If you have a belief, then in all good consciousness you must proselytize that belief. Otherwise your not contributing. What is the point of your existence if you're not an influencial member of society? Everything beyond your interaction is purely subjective & for your delight only..
it may affect her decision before her life is actually in danger ie. before the tube ruptures. my opinion is that in a situation like that, you need to take care of it as soon as it is detected.
I wasn't making an excuse with misscarriages, I was just stating that even the human body will reject a child if it's life is in danger.
laws are funny things sometimes. we really can't say what would and wouldn't be allowed. and enforcement would be an issue as well.
That's fine, but does that mean that it should be a law not to kill yourself? Masturbation goes against the Bible, but does that mean we should make it illegal?
Also, if it's God's choice when we die, then what gives doctors the right to use machines, medicines and surgery to prolong life, especially when the patient doesn't want it?
I think in regards to euthanasia that people should be allowed to do with their bodies what they wish. If modern medicine is the only thing keeping them alive, then this is even more true. Moral or not, it seems to me to be their decision.
True such things like murder and stealing can use the same arguments. I feel though that abortion is something that is more managable in a society. Where stealing is mostly greed and wealth, and murder can be jealosy or any number of causes, abortion I feel is mainly due to lack of sex education.
So are you against euthanasia in all cases? What about someone being kept alive by machine? Can they be unplugged? What if the only reason they are alive is because of other modern medical interventions?
If you are against stem cell research, does that mean that you are also against infertile parents using fertility clinics to conceive?
What has Obama done wrong in regards to abortions? He still wants to work to decrease the number of them.
I should be more spefic myself. When I say euthanasia I strictly mean the death penalty. What do they do in the fertility clinics that have to do with destruction of stem cells.
I also agree on euthanasia but as for stem cell I would have more struggle with. If it has no need to use it( I have heard that they can use adult stem cells) than I would encourage the latter poccess and try to forgo the former.
there are actually positive reasons for abortion. the body actually aborts pregnancies all the time (miscarriages) because of heath issues. selective abortion also has its positive uses. a situation called ectopic pregnancy and commonly known as tubal pregnancy can be life threatening to the mother and is almost always fatal to the fetus (only one sketchy story have I heard where a child actually came from this). the risk of ectopic preg is heightened by certain medical conditions contd..
PCOD (Poly-Cystic Ovarian Diseas) along with indometriosys. my wife suffers from both. they cause blockages in the fallopian tubes which the egg can't pass by but sometimes the sperm can because of size. if this fertilized egg developes uninterrupted in the fallopian tube, it will eventually rupture and immediate sugery is necessary. this also causes other problems depending on the condition of the patient. my wife only has one fallopian tube, if that one had to be removed, she would contd.
go into early menapause. (a side note is that her tube was removed because of issues with indometriosys, not tubal pregnancy) my wife is 30 and if she were to go into menapause, she would have two choices, go on hormone pills or shots, or risk early osteoperosis.
my point to all of this is that if abortion is outlawed (illegalized) then it won't even be an option for my wife if she needs it. I don't agree that abortion should be for someone that made a bad choice. contd...
just to throw this out, I am a christian (though I accept evolution and other scientific theories) and I have been on the other side of the coin as far as the abortion issue. my wife and I adopted our daughter around last christmas
given our options, adoption was pretty much the only way for us to have children.
sorry for the rant but this has become a touchy issue for me due to my wife's situation. also, my spelling is horrid on some of the medical terms, I am not in the medical field.
I will admit myself that when topics like this arise I really have to struggle with a desicion. This is definitly an area were christian values of my past still play a major impact in my thinking. Thus that I can really never become pro-choice. However, I do question wether laws will actually play a major part in decreasing abortions or if they will merely just cover the problem up. Making it so abortions will just be taken underground where procedures could also harm the mother. Continued >>>
"a religious candidate will more than likely have the same values I do"
I think most people think the same way about that that you do, which is why they won't vote for an atheist. Others probably wouldn't just base their decision on the abortion issue, though. Many people think atheists must be immoral since we don't believe God will punish us for misbehaving.
I'm curious. when you say for pro-life do you mean he would create laws to inhibit abortion or rather he would use education and such or both. Or something method I missed.
I agree, Dawkins & Hitchens can be pompous jerks sometimes.
A 2007 Gallup poll asked people if they would vote for a person for president if they had a certain trait. 5% said they wouldn't vote for a black person. 4% wouldn't vote for a Catholic. 43% wouldn't for a homosexual. 53% wouldn't for an atheist. We are the most mistrusted minority in the US.
e.g. TheFightingAtheist has some videos about how a Christian family won't let their son play with his son because he (not his son) is atheist.
I agree, pop0it0rocket. Christians get their share as well. I just think that atheists get more than their share, and somehow it's acceptable in mainstream media sources and for public figures to bash atheists, but not Christians.
When was the last time you heard Christians compared to any bloody dictators?
Oooo. You had me up to your afterthought. I can only hope it was a poorly delivered joke.
Taking the colloquial definition of agnosticism is no less annoying to an agnostic than claiming atheism requires more faith than theism can be to an atheist.
The agnostic claim is that one cannot have knowledge about that which cannot be examined through natural means. It isn't fence sitting by a long shot, and in some sense is actually a more committed position than that of many atheists.
"The agnostic claim is that one cannot have knowledge about that which cannot be examined through natural means."
However, atheism and theism aren't about knowledge. They are about belief. I am an agnostic atheist. I believe there are no gods, but I don't think anyone can know.
My point at the end was simply - okay, so we agree that you can't KNOW whether there are gods or not, but which do you BELIEVE to be true based on current information? You can't claim you have NO information.
That may be true: eg the natural claims of existent religions clash with objective observation. But the set of things which could be supernatural and also true are infinite, even if every speculation a person has ever had about what they might be is wrong. As each individual claim is one out of an infinite set, they individually have a probability approaching zero... but I don't have enough information to give a probability to the overall set.
In this situation, the question becomes a suspended bit, and for me it is just as intellectually dishonest to assume that bit is a no as you feel it would be intellectually dishonest to join a religion for purely social gain.
If ten people are in a room with a locked door, who has the most accurate idea of what's behind it? The ones who speculate a particular thing, the ones who speculate nothing, or the ones who admit that there isn't enough info to hold one idea as THE most likely?
I disagree with your analogy about the locked door. This is more like Russell's Celestial Teapot. Sure, it is conceivable that some complex being that cannot be or has not been detected in any way does exist, but what reason is there to believe such a thing? This is a situation with an unlocked door, where we can look inside and see that there is nothing, but some people claim that there is actually an invisible being inside that can't be seen, heard, touched, etc.
"I disagree... what reason is there to believe such a thing?"
The same amount of reason to believe that there is no such thing.
So this is a locked door. As long as nothing comes out of that door, and you can come and go from the room through another exit... it just gives you a chance to daydream... but there is no reason to believe that your speculation of an empty room is any better than the guy who says it's a lion that can't open the door. They are effectively equal.
"The same amount of reason to believe that there is no such thing."
So you have just as much evidence that magical superbeings exist outside of the material world as evidence that they do not?
If that is true then are you also agnostic about faerie creatures? They also magically conceal themselves. Leprechauns? Unicorns? I'm being serious here - what's the difference?
I disagree with your first claim. There is ample evidence of the lack of magical beings - namely the lack of anything that obviously requires magic to explain it. Though I agree that there is zero evidence FOR magical beings.
So are you claiming that you think faeries and unicorns are just as likely to exist as not? You are not an "afaeryist" or "aunicornist"?
Okay, so you are saying that in regard to every God ever conceived, you are an atheist, but that you are agnostic in regards to the existence some undefined supernatural being that could theoretically be referred to as a "god"? This then comes down to an agnosticism about the existence of ANY supernatural forces, no? You don't lean one way or another in that regard? You don't have sufficient evidence to pick one or the other as more likely in your opinion?
"Okay, so you are saying that in regard to every God ever conceived, you are an atheist..."
Not exactly. I eliminated them as a means of putting forward the argument. The point is, anything that cannot be investigated by natural means produces no information by which to make a decision.
Frankly, we could each easily define our chosen term such that it encompasses the other's position. What bugs me is that it sounded like you basically said, " tolerance... except for you guys."
I admit to being an agnostic, but I am also an atheist. My point in the video was simply that most people don't realize that agnosticism/gnosticism is about knowledge and atheism/theism is about belief. I think that most agnostics believe one or the other, but think that because they don't know for sure that they are agnostic.
Your point about the inability to investigate God by natural means still boils down to a question of the believability of the claims. Why should we believe in X?
I think part of the problem here, is that I don't think that belief and knowledge are so clearly defined that you can make the distinction that you are making. Every time I've gotten involved in a discussion of epistemology, it quickly sinks into a squable over colloquial uses, personal definitions and arbitrary technical designations. More often than not though, I find that when people think they know what knowledge is, they haven't really thought about it.
I agree - the definition of knowledge is debatable, which is why it's so common to disagree on what an agnostic is. However, belief is much easier to define: what do you think (based on your experience and "knowledge") is most likely to be true? You must lean one way or the other even just a little bit - no?
I don't really like the word true either... but I'll humor you. I believe that the only thing you can trust is doubt. That as far as understanding ourselves and our environment science is the best game in town. I believe that speculations (both positive and negative) about the supernatural are on par with reading Daniel Steel novels, and therefore I actively oppose their intrusions into science and politics. I believe I'm agnostic.
Evolutionism is not an explanation. It is a story created around observable facts. Naturally the story fits the observations being that the observations are the source of the myth.
like the dogma that says time + mutation + natural selection which is untestable.
Evolutionism is not science. you can't observe it, test it, or reproduce it.
Conservative Christians take more bashing in the media than anyone else.
no one is good.
Respect? like saying we base our belief's on bronze age texts.
Yes mejc2, evolution, like every scientific theory, is a story (actually, an explanation) based on observable facts. Creationism, by contrast, is a story based on bronze age desert tribal stories and contradicts observable facts.
Evolution has been tested and is tested every day.
Conservatives are criticized, but Christians are usually criticized much less than atheists all over.
Are you claiming you don't base your beliefs on bronze age texts? How is pointing out that you do disrespectful?
Variation and adaptation are tested and observed every day. Evolutionism is a myth that has been woven of the fibers of the observable events. The myth of evolutionism and other myths needed to support it are what contradict the observable facts.
Reducing the most accurate ancient document in the world to "bronze age texts" is insulting.
"bronze age texts" is a category of information to which the Bible belongs, along with the "bronze age texts" of other religions like Hinduism and the Babylonian pantheon. Even if the Bible is the most accurate ancient document, the Creation story in it is still part of a bronze age text. This story contradicts the age of the universe and the order of events as determined by independent information from every major field of science. The Bible itself is self-contradictory, in Genesis and the NT.
Are you referring here to descent with modification from a common ancestor, since you seem to be saying you accept evolution through natural selection on a small scale?
If you are, then this is well supported by genetic data, as well as the fossil record. My GULOP video would be a better place to discuss the topic.
Your GULOP video? The one where you propose that humans lost function? that is your evidence for organisms increasing in complexity and obtaining new organs limbs and biological systems? If you are proposing that as evidence of molecules to man evolution
1. It is change in the wrong direction
2. Nothing new arose
3. It is pure supposition that the similarity is from common descent.
facts:
we are losing species,languages, and culture, DNA is breaking down not getting more complex, etc.
GULOP is rock solid evidence of common descent. It isn't just that humans have a non-functional version of GULO, and thus can't make vitamin C. Other primates have non-functional versions as well, and the pattern of genetic similarity in this gene forms a family tree. Propose an alternative explanation.
There are several modern examples of new structures evolving, such as Italian wall lizard cecal valves and bacterial digestion of nylon, pentachlorophenol, and citrate - and that's in decades.
GULOP is evidence of GOLOP existing. there is no evidence that it came from any other organism only supposition. There is no tree, except in the mind of evolutionists.
There is no evidence that wall lizards developed new DNA to create cecal valves and no self respecting Biologist is making that claim. Adaptation to the environment is programed into the DNA of all creatures and the observations we make empirically support that claim.
You can raise that breed of Italian wall lizard in a lab or wherever, and it will still have a cecal valve. That's genetic, & not simply a plastic environmental response. Environmentally induced changes aren't inherited by multiple generations of offspring, only genetic ones.
The tree exists empirically - it is the most logical way to represent the pattern of similarity and difference in GULOP and all other genes and traits in animals. The evidence is the nested hierarchy of a broken gene.
The wall lizard did not develop NEW DNA information and you know it. The adaptation of organisms fits well with the historical account contained in the bible and offspring can inherit an adaptation.
You arranging DNA sequences in order and making up a story of how this came to be or why it exists is a fun pass time. However, the order that you place them in is not evidence for the story you make up.
First off, I don't appreciate you calling me a liar. Actually, after reading up on it to make this response, I see that the lab studies needed to determine whether the traits are plastic or programed by DNA have yet to be performed. So, in other words, both of us are wrong, and it has yet to be determined whether it is a result of mutations or not. If it is simply plasticity, then that would be an amazing unprecedented degree of plasticity never before seen in animals.
The sequences aren't arranged "in order". That implies that the sequences show a linear relationship. They don't. They show a nested hierarchy of similarity that can so far only be explained by descent with modification. No other process or form of creation ever devised makes this pattern. When humans create things, we reuse parts where we see fit, but that doesn't happen with animals. If God put a nested hierarchy of a broken gene in primates, but created us all separately, he's deceitful.
God isn't deceitful. you have invented a fairy tale to explain God's creation, your only guess is that God is deceitful Based on your imaginary story. God said he created the world in 6 days, that isn't deceitful. You have invented a fairy tale and now you have invented a deceitful God that isn't worthy of your worship and that let's you off the hook. Nice little package Marcus. However, there is only one truth.
"God said he created the world in 6 days, that isn't deceitful"
No, THAT is the real "fairy tale" here written by men in a desert tribe, that contradicts Gen 2. If true, it would mean that we see light from stars billions of light years away that never actually existed.
I'm sorry, but I don't think God actually wants ANYONE to believe that. If He does, then He's the sneakiest being to ever exist. The entirety of DNA evidence is only a piece of the puzzle of the reality discovered by science.
"The entirety of DNA evidence is only a piece of the puzzle of the reality discovered by science. "
The discovery of DNA is the reality of science. The Fairy tale of common ancestry is created by Evolutionists to support Evolutionism.
there is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. If you believe that, you show what a superficial understanding you have. No serious bible scholar would ever try to defend that position.
The "Fairy tale" of common ancestry is supported by the same DNA data used in paternity tests.
In Genesis 1, God makes the plants, THEN animals, THEN man and woman.
In Genesis 2, God makes man of the dust, THEN the plants, THEN the animals (out of the ground) and has Adam name each one as they are made, THEN makes Eve.
Contrary to your claim, MANY serious bible scholars have suggested that these stories are contradictory because they are thought to have been written by different groups.
Using the DNA that scientists have discovered to prove paternity is completely in line with the account of creation given By God. the Fairy tale about one animal gradually changing into another kind of animal over billions of years is not. Science agrees with God's account. Evolutionism is a Fairy tale.
Genesis one and two, in very basic terms , are two different encounters between God and Man. in One he is giving an overview in two he is zooming in on details of one day.
"in One he is giving an overview in two he is zooming in on details of one day." Then why do the order of events differ?
The difference between paternity tests and phylogenetic analysis of relatedness of organisms is only a matter of degree (i.e. quantitative difference and not qualitative). God didn't have to make it that way, but evolution did.
Do you believe that we see the light from stars that never existed billions of light years away ?
"God didn't have to make it that way, but evolution did."
Of course evolution did, the fairy tale was built around the observations.
Actually I do not know what the deal is with the size of the universe or the time for light and energy exchange. However, both models, creation and big bang, have problems with the size of the universe.
"Of course evolution did, the fairy tale was built around the observations."
Yes, that's right. Evolution is based on facts, like all scientific theories. Additionally, it could not be any other way. If it had been, then evolution wouldn't have made sense as an explanation.
What problems does the Big Bang have with the size of the Universe? Are they even remotely as big as the problem of Young Earth Creationism (light from stars that never existed)?
Built around observations and based on facts are very different. Evolutionism is a fairy tale built around observations Gravity is a theory based on facts.
Actually the big bang and YEC have pretty much the same problem. The Universe isn't old enough to account for the observations made.
Oh, so the problem for YEC is 1 million times worse than for the Big Bang. I haven't heard anyone claim that the universe isn't old enough for the Big Bang. Actually, all the data I've seen seems to be pretty consistent with the Big Bang.
Guess what, facts in science are merely confirmed observations, so we're talking about the same thing. In science there's no difference between "built around observations" and "based on facts".
Just like Einstein made up his theory of gravity. The theory that mass curves space around it is based on observations of the behavior of planets, along with some extrapolation. He doesn't know that space actually does this, he just made it up because it fits the evidence and explains it. Evolution is no different. The theory of evolution is based on observations like "Marcus looks like a monkey" among a million other more convincing ones. Check out talkorigins "29+ Evidences of Macroevolution".
Talk origins? come on Marcus. I'll "check out" talk origins when you check out the discovery institute. I thought better of you. Next you will tell me that Britney Spears is an amazing artist. Just check out MTV.
I have checked out the Discovery Institute, and I find their arguments to be lacking. If you disagree with any information on talkorigins, check their sources for yourself. They usually cite peer reviewed journal articles. You can read the articles for yourself and see if you agree with their conclusions. I've read creationist articles and after I'm done poking holes in their flimsy arguments and data they tend to look like Swiss cheese. Cite best article you can find and I'll show you.
Wait, you will spew the party lines of Evolutionism and use that as your source to poke holes in Creationism. Pointless. 700+ scientists have signed a dissent from Darwin statement.
Mutations give advantages which natural selection acts upon and causes the new feature to continue through descent.
If organisms loose their ability to produce vitamin C it is a disadvantage not an advantage.
Name a precursor of one animal. Being that you have billions to choose from this should be no problem.
First, I'll poke holes in creationist articles using hard facts. Second, out of the 700+ "scientists" dissenting from Darwin, most aren't scientists, most of the rest aren't from fields remotely related to evolution, and many of the few who are actually accept evolution, but simply think that natural selection isn't the only factor in it. DonExodus2 has a great video where he actually contacted these people. Over 1000 scientists named "Steve" have signed a letter in support of evolution.
Here's a link to DonExodus2's video debunking the dissent from Darwin list:
watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM
He's a Christian, by the way.
Evolution is a theory BASED on facts. Here's a fact for you: The 6th laryngeal nerve goes from the brain, down the neck, into the chest, under the aorta, and then back up the neck to the larynx. It's ridiculously unnecessarily long in giraffes. In fish, the homologous nerve simply goes straight to a gill. Explain this fact without using evolution. Explain GULOP.
Losing the ability to produce vitamin C is not a disadvantage in a primate that eats mainly fruit, which the common ancestor of all primates with a non-functional GULO would have been. It would in fact be advantageous or at the least neutral.
Every fossil ever found is either a precursor to an animal or a cousin of a precursor. Archaeopterix, various hominids, proto-horses, early amphibians, Ida, the new dinosaur found among the bird ancestors that has a nub for a thumb. I could go on and on.
I think it's more likely that GULOP was basically neutral in early primates, since they had more than enough vitamin C from their diets. T=SInce it was basically neutral, there was no selection weeding out the initial mutations that knocked it out. There is a small disadvantage, though to making the protein GULO (as well as vitamin C itself) when it isn't needed.
So basically you are saying that it just happened and there is no real reason why natural selection would have selected it. You have also conveniently left out the disadvantage of not producing vitamin c when it is needed( diet change for various reasons)
I can not answer questions that start with "why did God" and that is what you want to know.
Mutations are random. Any gene not under selection to maintain it will, given time, inevitably mutate to become non-functional. Do you know of any small tropical monkeys that ever run out of food sources rich in vitamin C? They'd starve first. Know of any wild monkeys who ever got scurvy despite their inability to produce vitamin C?
I don't want to know "why did God". I want an explanation - HOW could X have possibly happened according to your theory?
OK we are talking imagination. You imagine that things evolve. I imagine that God has a purpose for creating the universe the way he did. Although something might seem illogical or imperfect to you, or both of us, I imagine that God is so "smart" that if he had created the universe in any other way it would have turned out worse. Why do things exist the way they do? I do not know and neither do you. I read the bible and look for evidence, you look at the universe and make up stories.
Oh, so you admit that creationism is incapable of explaining anything about life or making any testable predictions then.
I'm not talking imagination here, I'm talking about scientific theory - in other words, an explanation. A scientific theory explains a broad set of phenomena. These phenomena make more sense when seen through the light of the theory.
The 6th laryngeal nerve and GULOP make perfect sense if they are the result of evolution, but not if separately created by a perfect being.
As I have already shown you GULOP does not make "perfect sense" in light of natural selection, and in fact shows a decrease in function.
Predictions can be made when taking the historical account from the bible. We can predict that organisms will reproduce the same kind of organism, every time, and they do. we can predict that human civilization should be around 6-10 thousand years old, and it is, We can predict Global layers of sediment with fossils, they are found.
You don't actually think that natural selection is the only factor in evolution, do you? As I've already said, mutations can knock out a gene that is neutral at the time of the mutation. Descent with modification explains the pattern (a nested hierarchy) of similarity and dissimilarity in this broken gene. Creationism doesn't.
Evolution also predicts organisms reproduce the same "kind" -vertebrates make vertebrates, mammals make mammals, etc. Creationism doesn't explain the SEQUENCE of fossils.
Evolutionism "predicted" after it was known scientifically. the Bible claimed it before it was "known".
99.75% of all organisms fossilized are those that could not escape the murky sediment laden flood. The Cambrian "explosion" is better explained by the Bible than gradualism. But then again I am not looking for explanations, only evidence.
Yes, evolution is based on the facts. It is also a cohesive, natural, testable explanation with specific predictions about future finds that are constantly being confirmed.
If "99.75% of all organisms fossilized are those that could not escape the murky sediment laden flood", then why is it that ALL mammals and birds (aquatic, terrestrial, burrowing, and aerial) are only found in the top layers, while the bottom layers contain only the most primitive organisms (without even any jawed fish)?
If the Cambrian explosion is explained by the Bible, then where are all the birds? They were supposedly created on the same day as the fish, but the earliest bird fossils are only ~120 million years old while the Cambrian occurred ~530 million years ago.
The organisms in the Cambrian level were the least able to escape the catastrophe that buried them alive. The lack of adequate precursor fossils to the Cambrian pretty much shoots the crap out of gradualism.
Let's see-God saw, because he's omniscient,omnipresent,and omnipotent, BEFORE he created me, that I would deny him and go to hell.Then he created me anyway. OUCH!Got it.But, you say I have free will, so I can accept Heysoos and go to heaven...even though God saw I would go to hell.Otherwise, those who go to hell are PREDESTINED to perish, as god has seen it and nothing can change that.One or the other has to be true, Ace-both cannot be true at the same time.Good luck with that.....
So, if God saw I would go to hell before he created me, then I have the ability to accept christ and go to heaven? That the way it works? I can do something other than what god has forseen? Explain how that is, exactly. Easy, INDEED.....You're dancing, friend. Everyone reading this can see that, too.
Dancing? this is so basic and easy to understand that it is silly that you don't get it.
1. you do what ever you want
2. God exists outside space and time and knows the end from the beginning
3. just because he knows, he didn't force you to do it.
Suppose you could see the future and the past. Does that mean that you caused Michael Angelo to paint the Sistine chapel? of course not. Anyway you can barely write a sentence, how could you make him paint
You did not answer the question; instead, you made a lateral sidestep and posted a response which had nothing to do with the original question.I ask AGAIN-How, EXACTLY, can I choose Christ and go to heaven, if God saw before he created my soul that I would deny him and perish?Explain how I have free will!What's "silly" (your words, not mine) is that you choose evasive tactics and personal insults rather than well thought out replys.....it's telling on you, too! Are my sentences getting better?
1. God Knows. That doesn't mean that you can't choose it just means that God knows what you are going to do. The outcome is already known to God. God knowing the outcome has no affect on your choice.
2. If God does not affect you choice then it is completely your choice whether God knows or not.
3. If God didn't know would that make it your choice? I don't understand how God knowing makes any difference.
By your "loving" God knowing the ultimate fate of my soul, one thing is CERTAIN- I will never make any choice other than that which he has forseen. If he saw me going to hell, then hell it is, and I will never end up anywhere else.This means that I DO NOT have free will, as my destiny has bee PREDETERMINED.PRE (as in before)DETERMINED(as in known).I was created to go to hell, because I cannot make a choice other than what god has seen.God created me to make that choice, as it's part of his plan.
Fossils do come with tags - their skeletons indicate their relationships to other animals, just like the skeletons of living animals do. Horses have a history that includes hoofed animals that, based on their skeletons, are obviously related to horses - gradually losing toes and enlarging a single toe on each foot. Your explanation has something to do with God being mysterious. He sure must have a strange sense of humor to plant such evidence as fodder for us evolutionary biologists.
Sorry, accidentally clicked thumbs down, when I MEANT to click thumbs up, to undo that -1 that your comment for some reason had. :(
I'd like to add though that SOME Buddhists are theists, while many are atheists - as I understand it, Buddhism doesn't inherently claim to know either way.
Then I don't understand. I agree with both of your points, as you can see in the video. In the video, I said that people shouldn't mock other people's deeply held religious beliefs and that atheists (myself included) are guilty of this as well as theists.
On a separate point, evolution is a scientific theory and not a religious belief - plenty of theists accept evolution. Actually, I spent some time in the video on this point as well.
So, why did you think it was stupid if you agreed with it?
there is a passage or two in Proverbs that Jesus alludes to when he warns his followers not to cast pearls before the dogs, lest they trample them under foot- i and many like me have made it a point to ignore what the masses jump all over in the debates where good information on both sides of the debate gets trampled by people who are more interested in getting the glory for "winning" a debate than to make the conversation progress into something new-
good video- i think it will be one that atheists and theists can point to when the debates become ad-hominem- may i recommend something that i havent seen around youtube?- make some videos regarding the mysteries of evolution- along a sort of self-critiquing line- stuff that evolution has yet to explain or fully clarify- (like origins, punctuated equilibrium v.phyletic gradualism, and other debating points between evolutionists) ...
The origin of life is a biochemistry issue, not an evolutionary one. I've actually seen a few good videos on YouTube addressing how life could've originated - there are a couple in my favorites.
I touched on punctuated equilibrium and gradualism in my 3rd video on Evolution: understanding the debate. It's pretty clear how a patchy fossil record and a variable rate of evolution can make gradual changes appear to jump. I could repeat this in a separate video.
I will check out those videos- i m not as familiar with the history of evolutionary thinking or with the debates and challenges that have arose over time (like P.E.). These are some things your probably much more familiar with and could continue to discuss- theyre are plenty of I.D. V Evolution debates going on here within Youtube- are theyre any evolutionary debates going on- are there any factions within the evolutionary community?
Well, there are a few debates within the evolution community, but they are mostly debates about the relative influence of one thing over the other. For instance:
-the relative importance of genetic evolution vs. developmental plasticity in major changes
-the relative importance of regulatory genes versus coding genes
-the relative importance of geographic barriers vs. selective pressure for speciation
-the relative importance of natural selection vs. genetic drift
Sorry if you find me boring - different strokes for different folks I guess. Is that why you think the video is stupid or did you disagree with some point I made in it?
I disagree... Not so far as respect, but so far as creationists don't care about evidence, it seems the only way for them to change is for them to realize how completely foolish holding by it is, and the best way to do that is to make it socially unacceptable through various mocking. Not to their face of course, just in passing. I believe it was DonExodus (or perhaps DPRjones) that had a video on this subject.
I see that there are situations where mockery is appropriate, but not when you're trying to have a serious discussion with someone. Mockery can make a person get defensive and cause the discussion to deteriorate.
I think some creationists do care about evidence, especially those of the ID variety. There's a reason that most of the IDers don't think that Earth is only a few thousand years old. If they understood evolution, many of them would feel the same about miraculous creation events.
"I think some creationists do care about evidence,"
I'm not sure. I think the reason IDers generally reject young earth is because it's so completely absurd they know that most college grads won't buy it. I think the IDers just move it up to another plane - and many use the same arguments that YECs use.
My honest feeling is that IDers don't care what the truth is - I mean it. I agree most don't seem to understand evolution, but I don't know that that knowledge would make a difference.
Behe comes to mind, who has said that he accepts common descent because of the overwhelming evidence. YouTuber stevebee92653 comes to mind also - he accepts that Earth is old and that life is related, he just doesn't think there's enough evidence for complex traits evolving without guidance from a designer.
Certainly, the threshold may be high, but there's plenty of evidence that many IDers accept much of what we know from science. I think "macroevolution" is just a bit harder to grasp.
I vacillate wrt to Behe. The guy's clearly smart enough to get it - and yet ... the IC argument smacks me of dishonesty - particularly how it's applied. Unless you can show the exact pathway that evolution did take and prove that that's the path it took, then evolution can't possibly explain this combined with ....
I agree that their arguments are bad. I've got to believe that many of them are open to criticism and just don't realize how bad their arguments are.
I bet that the people we help the most aren't the people with strong opinions who make lots of angry posts and videos. I bet the ones we help the most are those who don't have strong opinions about it and don't make angry posts or videos. They might come across a video or post and think, "You know, he's got a point", and never say anything.
Well said. The human race is lost without meaningful dialog. Religion too often gets in the way of that. Any kind of beligerance does, whether it comes from a theist or an atheist. I'm a theist, but not a fundementalist. I respect what you do and I respect science. Keep up the good work.
My experience is that there are two ways to deal with the likes of Miles Bateman; block them the very second it becomes apparent that they are not going to adhere to basic unspoken rules of debate like, you know, not taunting, or allow them to set the rules of conduct and play the game by those rules instead. One path ends it, the other opens it up to the level where the antagonists' true colors can be revealed for all to see. The latter is what I prefer. I'm not hindered by standards....
"Can't we leave religion out of serious discussions?" Agree 10000%
I dislike to generalize people based on some broad throw of a net such as Christian, Muslim, Atheist. All individuals should be treated as such with individual thought. Perhaps once we can do this we'll be in a better position to break down these dividing barriers that are just words.
Actually, I said that we should leave the MOCKERY of religion out of serious discussions. Serious discussions about religion are fine except for during Thanksgiving dinner (and in similar situations).
I think you got that I meant that in the video and just misquoted.
No offense, EB, but when I get attacked from left field I respond in kind. If my attacker mocks my personal leanings then the same is to be expected from myself. I personally don't see it as sinking to any particular level, since I don't claim to adhere to standards of conduct that are considered proper to any one particular group of men. You have your standards, Miles shaves and looks into his eyes and is ok with the fact he helped kill children, I taunt and insult the wives of pompous men.
Same thing I did when I got rid of my hair. No better way to show you are concerned about others than to donate what others would just assume needs to be thrown in the trash.
I don't know if the number is quite that high in the US, Vogter2100. There are quite a few that consider themselves "nonreligious", but I bet a bunch of them are actually deists. I'm sure that more are atheists than will admit it, but I haven't seen anything that makes me think it's quite 16%.
Actually the latest polls I've seen 15-16% are the "nones" which includes atheists, agnostics, free thinkers, humanists, and those who do not associate with any religion (Note these are NOT christians that don't associate with a denomination, they are a separate line.)
" MAKING GODS OF THE GAP SMALLER ( SHRINKING PENIS / SPERM RESERVOIR) " -- EUGENICIST / DARWINIST
cba712 1 week ago
@cba712 The point you are trying to make in these 2 posts is very unclear.
EvoBiologist 2 days ago
"IF YOU HAVE GODS OF THE GAPS VIEW OF RELIGION" --DARWINIST ON YOUTUBE
cba712 1 week ago
Well said....
ToeKnee4156 2 months ago
If you have a belief, then in all good consciousness you must proselytize that belief. Otherwise your not contributing. What is the point of your existence if you're not an influencial member of society? Everything beyond your interaction is purely subjective & for your delight only..
MrLittletomdj 4 months ago
@MrLittletomdj absolutely!
EvoBiologist 4 months ago
love your video keep making them.
kendraiscoolio 2 years ago
off topic a bit - Watch 'That Mitchell and Webb Look: Proof of no God'. Hilarious, unless god didn't imbue you a with sense of humor.
kabloozie 2 years ago
maybe this is better in a PM. I tend to be rather long winded.
THEBEEF7054 2 years ago
it may affect her decision before her life is actually in danger ie. before the tube ruptures. my opinion is that in a situation like that, you need to take care of it as soon as it is detected.
I wasn't making an excuse with misscarriages, I was just stating that even the human body will reject a child if it's life is in danger.
laws are funny things sometimes. we really can't say what would and wouldn't be allowed. and enforcement would be an issue as well.
THEBEEF7054 2 years ago
That's fine, but does that mean that it should be a law not to kill yourself? Masturbation goes against the Bible, but does that mean we should make it illegal?
Also, if it's God's choice when we die, then what gives doctors the right to use machines, medicines and surgery to prolong life, especially when the patient doesn't want it?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Your mental masturbation I believe qualifies as a crime against humanity.
GoodScienceForYou 2 years ago
Never took one myself. Learned everything from my family.
Foxcanine1 2 years ago
I think in regards to euthanasia that people should be allowed to do with their bodies what they wish. If modern medicine is the only thing keeping them alive, then this is even more true. Moral or not, it seems to me to be their decision.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
True such things like murder and stealing can use the same arguments. I feel though that abortion is something that is more managable in a society. Where stealing is mostly greed and wealth, and murder can be jealosy or any number of causes, abortion I feel is mainly due to lack of sex education.
Foxcanine1 2 years ago
My point was that pro-life isn't the only issue.
So are you against euthanasia in all cases? What about someone being kept alive by machine? Can they be unplugged? What if the only reason they are alive is because of other modern medical interventions?
If you are against stem cell research, does that mean that you are also against infertile parents using fertility clinics to conceive?
What has Obama done wrong in regards to abortions? He still wants to work to decrease the number of them.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I should be more spefic myself. When I say euthanasia I strictly mean the death penalty. What do they do in the fertility clinics that have to do with destruction of stem cells.
Foxcanine1 2 years ago
Fertility clinics produce more embryos than are implanted. Stem cell research is done from these extra embryos that would otherwise be thrown away.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Do embryos have a shelf life if so, how long if not why throw them away.
Foxcanine1 2 years ago
I also agree on euthanasia but as for stem cell I would have more struggle with. If it has no need to use it( I have heard that they can use adult stem cells) than I would encourage the latter poccess and try to forgo the former.
Foxcanine1 2 years ago
53% is much lower than in the past (in 1958 it was 77%), and is pretty consistent with other polls in recent years. Most people don't trust atheists.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
there are actually positive reasons for abortion. the body actually aborts pregnancies all the time (miscarriages) because of heath issues. selective abortion also has its positive uses. a situation called ectopic pregnancy and commonly known as tubal pregnancy can be life threatening to the mother and is almost always fatal to the fetus (only one sketchy story have I heard where a child actually came from this). the risk of ectopic preg is heightened by certain medical conditions contd..
THEBEEF7054 2 years ago
PCOD (Poly-Cystic Ovarian Diseas) along with indometriosys. my wife suffers from both. they cause blockages in the fallopian tubes which the egg can't pass by but sometimes the sperm can because of size. if this fertilized egg developes uninterrupted in the fallopian tube, it will eventually rupture and immediate sugery is necessary. this also causes other problems depending on the condition of the patient. my wife only has one fallopian tube, if that one had to be removed, she would contd.
THEBEEF7054 2 years ago
go into early menapause. (a side note is that her tube was removed because of issues with indometriosys, not tubal pregnancy) my wife is 30 and if she were to go into menapause, she would have two choices, go on hormone pills or shots, or risk early osteoperosis.
my point to all of this is that if abortion is outlawed (illegalized) then it won't even be an option for my wife if she needs it. I don't agree that abortion should be for someone that made a bad choice. contd...
THEBEEF7054 2 years ago
just to throw this out, I am a christian (though I accept evolution and other scientific theories) and I have been on the other side of the coin as far as the abortion issue. my wife and I adopted our daughter around last christmas
given our options, adoption was pretty much the only way for us to have children.
sorry for the rant but this has become a touchy issue for me due to my wife's situation. also, my spelling is horrid on some of the medical terms, I am not in the medical field.
THEBEEF7054 2 years ago
Hence the hesitation on the best course to solve the problem. Because I do see it as a problem.
Foxcanine1 2 years ago
I will admit myself that when topics like this arise I really have to struggle with a desicion. This is definitly an area were christian values of my past still play a major impact in my thinking. Thus that I can really never become pro-choice. However, I do question wether laws will actually play a major part in decreasing abortions or if they will merely just cover the problem up. Making it so abortions will just be taken underground where procedures could also harm the mother. Continued >>>
Foxcanine1 2 years ago
"a religious candidate will more than likely have the same values I do"
I think most people think the same way about that that you do, which is why they won't vote for an atheist. Others probably wouldn't just base their decision on the abortion issue, though. Many people think atheists must be immoral since we don't believe God will punish us for misbehaving.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I'm curious. when you say for pro-life do you mean he would create laws to inhibit abortion or rather he would use education and such or both. Or something method I missed.
Foxcanine1 2 years ago
I agree, Dawkins & Hitchens can be pompous jerks sometimes.
A 2007 Gallup poll asked people if they would vote for a person for president if they had a certain trait. 5% said they wouldn't vote for a black person. 4% wouldn't vote for a Catholic. 43% wouldn't for a homosexual. 53% wouldn't for an atheist. We are the most mistrusted minority in the US.
e.g. TheFightingAtheist has some videos about how a Christian family won't let their son play with his son because he (not his son) is atheist.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Thanks, and I agree with all your points. You seem pretty decent yourself.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I agree, pop0it0rocket. Christians get their share as well. I just think that atheists get more than their share, and somehow it's acceptable in mainstream media sources and for public figures to bash atheists, but not Christians.
When was the last time you heard Christians compared to any bloody dictators?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Hi Marcus. Well said. btw, Richard Dawkins is my favorite atheists. He's a good man.
NeoPsiTom 2 years ago
I like Dawkins too, even if he does come across as a bit pompous at times.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I really loved your clip sooo much, soo good, id love to say it was the devil wearing a red shirt in human form, misleading everyone else.
Keep up the vids! ;D
ranasingh 2 years ago
Thanks ranasingh, I appreciate it, though I'm not sure why you'd want me to be the devil, misleading everyone.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
on a reply so fit, that the devil himself would make! Makes me like the clip even more :D
ranasingh 2 years ago
Oooo. You had me up to your afterthought. I can only hope it was a poorly delivered joke.
Taking the colloquial definition of agnosticism is no less annoying to an agnostic than claiming atheism requires more faith than theism can be to an atheist.
The agnostic claim is that one cannot have knowledge about that which cannot be examined through natural means. It isn't fence sitting by a long shot, and in some sense is actually a more committed position than that of many atheists.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
No joke.
"The agnostic claim is that one cannot have knowledge about that which cannot be examined through natural means."
However, atheism and theism aren't about knowledge. They are about belief. I am an agnostic atheist. I believe there are no gods, but I don't think anyone can know.
My point at the end was simply - okay, so we agree that you can't KNOW whether there are gods or not, but which do you BELIEVE to be true based on current information? You can't claim you have NO information.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
"You can't claim you have NO information."
That may be true: eg the natural claims of existent religions clash with objective observation. But the set of things which could be supernatural and also true are infinite, even if every speculation a person has ever had about what they might be is wrong. As each individual claim is one out of an infinite set, they individually have a probability approaching zero... but I don't have enough information to give a probability to the overall set.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
cont...
In this situation, the question becomes a suspended bit, and for me it is just as intellectually dishonest to assume that bit is a no as you feel it would be intellectually dishonest to join a religion for purely social gain.
If ten people are in a room with a locked door, who has the most accurate idea of what's behind it? The ones who speculate a particular thing, the ones who speculate nothing, or the ones who admit that there isn't enough info to hold one idea as THE most likely?
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
I disagree with your analogy about the locked door. This is more like Russell's Celestial Teapot. Sure, it is conceivable that some complex being that cannot be or has not been detected in any way does exist, but what reason is there to believe such a thing? This is a situation with an unlocked door, where we can look inside and see that there is nothing, but some people claim that there is actually an invisible being inside that can't be seen, heard, touched, etc.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
"I disagree... what reason is there to believe such a thing?"
The same amount of reason to believe that there is no such thing.
So this is a locked door. As long as nothing comes out of that door, and you can come and go from the room through another exit... it just gives you a chance to daydream... but there is no reason to believe that your speculation of an empty room is any better than the guy who says it's a lion that can't open the door. They are effectively equal.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
"The same amount of reason to believe that there is no such thing."
So you have just as much evidence that magical superbeings exist outside of the material world as evidence that they do not?
If that is true then are you also agnostic about faerie creatures? They also magically conceal themselves. Leprechauns? Unicorns? I'm being serious here - what's the difference?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
"So you have just as much evidence that magical superbeings exist outside of the material world as evidence that they do not?"
Yes... zero is equal to zero.
"If that is true then are you also agnostic about faerie creatures?..."
Yes, the set of all supernatural creatures include those, as well as psychic plastic space frogs named Earl and an infinity of other things.
Now, if someone says, "A leprechaun wrecked my car.", that can be investigated, and experience suggests, proven wrong.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
I disagree with your first claim. There is ample evidence of the lack of magical beings - namely the lack of anything that obviously requires magic to explain it. Though I agree that there is zero evidence FOR magical beings.
So are you claiming that you think faeries and unicorns are just as likely to exist as not? You are not an "afaeryist" or "aunicornist"?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Okay, so you are saying that in regard to every God ever conceived, you are an atheist, but that you are agnostic in regards to the existence some undefined supernatural being that could theoretically be referred to as a "god"? This then comes down to an agnosticism about the existence of ANY supernatural forces, no? You don't lean one way or another in that regard? You don't have sufficient evidence to pick one or the other as more likely in your opinion?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
"Okay, so you are saying that in regard to every God ever conceived, you are an atheist..."
Not exactly. I eliminated them as a means of putting forward the argument. The point is, anything that cannot be investigated by natural means produces no information by which to make a decision.
Frankly, we could each easily define our chosen term such that it encompasses the other's position. What bugs me is that it sounded like you basically said, " tolerance... except for you guys."
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
I admit to being an agnostic, but I am also an atheist. My point in the video was simply that most people don't realize that agnosticism/gnosticism is about knowledge and atheism/theism is about belief. I think that most agnostics believe one or the other, but think that because they don't know for sure that they are agnostic.
Your point about the inability to investigate God by natural means still boils down to a question of the believability of the claims. Why should we believe in X?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I think part of the problem here, is that I don't think that belief and knowledge are so clearly defined that you can make the distinction that you are making. Every time I've gotten involved in a discussion of epistemology, it quickly sinks into a squable over colloquial uses, personal definitions and arbitrary technical designations. More often than not though, I find that when people think they know what knowledge is, they haven't really thought about it.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
I agree - the definition of knowledge is debatable, which is why it's so common to disagree on what an agnostic is. However, belief is much easier to define: what do you think (based on your experience and "knowledge") is most likely to be true? You must lean one way or the other even just a little bit - no?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
"what do you think is most likely to be true?"
I don't really like the word true either... but I'll humor you. I believe that the only thing you can trust is doubt. That as far as understanding ourselves and our environment science is the best game in town. I believe that speculations (both positive and negative) about the supernatural are on par with reading Daniel Steel novels, and therefore I actively oppose their intrusions into science and politics. I believe I'm agnostic.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
I agree - beliefs should stay out of science and politics. I'm not talking about either right now.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Mine, of course!
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
Evolutionism is not an explanation. It is a story created around observable facts. Naturally the story fits the observations being that the observations are the source of the myth.
like the dogma that says time + mutation + natural selection which is untestable.
Evolutionism is not science. you can't observe it, test it, or reproduce it.
Conservative Christians take more bashing in the media than anyone else.
no one is good.
Respect? like saying we base our belief's on bronze age texts.
mejc2 2 years ago
Yes mejc2, evolution, like every scientific theory, is a story (actually, an explanation) based on observable facts. Creationism, by contrast, is a story based on bronze age desert tribal stories and contradicts observable facts.
Evolution has been tested and is tested every day.
Conservatives are criticized, but Christians are usually criticized much less than atheists all over.
Are you claiming you don't base your beliefs on bronze age texts? How is pointing out that you do disrespectful?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Variation and adaptation are tested and observed every day. Evolutionism is a myth that has been woven of the fibers of the observable events. The myth of evolutionism and other myths needed to support it are what contradict the observable facts.
Reducing the most accurate ancient document in the world to "bronze age texts" is insulting.
mejc2 2 years ago
"bronze age texts" is a category of information to which the Bible belongs, along with the "bronze age texts" of other religions like Hinduism and the Babylonian pantheon. Even if the Bible is the most accurate ancient document, the Creation story in it is still part of a bronze age text. This story contradicts the age of the universe and the order of events as determined by independent information from every major field of science. The Bible itself is self-contradictory, in Genesis and the NT.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
What observable facts contradict evolution?
Are you referring here to descent with modification from a common ancestor, since you seem to be saying you accept evolution through natural selection on a small scale?
If you are, then this is well supported by genetic data, as well as the fossil record. My GULOP video would be a better place to discuss the topic.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Your GULOP video? The one where you propose that humans lost function? that is your evidence for organisms increasing in complexity and obtaining new organs limbs and biological systems? If you are proposing that as evidence of molecules to man evolution
1. It is change in the wrong direction
2. Nothing new arose
3. It is pure supposition that the similarity is from common descent.
facts:
we are losing species,languages, and culture, DNA is breaking down not getting more complex, etc.
mejc2 2 years ago
GULOP is rock solid evidence of common descent. It isn't just that humans have a non-functional version of GULO, and thus can't make vitamin C. Other primates have non-functional versions as well, and the pattern of genetic similarity in this gene forms a family tree. Propose an alternative explanation.
There are several modern examples of new structures evolving, such as Italian wall lizard cecal valves and bacterial digestion of nylon, pentachlorophenol, and citrate - and that's in decades.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
GULOP is evidence of GOLOP existing. there is no evidence that it came from any other organism only supposition. There is no tree, except in the mind of evolutionists.
There is no evidence that wall lizards developed new DNA to create cecal valves and no self respecting Biologist is making that claim. Adaptation to the environment is programed into the DNA of all creatures and the observations we make empirically support that claim.
mejc2 2 years ago
You can raise that breed of Italian wall lizard in a lab or wherever, and it will still have a cecal valve. That's genetic, & not simply a plastic environmental response. Environmentally induced changes aren't inherited by multiple generations of offspring, only genetic ones.
The tree exists empirically - it is the most logical way to represent the pattern of similarity and difference in GULOP and all other genes and traits in animals. The evidence is the nested hierarchy of a broken gene.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
The wall lizard did not develop NEW DNA information and you know it. The adaptation of organisms fits well with the historical account contained in the bible and offspring can inherit an adaptation.
You arranging DNA sequences in order and making up a story of how this came to be or why it exists is a fun pass time. However, the order that you place them in is not evidence for the story you make up.
mejc2 2 years ago
First off, I don't appreciate you calling me a liar. Actually, after reading up on it to make this response, I see that the lab studies needed to determine whether the traits are plastic or programed by DNA have yet to be performed. So, in other words, both of us are wrong, and it has yet to be determined whether it is a result of mutations or not. If it is simply plasticity, then that would be an amazing unprecedented degree of plasticity never before seen in animals.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
The sequences aren't arranged "in order". That implies that the sequences show a linear relationship. They don't. They show a nested hierarchy of similarity that can so far only be explained by descent with modification. No other process or form of creation ever devised makes this pattern. When humans create things, we reuse parts where we see fit, but that doesn't happen with animals. If God put a nested hierarchy of a broken gene in primates, but created us all separately, he's deceitful.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
God isn't deceitful. you have invented a fairy tale to explain God's creation, your only guess is that God is deceitful Based on your imaginary story. God said he created the world in 6 days, that isn't deceitful. You have invented a fairy tale and now you have invented a deceitful God that isn't worthy of your worship and that let's you off the hook. Nice little package Marcus. However, there is only one truth.
mejc2 2 years ago
"God said he created the world in 6 days, that isn't deceitful"
No, THAT is the real "fairy tale" here written by men in a desert tribe, that contradicts Gen 2. If true, it would mean that we see light from stars billions of light years away that never actually existed.
I'm sorry, but I don't think God actually wants ANYONE to believe that. If He does, then He's the sneakiest being to ever exist. The entirety of DNA evidence is only a piece of the puzzle of the reality discovered by science.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
"The entirety of DNA evidence is only a piece of the puzzle of the reality discovered by science. "
The discovery of DNA is the reality of science. The Fairy tale of common ancestry is created by Evolutionists to support Evolutionism.
there is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. If you believe that, you show what a superficial understanding you have. No serious bible scholar would ever try to defend that position.
mejc2 2 years ago
The "Fairy tale" of common ancestry is supported by the same DNA data used in paternity tests.
In Genesis 1, God makes the plants, THEN animals, THEN man and woman.
In Genesis 2, God makes man of the dust, THEN the plants, THEN the animals (out of the ground) and has Adam name each one as they are made, THEN makes Eve.
Contrary to your claim, MANY serious bible scholars have suggested that these stories are contradictory because they are thought to have been written by different groups.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Using the DNA that scientists have discovered to prove paternity is completely in line with the account of creation given By God. the Fairy tale about one animal gradually changing into another kind of animal over billions of years is not. Science agrees with God's account. Evolutionism is a Fairy tale.
Genesis one and two, in very basic terms , are two different encounters between God and Man. in One he is giving an overview in two he is zooming in on details of one day.
You're Welcome
mejc2 2 years ago
"in One he is giving an overview in two he is zooming in on details of one day." Then why do the order of events differ?
The difference between paternity tests and phylogenetic analysis of relatedness of organisms is only a matter of degree (i.e. quantitative difference and not qualitative). God didn't have to make it that way, but evolution did.
Do you believe that we see the light from stars that never existed billions of light years away ?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
"God didn't have to make it that way, but evolution did."
Of course evolution did, the fairy tale was built around the observations.
Actually I do not know what the deal is with the size of the universe or the time for light and energy exchange. However, both models, creation and big bang, have problems with the size of the universe.
mejc2 2 years ago
"Of course evolution did, the fairy tale was built around the observations."
Yes, that's right. Evolution is based on facts, like all scientific theories. Additionally, it could not be any other way. If it had been, then evolution wouldn't have made sense as an explanation.
What problems does the Big Bang have with the size of the Universe? Are they even remotely as big as the problem of Young Earth Creationism (light from stars that never existed)?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Built around observations and based on facts are very different. Evolutionism is a fairy tale built around observations Gravity is a theory based on facts.
Actually the big bang and YEC have pretty much the same problem. The Universe isn't old enough to account for the observations made.
mejc2 2 years ago
Oh, so the problem for YEC is 1 million times worse than for the Big Bang. I haven't heard anyone claim that the universe isn't old enough for the Big Bang. Actually, all the data I've seen seems to be pretty consistent with the Big Bang.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Guess what, facts in science are merely confirmed observations, so we're talking about the same thing. In science there's no difference between "built around observations" and "based on facts".
Fail - back to school for you.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Sorry Marcus you are wrong on this one buddy. (Notice my tact so I do not crush your self confidence)
2+2=4
that is based on observable facts.(philosophical and theoretical arguments aside)
"Marcus looks like a monkey, his ancestors were probably monkey people. "
That is a fairy tale built around observations. The fairy tale isn't based on facts. You don' t know who your ancestors are. You made up the story.
mejc2 2 years ago
Just like Einstein made up his theory of gravity. The theory that mass curves space around it is based on observations of the behavior of planets, along with some extrapolation. He doesn't know that space actually does this, he just made it up because it fits the evidence and explains it. Evolution is no different. The theory of evolution is based on observations like "Marcus looks like a monkey" among a million other more convincing ones. Check out talkorigins "29+ Evidences of Macroevolution".
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Talk origins? come on Marcus. I'll "check out" talk origins when you check out the discovery institute. I thought better of you. Next you will tell me that Britney Spears is an amazing artist. Just check out MTV.
mejc2 2 years ago
I have checked out the Discovery Institute, and I find their arguments to be lacking. If you disagree with any information on talkorigins, check their sources for yourself. They usually cite peer reviewed journal articles. You can read the articles for yourself and see if you agree with their conclusions. I've read creationist articles and after I'm done poking holes in their flimsy arguments and data they tend to look like Swiss cheese. Cite best article you can find and I'll show you.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Wait, you will spew the party lines of Evolutionism and use that as your source to poke holes in Creationism. Pointless. 700+ scientists have signed a dissent from Darwin statement.
Mutations give advantages which natural selection acts upon and causes the new feature to continue through descent.
If organisms loose their ability to produce vitamin C it is a disadvantage not an advantage.
Name a precursor of one animal. Being that you have billions to choose from this should be no problem.
mejc2 2 years ago
First, I'll poke holes in creationist articles using hard facts. Second, out of the 700+ "scientists" dissenting from Darwin, most aren't scientists, most of the rest aren't from fields remotely related to evolution, and many of the few who are actually accept evolution, but simply think that natural selection isn't the only factor in it. DonExodus2 has a great video where he actually contacted these people. Over 1000 scientists named "Steve" have signed a letter in support of evolution.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
lol, facts?
Name a fact of evolutionism.
one fact.
Not a supposition,
Not a conjecture,
Not an observation that makes you think evolutionism is probably true,
a fact.
Phd in genetics, chemistry, biology, molecular biology, Cellular biology, Biochemestry, Microbiology, Anthropology,
you're right they ain't scientists like you.
mejc2 2 years ago
Here's a link to DonExodus2's video debunking the dissent from Darwin list:
watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM
He's a Christian, by the way.
Evolution is a theory BASED on facts. Here's a fact for you: The 6th laryngeal nerve goes from the brain, down the neck, into the chest, under the aorta, and then back up the neck to the larynx. It's ridiculously unnecessarily long in giraffes. In fish, the homologous nerve simply goes straight to a gill. Explain this fact without using evolution. Explain GULOP.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Don exoducks is an idiot that's why I don't talk to him. the list has grown x7 since he did his video.
See your fact isn't about evolution it is just a fact. the flying spaghetti monster did it, evolution did it, same thing.
mejc2 2 years ago
Losing the ability to produce vitamin C is not a disadvantage in a primate that eats mainly fruit, which the common ancestor of all primates with a non-functional GULO would have been. It would in fact be advantageous or at the least neutral.
Every fossil ever found is either a precursor to an animal or a cousin of a precursor. Archaeopterix, various hominids, proto-horses, early amphibians, Ida, the new dinosaur found among the bird ancestors that has a nub for a thumb. I could go on and on.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
None of those fossils are precursors to anything.
Proto-horses. lol that is a good one. do they come with tags or do you make up these names as you go along.
Please tell me how losing the ability to produce vitamin c is an advantage.
mejc2 2 years ago
Making unnecessary proteins requires energy. If you are a tree-dwelling tropical primate, vitamin C is not an issue.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
come on Marcus. you are trying to claim that the energy needed to produce vitamin c is a disadvantage that natural selection would select for?
You never cease to disappoint me.
mejc2 2 years ago
I think it's more likely that GULOP was basically neutral in early primates, since they had more than enough vitamin C from their diets. T=SInce it was basically neutral, there was no selection weeding out the initial mutations that knocked it out. There is a small disadvantage, though to making the protein GULO (as well as vitamin C itself) when it isn't needed.
What's your creationist explanation?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
So basically you are saying that it just happened and there is no real reason why natural selection would have selected it. You have also conveniently left out the disadvantage of not producing vitamin c when it is needed( diet change for various reasons)
I can not answer questions that start with "why did God" and that is what you want to know.
mejc2 2 years ago
Mutations are random. Any gene not under selection to maintain it will, given time, inevitably mutate to become non-functional. Do you know of any small tropical monkeys that ever run out of food sources rich in vitamin C? They'd starve first. Know of any wild monkeys who ever got scurvy despite their inability to produce vitamin C?
I don't want to know "why did God". I want an explanation - HOW could X have possibly happened according to your theory?
I'll explain in more detail...
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
...okay, so here are a few premises, none of them requiring the question "why did God?"
-God is perfect
-God's initial creation was perfect
-kinds were created separately
-several mammal kinds exist
facts:
-the 6th laryngeal nerve only innervates the larynx, yet it follows a circuitous pathway looping around the aorta in every mammal
-changing this illogical configuration from a more perfect one would require VERY complex mutations
HOW MIGHT this occur starting with separate perfect kinds?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
OK we are talking imagination. You imagine that things evolve. I imagine that God has a purpose for creating the universe the way he did. Although something might seem illogical or imperfect to you, or both of us, I imagine that God is so "smart" that if he had created the universe in any other way it would have turned out worse. Why do things exist the way they do? I do not know and neither do you. I read the bible and look for evidence, you look at the universe and make up stories.
mejc2 2 years ago
Oh, so you admit that creationism is incapable of explaining anything about life or making any testable predictions then.
I'm not talking imagination here, I'm talking about scientific theory - in other words, an explanation. A scientific theory explains a broad set of phenomena. These phenomena make more sense when seen through the light of the theory.
The 6th laryngeal nerve and GULOP make perfect sense if they are the result of evolution, but not if separately created by a perfect being.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
As I have already shown you GULOP does not make "perfect sense" in light of natural selection, and in fact shows a decrease in function.
Predictions can be made when taking the historical account from the bible. We can predict that organisms will reproduce the same kind of organism, every time, and they do. we can predict that human civilization should be around 6-10 thousand years old, and it is, We can predict Global layers of sediment with fossils, they are found.
Evolutionsim is dying.
mejc2 2 years ago
You don't actually think that natural selection is the only factor in evolution, do you? As I've already said, mutations can knock out a gene that is neutral at the time of the mutation. Descent with modification explains the pattern (a nested hierarchy) of similarity and dissimilarity in this broken gene. Creationism doesn't.
Evolution also predicts organisms reproduce the same "kind" -vertebrates make vertebrates, mammals make mammals, etc. Creationism doesn't explain the SEQUENCE of fossils.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Evolutionism "predicted" after it was known scientifically. the Bible claimed it before it was "known".
99.75% of all organisms fossilized are those that could not escape the murky sediment laden flood. The Cambrian "explosion" is better explained by the Bible than gradualism. But then again I am not looking for explanations, only evidence.
mejc2 2 years ago
Yes, evolution is based on the facts. It is also a cohesive, natural, testable explanation with specific predictions about future finds that are constantly being confirmed.
If "99.75% of all organisms fossilized are those that could not escape the murky sediment laden flood", then why is it that ALL mammals and birds (aquatic, terrestrial, burrowing, and aerial) are only found in the top layers, while the bottom layers contain only the most primitive organisms (without even any jawed fish)?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
If the Cambrian explosion is explained by the Bible, then where are all the birds? They were supposedly created on the same day as the fish, but the earliest bird fossils are only ~120 million years old while the Cambrian occurred ~530 million years ago.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
The organisms in the Cambrian level were the least able to escape the catastrophe that buried them alive. The lack of adequate precursor fossils to the Cambrian pretty much shoots the crap out of gradualism.
mejc2 2 years ago
Let's see-God saw, because he's omniscient,omnipresent,and omnipotent, BEFORE he created me, that I would deny him and go to hell.Then he created me anyway. OUCH!Got it.But, you say I have free will, so I can accept Heysoos and go to heaven...even though God saw I would go to hell.Otherwise, those who go to hell are PREDESTINED to perish, as god has seen it and nothing can change that.One or the other has to be true, Ace-both cannot be true at the same time.Good luck with that.....
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
That is an easy one. We do not know what you are going to do. Choose life or death. God does. However he doesn't cause it.
mejc2 2 years ago
So, if God saw I would go to hell before he created me, then I have the ability to accept christ and go to heaven? That the way it works? I can do something other than what god has forseen? Explain how that is, exactly. Easy, INDEED.....You're dancing, friend. Everyone reading this can see that, too.
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
Dancing? this is so basic and easy to understand that it is silly that you don't get it.
1. you do what ever you want
2. God exists outside space and time and knows the end from the beginning
3. just because he knows, he didn't force you to do it.
Suppose you could see the future and the past. Does that mean that you caused Michael Angelo to paint the Sistine chapel? of course not. Anyway you can barely write a sentence, how could you make him paint
mejc2 2 years ago
You did not answer the question; instead, you made a lateral sidestep and posted a response which had nothing to do with the original question.I ask AGAIN-How, EXACTLY, can I choose Christ and go to heaven, if God saw before he created my soul that I would deny him and perish?Explain how I have free will!What's "silly" (your words, not mine) is that you choose evasive tactics and personal insults rather than well thought out replys.....it's telling on you, too! Are my sentences getting better?
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
OK here we go again.
1. God Knows. That doesn't mean that you can't choose it just means that God knows what you are going to do. The outcome is already known to God. God knowing the outcome has no affect on your choice.
2. If God does not affect you choice then it is completely your choice whether God knows or not.
3. If God didn't know would that make it your choice? I don't understand how God knowing makes any difference.
I think you are just mad that he knows.
mejc2 2 years ago
By your "loving" God knowing the ultimate fate of my soul, one thing is CERTAIN- I will never make any choice other than that which he has forseen. If he saw me going to hell, then hell it is, and I will never end up anywhere else.This means that I DO NOT have free will, as my destiny has bee PREDETERMINED.PRE (as in before)DETERMINED(as in known).I was created to go to hell, because I cannot make a choice other than what god has seen.God created me to make that choice, as it's part of his plan.
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
If God didn't know, whose choice would it be?
mejc2 2 years ago
Fossils do come with tags - their skeletons indicate their relationships to other animals, just like the skeletons of living animals do. Horses have a history that includes hoofed animals that, based on their skeletons, are obviously related to horses - gradually losing toes and enlarging a single toe on each foot. Your explanation has something to do with God being mysterious. He sure must have a strange sense of humor to plant such evidence as fodder for us evolutionary biologists.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Ouch.
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
Good video. Well thought out, concise, and right to the point.
I did stumble accross your video, 5 stars and subscribed to your channel.
Looking forward to going through the rest of your videos.
MultiHal 2 years ago
Much appreciated - dig your avatar.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Very well put. 5 stars and sub.
simonthesinner 2 years ago
Thanks, simon.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Nice message. Budhists are not theists though, just saying. ;)
diogopd 2 years ago
Sorry, accidentally clicked thumbs down, when I MEANT to click thumbs up, to undo that -1 that your comment for some reason had. :(
I'd like to add though that SOME Buddhists are theists, while many are atheists - as I understand it, Buddhism doesn't inherently claim to know either way.
Stegocephalian 2 years ago
Some branches of Mahayana Buddhism see Buddha as a divine godlike being. You are right that some Buddhists are atheists. Buddhism is pretty diverse.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
this video rocks.
The "soap opera" is quick entertainment.
But, a serious discussion is is far more interesting in the long run.
ndjarnag 2 years ago
""So you don't know if you are an agnostic or not then?"
Not sure... "
Made my night :D
ProcInc 2 years ago
Well said — I particularly liked the 'evil asshole' crux.
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
Then I don't understand. I agree with both of your points, as you can see in the video. In the video, I said that people shouldn't mock other people's deeply held religious beliefs and that atheists (myself included) are guilty of this as well as theists.
On a separate point, evolution is a scientific theory and not a religious belief - plenty of theists accept evolution. Actually, I spent some time in the video on this point as well.
So, why did you think it was stupid if you agreed with it?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Your line between 3:30 and 3:50 is brilliant!
Sort of like "I have evil assholed in my heart, therefore I am an evil asshole"
I love it!
BTW the most "Christian" person I know is a muslim from Egypt.
mafarmerga 2 years ago
Thanks mafamerga,
I've heard the argument before (I didn't invent it), but I'm pretty proud of my phrasing of it.
Ironically, some of the most "Christian" people I know are atheists, though I know some Muslim and Christian ones as well.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
there is a passage or two in Proverbs that Jesus alludes to when he warns his followers not to cast pearls before the dogs, lest they trample them under foot- i and many like me have made it a point to ignore what the masses jump all over in the debates where good information on both sides of the debate gets trampled by people who are more interested in getting the glory for "winning" a debate than to make the conversation progress into something new-
jesseakers 2 years ago
good video- i think it will be one that atheists and theists can point to when the debates become ad-hominem- may i recommend something that i havent seen around youtube?- make some videos regarding the mysteries of evolution- along a sort of self-critiquing line- stuff that evolution has yet to explain or fully clarify- (like origins, punctuated equilibrium v.phyletic gradualism, and other debating points between evolutionists) ...
jesseakers 2 years ago
I'm not sure what you mean exactly.
The origin of life is a biochemistry issue, not an evolutionary one. I've actually seen a few good videos on YouTube addressing how life could've originated - there are a couple in my favorites.
I touched on punctuated equilibrium and gradualism in my 3rd video on Evolution: understanding the debate. It's pretty clear how a patchy fossil record and a variable rate of evolution can make gradual changes appear to jump. I could repeat this in a separate video.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I will check out those videos- i m not as familiar with the history of evolutionary thinking or with the debates and challenges that have arose over time (like P.E.). These are some things your probably much more familiar with and could continue to discuss- theyre are plenty of I.D. V Evolution debates going on here within Youtube- are theyre any evolutionary debates going on- are there any factions within the evolutionary community?
jesseakers 2 years ago
Well, there are a few debates within the evolution community, but they are mostly debates about the relative influence of one thing over the other. For instance:
-the relative importance of genetic evolution vs. developmental plasticity in major changes
-the relative importance of regulatory genes versus coding genes
-the relative importance of geographic barriers vs. selective pressure for speciation
-the relative importance of natural selection vs. genetic drift
That's all I can think of
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Sorry if you find me boring - different strokes for different folks I guess. Is that why you think the video is stupid or did you disagree with some point I made in it?
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I disagree... Not so far as respect, but so far as creationists don't care about evidence, it seems the only way for them to change is for them to realize how completely foolish holding by it is, and the best way to do that is to make it socially unacceptable through various mocking. Not to their face of course, just in passing. I believe it was DonExodus (or perhaps DPRjones) that had a video on this subject.
borrofburi 2 years ago
I see that there are situations where mockery is appropriate, but not when you're trying to have a serious discussion with someone. Mockery can make a person get defensive and cause the discussion to deteriorate.
I think some creationists do care about evidence, especially those of the ID variety. There's a reason that most of the IDers don't think that Earth is only a few thousand years old. If they understood evolution, many of them would feel the same about miraculous creation events.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
"I think some creationists do care about evidence,"
I'm not sure. I think the reason IDers generally reject young earth is because it's so completely absurd they know that most college grads won't buy it. I think the IDers just move it up to another plane - and many use the same arguments that YECs use.
My honest feeling is that IDers don't care what the truth is - I mean it. I agree most don't seem to understand evolution, but I don't know that that knowledge would make a difference.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
Behe comes to mind, who has said that he accepts common descent because of the overwhelming evidence. YouTuber stevebee92653 comes to mind also - he accepts that Earth is old and that life is related, he just doesn't think there's enough evidence for complex traits evolving without guidance from a designer.
Certainly, the threshold may be high, but there's plenty of evidence that many IDers accept much of what we know from science. I think "macroevolution" is just a bit harder to grasp.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
I vacillate wrt to Behe. The guy's clearly smart enough to get it - and yet ... the IC argument smacks me of dishonesty - particularly how it's applied. Unless you can show the exact pathway that evolution did take and prove that that's the path it took, then evolution can't possibly explain this combined with ....
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
the near complete misrepresentation of evolution - "Everything needs to be in place or the whole thing is useless."
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
I'm not saying or even hinting that you should think other than you do, but I can't convince myself that these guys are even honest.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
I agree that their arguments are bad. I've got to believe that many of them are open to criticism and just don't realize how bad their arguments are.
I bet that the people we help the most aren't the people with strong opinions who make lots of angry posts and videos. I bet the ones we help the most are those who don't have strong opinions about it and don't make angry posts or videos. They might come across a video or post and think, "You know, he's got a point", and never say anything.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Great video!
It's nice to hear calls for rational, respectful discourse here on YouTube.
Stegocephalian 2 years ago
Well said. The human race is lost without meaningful dialog. Religion too often gets in the way of that. Any kind of beligerance does, whether it comes from a theist or an atheist. I'm a theist, but not a fundementalist. I respect what you do and I respect science. Keep up the good work.
woozlbug 2 years ago
Thanks - I appreciate that.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
My experience is that there are two ways to deal with the likes of Miles Bateman; block them the very second it becomes apparent that they are not going to adhere to basic unspoken rules of debate like, you know, not taunting, or allow them to set the rules of conduct and play the game by those rules instead. One path ends it, the other opens it up to the level where the antagonists' true colors can be revealed for all to see. The latter is what I prefer. I'm not hindered by standards....
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
"Can't we leave religion out of serious discussions?" Agree 10000%
I dislike to generalize people based on some broad throw of a net such as Christian, Muslim, Atheist. All individuals should be treated as such with individual thought. Perhaps once we can do this we'll be in a better position to break down these dividing barriers that are just words.
fractal420 2 years ago
Actually, I said that we should leave the MOCKERY of religion out of serious discussions. Serious discussions about religion are fine except for during Thanksgiving dinner (and in similar situations).
I think you got that I meant that in the video and just misquoted.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
No offense, EB, but when I get attacked from left field I respond in kind. If my attacker mocks my personal leanings then the same is to be expected from myself. I personally don't see it as sinking to any particular level, since I don't claim to adhere to standards of conduct that are considered proper to any one particular group of men. You have your standards, Miles shaves and looks into his eyes and is ok with the fact he helped kill children, I taunt and insult the wives of pompous men.
homeostasis4me 2 years ago
There is something to say for a bit of tit-for-tat. I don't begrudge you that. There are certainly gray areas with this sort of thing.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
you cut ur hair whY??? too many "u like jesus or zz top lines from people?
nice video
JJTecumseh87 2 years ago
I needed a trim. Also, I donated it to Locks of Love.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Same thing I did when I got rid of my hair. No better way to show you are concerned about others than to donate what others would just assume needs to be thrown in the trash.
ScientiaPerceptum 2 years ago
We're all agnostic! Yeah.
nebulajr 2 years ago
So you don't know if you are an agnostic or not then?
rabbitpirate 2 years ago
16% atheists in USA and the number is rising. In Denmark, where I live the number is WAY higher and funnily enough the crime rate is WAY lower..
Vogter2100 2 years ago
I don't know if the number is quite that high in the US, Vogter2100. There are quite a few that consider themselves "nonreligious", but I bet a bunch of them are actually deists. I'm sure that more are atheists than will admit it, but I haven't seen anything that makes me think it's quite 16%.
EvoBiologist 2 years ago
Some one here on YT posted the survey. I sure hope the survey is right ;-)
Vogter2100 2 years ago
Actually the latest polls I've seen 15-16% are the "nones" which includes atheists, agnostics, free thinkers, humanists, and those who do not associate with any religion (Note these are NOT christians that don't associate with a denomination, they are a separate line.)
religions pewforum org/affiliations
usatoday com/news/religion/2009-03-09-aris-survey-nones_N.htm
A4AgnstcFndmntlst 2 years ago
A4AgnstcFndmntlst : are there older surveys so one could make comparings?
Vogter2100 2 years ago