Oh, & DonExodus, thanx for the video. As always, you bring up relevant topics for us all to view and gain understanding from. And though you said a few words at the end of the video, what do you think of what she said?Is she being apologetic to the creationists?At the time of this video a book by Andy Thompson was not out yet, called Why We Belives in Gods.Perhaps she needs to read it then do another video. TheLivingDinosaur has good videos on creationists and their spiel, amazing nuttiness
because they know they will not be satisfied unless a scientists says evolution is mandated by god through ID. Ms Scott disappoints me in a way, though I understand her points, but she is being more political than scientific. Why is it necessary to explain to these theists that, oh, we just don't include god in the discussion cuz' we just can't measure it. I mean really, disproving, or proving god,...who gives a s**t! Atleast Nietztsche had it right 'god is dead' if there ever really was one.
until the cows come home.But it will not furthermy understanding of the natural world around me&if that is enough for me, then I'm just ablind follower. Religionteaches you 'what' to think, whereas science education teachesyou 'how' to think& the basics of Evolution has no mention of god, so I should not be teaching irrelevancy. Ken Ham wants to throw out science because science is bad&god is good. And that sums it up right there. Creationists don't want their questions answered, cuz' (nextpost)
do justice to the teaching of kids about the world. Surely Scott knows what these Xian theists are after. If they cannot proselytise you to their religion then they want to make gov't mandate their beliefs into making everyone comply with them. Notice how for the last thirty years the Xians have turned their Xian religion into politics. If Ms Scott doesn't see this, then she should not be trying to give credence to having god anywhere in science. I can say god created the world (next post)
obstruct, not to understand.Theywant theirgod in the scientificknowledge, though a god is not relevant to the subject. Do we also incorporate theother 'theories' of how the world came to be, or the way it has been progressing according toancient shamans, or other religions? Already data shows that evolution isn't really taught very effectively anyway, due to parental pressure, or teacher's own bias. There is a finite time for teaching&including creationism in science classes doesn't (next post)
a reason toaccommodate these people, these theists who want to put Sunday school teaching intoregular publicschools' science classes. These Xian theists like to dump a conglomerate of differentscientific concepts into the evolution discussion, topics include atheism, Big Bang theory, Abiogenesis, Geology&all manner of bull that they may have come across at some point, looking for flaws in evolution. They have it backwards. Evolution relates to many fields, but theists want only to (next post)
have god in it, no mention of god at all&that is the main complaint of theists, they want god to be put into the theory, or else to teach creationism. Religion is mostly for ignorant people)the Abrahamic based ones), as it was introduced at a time when people were illiterate&had no knowledge of the world&theists want to put that backward thinking into the 21st century science classes.Where is the god that had something to do with it? Why can't you go with what you know? I don't see (next post)
Does Ms Scott also think we should 'let the child decide.' No, science is whatbit is, it is not a debate, facts are not voted on, there is no credence to creationism as a scientific concept, as it was thrown out years ago, due to no evidence for it except an ancient bible of myths&stories.Scott sounds like she wants to kiss creationists ass. Oh, please don't hate us because we think your view is full of s**t. Okay, I may have exaggerated, but the standard theory of evolution does not (next post)
relevant hypothesis then put all of your evidcne together&put it uip for review by the experts in the field. The fact is god is what ancient people used to attribute the workings of the natural world to. God is not in science, as we no longer think the world is flat, we also have no need of a Supreme Being to 'explain' the natural world. The standard theory of evolution shows no god in the process, so Shermer is saying there is no evidence that god had anything to do with the process (next post)
This really sounds like an apology to religious people to give them a door into putting their creationism into a 'debate.' I don't think she is completely correct. The main reason people in the US are so scientifically illiterate is because of religion, or perhaps apathy And why does anybody have to convince religious zealots of anything about the natural world that science has revealed to us? It is not a debate, teaching science. Sure, there is no authority in science& if you have a (next post)
So answering this one... back in March 25, 2005 there was a release in all the major news papers, and media networks. ABC, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC. They had found a thigh bone of a T-rex known as MOR1125, found in a sandstone formation in Montana in 2003. The bone was broken during its removal from the site and Schweitzer's team then analyzed. They found unfossilized bone marrow inside.
Would you mind explaining to me if the world is 4.5+- billion years old how dinosaur cells can last that long?
@cctman The video where we're making these posts about evolution really isn't discussing this; how evolution became the topic here I do not know though I'm assuming you're the one that instigated it.
That said, I will now tell you that there is no God and Jesus never lived on this earth; you have no proof so all your assumptions, such as you've made them, really have no validity.
@SatchmoSings So... I'm a little confused here. As an example so when we see Indians along side drawings of a brachiosaurus in a scene depicting every day modern life are your telling me the Indians were just drawing a reconstruction perfectly of a dinosaur skeleton?
On your reply to my second point, You just accused me of running from answering a topic in a post below and now your doing the same exact thing you accused me of earlier.
@cctman That's pretty easy; it's on "dictionary (.) com" and it is for you to digest since you're the one that went definition shopping all out of context; the two definitions you've insisted that we're at loggerheads over is more than clear; you're the one deliberately choosing obfuscation because you have no intellectual honesty this way
Yeah, my dad went to work at a "plant;" this context means FACTORY not a rhododendron but you'd obviously argue that because "it's in the dictionary"
Let me put it to you this way. If evolution were to reach any credibility scientifically it would have to be observable and reproducible in a lab or in nature and would have to be falsifiable.
You can't make general claims that a 4 legged mammal becomes a whale when it has never been observed, demonstrated nor has any individual component of the system as a whole been demonstrated. Lungs to gills, skin, endocrine, nervous, muscular, vascular. No system has ever been caught developing between.
@cctman its been observed and its been reproduced. We have seen bacteria and insects evolve in real time. Of course you cannot see humans evolve in real time, their reproductive cycles are too long. But that is where fossil record kicks in. There is essentially a full tree of human evolution available. Not to mention other species. And DNA is also a part of evolution. Putting creationism into this just discredits your claims, since its a religious "hypothesis".
@eleminatus I would reply with same thing word for word I said earlier. Did you even read what I wrote?
Lack of transitional fossils is one of the weakest points to the theory of evolution. Even some of the more famous evolutionists acknowledge this and yet I know this and apparently you don't? How come I seem to know more about your own theory then you do?
@cctman you wanna think you know more then I do? Do it. But when you say things like "Lack of transitional fossils is one of the weakest points", you contradict that same knowledge superiority you assert. There is an astounding amount of fossils available, that show exactly what you are arguing against. There are plenty examples of transitions between species and genera, between families, orders and classes or between kingdoms and phyla.
@cctman There are tons of transitional fossils including ones with legs for whales; people like you say, "Well show me ONE;" you're shown ONE which, of course, disproves your discourse and then you demand another one; there are THOUSANDS of transitional fossils; natural history museums, WORLD-WIDE are simply bursting with them but you insist there are none; you're living a lie; go back to sleep.
@SatchmoSings And you will find out who is lying give or take 70+- years. Enjoy your arrogance while you can. It would suck to be wrong for eternity. Maybe you should rethink your delusions.
@cctman Science goes on its merry way of finding facts and cares nothing about those religions that agree or disagree with its empirical findings.
Science becomes corrupted and entangled with religion only when a powerful and unscrupulous religious force presumes to forcefully pervert science with dogmatic religious assumptions. One example of such religious perversion of science is "Scientific Creationism." Such corrupted science is not science at all, but simply dishonest religion.
@SatchmoSings You'r right science does care less about religion that's why I'm only discussing the observable truth of our creation. By the way now that you agree science should be separate from religion I expect you to remain consistent and separate macro evolution and your little god of time and random chance from real observable, reproducible, and falsifiable science. Good Luck!
@cctman That's precisely the point; there is no observable truth of creation because you've presented no evidence. (And by the way, evolution has NOTHING to do with "how it all started; NOTHING.)
You have some sort of motivation to deny evolution; you refuse to accept its evidence yet you accept creation with NO evidence; this is rather odd.
@SatchmoSings Here's a little secret... There is NO evidence for macro evolution. However, I accept completely micro evolution. So that leads us to a dilemma. Both macro evo. and creation are purely theories. Do I accept the account of the scriptures and what I observe in the real world or do I accept the account of macro evolution and what it offers? I have plenty of reasons to accept the former over the latter.
@cctman 01. Hint: Macro Evolution is merely microevolution over a longer period of time; if what you have personally observed contradicts this, there is nothing I can say about it.
What you have to say about "only theories" however, is dead wrong; you've gone "definition shopping" and that's just so ludicrous on the face of it as your claims about scripture; it offers no evidence; it's just a declamation.
You're entitled do your own beliefs; you are not entitled to your own facts.
@SatchmoSings OK and on that note... I challenge you to provide me just one evidence of how you can tie these two micro and macro evolution together. I have been doing these style of debate/discussion for many years and have never seen a successful example. I would welcome you to try and provide me with one.
@cctman 02. The word "theory" means an explanation for a known fact; you are using the word as "hypothesis" and within the context of what we've been discussing, that definition is dead wrong but you insist upon it anyway.
We know that gravity exists; the theory, that is "the explanation of how gravity works" is not the same as saying "gravity is only a theory" which is, of course, your own definition this way.
Don't speak to me this way; it just totally ruins all that you claim.
@SatchmoSings OK... so give me your best evidence then. Give me this example of what you call fact and what I call theory and lets digest this for a while.
@cctman 01) It is something called a DICTIONARY however you might discount a dictionary because, after all, it too is a product of secular knowledge and study.
Using your logic, when my father went to work "at the plant" it meant he spent his time around a rhododendron all day and you would insist that "this is what plant means" and that's totally ridiculous.
“Definitions are the guardians of rationality, the first line of defense against the chaos of mental disintegration." Ayn Rand.
@SatchmoSings The Dictionary is considered a product of secular knowledge and study? What? A dictionary is used to define terms and pronunciation per language. It has nothing to do with secular knowledge or study.
@cctman Modern dictionaries are the work of secular or at least, secular-oriented scholars and scholarship, in their explanation of words and their meanings there is no injection of God or the "creationism" of words.
So, you've done the next best thing; you went definition shopping and you came up with nothing that has to do with the word "theory" in this context; you deliberately picked another definition of this word to "win" an argument when you did was "insert ad hominem"
@SatchmoSings On a side note... your analogy of gravity fails as we have observed its effects. It is observable, reproducible, and is falsifiable. Your example of transitional fossils can not meet any of these criteria. Any fossil you could offer as a transitional I could claim as designed by our creator that way or as a result of micro changes within a species. Because of this it meets no proof criteria as outlined by the scientific community. It is a theory at best an nothing more.
@cctman 01. You have not addressed the issue of your your definition-shopping; all you've done is attempt to justify it and that's one, big fail.
I also don't understand how gravity is "falsifiable;" what does that mean in this context?
You've talked about animals sprouting or losing legs yet when you're shown a fossil of a whale with legs you'll now claim it as a micro-change when in reality before you've insisted that it would be a macro change.
@cctman I distinctly remember Christians beating their breasts about how there can be no such thing as whales with legs and then, of course, such a fossil was found and now MORE of such fossils have been found (I'm obviously older than you.)
Google "Whales Had Legs Until 40 Million Years Ago, Fossils Show" so you can deny this has anything to do with whales.
@SatchmoSings OK... look I scanned through 3 articles specified by your google search criteria and there was a media blurp suggesting whale evolution. There was no link, picture, stats, or even a traceable lab test listed anywhere in these articles. Is this seriously how you think research is done? Now please answer this question, EVEN IF we had this fossil to see today, do you mind telling my how this fossil would be falsifiable?
@cctman You're the one doubting the fossil; it is up to you to demonstrate it being falsifiable.
Try Wikipedia's "Evolution of cetaceans" it has pictures oh, and by the way, the article also mentions something called DNA but to you DNA must also be falsifiable.
@SatchmoSings Look... I really don't have the time to go chasing down another one of your topics. All you are doing is jumping from topic to topic. I have asked you very specific questions on how your evidence is falsifiable and asked for you to name your best evidence that you would "call fact and what I call theory". You have refused to answer any of my questions and I see this discussion going nowhere. Unless your going to answer my questions then I'm off to discuss with others.
@cctman I know you don't have the time to go chasing down one of my topics because it does, of course, show how wrong you are.
That and you repeatedly go "definition shopping" over the word "theory" is another example along with keep using this world "falsifiable;" I have no idea what this means in this context.
You come up with primitive people drawing dinosaurs where, after looking this over, primitive people also knew something about fossils; that's what they're mimicking.
@SatchmoSings How can primitive Indians in the US draw dinosaurs on cave walls hundreds and thousands of years ago when the first known dinosaur bones found according to archaeological records was in 1685 and it wasn't until 1841 that British scientist Richard Owen discovered the first fossil and named it Dinosaur.
And if dinosaurs were extinct millions of years ago how come in one of my prior examples we just found in 2005 with blood cells and membranes still intact?
@cctman I didn't know that American Indians kept records of when they found, let alone classified fossils; after clicking around on this subject, I've found that Indians in both continents would show them to European explorers; it is thanks to you that I've examined this subject.
As far as your second point is concerned, I've chased down enough of your topics so I really don't have to bothered anymore.
@cctman 02. You could claim that something was "designed by our creator" but you've yet to present any evidence about this sort of thing.
You now keep insisting that museums filled with transitional fossils is something that is not observable and reproducible (I don't know where "falsifiable" fits in) yet you offer no evidence for creationism but insist its true when it doesn't even qualify as, to use your own defintion, as a "theory" at best and nothing more.
@SatchmoSings Look you really need to do some reading on the scientific method and what differentiates a hypothesis from a theory and conjecture. When you research this topic you will discover the basics on how evidence can be falsified or not. Please do this first before we start down this road.
@cctman A stupid, childish threat; that's what this whole discussion has boiled down to and I'm not the least bit surprised that this is the best you can do.
@SatchmoSings "there are THOUSANDS of transitional fossils" <-Let me let you in on a little secret in logic. If a fact requires assumptions then it is no longer considered a fact. Now, need I demonstrate the assumptions made in your claim of transitional fossils in museums?
@cctman I have made no assumptions because I've been to such an institution and seen them first hand; if you wish to deny my personal experience this way, that is your own business
Should you eve be so curious as to the validity of my assumption, I suggest you go to a major city that has such an institution and, before you arrival, ask the museum if you could be privileged to see these fossils; most museums, no matter what kind they are, generally exhibit less than 1% of what they have
@eleminatus Another point.. When you say we have seen insects evolve you do realize that your referring to natural selection, mutations, speciation and NOT macro evolution right?
MACRO evolution would be something like identifying the genetic code and all its possible combinations and exceeding the allowable variations. For instance you would have to demonstrate a bacteria becoming a primitive insect. Or a bacteria beginning to sprout wings or growing a leg.
@cctman natural selection, random mutations, speciation (among other) are all part of evolutionary processes. Speciation IS the macro evolution you are so desperately fighting. Its the process by which new species rise. ANd like I said, there are plenty of observed examples of new species of plants and animals arising.
But the greatest irritant is your assumption, that a bacteria can sprout wings! Where in the world did you get that idea?! Thats nonsense!
@cctman there are unbelievable amount of intermediate steps between bacteria and an insect. Even suggesting something like that is silly. Show me one serious evolutionary-biologist, that would comply with such nonsense!
@eleminatus So then look at what this looks like from my perspective. What I require for evidence is something that would be considered evolution on a macro level and not micro. Why? Because, creationists' already agree that micro evolution occurs. Macro evolution would be something that falls outside the genetic code of each individual parent species. So the parent of all dogs would be some kind of wolf like animal. And a wolf would never become a cat. (cont...)
@cctman Now I know exactly where the problem lies. First of all, evolution is not limitless. I would like to know, where you get the notion, that it falls outside its limitations.
You are right, cats dont give birth to wolves. But that is exactly the macro evolution you are describing. And thats the problem - its not how it happens. Macro evolution is merely an accumulation of many micro evolutions. You said you accept micro evolution. In other world, slight changes within the...
@eleminatus So now we end up in a dilemma. If macro evolution (the accumulation of changes over time) is a part of science then please explain to me how it is falsifiable.
Because anything that is a part of science can be tested, verified, its demonstrable and most importantly its falsifiable. What your claiming is evidence of macro evolution is nothing more than micro evolution which we agreed is scientific.
@cctman you can falsify it, by simply showing that no matter how many changes occur, the target species remain one species. One kind of moth, for example, remains the same species, no matter how many changes they undergo. But thats simply not what happens and we have observed it with plants, insects and bacteria. After a certain time, it diversifies so much, that they cannot even reproduce with each other.
@cctman since when looking a million years back or to the future is outside a science realm? We have dated Earth, we have dated universe, we are aware of different periods of Earth "evolution", the fossil record is a flip-book of millions of years etc. Not to mention that my example was hypothetical. So what is the problem, of talking in terms of millions of years?
@eleminatus You speak as if you actually have a clue about dating methods. Would you like to discuss the flaws in your dating methods? Why don't you pick one for me. How about R-Str or Ur-Pb? Lets really get down to the assumptions made that you believe are so standardized across the scientific community.
@cctman you make the same exact flaw again - why do you challenge me? If you truly think dating is flawed, challenge the professionals who are actually using it. From what I know, Ur-Pb is the most reliable dating method. But if you want to challenge this standard, do it where it matters. Not on public forums, where most people dont know much about it!
@eleminatus " @cctman " is totally incapable of challenging any scientific thinking; for one thing he's totally oblivious to the math involved and he will tell you and indeed insist that the same math that can erect a bridge or make a new kind of fertilizer is totally divorced from biology and, of course, he's totally wrong in this but will proudly, or more correctly, obstinately insist how correct he is even though he can't even do trigonometry, let alone calculus.
@SatchmoSings Actually it takes more like a course or two in statistics and probability to start to understand the complexities involved in population growth. However, one of the most obvious evidences against the religion of macro evolution which is taught as a part of micro evolution is the high probability to the impossibility of cells to self replicate based upon random chance. The math exposes the number to be far greater than any age given to the age of the universe to date.
@cctman There are over 2.5 million combinations in a deck of cards, yet when you lay them all out you obviously have one of them; millions more buy lottery tickets and, ultimately, there is a winner; it is YOU that has not studied statistics.
@SatchmoSings Oh really mind explaining how the chances of life originating through one self-replicating organism are possible when dealing with a factor of 60 followed by 10 0's in years?
@cctman Actually that number is incorrect.. its actually much larger, its more like 10 to 60th power however, There are about two thousand known enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 to 20)2000 = 10 to 40,000 power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.
@SatchmoSings Probably the same reason why almost all other large creatures are almost extinct. Humans hunted them. That would include all dinosaur creatures as well and would include whales if they weren't so hard to get to. Of course its not that difficult to find dinosaurs living with man in almost every single culture known on earth.
@cctman Whales weren't so hard to get to which is why humans decided to limit hunting them.
98% of all elephant species are extinct but using your own logic the other 2% should also be extinct but they aren't.
Lastly, you can show me where dinosaurs living with man in almost every single culture on earth; give me something to "Google" this way but you won't do that.
@SatchmoSings These statements are hardly coherent and make little sense. But lets deal with what I think your asking for in the last one dealing with dinosaurs. Dinosaur art, literature and symbols have been found in almost every culture in history. Egyptian pictographs, Indian cave drawings in the US, ICA stones in South America, ancient legends from Aborigines, Beowulf, Chinese language symbols, literature and the Chinese dragon, Welsh culture, tombs in Europe with pictographs.
@SatchmoSings Lets not forget this small thing called entropy. Animals life spans were limited severely following the destruction of the vapor canopy. Increase of radiation equals decrease of life spans. No more animals or humans living hundreds or years.
@cctman …species. Micro works with exactly same principles. Lets take moths as example. An offspring of two moths undergoes a genetic mutation. For example, it makes its wings larger. That offspring survives and reproduces. Several generations later, in the new population of bigger-winged moths, another mutations occurs, changing the color of their wings. Several generations later, another moth undergoes a mutation that renders their body hairier.
@eleminatus I don't have a problem with micro evolution its testable, demonstrable, and falsifiable. Now show how macro evolution is falsifiable. How can it be disproved?
@cctman So on and so forth. This way we have many kinds of moths – varied in size, color, bodily functions etc. Now give them a million years and you get macro evolution. And thats all it is – an accumulation of many minor changes. Take a modern day moth, and look at its offspring in a million years. That’s how evolution works. It uses already available parental DNA and with help of random mutations and natural selection, you eventually get new species.
@eleminatus The second you jumped from observable, testable, demonstrable science to given a million of years you just leaped out of science and into a belief system or if you like a fairy tale for adults.
@cctman The fossil record is the observable, testable and demonstrable science; to reject this and insist upon creation as the automatic default position because you deny the fossil record is obviously the fairy tale.
@SatchmoSings Please quote where I denied the fossil record. I don't deny the fossil record I deny your interpretation of the fossil record. This gets into presuppositions and assumptions you carry. I never said creation was a default position. So looks like everything you just said was incorrect and a great example of a strawman argument.
@cctman . Its not a moth suddenly giving birth to a spider or a cat giving birth to a wolf. A constant accumulation of changes over time. So no, its not a religion, its very much inside the boundaries of science and it has many examples!
@eleminatus ...That would fall outside its limitations. So when I ask for evidence that would demonstrate a leap of micro evolution into macro evolution, all evolutionist's I have ever met will claim impossible as it takes to much time. Well then if your theory is not falsifiable then macro evolution is not even testable. If it is not testable then it just a belief. Matter of fact it meets the requirements of a religion. A terrible one at best. Your god is time and random chance. (cont...)
@eleminatus Given enough time and random chance anything we consider impossible is actually possible. Think about it for just 2 seconds. Evolution can create anything without any limits. You could say given enough time and random chance a rock could form into a superior Alien race that rules over 3 universes. It is a ridiculous theory that has not boundaries. A fairy tale for grown ups.
@eleminatus Whats even worse is that evolutionists are so busy trying to claim science as their own and spend so much time studying details and nuances of biology and genetics that they get lost in the details. They fail to see their own blindness to logic, presuppositions and assumptions that they heavily lean on. Evolution (macro) is a world view problem and has absolutely nothing to do with science what so ever. As I have said before it meets every qualification of a belief and a religion.
@eleminatus One additional detail you might want to consider. Most areas of science that deal with logic and the human body. Engineers, computer scientists, doctors, nurses. Personally, I have found more of these professionals that deal with logic and coded systems to believe that their is a creator of some kind. Now which creator is a different question and I have some good evidence as to which on that... but that's enough for now.
@cctman You are growing older all the time; while looking at you, I cannot see you age but if I come back to you in five years, I can and do see that you've aged.
@cctman if you want to know every little detail about evolution, then study it. Why do you ask me those questions. Go reads books or visit scientific forums. There is a lot known about evolution of separate features or attributes. Go read about them. Asking me how lungs evolved does not make you smarter. It makes you ignorant, since you perfectly well know Im not the one you should be asking!
@eleminatus I'm not asking you questions about evolution to learn as I apparently know quite a bit more than you do on this subject. So why would I ask you questions at all unless they are rhetorical in nature and I'm trying to get you to actually think through the absurdities of your own religious view point.
@cctman You know about as much about this subject as an automobile mechanic knows on how to do the math to properly "spring" an automobile suspension for a car on the drawing board.
At least the mechanic can tell when such a part has reached the end of its useful life and can install a new strut or spring.
All demonstrate her dedication to a theory of evolution which can not be observed, proven or tested and requires a vast number of assumptions to even be considered.
@eleminatus Oh probably works about the same way a few million Germans were all deceived into believing the Jews were second rate citizens to the natural German Aryan Race.
Or maybe why almost every scientist believed that Charles Lyle was correct when he said the universe was only 200 million years old. Oh wait... he was wrong too!
@cctman do you know how hypocritical you sound? If you really wanted the answers to those questions, you would not be posting here, but on a scientific forum, where real scientists can answer these questions. Instead, you come here, and pretend to be smarter then everyone else.
Nobody said that evolution has all the answers already. But how does not knowing all the answers prove evolution wrong?
@eleminatus Why would evolution have any answers at all? Its a fairy tale for adults... "Look here children given enough time and random chance something can come from nothing. Isn't that magnificent?"
By the way I don't have any questions I need answered. I'm pretty good with what I know and have a pretty good idea who created it all. I'm just pointing out the facts that you conveniently refuse to address about evolution.
@cctman buddy, what are your credentials? What is your degree? What is the research that you have conducted in the field? I would say you are nowhere near Mrs Scott here, yet you arrogantly make claims outside your zone of expertise. Can you provide real, empirical evidence, based in research, that evolution is false? No you cannot. All you do is speculate with no basis for it!
@eleminatus I have a degree in Electronic Systems Technology, one in New Media Informatics, a MS in Informatics and cert. in computer science. Given another 20 years to match the age of Eugenie Scott and you might be able to throw a couple more in there as well depending on the choices I make. That would far exceed her credentials if were going to play the credential game. One thing I studied in my field is how people use Information and disseminate it. This is Eugenie's major weakness.
@cctman you completely missed the point of credentials question. You lack ANY credentials in the evolutionary field - biology, genetics, geology etc. - to make the arrogant judgement you made. Its not the matter of quantity in this. Its the matter of relevance. Your degree in electronics is irrelevant to this question. You have not studied or worked in this field for a day, yet you dismiss it with such blatant arrogance. Shame on you!
@eleminatus LOL! First off evolution does not lay claim to a field of science. It is an indoctrinated theory pushed upon people that are suppose to study real science. Science has nothing to do with origins and macro evolution.
Second... My credentials have everything to do with carefully observing how people use media tactics and careful psychology through propaganda to remove God and insert the fairy tale god of time and random chance.
@cctman well, thanks for discrediting yourself. "It is an indoctrinated theory pushed upon people" says more then necessary. Still, your arrogance amazes me. Not only do you think you know better then tens of thousands of scientists, who actually work in the field, but you dont even bother to present any proof for your claims. You speak like a true religious fanatic. Thank god your kind is dying out!
@eleminatus Besides the ad hominem attacks that clearly demonstrate your giving up on any rational discussion going forward, Do you have anything intelligent to discuss further before I go or do you want to try landing a few more ad hominem attacks.
@cctman pointing out flaws is not an ad hominem, buddy! Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? You completely ignored what I said. If you cannot provide a single piece of evidence against evolution, you have no business bashing it. And thats exactly what you are doing - merely bashing it, pretending to be smarter then everyone else. You should know how scientific method works!
@eleminatus The burden of proof is not for me to provide evidence against evolution. If you are going to declare macro evolution as a rational theory then the burden is on you to demonstrate this. As a start you can try demonstrating a mechanism for driving a single celled organism to a self replicating multicellular organism. Or you can also try to demonstrate how a cow would crawl back into the ocean to become a whale. Or try to mathematically quantify the lack of transitional fossils.
@cctman multicellular organisms probably evolved from multi-nucleate cells like ciliates, read up on paramecium. the key difference between vertebrates, arthropods, and molluscs originally was the way they moved - vertebrates wriggled, arthropods walked, molluscs slid. vertebrates then passed through a weird phase as echinoderms before finally developing backbones. Oh, and if you think cow crawled back into the ocean and became a whale, you should reexamine your drug cupboard!
@eleminatus I didn't ask you how much imagination you have or how creative you are, I asked you to demonstrate a mechanism. You do know what a scientifically verifiable mechanism is right?
"...Oh, and if you think cow crawled back into the ocean and became a whale, you should reexamine your drug cupboard" <- Congrats you just contradicted 95% of your evolutionary colleagues as they were the ones that proposed that very idea. See any scientific article on evolution of the whale.
@cctman before judging the arrogance of evolution, judge your own arrogance. "I'm not looking for answers as I have already found them" - really? All you did is repeat a few unanswered elements several times and called it an answer. And then you want to be taken seriously? You have not presented a single point of evidence to refute the theory of evolution, yet arrogantly claim the victory. You are incredibly dishonest!
@cctman and give me a single quote where a scientist says that cows went back to the ocean and became whales! That claim should go to the hall of fame how ridiculous it is!
@eleminatus Whale Evolution PBS 2001 WGBH Educational Foundation and Clear Blue Sky Productions, Inc. "It's the tale of an ancient land mammal making its way back to the sea, becoming the forerunner of today's whales. In doing so, it lost its legs, and all of its vital systems became adapted to a marine existence"
@cctman Exactly! And nowhere does it say that cow just became a whale! Ancient mammal is not a cow, and evolution is not an overnight thing. But if you think your comprehension of evolutionary biology surpasses that of Mrs. Scott or any other evolutionary biologist, please demonstrate how these poor fellows are wrong!
@eleminatus Oh come on you knew when I said cow I wasn't actually talking about a present day cow species. Can we get past the semantics and actually deal with my question I posed?
@eleminatus The reference to cows turning into whales is from the famous anti-evolutionists Dr. David Berlinski. If you were studied up on this style of debate you would have gotten this.
Now I'm going to ask one more time... "Can we get past the semantics and actually deal with my question I posed?"
@cctman dont you think its hypocritical? you have no problem accepting words of a man sharing your opinion, yet categorically deny the words of someone opposing your opinion. Where is honesty in that?
@eleminatus Umm... That's what humans do when they agree and disagree with opinions. What are you talking about?
The question I asked several times was about you explaining how a cow like creature can or would crawl back into the ocean to become a whale. Or explain how the first self replicating cell came to be. Before you answer you might want to consider the best known evolutionists' alive today don't even have good answers to these questions.
@cctman I answered it a long time ago with an honest I dont know! However, you ignored the subsequent question that I asked. We dont know every little thing about evolution, that is a fact. But how does it discredit evolution or make it seem wrong? We dont know everything about gravity or particles either, yet I dont see you questioning those theories. Double standards? Do you think you are a first one to find unanswered questions in evolutionary theory?
@eleminatus Furthermore... If your going to claim evolution as fact then you would have to first exclude all other theories. You would have to demonstrate how every change you could claim for macro evolution exceeds the coding which is already present as genetic variation which is what creationists' claim.
Creationists claim that the variety in changes is present in the genetic code and there predefined limits to how far these variations can ever go.
@cctman what lack of transitional fossils? give me some examples of missing links!
You still cannot explain me, how gaps in the theory, make the theory false? Gravity has gaps, yet you dont question it. Just like atomic theory or germ theory!
*sigh* just like I said before - if you wanted to answer these questions, you would not look for them on youtube. You are merely pretending to be smart. That is very dishonest of you!
@eleminatus .."if you wanted to answer these questions, you would not look for them on youtube."
And like I said I'm not looking for answers as I have already found them. I'm clearly here to demonstrate the blatant arrogance and incredibility of the theory of evolution and lead others to the truth. That truth is that our creator comes first and His creation comes second. That creation is found in his word in scripture. When man and scripture are at odds, we should question man.
@eleminatus By they way why don't you show me one of those 270,000 papers that demonstrate the prior mentioned theories I pointed out. Just simply reference one of them to point out my clear flaw in my argument.
Let me help you out... Try finding one on single cell to multi cell replication or morphology of the first vertebrae.
What Eugenie Scott fails to understand is that her own arrogance is demonstrated by her blindness to her own self absorbed devotion to her belief in philosophical naturalism.
She claims to know the very definition of science and its abstraction from belief. When her assumptions to what she believes in the first place are heavily persuaded by her own ideology and belief based upon her personal experience.
Macro evolution, single cell to multi cell, morphology of the first vertebrae, (cont...)
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
It is legitimate to ask whether god intervenes in evolution but sometimes the question asked is murky . Maybe a more specific way to ask the question is: "Do you believe that evolutionary change is a result of gods intervention." If the answer is yes then you know that whether they think so or not they really believe in ID.
The differences between atheism and agnosticism comes down to semantics. To be an atheist all you have to do is lack a belief in a supernatural god ("a" meaning "not").
Agnostics say that the existence of god(s) cannot be proved nor disproved. If you apply scientific standards, then you require evidence to hold a belief.
Under these circumstances all Agnostics are Atheists.
I consider myself an atheist because god's existence could be proven in theory, but the proof has yet to come forward.
@Setzer - To be an atheist you have to lack a belief that a god ever existed or that one exists anywhere. Deists don't believe that god supernaturally intervenes in the universe but do believe that one exists somewhere.
@Setzer - Theists believe a god intervenes in the universe. Deists don't. Therefore deists are not theists.
Agnostics are not atheists or agnostics. You can be an agnostic-atheist or an agnostic-theist. Atheism and theism have to do with belief, agnosticism and gnosticism have to do with degrees of certainty. An agnostic simply means a person who holds uncertainty about a view on a particular subject.
@A86 Theist means a belief in god or gods; thus a deist would be a theist. I guess it is theoretically possible to be an agnostic-theist, but it doesn't really make sense because generally people have SOME reason for believing the things they do.
Ex: If you think the first cause argument requires a supernatural being, then that aspect of the universe is a proof in favor of god. That would prevent you from being Agnostic.
My main point is that atheism is not the belief there is no god.
Agnosticism has nothing to do with reasons for believing or not believing, just how certain you are. An agnostic theist lacks a disbelief in god (best way to put it) but is not certain god exists.
You really need to look up what these terms mean. You're not making yourself look any more intelligent than a creationist by not understanding what "agnosticism" is and using association logical fallacies to back up your mistake.
@Setzer - "That would prevent you from being Agnostic"
Wrong. "In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God." -- Rowe, William L. (1998). "Agnosticism". In Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
To be more specific agnosticism is the view that truth claims about metaphysics or the existence of deity is unknowable or at least currently unknown.
@A86 We're arguing over semantics: "the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence"
There's not just one definition for each of these words. Typically when someone tells me they're agnostic they say, "it's impossible to prove or disprove." If you add "or at least currently unknown" then fine I'm an Agnostic Atheist, but really that's a useless qualifier because you don't have to be 100% certain to be an atheist or a theist.
@Setzer - Perhaps you consider it useless but that's what the term means. It either deals with certainty about one's views or is used to convey that someone is a true neutral on the god issue (they reject both theism and atheism). You don't have to be 100% certain to be a gnostic theist or atheist but I'd say you're probably the "gnostic" type if you're at least 85-90% certain there's no other possibility.
@A86 On the other hand, if I used the definition you provided, it's impossible to be both agnostic and theist or agnostic and atheist. "neither believes nor disbelieves in God"
Not all Scientists are atheists, but more than 80% are pretty much non-believers.
The more you learn about Science the more you doubt the existence of God simply because you learn more about reality and how the universe works.
I do agree that Science itself does not deny the "insert God here" ideas most times. However I cannot honestly say Richard Dawkins didn't think this through. Extreme Religious beliefs are not tolerant of Science, it doesn't matter if evolution allow God or not.
@Neosaigo - Actually about 40% of scientists are theists or deists of some sort. About 1/3 are atheists and most of the rest are agnostics or Other (apatheist, ignostic, etc.) There is no evidence that most atheists and agnostics in science ever were believers to begin with. Most pollsters have come to the conclusion that non-believers are just more likely to go into the scientific field than believers. Maybe because of the God vs. Science perception much of the public has.
@Neosaigo - I agree with Dawkins that extreme religious beliefs are not tolerant of science, but sometimes he goes too far and paints with a broad brush and implies that basically ALL non-atheist beliefs are incompatible with or destined to clash with science. I would disagree. Just as many atheists look at quantum mechanics and see it as evidence that no god is necessary some theists or deists look at quantum mechanics and see "god" written all over it. Just not in bearded white man form.
You follow up your arrogant attack on creationists with more mockery.I have seen you before.You have this need to run people down in order to elevate yourself.World views aside your just not a nice person.
I can't say I totally agree with ES for this reason. The bible makes many claims about supernatural events that occured. Water into wine, walking on water, healing, raising the dead etc. These claims violate the natural laws so to say that science neither compels neither theism or disbelief is just wrong. These phenomina in the bible contradict science, so they compel disbelief
@lhurien How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
@1tabligh At one time, not so long ago, most babies didn't make it to their first birthdays and few older children rarely made it to adulthood.
Since you're so down on science, I would just suggest that you be honest and just live at the level of science and technology that existed when your creed was affirmed; that said, odds are, you'd have been long dead by now so we wouldn't have to listen to your stupid bullshine.
@SatchmoSings What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?
Then how can the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@A86 There is God who resides in the supernatural and created the natural world and "KLE()#$T" who lives in the mega-natrual world and created the supernatural and "Lomb" who lives in the Ultra-natural world and created the mega-natural and some of the supernatural.
Now we haven't directly observed "Lomb" or so we think?....
haven't we learned anything in over 3000yrs of praising made up gods, God is not the same as ether or dark matter.
@shandcunt - Lol! I agree with your claims about this (I assume you believe it's fictional) deity you started discussing. It is possible that a higher power of some sort could exist, but if there is any kind of higher consciousness or higher power I don't think any human really knows enough to make any kind of specific claims about it. In that sense I take Buddha's skepticism towards people like that the way he was skeptical of priests who made claims about the great Brahma and Isvara.
@A86 You dont have to disprove god to be an atheist. I agree with what your saying but as to your question about what would a universe look like without god....which god? what about "KLE()#$T" what would a universe look like without "KLE()#$T"? huh?
"KLE()#$T" comes from the mega-natural world, he created the supernatural world and god, you cant disprove him.
if you go dwn a path of acknowledging everything that cant be disproved then anyone can make up anything, like "KLE()#$T"
Great Video, really good message for creationists. personally I dont see how any human can honestly claim knowledge of god, i see everyone as agnostic.
does sceince make a positive claim towards god? No, hence sceince is atheistic. Is sceince theistic? No so its.....A-theistic, it intentionally doesn't include god as a factor in its tests.
I dnt see hw u can say its not atheist its just not theist....the definition of atheist is non theist
Superstring Theory and the possibility of 11 dimensions might currently fall under the definition of "supernatural" since such a thing is currently not observable in the natural world. Same with Strings, Dark Energy, Dark Matter and possible Gravitons.
So science truly is Agnostic and Apatheist. It is not theistic just because it doesn't outright claim "God" does not exist, and it's not atheistic just because it is silent on the subject of "God".
For instance, if a friend tells me what happened to them on a trip in Europe I have no evidence they're telling the truth. That doesn't mean I assume they're lying because their claims aren't provable. Likewise science doesn't assume that God does not exist because it isn't currently testable.
Actually, we currently believe a lot of things in science on inference with no direct evidence - the existence of Consciousness, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Strings, possibly up to 11 dimensions, etc.
However, to atheists who believe a lack of evidence is equivalent to evidence of absence, that's not what science is claiming either. Because you have not tested something or observed something directly does not mean it does not exist. We haven't directly observed "God" (or so we think) but what would it look like to observe "God" in the first place? What would a universe with "God" look like or operate like specifically?
I think there is some misunderstanding here on both sides. Some theists see her as saying their belief in their particular God is okay since science can't disprove it. It would all depend on what one means by "God". If you believe in a god that created the world just 6,000 years ago and who flooded the entire world at the same time in human history - that kind of thing would conflict with what we know about the Universe.
The intelligent design people say dna codes are so complex and perfect to have evolved naturally, but then why are there so many errors and mistakes, some are very severe. did the intelligence just get lazy and mess up. if it was so intelligent than people wouldnt be born with both reproductive organs, or attached twins, or missing limbs.
... Thus the problem: We cannot scientifically/empirically know an incomprehensible god, and therefore cannot talk about, let alone refute such a god. (And I wish that theists who postulate an unknowable God would stop talking about their theistic speculations as if they were true and comprehensible. Wake up to paradox.)
Oh, & DonExodus, thanx for the video. As always, you bring up relevant topics for us all to view and gain understanding from. And though you said a few words at the end of the video, what do you think of what she said?Is she being apologetic to the creationists?At the time of this video a book by Andy Thompson was not out yet, called Why We Belives in Gods.Perhaps she needs to read it then do another video. TheLivingDinosaur has good videos on creationists and their spiel, amazing nuttiness
nash984954 3 days ago
because they know they will not be satisfied unless a scientists says evolution is mandated by god through ID. Ms Scott disappoints me in a way, though I understand her points, but she is being more political than scientific. Why is it necessary to explain to these theists that, oh, we just don't include god in the discussion cuz' we just can't measure it. I mean really, disproving, or proving god,...who gives a s**t! Atleast Nietztsche had it right 'god is dead' if there ever really was one.
nash984954 3 days ago
until the cows come home.But it will not furthermy understanding of the natural world around me&if that is enough for me, then I'm just ablind follower. Religionteaches you 'what' to think, whereas science education teachesyou 'how' to think& the basics of Evolution has no mention of god, so I should not be teaching irrelevancy. Ken Ham wants to throw out science because science is bad&god is good. And that sums it up right there. Creationists don't want their questions answered, cuz' (nextpost)
nash984954 3 days ago
do justice to the teaching of kids about the world. Surely Scott knows what these Xian theists are after. If they cannot proselytise you to their religion then they want to make gov't mandate their beliefs into making everyone comply with them. Notice how for the last thirty years the Xians have turned their Xian religion into politics. If Ms Scott doesn't see this, then she should not be trying to give credence to having god anywhere in science. I can say god created the world (next post)
nash984954 3 days ago
obstruct, not to understand.Theywant theirgod in the scientificknowledge, though a god is not relevant to the subject. Do we also incorporate theother 'theories' of how the world came to be, or the way it has been progressing according toancient shamans, or other religions? Already data shows that evolution isn't really taught very effectively anyway, due to parental pressure, or teacher's own bias. There is a finite time for teaching&including creationism in science classes doesn't (next post)
nash984954 3 days ago
a reason toaccommodate these people, these theists who want to put Sunday school teaching intoregular publicschools' science classes. These Xian theists like to dump a conglomerate of differentscientific concepts into the evolution discussion, topics include atheism, Big Bang theory, Abiogenesis, Geology&all manner of bull that they may have come across at some point, looking for flaws in evolution. They have it backwards. Evolution relates to many fields, but theists want only to (next post)
nash984954 3 days ago
have god in it, no mention of god at all&that is the main complaint of theists, they want god to be put into the theory, or else to teach creationism. Religion is mostly for ignorant people)the Abrahamic based ones), as it was introduced at a time when people were illiterate&had no knowledge of the world&theists want to put that backward thinking into the 21st century science classes.Where is the god that had something to do with it? Why can't you go with what you know? I don't see (next post)
nash984954 3 days ago
Does Ms Scott also think we should 'let the child decide.' No, science is whatbit is, it is not a debate, facts are not voted on, there is no credence to creationism as a scientific concept, as it was thrown out years ago, due to no evidence for it except an ancient bible of myths&stories.Scott sounds like she wants to kiss creationists ass. Oh, please don't hate us because we think your view is full of s**t. Okay, I may have exaggerated, but the standard theory of evolution does not (next post)
nash984954 3 days ago
relevant hypothesis then put all of your evidcne together&put it uip for review by the experts in the field. The fact is god is what ancient people used to attribute the workings of the natural world to. God is not in science, as we no longer think the world is flat, we also have no need of a Supreme Being to 'explain' the natural world. The standard theory of evolution shows no god in the process, so Shermer is saying there is no evidence that god had anything to do with the process (next post)
nash984954 3 days ago
This really sounds like an apology to religious people to give them a door into putting their creationism into a 'debate.' I don't think she is completely correct. The main reason people in the US are so scientifically illiterate is because of religion, or perhaps apathy And why does anybody have to convince religious zealots of anything about the natural world that science has revealed to us? It is not a debate, teaching science. Sure, there is no authority in science& if you have a (next post)
nash984954 3 days ago
So answering this one... back in March 25, 2005 there was a release in all the major news papers, and media networks. ABC, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC. They had found a thigh bone of a T-rex known as MOR1125, found in a sandstone formation in Montana in 2003. The bone was broken during its removal from the site and Schweitzer's team then analyzed. They found unfossilized bone marrow inside.
Would you mind explaining to me if the world is 4.5+- billion years old how dinosaur cells can last that long?
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman The video where we're making these posts about evolution really isn't discussing this; how evolution became the topic here I do not know though I'm assuming you're the one that instigated it.
That said, I will now tell you that there is no God and Jesus never lived on this earth; you have no proof so all your assumptions, such as you've made them, really have no validity.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings Are you absolutely sure there is no Jesus or God of the Bible? How so?
cctman 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SatchmoSings So... I'm a little confused here. As an example so when we see Indians along side drawings of a brachiosaurus in a scene depicting every day modern life are your telling me the Indians were just drawing a reconstruction perfectly of a dinosaur skeleton?
On your reply to my second point, You just accused me of running from answering a topic in a post below and now your doing the same exact thing you accused me of earlier.
cctman 3 weeks ago
By the way I did ask earlier for you to..."Give me this example of what you call fact and what I call theory and lets digest this for a while."
I'm still waiting patiently for you to answer.
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman That's pretty easy; it's on "dictionary (.) com" and it is for you to digest since you're the one that went definition shopping all out of context; the two definitions you've insisted that we're at loggerheads over is more than clear; you're the one deliberately choosing obfuscation because you have no intellectual honesty this way
Yeah, my dad went to work at a "plant;" this context means FACTORY not a rhododendron but you'd obviously argue that because "it's in the dictionary"
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cctman ALL fossils are transitional, including life as we now know it on this planet or didn't you know that?
Also, where else would such fossils be stored and/or examined other than natural history museums and natural science laboratories at universities.
Maybe it's your belief they should be stored along with auto or computer parts.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
Let me put it to you this way. If evolution were to reach any credibility scientifically it would have to be observable and reproducible in a lab or in nature and would have to be falsifiable.
You can't make general claims that a 4 legged mammal becomes a whale when it has never been observed, demonstrated nor has any individual component of the system as a whole been demonstrated. Lungs to gills, skin, endocrine, nervous, muscular, vascular. No system has ever been caught developing between.
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman its been observed and its been reproduced. We have seen bacteria and insects evolve in real time. Of course you cannot see humans evolve in real time, their reproductive cycles are too long. But that is where fossil record kicks in. There is essentially a full tree of human evolution available. Not to mention other species. And DNA is also a part of evolution. Putting creationism into this just discredits your claims, since its a religious "hypothesis".
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus I would reply with same thing word for word I said earlier. Did you even read what I wrote?
Lack of transitional fossils is one of the weakest points to the theory of evolution. Even some of the more famous evolutionists acknowledge this and yet I know this and apparently you don't? How come I seem to know more about your own theory then you do?
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman you wanna think you know more then I do? Do it. But when you say things like "Lack of transitional fossils is one of the weakest points", you contradict that same knowledge superiority you assert. There is an astounding amount of fossils available, that show exactly what you are arguing against. There are plenty examples of transitions between species and genera, between families, orders and classes or between kingdoms and phyla.
eleminatus 1 month ago
@cctman There are tons of transitional fossils including ones with legs for whales; people like you say, "Well show me ONE;" you're shown ONE which, of course, disproves your discourse and then you demand another one; there are THOUSANDS of transitional fossils; natural history museums, WORLD-WIDE are simply bursting with them but you insist there are none; you're living a lie; go back to sleep.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings And you will find out who is lying give or take 70+- years. Enjoy your arrogance while you can. It would suck to be wrong for eternity. Maybe you should rethink your delusions.
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman Science goes on its merry way of finding facts and cares nothing about those religions that agree or disagree with its empirical findings.
Science becomes corrupted and entangled with religion only when a powerful and unscrupulous religious force presumes to forcefully pervert science with dogmatic religious assumptions. One example of such religious perversion of science is "Scientific Creationism." Such corrupted science is not science at all, but simply dishonest religion.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings You'r right science does care less about religion that's why I'm only discussing the observable truth of our creation. By the way now that you agree science should be separate from religion I expect you to remain consistent and separate macro evolution and your little god of time and random chance from real observable, reproducible, and falsifiable science. Good Luck!
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman That's precisely the point; there is no observable truth of creation because you've presented no evidence. (And by the way, evolution has NOTHING to do with "how it all started; NOTHING.)
You have some sort of motivation to deny evolution; you refuse to accept its evidence yet you accept creation with NO evidence; this is rather odd.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings Here's a little secret... There is NO evidence for macro evolution. However, I accept completely micro evolution. So that leads us to a dilemma. Both macro evo. and creation are purely theories. Do I accept the account of the scriptures and what I observe in the real world or do I accept the account of macro evolution and what it offers? I have plenty of reasons to accept the former over the latter.
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman 01. Hint: Macro Evolution is merely microevolution over a longer period of time; if what you have personally observed contradicts this, there is nothing I can say about it.
What you have to say about "only theories" however, is dead wrong; you've gone "definition shopping" and that's just so ludicrous on the face of it as your claims about scripture; it offers no evidence; it's just a declamation.
You're entitled do your own beliefs; you are not entitled to your own facts.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings OK and on that note... I challenge you to provide me just one evidence of how you can tie these two micro and macro evolution together. I have been doing these style of debate/discussion for many years and have never seen a successful example. I would welcome you to try and provide me with one.
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman 02. The word "theory" means an explanation for a known fact; you are using the word as "hypothesis" and within the context of what we've been discussing, that definition is dead wrong but you insist upon it anyway.
We know that gravity exists; the theory, that is "the explanation of how gravity works" is not the same as saying "gravity is only a theory" which is, of course, your own definition this way.
Don't speak to me this way; it just totally ruins all that you claim.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings OK... so give me your best evidence then. Give me this example of what you call fact and what I call theory and lets digest this for a while.
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman 01) It is something called a DICTIONARY however you might discount a dictionary because, after all, it too is a product of secular knowledge and study.
Using your logic, when my father went to work "at the plant" it meant he spent his time around a rhododendron all day and you would insist that "this is what plant means" and that's totally ridiculous.
“Definitions are the guardians of rationality, the first line of defense against the chaos of mental disintegration." Ayn Rand.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings The Dictionary is considered a product of secular knowledge and study? What? A dictionary is used to define terms and pronunciation per language. It has nothing to do with secular knowledge or study.
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman Modern dictionaries are the work of secular or at least, secular-oriented scholars and scholarship, in their explanation of words and their meanings there is no injection of God or the "creationism" of words.
So, you've done the next best thing; you went definition shopping and you came up with nothing that has to do with the word "theory" in this context; you deliberately picked another definition of this word to "win" an argument when you did was "insert ad hominem"
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@cctman 02) “Definitions are the guardians of rationality, the first line of defense against the chaos of mental disintegration." Ayn Rand.
Sounds like you're well on your way.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings On a side note... your analogy of gravity fails as we have observed its effects. It is observable, reproducible, and is falsifiable. Your example of transitional fossils can not meet any of these criteria. Any fossil you could offer as a transitional I could claim as designed by our creator that way or as a result of micro changes within a species. Because of this it meets no proof criteria as outlined by the scientific community. It is a theory at best an nothing more.
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman 01. You have not addressed the issue of your your definition-shopping; all you've done is attempt to justify it and that's one, big fail.
I also don't understand how gravity is "falsifiable;" what does that mean in this context?
You've talked about animals sprouting or losing legs yet when you're shown a fossil of a whale with legs you'll now claim it as a micro-change when in reality before you've insisted that it would be a macro change.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings There is no way there has ever been a fossil of a whale found with legs. LOL! Except what may have been found in a comic book.
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman I distinctly remember Christians beating their breasts about how there can be no such thing as whales with legs and then, of course, such a fossil was found and now MORE of such fossils have been found (I'm obviously older than you.)
Google "Whales Had Legs Until 40 Million Years Ago, Fossils Show" so you can deny this has anything to do with whales.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings OK... look I scanned through 3 articles specified by your google search criteria and there was a media blurp suggesting whale evolution. There was no link, picture, stats, or even a traceable lab test listed anywhere in these articles. Is this seriously how you think research is done? Now please answer this question, EVEN IF we had this fossil to see today, do you mind telling my how this fossil would be falsifiable?
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman You're the one doubting the fossil; it is up to you to demonstrate it being falsifiable.
Try Wikipedia's "Evolution of cetaceans" it has pictures oh, and by the way, the article also mentions something called DNA but to you DNA must also be falsifiable.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings Look... I really don't have the time to go chasing down another one of your topics. All you are doing is jumping from topic to topic. I have asked you very specific questions on how your evidence is falsifiable and asked for you to name your best evidence that you would "call fact and what I call theory". You have refused to answer any of my questions and I see this discussion going nowhere. Unless your going to answer my questions then I'm off to discuss with others.
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman I know you don't have the time to go chasing down one of my topics because it does, of course, show how wrong you are.
That and you repeatedly go "definition shopping" over the word "theory" is another example along with keep using this world "falsifiable;" I have no idea what this means in this context.
You come up with primitive people drawing dinosaurs where, after looking this over, primitive people also knew something about fossils; that's what they're mimicking.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings How can primitive Indians in the US draw dinosaurs on cave walls hundreds and thousands of years ago when the first known dinosaur bones found according to archaeological records was in 1685 and it wasn't until 1841 that British scientist Richard Owen discovered the first fossil and named it Dinosaur.
And if dinosaurs were extinct millions of years ago how come in one of my prior examples we just found in 2005 with blood cells and membranes still intact?
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman I didn't know that American Indians kept records of when they found, let alone classified fossils; after clicking around on this subject, I've found that Indians in both continents would show them to European explorers; it is thanks to you that I've examined this subject.
As far as your second point is concerned, I've chased down enough of your topics so I really don't have to bothered anymore.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman 02. You could claim that something was "designed by our creator" but you've yet to present any evidence about this sort of thing.
You now keep insisting that museums filled with transitional fossils is something that is not observable and reproducible (I don't know where "falsifiable" fits in) yet you offer no evidence for creationism but insist its true when it doesn't even qualify as, to use your own defintion, as a "theory" at best and nothing more.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings Look you really need to do some reading on the scientific method and what differentiates a hypothesis from a theory and conjecture. When you research this topic you will discover the basics on how evidence can be falsified or not. Please do this first before we start down this road.
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman A stupid, childish threat; that's what this whole discussion has boiled down to and I'm not the least bit surprised that this is the best you can do.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings "there are THOUSANDS of transitional fossils" <-Let me let you in on a little secret in logic. If a fact requires assumptions then it is no longer considered a fact. Now, need I demonstrate the assumptions made in your claim of transitional fossils in museums?
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman I have made no assumptions because I've been to such an institution and seen them first hand; if you wish to deny my personal experience this way, that is your own business
Should you eve be so curious as to the validity of my assumption, I suggest you go to a major city that has such an institution and, before you arrival, ask the museum if you could be privileged to see these fossils; most museums, no matter what kind they are, generally exhibit less than 1% of what they have
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@eleminatus Another point.. When you say we have seen insects evolve you do realize that your referring to natural selection, mutations, speciation and NOT macro evolution right?
MACRO evolution would be something like identifying the genetic code and all its possible combinations and exceeding the allowable variations. For instance you would have to demonstrate a bacteria becoming a primitive insect. Or a bacteria beginning to sprout wings or growing a leg.
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman natural selection, random mutations, speciation (among other) are all part of evolutionary processes. Speciation IS the macro evolution you are so desperately fighting. Its the process by which new species rise. ANd like I said, there are plenty of observed examples of new species of plants and animals arising.
But the greatest irritant is your assumption, that a bacteria can sprout wings! Where in the world did you get that idea?! Thats nonsense!
eleminatus 1 month ago
@cctman there are unbelievable amount of intermediate steps between bacteria and an insect. Even suggesting something like that is silly. Show me one serious evolutionary-biologist, that would comply with such nonsense!
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus So then look at what this looks like from my perspective. What I require for evidence is something that would be considered evolution on a macro level and not micro. Why? Because, creationists' already agree that micro evolution occurs. Macro evolution would be something that falls outside the genetic code of each individual parent species. So the parent of all dogs would be some kind of wolf like animal. And a wolf would never become a cat. (cont...)
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman Now I know exactly where the problem lies. First of all, evolution is not limitless. I would like to know, where you get the notion, that it falls outside its limitations.
You are right, cats dont give birth to wolves. But that is exactly the macro evolution you are describing. And thats the problem - its not how it happens. Macro evolution is merely an accumulation of many micro evolutions. You said you accept micro evolution. In other world, slight changes within the...
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus So now we end up in a dilemma. If macro evolution (the accumulation of changes over time) is a part of science then please explain to me how it is falsifiable.
Because anything that is a part of science can be tested, verified, its demonstrable and most importantly its falsifiable. What your claiming is evidence of macro evolution is nothing more than micro evolution which we agreed is scientific.
How is it falsifiable?
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman you can falsify it, by simply showing that no matter how many changes occur, the target species remain one species. One kind of moth, for example, remains the same species, no matter how many changes they undergo. But thats simply not what happens and we have observed it with plants, insects and bacteria. After a certain time, it diversifies so much, that they cannot even reproduce with each other.
eleminatus 1 month ago
@cctman since when looking a million years back or to the future is outside a science realm? We have dated Earth, we have dated universe, we are aware of different periods of Earth "evolution", the fossil record is a flip-book of millions of years etc. Not to mention that my example was hypothetical. So what is the problem, of talking in terms of millions of years?
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus You speak as if you actually have a clue about dating methods. Would you like to discuss the flaws in your dating methods? Why don't you pick one for me. How about R-Str or Ur-Pb? Lets really get down to the assumptions made that you believe are so standardized across the scientific community.
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman you make the same exact flaw again - why do you challenge me? If you truly think dating is flawed, challenge the professionals who are actually using it. From what I know, Ur-Pb is the most reliable dating method. But if you want to challenge this standard, do it where it matters. Not on public forums, where most people dont know much about it!
eleminatus 3 weeks ago
@eleminatus " @cctman " is totally incapable of challenging any scientific thinking; for one thing he's totally oblivious to the math involved and he will tell you and indeed insist that the same math that can erect a bridge or make a new kind of fertilizer is totally divorced from biology and, of course, he's totally wrong in this but will proudly, or more correctly, obstinately insist how correct he is even though he can't even do trigonometry, let alone calculus.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings Actually it takes more like a course or two in statistics and probability to start to understand the complexities involved in population growth. However, one of the most obvious evidences against the religion of macro evolution which is taught as a part of micro evolution is the high probability to the impossibility of cells to self replicate based upon random chance. The math exposes the number to be far greater than any age given to the age of the universe to date.
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman There are over 2.5 million combinations in a deck of cards, yet when you lay them all out you obviously have one of them; millions more buy lottery tickets and, ultimately, there is a winner; it is YOU that has not studied statistics.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings Oh really mind explaining how the chances of life originating through one self-replicating organism are possible when dealing with a factor of 60 followed by 10 0's in years?
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman Actually that number is incorrect.. its actually much larger, its more like 10 to 60th power however, There are about two thousand known enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 to 20)2000 = 10 to 40,000 power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman Okay, so explain to me, why after "they were created" over 98% of elephant-like species are now extinct?
Maybe God's idea was pretty much failure this way . . .
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings Probably the same reason why almost all other large creatures are almost extinct. Humans hunted them. That would include all dinosaur creatures as well and would include whales if they weren't so hard to get to. Of course its not that difficult to find dinosaurs living with man in almost every single culture known on earth.
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman Whales weren't so hard to get to which is why humans decided to limit hunting them.
98% of all elephant species are extinct but using your own logic the other 2% should also be extinct but they aren't.
Lastly, you can show me where dinosaurs living with man in almost every single culture on earth; give me something to "Google" this way but you won't do that.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings These statements are hardly coherent and make little sense. But lets deal with what I think your asking for in the last one dealing with dinosaurs. Dinosaur art, literature and symbols have been found in almost every culture in history. Egyptian pictographs, Indian cave drawings in the US, ICA stones in South America, ancient legends from Aborigines, Beowulf, Chinese language symbols, literature and the Chinese dragon, Welsh culture, tombs in Europe with pictographs.
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman A Chinese dragon, that breathes fire, no less, is not the same as a dinosaur; you can give me something to "Google" to show this to me.
Indeed, a cursory examination only shows such creatures on Christian Apologia websites.
Christian churches are routinely decorated in gargoyles and the like; tell me also about these creatures.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings Lets not forget this small thing called entropy. Animals life spans were limited severely following the destruction of the vapor canopy. Increase of radiation equals decrease of life spans. No more animals or humans living hundreds or years.
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman …species. Micro works with exactly same principles. Lets take moths as example. An offspring of two moths undergoes a genetic mutation. For example, it makes its wings larger. That offspring survives and reproduces. Several generations later, in the new population of bigger-winged moths, another mutations occurs, changing the color of their wings. Several generations later, another moth undergoes a mutation that renders their body hairier.
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus I don't have a problem with micro evolution its testable, demonstrable, and falsifiable. Now show how macro evolution is falsifiable. How can it be disproved?
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman So on and so forth. This way we have many kinds of moths – varied in size, color, bodily functions etc. Now give them a million years and you get macro evolution. And thats all it is – an accumulation of many minor changes. Take a modern day moth, and look at its offspring in a million years. That’s how evolution works. It uses already available parental DNA and with help of random mutations and natural selection, you eventually get new species.
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus The second you jumped from observable, testable, demonstrable science to given a million of years you just leaped out of science and into a belief system or if you like a fairy tale for adults.
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman The fossil record is the observable, testable and demonstrable science; to reject this and insist upon creation as the automatic default position because you deny the fossil record is obviously the fairy tale.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings Please quote where I denied the fossil record. I don't deny the fossil record I deny your interpretation of the fossil record. This gets into presuppositions and assumptions you carry. I never said creation was a default position. So looks like everything you just said was incorrect and a great example of a strawman argument.
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman . Its not a moth suddenly giving birth to a spider or a cat giving birth to a wolf. A constant accumulation of changes over time. So no, its not a religion, its very much inside the boundaries of science and it has many examples!
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus ...That would fall outside its limitations. So when I ask for evidence that would demonstrate a leap of micro evolution into macro evolution, all evolutionist's I have ever met will claim impossible as it takes to much time. Well then if your theory is not falsifiable then macro evolution is not even testable. If it is not testable then it just a belief. Matter of fact it meets the requirements of a religion. A terrible one at best. Your god is time and random chance. (cont...)
cctman 1 month ago
@eleminatus Given enough time and random chance anything we consider impossible is actually possible. Think about it for just 2 seconds. Evolution can create anything without any limits. You could say given enough time and random chance a rock could form into a superior Alien race that rules over 3 universes. It is a ridiculous theory that has not boundaries. A fairy tale for grown ups.
cctman 1 month ago
@eleminatus Whats even worse is that evolutionists are so busy trying to claim science as their own and spend so much time studying details and nuances of biology and genetics that they get lost in the details. They fail to see their own blindness to logic, presuppositions and assumptions that they heavily lean on. Evolution (macro) is a world view problem and has absolutely nothing to do with science what so ever. As I have said before it meets every qualification of a belief and a religion.
cctman 1 month ago
@eleminatus One additional detail you might want to consider. Most areas of science that deal with logic and the human body. Engineers, computer scientists, doctors, nurses. Personally, I have found more of these professionals that deal with logic and coded systems to believe that their is a creator of some kind. Now which creator is a different question and I have some good evidence as to which on that... but that's enough for now.
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman You are growing older all the time; while looking at you, I cannot see you age but if I come back to you in five years, I can and do see that you've aged.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@cctman if you want to know every little detail about evolution, then study it. Why do you ask me those questions. Go reads books or visit scientific forums. There is a lot known about evolution of separate features or attributes. Go read about them. Asking me how lungs evolved does not make you smarter. It makes you ignorant, since you perfectly well know Im not the one you should be asking!
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus I'm not asking you questions about evolution to learn as I apparently know quite a bit more than you do on this subject. So why would I ask you questions at all unless they are rhetorical in nature and I'm trying to get you to actually think through the absurdities of your own religious view point.
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman You know about as much about this subject as an automobile mechanic knows on how to do the math to properly "spring" an automobile suspension for a car on the drawing board.
At least the mechanic can tell when such a part has reached the end of its useful life and can install a new strut or spring.
SatchmoSings 3 weeks ago
@SatchmoSings Nice analogy I'm guessing your an auto mechanic...
cctman 3 weeks ago
All demonstrate her dedication to a theory of evolution which can not be observed, proven or tested and requires a vast number of assumptions to even be considered.
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman of course.. 270.000 peer-reviewed papers on evolution are all just assumptions.
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus Oh probably works about the same way a few million Germans were all deceived into believing the Jews were second rate citizens to the natural German Aryan Race.
Or maybe why almost every scientist believed that Charles Lyle was correct when he said the universe was only 200 million years old. Oh wait... he was wrong too!
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman do you know how hypocritical you sound? If you really wanted the answers to those questions, you would not be posting here, but on a scientific forum, where real scientists can answer these questions. Instead, you come here, and pretend to be smarter then everyone else.
Nobody said that evolution has all the answers already. But how does not knowing all the answers prove evolution wrong?
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus Why would evolution have any answers at all? Its a fairy tale for adults... "Look here children given enough time and random chance something can come from nothing. Isn't that magnificent?"
By the way I don't have any questions I need answered. I'm pretty good with what I know and have a pretty good idea who created it all. I'm just pointing out the facts that you conveniently refuse to address about evolution.
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman buddy, what are your credentials? What is your degree? What is the research that you have conducted in the field? I would say you are nowhere near Mrs Scott here, yet you arrogantly make claims outside your zone of expertise. Can you provide real, empirical evidence, based in research, that evolution is false? No you cannot. All you do is speculate with no basis for it!
eleminatus 1 month ago
Comment removed
cctman 1 month ago
@eleminatus I have a degree in Electronic Systems Technology, one in New Media Informatics, a MS in Informatics and cert. in computer science. Given another 20 years to match the age of Eugenie Scott and you might be able to throw a couple more in there as well depending on the choices I make. That would far exceed her credentials if were going to play the credential game. One thing I studied in my field is how people use Information and disseminate it. This is Eugenie's major weakness.
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman you completely missed the point of credentials question. You lack ANY credentials in the evolutionary field - biology, genetics, geology etc. - to make the arrogant judgement you made. Its not the matter of quantity in this. Its the matter of relevance. Your degree in electronics is irrelevant to this question. You have not studied or worked in this field for a day, yet you dismiss it with such blatant arrogance. Shame on you!
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus LOL! First off evolution does not lay claim to a field of science. It is an indoctrinated theory pushed upon people that are suppose to study real science. Science has nothing to do with origins and macro evolution.
Second... My credentials have everything to do with carefully observing how people use media tactics and careful psychology through propaganda to remove God and insert the fairy tale god of time and random chance.
So shame on you!
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman well, thanks for discrediting yourself. "It is an indoctrinated theory pushed upon people" says more then necessary. Still, your arrogance amazes me. Not only do you think you know better then tens of thousands of scientists, who actually work in the field, but you dont even bother to present any proof for your claims. You speak like a true religious fanatic. Thank god your kind is dying out!
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus Besides the ad hominem attacks that clearly demonstrate your giving up on any rational discussion going forward, Do you have anything intelligent to discuss further before I go or do you want to try landing a few more ad hominem attacks.
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman pointing out flaws is not an ad hominem, buddy! Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? You completely ignored what I said. If you cannot provide a single piece of evidence against evolution, you have no business bashing it. And thats exactly what you are doing - merely bashing it, pretending to be smarter then everyone else. You should know how scientific method works!
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus The burden of proof is not for me to provide evidence against evolution. If you are going to declare macro evolution as a rational theory then the burden is on you to demonstrate this. As a start you can try demonstrating a mechanism for driving a single celled organism to a self replicating multicellular organism. Or you can also try to demonstrate how a cow would crawl back into the ocean to become a whale. Or try to mathematically quantify the lack of transitional fossils.
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman multicellular organisms probably evolved from multi-nucleate cells like ciliates, read up on paramecium. the key difference between vertebrates, arthropods, and molluscs originally was the way they moved - vertebrates wriggled, arthropods walked, molluscs slid. vertebrates then passed through a weird phase as echinoderms before finally developing backbones. Oh, and if you think cow crawled back into the ocean and became a whale, you should reexamine your drug cupboard!
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus I didn't ask you how much imagination you have or how creative you are, I asked you to demonstrate a mechanism. You do know what a scientifically verifiable mechanism is right?
"...Oh, and if you think cow crawled back into the ocean and became a whale, you should reexamine your drug cupboard" <- Congrats you just contradicted 95% of your evolutionary colleagues as they were the ones that proposed that very idea. See any scientific article on evolution of the whale.
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman before judging the arrogance of evolution, judge your own arrogance. "I'm not looking for answers as I have already found them" - really? All you did is repeat a few unanswered elements several times and called it an answer. And then you want to be taken seriously? You have not presented a single point of evidence to refute the theory of evolution, yet arrogantly claim the victory. You are incredibly dishonest!
eleminatus 1 month ago
@cctman and give me a single quote where a scientist says that cows went back to the ocean and became whales! That claim should go to the hall of fame how ridiculous it is!
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus Whale Evolution PBS 2001 WGBH Educational Foundation and Clear Blue Sky Productions, Inc. "It's the tale of an ancient land mammal making its way back to the sea, becoming the forerunner of today's whales. In doing so, it lost its legs, and all of its vital systems became adapted to a marine existence"
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman Exactly! And nowhere does it say that cow just became a whale! Ancient mammal is not a cow, and evolution is not an overnight thing. But if you think your comprehension of evolutionary biology surpasses that of Mrs. Scott or any other evolutionary biologist, please demonstrate how these poor fellows are wrong!
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus Oh come on you knew when I said cow I wasn't actually talking about a present day cow species. Can we get past the semantics and actually deal with my question I posed?
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman excuse me? you several times explicitly said something like "cows turned into whales", and now dare talk about semantics? hah!
And before asking questions, you should provide at least something in support of your claims! So far all you have is misconstrued information!
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus The reference to cows turning into whales is from the famous anti-evolutionists Dr. David Berlinski. If you were studied up on this style of debate you would have gotten this.
Now I'm going to ask one more time... "Can we get past the semantics and actually deal with my question I posed?"
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman dont you think its hypocritical? you have no problem accepting words of a man sharing your opinion, yet categorically deny the words of someone opposing your opinion. Where is honesty in that?
What is your question?
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus Umm... That's what humans do when they agree and disagree with opinions. What are you talking about?
The question I asked several times was about you explaining how a cow like creature can or would crawl back into the ocean to become a whale. Or explain how the first self replicating cell came to be. Before you answer you might want to consider the best known evolutionists' alive today don't even have good answers to these questions.
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman I answered it a long time ago with an honest I dont know! However, you ignored the subsequent question that I asked. We dont know every little thing about evolution, that is a fact. But how does it discredit evolution or make it seem wrong? We dont know everything about gravity or particles either, yet I dont see you questioning those theories. Double standards? Do you think you are a first one to find unanswered questions in evolutionary theory?
eleminatus 1 month ago
@cctman No you are not. And you all make fundamental mistake.
So tell me, how does not yet knowing exact steps of whale evolution or cell evolution, discredit theory as a whole?
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus Furthermore... If your going to claim evolution as fact then you would have to first exclude all other theories. You would have to demonstrate how every change you could claim for macro evolution exceeds the coding which is already present as genetic variation which is what creationists' claim.
Creationists claim that the variety in changes is present in the genetic code and there predefined limits to how far these variations can ever go.
Devolution not Evolution.
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman what lack of transitional fossils? give me some examples of missing links!
You still cannot explain me, how gaps in the theory, make the theory false? Gravity has gaps, yet you dont question it. Just like atomic theory or germ theory!
*sigh* just like I said before - if you wanted to answer these questions, you would not look for them on youtube. You are merely pretending to be smart. That is very dishonest of you!
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus .."if you wanted to answer these questions, you would not look for them on youtube."
And like I said I'm not looking for answers as I have already found them. I'm clearly here to demonstrate the blatant arrogance and incredibility of the theory of evolution and lead others to the truth. That truth is that our creator comes first and His creation comes second. That creation is found in his word in scripture. When man and scripture are at odds, we should question man.
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman stop hiding behind rhetoric and either provide the requested material or admit you are wrong.
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus By they way why don't you show me one of those 270,000 papers that demonstrate the prior mentioned theories I pointed out. Just simply reference one of them to point out my clear flaw in my argument.
Let me help you out... Try finding one on single cell to multi cell replication or morphology of the first vertebrae.
I will be waiting...
cctman 1 month ago
What Eugenie Scott fails to understand is that her own arrogance is demonstrated by her blindness to her own self absorbed devotion to her belief in philosophical naturalism.
She claims to know the very definition of science and its abstraction from belief. When her assumptions to what she believes in the first place are heavily persuaded by her own ideology and belief based upon her personal experience.
Macro evolution, single cell to multi cell, morphology of the first vertebrae, (cont...)
cctman 1 month ago
Thanks Genie, you're a true diplomat. So I'll say it, "God had nothing to do with it!"
fdasherv 2 months ago
Excellent explenation of science.
It´s really disturbing to watch people who are trying to misuse science for their personal interests.
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
Very clever woman. Earth needs more people like her.
upisoft2 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 3 months ago
OMFG I nearly fell on the floor laughing when Putin made the russian bear comment at the end.
brewerbrian420 7 months ago
It is legitimate to ask whether god intervenes in evolution but sometimes the question asked is murky . Maybe a more specific way to ask the question is: "Do you believe that evolutionary change is a result of gods intervention." If the answer is yes then you know that whether they think so or not they really believe in ID.
b991228 7 months ago
The differences between atheism and agnosticism comes down to semantics. To be an atheist all you have to do is lack a belief in a supernatural god ("a" meaning "not").
Agnostics say that the existence of god(s) cannot be proved nor disproved. If you apply scientific standards, then you require evidence to hold a belief.
Under these circumstances all Agnostics are Atheists.
I consider myself an atheist because god's existence could be proven in theory, but the proof has yet to come forward.
Setzer 7 months ago
@Setzer - To be an atheist you have to lack a belief that a god ever existed or that one exists anywhere. Deists don't believe that god supernaturally intervenes in the universe but do believe that one exists somewhere.
You employed the Composition logical fallacy.
A86 6 months ago
@A86 My comment did not deal with Deists. The only two groups my comment concerned itself with was "Atheists" and "Agnostics". Agnostic =/= Deist.
Deists would be considered Theists. There is no fallacy of composition in my statement.
Setzer 6 months ago
@Setzer - Theists believe a god intervenes in the universe. Deists don't. Therefore deists are not theists.
Agnostics are not atheists or agnostics. You can be an agnostic-atheist or an agnostic-theist. Atheism and theism have to do with belief, agnosticism and gnosticism have to do with degrees of certainty. An agnostic simply means a person who holds uncertainty about a view on a particular subject.
A86 6 months ago
@A86 Theist means a belief in god or gods; thus a deist would be a theist. I guess it is theoretically possible to be an agnostic-theist, but it doesn't really make sense because generally people have SOME reason for believing the things they do.
Ex: If you think the first cause argument requires a supernatural being, then that aspect of the universe is a proof in favor of god. That would prevent you from being Agnostic.
My main point is that atheism is not the belief there is no god.
Setzer 6 months ago
@Setzer - Wrong:
oxforddictionaries (.) com / definition / theism
Agnosticism has nothing to do with reasons for believing or not believing, just how certain you are. An agnostic theist lacks a disbelief in god (best way to put it) but is not certain god exists.
You really need to look up what these terms mean. You're not making yourself look any more intelligent than a creationist by not understanding what "agnosticism" is and using association logical fallacies to back up your mistake.
A86 6 months ago
@Setzer - "That would prevent you from being Agnostic"
Wrong. "In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God." -- Rowe, William L. (1998). "Agnosticism". In Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
To be more specific agnosticism is the view that truth claims about metaphysics or the existence of deity is unknowable or at least currently unknown.
A86 6 months ago
@A86 We're arguing over semantics: "the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence"
There's not just one definition for each of these words. Typically when someone tells me they're agnostic they say, "it's impossible to prove or disprove." If you add "or at least currently unknown" then fine I'm an Agnostic Atheist, but really that's a useless qualifier because you don't have to be 100% certain to be an atheist or a theist.
Setzer 6 months ago
@Setzer - Perhaps you consider it useless but that's what the term means. It either deals with certainty about one's views or is used to convey that someone is a true neutral on the god issue (they reject both theism and atheism). You don't have to be 100% certain to be a gnostic theist or atheist but I'd say you're probably the "gnostic" type if you're at least 85-90% certain there's no other possibility.
A86 6 months ago
@A86 On the other hand, if I used the definition you provided, it's impossible to be both agnostic and theist or agnostic and atheist. "neither believes nor disbelieves in God"
Setzer 6 months ago
Not all Scientists are atheists, but more than 80% are pretty much non-believers.
The more you learn about Science the more you doubt the existence of God simply because you learn more about reality and how the universe works.
I do agree that Science itself does not deny the "insert God here" ideas most times. However I cannot honestly say Richard Dawkins didn't think this through. Extreme Religious beliefs are not tolerant of Science, it doesn't matter if evolution allow God or not.
Neosaigo 8 months ago
@Neosaigo - Actually about 40% of scientists are theists or deists of some sort. About 1/3 are atheists and most of the rest are agnostics or Other (apatheist, ignostic, etc.) There is no evidence that most atheists and agnostics in science ever were believers to begin with. Most pollsters have come to the conclusion that non-believers are just more likely to go into the scientific field than believers. Maybe because of the God vs. Science perception much of the public has.
A86 6 months ago
@Neosaigo - I agree with Dawkins that extreme religious beliefs are not tolerant of science, but sometimes he goes too far and paints with a broad brush and implies that basically ALL non-atheist beliefs are incompatible with or destined to clash with science. I would disagree. Just as many atheists look at quantum mechanics and see it as evidence that no god is necessary some theists or deists look at quantum mechanics and see "god" written all over it. Just not in bearded white man form.
A86 6 months ago
You follow up your arrogant attack on creationists with more mockery.I have seen you before.You have this need to run people down in order to elevate yourself.World views aside your just not a nice person.
pestmanpat 9 months ago
I can't say I totally agree with ES for this reason. The bible makes many claims about supernatural events that occured. Water into wine, walking on water, healing, raising the dead etc. These claims violate the natural laws so to say that science neither compels neither theism or disbelief is just wrong. These phenomina in the bible contradict science, so they compel disbelief
lhurien 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lhurien How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 9 months ago
@1tabligh At one time, not so long ago, most babies didn't make it to their first birthdays and few older children rarely made it to adulthood.
Since you're so down on science, I would just suggest that you be honest and just live at the level of science and technology that existed when your creed was affirmed; that said, odds are, you'd have been long dead by now so we wouldn't have to listen to your stupid bullshine.
SatchmoSings 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SatchmoSings What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?
1tabligh 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Then how can the atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 9 months ago
Comment removed
lhurien 9 months ago
@A86 There is God who resides in the supernatural and created the natural world and "KLE()#$T" who lives in the mega-natrual world and created the supernatural and "Lomb" who lives in the Ultra-natural world and created the mega-natural and some of the supernatural.
Now we haven't directly observed "Lomb" or so we think?....
haven't we learned anything in over 3000yrs of praising made up gods, God is not the same as ether or dark matter.
shandcunt 9 months ago
@shandcunt - Lol! I agree with your claims about this (I assume you believe it's fictional) deity you started discussing. It is possible that a higher power of some sort could exist, but if there is any kind of higher consciousness or higher power I don't think any human really knows enough to make any kind of specific claims about it. In that sense I take Buddha's skepticism towards people like that the way he was skeptical of priests who made claims about the great Brahma and Isvara.
A86 9 months ago
@A86 You dont have to disprove god to be an atheist. I agree with what your saying but as to your question about what would a universe look like without god....which god? what about "KLE()#$T" what would a universe look like without "KLE()#$T"? huh?
"KLE()#$T" comes from the mega-natural world, he created the supernatural world and god, you cant disprove him.
if you go dwn a path of acknowledging everything that cant be disproved then anyone can make up anything, like "KLE()#$T"
shandcunt 9 months ago
Great Video, really good message for creationists. personally I dont see how any human can honestly claim knowledge of god, i see everyone as agnostic.
does sceince make a positive claim towards god? No, hence sceince is atheistic. Is sceince theistic? No so its.....A-theistic, it intentionally doesn't include god as a factor in its tests.
I dnt see hw u can say its not atheist its just not theist....the definition of atheist is non theist
shandcunt 9 months ago
Superstring Theory and the possibility of 11 dimensions might currently fall under the definition of "supernatural" since such a thing is currently not observable in the natural world. Same with Strings, Dark Energy, Dark Matter and possible Gravitons.
So science truly is Agnostic and Apatheist. It is not theistic just because it doesn't outright claim "God" does not exist, and it's not atheistic just because it is silent on the subject of "God".
A86 11 months ago
For instance, if a friend tells me what happened to them on a trip in Europe I have no evidence they're telling the truth. That doesn't mean I assume they're lying because their claims aren't provable. Likewise science doesn't assume that God does not exist because it isn't currently testable.
Actually, we currently believe a lot of things in science on inference with no direct evidence - the existence of Consciousness, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Strings, possibly up to 11 dimensions, etc.
A86 11 months ago
However, to atheists who believe a lack of evidence is equivalent to evidence of absence, that's not what science is claiming either. Because you have not tested something or observed something directly does not mean it does not exist. We haven't directly observed "God" (or so we think) but what would it look like to observe "God" in the first place? What would a universe with "God" look like or operate like specifically?
A86 11 months ago
I think there is some misunderstanding here on both sides. Some theists see her as saying their belief in their particular God is okay since science can't disprove it. It would all depend on what one means by "God". If you believe in a god that created the world just 6,000 years ago and who flooded the entire world at the same time in human history - that kind of thing would conflict with what we know about the Universe.
A86 11 months ago
Novel about an alternative view of evolution see video book trailer
dltanner99 11 months ago
The intelligent design people say dna codes are so complex and perfect to have evolved naturally, but then why are there so many errors and mistakes, some are very severe. did the intelligence just get lazy and mess up. if it was so intelligent than people wouldnt be born with both reproductive organs, or attached twins, or missing limbs.
420simpson 1 year ago
... Thus the problem: We cannot scientifically/empirically know an incomprehensible god, and therefore cannot talk about, let alone refute such a god. (And I wish that theists who postulate an unknowable God would stop talking about their theistic speculations as if they were true and comprehensible. Wake up to paradox.)
toneemontaigne