Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha religious nut... He must have earned his degree online.
richard probably does not realize that could easily have been a muslim extremist instead of that man,one day he might be assasinated best of luck to him.who agrees?please reply
@saulhudsonrules555 So? I realize I could have been Indian, Russian, Czech, Nigerian, Mexican, Indonesian or even a dead sperm cell. What does that have to do with anything?
Once more Dawkins relies on thugs and goons to silence opposition. Hopefully one day he will move permanently to America and take his juvenile theories (that is all they are) with him.
Darwin`s have never been proved and never will be,unfortunately they were responsible for millions of people being murdered by Germans before and during world war 2.
@rhq100 Hitler was a catholic. There's no proof in science, only in mathematics. Please, familiarise yourself with the scientific method, you worthless piece of theistic trash.
@rhq100 Take any belief, or indeed lack of it, and you can find discrepancies (however horrific) in its subscribers. Saying "Nazi's did that!" is such an idiotic argument to fall back on that it makes people take you less seriously. Its the same as me saying Christianity is wrong because the IRA use car bombs, or Islam is wrong because of the occasional few that turn to terrorism. And Evolution is a theory backed by fact, just read one of Richard's books - or indeed almost any biologists view.
@rhq100 There is nothing thuggish about shutting an idiot up with laughter and ridicule. That is what one should expect when trying to force unproven beliefs on a room full of people who have the ability to use logic and reason. There is no room for logic and reason in any religion. There is just the forcing of rediculious beliefs with a threat of eternal torture for not being able to believe what is frankly unbelievable. Those views shouldn't be respected, or given a platform in society.
@rhq100 The guy is not "opposition". he is a raving lunatic, and thus does not merit any respect.
"Darwin`s have never been proved and never will be,unfortunately they were responsible for millions of people being murdered by Germans before and during world war 2."
And it is such bullshit that makes me think you are a raving lunatic, too.
If an atheist did the equivalent at a christian rally (or whatever those wankers go on about) It would make fox news headlines. "Animal atheists out of control" or 'No god = no morals". We would not hear the end of it.
@ptango101 very true. Altho it works vice versa too..when an extremist Muslim participates in a terrorist attack, all we see on the headline is "Muslim terrorist". The word "extremist" is somehow conveniently dropped from the headline.
Fundamental Logic 101. A commitment to the truth (only sane choice), inherently expands to include all possibilities. Arbitrary dismissal of a possibility, breaches that commitment as a fatal logic error, proving themselves fundamentally insane liars & frauds. When Atheist/Satanists dismiss God as a possibility, they breach their commitment to the truth, resulting in the mindfucked insanity to argue justifying a lie, is rational behavior.
Logic is an online textbook that explains fundamental logic. The basis of the human logic and belief structure, is a fundamental commitment to the Truth (ONLY SANE CHOICE), which inherently expands to include all possibilities.
"Logic, an online textbook by Garth Kemerling, explains the basic elements of elementary logic, at an undergraduate level."
Fail the truth (INSANE) or sustain a commitment to the truth (SANE). Atheist/Satanists are fundamentally insane, lying frauds.
My comments effectively combine as Checkmate. Those who understand fundamental logic easily recognize arguing against the facts I have presented, is to argue on behalf of insanity, lying & deception. What I have written is not a clever argument, it is the simple Truth in simple terms, which sane people understand. My argument is supported by Fundamental Logic, which is predicated on a fundamental commitment to the Truth.
Atheists/Satanists are self proven fundamentally insane, lying frauds.
@FindingJesusverytrue There are no problems with evolution. There may be gaps, but not problems. That is what science is about, finding the truth. If we already knew how everything worked, there would be no need for it.
So what? THAT"S HOW SCIENCE WORKS. Unlike your bible, we have common sense and correct mistakes that are made. Saying that someone is debunked isn't a prove of failure in science. It's a prove that SCIENCE WORKS.
@moidixmois1 Your common sense is lacking! I did not argue for design! Design is better than the argument for the random accumulation of atoms which would result in life! Since when does an atom have the inherent ability to create morality; conscience;
order, unless it were already given by my Creator by established physical laws, which MY CREATOR put into place? I AM A CREATIONIST! because I know MY CREATOR! and I have known Him since 1977! There is a purpose behind everything!
@FindingJesusverytrue think how big an ego is required to persuade yourself that an all-knowing, all-powerful omnipotent creator is concerned with your pathetic little life.
@victorsossa Think of how big an ego is required to contemplate the universe and say "there is no God" as if a blood cell has the ability to make some quantitative assessment of an enitre human being...or one nueron the ability to sum up human consciousness. Dawkins is a reductionist intellectual bully picking on the kids riding the short bus some people can't understand and make sense of evolution that doesn't mean they should be belittled for sport. Shame on Dawkins.
@todogfw Think of how big an ego is required to contemplate the evidence and still claims that there is a god. Think of how much a scientific illiterate one has to be to think that iron age fairy tales to make "some quantitative assessment of an enitre human being". How much a general moron one has to be to think that calling bullshit like creationism bullshit is "bullying".
@TomFynn I don't find any "evidence" against God in Evolution, Genetics, Physics, etc. There is plenty of evidence in all that contradicts ancient mythology or specifics about individual conceptions of God and religious dogma...I don't find the tendency of human beings to misunderstand God evidence of nonexistence. Here is a shocker for ya...most folks can't explain God very well and probably never will...but most folks can't explain multiple mathematical values for infinity either.
@todogfw SFW. You have to find evidence *for* something. And if people are mathematically illiterate, that's the education system to blame for. Does not make mathematics mythical.
@TomFynn If we are all so mathematical literate explain the square root of negative one for me. i is used to make easy a profound "imaginary" but necessary logic construct God is no different
@todogfw Sorry, no. Math follows precise rules, demonstrable in simple, logical steps. Like exp(-ix)=cos(x)+i*sin(x). Wishful thinking on the other hand, is just made-up fantasy.
@TomFynn As to "iron age fairy tales"...Human achievement should be judged in context...it is easy for us to be dismissive of ancient "knowledge" and "beliefs" but we stand on the shoulders of giants and thousands of years of human experience to do so..."Once there was a word and that word was God...and God said let there be light" was as much a monumental leap in human understanding of the universe as the theory of relativity...relatively speaking of course ;)
@todogfw Ah, the famous context. Does not mean that the bible is anything else than iron age fairy tales. Plus some propaganda thrown in. All these genocides had to be justified after all. And there is no better way to justify atrocities as when you have god on your side.
@TomFynn <----- Sports a Satanic Shill, Transparent Tutu. One of the regularly scheduled Squawking Nazis, who camp Evolutionist/Atheist/Satanist videos 24/7, lying in Satanic spew to contaminate the public pool of education and satisfy any public demand for documentation & information, with a Satanic supply of pissed ignorance. Squawking Nazi Traitors, include active duty military from around the world & Terrorists (Shills) engaging an enemy attack God, Countries, Constitution & Humanity!
@todogfw Ironic "reductionist" approach to cell theory. YT is hardly the platform for this, but try Kornberg's work on transcription. It's a good start. And seriously, reason alone should tell you that some 2000 year old zombie is not in love with anyone. Despite their necrophiliac homosexual tendencies.
@victorsossa I don't believe in immaculate conception, the resurection, or the second coming...those things are not necessary for me to believe in a God or appreciate Jesus...I think picking on fundies, literalist, and other believers is a representation of bad character not intelligence...I'll check out Kornberg's work on transcription though thanks for the info.
@moidixmois1 There is ONE GAP..and that is between you and your Creator!
It will never be bridged after death! I have studied Physics and Cell Biology. These sciences have established unchangeable laws which help us realise a gradual controlled unwinding down of the Universe. The Universe is NOT developing! Cell biology demonstrates mutations that are not adding to improvements ot development of the cell but a slow deterioration. Genes are being changed, taken out, but not added
@MrDunsapy Most mistakes won't reach full adult development in order to be fossilised. But we can see such mistakes in fruit flies (legs growing where antenna should be etc...)
@St00sh13 Actually if animals have bones and even soft tissue they have as good a chance as any others. There really should be millions of these compared to animals that can survive and pass things on. Also many animals have hardly changed at all for millions of years.
Even Darwin knew this. He was hoping these kinds of fossils would be found at some point. And because many more fossils have been found , but still no transitional ones, the likelihood now is very unlikely.
@MrDunsapy I'm sorry, but you don't understand the basics of evolution.
I don't feel I can go on with this conversation. I don't think you are considering your answers before you reply. I supply you with evidence but you come back with the same arguments each time. I don't think you would be willing to change your mind even if supplied with irrefutable evidence.
But, You have yet to supply any evidence that the creator you believe in exists. If you could, I would be willing to consider it.
@MrDunsapy The greeks knew that quarentine helped stop the spread of disease long before the bible (although they knew nothing of the means of transmission). Man has known the earth wasn't flat since they could travel more than 7 or 8 miles in a few hours. Some people (mostly religions) didn't accept that, of course.
@St00sh13 Still the bible writers knew what was correct scientifically, when most of the world had other ideas.
The Greeks come from of Javan, son of Japheth and grandson of Noah. Javan was the Japhetic ancestor of the early peoples of Greece and the surrounding islands.
So who got what from whom?
And the bible is correct.
Many people even with modern science, did not follow this and millions died.
Thanks for this video! Its very cool how they FfreeThinker was able to get all the different Vantage points. And what a Moron that "Biologist" was. HAHAHA!!! keep up the great work!!!
@MrKirkKerkorianCOM he got a BS Degree in the science of Biology (which i seriously doubt)...sorry to say folks but that is just barely scratching the surface. The Sciences are one of the few places where a BS degree may be sufficient to be a researcher's assistant but no one would actually hire such a person to be a researchers on any project of note unless it was overseen by at least a Doctorate.
Part 3 An interpretation of the similar fossils could be done by anyone without analyzing anything. Example :A man who is not a scientist could just look at the two fossils and think "they're copies of each other" or "their twins". I'm not saying that anybody would say that because that's not the point. The point is that the man has no knowledge on how to tell the fossils apart. So instead he interprets it based on what he knows, but as we can see that doesn't mean what he thinks is true.
Part 2 It would be impossible for you to disprove it's existence because you have nothing to go on for it and all you have is my word that it could be true. It would be up to ME to prove the dragon's existence since I made the claim. Your last paragraph describing fossil finds sounds like possibilities to me. They are using facts (that they are similar) to describe what the two animals relationship could be. That's deduction; As in keeping in mind what actually is.
Wow, what a coward. He calls Dawkins a fraud and immediately starts walking out because he is afraid of hearing Dawkins’ response. And to make double sure he would not hear the reply, he made a big scene, so school security would escort him out anyway. But he waited till he was near the exit to yell his accusation.
Turn over a US Dollar Bill. See that "all seeing eye" as the capstone on the Pyramid? That is the all seeing eye of Horus/Lucifer and at the base of that Pyramid are Latin words that translate to a New World Order. The Illuminati are so easily documented a 5th grader writing their first research paper could easily write a factual report. Illuminati have a name for the mind-controlled brain dead, sheeple. Laugh it up funny boys because your ass is on their menu with mint jelly.
@WaltonSauce I did send it to some. and I never even got a reply back. So I think if they don't see 'evolution' at the top of the page they don't even bother reading it. At least they should give it to a class or something to tear apart.
As for bald assertions and ignorance, why isn't the idea of 'evolution' considered the same thing.
You mentioned you would talk to your professors., why not ask him if one of his classes would try to pick it apart. Or are they just turning out robots there?
@WaltonSauce I mean a real reply not a biased reply I also mean with evidence
I mean with dialogue with questions back and forth.
You see I don't think they can back up what they say,and they know it.
Also the students probably, have not had a real opportunity to test what they have been told.To see if it really stands up or not.They just accept what they are told.
You see this is how the scientist keep themselves on one thought.No tests against it. That is why 'evolution' is still around
@WaltonSauce Actually no there isn't. It is only interpretation of the science found. Now if they asctually had evidence we would see, chimps having offspring, that are different than they are and getting closer to humans. But there are none. Plants also have to be part of this 'line of common descent' but the are not. No one is claiming they are related to a skunk cabbage.
You have no idea who evolution works, your website is shit.
You have just demonstrated how completely stupid you are, stick to art you might actually be good at that.
We are very alike animals, we are animals.
Evolution is shown by all the organisms that have evolved you can't prove your creator exists and you have defined him in a scientifically impossible way.
@WaltonSauce "We are very alike animals, we are animals"
Like I said we are made from the same materials. But there are no other animals like man.
We don't live to survive we live to enjoy life.There are many things humans do that have nothing to do with survival.
And you don't see anything like the little steps like the scientists say there should be. So there are no almost humans or any ex-humans. We are in a class of our own.
@WaltonSauce Creation is science. We do not see, 'evolution' happen at all. There is no evidence that one animal came from another naturally. Scientists can not prove it. They says that it had to happen that way, because their hypothesis of'evolution' say it has too. So you have an idea that demands another idea , be none creation. That is circular thinking. And not scientific. The scientists base their proof on a hypothesis.
Creation is not science, you have nothing to support your claims other than your own fucking ignorance.
I've tried to be polite and educate you a little but you have ignored literally everything we have put forward, by a decent biology textbook and read it.
@WaltonSauce I know how 'evolution' is supposed to work. But no one has ever seen it work or have any evidence of it. It is based on assumptions. That can not be proved. I have had scientists say, they are not about proving things. Then I want my money back, because that is what the study of science is supposed to do. Not use opinions and conjecture, but proof.
You don't know how evolution works you have demonstrated that here. I've read the entirety of you weebly website and it's shit. My 4 year old sister could have done better.
I have asked for the millionth time for some evidence of a creator.
Life is only evidence of life, there is no evidence for the creator.
There are many things other animals do that have nothing to do with survival.
@WaltonSauce I see creation of life all the time. For example when a baby is born. 2 humans create a third human.
And the proof of a creator is the creation.
The most efficient way for life to increase is to just divide many times. If the first life lived on rock dust, because that would be all there is. Why would it change that, for more complicated methods?
@WaltonSauce If you set up the different methods of reproduction, it is creation.
If I could build some robots that could make new ones of themselves, each making a half a robot but so that it was complete. Are all the robots created or just the first 2. ?
@MrDunsapy Are you serious? that's your argument for a creator? If we now for some reason accept your argument that there is a creator, then you have proved as well that there is a flying teapot in space that can create life from nothing, that unicorns exist, that the flying spaghetti monster is real, the easter bunny is real, and the beaver is a spirit and the bear is a god... Once you understand evolution and natural selection you see that your robot example is not valid...
If you believe what the scientist are saying . Then you have to believe that life just pops out of the ground and morphs into anything at all.We should be seeing, parts in weird places, eyes on your back, eye sockets who knows where. All parts in partial development. And this would not stop even if everything is working OK.
So to believe in the scientists you believe in magic, and that 'evolution' is smarter than the scientists. ...continue
@MykeHawke1 ...continue. Yet not have any evidence or proof. No good stories on the origins of life. And only assumption , on how life was supposed to come one from another naturally. Yet there is no evidence. So before the scientist say any of this don't you think , they should at least have some proof. Because it is not rational thinking. If we want something that works we design and build it. And sometimes copy it. We claim that as design. So are you serious?
@MrDunsapy There is tons of proof of evolution, just try and look it up. You're talking about rational thinking? is it rational to say that everything popped up because there is a divine creator? You are trying to prove something where there is absolutely no evidence and no proof of whatsoever, and scientists are trying to prove something that is based on evidence they have discovered over several years. Just think for a minute and tell yourself what is more rational.
@MykeHawke1 actually Myke, there is only interpretation and assumption. Proof would be a recorded line of descent from chimps to man for example. Where you could see a chimp producing something other than a chimp and so on. But what we see is that chimps produce more chimps.
What is is more rational , if you take some rock dust, and wait for it to produce a human.
Or that you take materials and use your knowledge and skills to build a human?
@MrDunsapy ...continue If you follow what the scientists do and not what they say. You will see that they think the best method is to try to create life, in a lab.
So they are trying to prove creation.
If they found life just happening , that would be something else.
The proof for a creator is the life we see. The scientists have no idea how life could start naturally. Without that 'evolution' is a myth.
@MrDunsapy You say here that proof of a creator is life itself, then why isn't life itself a proof of evolution instead?
You keep saying that a specie keeps breeding the same specie, of course it does, but evolution takes time, millions of years in many cases, and in that time, you gradually evolve over time. Creationists keep coming with arguments as yours, but why can't you understand that evolution takes time and doesn't happen over night?
@MykeHawke1 The reason it is not is that there is no evidence that one kind of life became another over time naturally.It is only assumption.Yes I know it is supposed to take a long time. And it is supposed to it in small steps.Yet for humans there is nothing close to us. And if there were, why are they not around today?Also we don't see it happening. There are no almost humans no little steps from us.And there are no transitional animals. Even Darwin said that.
@MrDunsapy The worst thing is using your method of a creator, I can use the same "proof" and arguments you're using, to prove that the rainbow unicorn that I started to believe in just a few minutes ago created everything, that is not rational thinking. And if there really is a designer, then he's definitely a bad designer.
@MykeHawke1 Actually that is not the case. I use the same evidence that the scientists use. So are you saying that the evidence they have is no good?
The scientists , interpret the science, that is why you have scientists on both sides of this. The fossil is the same or the biology is the same, but you get many different ideas on what they mean.
Is it bad scientists or a bad designer? They pass judgment on something they know very little about.
@MrDunsapy Scientists pass judgement on things because they see patterns in it, evolution and natural selection has patterns everywhere in the world and it can be proved. Religion and the belief in a creator has no patterns that can be proved, creationists see patterns where there are no patterns and jump to conclusion and dismiss any other beliefs that are not like theirs, and even proofs from scientists.
@MykeHawke1 Yes these patterns, can also be explained by my Patterns of Creation.
And though the bible does not claim to be a science book. What it does say about science is accurate. Even in today's knowledge. In things that even the scientists did not know until fairly recent. So what was said thousands of years ago holds today. No peer reviews just accurate knowledge up front.
@MrDunsapy The evidence of a creator is philosophy that is built upon human religious beliefs and assumption, without any evidence backing it up. It's easy to say "well then the creator designed it like that" without actually proving that the designer created it.
Religion and believers have the upper hand in the debate of life, because they do not have to back up their arguments with concrete proof without philosophy, belief, denial and rational thinking.
Evolution doesn't say we come from chimps, only that we share a common ancestor, you are just shoehorning your designer in with no evidence at all. You have yet to name ANY biologist who agrees with you.
"chimps having offspring, that are different than they are and getting closer to humans"
Evolutionary theory says nothing like this, blatant straw man.
Evolution took millions of years, and we do still see speciation and adptation occurring now. Chimpanzees aren't under any major selective pressure so there will be little variation.
@WaltonSauce Of course I meant over time. So what the scientists should do is get a chimp and follow his offspring, until it becomes a human. Then they will have their proof.
Until then, all they have is assumption. The same with the start to life , find life just coming out of the ground, no labs, or human interference. Then you will have your proof.
@WaltonSauce Yes I agree that 'evolution' says nothing about ID. The reason is that the scientists can not detect ID. They don't even look for it. They look for a natural cause.
So a creator that created life and also created the variety in life ( different animals, plants etc. ) The scientists methods would not detect it. That means they assume that a creator does not exist, so why bother looking for him. What that means,is 'evolution' is the evidence for the scientists.
@WaltonSauce Science is separate from the scientists. You should say that is not how the scientists work. The science is what the scientists are looking at. Then they interpret that.
@MrDunsapy "chimps having offspring, that are different than they are and getting closer to humans".
Why would we see that? Chimps are different from their parents, yes, that is called variation, but their is no direction to evolution. It's not heading to some ultimate being. Those offspring that are better suited to their environment are more likely to reproduce to produce more offspring with similar attributes to themselves.
We are, very distantly, related to skunks and cabbages.
@St00sh13 "We are, very distantly, related to skunks and cabbages"
Yes I know the scientists say this, it really shows how absurd this whole idea is.
It is hard to believe that an adult , could actually believe something like this. But I guess, if you get enough 'education' it rob you of reason. And the scientists think religions are not reasonable.
@MrDunsapy We are related. It's not a belief. It's traceable in the DNA. We can show it is. Natural selection over a long period of time and with some kind of division between 2 groups does cause new species (check out ring species, amongst other things, if you doubt it).
Education does not rob you of reason. It helps you realise that the universe is a stranger and more awesome place than religion offers. It doesn't need a god to be awesome
Please read up on evolution before commenting on it.
@St00sh13 There is no such thing as 'evolution' . DNA is used for the workings of life. And there are millions of kinds of life, So there is similarity. But that does not mean one came from another naturally. In the Patterns of Creation,explains how some life have a line of descent.
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
I have checked out ring species. Uncommon descent has info on that.
Actually without a creator none of what is here would be here. It can only have happened with creation.
@WaltonSauce The designer is shown by all the creation he made. Including man. We create things we know what creation can do , we are also different that animals. Not just a little bit, like 'evolution' says, but by a lot.
We may be made with similar materials but we are nothing like animals.
i dont know wht i believe in.i feel one god is highly possible may be %50 -50.i loved Dawkins but now i felt a big respect for the guy shouting because i feel its true in some sense.i feel that subject goes too far from biology.its becoming a cult.people got mad to prove atheism whereas everything even human in evolution process is mysterious.u can say i dont explain mysteries with supernatural things but no every fuckin atheist seems sure as hell about biggest mysteries of universe.
@MrDunsapy We did have almost humans. There is excellent evidence of multiple expansions of hominids out of Africa. There are the artifacts these people left behind. There are the skeletons of these species, and there are their homes and evidence of how they lived, their way of life. Your idea is what? "There is alot of controversy over how life started and then 'evolved to all the life we see now and in the past" - What controversy? Science has a unified position on this - no controversy.
Which ones are you talking about? And if you say people , then they were humans, not something else.There are many scientists that say 'evolution' is not true . Even Darwin knew there were huge holes in his hypothesis.
Don't pretend that you haven't had this conversation before. Don't pretend that you haven't been pointed to a list of hominid species with gradually increasing brain capacity. Don't you *dare* pretend that Darwin didn't believe the theory himself.
Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: “To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Charles Darwin was forced by the facts to admit: “The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54)
@MrDunsapy 1 of 2. You've ripped the quotation out of context in order to convey exactly the opposite of what Darwin wrote. The actual passage from Darwin continues, "When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science."
2 of 2. Darwin then explains how there is a reasonable progression of stages leading from simple light sensitive patches to complex eyes.
Why don't you actually try reading what Darwin wrote, MrDunsapy, instead of copying and pasting from your YEC web sites, making yourself a actively participating liar.
@MrDunsapy This does not "still remain true". Darwin didn't know about the intricacies of intheritance via DNA and even how much time was actually involved.
We now know that eyed have evolved in different species at different times. And they evolved. No one claims the suddenly appeared. This particular argument has been demonstrated on numerous occasions by many, many authors.
Again, you fail to understand even the most basic ideas that evolution encompasses.
@St00sh13 Actually the eye for example, is a machine. It has many parts that need to be together to get an benefit. So 'evolution' could not create an eye. Now there many different ways of sensing light. And Darwin knew that a eye would be absurd, in 'evolution'. Its not just the eye, but the eye socket. If placement was going to be figured out, how did the socket ( bone material) know where the eye was going to be?
@MrDunsapy ...continue. In 'evolution' and eye like all other parts, need to be placed in the correct spot. But 'evolution' does n't know that. So many spots would be tried. these spots would be tested all of the body on an animal. Until it found the correct spot. That means the eye socket as well. How did they follow each other ( eye and socket) and finally settle on a placement?
This testing of placement should be in the fossil record, but it is not.
@MrDunsapy ...continue These testing placements of the eye and eye socket, would be transitional animals. They are not found. Each placement also requires the wiring of the eye to follow it around too. But what we see is that the socket and eye, are placed on the correct spot, and together. This supports creation. As no trial and error is needed.
This goes for all body parts. This would be a never ending process, so even a good placement 'evolution' would keep trying others.
@MrDunsapy On you first point, I am referring to the likes of Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus Afarensis, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus Africanus, Paranthropus robustus, Paranthropus aethiopicus, Paranthropus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens.
@neobiognosis A 'Nature' article admitted it was ‘possible that Australopithecus ramidus is neither an ancestor of humanity, nor of chimpanzees …’
A lot of weight was given to eight teeth, mostly damaged, and the most detailed treatment was given to a tooth that was practically identical to that of a pygmy chimp. An editorial note said:
‘The attractive epithet of the “missing link” had better be avoided until it is possible to answer with clarity the question “with what?”’
@MrDunsapy In accepted taxonomical classification Australopithecus ramidus is not an ancestor of homo sapiens or pan troglodytes. That is why I cited the species to you. They are hominids from a parallel branch of the hominid species. Cousins not grandparents metaphorically speaking. I have no doubt the teeth are close to the pygmy chimp. As no leg bones were found, their means of mobility cannot be ascertained for certain but skull structure suggest an upright gait.
MrDunsapy, 'Many' requires further definition. Are we talking about scientists involved in researching biology, zoology, ecology, biochemistry, molecular biology, cellular biology, physiology and what percentage of scientists working in these areas say evolutions is 'not true'. Certainly not those eminent scientists who are members of the higher academies and societies. And are the dissenters representative of the wider scientific communities.
@neobiognosis What is the percentage of scientists that went to school, and learned that 'evolution' is a fact. Without any alternatives, given. Why would you expect anything else. You don't get rewarded for saying creation. What goes in comes out.
I have to confess I find your arguments confused. On the one hand, your state scientists must follow the evidence. This is why evolution is taught as a 'fact'. Because all the evidence points to evolution being true, with every new discovery pointing to the veracity of the theory of evolution there is no other choice but to follow the evidence and teach the science as such.
@St00sh13 Actually the scientist do not even look for ID. Their methods can not detect it.
That is why if I give them a loaf of bread, they could not detect that bread was created.
They would theorize on how that loaf could come about on it's own. But of course, would never be able to prove it. Sound familiar.
How can this be scientific if the scientists don't even look for the answers. They have the answer they want before they even test anything. This is not scientific.
@neobiognosis You should use the @MrDunsapy, if you don't I don't get a message that you replied to me. Then I miss your post. I talk to 6 or 7 people at a time, most of the time.I find youtube a real pain , to try and find posts.
Your comment reminds me of the Clergy, in times past. They had this elite and then someone would come along and show them that they were wrong. History shows often times they were correct.But the elite, just continued on anyway.
@MrDunsapy And ID is not thousands of year old religion dressed in pseudo-science. Religion in all but name. Evolution is the new boy on the block. You still have nothing to support ID. Any your position on the salamander is quite ridiculous. You are trying to fit the world to a story that is thousands of years old. It doesn't work.
@neobiognosis The scientists do not have a method for detecting ID.
But it really easy to do.
1-Find life just happening someplace.
2 - create life in a lab. Record all the thinking and knowledge, , and building to create life. All of this is ID.
3- compare the 2 results.
There is no conflict in time periods and the creation accounts.
You can't trust the scientists dating methods, but I usually go by how many generations, it might have taken for soils to build up and the atmosphereetc.
@MrDunsapy I come to YouTube to watch nutcases like you and have a quick laugh. To bad you can't see the world as it is, I mean as it is, demonstrably. I really feel sorry for you people.
No need to reply as I won't respond or enter into a debate with you, though I wish you the best and I hope you will open your eyes to a wonderful and breathtaking reality.
@stengevarsel "I come to YouTube to watch nutcases like you and have a quick laugh." This is sort of like a drive by shooting. Already running before you can pull the trigger.
@MrDunsapy show that life could be created by scientists would not show that life WAS created by a designer so your reasoning is stupid. Scientists have already created life in a lab and the experiment has shown that under the right environment, life can spontaneously develop on its own. You seem to be skeptical of science by the way you talk about not trusting dating methods. Im guessing you have never properly researched the reliability of them yourself.
@PooeyBum11 "show that life could be created by scientists would not show that life WAS created by a designer so your reasoning is stupid "
If you go by stickily by the evidence,the life the scientists create, shows that the scientists created life in a lab.So what they will have shown is that it took life to create life. It does not show that life could happen on it's own.Do you see that?
To prove life just happens on its own,you have to find it doing that. Without any human interference.
@MrDunsapy i can understand what you think i was saying, however, you do not know how the experiment was conducted. Actually what they did was, recreate environments which could have come about on their own at the time of when life was first forming. then they sit back and watched as basic self replicating cells formed. Showing that at that time on the earth, the correct conditions were present of their own accord, where life could form without needing an
I'm actually shocked that there are enough smart people to fill up a room in oklahoma
eddieisfiction 3 hours ago
An illustration of the differences between education and intelligence, also, knowledge and belief.
fewthinkers 6 hours ago
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha religious nut... He must have earned his degree online.
NathanielW2012 15 hours ago
He's right. Dawkins is a fraud.
KnowJesusKnowPeace 21 hours ago
@KnowJesusKnowPeace ahahahhaahah i honestly feel sorry for you.
Etrajbe 2 hours ago
The end just makes this, 'first off let me start off by saying you are really awesome'. All question to dawkins should be addressed with this prefix.
SliceOfTitch 5 days ago 3
There's always one nutter! lol
publicanimal9 5 days ago 7
I don't understand what's going on in this video.
ffiinnrroodd 1 week ago
richard probably does not realize that could easily have been a muslim extremist instead of that man,one day he might be assasinated best of luck to him.who agrees?please reply
saulhudsonrules555 1 week ago
@saulhudsonrules555 I'm amazed that Dawkins is still alive. Atheists have been assassinated for lesser reasons (look up Theo Van Gogh)
Kuhlfurst 1 week ago
@saulhudsonrules555 So? Because of the risk of some fanatic idiot assassinating you, you should not speak out?
Nloveru 1 week ago
@saulhudsonrules555 So? I realize I could have been Indian, Russian, Czech, Nigerian, Mexican, Indonesian or even a dead sperm cell. What does that have to do with anything?
20BCeltics 5 days ago
Comment removed
saulhudsonrules555 1 week ago
Richard Dawkins: being an awesome ethologist, zoologist and evolutionary biologist since 1962! "I'm a biologist" (dude frome the video)
Bitch, please!
Awards:
ZSL Silver Medal (1989)
Faraday Award (1990)
Kistler Prize (2001)
Tfrancoalejandro 1 week ago
IMMAH BHIOLOGISTH
thefallennikaya 1 week ago
WOOOOOO ! Is this a Talent search program ? or A popularity contest ? They should have listened to that Biologist Instead of Screaming and shit ...
mukkohaha 1 week ago
He is a Fraud.
mukkohaha 1 week ago
"Freethinkers"...."BUUUHHHH...BUUHHH...HAHAHAHAH--BUUHH".
Yea, so much for being a freethinker.
MrVirtualCoder 1 week ago
Man I missed him, I still beloved in god....
ExperimentLife 1 week ago
" You act like a damn child"
I applaud that gent in the audience that said that.
WolfenDay 1 week ago
This is embarrassing.
MrMattHerndon 1 week ago
Once more Dawkins relies on thugs and goons to silence opposition. Hopefully one day he will move permanently to America and take his juvenile theories (that is all they are) with him.
Darwin`s have never been proved and never will be,unfortunately they were responsible for millions of people being murdered by Germans before and during world war 2.
rhq100 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rhq100 Hitler was a catholic. There's no proof in science, only in mathematics. Please, familiarise yourself with the scientific method, you worthless piece of theistic trash.
hislord1 1 week ago
@rhq100 Take any belief, or indeed lack of it, and you can find discrepancies (however horrific) in its subscribers. Saying "Nazi's did that!" is such an idiotic argument to fall back on that it makes people take you less seriously. Its the same as me saying Christianity is wrong because the IRA use car bombs, or Islam is wrong because of the occasional few that turn to terrorism. And Evolution is a theory backed by fact, just read one of Richard's books - or indeed almost any biologists view.
dfgheghdfgnn 1 week ago
@rhq100 Fail troll is fail.
Sean1Sullivan 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rhq100 Hitler was a devoted catholic do you`re research
66XANDER66 1 week ago
@rhq100
fail troll is fail
CsRBeast 1 week ago
@rhq100 There is nothing thuggish about shutting an idiot up with laughter and ridicule. That is what one should expect when trying to force unproven beliefs on a room full of people who have the ability to use logic and reason. There is no room for logic and reason in any religion. There is just the forcing of rediculious beliefs with a threat of eternal torture for not being able to believe what is frankly unbelievable. Those views shouldn't be respected, or given a platform in society.
InteGrayting2 1 week ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
@rhq100 The guy is not "opposition". he is a raving lunatic, and thus does not merit any respect.
"Darwin`s have never been proved and never will be,unfortunately they were responsible for millions of people being murdered by Germans before and during world war 2."
And it is such bullshit that makes me think you are a raving lunatic, too.
TomFynn 1 week ago
NO MORE RELIGION
MrVandj1 1 week ago
Youre a PHONY! A big fat PHONY!
Fluffythedestroyer69 1 week ago 4
Man his bachelor in biology went a loooonnng way.
PirateDion 1 week ago
i'm not being funny, but he looks exactly like the guy out of family guy who shouts "you're a phony!" lol
NotoriousERD 2 weeks ago
what a well planned, articulate heckle! (i'm being sarcastic idiots)
thewhippetbeans 2 weeks ago
If an atheist did the equivalent at a christian rally (or whatever those wankers go on about) It would make fox news headlines. "Animal atheists out of control" or 'No god = no morals". We would not hear the end of it.
ptango101 2 weeks ago
@ptango101 to true
DUMBNWO 2 weeks ago
@ptango101 very true. Altho it works vice versa too..when an extremist Muslim participates in a terrorist attack, all we see on the headline is "Muslim terrorist". The word "extremist" is somehow conveniently dropped from the headline.
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
History of diabolical "missing link" frauds. Atheist/Satanists posing as scientists:
1913-53 Piltdown Man HOAX, Manufactured Planted Evidence
Nebraska Man, Discarded Pigs Tooth
Peking Man, Conglomeration of Co-Mingled Fossils
Lucy, Manipulated Fossil Using Plaster
Orce Man, 4 Month Old Donkey Bone
2009 Ida, Grossly Unsupportable Classification
2010 Sebida, equivelant of a deceased PetsMart Gerbil
*Evolution, science of a preponderance of bullshit, in lieu of irrefutable evidence.
waketheoblivious 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@waketheoblivious Yeah, we know creation is nonsense, why are you telling us this?
hislord1 1 week ago
"I'm a biologist and you are a Fraud" what degree of biologist?
jinofthethunder 2 weeks ago
Thanks a lot for this upload. The way you edited the video was good, including lots of camera angles.
8bobthebuilder 2 weeks ago
who is the one who said "you are a fraud"? what is his name?
setnoset 3 weeks ago
@setnoset His name is "Go away you moron".
Well, at least that's what everyone calls him...
TomFynn 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fundamental Logic 101. A commitment to the truth (only sane choice), inherently expands to include all possibilities. Arbitrary dismissal of a possibility, breaches that commitment as a fatal logic error, proving themselves fundamentally insane liars & frauds. When Atheist/Satanists dismiss God as a possibility, they breach their commitment to the truth, resulting in the mindfucked insanity to argue justifying a lie, is rational behavior.
Atheist/Satanists = Godforsaken Nazis
waketheoblivious 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Logic is an online textbook that explains fundamental logic. The basis of the human logic and belief structure, is a fundamental commitment to the Truth (ONLY SANE CHOICE), which inherently expands to include all possibilities.
"Logic, an online textbook by Garth Kemerling, explains the basic elements of elementary logic, at an undergraduate level."
Fail the truth (INSANE) or sustain a commitment to the truth (SANE). Atheist/Satanists are fundamentally insane, lying frauds.
waketheoblivious 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My comments effectively combine as Checkmate. Those who understand fundamental logic easily recognize arguing against the facts I have presented, is to argue on behalf of insanity, lying & deception. What I have written is not a clever argument, it is the simple Truth in simple terms, which sane people understand. My argument is supported by Fundamental Logic, which is predicated on a fundamental commitment to the Truth.
Atheists/Satanists are self proven fundamentally insane, lying frauds.
waketheoblivious 3 weeks ago
Did he claim he was a biologist... after saying he had a bachelor's in biology??
mtboger41 3 weeks ago
What a cretan.
pantocyclus 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
History of diabolical "missing link" frauds. Atheist/Satanists posing as scientists:
1913-53 Piltdown Man HOAX, Manufactured Planted Evidence
Nebraska Man, Discarded Pigs Tooth
Peking Man, Conglomeration of Co-Mingled Fossils
Lucy, Manipulated Fossil Using Plaster
Orce Man, 4 Month Old Donkey Bone
2009 Ida, Grossly Unsupportable Classification
2010 Sebida, equivelant of a deceased PetsMart Gerbil
*Evolution, science of a preponderance of bullshit, in lieu of irrefutable evidence.
waketheoblivious 3 weeks ago
@FindingJesusverytrue The old "design" argument. The last haven for someone with no real argument.
moidixmois1 3 weeks ago
@FindingJesusverytrue There are no problems with evolution. There may be gaps, but not problems. That is what science is about, finding the truth. If we already knew how everything worked, there would be no need for it.
So what? THAT"S HOW SCIENCE WORKS. Unlike your bible, we have common sense and correct mistakes that are made. Saying that someone is debunked isn't a prove of failure in science. It's a prove that SCIENCE WORKS.
moidixmois1 3 weeks ago
@moidixmois1 Your common sense is lacking! I did not argue for design! Design is better than the argument for the random accumulation of atoms which would result in life! Since when does an atom have the inherent ability to create morality; conscience;
order, unless it were already given by my Creator by established physical laws, which MY CREATOR put into place? I AM A CREATIONIST! because I know MY CREATOR! and I have known Him since 1977! There is a purpose behind everything!
FindingJesusverytrue 2 weeks ago
@FindingJesusverytrue think how big an ego is required to persuade yourself that an all-knowing, all-powerful omnipotent creator is concerned with your pathetic little life.
victorsossa 2 weeks ago
@victorsossa Think of how big an ego is required to contemplate the universe and say "there is no God" as if a blood cell has the ability to make some quantitative assessment of an enitre human being...or one nueron the ability to sum up human consciousness. Dawkins is a reductionist intellectual bully picking on the kids riding the short bus some people can't understand and make sense of evolution that doesn't mean they should be belittled for sport. Shame on Dawkins.
todogfw 2 weeks ago
@todogfw Think of how big an ego is required to contemplate the evidence and still claims that there is a god. Think of how much a scientific illiterate one has to be to think that iron age fairy tales to make "some quantitative assessment of an enitre human being". How much a general moron one has to be to think that calling bullshit like creationism bullshit is "bullying".
TomFynn 2 weeks ago
@TomFynn I don't find any "evidence" against God in Evolution, Genetics, Physics, etc. There is plenty of evidence in all that contradicts ancient mythology or specifics about individual conceptions of God and religious dogma...I don't find the tendency of human beings to misunderstand God evidence of nonexistence. Here is a shocker for ya...most folks can't explain God very well and probably never will...but most folks can't explain multiple mathematical values for infinity either.
todogfw 2 weeks ago
@todogfw SFW. You have to find evidence *for* something. And if people are mathematically illiterate, that's the education system to blame for. Does not make mathematics mythical.
TomFynn 2 weeks ago
@TomFynn If we are all so mathematical literate explain the square root of negative one for me. i is used to make easy a profound "imaginary" but necessary logic construct God is no different
todogfw 2 weeks ago
@todogfw Sorry, no. Math follows precise rules, demonstrable in simple, logical steps. Like exp(-ix)=cos(x)+i*sin(x). Wishful thinking on the other hand, is just made-up fantasy.
TomFynn 2 weeks ago
@TomFynn As to "iron age fairy tales"...Human achievement should be judged in context...it is easy for us to be dismissive of ancient "knowledge" and "beliefs" but we stand on the shoulders of giants and thousands of years of human experience to do so..."Once there was a word and that word was God...and God said let there be light" was as much a monumental leap in human understanding of the universe as the theory of relativity...relatively speaking of course ;)
todogfw 2 weeks ago
@todogfw Ah, the famous context. Does not mean that the bible is anything else than iron age fairy tales. Plus some propaganda thrown in. All these genocides had to be justified after all. And there is no better way to justify atrocities as when you have god on your side.
TomFynn 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TomFynn <----- Sports a Satanic Shill, Transparent Tutu. One of the regularly scheduled Squawking Nazis, who camp Evolutionist/Atheist/Satanist videos 24/7, lying in Satanic spew to contaminate the public pool of education and satisfy any public demand for documentation & information, with a Satanic supply of pissed ignorance. Squawking Nazi Traitors, include active duty military from around the world & Terrorists (Shills) engaging an enemy attack God, Countries, Constitution & Humanity!
waketheoblivious 2 weeks ago
@todogfw Ironic "reductionist" approach to cell theory. YT is hardly the platform for this, but try Kornberg's work on transcription. It's a good start. And seriously, reason alone should tell you that some 2000 year old zombie is not in love with anyone. Despite their necrophiliac homosexual tendencies.
victorsossa 2 weeks ago
@victorsossa I don't believe in immaculate conception, the resurection, or the second coming...those things are not necessary for me to believe in a God or appreciate Jesus...I think picking on fundies, literalist, and other believers is a representation of bad character not intelligence...I'll check out Kornberg's work on transcription though thanks for the info.
todogfw 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
FindingJesusverytrue 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@moidixmois1 There is ONE GAP..and that is between you and your Creator!
It will never be bridged after death! I have studied Physics and Cell Biology. These sciences have established unchangeable laws which help us realise a gradual controlled unwinding down of the Universe. The Universe is NOT developing! Cell biology demonstrates mutations that are not adding to improvements ot development of the cell but a slow deterioration. Genes are being changed, taken out, but not added
FindingJesusverytrue 2 weeks ago
u sir r a retard
MrGaddafikiller 4 weeks ago
What a noisy masochist he was...
asubjectiveopinion 1 month ago
what the hell that stupid guy say??
Lanja1991 1 month ago
0:17 Julian Assange! ;)
MardasMan 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy Most mistakes won't reach full adult development in order to be fossilised. But we can see such mistakes in fruit flies (legs growing where antenna should be etc...)
St00sh13 1 month ago
@St00sh13 Actually if animals have bones and even soft tissue they have as good a chance as any others. There really should be millions of these compared to animals that can survive and pass things on. Also many animals have hardly changed at all for millions of years.
Even Darwin knew this. He was hoping these kinds of fossils would be found at some point. And because many more fossils have been found , but still no transitional ones, the likelihood now is very unlikely.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy I'm sorry, but you don't understand the basics of evolution.
I don't feel I can go on with this conversation. I don't think you are considering your answers before you reply. I supply you with evidence but you come back with the same arguments each time. I don't think you would be willing to change your mind even if supplied with irrefutable evidence.
But, You have yet to supply any evidence that the creator you believe in exists. If you could, I would be willing to consider it.
St00sh13 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy The greeks knew that quarentine helped stop the spread of disease long before the bible (although they knew nothing of the means of transmission). Man has known the earth wasn't flat since they could travel more than 7 or 8 miles in a few hours. Some people (mostly religions) didn't accept that, of course.
St00sh13 1 month ago
@St00sh13 Still the bible writers knew what was correct scientifically, when most of the world had other ideas.
The Greeks come from of Javan, son of Japheth and grandson of Noah. Javan was the Japhetic ancestor of the early peoples of Greece and the surrounding islands.
So who got what from whom?
And the bible is correct.
Many people even with modern science, did not follow this and millions died.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy You have probably been pointed to this before, but do a search for Dawkins' parable of the butler did it.
St00sh13 1 month ago
Thanks for this video! Its very cool how they FfreeThinker was able to get all the different Vantage points. And what a Moron that "Biologist" was. HAHAHA!!! keep up the great work!!!
MrKirkKerkorianCOM 1 month ago
@MrKirkKerkorianCOM he got a BS Degree in the science of Biology (which i seriously doubt)...sorry to say folks but that is just barely scratching the surface. The Sciences are one of the few places where a BS degree may be sufficient to be a researcher's assistant but no one would actually hire such a person to be a researchers on any project of note unless it was overseen by at least a Doctorate.
OkamsRazer 1 month ago
@MrKirkKerkorianCOM It's not like having a Batchelor's in say the Humanities.
OkamsRazer 1 month ago
1:48
"Don't taze me bro!"
hahaha
MegaHL123 1 month ago
Lol "you act like a damn child" ahahahaha
utube2344 1 month ago
Part 3 An interpretation of the similar fossils could be done by anyone without analyzing anything. Example :A man who is not a scientist could just look at the two fossils and think "they're copies of each other" or "their twins". I'm not saying that anybody would say that because that's not the point. The point is that the man has no knowledge on how to tell the fossils apart. So instead he interprets it based on what he knows, but as we can see that doesn't mean what he thinks is true.
swygster 1 month ago
Part 2 It would be impossible for you to disprove it's existence because you have nothing to go on for it and all you have is my word that it could be true. It would be up to ME to prove the dragon's existence since I made the claim. Your last paragraph describing fossil finds sounds like possibilities to me. They are using facts (that they are similar) to describe what the two animals relationship could be. That's deduction; As in keeping in mind what actually is.
swygster 1 month ago
Wow, what a coward. He calls Dawkins a fraud and immediately starts walking out because he is afraid of hearing Dawkins’ response. And to make double sure he would not hear the reply, he made a big scene, so school security would escort him out anyway. But he waited till he was near the exit to yell his accusation.
RustyTube 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Turn over a US Dollar Bill. See that "all seeing eye" as the capstone on the Pyramid? That is the all seeing eye of Horus/Lucifer and at the base of that Pyramid are Latin words that translate to a New World Order. The Illuminati are so easily documented a 5th grader writing their first research paper could easily write a factual report. Illuminati have a name for the mind-controlled brain dead, sheeple. Laugh it up funny boys because your ass is on their menu with mint jelly.
waketheoblivious 1 month ago
To sum up religion.
“Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
WaltonSauce 1 month ago
@WaltonSauce There would be no garden or would we be here, to enjoy it.
What he is accepting it that it was all magic, like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.
In real life it does not happen like that.
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy
Please though, submit this to peer review, or any respectable biology department at a university, and watch as you are torn to shreds.
You have provided no citations, only bald assertions and ignorance.
WaltonSauce 1 month ago
@WaltonSauce I did send it to some. and I never even got a reply back. So I think if they don't see 'evolution' at the top of the page they don't even bother reading it. At least they should give it to a class or something to tear apart.
As for bald assertions and ignorance, why isn't the idea of 'evolution' considered the same thing.
You mentioned you would talk to your professors., why not ask him if one of his classes would try to pick it apart. Or are they just turning out robots there?
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy
"You mentioned you would talk to your professors., why not ask him if one of his classes would try to pick it apart. "
He did, which is what I said.
WaltonSauce 1 month ago
@WaltonSauce I mean a real reply not a biased reply I also mean with evidence
I mean with dialogue with questions back and forth.
You see I don't think they can back up what they say,and they know it.
Also the students probably, have not had a real opportunity to test what they have been told.To see if it really stands up or not.They just accept what they are told.
You see this is how the scientist keep themselves on one thought.No tests against it. That is why 'evolution' is still around
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy
Are you really suggesting that evolution is unfalsifiable?
How would you falsify your bullshit guess?
WaltonSauce 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy
Evolution is not a bald assertion because we actually have evidence for it.
WaltonSauce 1 month ago
@WaltonSauce Actually no there isn't. It is only interpretation of the science found. Now if they asctually had evidence we would see, chimps having offspring, that are different than they are and getting closer to humans. But there are none. Plants also have to be part of this 'line of common descent' but the are not. No one is claiming they are related to a skunk cabbage.
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy
You have no idea who evolution works, your website is shit.
You have just demonstrated how completely stupid you are, stick to art you might actually be good at that.
We are very alike animals, we are animals.
Evolution is shown by all the organisms that have evolved you can't prove your creator exists and you have defined him in a scientifically impossible way.
WaltonSauce 1 month ago
@WaltonSauce "We are very alike animals, we are animals"
Like I said we are made from the same materials. But there are no other animals like man.
We don't live to survive we live to enjoy life.There are many things humans do that have nothing to do with survival.
And you don't see anything like the little steps like the scientists say there should be. So there are no almost humans or any ex-humans. We are in a class of our own.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@WaltonSauce Creation is science. We do not see, 'evolution' happen at all. There is no evidence that one animal came from another naturally. Scientists can not prove it. They says that it had to happen that way, because their hypothesis of'evolution' say it has too. So you have an idea that demands another idea , be none creation. That is circular thinking. And not scientific. The scientists base their proof on a hypothesis.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy
You don't see because you haven't looked.
Creation is not science, you have nothing to support your claims other than your own fucking ignorance.
I've tried to be polite and educate you a little but you have ignored literally everything we have put forward, by a decent biology textbook and read it.
WaltonSauce 1 month ago
@WaltonSauce I know how 'evolution' is supposed to work. But no one has ever seen it work or have any evidence of it. It is based on assumptions. That can not be proved. I have had scientists say, they are not about proving things. Then I want my money back, because that is what the study of science is supposed to do. Not use opinions and conjecture, but proof.
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy
Have you ever seen creation of life?
You don't know how evolution works you have demonstrated that here. I've read the entirety of you weebly website and it's shit. My 4 year old sister could have done better.
I have asked for the millionth time for some evidence of a creator.
Life is only evidence of life, there is no evidence for the creator.
There are many things other animals do that have nothing to do with survival.
WaltonSauce 1 month ago
@WaltonSauce I see creation of life all the time. For example when a baby is born. 2 humans create a third human.
And the proof of a creator is the creation.
The most efficient way for life to increase is to just divide many times. If the first life lived on rock dust, because that would be all there is. Why would it change that, for more complicated methods?
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy
You fucking idiot that's not creation, That's reproduction.
You have just demonstrated you know nothing about science at all.
WaltonSauce 1 month ago
@WaltonSauce If you set up the different methods of reproduction, it is creation.
If I could build some robots that could make new ones of themselves, each making a half a robot but so that it was complete. Are all the robots created or just the first 2. ?
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy Are you serious? that's your argument for a creator? If we now for some reason accept your argument that there is a creator, then you have proved as well that there is a flying teapot in space that can create life from nothing, that unicorns exist, that the flying spaghetti monster is real, the easter bunny is real, and the beaver is a spirit and the bear is a god... Once you understand evolution and natural selection you see that your robot example is not valid...
MykeHawke1 1 month ago
@MykeHawke1 "Are you serious?" Yes
If you believe what the scientist are saying . Then you have to believe that life just pops out of the ground and morphs into anything at all.We should be seeing, parts in weird places, eyes on your back, eye sockets who knows where. All parts in partial development. And this would not stop even if everything is working OK.
So to believe in the scientists you believe in magic, and that 'evolution' is smarter than the scientists. ...continue
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MykeHawke1 ...continue. Yet not have any evidence or proof. No good stories on the origins of life. And only assumption , on how life was supposed to come one from another naturally. Yet there is no evidence. So before the scientist say any of this don't you think , they should at least have some proof. Because it is not rational thinking. If we want something that works we design and build it. And sometimes copy it. We claim that as design. So are you serious?
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy There is tons of proof of evolution, just try and look it up. You're talking about rational thinking? is it rational to say that everything popped up because there is a divine creator? You are trying to prove something where there is absolutely no evidence and no proof of whatsoever, and scientists are trying to prove something that is based on evidence they have discovered over several years. Just think for a minute and tell yourself what is more rational.
MykeHawke1 1 month ago
@MykeHawke1 actually Myke, there is only interpretation and assumption. Proof would be a recorded line of descent from chimps to man for example. Where you could see a chimp producing something other than a chimp and so on. But what we see is that chimps produce more chimps.
What is is more rational , if you take some rock dust, and wait for it to produce a human.
Or that you take materials and use your knowledge and skills to build a human?
continue....
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy ...continue If you follow what the scientists do and not what they say. You will see that they think the best method is to try to create life, in a lab.
So they are trying to prove creation.
If they found life just happening , that would be something else.
The proof for a creator is the life we see. The scientists have no idea how life could start naturally. Without that 'evolution' is a myth.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy You say here that proof of a creator is life itself, then why isn't life itself a proof of evolution instead?
You keep saying that a specie keeps breeding the same specie, of course it does, but evolution takes time, millions of years in many cases, and in that time, you gradually evolve over time. Creationists keep coming with arguments as yours, but why can't you understand that evolution takes time and doesn't happen over night?
MykeHawke1 1 month ago
@MykeHawke1 The reason it is not is that there is no evidence that one kind of life became another over time naturally.It is only assumption.Yes I know it is supposed to take a long time. And it is supposed to it in small steps.Yet for humans there is nothing close to us. And if there were, why are they not around today?Also we don't see it happening. There are no almost humans no little steps from us.And there are no transitional animals. Even Darwin said that.
Do you see there is no evidence.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy The worst thing is using your method of a creator, I can use the same "proof" and arguments you're using, to prove that the rainbow unicorn that I started to believe in just a few minutes ago created everything, that is not rational thinking. And if there really is a designer, then he's definitely a bad designer.
MykeHawke1 1 month ago
@MykeHawke1 Actually that is not the case. I use the same evidence that the scientists use. So are you saying that the evidence they have is no good?
The scientists , interpret the science, that is why you have scientists on both sides of this. The fossil is the same or the biology is the same, but you get many different ideas on what they mean.
Is it bad scientists or a bad designer? They pass judgment on something they know very little about.
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy Scientists pass judgement on things because they see patterns in it, evolution and natural selection has patterns everywhere in the world and it can be proved. Religion and the belief in a creator has no patterns that can be proved, creationists see patterns where there are no patterns and jump to conclusion and dismiss any other beliefs that are not like theirs, and even proofs from scientists.
MykeHawke1 1 month ago
@MykeHawke1 Yes these patterns, can also be explained by my Patterns of Creation.
And though the bible does not claim to be a science book. What it does say about science is accurate. Even in today's knowledge. In things that even the scientists did not know until fairly recent. So what was said thousands of years ago holds today. No peer reviews just accurate knowledge up front.
For the Patterns of Creation go here:
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy The evidence of a creator is philosophy that is built upon human religious beliefs and assumption, without any evidence backing it up. It's easy to say "well then the creator designed it like that" without actually proving that the designer created it.
Religion and believers have the upper hand in the debate of life, because they do not have to back up their arguments with concrete proof without philosophy, belief, denial and rational thinking.
MykeHawke1 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy
Evolution doesn't say we come from chimps, only that we share a common ancestor, you are just shoehorning your designer in with no evidence at all. You have yet to name ANY biologist who agrees with you.
WaltonSauce 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy
"chimps having offspring, that are different than they are and getting closer to humans"
Evolutionary theory says nothing like this, blatant straw man.
Evolution took millions of years, and we do still see speciation and adptation occurring now. Chimpanzees aren't under any major selective pressure so there will be little variation.
WaltonSauce 1 month ago
@WaltonSauce Of course I meant over time. So what the scientists should do is get a chimp and follow his offspring, until it becomes a human. Then they will have their proof.
Until then, all they have is assumption. The same with the start to life , find life just coming out of the ground, no labs, or human interference. Then you will have your proof.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy
Evolution does not say that they have to become human, only that they will change when placed under a selection pressure.
I have explained this to you multiple times, you have ignored me.
WaltonSauce 1 month ago
@WaltonSauce Yes I agree that 'evolution' says nothing about ID. The reason is that the scientists can not detect ID. They don't even look for it. They look for a natural cause.
So a creator that created life and also created the variety in life ( different animals, plants etc. ) The scientists methods would not detect it. That means they assume that a creator does not exist, so why bother looking for him. What that means,is 'evolution' is the evidence for the scientists.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy
That's not at all how science works.
WaltonSauce 1 month ago
@WaltonSauce Science is separate from the scientists. You should say that is not how the scientists work. The science is what the scientists are looking at. Then they interpret that.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy "chimps having offspring, that are different than they are and getting closer to humans".
Why would we see that? Chimps are different from their parents, yes, that is called variation, but their is no direction to evolution. It's not heading to some ultimate being. Those offspring that are better suited to their environment are more likely to reproduce to produce more offspring with similar attributes to themselves.
We are, very distantly, related to skunks and cabbages.
St00sh13 1 month ago
@St00sh13 "We are, very distantly, related to skunks and cabbages"
Yes I know the scientists say this, it really shows how absurd this whole idea is.
It is hard to believe that an adult , could actually believe something like this. But I guess, if you get enough 'education' it rob you of reason. And the scientists think religions are not reasonable.
Natural selection does not make new animals.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy We are related. It's not a belief. It's traceable in the DNA. We can show it is. Natural selection over a long period of time and with some kind of division between 2 groups does cause new species (check out ring species, amongst other things, if you doubt it).
Education does not rob you of reason. It helps you realise that the universe is a stranger and more awesome place than religion offers. It doesn't need a god to be awesome
Please read up on evolution before commenting on it.
St00sh13 1 month ago
@St00sh13 There is no such thing as 'evolution' . DNA is used for the workings of life. And there are millions of kinds of life, So there is similarity. But that does not mean one came from another naturally. In the Patterns of Creation,explains how some life have a line of descent.
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
I have checked out ring species. Uncommon descent has info on that.
Actually without a creator none of what is here would be here. It can only have happened with creation.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy
Before you can invoke design you must demonstrate the designer.
WaltonSauce 1 month ago
@WaltonSauce The designer is shown by all the creation he made. Including man. We create things we know what creation can do , we are also different that animals. Not just a little bit, like 'evolution' says, but by a lot.
We may be made with similar materials but we are nothing like animals.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy
How can you prove the animals were created?
WaltonSauce 1 month ago
i dont know wht i believe in.i feel one god is highly possible may be %50 -50.i loved Dawkins but now i felt a big respect for the guy shouting because i feel its true in some sense.i feel that subject goes too far from biology.its becoming a cult.people got mad to prove atheism whereas everything even human in evolution process is mysterious.u can say i dont explain mysteries with supernatural things but no every fuckin atheist seems sure as hell about biggest mysteries of universe.
esraretin 1 month ago
@esraretin Atheists claim nothing. We wait for evidence. Evolution has shed loads of evidence. Religions have none.
St00sh13 1 month ago
You mad bro?...
AIBustos 1 month ago 2
He made an ass of himself, but at least they didn't tazer him.
kc6201 1 month ago
@cjguitarist100 "what so ever is three words"
OK, Mr English Nazi, then why does my dictionary list it as whatsoever? Why does spell checking not flag it?
VictorLaszloLives 1 month ago
That guy has balls to stand up to rd. Much respect to him!
raulsnchez 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy We did have almost humans. There is excellent evidence of multiple expansions of hominids out of Africa. There are the artifacts these people left behind. There are the skeletons of these species, and there are their homes and evidence of how they lived, their way of life. Your idea is what? "There is alot of controversy over how life started and then 'evolved to all the life we see now and in the past" - What controversy? Science has a unified position on this - no controversy.
neobiognosis 1 month ago
@neobiognosis "We did have almost humans"
Which ones are you talking about? And if you say people , then they were humans, not something else.There are many scientists that say 'evolution' is not true . Even Darwin knew there were huge holes in his hypothesis.
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy "Which ones are you talking about?"
Don't pretend that you haven't had this conversation before. Don't pretend that you haven't been pointed to a list of hominid species with gradually increasing brain capacity. Don't you *dare* pretend that Darwin didn't believe the theory himself.
You are a liar.
VictorLaszloLives 1 month ago
@VictorLaszloLives
Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: “To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Charles Darwin was forced by the facts to admit: “The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54)
This still remains true.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrDunsapy 1 of 2. You've ripped the quotation out of context in order to convey exactly the opposite of what Darwin wrote. The actual passage from Darwin continues, "When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science."
VictorLaszloLives 1 month ago
2 of 2. Darwin then explains how there is a reasonable progression of stages leading from simple light sensitive patches to complex eyes.
Why don't you actually try reading what Darwin wrote, MrDunsapy, instead of copying and pasting from your YEC web sites, making yourself a actively participating liar.
VictorLaszloLives 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy This does not "still remain true". Darwin didn't know about the intricacies of intheritance via DNA and even how much time was actually involved.
We now know that eyed have evolved in different species at different times. And they evolved. No one claims the suddenly appeared. This particular argument has been demonstrated on numerous occasions by many, many authors.
Again, you fail to understand even the most basic ideas that evolution encompasses.
St00sh13 1 month ago
@St00sh13 Actually the eye for example, is a machine. It has many parts that need to be together to get an benefit. So 'evolution' could not create an eye. Now there many different ways of sensing light. And Darwin knew that a eye would be absurd, in 'evolution'. Its not just the eye, but the eye socket. If placement was going to be figured out, how did the socket ( bone material) know where the eye was going to be?
continue...
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy ...continue. In 'evolution' and eye like all other parts, need to be placed in the correct spot. But 'evolution' does n't know that. So many spots would be tried. these spots would be tested all of the body on an animal. Until it found the correct spot. That means the eye socket as well. How did they follow each other ( eye and socket) and finally settle on a placement?
This testing of placement should be in the fossil record, but it is not.
continue....
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy ...continue These testing placements of the eye and eye socket, would be transitional animals. They are not found. Each placement also requires the wiring of the eye to follow it around too. But what we see is that the socket and eye, are placed on the correct spot, and together. This supports creation. As no trial and error is needed.
This goes for all body parts. This would be a never ending process, so even a good placement 'evolution' would keep trying others.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy On you first point, I am referring to the likes of Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus Afarensis, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus Africanus, Paranthropus robustus, Paranthropus aethiopicus, Paranthropus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens.
neobiognosis 1 month ago
@neobiognosis A 'Nature' article admitted it was ‘possible that Australopithecus ramidus is neither an ancestor of humanity, nor of chimpanzees …’
A lot of weight was given to eight teeth, mostly damaged, and the most detailed treatment was given to a tooth that was practically identical to that of a pygmy chimp. An editorial note said:
‘The attractive epithet of the “missing link” had better be avoided until it is possible to answer with clarity the question “with what?”’
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy In accepted taxonomical classification Australopithecus ramidus is not an ancestor of homo sapiens or pan troglodytes. That is why I cited the species to you. They are hominids from a parallel branch of the hominid species. Cousins not grandparents metaphorically speaking. I have no doubt the teeth are close to the pygmy chimp. As no leg bones were found, their means of mobility cannot be ascertained for certain but skull structure suggest an upright gait.
neobiognosis 1 month ago
MrDunsapy, 'Many' requires further definition. Are we talking about scientists involved in researching biology, zoology, ecology, biochemistry, molecular biology, cellular biology, physiology and what percentage of scientists working in these areas say evolutions is 'not true'. Certainly not those eminent scientists who are members of the higher academies and societies. And are the dissenters representative of the wider scientific communities.
neobiognosis 1 month ago
@neobiognosis What is the percentage of scientists that went to school, and learned that 'evolution' is a fact. Without any alternatives, given. Why would you expect anything else. You don't get rewarded for saying creation. What goes in comes out.
patternsofcreation.weebly.com
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
I have to confess I find your arguments confused. On the one hand, your state scientists must follow the evidence. This is why evolution is taught as a 'fact'. Because all the evidence points to evolution being true, with every new discovery pointing to the veracity of the theory of evolution there is no other choice but to follow the evidence and teach the science as such.
neobiognosis 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy There are no alternatives that can be proven or demonstrated. If there were, we would teach that.
Lamarkian evolution is taught in schools as an alternative hypothesis that was put forward before Darwin, but that has since been shown to be false.
St00sh13 1 month ago
@St00sh13 Actually the scientist do not even look for ID. Their methods can not detect it.
That is why if I give them a loaf of bread, they could not detect that bread was created.
They would theorize on how that loaf could come about on it's own. But of course, would never be able to prove it. Sound familiar.
How can this be scientific if the scientists don't even look for the answers. They have the answer they want before they even test anything. This is not scientific.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@neobiognosis You should use the @MrDunsapy, if you don't I don't get a message that you replied to me. Then I miss your post. I talk to 6 or 7 people at a time, most of the time.I find youtube a real pain , to try and find posts.
Your comment reminds me of the Clergy, in times past. They had this elite and then someone would come along and show them that they were wrong. History shows often times they were correct.But the elite, just continued on anyway.
History repeating itself.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy And ID is not thousands of year old religion dressed in pseudo-science. Religion in all but name. Evolution is the new boy on the block. You still have nothing to support ID. Any your position on the salamander is quite ridiculous. You are trying to fit the world to a story that is thousands of years old. It doesn't work.
neobiognosis 1 month ago
@neobiognosis The scientists do not have a method for detecting ID.
But it really easy to do.
1-Find life just happening someplace.
2 - create life in a lab. Record all the thinking and knowledge, , and building to create life. All of this is ID.
3- compare the 2 results.
There is no conflict in time periods and the creation accounts.
You can't trust the scientists dating methods, but I usually go by how many generations, it might have taken for soils to build up and the atmosphereetc.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy I come to YouTube to watch nutcases like you and have a quick laugh. To bad you can't see the world as it is, I mean as it is, demonstrably. I really feel sorry for you people.
No need to reply as I won't respond or enter into a debate with you, though I wish you the best and I hope you will open your eyes to a wonderful and breathtaking reality.
stengevarsel 1 month ago
@stengevarsel "I come to YouTube to watch nutcases like you and have a quick laugh." This is sort of like a drive by shooting. Already running before you can pull the trigger.
But I understand. So its OK.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy show that life could be created by scientists would not show that life WAS created by a designer so your reasoning is stupid. Scientists have already created life in a lab and the experiment has shown that under the right environment, life can spontaneously develop on its own. You seem to be skeptical of science by the way you talk about not trusting dating methods. Im guessing you have never properly researched the reliability of them yourself.
PooeyBum11 1 month ago
@PooeyBum11 "show that life could be created by scientists would not show that life WAS created by a designer so your reasoning is stupid "
If you go by stickily by the evidence,the life the scientists create, shows that the scientists created life in a lab.So what they will have shown is that it took life to create life. It does not show that life could happen on it's own.Do you see that?
To prove life just happens on its own,you have to find it doing that. Without any human interference.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy i can understand what you think i was saying, however, you do not know how the experiment was conducted. Actually what they did was, recreate environments which could have come about on their own at the time of when life was first forming. then they sit back and watched as basic self replicating cells formed. Showing that at that time on the earth, the correct conditions were present of their own accord, where life could form without needing an