Do you really think there is much point about complaining about young earth creationism effecting British archaeology, as far as I'm aware the problem is non-existent. New agers and Pagans, yes, at places such as Seahenge and other I could mention,but even they are minor incidents. Surely pseudo archaeology such a Graham Chapman dwarf religion in size of threat and your time would be spent better there.
@tmesist That's not the point I was making. Creationists are attempting to get their religion taught as a science despite the evidence. In other words, they're out to cripple peoples' education and they're actually a real threat especially in light of the industrialisation of religion in the US style. New-agers and pagans are occasionally a threat to extant archaeology but they don't have the clout or finances to influence on how it should be taught.
With the Texas school book thingy and everything that is true, but not in Britain was my point. In a recent British survey 9/10 schoolkids said they were atheists.
@tmesist I think you meant Graham Hancock, though I'm wiling to be wrong, but as far as that goes I couldn't agree more. He's as annoying as hell. I get paid for getting dirty, working hard and backing up what I say with evidence and he gets paid for making shit up. The influence people like him have is minimal but established religions, mainly because they are established have an unearned influence Such as the requirement for a Xtian reburial site for excavated human remains.
@tmesist I think you meant Graham Hancock, though I'm wiling to be wrong, but as far as that goes I couldn't agree more. He's as annoying as hell. I get paid for getting dirty, working hard and backing up what I say with evidence and he gets paid for making shit up. The influence people like him have is minimal but established religions, mainly because they are established have an unearned influence Such as the requirement for a Xtian reburial site for excavated human remains.
Yes, thanks, that was a terrible slip, Mr Hancock indeed.
I actually see more of him mentioned on history channel than ligit archaeology. Find more people have heard of Atlantis on Antartica than the 2 recent Stonehenge excavation.
@tmesist This is one of the problems with things like 'Pop' archaeology. There are people being invited to speak on programmes who probably think a post ex report is following an old girlfriend. But those people are invited by producers who have an agenda, that of promoting their programme and its 'message'. Anyone with more than two synapses to rub together would avoid them like the plague if they wanted an honest and informed opinion.
it is amazing, because some people don't think a complex thing like a human or another animal can be formed by anything other than a creator, they belief in an even far more complex being creating us, but waste no time to explain how that thing was created :D
One piece of empirical evidence supporting your faith that matter can and did turn itself into consciousness would be sufficient to compel me to apologize, and thank you.
You wrote: "not enough evidence has been provided to show [intelligent creator(s)] exist."
Your acknowledgment that there is some evidence is appreciated. Don't let your contempt for the church cause you to forgo reason. We're about the same age, so please take that as friendly advice from a contemporary.
@lughcious "You believe matter created people then?"- you blithering idiot, what do you think they're made from? Or are you so replete with imaginary friends that you think that corporeality is optional?
@lughcious Now back to your evidence that there is an intelligent and interventionist magic man that doesn't need a creator swanning around making universes. Where is it? Or are we going back to question avoidance again eh?
Created is the wrong word for it. That particular word implies some sort of willful creation process. We don't see that in nature anywhere except when intelligence is involved.
But if you are do not believe you are made from matter do you then believe you are made of? And why do you call it quaint?
@itsjustameme He calls it quaint because he's trying to give the impression that he knows something we don't. Unfortunately from the obvious inability to recognise what constitutes evidence, from his evasion of questions and from his ignorance of what has been discovered refuting his claims, he hasn't figured out that he knows nothing.
Good morning. If you believe you know that matter created people, then you don't know what I and everyone else with a lick of commonsense knows; Matter isn't creative. Intelligence is.
Atheists reject intelligence for faith that matter is your creator.
Some Hindus swill 'sacred cow' urine, and some Jews twirl chickens over each others' heads to erase their misdeeds, then slit the chickens throat. But they have enough commonsense to know matter isn't their creator.
@lughcious You're not answering the questions put to you. Where is your evidence that there was any intelligent input to the formation of the universe?
@lughcious "I had faith that as a former military officer, you'd have some integrity and honor. You've shaken my faith in you."- Tough, I'm not here for your benefit. I'm here specifically to demonstrate how vapid the arguments of idiots like you are. So far you've done your level best to avoid having to back up your statements. Now come up with the goods or bin the pretence.
@lughcious Now finally, I'm trying to figure out why you think that anyone with integrity and honour would bother listening to you? As I said, all you've done so far is obfuscate and evade. You've provided nothing worth listening to let alone supporting. The only thing you've managed to do is reinforce my reasons to disbelieve any fuckwit who comes along making claims and then refuses to support them. As a soldier I hated having my time wasted. I haven't changed much.
@lughcious you have not presented any evidence here. i went true all your comments, and not once you presented any evidence, all you did was presenting your belief.
you belief all systems are created by some intelligence. but you actually never present evidence for the existence of this intelligence. you are only making an argument from ignorance. you do not know about systems that formed rather than being created and that makes you belief that all systems must have a designer.
@lughcious its a very loaded question, it has nothing to do with faith, but with wath we have discovered so far. and indeed we know there is relative inteligent live and all the evidence we were able to collect so far shows that it formed and was not created. we still have to do some discoveries in abiogenesis but the theory of evolution is perfectly able to explain the existence of intelligent life without a creator, it formed. We have however not found any trace of a designer.
@lughcious not at all, it did not turn itself into anything, your question implies intent, and there was no intend discovered in evolution. just changes that sometimes survive and sometimes die out.
@lughcious "Your acknowledgment that there is some evidence is appreciated."- bullshit, you haven't provided any evidence so you don't get any acknowledgements. Haven't you managed to notice that you've been refuted on all counts? If you haven't you really do need to read all of your comments.
"We're about the same age,"- and in all that time you've managed to avoid critical thinking? Wow.
@falchion49 wrote: "bullshit, you haven't provided any evidence"
You've been shown how to observe the evidence that creation comes from intelligence. Every functional system - your PC for example - is a creation of intelligence. There's never been a functional system known to be created by anything but intelligence.
Your rejection of intelligence flies in the face of your lifetime of contact with creations of intelligent.
@lughcious "You've been shown how to observe the evidence that creation comes from intelligence."- that'll be more bullshit then. You've been given examples of functional systems that don't require 'intelligence' at which point you run off behind the 'the universe is designed' canard failing to note your own arguments preclude that conclusion. That isn't good enough. provide evidence such an 'intelligence' (though I suspect you're not too sure what it means) is required.
@lughcious "I dispute this claim."- don't care. You were given three examples of 'functional systems' that do not require any 'intelligent' input. All of which pre-date Humanity and get on quite happily without us. You then ignored them and tried to rush off into the 'the universe is designed' funk hole when you'd already argued yourself out of that particular route. In other words, you've failed.
Plate tectonics, the water cycle and creation of stars are not examples of functional systems of known origin. They are of nature and the universe. The origins of the universe and nature are unknown.
Tangible evidence for intelligence in creation: There's no functional system known to have been created by anything but intelligence.
@lughcious "The origins of the universe and nature are unknown."- so now you're claiming that there is no reason to believe that your postulated 'intelligence' was involved with the formation of the Universe?
"Tangible evidence for intelligence in creation: There's no functional system known to have been created by anything but intelligence."- Read above.
Remember what I said about arguing against yourself? You're an idiot.
@lughcious So let's recap. You claim that 'no functional system' without bothering to define your interpretation of a 'functional system' can be 'created' without 'intelligence. You are now trying to claim that complex systems such as stellar evolution are not 'functional systems' when they are in fact essential to the evolution universe. Tectonics and water cycles, same detail even though they're essential to life on Earth. You're making it up as you go along.
To claim to know the origin of the digestive system would be false, without knowing the origin life. To claim to know the origin of stars would be false, without knowing the origin of the universe.
A functional system is a system that serves a function. There is no functional system that's ever been known to be a product of something other than intelligence.
Your faith that creation is an unintended byproduct of anything but intelligence is in defiance of all evidence.
@lughcious "To claim to know the origin of the digestive system would be false,"- more bullshit. You don't know so you're assuming no one else does.
"To claim to know the origin of stars would be false, without knowing the origin of the universe"- bullshit, stellar formation has been studied for decades. All you need to do is look up.
"A functional system is a system that serves a function."- teleological arguments. What are you going to claim next? Clouds are for raining?
@lughcious "Your faith"- don't have one. "that creation is an unintended byproduct (sic) of anything but intelligence is in defiance of all evidence."- you haven't provided any evidence and you're once again dropping into that good old reductio ad absurdam argument. Massive fail there, again.
You're claiming some special knowledge that's for some reason evaded conventional research yet you don't even know the basics of what you're talking about.
@lughcious Bullshit. You've claimed that you've provided evidence. You haven't. You've tried to claim that no one's provided evidence to refute you, loads has been aimed at you. You try to claim atheism is a faith, it isn't. In other words, you've lied.
You don't know the first thing about what you're talking about and when refuted try to pretend it hasn't happened. Engaging you in a 'debate' would be a waste of time because you don't even know what evidence is and you make dishonest claims.
@lughcious "Evidence that intelligence is creative..."- Stop lying, you've had it pointed out to you that this is not evidence it's merely an unsupported statement.
Byproduct is a word in American. Where's evidence that functional systems are products of intelligence? The beaver's pond. The bee's hive. The spider's web. The toaster. The ISS, - all physical evidence of intelligence in creation.
You're in abject denial of the world you've been living in. That's unhealthy.
@lughcious and in all your examples we have evidence for the creator, but for the creator you speak of, there is no evidence at all. so why assume there is one? Nasa is currenctly observing the formation of new stars in a "nearby" Nebula.we see them forming by gravitiy. but we see no trace of any god creating them, how come?
@falchion49 no i better dont go there with him, i mean denying all fossils and DNA evidence for evolution is one thing, but the denial of tons of pictures ad films and other documentation of the Holocaust would just piss me off and would not result in a debate but would end in me flaming the dumbfuck in denial.
@lughcious " The beaver's pond. The bee's hive. The spider's web. The toaster. The ISS, - all physical evidence of intelligence in creation."- you forgot snowflakes, crystaline structures, valent and covalent bonding. No intelligence required.
@lughcious Actually, let's just bin your bullshit and say you don't have any shall we? So far, having been given plenty of opportunities to present some, you've managed to avoid sullying any of your sweeping statements with even the slightest taint of corroboration. Yet you blithely yabber on about subjects you demonstrate a profound ignorance upon and expect to taken seriously. that's why you're now an object of derision and the only reason you're getting answers is out of pure amusement.
@lughcious So, far from being the profound purveyor of philosophical insight and earth shattering scientific revelation, you're stuck in an ignorant swamp of your own making.
You can't even defend your statements effectively because they are based on utter ignorance.
@lughcious As I said, I require a standard of evidence that you're consistently failing to provide. Actually, you providing any evidence would be a bonus. If yo simply keep making unsupported statements you'll be confirming the impression you've so far given that you are just flapping your jaws and pretending.
This is why there are so many atheists out there and our number is growing. You and your ilk are failing where reality is succeeding.
Hi, Mr. "Fuck You". Do you believe those tailings are evidence that matter could turn itself into consciousness, that life was never intended, you're a distant cousin to maggots, and that a maggot's life may be of more importance than yours?
@lughcious Now let's look at your appeal to disgust at the prospect of being related to maggots. Maggots are not a distinct species, they're a larval stage of flies, of the order Diptera. Diptera being related by those pesky little transitional fossils Permotanyderus and Choristotanyderus to the order Mecoptera. All of which belong to the kingdom Animalia of which you and I are both members thus sharing a common ancestor with them. Ten minutes research.
No species have been linked by a continual fossil trail. Transitional fossils are theoretical.
The organic formation of coal is relevant to the faith that matter created consciousness, and that your life is as insignificant as a maggot's?
Here's evidence that the universe and all functional systems within are creations of intelligence; No functional system is known to be a creation of anything but intelligence. Atheist rejection of intelligence is in defiance of all evidence.
@lughcious "No species have been linked by a continual fossil trail"- don't need one to show that your 'intelligent designer' didn't do anything. In fact the plethora of fossils showing extinction events shows you ID wizard was actually a bit of a failure.
"
"The organic formation of coal is relevant to the faith that matter created consciousness"- no it isn't, it's just relevant to the formation of coal. That's geology, you're trying to make it evolutionary biology.
@lughcious "Here's evidence that the universe and all functional systems within are creations of intelligence; No functional system is known to be a creation of anything but intelligence."- no it isn't it's simply an unsupported statement you've made without providing any evidence. You are aware that if you're trying to claim you're providing evidence then it helps to actually provide some?
@lughcious "Atheist rejection of intelligence is in defiance of all evidence"- Atheism is simply the rejection of gods, generally because of the paucity of evidence presented by those gods and those purporting to have evidence. You fail to be even mildly credible.
@lughcious Shall we try the Hydrological cycle for one? Tectonics for another, stellar evolution etc? None of which even hint at the requirement for a magic man.
Now shall we look closely at your supposition that- "No functional system is known to be a creation of anything but intelligence." Ever heard of reductio ad absurdam? Your god, by your own logic, would need a creator, as would that one ad infinitum.
Well done, you've shown your magic man is just a figment of your imagination.
The water cycle & plate movement are features of nature. You do not know the origin of nature. Stars are a feature of the universe. You don't know the origin of the universe.
What you need in the way of empirical evidence to support your rejection of intelligence is a functional system of which you believe the origin is known to be other than intelligence. Functional systems serve a function. For instance, a spider's web serves as its net, a creation of intelligence.
@lughcious "You don't know the origin of the universe."- I'm an archaeologist, it's not my job to. However I do know that so far no one's presented any tangible evidence for a magic man. The only creator gods that have been proposed have been refuted by their obvious lack of evidence supporting them.
Now let's look at that reductio ad absurdam problem again shall we? Or is it a case of your particular magic man doesn't need to play by the rules?
@lughcious "For instance, a spider's web serves as its net, a creation of intelligence."- Molecular Architecture and Evolution of a Modular Spider Silk Protein Gene
Cheryl Y. Hayashi*, Randolph V. Lewis
Reconstructing web evolution and spider diversification in the molecular era
Todd A. Blackledgea,1, Nikolaj Scharffb, Jonathan A. Coddingtonc, Tamas Szütsb, John W. Wenzeld, Cheryl Y. Hayashie and Ingi Agnarssona,
Remember what I said about an argument from ignorance?
@falchion49 well, just wanna make sure you don`t go ape on your blood pressure :) you are not exactly spring vegetables anymore and i just enjoy your videos that much :D
@lughcious "Atheism is rejection of intelligence for faith that matter is creator."- nope, you've already had this explained to you. It's the rejection of gods, d'jinns etc on the grounds that not enough evidence has been provided to show they exist.
"You're living in world of evidence that functional systems only come from intelligence."- wrong again, half-arsed reductio ad absurdam arguments and arguments from ignorance are not enough to indicate any other option.
@falchion49 wrote: "empirically dervived evidence so far"
You believe you've posted empirical evidence supporting the Atheist faith that matter can create intelligence? That would be crucial for your rejection of intelligence and argument that life is unintended. What was it, specifically?
@lughcious Now let's get back to your evidence. You're making the assertion that there was an 'intelligence' behind the formation of the universe and that particularly non theistic, by your claim, 'intelligence' has been interventionist. As you're the one making the assertion it's up to you to provide evidence to back up your assertion. That evidence will require review to be considered viable and a framework of tangible supporting evidence. It's got to come up to a professional standard.
@lughcious Trying to pick holes based on your ignorance of current history, geology, cosmology etc doesn't count as supporting evidence. It merely shows what you don't know.
Ignorance on current history? What are you talking about? Currently there's no evidence that matter can turn itself into consciousness. Are you ignorant of this or in denial of it?
@Aanthanur The funny thing is he appears to think that by retreating into 'god did it' he's somehow getting his point across but every time he's hitting that same old wall of reductio ad absurdam. If something formed the universe by his argument something must have created that and in turn something must have created that. He appears to think that not providing an answer is somehow providing an answer. What a prat.
@Aanthanur Well, I suppose the same rules don't apply to them as the rest if us. I mean, you try talking to an imaginary friend in public and see what happens. They all get together and do it groups!
@falchion49 not only that, in some countries politicans even publicly say that their imaginary friend told them to run for president. And people would vote for such delude people and let them govern their country.
try telling your boss that your imaginary friend told you to apply for a higher job in the company, mostly that would not end well unless you work in a church or another cult :D
Who said that the Xtian God (let's be serious, no other God could have created the universe ;)) is intelligent? I mean, the bible (absolute proof of god, right?) points towards something else completely. Namely anti social personality disorder, mania, a god complex (heh), bi polar personality,... But not so much intelligence.
Evidence that the universe, nature and consciousness come from intelligence is in every functional system you've ever seen. But you don't see it. No functional system is has been created by anything besides intelligence.
Yes, Atheism is entirely based on the faith that no intelligence was involved in creation.
@lughcious "Evidence that the universe, nature and consciousness come from intelligence is in every functional system you've ever seen."- wrong again. That isn't evidence it's just a statement and an unsupported one at that. If you don't know what constitutes evidence then you really shouldn't be trying to hold forth on it.
@lughcious Is your body a functional system? Is a cell a functional system? Funny how those were created by living organisms, following simple biological laws. No intelligence goes into creating an amoeba.
@lughcious "On what do you base your faith that matter created intelligence?"- all of the empirically dervived evidence so far and the fact that counter arguments are generally so badly constructed that they'd be hard pressed to persuade anyone with more than two synapses to rub together.
So, once again, what evidence do you have for your magic man? And don't pretend you're not arguing for one, you are.
@lughcious "The water cycle & plate movement are features of nature. You do not know the origin of nature. Stars are a feature of the universe. You don't know the origin of the universe."- I find your definition of 'functional systems' interesting because to all intents and purposes your arguments repeatedly run into the reductio ad absurdam problem.
You asked for examples of functioning systems and you got them. You can't keep retreating into bad logic when you're trumped.
@lughcious Now I was going to recommend a few books and articles for you to read before you make yourself look an idiot again. Unfortunately the sheer volume of papers, articles and books published on the evolution of neural networks and the evolution of communication, self awareness, social networking would probably be overwhelming for you. There are over 20 000 articles on primate self awareness alone. That's the harvest from another 10 minutes research. Why don't you try it?
@lughcious Now finally shall we look at your assertions? You assert that we need a purpose and by implication that purpose is defined by your personal magic man. Where is your evidence to support that assertion? You assert that you magic man is the creator of everything, again you present no evidence. You assert that we have no evidence to support naturalistic answers to the questions of evolution, abiogenesis etc but you appear unaware that it's all we've got. Your arguments are from ignorance.
You are missing the point. A spider's web is a creation of the spider's intelligence. A toaster is a creation of human intelligence. All functional systems are creations of intelligence. There's no known exception.
If you believe that matter preceded intelligence, and created intelligence, then you need empirical evidence to support it. Evidence that intelligence is required in creation of functional systems is endless.
@lughcious Reductio ad absurdam again. Remember, you defined the rules if your own argument and you're falling foul of them every time.
"I don't have a personal magic man, or a religion."- Really? I think you're trying to redefine your argument now. You've consistently tried to argue for one.
I hold no belief that contradicts commonsense. That's why I dismiss the Atheist faith that inanimate matter created intelligence. Intelligence is creative. Inanimate matter is inanimate.
@lughcious "I hold no belief that contradicts commonsense (sic)"- ah, good old 'common sense'. Unfortunately reality disagrees with you. You haven't done any research, you haven't any specialist knowledge and you routinely argue against yourself and run into logical fallacies.
I'd say, looking at your standard of argument, that your version of 'common sense' is failing you, badly.
@lughcious "I routinely argue against myself? Give a specific example."- are you stoned or something? Which bits of your creator needing a creator are you too dim to remember having pointed out to you?
@lughcious " A spider's web is a creation of the spider's intelligence."- accounted for quite adequately by evolution. No gods, d'jinns, fairies etc required.
It's understood that your faith relies on Darwinism, but that doesn't make Darwinism adequate. That's why no species have been linked by a fossil trail, and no genetic mutations have been shown to advanced DNA to a higher life form.
@lughcious Wrong on all counts. As I said, ignorance is not a defence. Evolutionary theory works because we can see the fossil trail. We don't need a continuous one, which is silly to ask for, you'd know that if you understood fossilisation, because the predictions evolutionary theory makes is more than adequate when we do find transitionals, which effectively is all of them.
Darwinism is dead, man. Bolsheviks were forcing Darwinism on schoolchildren more than half a century ago. It's still a theory because it's false. The fossil record shows new species have always appeared abruptly. See: Cambrian Explosion.
What species do you believe experienced an advancement by mutation?
"Bolsheviks were forcing Darwinism on schoolchildren more than half a century ago"- so what? Politics doesn't matter in science. Darwin formed his theories when Britain had an empire.
"It's still a theory because it's false"- so you don't actually know what the scientific definition of a theory is?
"The fossil record shows new species have always appeared abruptly."- arguing against yourself again? No continuous link? See whale ears.
@lughcious "The Cambrian Explosion is called an explosion because of the wide spectrum of new, advanced life forms that appeared."- over an 80 million year period showing definite evolutionary trends within it. Also, look up Pre-Cambrian, stromatolite's etc.
"The human genome experiment did not show that DNA can rewrite itself into a more complexity."- no, most DNA projects show that. What it did do is show 98000 erv's in common with chimps.
@lughcious Also, you might like to read this: Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13–2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes
Hey, Mr. "Fuck You", Do you believe those tailings are evidence that matter could turn itself into consciousness? Or, that maggots are your cousins, and their existence is equally as insignificant as yours?
@questioneverything2 Not angry just emphatic and a bit sick and tired of creatards who have decided that their set of legends gives them a greater insight into archaeology, palaeontology and history than those of us who actually go out there, get qualified and actually produce data. I often wonder if they think they can do the same thing to airline pilots or neurosurgeons.
@falchion49 "ANOTHER ANGRY ATHEIST. IT'S JUST AN OBSERVATION AND A FACT. I dont' get upset and angry when someone doesn't think like me. I have noticed that Atheist are angry people. I hope that anger doesnt' poison your life and cut it short. You said, Not angry. Don't kid yourself.
@questioneverything2 I think I'm better qualified to say whether I'm angry or not, you evidently aren't. In fact me standing next to 12000 tonnes of Carboniferous redeposit on an archaeological site and using it as an indication of how much evidence there is against Creationism isn't me demonstrating anger, it's me demonstrating that Creationists don't appear to think at all. Their opining that they have the right to shove their myths and legends into science classrooms is the real poison.
@falchion49 You stated, " caps lock evidently makes it true then?" No, I wouldn't say that. But... I would say locking caps got an Angry Atheist to read my comment. LOL
I've never seen 12 000 tons of fuck you before. Well, maybe I have, I just didn't realise it was fuck you. Now I know that I'm surrounded by fuck you, I can't seem to get away from it. I dread to think what will happen when my niece next asks me what something is, because I'll probably say.. "Oh.. it's just some more fuck you" and then my sister will be angry.
OH AND IF THEY TRY AND SAY THEY CAN'T FIND THE MISSING LINK. JUST SHOW THEM WHAT A TINY TSUNAMI DID TO JAPAN. NOW IMAGINE ONE 100 TIMES THAT SIZE HAPPENING MANY TIMES IN MILLIONS OF YEARS. DO YOU THINK THERE IS GOING TO BE MUCH EVIDENCE LEFT THAT THERE WAS ANY PRIMITIVE HUMANS AROUND OR MAYBE NOT SO PRIMITIVE AFTER SEEING THAT WIPE OUT A WHOLE COAST OF TOWNS? I DON'T THINK SO. FACT IS HUMANS HAVE ALWAYS LIVED ON THE COASTS WHERE MANY CIVILIZATIONS HAVE BEEN DESTROYED AND WASHED INTO THE SEA.
@TheAtheologian THAT'S FOR MY SAKE, I HAVE TROUBLE READING FINE PRINT. I FIGURE IF THE FEDERAL RESERVE CAN LEAVE NOTES ALL IN CAPS THEN SO CAN I. LMAO! 8D
IT'S TRUE. ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING MADE FROM CARBON BASED LIFE FORMS WAS ALIVE AND LIVING AT ONE TIME. SAND AND ROCKS DON'T MAKE THAT STUFF. MILLIONS OF YEARS OF DEAD LIVING THINGS DOES. LOL! BEAUTIFUL! LOL!
I live in the mountains. I hear creationists say that I havent saw old fossils myself, then I show them my fossil collection from my hikes. They're old. They come from a time when parts of these mountains were below the ocean, and had reefs teeming with life on them.
Hahaha, great video. A bit sparse on detail but we know it's true. I think Young Earth Creationists are getting rarer these days. There's only so much you can deny in the face of the evidence. Time to work on the anti-Evolutionists who admit the Earth is old but can't quite stay in school long enough to discover that Evolution is a FACT!
@RockyRacoon18 Problem is, it was done on site and the headstocks at that time weren't accessible. However you can see the Hesketh shaft (big one in the background) which brought all of the coal up and thus all of the slag that was behind me.
Do you really think there is much point about complaining about young earth creationism effecting British archaeology, as far as I'm aware the problem is non-existent. New agers and Pagans, yes, at places such as Seahenge and other I could mention,but even they are minor incidents. Surely pseudo archaeology such a Graham Chapman dwarf religion in size of threat and your time would be spent better there.
tmesist 2 weeks ago
@tmesist That's not the point I was making. Creationists are attempting to get their religion taught as a science despite the evidence. In other words, they're out to cripple peoples' education and they're actually a real threat especially in light of the industrialisation of religion in the US style. New-agers and pagans are occasionally a threat to extant archaeology but they don't have the clout or finances to influence on how it should be taught.
falchion49 2 weeks ago
@falchion49
With the Texas school book thingy and everything that is true, but not in Britain was my point. In a recent British survey 9/10 schoolkids said they were atheists.
tmesist 2 weeks ago
@tmesist I think you meant Graham Hancock, though I'm wiling to be wrong, but as far as that goes I couldn't agree more. He's as annoying as hell. I get paid for getting dirty, working hard and backing up what I say with evidence and he gets paid for making shit up. The influence people like him have is minimal but established religions, mainly because they are established have an unearned influence Such as the requirement for a Xtian reburial site for excavated human remains.
falchion49 2 weeks ago
@tmesist I think you meant Graham Hancock, though I'm wiling to be wrong, but as far as that goes I couldn't agree more. He's as annoying as hell. I get paid for getting dirty, working hard and backing up what I say with evidence and he gets paid for making shit up. The influence people like him have is minimal but established religions, mainly because they are established have an unearned influence Such as the requirement for a Xtian reburial site for excavated human remains.
falchion49 2 weeks ago
@falchion49 Though that may have changed recently. The laws changed recently and I don't deal with that side of things.
falchion49 2 weeks ago
@falchion49
Yes, thanks, that was a terrible slip, Mr Hancock indeed.
I actually see more of him mentioned on history channel than ligit archaeology. Find more people have heard of Atlantis on Antartica than the 2 recent Stonehenge excavation.
tmesist 2 weeks ago
@tmesist This is one of the problems with things like 'Pop' archaeology. There are people being invited to speak on programmes who probably think a post ex report is following an old girlfriend. But those people are invited by producers who have an agenda, that of promoting their programme and its 'message'. Anyone with more than two synapses to rub together would avoid them like the plague if they wanted an honest and informed opinion.
falchion49 2 weeks ago
Overwhelming evidence indeed.
HugoZeilt 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
@OldSchoolSkill That's an offer I can't refuse :-)
falchion49 3 months ago
it is amazing, because some people don't think a complex thing like a human or another animal can be formed by anything other than a creator, they belief in an even far more complex being creating us, but waste no time to explain how that thing was created :D
Aanthanur 3 months ago
@Aanthanur Pity they don't look farther than the ends of their noses. Emergence theory has even got its own sub orders.
falchion49 3 months ago
One piece of empirical evidence supporting your faith that matter can and did turn itself into consciousness would be sufficient to compel me to apologize, and thank you.
You wrote: "not enough evidence has been provided to show [intelligent creator(s)] exist."
Your acknowledgment that there is some evidence is appreciated. Don't let your contempt for the church cause you to forgo reason. We're about the same age, so please take that as friendly advice from a contemporary.
Matter bless.
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious
There are at the moment just over 7 billion examples of matter that has formed intelligence here on earth alone. What more do you need?
itsjustameme 3 months ago
@itsjustameme
Do you think you can bring yourself to name one. Atheist?
lughcious 3 months ago
@itsjustameme
Oh, you mean people. Excuse me. It's 0430 and I haven't laid down yet. You believe matter created people then? How quaint.
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious "You believe matter created people then?"- you blithering idiot, what do you think they're made from? Or are you so replete with imaginary friends that you think that corporeality is optional?
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious Now back to your evidence that there is an intelligent and interventionist magic man that doesn't need a creator swanning around making universes. Where is it? Or are we going back to question avoidance again eh?
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious
Created is the wrong word for it. That particular word implies some sort of willful creation process. We don't see that in nature anywhere except when intelligence is involved.
But if you are do not believe you are made from matter do you then believe you are made of? And why do you call it quaint?
itsjustameme 3 months ago
@itsjustameme He calls it quaint because he's trying to give the impression that he knows something we don't. Unfortunately from the obvious inability to recognise what constitutes evidence, from his evasion of questions and from his ignorance of what has been discovered refuting his claims, he hasn't figured out that he knows nothing.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49
Good morning. If you believe you know that matter created people, then you don't know what I and everyone else with a lick of commonsense knows; Matter isn't creative. Intelligence is.
Atheists reject intelligence for faith that matter is your creator.
Some Hindus swill 'sacred cow' urine, and some Jews twirl chickens over each others' heads to erase their misdeeds, then slit the chickens throat. But they have enough commonsense to know matter isn't their creator.
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious You're not answering the questions put to you. Where is your evidence that there was any intelligent input to the formation of the universe?
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49
Sorry, still on the first cup of coffee. You want evidence that the universe was created by intelligence rather than chance.
First, belief that chance is creative is on par with the belief that matter is creative.
Trust you can recognize that intelligence is creative, but you reject what is known to be creative for faith in what is not.
You reject evidence, which is the sign of a religious fanatic.
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious More bullshit. Provide evidence not unsupportable statements. If you don't have any, admit it.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49
I had faith that as a former military officer, you'd have some integrity and honor. You've shaken my faith in you.
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious "I had faith that as a former military officer, you'd have some integrity and honor. You've shaken my faith in you."- Tough, I'm not here for your benefit. I'm here specifically to demonstrate how vapid the arguments of idiots like you are. So far you've done your level best to avoid having to back up your statements. Now come up with the goods or bin the pretence.
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious Now finally, I'm trying to figure out why you think that anyone with integrity and honour would bother listening to you? As I said, all you've done so far is obfuscate and evade. You've provided nothing worth listening to let alone supporting. The only thing you've managed to do is reinforce my reasons to disbelieve any fuckwit who comes along making claims and then refuses to support them. As a soldier I hated having my time wasted. I haven't changed much.
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious you have not presented any evidence here. i went true all your comments, and not once you presented any evidence, all you did was presenting your belief.
you belief all systems are created by some intelligence. but you actually never present evidence for the existence of this intelligence. you are only making an argument from ignorance. you do not know about systems that formed rather than being created and that makes you belief that all systems must have a designer.
Aanthanur 3 months ago
@Aanthanur I've looked around at this idiot's tracks around YT. He's also a Holocaust denier.
falchion49 3 months ago
@Aanthanur
Intelligence is creative. Matter is not. Do you have faith that matter can and did turn itself into intelligence? It's a simple Yes, or No question.
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious its a very loaded question, it has nothing to do with faith, but with wath we have discovered so far. and indeed we know there is relative inteligent live and all the evidence we were able to collect so far shows that it formed and was not created. we still have to do some discoveries in abiogenesis but the theory of evolution is perfectly able to explain the existence of intelligent life without a creator, it formed. We have however not found any trace of a designer.
Aanthanur 3 months ago
@Aanthanur
OK, you don't like the word faith. Do you have confidence that matter turned itself into intelligence?
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious not at all, it did not turn itself into anything, your question implies intent, and there was no intend discovered in evolution. just changes that sometimes survive and sometimes die out.
Aanthanur 3 months ago
@lughcious also your question is like me asking you, did your god creat himself?
you propabl belief he always was and was not created nor caused.
Aanthanur 3 months ago
@lughcious so the short anwer to your loaded question is, yes i know intelligent matter can form from non intelligent matter.
Aanthanur 3 months ago
@lughcious "Your acknowledgment that there is some evidence is appreciated."- bullshit, you haven't provided any evidence so you don't get any acknowledgements. Haven't you managed to notice that you've been refuted on all counts? If you haven't you really do need to read all of your comments.
"We're about the same age,"- and in all that time you've managed to avoid critical thinking? Wow.
falchion49 3 months ago 2
@falchion49 wrote: "bullshit, you haven't provided any evidence"
You've been shown how to observe the evidence that creation comes from intelligence. Every functional system - your PC for example - is a creation of intelligence. There's never been a functional system known to be created by anything but intelligence.
Your rejection of intelligence flies in the face of your lifetime of contact with creations of intelligent.
What have you got against intelligence?
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious "You've been shown how to observe the evidence that creation comes from intelligence."- that'll be more bullshit then. You've been given examples of functional systems that don't require 'intelligence' at which point you run off behind the 'the universe is designed' canard failing to note your own arguments preclude that conclusion. That isn't good enough. provide evidence such an 'intelligence' (though I suspect you're not too sure what it means) is required.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49 wrote: "You've been given examples of functional systems that don't require 'intelligence'"
I dispute this claim. What functional system do you believe to have demonstrated is a creation of something other than intelligence?
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious "I dispute this claim."- don't care. You were given three examples of 'functional systems' that do not require any 'intelligent' input. All of which pre-date Humanity and get on quite happily without us. You then ignored them and tried to rush off into the 'the universe is designed' funk hole when you'd already argued yourself out of that particular route. In other words, you've failed.
Now provide tangible evidence or shut up.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49
Plate tectonics, the water cycle and creation of stars are not examples of functional systems of known origin. They are of nature and the universe. The origins of the universe and nature are unknown.
Tangible evidence for intelligence in creation: There's no functional system known to have been created by anything but intelligence.
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious "The origins of the universe and nature are unknown."- so now you're claiming that there is no reason to believe that your postulated 'intelligence' was involved with the formation of the Universe?
"Tangible evidence for intelligence in creation: There's no functional system known to have been created by anything but intelligence."- Read above.
Remember what I said about arguing against yourself? You're an idiot.
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious So let's recap. You claim that 'no functional system' without bothering to define your interpretation of a 'functional system' can be 'created' without 'intelligence. You are now trying to claim that complex systems such as stellar evolution are not 'functional systems' when they are in fact essential to the evolution universe. Tectonics and water cycles, same detail even though they're essential to life on Earth. You're making it up as you go along.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49
To claim to know the origin of the digestive system would be false, without knowing the origin life. To claim to know the origin of stars would be false, without knowing the origin of the universe.
A functional system is a system that serves a function. There is no functional system that's ever been known to be a product of something other than intelligence.
Your faith that creation is an unintended byproduct of anything but intelligence is in defiance of all evidence.
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious "To claim to know the origin of the digestive system would be false,"- more bullshit. You don't know so you're assuming no one else does.
"To claim to know the origin of stars would be false, without knowing the origin of the universe"- bullshit, stellar formation has been studied for decades. All you need to do is look up.
"A functional system is a system that serves a function."- teleological arguments. What are you going to claim next? Clouds are for raining?
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious "Your faith"- don't have one. "that creation is an unintended byproduct (sic) of anything but intelligence is in defiance of all evidence."- you haven't provided any evidence and you're once again dropping into that good old reductio ad absurdam argument. Massive fail there, again.
You're claiming some special knowledge that's for some reason evaded conventional research yet you don't even know the basics of what you're talking about.
Now, where's your evidence, if you have any?
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49
Atheism is entirely faith based. There's no evidence that matter can turn itself into consciousness.
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious Stop lying moron. Everyone on here is conscious and they are made up of matter. Hence, there's your evidence.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49 wrote: "Stop lying moron"
I haven't lied to you. Isn't it true you hold the faith that matter preceded intelligence, and turned itself into intelligence?
Lets debate the details of your beliefs in Big Bang and Abiogenisis. First, Big Bang: What do you believe created energy for a presumed 'bang'?
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious Bullshit. You've claimed that you've provided evidence. You haven't. You've tried to claim that no one's provided evidence to refute you, loads has been aimed at you. You try to claim atheism is a faith, it isn't. In other words, you've lied.
You don't know the first thing about what you're talking about and when refuted try to pretend it hasn't happened. Engaging you in a 'debate' would be a waste of time because you don't even know what evidence is and you make dishonest claims.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49
Evidence that intelligence is creative, and matter is not, should not be hard for you to find.
You can deny your faith that matter preceded intelligence, but what I'm asking you is; What do you believe created energy for a Big Bang?
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious "Evidence that intelligence is creative..."- Stop lying, you've had it pointed out to you that this is not evidence it's merely an unsupported statement.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49
Byproduct is a word in American. Where's evidence that functional systems are products of intelligence? The beaver's pond. The bee's hive. The spider's web. The toaster. The ISS, - all physical evidence of intelligence in creation.
You're in abject denial of the world you've been living in. That's unhealthy.
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious and in all your examples we have evidence for the creator, but for the creator you speak of, there is no evidence at all. so why assume there is one? Nasa is currenctly observing the formation of new stars in a "nearby" Nebula.we see them forming by gravitiy. but we see no trace of any god creating them, how come?
Aanthanur 3 months ago
@Aanthanur "but we see no trace of any god creating them, how come?" I presume he'll be trying to claim gravity for his creator again.
Anyway, I've had enough of this simplistic and demented fuckwit.
See if you can get him onto Holocaust denial, that should be amusing :-)
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49 no i better dont go there with him, i mean denying all fossils and DNA evidence for evolution is one thing, but the denial of tons of pictures ad films and other documentation of the Holocaust would just piss me off and would not result in a debate but would end in me flaming the dumbfuck in denial.
Aanthanur 3 months ago
@Aanthanur Do whatever you think with him. He's stepped into the wrong forum here :-)
Anyway, bed time.
Catch ya later.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49 good night :)
Aanthanur 3 months ago
@lughcious " The beaver's pond. The bee's hive. The spider's web. The toaster. The ISS, - all physical evidence of intelligence in creation."- you forgot snowflakes, crystaline structures, valent and covalent bonding. No intelligence required.
Once again you're arguing from ignorance.
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious Actually, let's just bin your bullshit and say you don't have any shall we? So far, having been given plenty of opportunities to present some, you've managed to avoid sullying any of your sweeping statements with even the slightest taint of corroboration. Yet you blithely yabber on about subjects you demonstrate a profound ignorance upon and expect to taken seriously. that's why you're now an object of derision and the only reason you're getting answers is out of pure amusement.
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious So, far from being the profound purveyor of philosophical insight and earth shattering scientific revelation, you're stuck in an ignorant swamp of your own making.
You can't even defend your statements effectively because they are based on utter ignorance.
You are an idiot.
Now I'm going to bed.
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious So it's either safe to say you're either a troll or a really dysfunctional creatard.
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious As I said, I require a standard of evidence that you're consistently failing to provide. Actually, you providing any evidence would be a bonus. If yo simply keep making unsupported statements you'll be confirming the impression you've so far given that you are just flapping your jaws and pretending.
This is why there are so many atheists out there and our number is growing. You and your ilk are failing where reality is succeeding.
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious Not enough evidence means none. Grabbing at straws, are you?
meaninter03 3 months ago
Hi, Mr. "Fuck You". Do you believe those tailings are evidence that matter could turn itself into consciousness, that life was never intended, you're a distant cousin to maggots, and that a maggot's life may be of more importance than yours?
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious So you don't know how coal formed I take it? I'd lay odds it wasn't poofed into existence by a wizard.
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious Now let's look at your appeal to disgust at the prospect of being related to maggots. Maggots are not a distinct species, they're a larval stage of flies, of the order Diptera. Diptera being related by those pesky little transitional fossils Permotanyderus and Choristotanyderus to the order Mecoptera. All of which belong to the kingdom Animalia of which you and I are both members thus sharing a common ancestor with them. Ten minutes research.
Beats "Magic Man did it!".
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49
No species have been linked by a continual fossil trail. Transitional fossils are theoretical.
The organic formation of coal is relevant to the faith that matter created consciousness, and that your life is as insignificant as a maggot's?
Here's evidence that the universe and all functional systems within are creations of intelligence; No functional system is known to be a creation of anything but intelligence. Atheist rejection of intelligence is in defiance of all evidence.
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious "No species have been linked by a continual fossil trail"- don't need one to show that your 'intelligent designer' didn't do anything. In fact the plethora of fossils showing extinction events shows you ID wizard was actually a bit of a failure.
"
"The organic formation of coal is relevant to the faith that matter created consciousness"- no it isn't, it's just relevant to the formation of coal. That's geology, you're trying to make it evolutionary biology.
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious "Here's evidence that the universe and all functional systems within are creations of intelligence; No functional system is known to be a creation of anything but intelligence."- no it isn't it's simply an unsupported statement you've made without providing any evidence. You are aware that if you're trying to claim you're providing evidence then it helps to actually provide some?
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious "Atheist rejection of intelligence is in defiance of all evidence"- Atheism is simply the rejection of gods, generally because of the paucity of evidence presented by those gods and those purporting to have evidence. You fail to be even mildly credible.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49
Faith that functional systems can be created by means other than intelligence is based on what empirical evidence?
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious Shall we try the Hydrological cycle for one? Tectonics for another, stellar evolution etc? None of which even hint at the requirement for a magic man.
Now shall we look closely at your supposition that- "No functional system is known to be a creation of anything but intelligence." Ever heard of reductio ad absurdam? Your god, by your own logic, would need a creator, as would that one ad infinitum.
Well done, you've shown your magic man is just a figment of your imagination.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49
The water cycle & plate movement are features of nature. You do not know the origin of nature. Stars are a feature of the universe. You don't know the origin of the universe.
What you need in the way of empirical evidence to support your rejection of intelligence is a functional system of which you believe the origin is known to be other than intelligence. Functional systems serve a function. For instance, a spider's web serves as its net, a creation of intelligence.
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious "You don't know the origin of the universe."- I'm an archaeologist, it's not my job to. However I do know that so far no one's presented any tangible evidence for a magic man. The only creator gods that have been proposed have been refuted by their obvious lack of evidence supporting them.
Now let's look at that reductio ad absurdam problem again shall we? Or is it a case of your particular magic man doesn't need to play by the rules?
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious "For instance, a spider's web serves as its net, a creation of intelligence."- Molecular Architecture and Evolution of a Modular Spider Silk Protein Gene
Cheryl Y. Hayashi*, Randolph V. Lewis
Reconstructing web evolution and spider diversification in the molecular era
Todd A. Blackledgea,1, Nikolaj Scharffb, Jonathan A. Coddingtonc, Tamas Szütsb, John W. Wenzeld, Cheryl Y. Hayashie and Ingi Agnarssona,
Remember what I said about an argument from ignorance?
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49 would you please stop wasting your precious time on an ignoramous, who is clearly ONLY reasoning in circles :D
robertgaudlitz 3 months ago
@robertgaudlitz I'm rather enjoying it actually :-) All he's doing is showing how dim the average creatard is.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49 well, just wanna make sure you don`t go ape on your blood pressure :) you are not exactly spring vegetables anymore and i just enjoy your videos that much :D
robertgaudlitz 3 months ago
@robertgaudlitz I'm not that old ;-)
The irony is, he's just started at the time I'm working on a new vis about silly creationist arguments. Talk about serendipity :-)
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49
Atheism is rejection of intelligence for faith that matter is creator.
You're living in world of evidence that functional systems only come from intelligence.
On what do you base your faith that matter created intelligence?
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious "Atheism is rejection of intelligence for faith that matter is creator."- nope, you've already had this explained to you. It's the rejection of gods, d'jinns etc on the grounds that not enough evidence has been provided to show they exist.
"You're living in world of evidence that functional systems only come from intelligence."- wrong again, half-arsed reductio ad absurdam arguments and arguments from ignorance are not enough to indicate any other option.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49 wrote: "empirically dervived evidence so far"
You believe you've posted empirical evidence supporting the Atheist faith that matter can create intelligence? That would be crucial for your rejection of intelligence and argument that life is unintended. What was it, specifically?
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious "You believe you've posted empirical evidence supporting the Atheist faith"- which isn't a faith. You've already had this explained to you.
"That would be crucial for your rejection of intelligence"- that'll be like me rejecting fairies. No evidence, no effort required.
"argument that life is unintended."- again, no effort required.
" What was it, specifically?"- start reading the papers I cited. You've already had this explained to you.
You're not very good at this are you?
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious Now let's get back to your evidence. You're making the assertion that there was an 'intelligence' behind the formation of the universe and that particularly non theistic, by your claim, 'intelligence' has been interventionist. As you're the one making the assertion it's up to you to provide evidence to back up your assertion. That evidence will require review to be considered viable and a framework of tangible supporting evidence. It's got to come up to a professional standard.
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious Trying to pick holes based on your ignorance of current history, geology, cosmology etc doesn't count as supporting evidence. It merely shows what you don't know.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49
Ignorance on current history? What are you talking about? Currently there's no evidence that matter can turn itself into consciousness. Are you ignorant of this or in denial of it?
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious this is still no evidence that some god created it or that any god exists at all.
Aanthanur 3 months ago
@Aanthanur Unfortunately I don't think he actually knows what evidence actually is.
falchion49 3 months ago
@Aanthanur The funny thing is he appears to think that by retreating into 'god did it' he's somehow getting his point across but every time he's hitting that same old wall of reductio ad absurdam. If something formed the universe by his argument something must have created that and in turn something must have created that. He appears to think that not providing an answer is somehow providing an answer. What a prat.
Still, nice demonstration of creatard logic.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49 im pretty sure he will apply a special rule for his favorite god, and call him the uncaused cause :D
Aanthanur 3 months ago
@Aanthanur Amazing how "it's a miracle'' counts as 'science' to these people.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49 yeah their gods work in mystirious ways and their understandg of science is also very mystirious :D
Aanthanur 3 months ago
@Aanthanur Well, I suppose the same rules don't apply to them as the rest if us. I mean, you try talking to an imaginary friend in public and see what happens. They all get together and do it groups!
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49 not only that, in some countries politicans even publicly say that their imaginary friend told them to run for president. And people would vote for such delude people and let them govern their country.
try telling your boss that your imaginary friend told you to apply for a higher job in the company, mostly that would not end well unless you work in a church or another cult :D
Aanthanur 3 months ago
@Aanthanur I know, amazing isn't it?
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49 Wait a second!!!
Who said that the Xtian God (let's be serious, no other God could have created the universe ;)) is intelligent? I mean, the bible (absolute proof of god, right?) points towards something else completely. Namely anti social personality disorder, mania, a god complex (heh), bi polar personality,... But not so much intelligence.
meaninter03 3 months ago
@meaninter03 That would explain a lot.
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious But there are experiments to show how life can arise from abiogenesis, and evolution accounts for how we got here.
So, in short, consciousness from matter and pure physics and chemistry.
meaninter03 3 months ago
@falchion49
Evidence that the universe, nature and consciousness come from intelligence is in every functional system you've ever seen. But you don't see it. No functional system is has been created by anything besides intelligence.
Yes, Atheism is entirely based on the faith that no intelligence was involved in creation.
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious "Evidence that the universe, nature and consciousness come from intelligence is in every functional system you've ever seen."- wrong again. That isn't evidence it's just a statement and an unsupported one at that. If you don't know what constitutes evidence then you really shouldn't be trying to hold forth on it.
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious Is your body a functional system? Is a cell a functional system? Funny how those were created by living organisms, following simple biological laws. No intelligence goes into creating an amoeba.
meaninter03 3 months ago
@meaninter03 But who created the universe in the first place? It must have been an 'intelligence'.
You know, trotting out that kind of comment is actually easier than thinking.
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious "On what do you base your faith that matter created intelligence?"- all of the empirically dervived evidence so far and the fact that counter arguments are generally so badly constructed that they'd be hard pressed to persuade anyone with more than two synapses to rub together.
So, once again, what evidence do you have for your magic man? And don't pretend you're not arguing for one, you are.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49 would you please stop wasting your precious time on an ignoramous, who is clearly ONLY reasoning in circles :D
robertgaudlitz 3 months ago
@lughcious "The water cycle & plate movement are features of nature. You do not know the origin of nature. Stars are a feature of the universe. You don't know the origin of the universe."- I find your definition of 'functional systems' interesting because to all intents and purposes your arguments repeatedly run into the reductio ad absurdam problem.
You asked for examples of functioning systems and you got them. You can't keep retreating into bad logic when you're trumped.
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious Now I was going to recommend a few books and articles for you to read before you make yourself look an idiot again. Unfortunately the sheer volume of papers, articles and books published on the evolution of neural networks and the evolution of communication, self awareness, social networking would probably be overwhelming for you. There are over 20 000 articles on primate self awareness alone. That's the harvest from another 10 minutes research. Why don't you try it?
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious Now finally shall we look at your assertions? You assert that we need a purpose and by implication that purpose is defined by your personal magic man. Where is your evidence to support that assertion? You assert that you magic man is the creator of everything, again you present no evidence. You assert that we have no evidence to support naturalistic answers to the questions of evolution, abiogenesis etc but you appear unaware that it's all we've got. Your arguments are from ignorance.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49
I don't have a personal magic man, or a religion.
You are missing the point. A spider's web is a creation of the spider's intelligence. A toaster is a creation of human intelligence. All functional systems are creations of intelligence. There's no known exception.
If you believe that matter preceded intelligence, and created intelligence, then you need empirical evidence to support it. Evidence that intelligence is required in creation of functional systems is endless.
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious Reductio ad absurdam again. Remember, you defined the rules if your own argument and you're falling foul of them every time.
"I don't have a personal magic man, or a religion."- Really? I think you're trying to redefine your argument now. You've consistently tried to argue for one.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49
I hold no belief that contradicts commonsense. That's why I dismiss the Atheist faith that inanimate matter created intelligence. Intelligence is creative. Inanimate matter is inanimate.
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious "I hold no belief that contradicts commonsense (sic)"- ah, good old 'common sense'. Unfortunately reality disagrees with you. You haven't done any research, you haven't any specialist knowledge and you routinely argue against yourself and run into logical fallacies.
I'd say, looking at your standard of argument, that your version of 'common sense' is failing you, badly.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49
I routinely argue against myself? Give a specific example.
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious "I routinely argue against myself? Give a specific example."- are you stoned or something? Which bits of your creator needing a creator are you too dim to remember having pointed out to you?
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49
Intelligence is creative. Matter is not.
You're a former military officer. You must have some degree of honor and integrity.
Do you honestly believe that matter preceded intelligence, and created intelligence?
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious "Intelligence is creative. Matter is not."- define 'creative'.
"You're a former military officer. You must have some degree of honor and integrity."- exactly, that's why I'm an atheist.
"Do you honestly believe that matter preceded intelligence(?)- do you honestly believe that we can survive without 'matter'? Are you that dim?
You've so far only managed to prove that you don't know a whole lot about what you're trying to hold forth on.
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious Common sense beliefs often turn out to be thoughtless bullshit too. Popularity doesn't make any idea right.
Wanna fail again?
meaninter03 3 months ago
@lughcious " A spider's web is a creation of the spider's intelligence."- accounted for quite adequately by evolution. No gods, d'jinns, fairies etc required.
Ignorance is not an argument.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49
It's understood that your faith relies on Darwinism, but that doesn't make Darwinism adequate. That's why no species have been linked by a fossil trail, and no genetic mutations have been shown to advanced DNA to a higher life form.
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious Wrong on all counts. As I said, ignorance is not a defence. Evolutionary theory works because we can see the fossil trail. We don't need a continuous one, which is silly to ask for, you'd know that if you understood fossilisation, because the predictions evolutionary theory makes is more than adequate when we do find transitionals, which effectively is all of them.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49
Darwinism is dead, man. Bolsheviks were forcing Darwinism on schoolchildren more than half a century ago. It's still a theory because it's false. The fossil record shows new species have always appeared abruptly. See: Cambrian Explosion.
What species do you believe experienced an advancement by mutation?
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious "Darwinism is dead, man."- wrong.
"Bolsheviks were forcing Darwinism on schoolchildren more than half a century ago"- so what? Politics doesn't matter in science. Darwin formed his theories when Britain had an empire.
"It's still a theory because it's false"- so you don't actually know what the scientific definition of a theory is?
"The fossil record shows new species have always appeared abruptly."- arguing against yourself again? No continuous link? See whale ears.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49
You need me to define creative for you? Creative: To create.
Do you believe matter preceded consciousness, and turned itself into consciousness?
lughcious 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lughcious wrote: "creatard"
Aren't you in about your sixth decade here?
You believe that the intelligence responsible for creation needs a creator? Consciousness is energy. Energy is infinite.
What do you believe created energy for a supposed Big Bang?
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious Why must it have been created? Why make that baseless assumption? Why defy Occam's razor?
Who created your creator?
meaninter03 3 months ago
@meaninter03 No one, he's magic X-D
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49 Then the magician pulled him out of a hat. Does having one's head up one's ass make the ass a hat? :D
meaninter03 3 months ago
@meaninter03 I like that idea. Ass hat, a completely new perjorative. We're making history here!
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious "See: Cambrian Explosion."- which lasted 80 million years.
"What species do you believe experienced an advancement by mutation?" evr heard of the Human Genome project?
You have actually managed to trot out some of the most hackneyed and easily refuted arguments that any creatard can use.
You don't even know which arguments creationists are too clever to use. That is astounding.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49
The Cambrian Explosion is called an explosion because of the wide spectrum of new, advanced life forms that appeared.
The human genome experiment did not show that DNA can rewrite itself into a more complexity.
lughcious 3 months ago
@lughcious "The Cambrian Explosion is called an explosion because of the wide spectrum of new, advanced life forms that appeared."- over an 80 million year period showing definite evolutionary trends within it. Also, look up Pre-Cambrian, stromatolite's etc.
"The human genome experiment did not show that DNA can rewrite itself into a more complexity."- no, most DNA projects show that. What it did do is show 98000 erv's in common with chimps.
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious Also, you might like to read this: Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13–2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious "no genetic mutations have been shown to advanced DNA to a higher life form."- define 'higher lifeform'.
Climbing Mount Probable: Mutation as a Cause of Nonrandomness in Evolution
Arlin Stoltzfus and Lev Y. Yampolsky
That was a ten second search.
falchion49 3 months ago
@lughcious You might want to have a look at this paper too. Spider webs can be used to determine speciation events in spider evolution.
Determinants of web spider species diversity: Vegetation structural diversity vs. prey availability
Matthew H. Greenstone
Written in 1984 curiously enough.
falchion49 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, Mr. "Fuck You", Do you believe those tailings are evidence that matter could turn itself into consciousness? Or, that maggots are your cousins, and their existence is equally as insignificant as yours?
onefodderunit 3 months ago
ANOTHER ANGRY ATHEIST.
questioneverything2 4 months ago
@questioneverything2 Not angry just emphatic and a bit sick and tired of creatards who have decided that their set of legends gives them a greater insight into archaeology, palaeontology and history than those of us who actually go out there, get qualified and actually produce data. I often wonder if they think they can do the same thing to airline pilots or neurosurgeons.
falchion49 3 months ago
@falchion49 "ANOTHER ANGRY ATHEIST. IT'S JUST AN OBSERVATION AND A FACT. I dont' get upset and angry when someone doesn't think like me. I have noticed that Atheist are angry people. I hope that anger doesnt' poison your life and cut it short. You said, Not angry. Don't kid yourself.
questioneverything2 3 months ago
@questioneverything2 I think I'm better qualified to say whether I'm angry or not, you evidently aren't. In fact me standing next to 12000 tonnes of Carboniferous redeposit on an archaeological site and using it as an indication of how much evidence there is against Creationism isn't me demonstrating anger, it's me demonstrating that Creationists don't appear to think at all. Their opining that they have the right to shove their myths and legends into science classrooms is the real poison.
falchion49 3 months ago
@questioneverything2 "IT'S JUST AN OBSERVATION AND A FACT."- caps lock evidently makes it true then?
falchion49 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@falchion49 You stated, " caps lock evidently makes it true then?" No, I wouldn't say that. But... I would say locking caps got an Angry Atheist to read my comment. LOL
questioneverything2 3 months ago
I've never seen 12 000 tons of fuck you before. Well, maybe I have, I just didn't realise it was fuck you. Now I know that I'm surrounded by fuck you, I can't seem to get away from it. I dread to think what will happen when my niece next asks me what something is, because I'll probably say.. "Oh.. it's just some more fuck you" and then my sister will be angry.
jacksawild 7 months ago
Great, now my account name is insanely unoriginal.
Falchion43 9 months ago 2
@Falchion43 Long have I awaited this day to spring such an ambush hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!.
falchion49 9 months ago 4
Creationism is the final refuge of the truly deluded.
falchion49 10 months ago 4
Well said Falchion49 your vidoes are great.
MrSPECTRUM7 10 months ago
OH AND IF THEY TRY AND SAY THEY CAN'T FIND THE MISSING LINK. JUST SHOW THEM WHAT A TINY TSUNAMI DID TO JAPAN. NOW IMAGINE ONE 100 TIMES THAT SIZE HAPPENING MANY TIMES IN MILLIONS OF YEARS. DO YOU THINK THERE IS GOING TO BE MUCH EVIDENCE LEFT THAT THERE WAS ANY PRIMITIVE HUMANS AROUND OR MAYBE NOT SO PRIMITIVE AFTER SEEING THAT WIPE OUT A WHOLE COAST OF TOWNS? I DON'T THINK SO. FACT IS HUMANS HAVE ALWAYS LIVED ON THE COASTS WHERE MANY CIVILIZATIONS HAVE BEEN DESTROYED AND WASHED INTO THE SEA.
chuck1967 10 months ago
@chuck1967 Caps lock makes it true...
TheAtheologian 4 months ago
@TheAtheologian THAT'S FOR MY SAKE, I HAVE TROUBLE READING FINE PRINT. I FIGURE IF THE FEDERAL RESERVE CAN LEAVE NOTES ALL IN CAPS THEN SO CAN I. LMAO! 8D
chuck1967 3 months ago
IT'S TRUE. ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING MADE FROM CARBON BASED LIFE FORMS WAS ALIVE AND LIVING AT ONE TIME. SAND AND ROCKS DON'T MAKE THAT STUFF. MILLIONS OF YEARS OF DEAD LIVING THINGS DOES. LOL! BEAUTIFUL! LOL!
chuck1967 10 months ago
You're too awesome not to subscribe too!
I live in the mountains. I hear creationists say that I havent saw old fossils myself, then I show them my fossil collection from my hikes. They're old. They come from a time when parts of these mountains were below the ocean, and had reefs teeming with life on them.
spartacandream 11 months ago
I love it! I am glad I a
beast220 1 year ago
12,000 tones of F*ck You, gotta love it.
Middleman2000 1 year ago 7
@Middleman2000 Amazing what you can get up to at lunch time on site :-)
falchion49 1 year ago
12,000 tonnes of fuck you,.... love it!
TheWingnuterer 1 year ago
you just shot creationists with a bazooka. - ZING!
Subscribed - awesome video.
ThePEARLresponse 1 year ago
You put into words that so many of us Atheists feel.
Subscribed :)
Curlzer 1 year ago
@OldSchoolSkill Archaeology, full of surprises ;-)
falchion49 1 year ago
Hahaha, great video. A bit sparse on detail but we know it's true. I think Young Earth Creationists are getting rarer these days. There's only so much you can deny in the face of the evidence. Time to work on the anti-Evolutionists who admit the Earth is old but can't quite stay in school long enough to discover that Evolution is a FACT!
RockyRacoon18 1 year ago
@RockyRacoon18 Problem is, it was done on site and the headstocks at that time weren't accessible. However you can see the Hesketh shaft (big one in the background) which brought all of the coal up and thus all of the slag that was behind me.
falchion49 1 year ago
I thought the Brits used a two-finger salute.
criskity 1 year ago
@criskity Only to the French.
falchion49 1 year ago