A Critique of Bob Jones' Life Science Textbook Part 4

[OhhBRIANNA]

are youu the voice of the comic book guy on the simpsons?

[Rockster969]

creatard emo central

[universalmusac]

Thank you, someone with some brains and that digs a little deeper into the flaws of these creationist arguments.

[briannajoelle]

i love running k's :D

[rovert425]

your so smart but dumb at the same time.

[migkillertwo]

*sees ad for Joal Osteen*

GASP!

[Joseph565112]

Again, the creationist arguement is incredibly weak. We are reading far too much into their stories first of all. There should be a far more paramount question that invloves the earth as a whole very little. What about other planets? If God made the earth in six literal days then he must have made the other planets in our solar system in that same period. That would only be logical. Why is there nothing on them. In fact some are simply "gas giants" No life, certainly nothing in his image like us

[Joseph565112]

Why did he take the trouble to create a bunch of planets with crazy weather and hostile conditions? Not just here either. There are planets orbiting other stars as well, acting as their sun. Hundreds of light years away. Why create them, again with horrific conditions where we could never live and worship him etc. They make ZERO sense.

[tmaxxin]

get a life ooh damn 464 thats a shit load of people find something somethink atlease a fue people care about it might get some views

[kikyotachibana]

Wow! You're voice is alot deeper! You're still as smart as ever though. You're parents must be proud. What do you plan to do in the future?

[a01011399]

kind= if two animals where originaly capable of interbreeding they are the same kind.

[garouHH]

So you consider for instance humans, apes, dogs, lizards and birds all to be the same kind?

[a01011399]

no, humans, apes dogs... have never been able to interbreed.

[garouHH]

> no, humans, apes dogs... have never been able to interbreed.

Factually wrong. Both fossil and genomic evidence says otherwise.

[a01011399]

wrong, evolution can not be tested with ether DNA nor fossils.

[garouHH]

> wrong, evolution can not be tested with ether DNA nor fossils.

... Excuse me?? Every fossil excavated is a test of the theory, as is every genome sequenced.

[a01011399]

yea sure, whenever you have some free time do some reasearch, in non-dogmatic sources

[garouHH]

If non-dogmatic means equally or more ignorant of the scientific method as you have demonstrated yourself to be, what'd be the point...

[a01011399]

non dogmatic = not pressuasive, talk origins for example is a perssuasive source because it is trying to convince you that a given point of view is correct

[garouHH]

> it is trying to convince you that a given point of view is correct

There is currently exactly one, no more, no less, theory that explains biodiversity. No other hypothesis survived the fire of the scientific method in the face of amounting evidence. Talk Origins provides an explanation of that theory and why other hypotheses have failed. It would be just another apologetics site if it was not for one crucial difference: Adherence to the scientific method, like giving reference for evidence.

[a01011399]

it is my persoal theory that nothing will ever make you change your mind, tou will alsways accept evolution, untill the mayority of scientists reject it, am I correct

[garouHH]

I've pondered a bit what you'd have to do to convince me that evolution is wrong. It boils down to that you'd have to rewrite genetics, because from the genomes properties to build survival machines around them and the open-endedness of their mutability, evolution emerges. My natural history knowledge is a bit shakier, though, precambrian rabbits or a crocoduck fossil would make me rewrite that. Oh, and showing biological systems that could not have evolved, _that_'d be a killer to evolution.

[a01011399]

1) man made artifacts have been found in the precambrian, if we find a rabbit you will simply claim that ancient rabbits made deeper holes.

2) a crocoduck won´t falsify evolution (well it depends what do you meen by evolution?)

3) eye, DNA, digestive system, etc. non of your organs nor system could have evolved.

[garouHH]

> 1) man made artifacts have been found in the precambrian

I call BS.

> 2) a crocoduck won´t falsify evolution

Re-read what I said about it.

> (well it depends what do you meen by evolution?)

There is only one definition.

> 3) eye, DNA, digestive system, etc. non of your organs nor system could have evolved.

You made a point out of not paying attention in school?

[a01011399]

´´I call BS.´´

confirming my theory, you will never accept something that contradicts evolution

´´Re-read what I said about it´´

define evolution, the term evolution is ambiguos

´´You made a point out of not paying attention in school?´´

these are ireducibly complex,

[garouHH]

> ´´I call BS.´´

> confirming my theory, you will never accept something that contradicts evolution

I won't believe it uncritically. Show me the peer-reviewed paper and I'll believe.

> define evolution, the term evolution is ambiguos

In populations of organisms that self-replicate with modification, the frequency of alleles will change due to mutation and selection.

[garouHH]

> mutation and selection.

Also, this was not about evolution. I said that if you could show me a crocoduck, that that'd revise a lot about what I know about natural history, like said precambriam rabbits would.

[garouHH]

> these are ireducibly complex,

Irreducible complexity in itself does not show the impossibility of the system having evolved, and at least in the case of the eye you're even completely wrong about it: Nearly any part can be removed and still leave a functioning eye, though not as accurate. In the case of DNA, unless you claim that there are DNA sequences that could not have been the result of mutation of other sequences, this example leaves the field of evolution. All known life requires DNA.

[LotusGreenX]

"wrong, evolution can not be tested with ether DNA nor fossils."

Wrong. Fossils have to transition in a perticular way with perticular dates and fossil layers. You can't just plop two fossils that look transitional that are dated one after the other and call that good. It has to transition as predicted and possible by evolution.

You can also do the same with DNA.

[jebus6kryst]

Wonderful job. That book seems like a great piece of propaganda.

[Brianswers]

Good vid Kabane. How did you swithc from creationist to 'evolutionist'? (I hate the term evolutionist. lol)

[deepelmdesciple]

If anything is going to hurt the church, its going to be how they let fundamentalists fight evolution. Its more because they dont know about it. Most people who attend church regularly, if you told these people that people are actually making books out of this stuff, they would be shocked and appalled.

[TheDude0fLife]

Creationism = retarded!

[jsf3483]

So Kabane, just wondering?

We are the descendants of the first man with a soul, Adam, who descended from an ape-like ancestor and Eve who was miraculously created?

I'm particularly curious about your view concerning Eve here.

[gqathlete]

Good Question cant wait for the answer!

[deepelmdesciple]

Trying to throw this guy off on a topic that has nothing to do with this video??? Thats kind of dirty. I mean, its easily possible to believe in evolution and Adam & Eve at the same time. Because if you believe that theres a God, then in (your) reality, Adam & Eve and evolution have absolutely nothing to do with each other, or atleast they dont have to. Because God couldve created them out of nowhere completely regardless of evolution.

[jsf3483]

I know it has nothing to do with this topic. I just went to his latest video and wanted to start a discussion.

Why do you have to get so bent out of shape?

Kabane insists we are the descendants of creatures that evolved so I am wondering where Eve fits into this.

[KabaneTheChristian]

Please see my video, "The Adam and Eve Problem Solved"

[gqathlete]

How many missing links do we have ? Lots ? Whats the number?

[Terrencje]

I've found a few hundred so far. From invertebrates to vertebrates, fish to sarcoptergii, sarcoptergii to tetrapods, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to synapsids, synapsids to mammals, reptiles to dinosaurs and dinosaurs to birds, mammal to ape, ape to man, coelacanth evolution, turtle evolution, ichthyosaurus evolution, whale evolution etc.

You name it, invertebrateintermediates (for molluscs especially) exits to and a far more abundant even.

No one source or person knows how many, to many.

[KabaneTheChristian]

I can't count them for you. We have lots and lots of intermediate forms.

[gqathlete]

Stop riding the VenomXFang thing! I hear his name every video and it getting tired!

[Kabane52]

It's my stock opening.

[garouHH]

Could you make a stock clip for it then, maybe with a colored border so that those who don't want to hear it anymore can skip it and see when it's over?

[deepelmdesciple]

VenomFangx is one of the main people on youtube spreading this crap, and I think the more people are aware of his ways, the more young people we can protect from being infected by his lies. So please, Kabane52, dont ever stop talking about Venomfangx.

[kut77less]

first I don't think that this is an accurate account of Modern creationism

Creationist have defined kind (look at the article I gave in a pervoius.)

The General theory of evolution includes all the types of evolution (big Bang etc)

Gene duplication happens much more frequtley then point mutation (or about the same), and thus most of the time the duplicated mutation becomes function less. So it is impossible to very unlikely that it would ever produce New Genetic information.

[kut77less]

Source:Lynch M, Conery JS. 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of

duplicate genes. Science 290:1151-1155.

I had more to say, but my browser crashed So I will leave it on that

[deepelmdesciple]

kut77less: "The General theory of evolution includes all the types of evolution (big Bang etc)"...

Absolutely wrong. The theory of evolution attempts only to explain the DIVERSITY of life, NOT the ORIGIN of life. It has NOTHING to do with the big bang, and has nothing to do with anything outside of this planet at all.

[KabaneTheChristian]

'Creationist have defined kind (look at the article I gave in a pervoius.)"

Could you give the article again?

There is no "general theory of evolution". There is the theory of evolution, which is a biological theory. I'm not saying that gene duplication always produces new genes. Most of the time it probably doesn't. I said it can and occasionally does. And by the way, novel genes have been observed.

[kut77less]

//Could you give the article again?//

Yes here.

tinyurl(dot)com/8jf4zx

This is pee reviewed

/". There is the theory of evolution, which is a biological theory.//

And the modern evolutionist that believes in that believes in the Big bang. Biolgical evolution is talking in specific terms.

tinyurl(dot)com/a4nb4s

[Terrencje]

"And the modern evolutionist that believes in that believes in the Big bang. Biolgical evolution is talking in specific terms."

There are also 'evolutionists' who 'believe' in a steady state universe and a plasma cosmology.

[kut77less]

// I said it can and occasionally does. And by the way, novel genes have been observed.//

I would like to see this. I will actually make are response(to a guy who made a response to me) and in that video I will include a more full rebuttal to the Gene duplication Idea.

[Kabane52]

Knox, J. R., P. C. Moews and J.-M. Frere, 1996. Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance. Chemistry and Biology 3: 937-947.

[kut77less]

//Knox, J. R., P. C. Moews and J.-M. Frere, 1996. Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance. Chemistry and Biology 3: 937-947.//

I have actually heard of Lactam resistance and I will look into to it even more.

[cerebulon]

That was very well presented. I wonder if you teacher would let you present this in you class.

[Kabane52]

This is an old textbook I have from a couple years ago when I was still a creationist.

[hanzo138]

Has anyone seen neptune complete a full orbit around the sun? No.

[CooFrank]

That sock was disgusting.

[Angelflesh]

Wait a minute. I saw The Core in 2003!

[lilchrizz123]

I know this is irrelevant and it's cool if you delete it after, but you really should go on stickam and debate with the rrs.

[BohemianBlasphemy]

Not first!