This has to be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard, it's hard to believe these people have PhDs.
Population growth rates have very obviously skyrocketed since the advent of agriculture. Even higher rates have been observed since industrialization.
~70,000 years ago, the human population underwent a severe bottleneck, reducing.
You can't just take an estimate of relatively modern population growth, even a conservative one, and extrapolate it to all of human prehistory.
Seeing you took time out of your day to respond to it, AND seeing you have now done it twice, i can safely conclude that a ad hominem is your best effort.
@jazzyhap Ok, let's start again. Take a bacterium. Bacteria double every twenty minutes (that is to say, their growth rate is 200%). After a year, there should have been 26280 generations of bacteria, and there should therefore be 1 x 2^26280 bacteria, or roughly, 1.17 x 10^7911 bacteria. if that doesn't show you why the video is logically invalid, I don't know what will.
With potentially half the world being women, and only half of them being able to bear children, then world population would double every 3 years.
That said, we are talking about looking into the past and seeing a 'regression', or less need of resources to support the population, than looking to the future, so, point debunked.
@jazzyhap That wasn't an analogy; why aren't there 1.17*10^7911 bacteria on the planet from a single parent after one year?
It's because populations fluctuate as supply and demand for resources changes. As humans mould their environment to suit them, there is more supply of resources, allowing for more demand.
The idea presented in this video means that in 500 years we should have a global population of 60.6 billion. That will not happen.
@jazzyhap Because if there aren't enough resources for people to survive, they don't. This is why there would never be 10^990 people on the planet, no matter what model you use - and that makes the logic of the pretend evolution model in your video ridiculous. If the population reached, say, 1 million and there weren't the resources to support more, the population would not keep growing. It's as simple as that.
@jazzyhap On the part about atheist morality, I find it incredibly offensive that you think atheists have no value for human life. I am an atheist and I value human life. There is your evidence that atheists value human life. People like Jared Lee Laughner are mentally unstable.
Atheist morality, sadly, you are in the minority, since I can use my posts for evidence to show that life, as atheists present to me, is no different that non-life.
Just look up my posts on the Atheist Illusion, 1 Question Every Intelligent Atheist Must Answer, and see for yourself.
@jazzyhap Abiogenesis does not mean that 'life is no different to non-life'. All it means is that life COMES from non-life. That's like saying coal is a tree because it comes from one.
@jazzyhap Right, I've watched a couple of your abiogenesis videos and I see a general picture.
First, you say life has never been observed to generate from non-life, and it hasn't, but it has been shown that under conditions that are believed to have been around on the early earth that the components of VERY basic life can spontaneously generate. Bear in mind that the life generated by abiogenesis would look very dissimilar to modern life. I think that covers my feelings.
What unbelieveable hokum! These charlatans are despirate to defend the bible as fact, Their evidence is simply not reproduceable outside their made up scenario.
That Jazzyhap et alia takes this as any sort of scientific evidence against "macro" evolution is just silly in the face of all collected evidence we have to date. Clearly too many people have no notion of what constitutes evidence and sound investigation.
The default scientific answer is "we don't know."
Not all nations TODAY have a positive growth rate, but as a whole, worldwide, it was recorded at 1.14%. Yes, nations had a NEGATIVE growth rate, but still, population as a whole increased.
Of course, nothing has ever been presented explaining the hypothesis of a 200,000 year old man getting to this point, even taking the growth rate down to .1% makes no sense. The only sensible time line for "our mankind" is 10,000 years.
Let me put this to bed one last time. 2 is s silly excuse, 4 is hilarious. Just because we keep changing the numbers does not mean the current age is wrong, lol.
So lets deal with a very common response here. 1 and 3. War, disease.
The answer is quite simple. Our current growth rate is 1.14%. Did war happen during that time? yes. Did people die of disease during that time? yes.
So at 1.14% we have that in account. Dropped it to 0.1%, and it still doesn't work, lol.
We have more powerful weapons today then back in the medieval days. But lets take the current growth rate and divide it by half, to allow for a harder time. 0.57%
Lets say that is too much, and say only half of that for a really really hard time. 0.28%
Lets say THAT again is too much, and say we want to allow for a really really really HARD time, we divide the growth rate in half AGAIN! 0.14%
Forget it, just make it 0.1%. And it is STILL insanely off.
The worldwide growth rate has varied greatly. You are unnecessarily restricting the growth rate to only positive values. This is a gross overgeneraliztion and demonstrably improper. if you allow for negative growth (easier when the world population is small and not sophisticated as today) the 10,000 years is not sufficient to account for current numbers.
2 isn't silly, the video makes claim that we should be plowing up bodies, but we know most (>99%) of bodies decay to non-recognition within 100 years.
4 isn't hilarious. The default answer of science is "we don't know" and whenever there is evidence to contradict, theories are thrown out, Part of scientific review.
1 + 3 - the worldwide growth rate has demonstrably varied from ~-60% to ~+100%. the formula in the video doesn't take this into account.
They dropped the growth rate from 1.14% to 0.1%, then took the 200k year old man, and divided it by half, and used only 100k years, ALL undercuts ANY compromise your presented, and the results are STILL ridiculous.
But, since you feel expert on the subject, give empirical evidence of a moment in world population, recorded, where the growth rated dropped 100%. Not a "hypothesis", EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
Our world population growth % includes every detail of what happened over that time. In past %'s, we can see a difference where our growth rate has increased with time. All of this is taken into account.
Still, if you take the current rate, divide it by half, divide it by half again, and divide it by half again, and it is STILL IMPOSSIBLE for humans to have started 100k years ago, much less longer.
You're wasting your energy. jayyhap has no interest in your analogies or your evidence. Both billymatronics and I posted a link to ShaneDK's channel and a video, over two months ago, in support of the very argument you have just presented.
Here:
watch?v=vNkKuz11tyE
jazzyhap simply doesn't get it. And it's unlikely that he ever will.
wow betty, macro-evolution is totally debunked, and you have descended to ad hominem level. And you are so scared that you are referring people to one of your brain washing videos that ignore empirical evidence, lol.
Evolution theory does not distinguish between "macro" and "micro" and for good reason. There is no reason to divide "kind" Horses and zebras look like the same kind, but there is less genetic difference between grizzly bears and chihuahuas than zebra and horse. Is this evidence that bears and dogs are of the same "kind"? or that zebras and horses are of different kind? "Kind" is clearly an artifice of creationism.
I think you should look at what constittues empirical evidence
Bacteria multiplies every 20 minutes, and humans take 9 months to have babies, so if we have 3 billion women having babies every 9 months, then in 3 years there would be 12 billion babies born.
Of course, if you took an actual world population growth rate of bacteria like we do humans, you would get the realistic numbers, and again, the unrealistic absurdity of macro evolution.
But if you are struggling to find evidence for evolution, then please, allow me.
Google PubMed home. Then in the website's search field, type in Evolution. You will notice that there are currently 254,749 peer reviewed papers on this subject. I'd imagine that this papers include millions of verifiable evidences in favour of the very thing you reject.
"macro" evolution is a term used only by creationists. There is massive amounts of peer reviewed papers supporting what creationists term changes in "kind" (also an exclusively creationist term.
Manatees came from a cattle-like ancestor. Bears came from a dog-like ancestor. Hippopotami came from an ancestor that also gave rise to horses. Humans from an ape-like ancestor. The fossil links are clear and pass peer review continuously.
ONLY creationists refuse to put the evidences together,
if science is wrong (which i doubt) about the age of the universe, and even if god existed, and came down from his little throne up in heaven, i would still detest religion, and god for that matter. why would a loving god create something that is so brutal, no matter how beautiful, as nature. i could go on for an age about why god is an SOB but i cba because religion is really not worth that much of my time.
I respect your beliefs, even though I do not agree with them. I am impressed that even though you do not believe in God, you even spoke on a hypothetical "if He did" and plainly said you would not worship Him. That I have to give respect to, even God said He rather people ran hot or ran cold.
Do you just give respect to whoever God tells you to respect, or do you choose for yourself? I wish in a lot of cases that religion was true, who wouldn't want to go to heaven? well, me actually, given that it would be full of christians saying 'i told you so' . but anyway, yeah i wish it was true, but sadly I'm not convinced, and never will be unless somebody provides overwhelming evidence which is equivalent or better than that of modern science. but thanks for the respect anyway.
I give respect to those who take responsibility for their own actions. I do not respect those who chose to live their life the way they want to, but then want to blame God for everything bad/wrong in their life.
I want you and everyone to go to heaven.
And evidence, I find all knowledge is based on unprovable forms, axioms, that we just accept to exist because we experience them. So when I experience God, there can be no greater evidence.
What utter tripe. Temples in Malta pre-date the pyramids by over 1,000 years. Why must these people perpetuate ignorance? Is that the only way to support their religious beliefs? This is just sad.
oceanrose12 : thats exactly what 'macro' evolution claims why dont u read a book...
How ironic! By this sentence alone I can see and tell that you have never read a book on evolutionary biology. Try to understand and explain the following subjects in relation to macro evolution:
1. ERV
2. Cytochrome-c
3. Vitamin C deficiency
4. Human chromosome 2
5. Ring evolution
6. The Lenski experiment (with bacteria)
7. Mitochondria
8. And check out talkorigins . org on observed macro evolution.
I'll be conservative. I am boiling water. I'll start with water at 0 degrees celsius. I'll put the pan on the stove. I'll wait one minute and it is one degrees celcius, I'll wait another minute and it is 2 degrees, another minute and it is 4, another and it is 8. The growth rate indicates it doubles every minute. THEREFORE! If I wait 60 minutes then the water has a temperature of: 2^60 = 1,152,921,504,606,846,976 degrees celsius.
I'll be liberal. Say there is only 1 man and 1 woman, with a growth rate of .1% [Current rate is 1.14%], and only start 100,000 years ago, even though MACRO teaches we started 200,000 years ago. That would make our current population 5.38 x 10^43.
But our current population is 6 Billion.
THEREFORE, man has not been around for 100,000 much less 200,000 years.
The growth rate is only valid within a limit time frame, like my water example. Only naive fools think they can use such a simple growth formula outside this limited time frame. Not any growth rate is valid over such time periods. Creationists are laughable, but I guess you already knew that. To illustrate this idiotic growth rate, try it with simple bacteria that multiply every hour or so. After one year: 2^(24 * 365) = 1,05e+2637 bacterial cells. Heffner and Baugh are idiots.
jazzy knows that a single value for a growth rate is incorrect. He knows that because we've told him many times. He also knows it because, presumably he has band investments, and has experienced the impacts of a global financial crisis.
Jazzy is clearly not very bright - he is unable to connect all that we have told him to reality. jazzy will bleat that this is an ad hominem, which it is, and it is ALSO a true and valid statement. Jazzy is simply unable to understand reality.
The ignorance of these fools is mind boggling. Creationists really make me question just how far humans have advanced as a whole. I'm almost embarrassed to be part of the human race. :oP
Evidence? He doesn't even show you what mathematical formula he uses to determine his experimental values for current population. He just puts some numbers up and doesn't explain the relationship.
I think he's using exponential growth. However, exponential growth only models population growth for a certain period of time, and then the population levels off or declines.
A more accurate model would've been logistic growth, which would have fielded more reasonable numbers.
Wow, who would have thought you would try to argure a ad hominem WITH an ad hominem.
Yea, I have deep respect for the intelligence I read here. What is the counter arguments?
One uses insults, one says they didn't show how it related well enough, and you bonzo, lol, you argue against ad hominems, using ad hominems, lol, and "SOMEHOW" that suggests the math is wrong.
This is just sad. FUNNY, VERY FUNNY, but I feel sad that this is your logic.
read my post again.. very carefully, sound out the big words okay?
Jazzy, take careful note of "here is the sylogism" - meaning, "here is the ad hominem sylogism" - meaning "I am going to show you why an ad hominem is a valid sylogism".
yes jazzy, I was not making an ad hominem at all, jazzy,.. .I was showing you the sylogism...
do you understand now jazzy? take your time. eveidently you are a bit slow on the uptake.
waht a moron jazzy, you have no idea what you just said.
Kshacklton said the assumption here is that the CHANGE is CONSTANT. you, being stupid, say the POPULATION stays the same..
sigh..idiot.
the RATE is what governs the POPULATION - ergo, if you have a nonzero rate, you EXPECT a population to change - you have simply reaffirmed kshackletons point, butyou are so incredibly ignorant that you have no idea!
1. varying population=nonzero rate
2. this model falsely assumes a constant rate - WRONG!
No....the evidence shows that the rate of population growth is not constant. It changes over time, and from place to place. Sometimes we see human populations shrinking [in some locales], at other times it remains fairly constant.
That fact alone completely debunks the ridiculous assertion put forth by the video.
Are you completely daft by accident, or is this a conscious effort at stupidity?
Read what I said again....I said that the rate of human population change has not been a constant. The rate at which the population has changed, has itself changed over time.
This is not at all the same as saying that the population has never increased; clearly it has.
Populations, humans included, tend to increase to the limits of space and food.
So you do believe the population has increased, you just have a problem with it debunking macro evolution, is that right?
If you go five days making no money, then the sixth day you make $350, and then on the 7th, you make nothing. You can say either 1, you had a good 6th, day, or 2- on average you make about $50 a day, or 3 - after taxes you made around $10/hr.
Or, 4th, How you would say it is, "you can not measure it, because the rate is not constant." lol
It's a plain fact that population has increased over time. The time being measured in tens of thousands of years at least, and the population going from a few thousand moderns some 70,000 years ago to the 6.5 billion which exist today.
There is nothing about this, or what is contained in the video that is even the smallest challenge to evolution.
Ask a math major, do SOMETHING proactive -clearly our attempts to educate you in limited posts is not working.
What you have just described is totally removed from logaritmic growth; logarithmic growth estimates the future, based on initial conditions. It is LOGARITHMIC, NOT LINEAR like your e.g.
This means P(t)~Po^(t*rate). you need a Po (the value at t=0) which =/= 0.
Jazzy, ANY accountant will tell you that you cannot apply a constant rate to, your investments. Why not? because the rates change.
What changes them? external forces.
So what can you do?
you can either - pretend that rates do not vary, and choose an appropriate rate - necessarily, this will NOT model the population growth accurately and will NOT necessarily be equal to the current-epoch rate.
or you can develop a more complex timevarying model that takes the variations into account.
Population growth always has been limited by resources. He's also using the modern population growth rate which is confounded by advanced medical science and agriculture. Prior to 1900s, population growth rate was much lower.
Also, if you were to extend that analogy on microorganisms, we would be swimming in the sea of microorganisms. Of course, their population is limited by resources and predators.
If you really believe in this creationist argument, then you are stupid.
Actually, even .1% population growth rate is not normally seen in nature. 0.1% is 1/10th of 1%, so that would be absurdly high for most animal species. It's extremely difficult to find a population of animals that have constant growth rate, and successfully adapted species tend to be in equilibrium (0% growth rate).
Also, you are taking diseases, famines and wars that played significant role in capping human populations for the last 200K years.
In fact, you seem to have some kind of idea that the population is always growing. That's hardly observed in nature. Like I said, successfully adapted species are at equilibrium. Most species have negative growth rate.
When there is limited resource, population stays constant. In fact, for a long time, human species haven't experienced any growth rate at all.
It was only when humans began cultivating domesticated plants and animals that we began seeing constant growth rate. Agriculture is the most significant factor here. It allowed large quantities of food to be produced from relatively small quantities of land.
Mass food production has only been around for 10K years. For most of human history, we were hunters and gatherers. We hardly observe any population growth among primitive, nomadic tribes.
So what makes you think that we had a constant 0.1% growth rate, which is ridiculously high rate in nature?
There is absolutely no justification for your assumption. That's because you are hardly educated in this matter. Do some research before making wild guesses.
1 We have plagues, war, famine, and tragic events in nature today. AND the growth rate is 1.14%.
2 You make hypothesis without evidence. Statements like "for a long time, human species haven't experienced any growth rate at all." Now where is the empirical evidence for this statement? It is easy to make up stories jamoond.
3 Do you not see the absurdity in saying man has been around for 200,000 years ago, but only 10,000 years ago did they decide, hmmm. Maybe we should try keeping food.
"Do you not see the absurdity in saying man has been around for 200,000 years"
The only difference between you and me is that I'm university educated and you are not. I have enough background in Anthropology to understand that Agriculture has only been around for 10K years. Without agriculture, it is impossible to have constant growth rate. We can see that from primitive, nomadic tribes that still exist in parts of Africa today.
Now, what sounds "absurd" and "ridiculous" to you isn't all that absurd and ridiculous in actuality. You are merely projecting your ignorance as fact. You are projecting some kind of notion that humans are inherently unique from other animal species that their population was unaffected by resources and environmental pressure for the vast majority of its existence. That's not the case. Agriculture has only been around for 10K years and it didn't come out of thin air.
I'm a student at the University of Toronto (ranked 25th best university). So it's not some uncredited university.
Also, you are arguing against facts. It is fact that the oldest archeological evidence of any form of agriculture is at around 10k years. It is also fact that primitive nomadic tribes don't have constant population growth.
Yes, stupidity does burn. At University of Toronto obviously.
To say nomadic tribes do not have constant population growth, and those with agriculture do would be very educational. All this time, and it took the University of Toronto to discover that sex education is worthless. You want to have kids? Don't have sex. Farm.
Sure they do. Just ask every family member who lost a loved one due to plagues, war, famine, and tragic events. Hey, even drug abuse is way up, and death related to drugs.
And there is no empirical evidence for .1%. No growth rate of humans has EVER been recorded to be so low. There is now empirical evidence for human growth rate to be anywhere near as low as .1%. I was just giving a broader spectrum for the macro hypothesis.
I also suggest you to research on the topics of population dynamics. I also suggest you to research and compare the impact of famine, war and disease in pre 20th century and post 20th century.
Ignorance is not a form of proof. You can't throw out your uneducated projections and assumptions as facts.
I could understand this argument if you was saying we wasn't human, but some half chimp neanderthal. But that is not what you are saying, you are saying full human beings went 190,000 years before someone decided to plant a tomato garden.
So to say .1% is ridiculously high, when today's growth rate is 1.14%, is not having any outlook on reality. Though I do find it funny that in dealing with the growth rate of humans you want to compare humans to what? Which animals in nature?
How many bacteria do you think you have in your stomach? more than one?
Using exactly the mathematics that your idiot uses above, I just showed you that you would should explode in a ball of bacteria in about 5 hours.
"empirical data"?? what, exactly, is empirical about it?!!
jazzy, if you're going to use big words, you should probably find out what they mean - really (and this goes for your misunderstanding of "ad hominem" too ... changing the subject - my ass!)
poor jazzy - mathematically inept aren't you? The reality is that a simply exponential algorithm does NOT work. To put your miniscule mind at ease, I did the Very Hard Sums for you, using the SAME GROWTH RATES as the moron above - i.e. 0.45% same result, just takes about 10 times longer - same result ;) for 0.1% after 1.5 months, you have 8.0e+14=0.8 kg - your stomach explodes the next day. for 0.45%; at 3.2 months, you have 4.8e+14=0.5kg after 8.2 months: 4.2e+37 =4.2e+22kg lol - hilarity!
I have subjected myself to jazzy's outstandingly inane videos, I have even challenged him to support his claims with documenary evidence, which he has not been able to supply me in the format i've asked (i.e. as a document, not a reference).
you say he's resistant to reason, and you doubt he's as stupid as he comes off? i do believe that makes no sense!
If stupidity is defined as a lack of knowledge, then clearly the remedy to stupidity is an increase in knowledge. Jazzyhap has been informed of his many errors by a great number of people. Yet he still denies that he has made an error. This leads me to conclude that he is simply being dishonest. Not an uncommon trait among creationists.
Oh! Well given that definition, I am obliged to consider jazzyhap to merely be stupid! And to think, this whole time I was merely treating willful creationist ignorance as a separate issue from stupidity. Hahahaha! Thanks bonzonobeans!
Actually, he's even worse than that - He's sending me emails in which he is being deliberately obtuse - and through it all, he's pushing an agenda, based on a single document, which he doesn't even own a copy of, much less read.
why does the world bother supporting such pointless wastes of space like this? Personally, if I knew jazzy was wasting my taxes, I'd sue the fucker, on the grounds that my money is being wasted.
Oh he's quite good at being obtuse. In fact, most fundamentalists are. Let me ask you a question: Do you find it as hilarious as I do, that most fundamentalist, NO, dare I say it, most theistic arguments are in fact convoluted attacks on reason itself?
I have talked with thesists that insist that science is biased because it addresses only the natural world, and not the supernatural world.
I have talked with thesists who insist that we should not even dare to enquire about the mind of god.
I have talked with thesists who willfully acknowledge that god is illogical, but that that is The Way Things Are - & that science is evil because it dares to enquire about the natural world.
Well deleting comments is really their only method of dealing with their critics. Still I suppose it's better than their old method: Burning people at the stake.
Hey there, check out the following video on Shanedk's channel:
/watch?v=vNkKuz11tyE
Here he tackles the problem of applying exponential growth to populations. He uses this creationist logic applied to bacteria instead of humans to explain this problem. I think he demonstrates rather well that exponential growth simply isn't possible when applying to populations.
I imagine that 400 years ago (when the internet was far from being developed, because lighting was thought to be cosmic farts from god, and not a grounding discharge of static buildup in frictionally-excited electrons in thunderclouds) I would be regarded as a heretic!
And jazzy wants to bring that back!!..
my head hurts from whacking it on the table... why won't they wake the fuck up?
Wow, stupid much? Did it ever occur to you that the reason why they wouldn't use the same numbers to determine the populations of the past is because the very factors that influence population growth such as availability of resources, medical technology, sanitation technology, and agricultural technology did not exist at all points in history? You really believe that farther into the past, where the technology was worse, that people are going to have an equal chance of survival?
this video is easy to understand for anyone with common sense. just look at the facts to get the truth. if anyone can explain how this doesn't make sense with facts to back it up i would love to hear them. otherwise quit saying how 'stupid' these guys are. please people search more for truth and stop conforming with all the b.s. you are told in school. if macro evolution took place where is the real proof for that? when has anyone ever seen a fish produce a bird? or a dog produce a horse?
and you, my mentally retarded waste of space, is why people laugh at creationists.
Hey!, don't get me wrong, it IS stupid to claim that a fish will produce a bird, or a dog produce a horse. It's just as stupid to try and pretend that this is what evolution claims.
Soooo, go out, pick up a book on what evolution is, educate yourself, and THEN ask a question ok? because at present, your understanding of what evolution is - is roughly equivalent to the mental capacity of a brick.
thats exactly what 'macro' evolution claims why dont u read a book and you will see that its still a theory which means it cant be proven. its all based off of micro evolution (witch does happen) but its full of unsound ideas and missing links. please reply when u have FACTS and not just a statement that shows me you dont agree with my views.
hmm, coming from a 27 year old - presumably educated by the redneck university of midwestern USA Evolution is stil a theory, which means it cant be proven? full of unsound ideas and missing links??
sigh - firstly, a theory is as good as it gets in science - you clearly don't have the capacity to know this. Secondly, it is so WELL VERIFIED, that in scientific circles, it is certainly not regarded as contentious.
And in this ad hominem response, was macro evolution addressed?
nope.
Am I the only one who notices this. I would love to go eat with bonzo just to watch the waiter/bonzo interaction.
w - Would you like to order some food?
b - First define what a "menu" is.
w - Well, um, its what lists the food that we sell here.
b - first, you must be some uneducated redneck to be waiting this restaurant, and you do not understand the scientific method, so give me a DEFINITION of a menu.
oceanrose12 : thats exactly what 'macro' evolution claims why dont u read a book...
How ironic! By this sentence alone I can see and tell that you have never read a book on evolutionary biology. Try to understand and explain the following subjects in relation to macro evolution:
1. ERV
2. Cytochrome-c
3. Vitamin C deficiency
4. Human chromosome 2
5. Ring evolution
6. The Lenski experiment (with bacteria)
7. Mitochondria
8. And check out talkorigins . org on observed macro evolution.
you cant observe macro evolution or it would no longer be a theory, when does any 1 kind of animal produce a different kind? never and it never has. u have to really open your mind my friend. i have read many books including darwins completely racist book origin of species by means of natural selection for the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life. that book gave hitler his motivation because he thought blond hair blu eyed people were the pure race. old white men keep this alive
oceanrose12, As to evolution: Please comment on the following: 1. ERV 2. Cytochrome-c 3. Vitamin C deficiency 4. Human chromosome 2 5. Ring evolution 6. The Lenski experiment (with bacteria) 7. Mitochondria 8. And check out talkorigins . org on observed macro evolution. As far any of Darwin's books being racist. Please list book, page number and - most importantly! - CONTEXT! Also realize that "evolution" and "social darwinism" [Spencer] have absolutely nothing in common.
As to "evolution" and "social darwinism" [Spencer]:
Tell me...what has the "gravity" of my remarks to do with, well, "gravity"?
Even though I used the same word - "gravity" - the one has nothing to do with the other.
The fact is that Hitler hated the jews because of a deep rooted religious(!) based hate against jews that already (and stil!)l exists for as long as (about) two millennia.
In contrast, evolution teaches that the human race is just ONE race!
oceanrose12 you are talking out your arse. Firstly, gravity can be observed and it's still a theory. Electricity and magnetism can be observed and they are still theories, tectonic plate shift can be observed but it's still a theory. You simply have no idea about the weight or meaning behind the term "scientific theory". Theories will always be theories, they never become fact, even when new information come along, and adds more weight to a theory it is still a theory.
when can u observe macro evolution? give one example thats what i thought u cant so get over it. second ur an idiot it becomes a law and no longer a theory.
Again, the fact that you lack the most basic knowledge of scientific terms, and their definitions, is setting you up perfectly for a series of comments from readers fed-up of facepalming themselves. Your last comment was no exception to the rule, as you've clearly demonstrated that you don't even know the difference between a scientific law, a scientific theory.
Look , it doesn't take that much effort to investigate whether what I'm telling you is fact or fiction. So why not simply google it?
"....is evolution on the grand scale, and it is mainly studied in the fossil record."
"Macroevolutionary events events are much more likely to take millions of years. "
"Macroevolution refers to things like the trends in horse evolution ... or the origin of major groups, or mass extinctions, or the Cambrian explosion .... Speciation is the traditional dividing line between micro- and macroevolution."
Now, taking the previous description of what macroevolution is, surely you will have noticed one major theme running through the definition. Well? Yes, that's right. A vast amount of time. Millions of years to be more accurate!
So let me get this right. You are disputing macroevolution, simply based on the fact that you've noticed that humans don't live to be millions of years old, to witness the necessary changes in person?
(cont.) Anyone reading your comments can see you have no clue about science. But what's even more telling is your lie about having read Darwin's "On The Origin of Species". You claim it to be racist, which is pathetic, seeing as Darwin doesn't even deal with humans in this book, and seeing as "race" doesn't exist outside our species (anthropologist would argue that it doesn't exist within our species) it's a little difficult to imagine that issues of race would feature in a book about species.
oceanrose12 "look at the full title of the book." My god, have you never heard of the expression "Never judge a book by its cover!"? Well, apparently you haven't as this is exactly what you have done.
As was already stated by bettySwollox, O.T.O.O.S. hardly deals with Humans at all. Race, as used by Darwin, refers to "varieties", not to human races. It simply points out that some variations that occur naturally survive in greater numbers. Sp point your finger at evolution for discriminating!
Your comment concerning the "full title of the book" is simply another piece of evidence to demonstrate that you haven't read the book at all. You know, you are doing this to yourself my friend, why don't you stop it? You're outnumbered, outwitted and intellectually outgunned. Give up this silly fight and spend your time more wisely at the library, or on Amazon looking for books that can ultimately help you in the pursuit of knowledge. Then by all means, come back and join the discussion again.
Just in case you are struggling with the word "varieties", your god referred to them as "kinds". Not that this actually makes your case any stronger, as what in "god's" name is a kind anyway? You lot seem to change your minds - as to what kinds actually are - based on which ever direction the wind happens to be blowing that day. One day a kind is a species, and the next day a kind is an entire kingdom.
Anyway, you said when can u observe macro evolution? give one example that what i thought u cant so get over it.
Well, firstly I'd like to refer you to a few definitions of what macroevolution (yes it's actually one word you dumb fuck) is, before I give you my reply as to why your comment is so poorly constructed.
According to the British zoologist and writer on evolution, macroevolution is (cont.)
You fucking dumb fuck!! I don't mind it when people actually do their homework, and enquire inquisitively: ask questions and put forward their ideas and understanding of scientific theories, or argue from a an absence of understanding of these explanations. But when someone blatantly LIES in order to make a point, I simply can't take it. Go troll somewhere else you fucking moron, do your homework, go research this topic, as reading forewords by Ray Comfort is not educating yourself!
Find me one example within On The Origin of Species that Hitler referred to in his book Mein Kampf. In fact, why don't we have a look at some of the things Hitler actually said and see if we can find a single link, a common denominator, or something that may have served as an inspiration for Hitler's thoughts, feelings and actions. Shall we. Are you up for that? Well here goes...
"Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."
Mein Kampf
"Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude."
Nazi Christmas celebration 1926
"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work."
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so,"
The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.
I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence.
Speech, July 5th 1944
Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.
Math FAIL.
Oddessuss 3 weeks ago
Another creationist video without ratings!! What have you got to fear? Except good mathematics!
aden302000 3 months ago
Creatards and Math don't get along.
odinata 3 months ago
Such simple minds unconvincingly posing as intellectuals.
riaamaan 7 months ago
*reducing the population drastically*
opaxoccupied 1 year ago
This has to be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard, it's hard to believe these people have PhDs.
Population growth rates have very obviously skyrocketed since the advent of agriculture. Even higher rates have been observed since industrialization.
~70,000 years ago, the human population underwent a severe bottleneck, reducing.
You can't just take an estimate of relatively modern population growth, even a conservative one, and extrapolate it to all of human prehistory.
opaxoccupied 1 year ago
'... That is light years ahead of the number of electrons in the universe' - Just... Wow.
Samuelwhatshisface 1 year ago
It is because of the thinking of atheists, and the lack of value of 'life', that people like Jared Lee Laughner can go on such murder rampages.
jazzyhap 1 year ago
@jazzyhap No it isn't. Don't be so stupid.
theneonfire 1 year ago
@theneonfire
Well, how does one ever respond to such an intelligent post...
jazzyhap 1 year ago
@jazzyhap I was faced with the same problem when I encountered this video, but I managed. Try a little harder.
theneonfire 1 year ago
@theneonfire
Seeing you took time out of your day to respond to it, AND seeing you have now done it twice, i can safely conclude that a ad hominem is your best effort.
jazzyhap 1 year ago
@jazzyhap Ok, let's start again. Take a bacterium. Bacteria double every twenty minutes (that is to say, their growth rate is 200%). After a year, there should have been 26280 generations of bacteria, and there should therefore be 1 x 2^26280 bacteria, or roughly, 1.17 x 10^7911 bacteria. if that doesn't show you why the video is logically invalid, I don't know what will.
theneonfire 1 year ago
@theneonfire
Sure, see women have babies after 9 months.
With potentially half the world being women, and only half of them being able to bear children, then world population would double every 3 years.
That said, we are talking about looking into the past and seeing a 'regression', or less need of resources to support the population, than looking to the future, so, point debunked.
jazzyhap 1 year ago
@jazzyhap That wasn't an analogy; why aren't there 1.17*10^7911 bacteria on the planet from a single parent after one year?
It's because populations fluctuate as supply and demand for resources changes. As humans mould their environment to suit them, there is more supply of resources, allowing for more demand.
The idea presented in this video means that in 500 years we should have a global population of 60.6 billion. That will not happen.
theneonfire 1 year ago
@theneonfire
Yes, that is the exact equal to your analogy, so why doen't world population double every 3 years?
jazzyhap 1 year ago
@jazzyhap Because if there aren't enough resources for people to survive, they don't. This is why there would never be 10^990 people on the planet, no matter what model you use - and that makes the logic of the pretend evolution model in your video ridiculous. If the population reached, say, 1 million and there weren't the resources to support more, the population would not keep growing. It's as simple as that.
theneonfire 1 year ago
@theneonfire
Yea, you get it.
Now, how do resources decrease at a greater rate of the population decreasing?
hmmm
jazzyhap 1 year ago
@jazzyhap An outside force, such as a disease among livestock, a forest fire, etc would cause that.
theneonfire 1 year ago
@jazzyhap On the part about atheist morality, I find it incredibly offensive that you think atheists have no value for human life. I am an atheist and I value human life. There is your evidence that atheists value human life. People like Jared Lee Laughner are mentally unstable.
theneonfire 1 year ago
@theneonfire
Atheist morality, sadly, you are in the minority, since I can use my posts for evidence to show that life, as atheists present to me, is no different that non-life.
Just look up my posts on the Atheist Illusion, 1 Question Every Intelligent Atheist Must Answer, and see for yourself.
jazzyhap 1 year ago
@jazzyhap I'd like to see your evidence for life being no different from non life.
theneonfire 1 year ago
@theneonfire "I'd like to see your evidence for life being no different from non life."
Try going to a video that deals with abiogenesis.
jazzyhap 1 year ago
@jazzyhap Abiogenesis does not mean that 'life is no different to non-life'. All it means is that life COMES from non-life. That's like saying coal is a tree because it comes from one.
theneonfire 1 year ago
@theneonfire
I said to watch one of my videos about abiogenesis and you will find it, not this is the definition of abiogenesis.
Of course, easier to hide behind a fallacy, then face the truth, right?
jazzyhap 1 year ago
@jazzyhap You didn't say yours, you said 'a'. I assumed you meant that abiogenesis was your evidence. I'll go do that now.
theneonfire 1 year ago
@jazzyhap Right, I've watched a couple of your abiogenesis videos and I see a general picture.
First, you say life has never been observed to generate from non-life, and it hasn't, but it has been shown that under conditions that are believed to have been around on the early earth that the components of VERY basic life can spontaneously generate. Bear in mind that the life generated by abiogenesis would look very dissimilar to modern life. I think that covers my feelings.
theneonfire 1 year ago
What unbelieveable hokum! These charlatans are despirate to defend the bible as fact, Their evidence is simply not reproduceable outside their made up scenario.
That Jazzyhap et alia takes this as any sort of scientific evidence against "macro" evolution is just silly in the face of all collected evidence we have to date. Clearly too many people have no notion of what constitutes evidence and sound investigation.
The default scientific answer is "we don't know."
drfoxcourt 2 years ago
GO COACH HEFFNER!! Best math teacher ever with the best comb over ever! I miss his Calculus class so much!
dancinghotdogs89 2 years ago
Um... What if the growth rate goes negative? (*cough* *BLACK PLAGUE* *cough*)
ProdigalWhail 2 years ago
@ProdigalWhail
Good question.
Not all nations TODAY have a positive growth rate, but as a whole, worldwide, it was recorded at 1.14%. Yes, nations had a NEGATIVE growth rate, but still, population as a whole increased.
Of course, nothing has ever been presented explaining the hypothesis of a 200,000 year old man getting to this point, even taking the growth rate down to .1% makes no sense. The only sensible time line for "our mankind" is 10,000 years.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
1. The growth rate can become negative from disease and war. A constant rate is just not viable.
2. Does he really not not that bones like any other organic material decays?
3. His biblical chart does not include war and famine. Is it therefore proven wrong since the rate is different?
4. Yes science changes on subjects such as age, this does not mean the new proposed age is wrong though.
proatheism 2 years ago
@proatheism
Let me put this to bed one last time. 2 is s silly excuse, 4 is hilarious. Just because we keep changing the numbers does not mean the current age is wrong, lol.
So lets deal with a very common response here. 1 and 3. War, disease.
The answer is quite simple. Our current growth rate is 1.14%. Did war happen during that time? yes. Did people die of disease during that time? yes.
So at 1.14% we have that in account. Dropped it to 0.1%, and it still doesn't work, lol.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
Let me review this one last time.
We have more powerful weapons today then back in the medieval days. But lets take the current growth rate and divide it by half, to allow for a harder time. 0.57%
Lets say that is too much, and say only half of that for a really really hard time. 0.28%
Lets say THAT again is too much, and say we want to allow for a really really really HARD time, we divide the growth rate in half AGAIN! 0.14%
Forget it, just make it 0.1%. And it is STILL insanely off.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
The worldwide growth rate has varied greatly. You are unnecessarily restricting the growth rate to only positive values. This is a gross overgeneraliztion and demonstrably improper. if you allow for negative growth (easier when the world population is small and not sophisticated as today) the 10,000 years is not sufficient to account for current numbers.
drfoxcourt 2 years ago
proatheism's points are entirely valid:
2 isn't silly, the video makes claim that we should be plowing up bodies, but we know most (>99%) of bodies decay to non-recognition within 100 years.
4 isn't hilarious. The default answer of science is "we don't know" and whenever there is evidence to contradict, theories are thrown out, Part of scientific review.
1 + 3 - the worldwide growth rate has demonstrably varied from ~-60% to ~+100%. the formula in the video doesn't take this into account.
drfoxcourt 2 years ago
@drfoxcourt
ummm
They dropped the growth rate from 1.14% to 0.1%, then took the 200k year old man, and divided it by half, and used only 100k years, ALL undercuts ANY compromise your presented, and the results are STILL ridiculous.
But, since you feel expert on the subject, give empirical evidence of a moment in world population, recorded, where the growth rated dropped 100%. Not a "hypothesis", EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
LOL, KEEP YOUR FAITH IN "ROCK DADDY"!
jazzyhap 2 years ago
@markgg1
Our world population growth % includes every detail of what happened over that time. In past %'s, we can see a difference where our growth rate has increased with time. All of this is taken into account.
Still, if you take the current rate, divide it by half, divide it by half again, and divide it by half again, and it is STILL IMPOSSIBLE for humans to have started 100k years ago, much less longer.
This evidence totally debunks macro-evolution.
...and betty knows it.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
Hilarious.
If there were any evidence against evolution, wouldn't they have presented something by now?
Ozzyman200 2 years ago
@Ozzyman200
I have answered this question on the evolutionists vs evolution video. This video gives evidence that macro-evolution can not happen.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
You're wasting your energy. jayyhap has no interest in your analogies or your evidence. Both billymatronics and I posted a link to ShaneDK's channel and a video, over two months ago, in support of the very argument you have just presented.
Here:
watch?v=vNkKuz11tyE
jazzyhap simply doesn't get it. And it's unlikely that he ever will.
bettySwollox 2 years ago
@bettySwollox
wow betty, macro-evolution is totally debunked, and you have descended to ad hominem level. And you are so scared that you are referring people to one of your brain washing videos that ignore empirical evidence, lol.
You are one deceiving piece of crap aren't you?
jazzyhap 2 years ago
Evolution theory does not distinguish between "macro" and "micro" and for good reason. There is no reason to divide "kind" Horses and zebras look like the same kind, but there is less genetic difference between grizzly bears and chihuahuas than zebra and horse. Is this evidence that bears and dogs are of the same "kind"? or that zebras and horses are of different kind? "Kind" is clearly an artifice of creationism.
I think you should look at what constittues empirical evidence
drfoxcourt 2 years ago
@drfoxcourt
They do not distinguish between Micro and Macro because they prefer to perform a fallacy called "equivocation".
So you can continue to cry your fallacy all you want, no one is buying it.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
@markgg1
Bacteria multiplies every 20 minutes, and humans take 9 months to have babies, so if we have 3 billion women having babies every 9 months, then in 3 years there would be 12 billion babies born.
Of course, if you took an actual world population growth rate of bacteria like we do humans, you would get the realistic numbers, and again, the unrealistic absurdity of macro evolution.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
jazzyhap
Hmmm, another straw man perhaps? Where on earth did you see the words "I believe that a theory becomes a law because lots of people say it does!"?
I think you'll have some trouble substantiating your claim there my friend.
bettySwollox 2 years ago
@bettySwollox
When it is based on a vote, and not on evidence.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
That wasn't my question.
But if you are struggling to find evidence for evolution, then please, allow me.
Google PubMed home. Then in the website's search field, type in Evolution. You will notice that there are currently 254,749 peer reviewed papers on this subject. I'd imagine that this papers include millions of verifiable evidences in favour of the very thing you reject.
bettySwollox 2 years ago
@bettySwollox
254,749 peer reviewed papers, and not 1 piece of empirical evidence for macro-evolution.
But nice deception, I believe it is called "equivocation". Do not try to pass off micro-evolution for macro-evolution.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
"macro" evolution is a term used only by creationists. There is massive amounts of peer reviewed papers supporting what creationists term changes in "kind" (also an exclusively creationist term.
Manatees came from a cattle-like ancestor. Bears came from a dog-like ancestor. Hippopotami came from an ancestor that also gave rise to horses. Humans from an ape-like ancestor. The fossil links are clear and pass peer review continuously.
ONLY creationists refuse to put the evidences together,
drfoxcourt 2 years ago
if science is wrong (which i doubt) about the age of the universe, and even if god existed, and came down from his little throne up in heaven, i would still detest religion, and god for that matter. why would a loving god create something that is so brutal, no matter how beautiful, as nature. i could go on for an age about why god is an SOB but i cba because religion is really not worth that much of my time.
alfredosb 2 years ago
@alfredosb
I respect your beliefs, even though I do not agree with them. I am impressed that even though you do not believe in God, you even spoke on a hypothetical "if He did" and plainly said you would not worship Him. That I have to give respect to, even God said He rather people ran hot or ran cold.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
Do you just give respect to whoever God tells you to respect, or do you choose for yourself? I wish in a lot of cases that religion was true, who wouldn't want to go to heaven? well, me actually, given that it would be full of christians saying 'i told you so' . but anyway, yeah i wish it was true, but sadly I'm not convinced, and never will be unless somebody provides overwhelming evidence which is equivalent or better than that of modern science. but thanks for the respect anyway.
alfredosb 2 years ago
@alfredosb
I give respect to those who take responsibility for their own actions. I do not respect those who chose to live their life the way they want to, but then want to blame God for everything bad/wrong in their life.
I want you and everyone to go to heaven.
And evidence, I find all knowledge is based on unprovable forms, axioms, that we just accept to exist because we experience them. So when I experience God, there can be no greater evidence.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
What utter tripe. Temples in Malta pre-date the pyramids by over 1,000 years. Why must these people perpetuate ignorance? Is that the only way to support their religious beliefs? This is just sad.
papafox 2 years ago
@papafox
Can you provide empirical evidence for this dating?
jazzyhap 2 years ago
Presuming for the moment that you are HONESTLY interested, start with these:
- Bonanno, An illustrated guide to prehistoric Gozo
- Trump, Malta: An Archaeological Guide
- Żammit, Mayrhofer, The Prehistoric Temples of Malta and Gozo
The UNESCO World Heritage site also has some overview info.
papafox 2 years ago
@papafox
So will I find empirical evidence, or hypothesis, on the dating in these resources?
jazzyhap 2 years ago
@papafox
Yes, I am interested.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
oceanrose12 : thats exactly what 'macro' evolution claims why dont u read a book...
How ironic! By this sentence alone I can see and tell that you have never read a book on evolutionary biology. Try to understand and explain the following subjects in relation to macro evolution:
1. ERV
2. Cytochrome-c
3. Vitamin C deficiency
4. Human chromosome 2
5. Ring evolution
6. The Lenski experiment (with bacteria)
7. Mitochondria
8. And check out talkorigins . org on observed macro evolution.
BerkeleyBay 2 years ago
Let's crunch some numbers...
MAGIC WATER!
I'll be conservative. I am boiling water. I'll start with water at 0 degrees celsius. I'll put the pan on the stove. I'll wait one minute and it is one degrees celcius, I'll wait another minute and it is 2 degrees, another minute and it is 4, another and it is 8. The growth rate indicates it doubles every minute. THEREFORE! If I wait 60 minutes then the water has a temperature of: 2^60 = 1,152,921,504,606,846,976 degrees celsius.
QED!
wimahlers 2 years ago 3
@wimahlers
MAGIC WATER! PART 2
I'll be liberal. Say there is only 1 man and 1 woman, with a growth rate of .1% [Current rate is 1.14%], and only start 100,000 years ago, even though MACRO teaches we started 200,000 years ago. That would make our current population 5.38 x 10^43.
But our current population is 6 Billion.
THEREFORE, man has not been around for 100,000 much less 200,000 years.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
jazzyhap,
The growth rate is only valid within a limit time frame, like my water example. Only naive fools think they can use such a simple growth formula outside this limited time frame. Not any growth rate is valid over such time periods. Creationists are laughable, but I guess you already knew that. To illustrate this idiotic growth rate, try it with simple bacteria that multiply every hour or so. After one year: 2^(24 * 365) = 1,05e+2637 bacterial cells. Heffner and Baugh are idiots.
wimahlers 2 years ago
Wimahlers
jazzy knows that a single value for a growth rate is incorrect. He knows that because we've told him many times. He also knows it because, presumably he has band investments, and has experienced the impacts of a global financial crisis.
Jazzy is clearly not very bright - he is unable to connect all that we have told him to reality. jazzy will bleat that this is an ad hominem, which it is, and it is ALSO a true and valid statement. Jazzy is simply unable to understand reality.
bonzonobeans 2 years ago
The ignorance of these fools is mind boggling. Creationists really make me question just how far humans have advanced as a whole. I'm almost embarrassed to be part of the human race. :oP
UraniumMan 2 years ago
Wow uranium man, you totally showed these scientists by insulting them.
Who would have thought that evidence would not be the deciding factor, but fallacies, like the ad hominem.
Because that seems to be the only opposing view to creationists.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
I didn't insult them, they insulted themselves. lol
UraniumMan 2 years ago
Evidence? He doesn't even show you what mathematical formula he uses to determine his experimental values for current population. He just puts some numbers up and doesn't explain the relationship.
I think he's using exponential growth. However, exponential growth only models population growth for a certain period of time, and then the population levels off or declines.
A more accurate model would've been logistic growth, which would have fielded more reasonable numbers.
The math fails.
jacktoe1 2 years ago
I think it's funny when you ask an atheist how old the earth is and they use the geaneology of Adam as a reference point. Problem!
Adam and Eve appear on the scene in Genesis 3, not Genesis 1:1.
The ENTIRE story of Heaven and Earth being created is confined to Genesis 1:1, with the exception of life on planet earth.
johnlewisbrooks 2 years ago
I have to laugh every time I see jazzy try to use "ad hominem" as an attempt to refute a perfectly valid point.
Jazzy, I've done it before, but you're obviously too meek to understand it too quickly, so here is the sylogism:
1. basic mathmatics is simple, the only people who find it difficult are fools.
2. this man is demonstrating that he finds basic mathematics difficult.
ergo, he is a fool.
lol - jazzy, you can keep trying to insist that ad hominem is a fallacy, but it wont make it one ;)
bonzonobeans 2 years ago
@bonzonobeans
Wow, who would have thought you would try to argure a ad hominem WITH an ad hominem.
Yea, I have deep respect for the intelligence I read here. What is the counter arguments?
One uses insults, one says they didn't show how it related well enough, and you bonzo, lol, you argue against ad hominems, using ad hominems, lol, and "SOMEHOW" that suggests the math is wrong.
This is just sad. FUNNY, VERY FUNNY, but I feel sad that this is your logic.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
lol jazzy...
read my post again.. very carefully, sound out the big words okay?
Jazzy, take careful note of "here is the sylogism" - meaning, "here is the ad hominem sylogism" - meaning "I am going to show you why an ad hominem is a valid sylogism".
yes jazzy, I was not making an ad hominem at all, jazzy,.. .I was showing you the sylogism...
do you understand now jazzy? take your time. eveidently you are a bit slow on the uptake.
read it a few more times.. think hard....
you're priceless!
bonzonobeans 2 years ago
This boneheaded math assumes a constant change of human population growth. This is a mistake.
kshackleton 2 years ago
Yes, because empirical evidence shows population stays exactly the same.
...no wait, lol
jazzyhap 2 years ago
waht a moron jazzy, you have no idea what you just said.
Kshacklton said the assumption here is that the CHANGE is CONSTANT. you, being stupid, say the POPULATION stays the same..
sigh..idiot.
the RATE is what governs the POPULATION - ergo, if you have a nonzero rate, you EXPECT a population to change - you have simply reaffirmed kshackletons point, butyou are so incredibly ignorant that you have no idea!
1. varying population=nonzero rate
2. this model falsely assumes a constant rate - WRONG!
bonzonobeans 2 years ago
I love how you insult me, then agree with everything I say. Are you just in need of guidance?
jazzyhap 2 years ago
wow - you think I agreed with you jazzy?
you are so compeltely clueless it defies comprehension!
read what I read VERY CAREFULLY - if you are confused, ask a math professor what a nonzero rate will do to an exponential function.
If you are STILL confused, as him to show you a basic population equation and get him to TELL you why it fails as a useful estimator.
See, your problem jazzy, is that you're too eager to swallow bullshit without actually understanding it -your lazyness is your failure
bonzonobeans 2 years ago
jazzy, do you REALLY not understand why this model fails?
Even after I showed you how such a model would DIRECTLY prove that the world would explode in a ball of bacteria within a couple of months?
Do you REALLY not understand this very basic math jazzy?
REALLY?
Are you one of these people that purport to "using your college education" - but are utterly ignorant of highschool math??
This is HIGHSCHOOL math jazzy - how is it that you can be so completely clueless?
bonzonobeans 2 years ago
No....the evidence shows that the rate of population growth is not constant. It changes over time, and from place to place. Sometimes we see human populations shrinking [in some locales], at other times it remains fairly constant.
That fact alone completely debunks the ridiculous assertion put forth by the video.
kshackleton 2 years ago
Then by your logic, are you believing that the human population never increased?
jazzyhap 2 years ago
Are you completely daft by accident, or is this a conscious effort at stupidity?
Read what I said again....I said that the rate of human population change has not been a constant. The rate at which the population has changed, has itself changed over time.
This is not at all the same as saying that the population has never increased; clearly it has.
Populations, humans included, tend to increase to the limits of space and food.
The video is horse-shit. Get over it.
kshackleton 2 years ago
So you do believe the population has increased, you just have a problem with it debunking macro evolution, is that right?
If you go five days making no money, then the sixth day you make $350, and then on the 7th, you make nothing. You can say either 1, you had a good 6th, day, or 2- on average you make about $50 a day, or 3 - after taxes you made around $10/hr.
Or, 4th, How you would say it is, "you can not measure it, because the rate is not constant." lol
Are you really this dumb?
jazzyhap 2 years ago
It's a plain fact that population has increased over time. The time being measured in tens of thousands of years at least, and the population going from a few thousand moderns some 70,000 years ago to the 6.5 billion which exist today.
There is nothing about this, or what is contained in the video that is even the smallest challenge to evolution.
kshackleton 2 years ago
Sure there is, it is call evidence. Do you have a problem with the evidence?
Are you not aware that empirical evidence trumps your hypothesis? Maybe not.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
jazzy. can you please get an education?
Ask a math major, do SOMETHING proactive -clearly our attempts to educate you in limited posts is not working.
What you have just described is totally removed from logaritmic growth; logarithmic growth estimates the future, based on initial conditions. It is LOGARITHMIC, NOT LINEAR like your e.g.
This means P(t)~Po^(t*rate). you need a Po (the value at t=0) which =/= 0.
this IS ONLY VALID IF (rate) IS CONSTANT!
populations DO NOT GROW AT A CONSTANT RATE!
bonzonobeans 2 years ago
Jazzy, ANY accountant will tell you that you cannot apply a constant rate to, your investments. Why not? because the rates change.
What changes them? external forces.
So what can you do?
you can either - pretend that rates do not vary, and choose an appropriate rate - necessarily, this will NOT model the population growth accurately and will NOT necessarily be equal to the current-epoch rate.
or you can develop a more complex timevarying model that takes the variations into account.
bonzonobeans 2 years ago
Population growth always has been limited by resources. He's also using the modern population growth rate which is confounded by advanced medical science and agriculture. Prior to 1900s, population growth rate was much lower.
Also, if you were to extend that analogy on microorganisms, we would be swimming in the sea of microorganisms. Of course, their population is limited by resources and predators.
If you really believe in this creationist argument, then you are stupid.
JaMoond 2 years ago
Ok, now lets take this "shocking" logic into practice.
Today's growth rate is 1.14%. so lets divide that in half.
.552% Now lets allow for some bad years.
.456% ok.
Now lets make it absurd, like .1%
At .1%, if man and woman started 100,000 years ago, though Wiki says 200,000.
Yes, that STILL leaves an absurd number.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
Actually, even .1% population growth rate is not normally seen in nature. 0.1% is 1/10th of 1%, so that would be absurdly high for most animal species. It's extremely difficult to find a population of animals that have constant growth rate, and successfully adapted species tend to be in equilibrium (0% growth rate).
Also, you are taking diseases, famines and wars that played significant role in capping human populations for the last 200K years.
JaMoond 2 years ago
In fact, you seem to have some kind of idea that the population is always growing. That's hardly observed in nature. Like I said, successfully adapted species are at equilibrium. Most species have negative growth rate.
When there is limited resource, population stays constant. In fact, for a long time, human species haven't experienced any growth rate at all.
JaMoond 2 years ago
It was only when humans began cultivating domesticated plants and animals that we began seeing constant growth rate. Agriculture is the most significant factor here. It allowed large quantities of food to be produced from relatively small quantities of land.
Mass food production has only been around for 10K years. For most of human history, we were hunters and gatherers. We hardly observe any population growth among primitive, nomadic tribes.
JaMoond 2 years ago
So what makes you think that we had a constant 0.1% growth rate, which is ridiculously high rate in nature?
There is absolutely no justification for your assumption. That's because you are hardly educated in this matter. Do some research before making wild guesses.
JaMoond 2 years ago
1 We have plagues, war, famine, and tragic events in nature today. AND the growth rate is 1.14%.
2 You make hypothesis without evidence. Statements like "for a long time, human species haven't experienced any growth rate at all." Now where is the empirical evidence for this statement? It is easy to make up stories jamoond.
3 Do you not see the absurdity in saying man has been around for 200,000 years ago, but only 10,000 years ago did they decide, hmmm. Maybe we should try keeping food.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
"plagues, war, famine, and tragic events in nature today"
They no longer have significant impact on the world's population. We no longer have half the world's population dying from major plagues.
"Now where is the empirical evidence for this statement"
First of all, where is your empirical evidence for .1% growth rate.
As for mine, Google: "HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth"
JaMoond 2 years ago
"Do you not see the absurdity in saying man has been around for 200,000 years"
The only difference between you and me is that I'm university educated and you are not. I have enough background in Anthropology to understand that Agriculture has only been around for 10K years. Without agriculture, it is impossible to have constant growth rate. We can see that from primitive, nomadic tribes that still exist in parts of Africa today.
JaMoond 2 years ago
Now, what sounds "absurd" and "ridiculous" to you isn't all that absurd and ridiculous in actuality. You are merely projecting your ignorance as fact. You are projecting some kind of notion that humans are inherently unique from other animal species that their population was unaffected by resources and environmental pressure for the vast majority of its existence. That's not the case. Agriculture has only been around for 10K years and it didn't come out of thin air.
JaMoond 2 years ago
I would ask the university for your money back, because you got conned.
First, give empirical evidence for agriculture only being around "10K" and impossible for it to be around before that time.
Second, "primitive, nomadic" tribes still have a growth rate WELL above .1%.
And yes, I am projecting humans as "unique", even in your naturalism format. Call it top of the food chain.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
I'm a student at the University of Toronto (ranked 25th best university). So it's not some uncredited university.
Also, you are arguing against facts. It is fact that the oldest archeological evidence of any form of agriculture is at around 10k years. It is also fact that primitive nomadic tribes don't have constant population growth.
Oh, the stupidity burns
JaMoond 2 years ago
Yes, stupidity does burn. At University of Toronto obviously.
To say nomadic tribes do not have constant population growth, and those with agriculture do would be very educational. All this time, and it took the University of Toronto to discover that sex education is worthless. You want to have kids? Don't have sex. Farm.
(APPLAUSE!)
STANDING OVATION!!!
BRAVO! BRAVO!
jazzyhap 2 years ago
Great reply. How can I argue against such irrefutable reasoning and evidence /sarcasm.
Honestly, if you have no facts to back up your claim, I suggest you to shut up and retract your earlier statements.
It's not as if facts differ from one university from another. Go ask any researchers from credible universities, they will all say the same thing.
As far as the creationists go, I think you guys are the biggest idiots out there.
JaMoond 2 years ago
You guys reject any facts that contradict your irrational dogmatic belief no matter how well they are supported.
Again, you continuously refuse to do the basic research regarding population growth (I even cited my source). That's willful ignorance at it's best.
JaMoond 2 years ago
Sure they do. Just ask every family member who lost a loved one due to plagues, war, famine, and tragic events. Hey, even drug abuse is way up, and death related to drugs.
And there is no empirical evidence for .1%. No growth rate of humans has EVER been recorded to be so low. There is now empirical evidence for human growth rate to be anywhere near as low as .1%. I was just giving a broader spectrum for the macro hypothesis.
Like you say, it is not broad enough.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
"No growth rate of humans has EVER been recorded to be so low."
Where is your evidence for that?
Facts point to the fact that human population was at stable equilibrium from long time until agriculture was invented.
JaMoond 2 years ago
I really suggest you to Google the article:
"HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth"
I also suggest you to research on the topics of population dynamics. I also suggest you to research and compare the impact of famine, war and disease in pre 20th century and post 20th century.
Ignorance is not a form of proof. You can't throw out your uneducated projections and assumptions as facts.
JaMoond 2 years ago
Correction: it's "HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth" without the space. Straight from the Population Reference Bureau
JaMoond 2 years ago
I could understand this argument if you was saying we wasn't human, but some half chimp neanderthal. But that is not what you are saying, you are saying full human beings went 190,000 years before someone decided to plant a tomato garden.
So to say .1% is ridiculously high, when today's growth rate is 1.14%, is not having any outlook on reality. Though I do find it funny that in dealing with the growth rate of humans you want to compare humans to what? Which animals in nature?
jazzyhap 2 years ago
hey jazzy,
you still jacking off to this mathematical ineptitude?
lets apply this mathematics to bacteria - assuming they have a lifetime of 20 minutes, they create one pair each lifetime, and weigh 10^-15 kg
after one day (5.6^6 =5.6^-9 kg),
after 2 days (9.4^13 =0.09 kg)
after 5 days (4.4^35 =4.4^20 kg)
Just for reference, the mass of the planet is 2x10^24 kg
so by your mathematics, the entire planet should be consumed by bacteria in just over 5 days
YOUR MATH FAILS!
thanks to keipernicus
bonzonobeans 2 years ago
Yes, and that is what would happen if that was empirical data.
The human population data is real. If humans was doubling in population every 20 minutes, we would have the same problem. :)
jazzyhap 2 years ago
hehh..
no jazzy.
How many bacteria do you think you have in your stomach? more than one?
Using exactly the mathematics that your idiot uses above, I just showed you that you would should explode in a ball of bacteria in about 5 hours.
"empirical data"?? what, exactly, is empirical about it?!!
jazzy, if you're going to use big words, you should probably find out what they mean - really (and this goes for your misunderstanding of "ad hominem" too ... changing the subject - my ass!)
bonzonobeans 2 years ago
bonzonobeans 2 years ago
"Wow, for 150 years people have tried to ''debunk'' evolution... and who the fuck would have taught it would be this easy!!!
Holy stinky shit this is amazing!!! This guy is a genius!!!"
---
Yes, 1 fact can spoil the funnest hypothesis going.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
bwahaha!..
oh jazzy - you leap so hard to find people as malleable as you to support your stupid cause.
You never actually stop to do the mathematics yourself do you? you never actually try to find a credible source do you?
Jazzy, his mathematics is SO BAD that even a highschool major could point out all the failings he makes - are you really that gullible?
genius???? my 8 year old neice makes the same mistakes in HER mathematics, is she a genius too?
wake up jazzy, do the research!
bonzonobeans 2 years ago
Bacteria population proves baby-earth!
Akatam0t0ma 2 years ago
Two words; Carrying Capacity.
TheGreatSimonski 2 years ago
This means CBC supports creationism?
fyourcouchnigga 2 years ago
Wow, for 150 years people have tried to ''debunk'' evolution... and who the fuck would have taught it would be this easy!!!
Holy stinky shit this is amazing!!! This guy is a genius!!!
IC1101 2 years ago
Anyone that wants to see exactly why this video is incorrect go to ShaneDKs rebutal:
here copy this..... it's worth it:
watch?v=vNkKuz11tyE
billymatronics 2 years ago 3
What a complete load of creationist horseshit.
Any one with even the most rudimentary of college math can easily show the numerous places this mathematically inept moron gets it wrong..
Again - creationists attempt to prove their points with bad science, bad mathematics, complete lack of logic and absolutely no credibility.
You guys... just astoundingly bad at what you do...
bonzonobeans 2 years ago 4
Oh you should watch some more of Jazzyhap's videos. He's amazingly resistant to reason. So much so that I doubt he is as stupid as he comes off.
h8uall66 2 years ago
I have subjected myself to jazzy's outstandingly inane videos, I have even challenged him to support his claims with documenary evidence, which he has not been able to supply me in the format i've asked (i.e. as a document, not a reference).
you say he's resistant to reason, and you doubt he's as stupid as he comes off? i do believe that makes no sense!
bonzonobeans 2 years ago
If stupidity is defined as a lack of knowledge, then clearly the remedy to stupidity is an increase in knowledge. Jazzyhap has been informed of his many errors by a great number of people. Yet he still denies that he has made an error. This leads me to conclude that he is simply being dishonest. Not an uncommon trait among creationists.
h8uall66 2 years ago
no, stupidity is defined as an inability to apply knowledge.
this from wikipedia
"stupidity denotes an incapability or unwillingness to properly consider the relevant information"
bonzonobeans 2 years ago
Oh! Well given that definition, I am obliged to consider jazzyhap to merely be stupid! And to think, this whole time I was merely treating willful creationist ignorance as a separate issue from stupidity. Hahahaha! Thanks bonzonobeans!
h8uall66 2 years ago
Actually, he's even worse than that - He's sending me emails in which he is being deliberately obtuse - and through it all, he's pushing an agenda, based on a single document, which he doesn't even own a copy of, much less read.
why does the world bother supporting such pointless wastes of space like this? Personally, if I knew jazzy was wasting my taxes, I'd sue the fucker, on the grounds that my money is being wasted.
bonzonobeans 2 years ago
Oh he's quite good at being obtuse. In fact, most fundamentalists are. Let me ask you a question: Do you find it as hilarious as I do, that most fundamentalist, NO, dare I say it, most theistic arguments are in fact convoluted attacks on reason itself?
h8uall66 2 years ago
ALL of them are, by necessity.
I have talked with thesists that insist that science is biased because it addresses only the natural world, and not the supernatural world.
I have talked with thesists who insist that we should not even dare to enquire about the mind of god.
I have talked with thesists who willfully acknowledge that god is illogical, but that that is The Way Things Are - & that science is evil because it dares to enquire about the natural world.
Thesim is necessarily a retardation.
bonzonobeans 2 years ago
You know, we may disagree on this whole inmendham thing, but we're totally on the same page on these idiots. Got any videos bro? I'll sub if you do.
h8uall66 2 years ago
Sorry no, I have no videos, I am not prepared to invest time in educating these fucktards, only to have them flag my efforts.
I have already had about a weeks worth of logical argument deleted by the host of a hilllsong video...
these guys are so scared!
bonzonobeans 2 years ago
Well deleting comments is really their only method of dealing with their critics. Still I suppose it's better than their old method: Burning people at the stake.
h8uall66 2 years ago
Hey there, check out the following video on Shanedk's channel:
/watch?v=vNkKuz11tyE
Here he tackles the problem of applying exponential growth to populations. He uses this creationist logic applied to bacteria instead of humans to explain this problem. I think he demonstrates rather well that exponential growth simply isn't possible when applying to populations.
bettySwollox 2 years ago
ugh. indeed.
I imagine that 400 years ago (when the internet was far from being developed, because lighting was thought to be cosmic farts from god, and not a grounding discharge of static buildup in frictionally-excited electrons in thunderclouds) I would be regarded as a heretic!
And jazzy wants to bring that back!!..
my head hurts from whacking it on the table... why won't they wake the fuck up?
bonzonobeans 2 years ago
On the more information section, I have a link for predictions for "FUTURE" populations. They use the same method this video uses.
Funny how it is accurate for the FUTURE, but rejected for the PAST.
Wake up from the macro-evolution myth. Macro-evolution is officially debunked!
jazzyhap 2 years ago
Wow, stupid much? Did it ever occur to you that the reason why they wouldn't use the same numbers to determine the populations of the past is because the very factors that influence population growth such as availability of resources, medical technology, sanitation technology, and agricultural technology did not exist at all points in history? You really believe that farther into the past, where the technology was worse, that people are going to have an equal chance of survival?
h8uall66 2 years ago 2
this video is easy to understand for anyone with common sense. just look at the facts to get the truth. if anyone can explain how this doesn't make sense with facts to back it up i would love to hear them. otherwise quit saying how 'stupid' these guys are. please people search more for truth and stop conforming with all the b.s. you are told in school. if macro evolution took place where is the real proof for that? when has anyone ever seen a fish produce a bird? or a dog produce a horse?
oceanrose12 2 years ago
and you, my mentally retarded waste of space, is why people laugh at creationists.
Hey!, don't get me wrong, it IS stupid to claim that a fish will produce a bird, or a dog produce a horse. It's just as stupid to try and pretend that this is what evolution claims.
Soooo, go out, pick up a book on what evolution is, educate yourself, and THEN ask a question ok? because at present, your understanding of what evolution is - is roughly equivalent to the mental capacity of a brick.
enjoy.
bonzonobeans 2 years ago 3
thats exactly what 'macro' evolution claims why dont u read a book and you will see that its still a theory which means it cant be proven. its all based off of micro evolution (witch does happen) but its full of unsound ideas and missing links. please reply when u have FACTS and not just a statement that shows me you dont agree with my views.
oceanrose12 2 years ago
hmm, coming from a 27 year old - presumably educated by the redneck university of midwestern USA Evolution is stil a theory, which means it cant be proven? full of unsound ideas and missing links??
sigh - firstly, a theory is as good as it gets in science - you clearly don't have the capacity to know this. Secondly, it is so WELL VERIFIED, that in scientific circles, it is certainly not regarded as contentious.
Missing links? lol - try using even google?
how about you do some basic research?
bonzonobeans 2 years ago
@bonzonobeans
And in this ad hominem response, was macro evolution addressed?
nope.
Am I the only one who notices this. I would love to go eat with bonzo just to watch the waiter/bonzo interaction.
w - Would you like to order some food?
b - First define what a "menu" is.
w - Well, um, its what lists the food that we sell here.
b - first, you must be some uneducated redneck to be waiting this restaurant, and you do not understand the scientific method, so give me a DEFINITION of a menu.
lol
jazzyhap 2 years ago
oceanrose12 : thats exactly what 'macro' evolution claims why dont u read a book...
How ironic! By this sentence alone I can see and tell that you have never read a book on evolutionary biology. Try to understand and explain the following subjects in relation to macro evolution:
1. ERV
2. Cytochrome-c
3. Vitamin C deficiency
4. Human chromosome 2
5. Ring evolution
6. The Lenski experiment (with bacteria)
7. Mitochondria
8. And check out talkorigins . org on observed macro evolution.
BerkeleyBay 2 years ago
you cant observe macro evolution or it would no longer be a theory, when does any 1 kind of animal produce a different kind? never and it never has. u have to really open your mind my friend. i have read many books including darwins completely racist book origin of species by means of natural selection for the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life. that book gave hitler his motivation because he thought blond hair blu eyed people were the pure race. old white men keep this alive
oceanrose12 2 years ago
BerkeleyBay 2 years ago
[cont.]
As to "evolution" and "social darwinism" [Spencer]:
Tell me...what has the "gravity" of my remarks to do with, well, "gravity"?
Even though I used the same word - "gravity" - the one has nothing to do with the other.
The fact is that Hitler hated the jews because of a deep rooted religious(!) based hate against jews that already (and stil!)l exists for as long as (about) two millennia.
In contrast, evolution teaches that the human race is just ONE race!
BerkeleyBay 2 years ago
oceanrose - well, you have a the usual ignorant horseshit in your post. here's the answers;
When does an animal produce a different one?
erm..and yet you claim you've read the origin of species? clearly, you have not - ergo, you're also a liar, as well as being stupid.
racist? as BB said - citiations and references - or is it yet another lie?
natural selection gave hitler his motivation - okay, so a theory is bad because somone else misunderstood it?
ah yes, stupid, ignorant and a liar
enjoy!
bonzonobeans 2 years ago
oceanrose12 you are talking out your arse. Firstly, gravity can be observed and it's still a theory. Electricity and magnetism can be observed and they are still theories, tectonic plate shift can be observed but it's still a theory. You simply have no idea about the weight or meaning behind the term "scientific theory". Theories will always be theories, they never become fact, even when new information come along, and adds more weight to a theory it is still a theory.
bettySwollox 2 years ago
when can u observe macro evolution? give one example thats what i thought u cant so get over it. second ur an idiot it becomes a law and no longer a theory.
oceanrose12 2 years ago
Again, the fact that you lack the most basic knowledge of scientific terms, and their definitions, is setting you up perfectly for a series of comments from readers fed-up of facepalming themselves. Your last comment was no exception to the rule, as you've clearly demonstrated that you don't even know the difference between a scientific law, a scientific theory.
Look , it doesn't take that much effort to investigate whether what I'm telling you is fact or fiction. So why not simply google it?
GodlessComedy 2 years ago
oceanrose12 (cont.)
"....is evolution on the grand scale, and it is mainly studied in the fossil record."
"Macroevolutionary events events are much more likely to take millions of years. "
"Macroevolution refers to things like the trends in horse evolution ... or the origin of major groups, or mass extinctions, or the Cambrian explosion .... Speciation is the traditional dividing line between micro- and macroevolution."
GodlessComedy 2 years ago
oceanrose12
Now, taking the previous description of what macroevolution is, surely you will have noticed one major theme running through the definition. Well? Yes, that's right. A vast amount of time. Millions of years to be more accurate!
So let me get this right. You are disputing macroevolution, simply based on the fact that you've noticed that humans don't live to be millions of years old, to witness the necessary changes in person?
Wow, how very scientific of you!
GodlessComedy 2 years ago
oceanrose12
In response to your comment "second ur an idiot it becomes a law and no longer a theory".
Instead of me writing a long-winded reply, watch these:
Neil deGrasse Tyson - Why we use the term Theory instead of Law in science.
watch?v=u5X3Xtt7HBU
Scientific Law vs Scientific Theory
watch?v=S2xhPgDuUlA&feature=PlayList&p=F6B7B226EE0FD634&index=0&playnext=1
Evolution Warning Labels and Scientific Theory - Kenneth Miller
watch?v=TxaM0P8Fyu4&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Enjoy!!
bettySwollox 2 years ago
(cont.) Anyone reading your comments can see you have no clue about science. But what's even more telling is your lie about having read Darwin's "On The Origin of Species". You claim it to be racist, which is pathetic, seeing as Darwin doesn't even deal with humans in this book, and seeing as "race" doesn't exist outside our species (anthropologist would argue that it doesn't exist within our species) it's a little difficult to imagine that issues of race would feature in a book about species.
bettySwollox 2 years ago
look at the full title of the book.
oceanrose12 2 years ago
oceanrose12 "look at the full title of the book." My god, have you never heard of the expression "Never judge a book by its cover!"? Well, apparently you haven't as this is exactly what you have done.
As was already stated by bettySwollox, O.T.O.O.S. hardly deals with Humans at all. Race, as used by Darwin, refers to "varieties", not to human races. It simply points out that some variations that occur naturally survive in greater numbers. Sp point your finger at evolution for discriminating!
GodlessComedy 2 years ago
Your comment concerning the "full title of the book" is simply another piece of evidence to demonstrate that you haven't read the book at all. You know, you are doing this to yourself my friend, why don't you stop it? You're outnumbered, outwitted and intellectually outgunned. Give up this silly fight and spend your time more wisely at the library, or on Amazon looking for books that can ultimately help you in the pursuit of knowledge. Then by all means, come back and join the discussion again.
GodlessComedy 2 years ago
Just in case you are struggling with the word "varieties", your god referred to them as "kinds". Not that this actually makes your case any stronger, as what in "god's" name is a kind anyway? You lot seem to change your minds - as to what kinds actually are - based on which ever direction the wind happens to be blowing that day. One day a kind is a species, and the next day a kind is an entire kingdom.
GodlessComedy 2 years ago
oceanrose12
How was your ride today on the short-bus?
Anyway, you said when can u observe macro evolution? give one example that what i thought u cant so get over it.
Well, firstly I'd like to refer you to a few definitions of what macroevolution (yes it's actually one word you dumb fuck) is, before I give you my reply as to why your comment is so poorly constructed.
According to the British zoologist and writer on evolution, macroevolution is (cont.)
GodlessComedy 2 years ago
You fucking dumb fuck!! I don't mind it when people actually do their homework, and enquire inquisitively: ask questions and put forward their ideas and understanding of scientific theories, or argue from a an absence of understanding of these explanations. But when someone blatantly LIES in order to make a point, I simply can't take it. Go troll somewhere else you fucking moron, do your homework, go research this topic, as reading forewords by Ray Comfort is not educating yourself!
bettySwollox 2 years ago
@bettySwollox
wow, an ad hominem.
who would have thought that, lol.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
Find me one example within On The Origin of Species that Hitler referred to in his book Mein Kampf. In fact, why don't we have a look at some of the things Hitler actually said and see if we can find a single link, a common denominator, or something that may have served as an inspiration for Hitler's thoughts, feelings and actions. Shall we. Are you up for that? Well here goes...
bettySwollox 2 years ago
@bettySwollox
And don't forget to add the treatment of Ota Benga.
Don't leave that out .
jazzyhap 2 years ago
"Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."
Mein Kampf
"Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude."
Nazi Christmas celebration 1926
"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work."
Reichstag, 1938
bettySwollox 2 years ago
To General Gerhard Engel, 1941
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so,"
The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.
Mein Kampf
bettySwollox 2 years ago
I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence.
Speech, July 5th 1944
Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.
Mein Kampf
bettySwollox 2 years ago