some ppl i will not make an uneducated assumption that you have no education or understanding of religion or theology, i just wanted a simply offer some questions for you to provide answers to, and me do the same, from an actual nonbiased viewpoint, because the fact is, neither party, evolutionists nor creationalists "usually" keep thier emotional intricacies out of the discussion without making wild accusations about lack of intelligence toward the other side of the discussion.
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
i understand it completely, even in scientific terminology, im stating that some ppl do not, particularly creationalists, thats why i've chosen to speak with say i'll estimate 7th grade grammar.
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i said i paraphrased it, meaning i said the same thing you did just in my words, and not the wikipedia version, the purpose for a public debate is so all parties can understand the discussion at hand, i kept it simple so all public eyes could understand without confusion, why would you try to say what you said is different?
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
I explained all of that to you in a private message.
jesuriah 2 years ago
ok, i'll paraphrase for i don't really want to take up huge amounts of space and time for exact definitions
theory, educated guess
fact, proven statement
evolution, physical changes in adaption to the environment
micro, changes on the smaller scale of time 100,000 years
macro, millions of years
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
A theory is a model supported by evidence, facts are observable pieces of evidence, evolution is a change in allelic frequencies, micro evolution is change below the species level, and macro evolution is speciation.
Thanks, but it's clear you don't understand the basics of science.
jesuriah 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i said i paraphrased it, meaning i said the same thing you did just in my words, and not the wikipedia version, the purpose for a public debate is so all parties can understand the discussion at hand, i kept it simple so all public eyes could understand without confusion, why would you try to say what you said is different?
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
If you yourself don't even understand the terminology used, how can you expect other to know what you're talking about?
jesuriah 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
clearly not all youtubers have an education, you've stated this yourself, so i'm using extreme intellect to dumb it down for them, which you knew i was doing, but you start off imediately trying to make yourself sound more intelligent. Stay off wikipedia, and just have a debate.
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
If you would like you can read through any of my comments on any of my videos. I don't change the way I type just to make creationists look less educated then they already are, that would be like picking on a child.
I'm not going to debate you because your ignorant of the subject matter.
jesuriah 2 years ago
lol, uh couldn't find the site
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
abiogenesis contradicts creation, so why wouln´t a creationist refute claims related to abiogenesis
a01011399 3 years ago
Well, the problem is creationists can't refute claims posited by scientists, because they don't understand the scientific method, scientific terminology, or the relevant fields of science.
jesuriah 2 years ago
well i understand, lol. looking for a debate
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
Wait, so you're a creationist with an understanding of the theory of evolution?
Can you please give me the scientific definition of the terms, "theory", "fact", "evolution", "micro evolution" and "macro evolution".
I hate to sound pompous but you must understand I've talked to far too many creationists who didn't even understand the basics of science.
jesuriah 2 years ago
ok, i'll paraphrase for i don't really want to take up huge amounts of space and time for exact definitions
theory, educated guess
fact, proven statement
evolution, physical changes in adaption to the environment
micro, changes on the smaller scale of time 100,000 years
macro, millions of years
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago
actually sorry, micro meaning alot of generations macro meaning alot x 1000, exacts are impossible considering different changes in differents species and different purposes, i tried to make that too short
tmwmwmplayer 2 years ago