Ok I see alot of the previous comments are useless... This isn't an evolution vs. creationist debate, this is a hole in the theory of evolution, that in no way disproves evolution, but still needs explaining, can anyone explain how molecular machines evolved? there is definitely a strange force that brought these molecules together into functional machines that are the basis of our world, does that not interest anyone?
It's amazing how secular trained monkeys from government skrooling always trash real scientific endeavor in favor of speculation and theory passed off as "fact" and then start calling anyone who disagrees with them names like the third grade morons they show themselves to be.......so much for pubic education.....
I see you are down to single syllable grunts... always happens to creationists when they can't spew anymore bullshit. Now that you're head has spewed out all the shit maybe you can start feeding it healthy stuff, like getting an education.
@nolobede Ive established your not worth it. Do i need to prove anything to you? Keep telling yourself what you want. All you have been doing is making boringly snide hypocritical remarks (backed with no science), which im now finding tedious and repetitive.
I had hoped you would but up some kind of valid argument at least but i have to say im greatly disappointed. So to put it short- Shut the Fuck up and Get the Fuck out.
Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe. [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985]
The appearance of design is so blatant now you really have to start questioning the naturalists ability to critically think.
Every prediction evolution has made has been falsified many times over.
Science is now practicing I.D. in the lab, verifying the very hypothesis they say is not science.
Evolution will be falsified & I.D. will be verified within 10 years, and all the "brilliant minds" in science that refused to accept the blatantly obvious will be made public spectacles by God
-Wow, really? Amazing how the world science community disagrees. Flagellum as proof?... Perhaps being stuck on a limited number of information sources like Discovery Institute (producer of this vid) and creationist websites limits your knowledge. or are you one of the "cdesign proponentsists" that ignore the fact that Ken Miller already dismantled the flagellum argument. Ever heard of Dover v Kitzmiller?
@nolobede " ignore the fact that Ken Miller already dismantled the flagellum argument"
Really? Miller produced the DNA sequences that form the flagellum from random copying errors & selection?
IM sorry i must have missed that part, please direct me to that information shows how evolutionary science is creating these extremely finely tuned (100% conserved) parameters from copying errors & selection.
@nolobede "Ken Miller already dismantled the flagellum argument. Ever heard of Dover v Kitzmiller?"
Speaking of Millers evolutionary expertise. You understand Miller has an article (still on his website) that explains how junk DNA proves an evolutionary prediction.
Junk DNA has been falsified a myriad of times since then. And Millers (as well as the vast majority of the "brilliant" minds in science) ability to assess the data is now on display.
@nolobede ""Junk DNA has been falsified a myriad of times since then"
- Sources?"
There is such a glut of information on this one wonders how you still don't understand it. I could flood you inbox with pages & pages
"The discoveries of the past decade, little known to most of the public, have completely overturned much of what used to be taught in high school biology. If you thought the DNA molecule comprised thousands of genes but far more "junk DNA", think again". Francis Collins 2010
"Francis Collins, author of The Language of God and director of the National Human Genome Research Institute"
"Collins is known for believing in both evolution and God, but he stops short of using junk DNA as proof of God as the master of creation. I've stopped using the term," Collins said.
“The failure to recognize the full implications of this particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information in the form of RNA molecules—may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology." Mattick, J., cited in: Gibbs, W.W., The unseen genome: gems among the junk, Scientific American 289(5):26–33, November 2003; pp. 29–30.
ENCODE is finding the same. Non coding DNA is functioning
@nolobede ""There's no scientific definition of what is junk."
That's why T. Ryan Gregory, professor in biology at the University of Guelph, states that nonfunctional is the default assumption."Function at the organism level is something that requires evidence,"
Your not getting it.
Junk DNA was an evolutionary prediction made by many evolutionists. Junk DNA should theoretically exist if Darwinian evolution was valid. Millers credibility is now laughable
And if YOU were actually up to date, you might know that junk dna actually SUPPORTS evolution... and that Miller has published many documents SINCE the one you cherry picked regarding Junk DNA.
Unless you can provide evidence of function... good luck with that.
And by the way?... unless those "predictions" are not tested, verified, peer reviewed and accepted by the worldwide academic conglomeration of scientific community, they are NOT science, only predictions.
Yes, there is no skirting around the scientific process. Those that claim fact on predictions will lose ALL credibility, are you prepared for it?
And by the way, the ENCODE project has only this month published a first set of standards and guidelines for Sequencing experiments. So you've got a long way to go before "predictions" can be validated.
@nolobede "Um, you think coinig som,e headline titles means anything?... did you actually read these "publications?Again... Sources... You haven't written any college papers have you? Speaking of lacking credibility?... sources?"
LOL...I gave you sources from evolutionary scientists quoting their findings. Its your choice to read it or not
Your a liberal who does not care about facts. you only care to validate your presuppositions at all costs
@nolobede "No poppie... as I stated, you only gave Titles, no evidence or testimony FROM the Titles"
Yes that is correct. TITLES of articles do not include the experimental evidence in the title name as that would make the title a page long. This is why you must actually READ the article of the title. Comprende Muchacho?
Would you like me to flood your inbox with the "testimonies" from evolutionary science?
Google "ENCODE Research Consortium Uncovers Surprises Related to Organization and Function of Human Genetic Blueprint"
"The ENCODE consortium's major findings include the discovery that the majority of DNA in the human genome is transcribed into functional molecules, called RNA, and that these transcripts extensively overlap one another. ...... along with a vast amount of so-called junk DNA that is not biologically active"
@nolobede "The new data indicate the genome contains very little unused sequences and, in fact, is a complex, interwoven network. In this network, genes are just one of many types of DNA sequences that have a functional impact. "Our perspective of transcription and genes may have to evolve," the researchers state in their Naturepaper, noting the network model of the genome "poses some interesting mechanistic questions" that have yet to be answered."
Wow, what a stupid fucking thing to say. Really? You really have no clue where I stand between Liberal and conservative.. but you probably provide your own definitions on that subject too.
So scientific facts are divisive between liberal and conservative?
...I'd like to hear this one... on what basis do you apply that illogic?... I mean besides the far-right god, america, christian nation bullshit that we always hear.
@nolobede "And by the way?... unless those "predictions" are not tested, verified, peer reviewed and accepted by the worldwide academic conglomeration of scientific community, they are NOT science, only predictions"
What world are you living in. The evidence against non coding DNA being non functional is massive and recent. As I said, would you like to respond to a plethora of verified information on this subject sent to your inbox?
@nolobede "try not to establish findings that have not taken place."
What part of
"In the pilot phase, ENCODE researchers DEVISED AND TESTED high-throughput approaches for identifying functional elements in the genome. Those elements included genes that code for proteins; genes that do not code for proteins; regulatory elements that control the transcription of genes; and elements that maintain the structure of chromosomes and mediate the dynamics of their replication"
@nolobede "and do you even understand "Non-Active" DNA?'
Yes I fully understand "Non-Active" DNA?" (DNA that does not code for proteins) However it appears you do not understand this non coding DNA is being proven to be functionally active.
Thus non-coding does not equate "non- active"
And the longer you cling to this out dated view the more ridiculous your reasoning abilities appear
@nolobede Unfortunately Miller represents the facts by focusing on the morphology of the cell and not the sequencing. When you look at the coding differences it becomes clear that Miller's counter argument is not factual. Additionally his point about irreducibly-complexity, is also not accurate, because you find a similar part else where that does not function similarly as the original does not create reduceable complexity. I could further dismantle your D v K statement but I'm out of space.
"...and not the sequencing. When you look at the coding differences it becomes clear that Miller's counter argument is not factual"
Sigh... haven't we all been through this discussion ad-naseum? We tire of trolls spewing garbage. "coding differences"... nope, sorry, you're done. Argument is already over, it was over before D v K.
@nolobede LOL, declaring something as fact doesn't make, so. Even more humorous is your interpretation of the law. District law is not the highest court, and judges have the bias like people do. He made this decision not on legal precident, let alone scientific or historical legal facts. One case does not make truth, if so look back to past rulings, when atheists couldn't testify because they had no higher power to account to for lying. D v K is a perfect example of revisionist thinking.
"LOL, declaring something as fact doesn't make, so. "
Yes, LMFAO, Declaration of something as fact must undergo the scientific process. Falsifiable, observable, testable, predictable validated peer reviewed("peers" means "academically accepted, credible & qualified", not church group members). Irreducible complexity is a perfect example... tested & failed. Discussion over,
This is why intelligent design has failed miserably & consistently into the abyss of non-science non-sense.
"He made this decision not on legal precident, let alone scientific or historical legal facts."
"He" (Judge John E. Jones III, appointed by president Bush) made his decision (and you'd know this if you'd actually read the ruling) based on the evidence presented. Not only that the evidence produced was monumentally voluminous against intelligent design, but also the FACT that the defendants not only had no scientific basis, but PERJURED themselves during the proceedings.
@nolobede Although I already know the answer please, tell us which scientist for the Defense perjured himself? Also, as a knowledgeable person, what part of the constitution does ID break? Please cite the Constitutional section, as well as the earliest Legislative or Supreme comments on that section to support your argument.
"tell us which scientist for the Defense perjured himself? "
Nice try, you've never read the case. The "creationists" that committed purjory were Bonsell and Buckingham, BOTH creationists from the defense. as per Judge Jones finding! But lying is what creationists do, they HAVE to!.
I never said "ID" itself breaks constitution... it just fails logic, science, and any hope of demonstrable evidence.
But ID as "science" (i.e. D V K ) is about what DOES violate constitution, as ID was SHOWN IN THE TRIAL to be creationism BY THE AUTHORS OWN DEFINITION.
Did you even fucking (appropriate here) read the trial? or is it just a comprehension thing?
So ID = creationism = religion = not science = Not in public schools!
@nolobede By the way unless, ID establishes doctrine, clergy, and a specific following by definition of our Federal Government it is not establishing a religion. The whole point I was trying to make is that it is not the courts job and has never been to decide what is scientific fact and isn't outside of breaking the law which D v K clearly isn't about. Facts are dependent on the community itself even one split between evolution and creation. Legal understanding failure.
BTW Who the fuck said we were talking about ID being a "religion"...
You really DO have a comprehension problem...
The court... did EXACTLY its job, and that is to isolate religious doctrine from public funded educational system... as is defined in the constitution. What was PROVEN in the case, was the attempt to incorporate creationism, DIRECTLY VERBATIM copied from a creationism textbook published by a christian books publisher. Do you even have a fucking clue about Dover Trial?...
@nolobede Isolating religious doctrine from public funded educational system is not in the Constitution, and since you haven't read the Constitution, seperation of church and state is also not in the Constitution. The first public school Primer was all Christian based talking about Adam and Eve, etc. Talking about the Bible or allowing an opening for God in scientific theory does not create a religion. Your understanding of History and the Constitution is lacking.
Seriously you are one fucked up uneducated dolt.My Masters degree was dependent on my understanding of the constitution, and the ability to spell "separation" btw.
Dude, you are so fucking far from having an argument it isn't even silly, its just fucking sad. Where's your citation, fraud. Its crystal clear how clueless you are about science, the US constitution and certainly about IEEE standards... can't WAIT to wipe your ass with your own face with THAT one.
@nolobede You are quite the whiny little poodle. Ok Sally, I'll look forward to your publications after this one... Chenan, X., Zhao, X., Islam, M.N., Terry, F.L., Freeman, M.J., Zakel, A., Mauricio, J. (2009). 10.5 W Time-Averaged Power Mid-IR Supercontinuum Generation Extending Beyond 4um With Direct Pulse Pattern Modulation. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics 15(2), 422-434 and yes Sally I know how to to references, I had to do them in my Thesis.
@nolobede Ok Sally, lets here where in the Constitution it talks says "Separation of Church and State?" Or will you skirt the actual conversation for more insults and random nit picking of unessential details?
@nolobede It sounds more like you have been studying the liberal revisionist Constitutional law after the 1943 Everson v Board of Education case which cites no precedents and only partially quotes the separation reference. The previous 150+ years of court decisions that cite the Separation reference all favor the religious side and cite a much larger portion of the reference. It's called revisionist thinking, and it's the standard these days in courts.
"Talking about the Bible or allowing an opening for God in scientific theory does not create a religion"
-Neither God nor ANY religion is included in any scientific theory, because it has no fucking basis in reality, never has. Myths are not science, never will be. You'd have to supply 1 single valid shred of evidence that god exists... and in the entire history of mankind,never a stitch. Too bad your just another brainless lemming living the delusion.
@nolobede The degrading story of Inflation as it relates the Big Bang and the standard model. Astrophysicists are finally in mass admitting that it is purely theoretical and it isn't working. Dark energy and matter are purely theoretical fudge factors to account for the fact that the viewable universe is much bigger than the age of the Universe in the standard model allows. Atmospheric Helium and C14 content, ocean salinity, radiometric dating all lead to a young earth and God.
"Astrophysicists are finally in mass admitting that it is purely theoretical and it isn't working."
Really?... WHAT astrophysicists? Got a list?... no 'cause you're pulling that out of your bullshit filled asshat. No Billy Bob, Just another lie that you can't backup, & the astrophysicists of the world would also tell you to pull your head out from under your asshat. Try reading some REAL information from ACTUAL academically viable sources.
@nolobede The most recent article I read and I'm not going to waste my effort with the perfect citation, was Paul J. Steinhardt, The Inflation Debate Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply flawed? April 6, 2011 which discusses exactly what I stated. What other distractions do you have other than answering a question?
So lets see. The culmination of the human history of scientific data, accumulated by 100's of thousands of the worlds most educated overachieving scientists providing proof for everything we know today... vs you.
Yeah, um... right.
You certainly are one of the most deluded fucktards I've ever read on youtube. Congratulations, THAT is an achievement in itself.
Um, since you have all this proof and evidence?... why don't you bring it to the World science community.
-oh this laughing is tiring me out. Seriously, you are either a troll comedian, or the dumbest fuck on the internet. But thanks for the entertainment. I'll post some of this stuff on the science blogs, cause we all get a kick out of the boundless ignorance there is in the world.
Sorry, you'll have to entertain yourself for a while, maybe you can play with your roblox. Or a better idea, go to a non-religious bookstore to browse. You'd be amazed at all the REAL information there is in the world.
All you'd have to do is prove your points about how wrong all the scientists are. You'll be the richest most famous fucktard ever. Its that simple, just show hem your "Thesis." HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... Oh, such comedy. You are caught in the intellectual abyss called religious indoctrination. You are baffled by science and reality. The discovery institue, and answers in genesis have done theiir job on you, turned your brain into useless goo.
The COURT decision was not about science, D v K was about the FACT that "of Pandas and People" was sourced from a religious textbook and therefore had no place in a public school science class.
Try doing some fucking research on the trial before you spew more bullshit, and make yourself a fool, like its not too late already.
"Facts are dependent on the community itself"
-WRONG Billy Bob, FACTS are dependent on provable evidence.
Yes, mega Legal Understanding failure on your part.
@nolobede "FACTS are dependent on provable evidence." Prove that a single cell can be spontaneously generated, not an amino acid but a living functional cell. Prove that the big bang occured, or that Universe is 13.75 Billions years old, or that the earth is 4.5 Billion years old. Facts are determined by the communities review of the evidence. The models for static electricity are being completely redone due to recent data, but many would call the old interpretation facts and they were wrong.
Thats right asshat! Now you might just be getting it! So now, lets put all of the MOUNTAINS of STAGGERING scientific evidence, pick any or all scientific disciplines... yeah, just for the sake of showing again what a fucking complete idiot you are...
Demonstrate for us... your myth... god. Go ahead Billy Bob. Show us demonstrable evidence, testable, objective, repeatable evidence.. just one shred.
@nolobede I'm becoming a big fan of your straw man tactics, instead of simply saying that there isn't any proof just evidence that some times sides with and against the theory. You make up a claim that I didn't actually make. You can't even hold your own perspective to the same tests you are asking me to show, that I never claimed existed. However, science supports a young earth and a young universe and the hurdles are equally as big as the counter theory.
@nolobede Why is it anyone who disagrees with you is uneducated? Einstein disagreed with the entire theory of quantum physics and probability, he was prove wrong. Do you consider Einstein a fool as well. Hawking has been wrong many times. Radiometric dating is inherently flawed, without radio-halo dating or mother-daughter ratios all other dating methods have to assume original content. When corrected for more precise methods you find that all samples are relatively quite young.
@nolobede If you calculate the moons location and orbit you see that turning back the clock, at 1.4 Billion years ago the Moon would be at the Roche limit and break apart at 11,500 miles from the earth, much closer than it's current 220,000 miles. At 50,000 miles away it would have created tides 1 mile high. At the current rates of erosion every continent on earth would be eroded flat to sea level in only 14,000,000 years. Where is your citation by the way?
Nobody cares now fucktard. You're spewing the same old tired creationist arguments that always go nowhere. You've proven you are a liar, a deluded psychopath, you ramble aimlessly with bits & pieces of bullshit you've found on creatard websites. You haven't a fucking clue. You've lost all credibility with your posts, lies and ramblings. Nothing you could possibly bring up hasn't been shown to be pure bullshit.
You're like a stupid dog that just keeps eating his own shit.
@sgtsolo1 Had he taken the time to even try and debate me it would have at least been more entertaining. He also clearly doesn't understand the difference between truth and the opinions of men. Perhaps I was wasting my time, casting my pearls before swine so to speak.
Hahahahaha.... if nothing else, creationists always provide entertainment. Too bad they can't provide any discussion that hasn't been embarrassingly debunked or years. How about something new?... something actually backed up by science... you know REAL science?... Your ignorance is boundless, relentless... and void of anything to back it up... as always.
@nolobede "you know REAL science?... Your ignorance is boundless, relentless... and void of anything to back it up... as always." Thats cute. suggesting ive made a attempt at providing you with scientific evidence, nice try. No, all Ive done is made a remark on your "boundless" (LOL) and "Relentless" ego. Anyway if you want to play it your way then fine. Give me a debunked scientific theory, Without setting up a straw man argument or providing me with age old myths that obviously not true.
Um, hey dumbass.... talk about boundless ignorance. You CAN read can't you?
I'm not debunking scientific theory, I'm pointing out the relentless futility of the uneducated creatard young earth idiots who try so desperately to create some non existant "controversy" in the biological sciences regarding evolution. There IS no controversy about evolution being a fact. That argument is over. Its as over as your god myth.
@nolobede Of course i know what debunked means. Its funny how your the one calling people left right and center whilst trying to avoid questions. Your the one who inferred evolution is proven fact but still fail to defend it.
P.S. "without providing actual, viable, testable evidence" And understand the evolution theory is not observable Because theres no such thing as time machine.
Anyway ill think ill pm you instead. all your ranting is just attracting attention, I also get more words :P
- Well, then you might want to review how you use the word since you asked me to "Give me a debunked scientific theory." As the conversation was posed, I wasn't debunking valid scientific theory, ie. evolution/biology. I was ridiculing someone who tried to deprecate the fact of evolution with the same old tired baseless Hovind/Hamm/Disco-Institute bullshit you can find on any common creationist website.
"Its funny how your the one calling people left right and center whilst trying to avoid questions."
Really?... you might want to read back a few hundred posts and find that, nice try.
What I WOULD like is for something NEW. Something that isn't copied from some bullshit creationist that hasn't provided any viable scientific evidence. You DI watch this vid right? or do you just spew crap without a clue like orin11 the IDiot. Have you read the Dover trial transcripts?... where...
...where, (among other places) Behe's IC hypothesis is shredded. He failed scientific peer review process, His argument has been over for almost a decade.
"You(re) the one who inferred evolution is proven fact but still fail to defend it."
- I don't need to defend it. The worlds conglomeration of educated scientists and academic institutions accept the monumental, staggering, undeniable amount of evidence supporting the science. Yet there's been no(zero) evidence contradicting evo. Evolution, is "defended" by mountains of facts, demonstrable predictable, repeatable, observable scientific process. I have no need to defend evo theory.
"And understand the evolution theory is not observable Because theres no such thing as time machine."
- Hahaha.... pulled that one right off the answersingenesis website didn't you?, Some people say the same thing about Jesus... "Were you there?... Hahaha... entertaining.
Yes, let's talk about "understanding. Tell me, do you have an education in the sciences?... a BS degree?... Masters?... PhD? Being 16, probably haven't even passed 10th grade biology... yet.
...So we'll forgive your ignorance of the sciences, but you really need to diversify your sources of information. Try an actual university committed to the sciences. Only a secular academic institution will lack intentions of filling your head with such creationist bullshit, only truth, only what can be seen, tested, demonstrated, proven.
Dude, that creationist surfing is fucking up your mind.
-Yeah?... that's the point. The world NEEDS to see the ignorance that is getting shoved down our childrens throats by creationist IDiots. You are a perfect example. 16, and think you have a clue about how evolution/biology works, because you get your information from nonscience nonsense idiots like Hovind the convict, and Ken Ham the dinosaur man.
@nolobede At this moment I don't have to respond to this, but don't worry I WILL. If you'd like, if you believe that evolution is an undisputed fact, we could have a debate over Youtube's PM system since there isn't a character limit. We can debate over any area of science, from quantum evidence to astrophysics, it's all the same to me. The world needs to see that Evolution falls when examined using --real--operational-- science. We can even post the debate, unedited, on the internet.
"If you'd like, if you believe that evolution is an undisputed fact, we could have a debate"
- Its funny that you'd think I'd give a shit enough to waste time conversing with a pimply faced virgin who hasn't passed the 10th grade, or a biology class, can't legally vote, drink a beer or drive yet, let alone discuss an issue for which there is no controversy. There IS no debate. Waste of time.
...Ask yourself... why would a geologist attend a debate with a Flat-Earther?
It wouldn't happen, because its a waste of time, there IS no argument for a flat Earth... discussion already over, already answered. There IS no controversy whether or not evolution happens, that argument is over, been over for more than a hundred years. Tell you what. Finish high school, find a college and let me know when you've got a science degree. Don't be such a gullible little sheep & think yourself
@nolobede You're correct, there is no argument for a flat-earth. Thats because it is not based on fact and the Bible does not teach it. If you performed the simple task researching your opposition instead of using your non-factual opinion, you would know this. Your comment has once again shown your ignorance of what the opposition actually believes.
@nolobede If you are so "qualified" to know otherwise, then prove it. What do you have to lose? why not use this chance to pubicly humiliate me and my beliefs in public. That's because you can't. All you resort to are argument closing statements and insults that are not based in fact, but only exist within your mind. You have offered no evidence to me except blind faith because you feel that your worldview is threatened.
@nolobede What you are resorting to are ad hominem attacks, which means you are attacking me instead of refuting the argument. You are failing at defending your faith in evolution. I love it when people like you show how amatuerish you are. For all your insults, you have neither presented your qualifications or educational documents (which is not a logical form of argument either way).
@nolobede For example, I don't have a PHd in physics, but i can prove to you that gravity is real. By your own logic, you have no right to talk about gravity, or any other area of science of theology that you don't have education in. Again, ignorance must be bliss for you, for you blindly accept what evolutionists tell you. Unlike informed creationists, that actually research the subject in-depth.
...and neither do you even have a high school education. So until you can provide accreditation from academically credentialed scientific institution.... no one is going to care to listen to your Kent Hovind blathering. They've all heard it a thousand times and its all been exposed for the garbage it is a thousand times.
If you want to provide scientificly valid information, it'll have to pass scientific process. Sorry Billy, no go.
@nolobede Now, why should I, someone that has well versed himself in various fields of science such as geology, biology, astrophyisics, astrology, theology, palentology, and archeaology, someone who is perfectly willing to display this knowledge in a public forum against you, waste my time on debating someone as uninformed as you? that's because I know you're wrong and can prove it. Can you do the same without resorting to more logical fallacies and personal attacks?
I'm secure in the fact that the creationist position can be defended with logic, rational thinking and imperical evidence. I'm guessing you're not, but with evolution. Thank you for demonstrating how uninformed and religious darwiniacs are. using blind faith, instead of actually learning the real science behind the origins debate. All you are proving right now is that I am winning this debate and you are refusing to demonstrate even one piece of evidence. People like you are so easy.
And THERE is the absolute epitome of pure delusion.
So how have you won a non-existent debate?
Some people need validation so badly, they have to create it themselves.
Poor Billy, you've lost before you had even typed your first word. But just like religion... if it makes tou FEEL better, believe whatever you like... the rest of us know better.
Aww, is the poor deluded baby throwing a tantrum? i see you offered no factual evidence to back up your claims. Perhaps if Darwiniacs online actuallY KNEW anything, they would defend their religious faith instead of just typing non-support drivvel. Instead they resort to disney-style fairy tales and tantrums when someone shows them that that their faith is wrong.I have offered evidence and sources, yet non actually look at it. it shows how weak your position is. Pathetic and unscientific
@nolobede (second reply) Poor billy, you lost as soon as you started blindly accepting the doctrine of evolution. The gospel of Darwin. Unfortunatly you have closed your mind and your eyes to real reality. Don't you think it's time to grow up, ditch the refuted fairy tales you so desperatly cling to and face the truth? Nah, because you dont want to see it. Thus supporting the evidence and sources i offered to provide which shows the bias and closed mindedness to evolutionists. G'day to you sir!
Sigh... so fucked up in the mind at such an early age. Makes us wonder who got a hold of your head and filled it full of such shit. When you learn something about science... you'll learn that science only works from open minds... and that your religious doctrines only work when critical thinking is oppressed. Fact.
At least you're wise enough to say "good day" and walk away. With every post... you were just digging yourself into a deeper hole of stupid
@nolobede You know what? You're argument sounded like this;
"EVOLUTIONS REAL, EVOLUTIONS REAL!!1!!! YOU ArE all FULL of STUPID!!!!" and im like "If its real then show me evidence" you're like "I dont give a FUCKING FUCK what you think >:( i dont have to tell you anything, you're just 16 and in highschool and aren't qualified like me!!". Me "kay ill ignore your assumptions and try to give you evidence, although i know your bias will ignore it". *Hands over evidence*
We'll start with correcting you since you seem to twist things in that little confused undeveloped mind.
I said, "I... don't need to prove Evolution." "I" don't need to spend any effort proving to a nobody (you) what has already been proven to the rest of the world by educated people who have proven the fact of evolution a million times over.... And YOU are not qualified like THEM... the educated scientific community of the world.
Get it? see... I don't give a fuck if you stay stupid. Don't waste your time trying to spew at me some shit you read. I don't give a fuck what you read, I'm just surprised that you CAN read... though comprehension seems your biggest hurdle still. Don't be sad just because your trolling isn't effective on me. I don't debate unless there is a subject worthy of debate. And a pimple faced virgin whining about evolution being false just validates the pile of bullshit you are standing in.
@nolobede you obviously ignore the evidence and then reply with "OMG THIS IS SOO wrong creatard, this is just creatard bullshit!!" but i say "Its from a non-creationist source, what your really saying is its not true because im saying it." and you say "EVOLUTIONS FUCKING FACT, IT DOESNT NEED TO BE PROVED!!!!1!"
This is what i grasp from our little convo.
I gradually learned that your an idiot, Who isnt interested in science, and makes very stupid assumptions by reading my channel. Such a shame.
Wrong retard... I'm just not interested in bullshit posing as science... or dumb fuckers posing as intellectuals. Intelligent design, isn't science. -Dover v Kitzmiller
"See your not from MIT silly basement dwelling moron :) "
- Doesn't your "buybull" tell you that jealousy is one of the deadly sins? - Sorry there Billy bob, but my 6 years of hard work and dilligence, along with the diploma's next to my desk say otherwise.
Seriously, try to get through grade school first. But you'll need to fix that willfull ignorance to science before you'll ever get near a diploma.
Here's something positive you can do with your time instead of sucking your thumb sitting in a pile of stupid...
Read Dover v Kitzmiller trial. Maybe you'll see how the subject of this video, M. Behe gets his ass handed to him and gets his irreducible complexity pushed right back up his ass where it came from. Try reading the Judges finding... try learning something of actual value... maybe then you have a chance of being something besides the ignorant fucking retard you are today.
Hahahaha...I don't get mad, I just expose stupidity for the sake of all the children in the world who would otherwise listen to your unparalleled ignorance... wouldn't want them getting their heads filled with such fecal matter.
-You seem to think I'd give a fuck what you THINK you can do. At least you are entertaining.
Proving me wrong would have ZERO effect on anything at all. You'd need to prove the entire worlds scientific community wrong.... and that my friend you have no chance in the world of doing, not in your wildest indoctrinated fantasies.
@nolobede Refute my arguments. I offer what ever information you want. Prove how the religion of evolution is science and not a religion led by the closed minded and prejudiced.
@nolobede History has shown time and time again that "educated" scientists that are in agreement with each other can be completely wrong. take spontainious generation for example, where a higher percentage of scientists believed that things like dirty underwear giving rise to rats was fact. A second example is Theophilus Shickel Painter, who claimed that there were 24 human chromosomes even though 23 could be observed
@nolobede -Each of these were proven to be false by real science and rational thinking, with the false "fact" only gaining credit due to the illusion of authority that scientists carry, and people blindly excepted their word (a property of cult religions. I'm guessing you've been sceptical about everything accept your blind evolutionary faith?).
@nolobede BBC commentator Robert Matthews said about the chromosome incident: "For years biochemists refused to believe humans possess 23 pairs of chromosomes" why? "because it contridicted the claims" of this "influentiual american zoologist". To put it simply, people blindly accept what they are told because of the illusion of authority. It teaches people to not crtitically think (like how you are showing the world right now that you don't) nor bother to research the subject in detail.
"To put it simply, people blindly accept what they are told because of the illusion of authority. It teaches people to not crtitically think"
-Wow, you really need to look at your religious pov. you DO realize the whole point of your religion is to make you believe blindly on faith right?... Sad you can't see the staggering hypocrisy in your ramblings. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
@nolobede -It is the same with evolution these days. Again, i can give you list of scientists that are not in agreement with evolution, a list of evolutionary scientists that admit that it is not facts that lead them to accept it, but a religious mindset, and powerful imperical evidence for creation and a young universe. Again, I'm offering you hard evidence, even if you are unscientifically refusing to open your eyes to it.
And as far as critical thinking? WOW, Just fucking wow. I really took a spit-take when I read THAT one. I'm actually still giggling over it.
IF you are lucky enough to fool your teachers into letting you graduate High School (hope you're in the southern US), then MAYBE you can find your way into an academically accredited science institution of higher learning, you'll notce one of the first list of courses you will take will be "Critical Thinking...
These critical thinking classes will teach you how to scrutinize your sources, the sources sources, the intent behind the information, and importantly the funding and motivating factors behind these sources.
They might also teach you how the scientific process works. Science doesn't give a shit what you "believe."
I've read the bible more times than you've had birthday's. Cover to cover.
I've read the OT, NT, KJV, the Torah, Talmud, Hadith, Quran, Meccan Suras, Dhammapada... and more books than you'll read in 2 of your lifetimes to date. The very process of reading these texts with the skill of critical thinking and the ability to analyze without bias of a predisposition to any worldview is EXACTLY what has brought me to the truth. It is also my education in science that brings...
... realization that creationism has absolutely no validity regarding evidence... mere conjecture from minds incapable of TRULY looking at facts with the intention of accepting truth. Because to some truth is more important than "feeling good" about the futile hope of afterlife. It also allows me to value this life, and my family members lives all that much more, because I can accept mortality... that which you fear so much that you so desperately grasp your baseless afterlife fantasy
Sad really, that you have compartmentalized and rationalize your acceptance of proven facts. The evidence for evolution is staggering, mountainous... and beyond your desperate need for validation. There IS no question of the FACT of evolution in the VAST majority of the worlds educated population. Ignorance as you say... is bliss. It allows one comfort, solice and direction when one cannot accept reality as it is. Religion has a purpose,to guide the sheep, the lemmings of humanity.
So here's why I couldn't care less how much YOU want to find somebody to post your ad nauseum drivelous blatherings to. it is only to keep providing rationalization to yourself. Because I just don't care if you'd rather stay stupid, deluded and misguided. I just don't care. I wouldn't possibly care unless you could come up with some evidence against evolution. THAT'S where I would be interested, in fact I'd congratulate you.
...but any idiot can browse ICR, discovery Inst, answers in genesis, etc.
The internet has as much BULLSHIT as it does valid information, its how you go about discerning bullshit from valid information... and acceptance of VALID information is what makes the difference. So blathering on and on with you about the same old shit found on these creatard websites just doesn't fucking interest me one bit. I just don't care if you'd rather stay on your pursuit of ignorance. Just don't care.
"At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
- Professor D.M.S. Watson, Adaptation, Nature 124:233
@nolobede "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary-
@nolobede -that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
- Richard Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review, pg.31
@nolobede I can also provide you evidence of real science being born under a christian worldview and that it flurished under it. i can give you a list . This is what you right? you want my "Boundless ignorance" (your words not mine by the way) public?
@nolobede Well this is Embarrassing, you have friend lock. Only friends can send you Messages. which is why i sent you a friend request. Also apparently your a MIT graduate, im impressed. Cant wait to see what you know.
"Only friends can send you Messages. which is why i sent you a friend request"
-I appreciate the offer, I do. But I really only allow friend status to those that have proven themselves not to have incentive to dump a shit-ton of creationist drivel. I already see too much of that. If you got good intentions, great. Otherwise, I have better things to do.
Fusion of Human chromosome number 2 alone stands as definitive proof of common ancestry.
DNA/ Phylogenetics, biology, geology, paleontology, anthropology, chemistry, ... all these sciences and more validate evolution. Try Project Steve, THAT one is funny.
Prove evolution to be false and you'd be the richest, most famous person on the planet... there's a reason it hasn't been done. Yeah, good luck with that.
Yes... as all creationists. You waste your time. You seem to like to attempt to skirt around the scientific process. But without providing actual, viable, testable evidence... your arguments fall as flat as they always have. Delude yourself into old age... nobody cares. Must be embarrassing to be pwned so mercilessly with your own lies.
Oh.. and your Citation?... sigh... no Billy, you expose more lack of education. you had to "do them" in "your thesis"? What fucking special ed college did you go to? cause in REAL college you have to do them for EVERY FUCKING PAPER YOU WRITE... you lying fucking moron!
You haven't a fucking clue.. What are you like 12 years old or something?
First, you have top claim your authorship (as in which of the "et al" are you?)
We'd like to know so we can validate your obviously asshat lying claim with the other authors. Yeah, then we'll post your comments regarding your positions on science and watch your fake carreer hit the toilet. ( but we really know you just spend your time in your Mothers basement reading aquaman comic books, playing with your roblox and dreaming of buying a geo metro someday. You're a clueless babbling buffoon and prove it with every post.
@nolobede Considering my reputation in my field, and my quite public opinion on these topics you can't even touch me. Although I am a fan of basements I own my house, I have a wife, kids and several cars. My work car is a 1992 Geo Metro though. I'm quite fond of the fuel economy, but never been a big fan of aquaman, I lean mostly to Marvel and Image comics but I haven't collected comics for more than a decade... almost two. Good straw man though, this will get interested when we get on topic.
@nolobede Did I say that I was the first author? My contribution was significant, but like the entire peer review/PhD system there is politics associated with the system. Each person is listed as necessary depending on PhD Candidate requirements and such. In this case I was not a candidate in need of the direct citation. Unlike some I don't consider it the highest priority, unlike the Professors that put their name on every document they can.
Wow, its almost embarrassing to know there's someone will such delusions of grandeur. You MIGHT just be the biggest fucking liar on youtube after all.
"Did I say that I was the first author?
Um... here Billy Bob... lets quote your earlier posts...
"since I have multiple peer reviewed scientific papers and patents in my name"
You're done. You've been pwned more times than your alter ego, sock account toobsucker.
... Not only are you as dumb as a fucking brick, but you lie like a psychopath.
and you have "several cars... yet you choose to drive a 1992 geo metro... wow hate to see the "other cars."
Called that one right didn't I?... let alone the comic books. You're a fucking freak, and the dumbest deluded fuck I've ever read... and that is really saying something. You win the prize.
@nolobede The actual information is the important part, it is what differentiates the species. The information specifies the 23,000 required proteins and the sequence of assembling the proteins. Like building a house or a car it requires specific materials made in specific ways and assembled in a specific sequence. I also don't think you actually understand irreduceable complexity, the existance of similar partial structures with different functions does not eliminate the arguement.
"I also don't think you actually understand irreduceable complexity, the existance of similar partial structures with different functions does not eliminate the arguement."
In your above sentence, the misspelling of 3 words neither does your case any good either. Most educated people wouldn't misspell "irreducible" "existence" and "argument" all in one sentence. .. But you claimed the education... I'm just sayin.'
"I also don't think you actually understand irreducible complexity, the existence of similar partial structures with different functions does not eliminate the argument. "
- And its quite obvious that you lack education in biochemistry beyond the bullshit you've read on your creationist websites. If you'd like to understand why Behe's IC doesn't jive, perhaps you should take some classes and brush up on prokaryotic & eukaryotic biology.
D v K is over, case closed, decided through both scientific facts, and jurisprudence. Theres nothing to dismantle."Cdesignproponensists" lost. They lied, cheated, and they were caught with their hands full of Panda shit. Just like every other creationist argument since 1868, creationists just struggle in futility. If you want to disprove science, you'll have to use the scientific process to do so. Discovery Institute tries so hard to skirt around the process... and still batting zero
@nolobede Interesting, so what are your comments on the Galapagos Finches all being the same species, rotating variation and specialization but not evolving, proven genetically by non-creation scientists. Or the fact that the Galapagos iguanas can also interbreed, and their distinct DNA, combined with their close proximity to each other and isolation from the rest of the world proof that they have not been on the Galapagos for thousands of years let alone millions.
Sorry dumbass, I'm not gonna waste another night on a creatrd troll. Get an education first, then you can claim validity enough to argue whatever baseless bullshit drivel you find on your non-scientific creationist websites. We've heard them ALL before and you've got nothing new... at all.
Want to peak my interest enough to even converse with you?... try disproving Miller's explanation of the convergence of Human chromosome 2, otherwise, nobody cares to hear your redundant bullshit.
@nolobede Your aggressive and language skills would indicate you have the limited education, since I have multiple peer reviewed scientific papers and patents in my name, I'll get more to your point. Simply, research on other animals such as goats and sheep as well as rodents have found centric chromosomal fusion that generates no change in the morphology or the species. All the convergence indicates is a reduction in chromosome number, nothing else. There is no indication of similarity.
"Your aggressive and language skills would indicate you have the limited education"
-And your assumption that people with educations don't use expletives shows your lack of language skills. ...or do you not realize that for example, the word "Fuck" is one of the most accepted, versatile words in the English language?.. a word functional in all 8 parts of speech, though one must be creative in use as a preposition or conjunction. Perhaps you've a problem with comprehension, whereas..
@nolobede How many peer reviewed journals use it? Or just your peer reviewed scientific publications? I would be interested to see you document the scientific journals that use it? To your point it is the "fill in" capablility of the word that shows a lack of vocabulary for the individual that chooses to use it. Your incapability to focus on the topic from myself and others that have demonstrated your lacking seem to lend you to insults.
How many well educated highest level scientists use it... I guarantee, many! (not to mention general population as the word is no longer a colloquial expletive, but a common word. -ANY dictionary)
The point, goes toward your prudish limitations. Ones ability to converse with a greater population includes relevance, articulation AND commonality of syntactic aptitude. And "Fuck" qualifies. Its ok to grow up and speak like adults now Billy Bob
@nolobede So none, and I've been to many scientific conferences and professional conferences and I don't think I've ever read or heard anyone use the word. It typically qualifies for the lowest common denominator, not those with professional aptitude. Do you use it in your Resume or Curriculum Vitae... I'm guessing not. Go ahead continue to tell us how right you are, and insult me. I'm sure it's convincing us all, next you will tell us how the stickers on your car make it go faster.
Its amazing what a prudish adolescent you seem to be. its like you never heard the word. And no, most of us don't NEED to use the word in professional documents any more than we would use other words in the same docs when other words will do. Thats the whole point Billy. It appropriate, when its appropriate., a very specifically pertinent word. at times it is EXACTLY the word needed. Now grow up and don't be such a prudish christian whiner...
Ok I see alot of the previous comments are useless... This isn't an evolution vs. creationist debate, this is a hole in the theory of evolution, that in no way disproves evolution, but still needs explaining, can anyone explain how molecular machines evolved? there is definitely a strange force that brought these molecules together into functional machines that are the basis of our world, does that not interest anyone?
EarlySeed 1 week ago
It's amazing how secular trained monkeys from government skrooling always trash real scientific endeavor in favor of speculation and theory passed off as "fact" and then start calling anyone who disagrees with them names like the third grade morons they show themselves to be.......so much for pubic education.....
ccandb 2 months ago 3
You mistake ridicule for anger.
nolobede 2 months ago
@nolobede no u :)
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
I see you are down to single syllable grunts... always happens to creationists when they can't spew anymore bullshit. Now that you're head has spewed out all the shit maybe you can start feeding it healthy stuff, like getting an education.
nolobede 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nolobede Ive established your not worth it. Do i need to prove anything to you? Keep telling yourself what you want. All you have been doing is making boringly snide hypocritical remarks (backed with no science), which im now finding tedious and repetitive.
I had hoped you would but up some kind of valid argument at least but i have to say im greatly disappointed. So to put it short- Shut the Fuck up and Get the Fuck out.
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
The quick answer... Not even close!
Time to grow up Billy.
nolobede 2 months ago
You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe. [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985]
nolobede 2 months ago
The appearance of design is so blatant now you really have to start questioning the naturalists ability to critically think.
Every prediction evolution has made has been falsified many times over.
Science is now practicing I.D. in the lab, verifying the very hypothesis they say is not science.
Evolution will be falsified & I.D. will be verified within 10 years, and all the "brilliant minds" in science that refused to accept the blatantly obvious will be made public spectacles by God
toobsucker 7 months ago
@toobsucker
"The appearance of design is so blatant now"
-Wow, really? Amazing how the world science community disagrees. Flagellum as proof?... Perhaps being stuck on a limited number of information sources like Discovery Institute (producer of this vid) and creationist websites limits your knowledge. or are you one of the "cdesign proponentsists" that ignore the fact that Ken Miller already dismantled the flagellum argument. Ever heard of Dover v Kitzmiller?
I assure you M. Behe has.
nolobede 6 months ago
@nolobede " ignore the fact that Ken Miller already dismantled the flagellum argument"
Really? Miller produced the DNA sequences that form the flagellum from random copying errors & selection?
IM sorry i must have missed that part, please direct me to that information shows how evolutionary science is creating these extremely finely tuned (100% conserved) parameters from copying errors & selection.
toobsucker 6 months ago
@nolobede "Ken Miller already dismantled the flagellum argument. Ever heard of Dover v Kitzmiller?"
Speaking of Millers evolutionary expertise. You understand Miller has an article (still on his website) that explains how junk DNA proves an evolutionary prediction.
Junk DNA has been falsified a myriad of times since then. And Millers (as well as the vast majority of the "brilliant" minds in science) ability to assess the data is now on display.
Mens wisdom (I.Q.) is foolishness with God
toobsucker 6 months ago
@toobsucker
"You understand Miller has an article (still on his website) that explains how junk DNA proves an evolutionary prediction"
-Yeah, um Miller explains very well how JDNA shows ID is a creationists fantasy.
Kenneth R. Miller - Technology Review; Volume 97 (2): 24 - 32.
But yeah I noticed you applied no citation for your source of info.
"Junk DNA has been falsified a myriad of times since then"
- Sources?
nolobede 6 months ago
@nolobede ""Junk DNA has been falsified a myriad of times since then"
- Sources?"
There is such a glut of information on this one wonders how you still don't understand it. I could flood you inbox with pages & pages
"The discoveries of the past decade, little known to most of the public, have completely overturned much of what used to be taught in high school biology. If you thought the DNA molecule comprised thousands of genes but far more "junk DNA", think again". Francis Collins 2010
toobsucker 6 months ago
@toobsucker
"Francis Collins, author of The Language of God and director of the National Human Genome Research Institute"
"Collins is known for believing in both evolution and God, but he stops short of using junk DNA as proof of God as the master of creation. I've stopped using the term," Collins said.
Wired Magazine Shaffer C. - Ed 06.13.07
nolobede 6 months ago
@toobsucker
"Obviously 'junk' is pretty much a colloquial term," said Stanford's Bejerano. "There's no scientific definition of what is junk."
That's why T. Ryan Gregory, professor in biology at the University of Guelph, states that nonfunctional is the default assumption.
"Function at the organism level is something that requires evidence,"
-Wired Magazine Shaffer C. - Ed 06.13.07
nolobede 6 months ago
@nolobede
“The failure to recognize the full implications of this particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information in the form of RNA molecules—may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology." Mattick, J., cited in: Gibbs, W.W., The unseen genome: gems among the junk, Scientific American 289(5):26–33, November 2003; pp. 29–30.
ENCODE is finding the same. Non coding DNA is functioning
toobsucker 6 months ago
@toobsucker
Great, you've quoted an opinion!...
Words like "Possibility" and "May" will not even get TO a peer review status.
How about something with a fact or 2?
nolobede 6 months ago
@nolobede "Great, you've quoted an opinion!...How about something with a fact or 2"
How about you study the matter so your not defending admitted out dated material. This just makes you look extremely ill informed with no credibility
"Berkeley Scientists Find DNA Gold in Genetic Desert"
"Hints of a language in junk DNA"
"Molecular biology: Complicity of gene and pseudogene"
"The Gems of "Junk" DNA"
I also suggest you inform the many members of ENCODE their findings are "just opinions"
toobsucker 6 months ago
Comment removed
nolobede 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker
Um, you think coining some headline titles means anything?... did you actually read these "publications?
So what ? You need to show evidence, meat, not opinions, and then cite sources, not article titles.
Again... Sources... You haven't written any college papers have you? Speaking of lacking credibility?... sources?
nolobede 6 months ago
@nolobede ""There's no scientific definition of what is junk."
That's why T. Ryan Gregory, professor in biology at the University of Guelph, states that nonfunctional is the default assumption."Function at the organism level is something that requires evidence,"
Your not getting it.
Junk DNA was an evolutionary prediction made by many evolutionists. Junk DNA should theoretically exist if Darwinian evolution was valid. Millers credibility is now laughable
toobsucker 6 months ago
@toobsucker
And if YOU were actually up to date, you might know that junk dna actually SUPPORTS evolution... and that Miller has published many documents SINCE the one you cherry picked regarding Junk DNA.
Unless you can provide evidence of function... good luck with that.
nolobede 6 months ago
@nolobede "Unless you can provide evidence of function... good luck with that."
What do you think this latest controversy about non coding DNA is about?
They are finding evidence of function.
I suggest you study ENCODES latest press release of their findings. ENCODE is finding non coding regions to be controlling multiple functions
And they are finding identical non coding DNA (100% conserved) sequences that has existed for hundreds of millions of years in many unrelated species.
toobsucker 6 months ago
@toobsucker
"Millers credibility is now laughable "
Where?... in the creationist community?
Let's see now...
Dr. Ken Miller: Sc.B. in biology, 1970, Brown University.
Ph.D. Biology , University of Colorado at Boulder, 1974.
Professor Harvard University, 1974-1980,
Yeah, his credibility is so in trouble.
nolobede 6 months ago
@nolobede "Dr. Ken Miller: Sc.B. in biology, 1970, Brown University.
Ph.D. Biology , University of Colorado at Boulder, 1974.
Professor Harvard University, 1974-1980,
Do you understand IF non coding regions of DNA prove to be functional as predicted by
Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004).
Those that predicted the contrary will lose ALL intellectual credibility. Are you prepared for it?
toobsucker 6 months ago
@toobsucker
"as predicted by"
Predictions.
And by the way?... unless those "predictions" are not tested, verified, peer reviewed and accepted by the worldwide academic conglomeration of scientific community, they are NOT science, only predictions.
Yes, there is no skirting around the scientific process. Those that claim fact on predictions will lose ALL credibility, are you prepared for it?
nolobede 6 months ago
@toobsucker
Not only that, but the ENCODE project will have to determine 100 % genome definition as functional... not 1%. And they aren't there... Sorry.
nolobede 6 months ago
@toobsucker
And by the way, the ENCODE project has only this month published a first set of standards and guidelines for Sequencing experiments. So you've got a long way to go before "predictions" can be validated.
nolobede 6 months ago
@nolobede "Um, you think coinig som,e headline titles means anything?... did you actually read these "publications?Again... Sources... You haven't written any college papers have you? Speaking of lacking credibility?... sources?"
LOL...I gave you sources from evolutionary scientists quoting their findings. Its your choice to read it or not
Your a liberal who does not care about facts. you only care to validate your presuppositions at all costs
toobsucker 6 months ago
@toobsucker
"I gave you sources from evolutionary scientists quoting their findings. Its your choice to read it or not"
No poppie... as I stated, you only gave Titles, no evidence or testimony FROM the Titles.
Typing titles of Publications, is NOT citing sources. And you need to provide a thesis, ootherwise... why bother?...
nolobede 6 months ago
@nolobede "No poppie... as I stated, you only gave Titles, no evidence or testimony FROM the Titles"
Yes that is correct. TITLES of articles do not include the experimental evidence in the title name as that would make the title a page long. This is why you must actually READ the article of the title. Comprende Muchacho?
Would you like me to flood your inbox with the "testimonies" from evolutionary science?
Ill be more than happy too.
What tells me your not prepared for it?
toobsucker 6 months ago
@nolobede Lets start with this
Google "ENCODE Research Consortium Uncovers Surprises Related to Organization and Function of Human Genetic Blueprint"
"The ENCODE consortium's major findings include the discovery that the majority of DNA in the human genome is transcribed into functional molecules, called RNA, and that these transcripts extensively overlap one another. ...... along with a vast amount of so-called junk DNA that is not biologically active"
toobsucker 6 months ago
Comment removed
nolobede 6 months ago
@nolobede "The new data indicate the genome contains very little unused sequences and, in fact, is a complex, interwoven network. In this network, genes are just one of many types of DNA sequences that have a functional impact. "Our perspective of transcription and genes may have to evolve," the researchers state in their Naturepaper, noting the network model of the genome "poses some interesting mechanistic questions" that have yet to be answered."
toobsucker 6 months ago
@toobsucker
"Your a liberal who does not care about facts"
Wow, what a stupid fucking thing to say. Really? You really have no clue where I stand between Liberal and conservative.. but you probably provide your own definitions on that subject too.
So scientific facts are divisive between liberal and conservative?
...I'd like to hear this one... on what basis do you apply that illogic?... I mean besides the far-right god, america, christian nation bullshit that we always hear.
nolobede 6 months ago
@nolobede "Wow, what a stupid fucking thing to say. Really? You really have no clue where I stand between Liberal and conservative"
By liberal I do not mean political stance or voting record. A "liberal mind" puts personal feelings before DATA. Many examples can be given.
One example is political correctness, a liberal invention that avoids the truth (or lies) to avoid bad feelings.
Most all liberals minds vote democrat, not all democrat's are liberal. they are not one in the same
toobsucker 6 months ago
@nolobede "And by the way?... unless those "predictions" are not tested, verified, peer reviewed and accepted by the worldwide academic conglomeration of scientific community, they are NOT science, only predictions"
What world are you living in. The evidence against non coding DNA being non functional is massive and recent. As I said, would you like to respond to a plethora of verified information on this subject sent to your inbox?
toobsucker 6 months ago
@nolobede "try not to establish findings that have not taken place."
What part of
"In the pilot phase, ENCODE researchers DEVISED AND TESTED high-throughput approaches for identifying functional elements in the genome. Those elements included genes that code for proteins; genes that do not code for proteins; regulatory elements that control the transcription of genes; and elements that maintain the structure of chromosomes and mediate the dynamics of their replication"
Do you not understand?
toobsucker 6 months ago
@nolobede "and do you even understand "Non-Active" DNA?'
Yes I fully understand "Non-Active" DNA?" (DNA that does not code for proteins) However it appears you do not understand this non coding DNA is being proven to be functionally active.
Thus non-coding does not equate "non- active"
And the longer you cling to this out dated view the more ridiculous your reasoning abilities appear
toobsucker 6 months ago
@nolobede Unfortunately Miller represents the facts by focusing on the morphology of the cell and not the sequencing. When you look at the coding differences it becomes clear that Miller's counter argument is not factual. Additionally his point about irreducibly-complexity, is also not accurate, because you find a similar part else where that does not function similarly as the original does not create reduceable complexity. I could further dismantle your D v K statement but I'm out of space.
Orin11 3 months ago
@Orin11
"...and not the sequencing. When you look at the coding differences it becomes clear that Miller's counter argument is not factual"
Sigh... haven't we all been through this discussion ad-naseum? We tire of trolls spewing garbage. "coding differences"... nope, sorry, you're done. Argument is already over, it was over before D v K.
nolobede 3 months ago
@nolobede LOL, declaring something as fact doesn't make, so. Even more humorous is your interpretation of the law. District law is not the highest court, and judges have the bias like people do. He made this decision not on legal precident, let alone scientific or historical legal facts. One case does not make truth, if so look back to past rulings, when atheists couldn't testify because they had no higher power to account to for lying. D v K is a perfect example of revisionist thinking.
Orin11 3 months ago
@Orin11
"LOL, declaring something as fact doesn't make, so. "
Yes, LMFAO, Declaration of something as fact must undergo the scientific process. Falsifiable, observable, testable, predictable validated peer reviewed("peers" means "academically accepted, credible & qualified", not church group members). Irreducible complexity is a perfect example... tested & failed. Discussion over,
This is why intelligent design has failed miserably & consistently into the abyss of non-science non-sense.
nolobede 3 months ago
"He made this decision not on legal precident, let alone scientific or historical legal facts."
"He" (Judge John E. Jones III, appointed by president Bush) made his decision (and you'd know this if you'd actually read the ruling) based on the evidence presented. Not only that the evidence produced was monumentally voluminous against intelligent design, but also the FACT that the defendants not only had no scientific basis, but PERJURED themselves during the proceedings.
More "Fail."
nolobede 3 months ago
@nolobede Although I already know the answer please, tell us which scientist for the Defense perjured himself? Also, as a knowledgeable person, what part of the constitution does ID break? Please cite the Constitutional section, as well as the earliest Legislative or Supreme comments on that section to support your argument.
Orin11 3 months ago
@Orin11
"tell us which scientist for the Defense perjured himself? "
Nice try, you've never read the case. The "creationists" that committed purjory were Bonsell and Buckingham, BOTH creationists from the defense. as per Judge Jones finding! But lying is what creationists do, they HAVE to!.
nolobede 3 months ago
@Orin11
"...what part of the constitution does ID break?"
I never said "ID" itself breaks constitution... it just fails logic, science, and any hope of demonstrable evidence.
But ID as "science" (i.e. D V K ) is about what DOES violate constitution, as ID was SHOWN IN THE TRIAL to be creationism BY THE AUTHORS OWN DEFINITION.
Did you even fucking (appropriate here) read the trial? or is it just a comprehension thing?
So ID = creationism = religion = not science = Not in public schools!
Fail
nolobede 3 months ago
@nolobede By the way unless, ID establishes doctrine, clergy, and a specific following by definition of our Federal Government it is not establishing a religion. The whole point I was trying to make is that it is not the courts job and has never been to decide what is scientific fact and isn't outside of breaking the law which D v K clearly isn't about. Facts are dependent on the community itself even one split between evolution and creation. Legal understanding failure.
Orin11 3 months ago
@Orin11
BTW Who the fuck said we were talking about ID being a "religion"...
You really DO have a comprehension problem...
The court... did EXACTLY its job, and that is to isolate religious doctrine from public funded educational system... as is defined in the constitution. What was PROVEN in the case, was the attempt to incorporate creationism, DIRECTLY VERBATIM copied from a creationism textbook published by a christian books publisher. Do you even have a fucking clue about Dover Trial?...
nolobede 3 months ago
@nolobede Isolating religious doctrine from public funded educational system is not in the Constitution, and since you haven't read the Constitution, seperation of church and state is also not in the Constitution. The first public school Primer was all Christian based talking about Adam and Eve, etc. Talking about the Bible or allowing an opening for God in scientific theory does not create a religion. Your understanding of History and the Constitution is lacking.
Orin11 3 months ago
@Orin11
Seriously you are one fucked up uneducated dolt.My Masters degree was dependent on my understanding of the constitution, and the ability to spell "separation" btw.
Dude, you are so fucking far from having an argument it isn't even silly, its just fucking sad. Where's your citation, fraud. Its crystal clear how clueless you are about science, the US constitution and certainly about IEEE standards... can't WAIT to wipe your ass with your own face with THAT one.
Quintessential asshat!
nolobede 3 months ago
@nolobede You are quite the whiny little poodle. Ok Sally, I'll look forward to your publications after this one... Chenan, X., Zhao, X., Islam, M.N., Terry, F.L., Freeman, M.J., Zakel, A., Mauricio, J. (2009). 10.5 W Time-Averaged Power Mid-IR Supercontinuum Generation Extending Beyond 4um With Direct Pulse Pattern Modulation. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics 15(2), 422-434 and yes Sally I know how to to references, I had to do them in my Thesis.
Orin11 3 months ago
@nolobede Ok Sally, lets here where in the Constitution it talks says "Separation of Church and State?" Or will you skirt the actual conversation for more insults and random nit picking of unessential details?
Orin11 3 months ago
@nolobede It sounds more like you have been studying the liberal revisionist Constitutional law after the 1943 Everson v Board of Education case which cites no precedents and only partially quotes the separation reference. The previous 150+ years of court decisions that cite the Separation reference all favor the religious side and cite a much larger portion of the reference. It's called revisionist thinking, and it's the standard these days in courts.
Orin11 3 months ago
@Orin11
"Talking about the Bible or allowing an opening for God in scientific theory does not create a religion"
-Neither God nor ANY religion is included in any scientific theory, because it has no fucking basis in reality, never has. Myths are not science, never will be. You'd have to supply 1 single valid shred of evidence that god exists... and in the entire history of mankind,never a stitch. Too bad your just another brainless lemming living the delusion.
Where's your citation liar?
nolobede 3 months ago
@nolobede The degrading story of Inflation as it relates the Big Bang and the standard model. Astrophysicists are finally in mass admitting that it is purely theoretical and it isn't working. Dark energy and matter are purely theoretical fudge factors to account for the fact that the viewable universe is much bigger than the age of the Universe in the standard model allows. Atmospheric Helium and C14 content, ocean salinity, radiometric dating all lead to a young earth and God.
Orin11 3 months ago
@Orin11
Baaahahahaha... oh you ARE good for a laugh.
"Astrophysicists are finally in mass admitting that it is purely theoretical and it isn't working."
Really?... WHAT astrophysicists? Got a list?... no 'cause you're pulling that out of your bullshit filled asshat. No Billy Bob, Just another lie that you can't backup, & the astrophysicists of the world would also tell you to pull your head out from under your asshat. Try reading some REAL information from ACTUAL academically viable sources.
nolobede 3 months ago
@nolobede The most recent article I read and I'm not going to waste my effort with the perfect citation, was Paul J. Steinhardt, The Inflation Debate Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply flawed? April 6, 2011 which discusses exactly what I stated. What other distractions do you have other than answering a question?
Orin11 3 months ago
@Orin11
So lets see. The culmination of the human history of scientific data, accumulated by 100's of thousands of the worlds most educated overachieving scientists providing proof for everything we know today... vs you.
Yeah, um... right.
You certainly are one of the most deluded fucktards I've ever read on youtube. Congratulations, THAT is an achievement in itself.
Um, since you have all this proof and evidence?... why don't you bring it to the World science community.
nolobede 3 months ago
-oh this laughing is tiring me out. Seriously, you are either a troll comedian, or the dumbest fuck on the internet. But thanks for the entertainment. I'll post some of this stuff on the science blogs, cause we all get a kick out of the boundless ignorance there is in the world.
Sorry, you'll have to entertain yourself for a while, maybe you can play with your roblox. Or a better idea, go to a non-religious bookstore to browse. You'd be amazed at all the REAL information there is in the world.
nolobede 3 months ago
@Orin11
All you'd have to do is prove your points about how wrong all the scientists are. You'll be the richest most famous fucktard ever. Its that simple, just show hem your "Thesis." HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... Oh, such comedy. You are caught in the intellectual abyss called religious indoctrination. You are baffled by science and reality. The discovery institue, and answers in genesis have done theiir job on you, turned your brain into useless goo.
nolobede 3 months ago
@Orin11
The COURT decision was not about science, D v K was about the FACT that "of Pandas and People" was sourced from a religious textbook and therefore had no place in a public school science class.
Try doing some fucking research on the trial before you spew more bullshit, and make yourself a fool, like its not too late already.
"Facts are dependent on the community itself"
-WRONG Billy Bob, FACTS are dependent on provable evidence.
Yes, mega Legal Understanding failure on your part.
nolobede 3 months ago
@nolobede "FACTS are dependent on provable evidence." Prove that a single cell can be spontaneously generated, not an amino acid but a living functional cell. Prove that the big bang occured, or that Universe is 13.75 Billions years old, or that the earth is 4.5 Billion years old. Facts are determined by the communities review of the evidence. The models for static electricity are being completely redone due to recent data, but many would call the old interpretation facts and they were wrong.
Orin11 3 months ago
@Orin11
"FACTS are dependent on provable evidence."
Thats right asshat! Now you might just be getting it! So now, lets put all of the MOUNTAINS of STAGGERING scientific evidence, pick any or all scientific disciplines... yeah, just for the sake of showing again what a fucking complete idiot you are...
Demonstrate for us... your myth... god. Go ahead Billy Bob. Show us demonstrable evidence, testable, objective, repeatable evidence.. just one shred.
Your ignorance is unparallelled.
nolobede 3 months ago
@nolobede I'm becoming a big fan of your straw man tactics, instead of simply saying that there isn't any proof just evidence that some times sides with and against the theory. You make up a claim that I didn't actually make. You can't even hold your own perspective to the same tests you are asking me to show, that I never claimed existed. However, science supports a young earth and a young universe and the hurdles are equally as big as the counter theory.
Orin11 3 months ago
@Orin11
Speaking of "straw man" you are the lord of the scarecrows...
"However, science supports a young earth"
Prove it fucktard. You can't, neither can your cell block bitch Hovind, or ken hamm or any of your other non educated fucktards.
Easy as this. Young Earth... Prove it, or STFU.
You can't, discussions over at that point. Bye now moron.
nolobede 3 months ago
@nolobede Why is it anyone who disagrees with you is uneducated? Einstein disagreed with the entire theory of quantum physics and probability, he was prove wrong. Do you consider Einstein a fool as well. Hawking has been wrong many times. Radiometric dating is inherently flawed, without radio-halo dating or mother-daughter ratios all other dating methods have to assume original content. When corrected for more precise methods you find that all samples are relatively quite young.
Orin11 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Orin11
"Why is it anyone who disagrees with you is uneducated"
The obvious clues that you lack education have nothing to do with agreeing with me.
They are supplied to us en masse by your own clueless fecal posts.
nolobede 3 months ago
@nolobede If you calculate the moons location and orbit you see that turning back the clock, at 1.4 Billion years ago the Moon would be at the Roche limit and break apart at 11,500 miles from the earth, much closer than it's current 220,000 miles. At 50,000 miles away it would have created tides 1 mile high. At the current rates of erosion every continent on earth would be eroded flat to sea level in only 14,000,000 years. Where is your citation by the way?
Orin11 3 months ago
@Orin11
Nobody cares now fucktard. You're spewing the same old tired creationist arguments that always go nowhere. You've proven you are a liar, a deluded psychopath, you ramble aimlessly with bits & pieces of bullshit you've found on creatard websites. You haven't a fucking clue. You've lost all credibility with your posts, lies and ramblings. Nothing you could possibly bring up hasn't been shown to be pure bullshit.
You're like a stupid dog that just keeps eating his own shit.
Nobody cares
nolobede 3 months ago
@Orin11 Its a shame nolobede cant argue with a glimmer of intelligence isn't it? Seriously, how many times can you say "tard" in a sentence.
sgtsolo1 3 months ago
@sgtsolo1 Had he taken the time to even try and debate me it would have at least been more entertaining. He also clearly doesn't understand the difference between truth and the opinions of men. Perhaps I was wasting my time, casting my pearls before swine so to speak.
Orin11 3 months ago
@Orin11 haha :D nicely put, and judging by his channel it looks like he cant form his own opinion either.
sgtsolo1 3 months ago
@sgtsolo1
Hahahahaha.... if nothing else, creationists always provide entertainment. Too bad they can't provide any discussion that hasn't been embarrassingly debunked or years. How about something new?... something actually backed up by science... you know REAL science?... Your ignorance is boundless, relentless... and void of anything to back it up... as always.
nolobede 2 months ago
@nolobede "you know REAL science?... Your ignorance is boundless, relentless... and void of anything to back it up... as always." Thats cute. suggesting ive made a attempt at providing you with scientific evidence, nice try. No, all Ive done is made a remark on your "boundless" (LOL) and "Relentless" ego. Anyway if you want to play it your way then fine. Give me a debunked scientific theory, Without setting up a straw man argument or providing me with age old myths that obviously not true.
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
"Give me a debunked scientific theory"
Um, hey dumbass.... talk about boundless ignorance. You CAN read can't you?
I'm not debunking scientific theory, I'm pointing out the relentless futility of the uneducated creatard young earth idiots who try so desperately to create some non existant "controversy" in the biological sciences regarding evolution. There IS no controversy about evolution being a fact. That argument is over. Its as over as your god myth.
nolobede 2 months ago
@nolobede Of course i know what debunked means. Its funny how your the one calling people left right and center whilst trying to avoid questions. Your the one who inferred evolution is proven fact but still fail to defend it.
P.S. "without providing actual, viable, testable evidence" And understand the evolution theory is not observable Because theres no such thing as time machine.
Anyway ill think ill pm you instead. all your ranting is just attracting attention, I also get more words :P
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
"Of course i know what debunked means."
- Well, then you might want to review how you use the word since you asked me to "Give me a debunked scientific theory." As the conversation was posed, I wasn't debunking valid scientific theory, ie. evolution/biology. I was ridiculing someone who tried to deprecate the fact of evolution with the same old tired baseless Hovind/Hamm/Disco-Institute bullshit you can find on any common creationist website.
nolobede 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
"Its funny how your the one calling people left right and center whilst trying to avoid questions."
Really?... you might want to read back a few hundred posts and find that, nice try.
What I WOULD like is for something NEW. Something that isn't copied from some bullshit creationist that hasn't provided any viable scientific evidence. You DI watch this vid right? or do you just spew crap without a clue like orin11 the IDiot. Have you read the Dover trial transcripts?... where...
nolobede 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
...where, (among other places) Behe's IC hypothesis is shredded. He failed scientific peer review process, His argument has been over for almost a decade.
nolobede 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
"You(re) the one who inferred evolution is proven fact but still fail to defend it."
- I don't need to defend it. The worlds conglomeration of educated scientists and academic institutions accept the monumental, staggering, undeniable amount of evidence supporting the science. Yet there's been no(zero) evidence contradicting evo. Evolution, is "defended" by mountains of facts, demonstrable predictable, repeatable, observable scientific process. I have no need to defend evo theory.
nolobede 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
"And understand the evolution theory is not observable Because theres no such thing as time machine."
- Hahaha.... pulled that one right off the answersingenesis website didn't you?, Some people say the same thing about Jesus... "Were you there?... Hahaha... entertaining.
Yes, let's talk about "understanding. Tell me, do you have an education in the sciences?... a BS degree?... Masters?... PhD? Being 16, probably haven't even passed 10th grade biology... yet.
nolobede 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
...So we'll forgive your ignorance of the sciences, but you really need to diversify your sources of information. Try an actual university committed to the sciences. Only a secular academic institution will lack intentions of filling your head with such creationist bullshit, only truth, only what can be seen, tested, demonstrated, proven.
Dude, that creationist surfing is fucking up your mind.
nolobede 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
"all your ranting is just attracting attention,"
-Yeah?... that's the point. The world NEEDS to see the ignorance that is getting shoved down our childrens throats by creationist IDiots. You are a perfect example. 16, and think you have a clue about how evolution/biology works, because you get your information from nonscience nonsense idiots like Hovind the convict, and Ken Ham the dinosaur man.
Really dude, stay in school.
nolobede 2 months ago
@nolobede At this moment I don't have to respond to this, but don't worry I WILL. If you'd like, if you believe that evolution is an undisputed fact, we could have a debate over Youtube's PM system since there isn't a character limit. We can debate over any area of science, from quantum evidence to astrophysics, it's all the same to me. The world needs to see that Evolution falls when examined using --real--operational-- science. We can even post the debate, unedited, on the internet.
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
"If you'd like, if you believe that evolution is an undisputed fact, we could have a debate"
- Its funny that you'd think I'd give a shit enough to waste time conversing with a pimply faced virgin who hasn't passed the 10th grade, or a biology class, can't legally vote, drink a beer or drive yet, let alone discuss an issue for which there is no controversy. There IS no debate. Waste of time.
nolobede 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
...Ask yourself... why would a geologist attend a debate with a Flat-Earther?
It wouldn't happen, because its a waste of time, there IS no argument for a flat Earth... discussion already over, already answered. There IS no controversy whether or not evolution happens, that argument is over, been over for more than a hundred years. Tell you what. Finish high school, find a college and let me know when you've got a science degree. Don't be such a gullible little sheep & think yourself
nolobede 2 months ago
@nolobede You're correct, there is no argument for a flat-earth. Thats because it is not based on fact and the Bible does not teach it. If you performed the simple task researching your opposition instead of using your non-factual opinion, you would know this. Your comment has once again shown your ignorance of what the opposition actually believes.
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
@nolobede If you are so "qualified" to know otherwise, then prove it. What do you have to lose? why not use this chance to pubicly humiliate me and my beliefs in public. That's because you can't. All you resort to are argument closing statements and insults that are not based in fact, but only exist within your mind. You have offered no evidence to me except blind faith because you feel that your worldview is threatened.
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
@nolobede What you are resorting to are ad hominem attacks, which means you are attacking me instead of refuting the argument. You are failing at defending your faith in evolution. I love it when people like you show how amatuerish you are. For all your insults, you have neither presented your qualifications or educational documents (which is not a logical form of argument either way).
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
@nolobede For example, I don't have a PHd in physics, but i can prove to you that gravity is real. By your own logic, you have no right to talk about gravity, or any other area of science of theology that you don't have education in. Again, ignorance must be bliss for you, for you blindly accept what evolutionists tell you. Unlike informed creationists, that actually research the subject in-depth.
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
"For example, I don't have a PHd in physics"
...and neither do you even have a high school education. So until you can provide accreditation from academically credentialed scientific institution.... no one is going to care to listen to your Kent Hovind blathering. They've all heard it a thousand times and its all been exposed for the garbage it is a thousand times.
If you want to provide scientificly valid information, it'll have to pass scientific process. Sorry Billy, no go.
nolobede 2 months ago
@nolobede Now, why should I, someone that has well versed himself in various fields of science such as geology, biology, astrophyisics, astrology, theology, palentology, and archeaology, someone who is perfectly willing to display this knowledge in a public forum against you, waste my time on debating someone as uninformed as you? that's because I know you're wrong and can prove it. Can you do the same without resorting to more logical fallacies and personal attacks?
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
See... this is exactly my point about spewing endless "shit-tons of creationist garbage. Its like you're having a christian mania attack.
"waste my time on debating someone as uninformed as you?"
-No, I'd be wasting MY time debating someone as UNinformed as YOU.
nolobede 2 months ago
@nolobede
I'm secure in the fact that the creationist position can be defended with logic, rational thinking and imperical evidence. I'm guessing you're not, but with evolution. Thank you for demonstrating how uninformed and religious darwiniacs are. using blind faith, instead of actually learning the real science behind the origins debate. All you are proving right now is that I am winning this debate and you are refusing to demonstrate even one piece of evidence. People like you are so easy.
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
And THERE is the absolute epitome of pure delusion.
So how have you won a non-existent debate?
Some people need validation so badly, they have to create it themselves.
Poor Billy, you've lost before you had even typed your first word. But just like religion... if it makes tou FEEL better, believe whatever you like... the rest of us know better.
nolobede 2 months ago
Aww, is the poor deluded baby throwing a tantrum? i see you offered no factual evidence to back up your claims. Perhaps if Darwiniacs online actuallY KNEW anything, they would defend their religious faith instead of just typing non-support drivvel. Instead they resort to disney-style fairy tales and tantrums when someone shows them that that their faith is wrong.I have offered evidence and sources, yet non actually look at it. it shows how weak your position is. Pathetic and unscientific
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
@nolobede (second reply) Poor billy, you lost as soon as you started blindly accepting the doctrine of evolution. The gospel of Darwin. Unfortunatly you have closed your mind and your eyes to real reality. Don't you think it's time to grow up, ditch the refuted fairy tales you so desperatly cling to and face the truth? Nah, because you dont want to see it. Thus supporting the evidence and sources i offered to provide which shows the bias and closed mindedness to evolutionists. G'day to you sir!
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
Sigh... so fucked up in the mind at such an early age. Makes us wonder who got a hold of your head and filled it full of such shit. When you learn something about science... you'll learn that science only works from open minds... and that your religious doctrines only work when critical thinking is oppressed. Fact.
At least you're wise enough to say "good day" and walk away. With every post... you were just digging yourself into a deeper hole of stupid
nolobede 2 months ago
@nolobede You know what? You're argument sounded like this;
"EVOLUTIONS REAL, EVOLUTIONS REAL!!1!!! YOU ArE all FULL of STUPID!!!!" and im like "If its real then show me evidence" you're like "I dont give a FUCKING FUCK what you think >:( i dont have to tell you anything, you're just 16 and in highschool and aren't qualified like me!!". Me "kay ill ignore your assumptions and try to give you evidence, although i know your bias will ignore it". *Hands over evidence*
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
We'll start with correcting you since you seem to twist things in that little confused undeveloped mind.
I said, "I... don't need to prove Evolution." "I" don't need to spend any effort proving to a nobody (you) what has already been proven to the rest of the world by educated people who have proven the fact of evolution a million times over.... And YOU are not qualified like THEM... the educated scientific community of the world.
Getting it yet there Billy?
nolobede 2 months ago
@nolobede
Get it? see... I don't give a fuck if you stay stupid. Don't waste your time trying to spew at me some shit you read. I don't give a fuck what you read, I'm just surprised that you CAN read... though comprehension seems your biggest hurdle still. Don't be sad just because your trolling isn't effective on me. I don't debate unless there is a subject worthy of debate. And a pimple faced virgin whining about evolution being false just validates the pile of bullshit you are standing in.
nolobede 2 months ago
@nolobede See? why are you on this video? :) stop trolling dude :)
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sgtsolo1
"See? why are you on this video? :) stop trolling dude :)"
Um, do you forget your first posts?... and who's trolling... troll?
nolobede 2 months ago
@nolobede you obviously ignore the evidence and then reply with "OMG THIS IS SOO wrong creatard, this is just creatard bullshit!!" but i say "Its from a non-creationist source, what your really saying is its not true because im saying it." and you say "EVOLUTIONS FUCKING FACT, IT DOESNT NEED TO BE PROVED!!!!1!"
This is what i grasp from our little convo.
I gradually learned that your an idiot, Who isnt interested in science, and makes very stupid assumptions by reading my channel. Such a shame.
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sgtsolo1
Wow, its amazing what a dumb fucker you are... just when you think you've come across the dumbest, fucker on youtube another moron like you shows up[.
"This is what i grasp from our little convo."
-Yeah, we know you find it hard "grasping" reality.
Lets try one more time to help your ignorant worthless brain matter try to "grasp" the situation.
nolobede 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
"Who isnt interested in science"
Wrong retard... I'm just not interested in bullshit posing as science... or dumb fuckers posing as intellectuals. Intelligent design, isn't science. -Dover v Kitzmiller
nolobede 2 months ago
@nolobede See your not from MIT silly basement dwelling moron :)
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sgtsolo1
"See your not from MIT silly basement dwelling moron :) "
- Doesn't your "buybull" tell you that jealousy is one of the deadly sins? - Sorry there Billy bob, but my 6 years of hard work and dilligence, along with the diploma's next to my desk say otherwise.
Seriously, try to get through grade school first. But you'll need to fix that willfull ignorance to science before you'll ever get near a diploma.
nolobede 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
Here's something positive you can do with your time instead of sucking your thumb sitting in a pile of stupid...
Read Dover v Kitzmiller trial. Maybe you'll see how the subject of this video, M. Behe gets his ass handed to him and gets his irreducible complexity pushed right back up his ass where it came from. Try reading the Judges finding... try learning something of actual value... maybe then you have a chance of being something besides the ignorant fucking retard you are today.
nolobede 2 months ago
@nolobede U MAD?? :)
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
"U MAD?? :)"
Hahahaha...I don't get mad, I just expose stupidity for the sake of all the children in the world who would otherwise listen to your unparalleled ignorance... wouldn't want them getting their heads filled with such fecal matter.
nolobede 2 months ago
@nolobede You are mad tho, y u mad? :)
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
"because I know you're wrong and can prove it."
-You seem to think I'd give a fuck what you THINK you can do. At least you are entertaining.
Proving me wrong would have ZERO effect on anything at all. You'd need to prove the entire worlds scientific community wrong.... and that my friend you have no chance in the world of doing, not in your wildest indoctrinated fantasies.
nolobede 2 months ago
@nolobede Refute my arguments. I offer what ever information you want. Prove how the religion of evolution is science and not a religion led by the closed minded and prejudiced.
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
@nolobede History has shown time and time again that "educated" scientists that are in agreement with each other can be completely wrong. take spontainious generation for example, where a higher percentage of scientists believed that things like dirty underwear giving rise to rats was fact. A second example is Theophilus Shickel Painter, who claimed that there were 24 human chromosomes even though 23 could be observed
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
@nolobede -Each of these were proven to be false by real science and rational thinking, with the false "fact" only gaining credit due to the illusion of authority that scientists carry, and people blindly excepted their word (a property of cult religions. I'm guessing you've been sceptical about everything accept your blind evolutionary faith?).
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
@nolobede BBC commentator Robert Matthews said about the chromosome incident: "For years biochemists refused to believe humans possess 23 pairs of chromosomes" why? "because it contridicted the claims" of this "influentiual american zoologist". To put it simply, people blindly accept what they are told because of the illusion of authority. It teaches people to not crtitically think (like how you are showing the world right now that you don't) nor bother to research the subject in detail.
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
"BBC commentator Robert Matthews "
-Commentator?... ok that argument is over. A "commentator?" You're funny.
nolobede 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
"To put it simply, people blindly accept what they are told because of the illusion of authority. It teaches people to not crtitically think"
-Wow, you really need to look at your religious pov. you DO realize the whole point of your religion is to make you believe blindly on faith right?... Sad you can't see the staggering hypocrisy in your ramblings. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
nolobede 2 months ago
@nolobede -It is the same with evolution these days. Again, i can give you list of scientists that are not in agreement with evolution, a list of evolutionary scientists that admit that it is not facts that lead them to accept it, but a religious mindset, and powerful imperical evidence for creation and a young universe. Again, I'm offering you hard evidence, even if you are unscientifically refusing to open your eyes to it.
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
And as far as critical thinking? WOW, Just fucking wow. I really took a spit-take when I read THAT one. I'm actually still giggling over it.
IF you are lucky enough to fool your teachers into letting you graduate High School (hope you're in the southern US), then MAYBE you can find your way into an academically accredited science institution of higher learning, you'll notce one of the first list of courses you will take will be "Critical Thinking...
nolobede 2 months ago
@stsolo1
These critical thinking classes will teach you how to scrutinize your sources, the sources sources, the intent behind the information, and importantly the funding and motivating factors behind these sources.
They might also teach you how the scientific process works. Science doesn't give a shit what you "believe."
nolobede 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
I've read the bible more times than you've had birthday's. Cover to cover.
I've read the OT, NT, KJV, the Torah, Talmud, Hadith, Quran, Meccan Suras, Dhammapada... and more books than you'll read in 2 of your lifetimes to date. The very process of reading these texts with the skill of critical thinking and the ability to analyze without bias of a predisposition to any worldview is EXACTLY what has brought me to the truth. It is also my education in science that brings...
nolobede 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
... realization that creationism has absolutely no validity regarding evidence... mere conjecture from minds incapable of TRULY looking at facts with the intention of accepting truth. Because to some truth is more important than "feeling good" about the futile hope of afterlife. It also allows me to value this life, and my family members lives all that much more, because I can accept mortality... that which you fear so much that you so desperately grasp your baseless afterlife fantasy
nolobede 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
Sad really, that you have compartmentalized and rationalize your acceptance of proven facts. The evidence for evolution is staggering, mountainous... and beyond your desperate need for validation. There IS no question of the FACT of evolution in the VAST majority of the worlds educated population. Ignorance as you say... is bliss. It allows one comfort, solice and direction when one cannot accept reality as it is. Religion has a purpose,to guide the sheep, the lemmings of humanity.
nolobede 2 months ago
So here's why I couldn't care less how much YOU want to find somebody to post your ad nauseum drivelous blatherings to. it is only to keep providing rationalization to yourself. Because I just don't care if you'd rather stay stupid, deluded and misguided. I just don't care. I wouldn't possibly care unless you could come up with some evidence against evolution. THAT'S where I would be interested, in fact I'd congratulate you.
nolobede 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
...but any idiot can browse ICR, discovery Inst, answers in genesis, etc.
The internet has as much BULLSHIT as it does valid information, its how you go about discerning bullshit from valid information... and acceptance of VALID information is what makes the difference. So blathering on and on with you about the same old shit found on these creatard websites just doesn't fucking interest me one bit. I just don't care if you'd rather stay on your pursuit of ignorance. Just don't care.
nolobede 2 months ago
@nolobede
example:
"At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
- Professor D.M.S. Watson, Adaptation, Nature 124:233
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
@nolobede "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary-
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
@nolobede -that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
- Richard Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review, pg.31
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
@nolobede I can also provide you evidence of real science being born under a christian worldview and that it flurished under it. i can give you a list . This is what you right? you want my "Boundless ignorance" (your words not mine by the way) public?
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
...And want some reading? Proven examples of OBSERVED SPECIATION?
Here's a few sources, just a few beginning with "B". Want a hundred more?... a thousand?
Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988.Nature. 336:13-14.--
Baum, D. 1992. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.--
Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. 64:1102.--
Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Nature. 346:558-560--
nolobede 2 months ago
Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.--
Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.--
Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.--
Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.--
This doesn't even begin to show how many OBSERVED examples there are of proven evolution.
nolobede 2 months ago
You DO know what "debunked" means right?
nolobede 2 months ago
@nolobede Well this is Embarrassing, you have friend lock. Only friends can send you Messages. which is why i sent you a friend request. Also apparently your a MIT graduate, im impressed. Cant wait to see what you know.
sgtsolo1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sgtsolo1
"Only friends can send you Messages. which is why i sent you a friend request"
-I appreciate the offer, I do. But I really only allow friend status to those that have proven themselves not to have incentive to dump a shit-ton of creationist drivel. I already see too much of that. If you got good intentions, great. Otherwise, I have better things to do.
nolobede 2 months ago
@sgtsolo1
Fusion of Human chromosome number 2 alone stands as definitive proof of common ancestry.
DNA/ Phylogenetics, biology, geology, paleontology, anthropology, chemistry, ... all these sciences and more validate evolution. Try Project Steve, THAT one is funny.
Prove evolution to be false and you'd be the richest, most famous person on the planet... there's a reason it hasn't been done. Yeah, good luck with that.
nolobede 2 months ago
@Orin11
"Perhaps I was wasting my time..."
Yes... as all creationists. You waste your time. You seem to like to attempt to skirt around the scientific process. But without providing actual, viable, testable evidence... your arguments fall as flat as they always have. Delude yourself into old age... nobody cares. Must be embarrassing to be pwned so mercilessly with your own lies.
nolobede 2 months ago
@Orin11
Its almost like you WANT to look like a retard.
Oh.. and your Citation?... sigh... no Billy, you expose more lack of education. you had to "do them" in "your thesis"? What fucking special ed college did you go to? cause in REAL college you have to do them for EVERY FUCKING PAPER YOU WRITE... you lying fucking moron!
You haven't a fucking clue.. What are you like 12 years old or something?
First, you have top claim your authorship (as in which of the "et al" are you?)
nolobede 3 months ago
@nolobede
(as in which of the "et al" are you?)
We'd like to know so we can validate your obviously asshat lying claim with the other authors. Yeah, then we'll post your comments regarding your positions on science and watch your fake carreer hit the toilet. ( but we really know you just spend your time in your Mothers basement reading aquaman comic books, playing with your roblox and dreaming of buying a geo metro someday. You're a clueless babbling buffoon and prove it with every post.
nolobede 3 months ago
@nolobede Considering my reputation in my field, and my quite public opinion on these topics you can't even touch me. Although I am a fan of basements I own my house, I have a wife, kids and several cars. My work car is a 1992 Geo Metro though. I'm quite fond of the fuel economy, but never been a big fan of aquaman, I lean mostly to Marvel and Image comics but I haven't collected comics for more than a decade... almost two. Good straw man though, this will get interested when we get on topic.
Orin11 3 months ago
@Orin11
"Considering my reputation in my field, and my quite public opinion on these topics you can't even touch me"
No... I can't touch you... because I don't go to burger joints, but maybe if you flip enough burgers you can upgrade to a 1994 Kia someday.
Seriously dude, you need to see a shrink about those delusions. And you might want to take the bus to get there. IDiot
nolobede 3 months ago
@nolobede Did I say that I was the first author? My contribution was significant, but like the entire peer review/PhD system there is politics associated with the system. Each person is listed as necessary depending on PhD Candidate requirements and such. In this case I was not a candidate in need of the direct citation. Unlike some I don't consider it the highest priority, unlike the Professors that put their name on every document they can.
Orin11 3 months ago
@Orin11
"Did I say that I was the first author?"
Wow, its almost embarrassing to know there's someone will such delusions of grandeur. You MIGHT just be the biggest fucking liar on youtube after all.
"Did I say that I was the first author?
Um... here Billy Bob... lets quote your earlier posts...
"since I have multiple peer reviewed scientific papers and patents in my name"
You're done. You've been pwned more times than your alter ego, sock account toobsucker.
nolobede 3 months ago
... Not only are you as dumb as a fucking brick, but you lie like a psychopath.
and you have "several cars... yet you choose to drive a 1992 geo metro... wow hate to see the "other cars."
Called that one right didn't I?... let alone the comic books. You're a fucking freak, and the dumbest deluded fuck I've ever read... and that is really saying something. You win the prize.
nolobede 3 months ago
@nolobede The actual information is the important part, it is what differentiates the species. The information specifies the 23,000 required proteins and the sequence of assembling the proteins. Like building a house or a car it requires specific materials made in specific ways and assembled in a specific sequence. I also don't think you actually understand irreduceable complexity, the existance of similar partial structures with different functions does not eliminate the arguement.
Orin11 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Orin11
"I also don't think you actually understand irreduceable complexity, the existance of similar partial structures with different functions does not eliminate the arguement."
In your above sentence, the misspelling of 3 words neither does your case any good either. Most educated people wouldn't misspell "irreducible" "existence" and "argument" all in one sentence. .. But you claimed the education... I'm just sayin.'
Anyway...
nolobede 3 months ago
Comment removed
nolobede 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I also don't think you actually understand irreducible complexity, the existence of similar partial structures with different functions does not eliminate the argument. "
- And its quite obvious that you lack education in biochemistry beyond the bullshit you've read on your creationist websites. If you'd like to understand why Behe's IC doesn't jive, perhaps you should take some classes and brush up on prokaryotic & eukaryotic biology.
nolobede 3 months ago
@Orin11
D v K is over, case closed, decided through both scientific facts, and jurisprudence. Theres nothing to dismantle."Cdesignproponensists" lost. They lied, cheated, and they were caught with their hands full of Panda shit. Just like every other creationist argument since 1868, creationists just struggle in futility. If you want to disprove science, you'll have to use the scientific process to do so. Discovery Institute tries so hard to skirt around the process... and still batting zero
nolobede 3 months ago
@nolobede Interesting, so what are your comments on the Galapagos Finches all being the same species, rotating variation and specialization but not evolving, proven genetically by non-creation scientists. Or the fact that the Galapagos iguanas can also interbreed, and their distinct DNA, combined with their close proximity to each other and isolation from the rest of the world proof that they have not been on the Galapagos for thousands of years let alone millions.
Orin11 3 months ago
@Orin11
Sorry dumbass, I'm not gonna waste another night on a creatrd troll. Get an education first, then you can claim validity enough to argue whatever baseless bullshit drivel you find on your non-scientific creationist websites. We've heard them ALL before and you've got nothing new... at all.
Want to peak my interest enough to even converse with you?... try disproving Miller's explanation of the convergence of Human chromosome 2, otherwise, nobody cares to hear your redundant bullshit.
nolobede 3 months ago
@nolobede Your aggressive and language skills would indicate you have the limited education, since I have multiple peer reviewed scientific papers and patents in my name, I'll get more to your point. Simply, research on other animals such as goats and sheep as well as rodents have found centric chromosomal fusion that generates no change in the morphology or the species. All the convergence indicates is a reduction in chromosome number, nothing else. There is no indication of similarity.
Orin11 3 months ago
@Orin11
"Your aggressive and language skills would indicate you have the limited education"
-And your assumption that people with educations don't use expletives shows your lack of language skills. ...or do you not realize that for example, the word "Fuck" is one of the most accepted, versatile words in the English language?.. a word functional in all 8 parts of speech, though one must be creative in use as a preposition or conjunction. Perhaps you've a problem with comprehension, whereas..
nolobede 3 months ago
@nolobede How many peer reviewed journals use it? Or just your peer reviewed scientific publications? I would be interested to see you document the scientific journals that use it? To your point it is the "fill in" capablility of the word that shows a lack of vocabulary for the individual that chooses to use it. Your incapability to focus on the topic from myself and others that have demonstrated your lacking seem to lend you to insults.
Orin11 3 months ago
@Orin11
"How many peer reviewed journals use it?"
How many well educated highest level scientists use it... I guarantee, many! (not to mention general population as the word is no longer a colloquial expletive, but a common word. -ANY dictionary)
The point, goes toward your prudish limitations. Ones ability to converse with a greater population includes relevance, articulation AND commonality of syntactic aptitude. And "Fuck" qualifies. Its ok to grow up and speak like adults now Billy Bob
nolobede 3 months ago
@nolobede So none, and I've been to many scientific conferences and professional conferences and I don't think I've ever read or heard anyone use the word. It typically qualifies for the lowest common denominator, not those with professional aptitude. Do you use it in your Resume or Curriculum Vitae... I'm guessing not. Go ahead continue to tell us how right you are, and insult me. I'm sure it's convincing us all, next you will tell us how the stickers on your car make it go faster.
Orin11 3 months ago
@Orin11
Its amazing what a prudish adolescent you seem to be. its like you never heard the word. And no, most of us don't NEED to use the word in professional documents any more than we would use other words in the same docs when other words will do. Thats the whole point Billy. It appropriate, when its appropriate., a very specifically pertinent word. at times it is EXACTLY the word needed. Now grow up and don't be such a prudish christian whiner...
Here's one example...
nolobede 3 months ago
@Orin11
Try researching a quote:
Publication January 2009, New Scientist, IN2692
Roger Highfield - "Science is interesting, and if you don't like it you can fuck off!"
Also quoted and published by MANY scientists and non scientists since.
But this is for professionals with a "fucking" sense of humor." Which apparently you lack.
There, I am right... but don't are if you're convinced.
nolobede 3 months ago