now write a book of how those dumb asses in the school system can use this book as reference in class rooms without being shut down by religious parents at home.
I received my Doctorate from Harvard. My I.q. Is 600G.E.(god equivalents ). That's Harvard Alabama community Bible college. The Great flood created the Grand Canyon in 5 min. Evidence: just look at the Grand Canyon. Proof: the Bible and all my teachers at Harvard Bible College. My wife got her doctorate from MIT. Mormon institute of theology and she says the Earth is flat. How come people in China don't fall into Hell? Because Earth is flat. Pwned yeahh!!
Re the scene of crime scene with the empty revolver cartridges. Ballistic pedants will no doubt be thinking... ' But revolvers don't eject their empty cases'.
I am currently reading the book and are amazed. While it is technically a science book, it still is a page turner. Not only Dawkins can explain complex relations of different life forms, he takes you on a ride through history and science. This book is may be one of the greatest books on earth.
The real idiots are those who argue with these bible bashing jesus junkies, present to me A SINGLE PIECE of physical evidence and I may give your argument some attention until then I will not waste my time on this planet trying to educate you ignorant fools that there is NO MAGIC MAN in the sky, there will never be a truce between "faith" and reason, reason can be likened to a summers breeze destroying the fragile spiders web of "faith" I truly believe that religion is EVIL at it's very core
@Illuminasti "will not waste my time on this planet trying to educate you ignorant fools that there is NO MAGIC MAN in the sky"
Does that mean you are biased, and not open to what the evidence says? Really the scientists have to have more faith than many religions, because there is nothing to support them. Their faith is that maybe someday, they will get some evidence But it has been 150 years or so, of nothing. Only ideas, and myths.
@Illuminasti Actually what the fundies need first is to produce evidence that their creation myth is better than all the other creation myths in the world. That's how science works, when there are competing theories, the one that fits the evidence the best and makes the best predictions wins. Fundies have to establish their "theory" of creation is better than all others before it's even worth wasting one breath on a comparison to the theory of evolution. Godot will arrive first.
@MrDunsapy How can you criticise scientists for, you think, not being able to prove what they say, and then claim that "there is design in life" is a fact? Why is it that they have a blizzard of information but are wrong, whereas you have no evidence whatever but still believe you're right? You must be able to see how weak the position you're taking is?
@eehbygum It is simple to see. Look at a cat. If I ask you to build a cat (robot) that does all things a cat does. Do you think you would have to design it? And get the material from other designers to make the materials?
Now you would be just copying a cat. So why is it that when man makes a robot, it is design, but the cat they are copying isn't?
What do you mean by "cat"? If you mean "Domestic" then the domestic cat is such an obvious product of human breeding that I've never met a creationist who would insist that they were created. Do you?
If you don't, surely you have to accept that the domestic cat was not designed?
If you are talking about all felines then I can suggest a thought experiment for you.
The first Earth category planet in the "habitable" zone of another star was found a few months ago, and we have only just started looking in the sense that with current technology we can only really survey out to about 1000ly (though some have been found over 20,000ly away).
Well over 400 confirmed exoplanets have been found, from this data the current estimate is that *at least 1 in 3 stars have planets*.
Thus we should expect over 100,000,000,000 planets in our Galaxy alone.
@kandtell Can they support life? Is there any life on those planets?
You see, what the scientists do, is say , that life happening on the earth was a fluke, a billion to one accident. But then on the other hand they say there has to be more like earth.
Which is it?
But there is no evidence for either. That is only assumption and conjecture. Not science.
"But the evidence is there are no Martians." - Agreed, and I'd go further and say that against the current scientific consensus I put myself close to your position, I think it is entirely possible that the earth is the only place in our galaxy with life (though probably not the only place in the Universe).
However you asked "Where is the evidence that there is an other planet like that?" - Ie. a planet we could seed with life from earth. And that could be Mars or Venus, or an exo.
@kandtell" However you asked "Where is the evidence that there is an other planet like that?" - Ie. a planet we could seed with life from earth. And that could be Mars or Venus, or an exo."
At some point that might be possible. But at the same time the evidence we have now is that, we find no life anywhere else. So it can only be conjecture, that there is life else where.
I was simply saying that there must be a vast number of habitable planets, not that any of the others have life.
But we are in the minority in that the current consensus position is that a significant minority of habitable planets must have life because no one so far has come up with a good reason why life should not develop.
@kandtell " But we are in the minority in that the current consensus position" This is based on 2 assumptions, 1 that life started on it's own,and thus could have happened else where. 2 there is a planet that was prepared like earth was for life. ( we don't know of any others like earth) So this is speculation and assumptions. Nothing about that is scientific. Even SETI did not get any evidence.
So when I said the scientists do not use evidence , this is a case in point.
No, what they use is their own theory, as evidence. They say because there is a pattern of similar animals, one must have 'evolved' over time, to become an other kind of animal. But we don't see that today, or is it in any of the fossils, that this happened naturally. I can easily say God created one animal and from that DNA with slight modifications made another.
This is what the fossil records shows. ( no transitional animals) The same in biology.
@kandtell Actually in the bibles creation account, domestic animals were also created as special creation.
So first of all you have a cat ( created) and then we breed them ( human intervention) which is also creation.
If I ask you to build a robot of a cat, would you design it, and build it, or would you throw the materials on the ground and expect it would come together on its own some how? this is what the scientists are saying.
@MrDunsapy Sorry, it was a continuation of the post ending "Let me ask you an alternative question:"
"I would use the breeding method" - Right, so would I.
"The evidence says that cats only come from cats" - no, sorry, the evidence says that domestic cats are descended from a common ancestor with wild cats.
There was a time when there were no domestic cats. Who decided to live with whom is arguable. But one day we got together and the behaviour of both species modified over the generations.
@kandtell "Sorry, it was a continuation of the post ending "Let me ask you an alternative question:"
Breeding with intelligence is a form of creation. Man has created a Poodle, from the dog kind.
There was no need of domestic animals before man, came. And the creator tells us, he created domestic as well as wild animals.
Now 2 things, scientists have at least 2 dozen interpretations of what a species is. And even in Darwin's work with Finches, showed that Finches always remained Finches.
1. The fact that it is difficult to define species is a point against creation. Anyway, if it is difficult to define species, how about "kind" no one has ever been able to give me a scientific definition of "kind", can you?
2. Many new species have been observed, both in the wild and in the lab, during the 150 years since the Origin was published.
3. If the new species in 2. are not new "kinds" then can I say that we are just a kind of ape?
4. " form of creation". I Disagree, Breeding is a form of selection. Most people would say "Artificial Selection" (coined by Darwin in the first chapters of the Origin). But I would ask "what is the difference between that and other types of symbiotic relationships?" so I think it can be classified as a weird type of Natural Selection.
@kandtell "Anyway, if it is difficult to define species, how about "kind" no one has ever been able to give me a scientific definition of "kind", can you?"
That is correct, we do not have an exact definition of what a kind is. But our language does. For example, I can say mankind. There are no almost humans or ex-humans. And also scientists would have to prove that over time an ape became a human. Which there is no evidence for. There have been many 'missing links' that went missing.
@kandtell "Of course there are transitionals, lots of them."
I mean the real transitional ones like the weird looking things that would have to happen, if 'evolution' was real. The trial and error mistakes. Also everything in all life would be full of partial completed organs etc. These are not found. Even Darwin knew this. As for DNA a creator could make an animal and make another one, by changing the DNA slightly. That is why every fits. It was designed to fit.
"the weird looking things" are what people who don't understand evolution (like Kirk Cameron for example) call for.
Evolution works over immense time-scales making a few small alterations every 100 generations at the fastest (if there is no "selection pressure" there will be no change.
Every generation has to a) fit it's environment and b) look like the one before and the one after it.
A transitional is simply a creature like Archaeopteryx with some features from 2 groups.
Having said that, there are things in the fossil record which do look pretty much like the kind of things creations say should be there. Take Tiktaalik for example.
The theory does not actually predict a 1/2 fish 1/2 amphibian. It only predicts species with some features from both. But if you drew something from your imagination which was 1/2 fish 1/2 amphibian it would have to be pretty close to Tiktaalik.
As for "partial completed organs", what about your tail? Whales legs?
« It only predicts species with some features from both »
Actually, the theory applied to previously known fossils predicted a fairly *specific* morphology for Tiktaalik. Right down to where we should find it, the number and shapes of the bones in its fins, and the anatomy of the head and neck. And when Tiktaalik was found, it confirmed those predictions with great precision.
But is that not true mainly because we have other fossils in the sequence? If all we had were amphibians and fish the exact morphology of the intermediate would be more of an open question no?
Also, I think we should be more cautious about "right time, right place" for Tiktaalik. The Polish tetrapod tracks discovered in 2010 pre date current Tiktaalik finds.
« But is that not true mainly because we have other fossils in the sequence? »
Of course. Without previous knowledge of other organisms living around the same time, as well as before and after, we would have had nothing to apply the theoretical model to. The theoretical model needs data (input) in order to produce predictions (output).
« The Polish tetrapod tracks discovered in 2010 pre date current Tiktaalik finds »
Which is really irrelevant. Tiktaalik was predicted based on previous fossil finds in that geographical area. It was presented as *a* morphological intermediate between fish and amphibia, and as a more precise match for the fossil species in that area - but certainly not as *the* only intermediary between those clades, nor even as the first of its kind.
@XGralgrathor "which is really irrelevant" - absolutely agree. But YEC will not, which is why I think it is necessary to either go the whole hog and explain it as you have just done, or to stop at "Tiktaalik is a transitional since it has features of both fish and amphibians".
@kandtell "As for "partial completed organs", what about your tail? Whales legs"
I see no humans with tails. In our language we have a tail bone, but that's all. There are no almost humans or ex-humans that have tails.
In whales doesn't that show planning? Because in the first place how did 'evolution' know that it was going to need legs in future? And where to place them? Also it is not just the bones, everything have to move as well And the brain has to be able to control legs or fins.
Whales have atavistic legs because they are descended from land mammals, not because they are planning to return to the land. Or did I miss understand you?
"almost humans ...have tails" - isn't that the point? We all go through a stage in the embryo where we have tails, and we all have a tail bone as a result of the absorption of that tail. A small number of people are born with tails.
@kandtell We also have humans with 2 heads. extra legs and arms.Sometimes joined together. They are still human. Though these are 'mistakes'. This happens in the animal world as well. That means that the fossil record should also contain these types of fossils, that clearly show how these mistakes became another type of animal. But it does not.
Also there are creative patterns that one animal was created and other were created from that, with changes in the DNA. Also vestiges of earlier life.
@kandtell "Evolution works over immense time-scales"
Another false idea is that if you throw a million years at something it is bound to happen. This is not scientific.
What is seen in the fossil record is one animal that can survive to another that survives. But not the transitional ones where the 'mistakes' happen. Those should be in millions before anything usable happens. Even Darwin knew that . He was hoping they would be found. But they have not.
@kandtell "The reason they are not found they did not go through an 'evolutionary' process.
In adaption , breeding, natural selection and mutations do not produce new animals. If you are a human you only produce humans. That is the evidence we have. And the fossil record confirms that.
Charles Darwin, 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,)
On DNA, sure I know the "same design, same designer" argument.
But it does not work for things like the broken vitamin C gene (watch?v=SF2N2lbb3dk).
I've seen Dempsy's hypothesis for human ch2, and that breaks down when you start considering other fusions. I have not yet seen an explanation of the apparent fusions which produced great ape chr 2a and 2b before they fused in our linage.
@kandtell "But it does not work for things like the broken vitamin C gene"
Abilities that once existed are being mutated away. That does not support 'evolution'. Where you are supposed to be getting better, through trial and error.
In humans we could certainly use the GULO function. But we have lost that. So we are going backwards not forward.
So this supports creation,in that at one time we were much better off, but have lost that.
No, the point is that we did not just lose it, we lost it because of the same mutation as all our closest relatives amongst the primates. Whereas Guinea Pigs lost it because of a different mutation.
It is incredibly unlikely that Tarsiers, Monkeys, Gibbons, and all the Great Apes, including us would all share the same mutation unless we had inherited it from a common ancestor.
It would be incredibly unlikely if even the mutation was beneficial!
But in this case the mutation is best described as "neutral" since lose of GULO does not matter that much to all those species, except us where it is mildly detrimental.
So evolution easily explains it as a neutral mutation in a primate ancestor of all those species who had lots of fruit in its diet so did not need to manufacture Vitamin C.
How can creation explain so many species having the same neutral mutation?
@kandtell evolutionists have ASSUMED that genes (and gene states) occur in different animals because of the result of evolution. Why would both humans and guinea pigs share major deletions of exons I, V and VI as well as four stop codons if these mutations were truly random? In addition to this, a mutant group of Danish pigs have also been found to show a loss of GULO functionality.The key mutation in these pigs was a loss of a sizable portion of exon VIII.
@MrDunsapy ....continue.This loss also matches the loss of primate exon VIII.. This also reflects a very similar loss in this region in primates. That’s quite a few key similarities that were clearly not the result of common ancestry for the GULO region. This is evidence that mutations of the GULO region are indeed the result of similar genetic instabilities and that are prone to similar mutations.
@MrDunsapy "A hypothesis, is only an idea." - Sort of agree. I'd say "proposed explanation for a set of evidence".
Anyway, in this case the hypothesis in question was made up by someone on your side of the argument. I may have got the name wrong. I beg is pardon if I have.
Just back from holiday and somewhat frustrated by the new look youtube. I missed your latest comments on GULO.
I think the key point is that the first mutation which disables the gene is the important one.
@eehbygum "How can you criticise scientists for, you think, not being able to prove what they say, and then claim that "there is design in life" is a fact?"
Because that is what the evidence says. The scientists know some about how a cell works.. But on the other hand do not know how a cell can just come together on it's own. So you have this blizzard of bits of info, but it doesn't answer the question. It hides the answer. There is no way for a cell to just happen, it has to be built.
This book should really be called The Greatest Snow Job on Earth.
The scientists gives us a blizzard of little bits of info. That only buries the fact that they can't prove what they say.
The real facts are :
1 life comes from life
2 a human comes from humans
3 there is design in life
The scientists go against all 3 of these. But cannot prove their stand on either. "evolution' demands the start to life be non-creation. So you have circular thinking.
@MrDunsapy No, I'll tell you what 'is' circular logic/thinking, however. It goes something like this: The Bible is the Word of God. But how can we be sure? Because the Bible tells us so. And why believe it? Because the Bible is infallible. And how do we know it's infallible? Because the Bible is the Word of God. But how can we be sure? Because the Bible tells us so.. and so on and so forth. Evolution is a fact, and the ambivalence of so many Americans plants it as a disgrace.
@z120p Though from the evidence there is, creation is the only answer to our existence.
There is actually no evidence at all that 'evolution' is anything other than just an idea. And 'abiogenesis' is something they had to come up with, because their other theories can't answer that.
@MrDunsapy Man don't be a douche. Abiogenisis is too complex a subject to engage in a discussion about with a character limit of 500, but if you did any real study into the modern hypothesises of the matter, you'd realise that what you've claimed so far is utter bullshit. Evolution is even easier to prove. The latter is most certainly a fact, as much so as the fact that the Earth isn't flat, given the evidence.You should really learn how to put forth a logical syllogism too, bcs that's pathetic
This is correct what you said. If you look at a cell , there is no way it could just come together it is too complex. There are a number of catch 22 situations, that make it happening impossible. That is the problem. For example you need proteins in the production of RNA, but RNA is needed in the production of proteins., and cell need to be complete before this can happen.They don't even have any good stories of how this could happen.
Also you have to consider, how the DNA got it's coding. This is very detailed and absolutely precise. No trial and error, or by chance. You also have to ask how did a cell know it had to survive, how did it know how to survive?
Even a cell just dividing is not simple or by chance. Yet it would have to do this the first time or its done. And it has to do it more than once, if it wants to multiply in numbers.
@MrDunsapy In no way do your two premises lead to your conclusion, regardless of whether or not the premises are true to begin with (which they are, of course... but just because all cats are black and Maria is black doesn't mean she's a cat... and just because life comes from life doesn't mean that all life need to come from life)
@MrDunsapy I said Abiogenesis is too complex to discuss given Youtube's character limits... Furthermore, evolution has plenty of evidence, and I would much rather trust a scientist than my local pastor. Examples of horse and dog evolution through selective breeding is a major 'visible' piece pointing to the validity of the theory. Homologies and genetic sequencing is perhaps one of the most powerful pieces of evidence. Even the comparison of fossils ordered by age which can illustrate changes.
@z120p " I said Abiogenesis is too complex to discuss given Youtube's character limits."
Yes I know I'm always fighting to keep my words down.
" Examples of horse and dog evolution through breeding is a major 'visible' piece pointing to the validity of the theory" The one fact from this is, a dog always stays a dog. What that means is if all you have are dogs that is all you will have. Though there are a variety of dogs.
In cats if you breed a Lion and Tiger, you get a Liger. But that's it.
There really is no evidence at all that one kind of animal becomes another. The similarities can also be accounted for by, a planned creation . Making one animal and then making another., using slight changes to the DNA.
Breeding, natural selection, adaptation, and mutations , never makes a new animal. That's why a human is always a human. There are no 'almost humans' and no 'ex-humans'.
@MrDunsapy it's funny how you made no mention of genetic sequencing, which I stated to be the strongest of all the evidences, and yet you were quick to jump on the argument that best suited your position. That said, however, given the level of change among dogs as a result of selective breeding (artificial selection) over several thousand years, it's no too hard to envisage just how life might evolve by natural selection over billions of such years. There's no point arguing with you much furthe
@z120p There is no problem with genetic sequencing. Why do you think it is a problem? I did a little video on Creative Patterns. If you go to my channel you should find it. Its very short.
So genetics really supports creation, and the creator gave us an example of how he did some creation.
This method would support vestiges of previous generations as well.
RICHARD DAWKINS - "OUR COLLECTIVE FREE TIME NEEDS TO SHIFT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO EDUCATION. WHETHER YOU'RE A YOUNG STUDENT OR FINISHED SCHOOL LONG AGO, GET OUT TO THE LIBRARY WHENEVER YOU CAN AND WORK HARD TO LEARN EVERYTHING YOU CAN ABOUT THIS WORLD. EACH INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY WILL BENEFIT FROM BEING ABLE TO SOLVE MORE PROBLEMS AND MAKE BETTER DECISIONS. EDUCATION IS AN AMAZING DISCOVERY PROCESS THAT REPAYS US ENDLESSLY."
@DeathsOpenDoorWay WHAT????!!! The big bang theory discredited? What in the world are you talking about? And please explain what you mean about an act of creation violating the uncertainty principle. I've never heard that before.
@DeathsOpenDoorWay Ah-ha, so you BELIEVE there is no evidence. Whereas I BELIEVE there is plenty of evidence for the Judaeo-Christian God. The big bang is strong evidence. And the Anthropic Principle. So now that we have established that your atheism is a BELIEF, what evidence for the existence of God have you examined and why have you rejected it?
@DeathsOpenDoorWay So you have no good reasons for your non-belief in God? That's rather arbitrary, and according to the laws of logic, irrational. So here's your situation: if you have no good reasons for disbelieving in God you are irrational. If you have good reasons, then you have a belief and must defend it. I won't play your silly semantic games any longer.
Let it be noted that you evaded my point about Christianity. And you never answered where your hatred comes from if not religion.
@keliangarcia And that is a response from a sane person? Please. Atheists consistently reveal themselves to be illogical, mindless fools here on YouTube with no valid arguments (since they never attempt to back them up with evidence) and nothing to add to a conversation but profanity and ad hominem attacks. You're a perfect example. BTW, to an atheist, baby rape it not objectively wrong. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is an give some evidence for evolution (besides micro)?
@bestvalue men have nipples, an appendix we dont need either ie it is not an intelligent design but a work of progression, evolution, the selective breeding of dogs, in a few generations changing the animal through evolution, you are totally retarded the evidence is blatantly obvious enjoy your ignorance
@keliangarcia The appendix is part of the immune system & has been known since at least 1947 to not be vestigial. Take it out and you shorten your life by 5 years. Male nipples are because all fetuses are designed on the same basic body plan. Selective breeding of dogs is uncontroversial. The most ardent creationists agree with it. If you think that's what the debate is about you're sadly misinformed. You've provided no evidence for molecules-to-man evolution. You can't because there isn't any.
@keliangarcia The debate is about the inability of genetic mutations to generate new information which has never been observed. Macroevolution is a theory without a mechanism. Natural selection is a fact but irrelevant to evolution and conserves or tends to drive species to extinction. Mutations are generally harmful and provide no new information for natural selection to work on. Besides, that abiogenesis is impossible. (cont.)
@bestvalue thats evolution on a minor scale easier for idiots to grasp the concept, have you read lenskis E coli long term evolution experiment? E coli developed defects in thr ability to repair dna making more mutations increasing the chance of a succesful one,eventually developed the ability to use citrate as an energy source.
@keliangarcia Yeah, Lenski's experiment is awesome evidence of God's design and no evidence whatsoever for evolution. Bacteria are still bacteria. Most beneficial mutations (on which evolution depends) are merely correcting a former mutation that broke something. Brilliant design. As one evolutionist put it, they are like punching a guy with a dislocated shoulder and putting it back into place. No net gain in information.
@keliangarcia You bring up the same old arguments that have been discredited decades ago by peer-reviewed science. Seriously, your public school eduction is showing if you think that dog breeding has anything at all to do with the debate about evolution. I guarantee that most of what you learned as evidence for evolution has been disproved. They find soft tissue and red blood cells in T-rexs, hadrosaurs and archaeopteryx for Pete's sake. They don't teach that in school.
@bestvalue I challange you to actually read The Greatest Show On Earth #1 best seller, as I have read 11 different Bibles, review the material, Even the catholic church accepts evolution as fact.
@keliangarcia I did, hence my first post reproduced below:
"I read this book anxiously waiting for Dawkins to reveal the promised evidence for evolution and was sadly disappointed that he provided absolutely none. And since he admits that his previous books provided no evidence but merely assumed evolution to be true, I'm still waiting. :^("
What does the Catholic church's acceptance of evolution have anything to do with the truth of it? The Pope is a fallible human being like everyone else.
@keliangarcia Well, we know that they are both flawed methods for determining the age of anything due to their built-in assumptions. Besides, for every dating method that says the earth is old, 10 more say it's too young for evolution to have happened. But my argument against evolution is not based on the age of the earth, the Bible or anything other than genetics, the fossil record & past discredited evidences.
What about soft tissue in dinosaurs? If that won't falsify evolution, nothing will.
@bestvalue soft tissue surviving in dinosaur bones isnt new, These results show empirically that structure-function relationships at the molecular level could contribute to selective preservation in fossilized vertebrate remains across geological time, suggest a ‘preservation motif’, and bolster current concepts linking collagen structure to biological function. This non-random distribution supports the hypothesis that the peptides are produced by the extinct organisms .
@DeathsOpenDoorWay Actually I recently read that the numbers for the atheists are more like 187 million - nearly twice as many - so my numbers are very conservative. Your comments about Jesus are a read herring. Even if Jesus never existed, the issue is the teachings of Christianity. Buddha probably never existed either but we would still have the 8-fold path to follow.
@DeathsOpenDoorWay The Crusades killed a few thousand people over 600 years (mostly in self-defense). Atheist regimes killed over 100 million in a few decades (mostly their own people in times of peace.)
Jesus went beyond the Golden Rule and said "Love your enemies." That was a new concept in human history.
You are so angry against Christianity (so much so that you are willing to bend the facts) that I am compelled to ask where your hatred comes from if not from religion.
@DeathsOpenDoorWay But the bigger point is that even if Christians killed more people (they didn't), we could rightly call them hypocrites because killing is the opposite of the teachings of Christ (eg. love your enemies, turn the other cheek, etc.). But atheists have no objective morality and thus - even if there was no logical pathway from atheism to genocide (there is, eg. survival of the fittest) - murder can always be justified.
@DeathsOpenDoorWay I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're right. And I do want to study it some more. But when did we switch from mass murder to freedom of speech? My claim is that atheists are responsible for more murders in the past 100 years than religion - and certainly Christianity - has done in the past 2,000. That is demonstrably true. (cont.)
@DeathsOpenDoorWay Interesting. I'll check out the Spinoza connection to free speech as that is something I've never heard before. And I never thought of blasphemy as a violation of freedom of speech. We don't have the freedom to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. With rights come responsibilities.
I am anything but illogical. You'll see when you read my new book, "How To Debate An Atheist." I'll send you a free copy when it comes out. :^D
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
@DeathsOpenDoorWay Apparently the founding fathers of America would disagree with you. Freedom of speech is one of those "inalienable rights" that was "endowed by our Creator." If man decides our rights, they can just as easily be taken away.
Galileo was a Christian and was condemned to house arrest not so much for his science but for the fact that he mocked the Pope. Kind of a stupid move on his part. Again, still no causal link between religion and violence. Cite some sources.
@DeathsOpenDoorWay Where the real danger of atheism comes into play is when the non-believer attempts to eradicate religion and replace it with his own humanistic utopia based on man's word rather than God's. The 20th century demonstrated to us that when this happens, chaos always ensues and mass genocide of the dissidents inevitably follows. Check out "The Irrational Atheist" by Vox Day for much more detail on this. There is no causal link between religion and violence. None. It's a myth.
@claudelebel55 Sorry, Claude, I don't know which one of my posts you're referring to. I have several conversations going on at once on different sites.
@DeathsOpenDoorWay Notice that when a Christian lies, we can call him a hypocrite because he believes it is wrong to lie. But if an atheist lies, he is just being . . . well . . . himself because he does not believe in absolute morality.
While atheism can be defined as a lack of belief in God, that is not how it has been traditionally defined throughout history. It is a semantic trick of the New Atheists to shift the burden of proof so they don't have to defend their worldview. (cont.)
@DeathsOpenDoorWay Oh yeah, that's the third sign . . . the accusation of lying which ignores the fact that Christians believe it is wrong to lie and atheist do not. I suppose it is just a coincidence then that all the biggest mass murders in history were atheists? But then atheists do have tremendous faith in chance. Seriously, go read a history book. If you're going to make obviously false claims like "Christians have murdered more than anyone," I can't trust you to have an adult conversation.
@DeathsOpenDoorWay Got the facts wrong again. Atheists have killed more people in the last 100 years than Christianity - and in fact all religions - have in all of human history. This is well-documented. The belief that religion causes violence is a myth.
@DeathsOpenDoorWay Funny how atheists always make unsubstantiated claims without ever providing any evidence. That's the first sign that they have no valid arguments. The second sign is the ad hominem attacks and the profanity. Watch for that coming next.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible.
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation Despotism 2nd Dark Age until Bible is destroyed
I read this book anxiously waiting for Dawkins to reveal the promised evidence for evolution and was sadly disappointed that he provided absolutely none. And since he admits that his previous books provided no evidence but merely assumed evolution to be true, I'm still waiting. :^(
@ExistentialistPeace But he did not provide any evidence except stuff that even a creationist would agree with. You can't look at minor changes to dogs, which is observable and then wave your hand and claim that that magically provides evidence that every species on earth - including human and oak trees hummingbirds and whales - share a common ancestor. By that logic, I present the fact that I can jump two feet in the air and flap my arms as evidence that I can fly across the country.
@bestvalue He provided an enormous amount of evidence. Evidence that most creationists can't stand. The issue regarding dogs, show that all of the different variety of dogs we have all came from wolves. That is a dramatic change in a short period of time. Given billions of years, much more significant changes can occur. He also provided much more evidence than the reference to dogs.
@ExistentialistPeace The most ardent creationist in the world does not deny that all the dogs in the world are descended from Eurasian wolves. In fact, that is an integral part of their model. But to extrapolate that fact and claim it as evidence for common ancestry is fallacious at best and dishonest at worst. Creationists have no fear of the evidence. Their claim is that the overwhelming evidence refutes evolution.
@bestvalue It is evidence. However, what you are failing to see is that it is not the only evidence to support evolution. But, of course, it's evidence of evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact. Religios just look foolish arguing against science. There is no evidence that religios have to prove any thing they claim. It's over for the religios. Even in America, religios are on the way out.
@ExistentialistPeace Evidence is not the same as fact. It is an interpretation of the facts that seems to support a particular conclusion. For example, the big bang and the anthropic principle are strong scientific evidence for the existence of God but I would never say that the existence of God is a fact. I'm not sure if you're aware that the scientific method cannot actually provide absolute PROOF. Scientists never claim that anything is 100% proven in an absolute sense.
@ExistentialistPeace I will bet you are wrong about religion being on its way out. We are hardwired to worship something. Even if God doesn't exist, religion will not go away as long as it confers a survival advantage. Studies show that religious people are happier and live longer. This current atheist movement will be but a small footnote in history after its high priests (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennet) are dead.
@bestvalue There is no survival value to willful ignorance. The evidence is in: Religious people tend to be dumber, less educated, and less successful than atheists. And none of the people you mentioned are the leaders of atheism.
@ExistentialistPeace That's only because you want to believe that you are a freethinker and that atheism has no leaders. But most young atheists are getting their ideas from these four men. A more accurate leader of atheism would be Stalin who killed millions in the his attempt to eradicate religion.
As far as religion not conferring a survival advantage, read it and weep. Can't argue with the facts.
livescience. com/4017-churchgoers-live-longer. html
@bestvalue information has never been easier to obtain, its so difficult to shelter children from logic, for this reason religion despite the healthy guidelines it provides people to live by, in a time guidance was needed the fairytales were beneficial, now we have systems of rules of our own to live by. god is the boogyman you invent to your child to stop him going out the door at night.
@keliangarcia "information has never been easier to obtain" Yes, there has NEVER been more evidence for the existence of God.
"its so difficult to shelter children from logic" True, yet atheists still try to do it. The atheist worldview cannot even account for the the laws of logic.
"now we have systems of rules of our own to live by" Yes, we live by one immutable rule: "Thou shalt not judge" which refutes itself by judging those who choose to judge. Atheism is illogical, irrational and false.
@keliangarcia That's known as microevolution and there's not a creationist in the world who denies it. That occurs by natural selection (or in this case artificial selection) acting on random genetic mutations. Notice that domestic dogs have lost genetic information and are less healthy than wolves. They would not survive in nature. Turn all the domestic dogs loose into the wild and 500 years from now you'd probably be left with just wolves again. It's still got NOTHING to do with evolution.
@bestvalue ther is thousands of creationists that deny that fact, selective breeding is evolution Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Only those who actually think the world was made a few years back by some black man deny evolution,The rate of continental drift carrying the arc of fallen volcanic rocks(.......-120,00km-..........) fallen from an eruption give a timeline of 93,000yrs since the eruption
Oh yeah? Name one. Apparently we have another person who has absolutely no clue what the evolution debate is really about. It's about the inability of genetic mutations to generate new information. The creationist model requires microevolution to get all the millions of "species" today from the thousands of "kinds" that were on Noah's ark just 4500 years ago. A creationist thought of natural selection before Darwin did.
@bestvalue "soft tissue surviving in dinosaur bones isnt new, These results show empirically that structure-function relationships at the molecular level could contribute to selective preservation in fossilized vertebrate remains across geological time, suggest a ‘preservation motif’, and bolster current concepts linking collagen structure to biological function. This non-random distribution supports the hypothesis that the peptides are produced by the extinct organisms" CONFIRMED
@T0NYRIG0lI I know it's not new. They've found it in a hadrosaur and archaeopteryx as well. Just goes to show how unfalsifiable evolution is. You guys will believe anything as long as it's not God. If we had predicted that find, you would have said we were crazy. Now that it has been confirmed evolutionists dishonestly work it into the theory. Same goes for "junk" DNA, vestigial structures and out order fossils. There's no falsifying it.
@bestvalue the decay rate of radioactive isotopes isnt falsifiable either, nor the tree rings representing each season mapped into a system of "finger prints" dendrochronology blows the 4500yrs out of the water aswell, ther is a mountain of evidence, ther is not one iota of evidence of a god, if god created earth who created god or is it a special rule? the bible tells us the earth is the center of the universe but no we orbit the sun do you deny this also?
@666Sanshou Lots of evidence for God for those who are willing to look (eg. the big bang, the anthropic principle). The Bible doesn't say we are at the center of the universe but we may very well be (which has nothing to do with our orbit around the sun). Besides,why is it atheists always have to bring it around to the Bible? I could give plenty of scientific evidence for God without ever mentioning the Bible. Try to stick to the evidence and not your biases against religion.
@bestvalue Galileo Galilei spent the remainder of his life under house arrest because of the church for publishing work proving the earth is not the center, in all reality if a god existed he would show himself everyone would behave and live in harmony, you "could" provide evidence no you cant or you would.
@666Sanshou Your view of the Galileo affair is a myth perpetuated by atheists. It's not true. Study it. No, everyone would not behave because human beings always want to do their own thing without rules. That is the root of sin and the true motivation behind atheism. (It's never about the evidence.)
The big bang and the anthropic principle are strong evidence for the existence of God.
@bestvalue its documented from as many creationist sources as atheist,In 1992, Pope John Paul II declared that the ruling against Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension." Pope Benedict XVI paid tribute to the Italian astronomer and physicist 23/9/1996, saying he and other scientists had helped the faithful better understand and "contemplate with gratitude the Lord's works. you can read the popes public adress on the many religous sites,u r distorting
@bestvalue after reading your comments i do not believe you are a creationist the majority do accept evolution as a fact and the apology to galileo was before 60,000 people , you are simply a troll giving faith a bad name.
now write a book of how those dumb asses in the school system can use this book as reference in class rooms without being shut down by religious parents at home.
truvak 2 days ago
@Alphacaliber Dawkins doesn't even know what he believes. Watch him being interveiwed by ben stein. Stein cuts quickly through the bs.
Caravandrums 1 week ago
@Alphacaliber evolution is a farce. watch some of the debates.
Caravandrums 1 week ago
@Caravandrums Yeah, tell us some of your facts!! Or is it ....god did it?
spareaxe 20 hours ago
No evidence here, either. Just a sales pitch and a false summary of the facts.
Caravandrums 1 week ago
@Caravandrums have you read the book ? or you just trolling ?
hamany12 1 week ago
@hamany12 just a stupid internet troll
MrBuffaloGrill 1 day ago
@Caravandrums And that facts are?
Alphacaliber 1 week ago
It's èvolution, not ēvolution, dum dum.
Caravandrums 1 week ago
I'm not sure I like the way You Tube is evolving....
TheSwedanes 3 weeks ago
I think there for I am........... agnostic.
All forms of organised religion are proof in them selves that evolution only effects those who are actually evolving.
: )
MrIrishBilly 3 weeks ago
I received my Doctorate from Harvard. My I.q. Is 600G.E.(god equivalents ). That's Harvard Alabama community Bible college. The Great flood created the Grand Canyon in 5 min. Evidence: just look at the Grand Canyon. Proof: the Bible and all my teachers at Harvard Bible College. My wife got her doctorate from MIT. Mormon institute of theology and she says the Earth is flat. How come people in China don't fall into Hell? Because Earth is flat. Pwned yeahh!!
paramattic70 3 weeks ago
This "debate" has always amused me. Gotta love creationist logic. Gives me a laugh every time.
phirephate 3 weeks ago
As an atheistic naturalist, I am ashamed to live in Bible Belt, USA.
TheWhiteStripes3 3 weeks ago
Re the scene of crime scene with the empty revolver cartridges. Ballistic pedants will no doubt be thinking... ' But revolvers don't eject their empty cases'.
Nick300wm 1 month ago
Eye Evolution - It's Impossible
watch?v=rRDAY39Zd9M
Xibons 1 month ago
@Xibons
Steve is wrong. Eye evolution is inevitable.
kandtell 1 month ago
@Xibons Darwin answered this allegation in 1859. Try to keep up.
VictorLaszloLives 1 month ago
I am currently reading the book and are amazed. While it is technically a science book, it still is a page turner. Not only Dawkins can explain complex relations of different life forms, he takes you on a ride through history and science. This book is may be one of the greatest books on earth.
Bethos1247 2 months ago
The real idiots are those who argue with these bible bashing jesus junkies, present to me A SINGLE PIECE of physical evidence and I may give your argument some attention until then I will not waste my time on this planet trying to educate you ignorant fools that there is NO MAGIC MAN in the sky, there will never be a truce between "faith" and reason, reason can be likened to a summers breeze destroying the fragile spiders web of "faith" I truly believe that religion is EVIL at it's very core
Illuminasti 2 months ago
@Illuminasti "will not waste my time on this planet trying to educate you ignorant fools that there is NO MAGIC MAN in the sky"
Does that mean you are biased, and not open to what the evidence says? Really the scientists have to have more faith than many religions, because there is nothing to support them. Their faith is that maybe someday, they will get some evidence But it has been 150 years or so, of nothing. Only ideas, and myths.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@Illuminasti Actually what the fundies need first is to produce evidence that their creation myth is better than all the other creation myths in the world. That's how science works, when there are competing theories, the one that fits the evidence the best and makes the best predictions wins. Fundies have to establish their "theory" of creation is better than all others before it's even worth wasting one breath on a comparison to the theory of evolution. Godot will arrive first.
ExperienceCounts2 2 weeks ago
@MrDunsapy How can you criticise scientists for, you think, not being able to prove what they say, and then claim that "there is design in life" is a fact? Why is it that they have a blizzard of information but are wrong, whereas you have no evidence whatever but still believe you're right? You must be able to see how weak the position you're taking is?
eehbygum 2 months ago
@eehbygum It is simple to see. Look at a cat. If I ask you to build a cat (robot) that does all things a cat does. Do you think you would have to design it? And get the material from other designers to make the materials?
Now you would be just copying a cat. So why is it that when man makes a robot, it is design, but the cat they are copying isn't?
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy
What do you mean by "cat"? If you mean "Domestic" then the domestic cat is such an obvious product of human breeding that I've never met a creationist who would insist that they were created. Do you?
If you don't, surely you have to accept that the domestic cat was not designed?
If you are talking about all felines then I can suggest a thought experiment for you.
cont...
kandtell 2 months ago
Imagine we found an earth like planet and populated it with all the species on earth except us and felines.
Leave it for say 100 million years.
It's unlikely that you would return to it and not find something like the big cats.
They probably would not *be* cats, but with the cats gone something would evolve to fill the niche.
How am I so sure? Because it has in a sense already happened on earth. See for example wiki/Thylacosmilus
kandtell 2 months ago
@kandtell "Imagine we found an earth like planet and populated it with all the species on earth except us and felines."
Where is the evidence that there is an other planet like that? That's why the scientists stories don't fly. There is no evidence.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy
The first Earth category planet in the "habitable" zone of another star was found a few months ago, and we have only just started looking in the sense that with current technology we can only really survey out to about 1000ly (though some have been found over 20,000ly away).
Well over 400 confirmed exoplanets have been found, from this data the current estimate is that *at least 1 in 3 stars have planets*.
Thus we should expect over 100,000,000,000 planets in our Galaxy alone.
kandtell 2 months ago
@kandtell Can they support life? Is there any life on those planets?
You see, what the scientists do, is say , that life happening on the earth was a fluke, a billion to one accident. But then on the other hand they say there has to be more like earth.
Which is it?
But there is no evidence for either. That is only assumption and conjecture. Not science.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@kandtell The scientists went to Mars to find Martians. But the evidence is there are no Martians.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy
"But the evidence is there are no Martians." - Agreed, and I'd go further and say that against the current scientific consensus I put myself close to your position, I think it is entirely possible that the earth is the only place in our galaxy with life (though probably not the only place in the Universe).
However you asked "Where is the evidence that there is an other planet like that?" - Ie. a planet we could seed with life from earth. And that could be Mars or Venus, or an exo.
kandtell 2 months ago
@kandtell" However you asked "Where is the evidence that there is an other planet like that?" - Ie. a planet we could seed with life from earth. And that could be Mars or Venus, or an exo."
At some point that might be possible. But at the same time the evidence we have now is that, we find no life anywhere else. So it can only be conjecture, that there is life else where.
So do you get what I mean?
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy Yes, I get what you mean.
I was simply saying that there must be a vast number of habitable planets, not that any of the others have life.
But we are in the minority in that the current consensus position is that a significant minority of habitable planets must have life because no one so far has come up with a good reason why life should not develop.
kandtell 2 months ago
@kandtell " But we are in the minority in that the current consensus position" This is based on 2 assumptions, 1 that life started on it's own,and thus could have happened else where. 2 there is a planet that was prepared like earth was for life. ( we don't know of any others like earth) So this is speculation and assumptions. Nothing about that is scientific. Even SETI did not get any evidence.
So when I said the scientists do not use evidence , this is a case in point.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy
They do use evidence. Just because you can't see something that does not mean you can't start evidencing the possibility of it's existence.
Remember, science is about weighing up probabilities, in this sense it is more similar to the Law than to Mathematics.
I suggest you read the article on the Drake Equation on wikipedia.
kandtell 2 months ago
@kandtell "They do use evidence."
No, what they use is their own theory, as evidence. They say because there is a pattern of similar animals, one must have 'evolved' over time, to become an other kind of animal. But we don't see that today, or is it in any of the fossils, that this happened naturally. I can easily say God created one animal and from that DNA with slight modifications made another.
This is what the fossil records shows. ( no transitional animals) The same in biology.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@kandtell " Just because you can't see something that does not mean you can't start evidencing the possibility of it's existence."
Does that go for a God, as well?
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy Yes, for sure it does IMHO.
kandtell 2 months ago
@kandtell Actually in the bibles creation account, domestic animals were also created as special creation.
So first of all you have a cat ( created) and then we breed them ( human intervention) which is also creation.
If I ask you to build a robot of a cat, would you design it, and build it, or would you throw the materials on the ground and expect it would come together on its own some how? this is what the scientists are saying.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrDunsapy "this is what the scientists are saying" - no it's not!!!!!!
Natural Selection is an *inevitable* process.
I strongly recommend that you understand what the scientists are saying before you try and tell people what they are saying.
Asking how you would build a robot of a cat is the wrong question, since robots do not reproduce.
Let me ask you an alternative question:
cont...
kandtell 2 months ago
Suppose you wanted a pink cat with purple spots that had all the other characteristics of a domestic cat, including the ability to have kittens.
Would you build a robot cat, or would you try to breed it from existing domestic cats?
kandtell 2 months ago
@kandtell I don't know if this was directed at me. If it was please use my @MrDunsapy, other wise I will miss your posts.
The evidence says that cats only come from cats and there is variety in cats. ( like color for example)
"Would you build a robot cat, or would you try to breed it from existing domestic cats?"
I would use the breeding method.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy Sorry, it was a continuation of the post ending "Let me ask you an alternative question:"
"I would use the breeding method" - Right, so would I.
"The evidence says that cats only come from cats" - no, sorry, the evidence says that domestic cats are descended from a common ancestor with wild cats.
There was a time when there were no domestic cats. Who decided to live with whom is arguable. But one day we got together and the behaviour of both species modified over the generations.
kandtell 2 months ago
@kandtell "Sorry, it was a continuation of the post ending "Let me ask you an alternative question:"
Breeding with intelligence is a form of creation. Man has created a Poodle, from the dog kind.
There was no need of domestic animals before man, came. And the creator tells us, he created domestic as well as wild animals.
Now 2 things, scientists have at least 2 dozen interpretations of what a species is. And even in Darwin's work with Finches, showed that Finches always remained Finches.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy
1. The fact that it is difficult to define species is a point against creation. Anyway, if it is difficult to define species, how about "kind" no one has ever been able to give me a scientific definition of "kind", can you?
2. Many new species have been observed, both in the wild and in the lab, during the 150 years since the Origin was published.
3. If the new species in 2. are not new "kinds" then can I say that we are just a kind of ape?
cont...
kandtell 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy
4. " form of creation". I Disagree, Breeding is a form of selection. Most people would say "Artificial Selection" (coined by Darwin in the first chapters of the Origin). But I would ask "what is the difference between that and other types of symbiotic relationships?" so I think it can be classified as a weird type of Natural Selection.
kandtell 2 months ago
@kandtell " form of creation". I Disagree"
Life was created in the first place, and you use that life to make other other life it is all creation.
"symbiotic relationships? " tell us that things were planned.( designed). One helps the other.
The example is God created Adam, but from Adam, God took bone, flesh ,etc, and made Eve.
So what I am saying is not hypothetical, he actually told us he did create in this way.
I did a short video of this it's on my channel. "Patterns of Creation"
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@kandtell "Anyway, if it is difficult to define species, how about "kind" no one has ever been able to give me a scientific definition of "kind", can you?"
That is correct, we do not have an exact definition of what a kind is. But our language does. For example, I can say mankind. There are no almost humans or ex-humans. And also scientists would have to prove that over time an ape became a human. Which there is no evidence for. There have been many 'missing links' that went missing.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy There is masses of evidence that we share a common ancestor with the other great apes.
Of course there are transitionals, lots of them.
The best evidence of course is genetic, like the broken vitamin C gene, and human chromosome 2.
kandtell 2 months ago
@kandtell "Of course there are transitionals, lots of them."
I mean the real transitional ones like the weird looking things that would have to happen, if 'evolution' was real. The trial and error mistakes. Also everything in all life would be full of partial completed organs etc. These are not found. Even Darwin knew this. As for DNA a creator could make an animal and make another one, by changing the DNA slightly. That is why every fits. It was designed to fit.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy
"the weird looking things" are what people who don't understand evolution (like Kirk Cameron for example) call for.
Evolution works over immense time-scales making a few small alterations every 100 generations at the fastest (if there is no "selection pressure" there will be no change.
Every generation has to a) fit it's environment and b) look like the one before and the one after it.
A transitional is simply a creature like Archaeopteryx with some features from 2 groups.
cont..
kandtell 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy
Having said that, there are things in the fossil record which do look pretty much like the kind of things creations say should be there. Take Tiktaalik for example.
The theory does not actually predict a 1/2 fish 1/2 amphibian. It only predicts species with some features from both. But if you drew something from your imagination which was 1/2 fish 1/2 amphibian it would have to be pretty close to Tiktaalik.
As for "partial completed organs", what about your tail? Whales legs?
kandtell 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« It only predicts species with some features from both »
Actually, the theory applied to previously known fossils predicted a fairly *specific* morphology for Tiktaalik. Right down to where we should find it, the number and shapes of the bones in its fins, and the anatomy of the head and neck. And when Tiktaalik was found, it confirmed those predictions with great precision.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@XGralgrathor fair point.
But is that not true mainly because we have other fossils in the sequence? If all we had were amphibians and fish the exact morphology of the intermediate would be more of an open question no?
Also, I think we should be more cautious about "right time, right place" for Tiktaalik. The Polish tetrapod tracks discovered in 2010 pre date current Tiktaalik finds.
kandtell 1 month ago
« But is that not true mainly because we have other fossils in the sequence? »
Of course. Without previous knowledge of other organisms living around the same time, as well as before and after, we would have had nothing to apply the theoretical model to. The theoretical model needs data (input) in order to produce predictions (output).
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
« If all we had were amphibians and fish the exact morphology of the intermediate would be more of an open question no? »
The less data available to apply the theoretical model to, the less precise the predictions it makes will be, naturally.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
« The Polish tetrapod tracks discovered in 2010 pre date current Tiktaalik finds »
Which is really irrelevant. Tiktaalik was predicted based on previous fossil finds in that geographical area. It was presented as *a* morphological intermediate between fish and amphibia, and as a more precise match for the fossil species in that area - but certainly not as *the* only intermediary between those clades, nor even as the first of its kind.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@XGralgrathor "which is really irrelevant" - absolutely agree. But YEC will not, which is why I think it is necessary to either go the whole hog and explain it as you have just done, or to stop at "Tiktaalik is a transitional since it has features of both fish and amphibians".
kandtell 1 month ago
@kandtell "As for "partial completed organs", what about your tail? Whales legs"
I see no humans with tails. In our language we have a tail bone, but that's all. There are no almost humans or ex-humans that have tails.
In whales doesn't that show planning? Because in the first place how did 'evolution' know that it was going to need legs in future? And where to place them? Also it is not just the bones, everything have to move as well And the brain has to be able to control legs or fins.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy
Whales have atavistic legs because they are descended from land mammals, not because they are planning to return to the land. Or did I miss understand you?
"almost humans ...have tails" - isn't that the point? We all go through a stage in the embryo where we have tails, and we all have a tail bone as a result of the absorption of that tail. A small number of people are born with tails.
You asked me for partial organs.
kandtell 1 month ago
@kandtell We also have humans with 2 heads. extra legs and arms.Sometimes joined together. They are still human. Though these are 'mistakes'. This happens in the animal world as well. That means that the fossil record should also contain these types of fossils, that clearly show how these mistakes became another type of animal. But it does not.
Also there are creative patterns that one animal was created and other were created from that, with changes in the DNA. Also vestiges of earlier life.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@kandtell "Evolution works over immense time-scales"
Another false idea is that if you throw a million years at something it is bound to happen. This is not scientific.
What is seen in the fossil record is one animal that can survive to another that survives. But not the transitional ones where the 'mistakes' happen. Those should be in millions before anything usable happens. Even Darwin knew that . He was hoping they would be found. But they have not.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy
" they would be found. But they have not."
What Darwin predicted would be found has been found. I've pointed that out already. And I have already given you 2 examples.
Please understand what Darwin *did* predict before saying that we have not found it.
Darwin did not for example predict that we should find 'mistakes'. Nor would anyone who understands evolution.
Not that mistakes can happen, but they should be extremely un-common in the fossil record.
watch?v=CHS_AqBArwc
kandtell 1 month ago
@kandtell "The reason they are not found they did not go through an 'evolutionary' process.
In adaption , breeding, natural selection and mutations do not produce new animals. If you are a human you only produce humans. That is the evidence we have. And the fossil record confirms that.
Charles Darwin, 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,)
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy
On DNA, sure I know the "same design, same designer" argument.
But it does not work for things like the broken vitamin C gene (watch?v=SF2N2lbb3dk).
I've seen Dempsy's hypothesis for human ch2, and that breaks down when you start considering other fusions. I have not yet seen an explanation of the apparent fusions which produced great ape chr 2a and 2b before they fused in our linage.
kandtell 1 month ago
@kandtell of course if you break an egg you wont have it back! idiot
hereicome72 1 month ago
@hereicome72 I try and avoid calling people names personally.
kandtell 1 month ago
@kandtell "But it does not work for things like the broken vitamin C gene"
Abilities that once existed are being mutated away. That does not support 'evolution'. Where you are supposed to be getting better, through trial and error.
In humans we could certainly use the GULO function. But we have lost that. So we are going backwards not forward.
So this supports creation,in that at one time we were much better off, but have lost that.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy
No, the point is that we did not just lose it, we lost it because of the same mutation as all our closest relatives amongst the primates. Whereas Guinea Pigs lost it because of a different mutation.
It is incredibly unlikely that Tarsiers, Monkeys, Gibbons, and all the Great Apes, including us would all share the same mutation unless we had inherited it from a common ancestor.
It would be incredibly unlikely if even the mutation was beneficial!
cont...
kandtell 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy
But in this case the mutation is best described as "neutral" since lose of GULO does not matter that much to all those species, except us where it is mildly detrimental.
So evolution easily explains it as a neutral mutation in a primate ancestor of all those species who had lots of fruit in its diet so did not need to manufacture Vitamin C.
How can creation explain so many species having the same neutral mutation?
kandtell 1 month ago
@kandtell evolutionists have ASSUMED that genes (and gene states) occur in different animals because of the result of evolution. Why would both humans and guinea pigs share major deletions of exons I, V and VI as well as four stop codons if these mutations were truly random? In addition to this, a mutant group of Danish pigs have also been found to show a loss of GULO functionality.The key mutation in these pigs was a loss of a sizable portion of exon VIII.
continue......
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy ....continue.This loss also matches the loss of primate exon VIII.. This also reflects a very similar loss in this region in primates. That’s quite a few key similarities that were clearly not the result of common ancestry for the GULO region. This is evidence that mutations of the GULO region are indeed the result of similar genetic instabilities and that are prone to similar mutations.
The scientists assumed, there was common decent.
this is from the uncommon decent site.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@kandtell "I've seen Dempsy's hypothesis" A hypothesis, is only an idea. Not factual.
Do you see why I said there is a blizzard of bit of info, that buries the real answers.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy "A hypothesis, is only an idea." - Sort of agree. I'd say "proposed explanation for a set of evidence".
Anyway, in this case the hypothesis in question was made up by someone on your side of the argument. I may have got the name wrong. I beg is pardon if I have.
Just back from holiday and somewhat frustrated by the new look youtube. I missed your latest comments on GULO.
I think the key point is that the first mutation which disables the gene is the important one.
cont...
kandtell 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy that is the one which has to get fixed into the genome first.
This is a functioning Gene which was switched off in the same way for all the primates I mentioned, that is the unlikely thing.
kandtell 1 month ago
@kandtell Yes I find the new youtube look , a little harder to deal with when looking for replies to posts.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@MrDunsapy I knew we would find common ground eventually :)
kandtell 1 month ago
@eehbygum "How can you criticise scientists for, you think, not being able to prove what they say, and then claim that "there is design in life" is a fact?"
Because that is what the evidence says. The scientists know some about how a cell works.. But on the other hand do not know how a cell can just come together on it's own. So you have this blizzard of bits of info, but it doesn't answer the question. It hides the answer. There is no way for a cell to just happen, it has to be built.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
Read Antony Flew's book There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. It's very good.
BradP1216 2 months ago
This book should really be called The Greatest Snow Job on Earth.
The scientists gives us a blizzard of little bits of info. That only buries the fact that they can't prove what they say.
The real facts are :
1 life comes from life
2 a human comes from humans
3 there is design in life
The scientists go against all 3 of these. But cannot prove their stand on either. "evolution' demands the start to life be non-creation. So you have circular thinking.
It's a snow job.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrDunsapy Go learn some science.
TheSpearthrower 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy No, I'll tell you what 'is' circular logic/thinking, however. It goes something like this: The Bible is the Word of God. But how can we be sure? Because the Bible tells us so. And why believe it? Because the Bible is infallible. And how do we know it's infallible? Because the Bible is the Word of God. But how can we be sure? Because the Bible tells us so.. and so on and so forth. Evolution is a fact, and the ambivalence of so many Americans plants it as a disgrace.
z120p 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@z120p Though from the evidence there is, creation is the only answer to our existence.
There is actually no evidence at all that 'evolution' is anything other than just an idea. And 'abiogenesis' is something they had to come up with, because their other theories can't answer that.
So if you use evidence, you have to say that
1 life comes from life
2 a human comes from humans
3 there is design in life.
This is what there is evidence for.
'evolution' is a myth.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy Man don't be a douche. Abiogenisis is too complex a subject to engage in a discussion about with a character limit of 500, but if you did any real study into the modern hypothesises of the matter, you'd realise that what you've claimed so far is utter bullshit. Evolution is even easier to prove. The latter is most certainly a fact, as much so as the fact that the Earth isn't flat, given the evidence.You should really learn how to put forth a logical syllogism too, bcs that's pathetic
z120p 2 months ago
@z120p "Abiogenisis is too complex"
This is correct what you said. If you look at a cell , there is no way it could just come together it is too complex. There are a number of catch 22 situations, that make it happening impossible. That is the problem. For example you need proteins in the production of RNA, but RNA is needed in the production of proteins., and cell need to be complete before this can happen.They don't even have any good stories of how this could happen.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@z120p "Abiogenesis is too complex"
Also you have to consider, how the DNA got it's coding. This is very detailed and absolutely precise. No trial and error, or by chance. You also have to ask how did a cell know it had to survive, how did it know how to survive?
Even a cell just dividing is not simple or by chance. Yet it would have to do this the first time or its done. And it has to do it more than once, if it wants to multiply in numbers.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@z120p 'Evolution' is based on myth and conjecture. Not evidence.
No one just expects people to just believe, what the bible says.
The truth is that science that the creation are the same thing. It is only the scientists interpretations that you have to watch out for.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy In no way do your two premises lead to your conclusion, regardless of whether or not the premises are true to begin with (which they are, of course... but just because all cats are black and Maria is black doesn't mean she's a cat... and just because life comes from life doesn't mean that all life need to come from life)
z120p 2 months ago
@z120p " just because life comes from life doesn't mean that all life need to come from life)"
The question is, what life didn't come from life? If you go by the evidence we have life, comes from life.
For the scientists, they say, well the first life, but where is the proof or even evidence, that life sprang from non life without creation?( life)
You see,.... there is no evidence that supports the scientists, it is only an assumption. That goes against what science is supposed to be about.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy I said Abiogenesis is too complex to discuss given Youtube's character limits... Furthermore, evolution has plenty of evidence, and I would much rather trust a scientist than my local pastor. Examples of horse and dog evolution through selective breeding is a major 'visible' piece pointing to the validity of the theory. Homologies and genetic sequencing is perhaps one of the most powerful pieces of evidence. Even the comparison of fossils ordered by age which can illustrate changes.
z120p 2 months ago
@z120p " I said Abiogenesis is too complex to discuss given Youtube's character limits."
Yes I know I'm always fighting to keep my words down.
" Examples of horse and dog evolution through breeding is a major 'visible' piece pointing to the validity of the theory" The one fact from this is, a dog always stays a dog. What that means is if all you have are dogs that is all you will have. Though there are a variety of dogs.
In cats if you breed a Lion and Tiger, you get a Liger. But that's it.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@z120p " Examples of horse and dog evolution "
There really is no evidence at all that one kind of animal becomes another. The similarities can also be accounted for by, a planned creation . Making one animal and then making another., using slight changes to the DNA.
Breeding, natural selection, adaptation, and mutations , never makes a new animal. That's why a human is always a human. There are no 'almost humans' and no 'ex-humans'.
"evolution ' is an idea without evidence.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@MrDunsapy it's funny how you made no mention of genetic sequencing, which I stated to be the strongest of all the evidences, and yet you were quick to jump on the argument that best suited your position. That said, however, given the level of change among dogs as a result of selective breeding (artificial selection) over several thousand years, it's no too hard to envisage just how life might evolve by natural selection over billions of such years. There's no point arguing with you much furthe
z120p 1 month ago
@z120p There is no problem with genetic sequencing. Why do you think it is a problem? I did a little video on Creative Patterns. If you go to my channel you should find it. Its very short.
So genetics really supports creation, and the creator gave us an example of how he did some creation.
This method would support vestiges of previous generations as well.
MrDunsapy 1 month ago
@z120p No one just expects you just accept a creator. It has to be proved.
That is why
1 life comes life
2 a human comes from humans
3 there is design in life.
It is the details of these 3 facts proves that creation is only answer.
MrDunsapy 2 months ago
@ScottjwKelly I won't dignify that Dawkins silliness with an answer. I'm covering it in my latest book "How To Debate an Atheist".
bestvalue 2 months ago
@ScottjwKelly Yeah, and the weatherman said the "sun will set" tonight at 6:23 pm. It's a figure of speech.
bestvalue 2 months ago
@bestvalue if your weather man is predicting nightfall try another channel thats nothing to do with meteorology
pepelepieu22 2 months ago
@pepelepieu22 LOL!
bestvalue 2 months ago
Do not look at the comment section. I warned you!
Zotov13 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RICHARD DAWKINS - "OUR COLLECTIVE FREE TIME NEEDS TO SHIFT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO EDUCATION. WHETHER YOU'RE A YOUNG STUDENT OR FINISHED SCHOOL LONG AGO, GET OUT TO THE LIBRARY WHENEVER YOU CAN AND WORK HARD TO LEARN EVERYTHING YOU CAN ABOUT THIS WORLD. EACH INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY WILL BENEFIT FROM BEING ABLE TO SOLVE MORE PROBLEMS AND MAKE BETTER DECISIONS. EDUCATION IS AN AMAZING DISCOVERY PROCESS THAT REPAYS US ENDLESSLY."
TheLogicalBrain 3 months ago
@DeathsOpenDoorWay WHAT????!!! The big bang theory discredited? What in the world are you talking about? And please explain what you mean about an act of creation violating the uncertainty principle. I've never heard that before.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@DeathsOpenDoorWay Ah-ha, so you BELIEVE there is no evidence. Whereas I BELIEVE there is plenty of evidence for the Judaeo-Christian God. The big bang is strong evidence. And the Anthropic Principle. So now that we have established that your atheism is a BELIEF, what evidence for the existence of God have you examined and why have you rejected it?
bestvalue 3 months ago
@DeathsOpenDoorWay So you have no good reasons for your non-belief in God? That's rather arbitrary, and according to the laws of logic, irrational. So here's your situation: if you have no good reasons for disbelieving in God you are irrational. If you have good reasons, then you have a belief and must defend it. I won't play your silly semantic games any longer.
Let it be noted that you evaded my point about Christianity. And you never answered where your hatred comes from if not religion.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue you fuck children dont you? thats why you want forgiveness or why else wuld you cling to the delusion, let alone comment to sane people
keliangarcia 3 months ago
@keliangarcia And that is a response from a sane person? Please. Atheists consistently reveal themselves to be illogical, mindless fools here on YouTube with no valid arguments (since they never attempt to back them up with evidence) and nothing to add to a conversation but profanity and ad hominem attacks. You're a perfect example. BTW, to an atheist, baby rape it not objectively wrong. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is an give some evidence for evolution (besides micro)?
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue men have nipples, an appendix we dont need either ie it is not an intelligent design but a work of progression, evolution, the selective breeding of dogs, in a few generations changing the animal through evolution, you are totally retarded the evidence is blatantly obvious enjoy your ignorance
keliangarcia 3 months ago
@keliangarcia The appendix is part of the immune system & has been known since at least 1947 to not be vestigial. Take it out and you shorten your life by 5 years. Male nipples are because all fetuses are designed on the same basic body plan. Selective breeding of dogs is uncontroversial. The most ardent creationists agree with it. If you think that's what the debate is about you're sadly misinformed. You've provided no evidence for molecules-to-man evolution. You can't because there isn't any.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@keliangarcia The debate is about the inability of genetic mutations to generate new information which has never been observed. Macroevolution is a theory without a mechanism. Natural selection is a fact but irrelevant to evolution and conserves or tends to drive species to extinction. Mutations are generally harmful and provide no new information for natural selection to work on. Besides, that abiogenesis is impossible. (cont.)
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue thats evolution on a minor scale easier for idiots to grasp the concept, have you read lenskis E coli long term evolution experiment? E coli developed defects in thr ability to repair dna making more mutations increasing the chance of a succesful one,eventually developed the ability to use citrate as an energy source.
keliangarcia 3 months ago
@keliangarcia Yeah, Lenski's experiment is awesome evidence of God's design and no evidence whatsoever for evolution. Bacteria are still bacteria. Most beneficial mutations (on which evolution depends) are merely correcting a former mutation that broke something. Brilliant design. As one evolutionist put it, they are like punching a guy with a dislocated shoulder and putting it back into place. No net gain in information.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@keliangarcia You bring up the same old arguments that have been discredited decades ago by peer-reviewed science. Seriously, your public school eduction is showing if you think that dog breeding has anything at all to do with the debate about evolution. I guarantee that most of what you learned as evidence for evolution has been disproved. They find soft tissue and red blood cells in T-rexs, hadrosaurs and archaeopteryx for Pete's sake. They don't teach that in school.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue I challange you to actually read The Greatest Show On Earth #1 best seller, as I have read 11 different Bibles, review the material, Even the catholic church accepts evolution as fact.
keliangarcia 3 months ago
@keliangarcia I did, hence my first post reproduced below:
"I read this book anxiously waiting for Dawkins to reveal the promised evidence for evolution and was sadly disappointed that he provided absolutely none. And since he admits that his previous books provided no evidence but merely assumed evolution to be true, I'm still waiting. :^("
What does the Catholic church's acceptance of evolution have anything to do with the truth of it? The Pope is a fallible human being like everyone else.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue what is your opinion of radioactive isotopes decay rates? or dendrochronology
keliangarcia 3 months ago
@keliangarcia I respect the patience you are showing this......person, do you work with the disabled often?
LinguisticsMajor99 3 months ago
@keliangarcia Well, we know that they are both flawed methods for determining the age of anything due to their built-in assumptions. Besides, for every dating method that says the earth is old, 10 more say it's too young for evolution to have happened. But my argument against evolution is not based on the age of the earth, the Bible or anything other than genetics, the fossil record & past discredited evidences.
What about soft tissue in dinosaurs? If that won't falsify evolution, nothing will.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue soft tissue surviving in dinosaur bones isnt new, These results show empirically that structure-function relationships at the molecular level could contribute to selective preservation in fossilized vertebrate remains across geological time, suggest a ‘preservation motif’, and bolster current concepts linking collagen structure to biological function. This non-random distribution supports the hypothesis that the peptides are produced by the extinct organisms .
keliangarcia 3 months ago
@DeathsOpenDoorWay Actually I recently read that the numbers for the atheists are more like 187 million - nearly twice as many - so my numbers are very conservative. Your comments about Jesus are a read herring. Even if Jesus never existed, the issue is the teachings of Christianity. Buddha probably never existed either but we would still have the 8-fold path to follow.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@DeathsOpenDoorWay The Crusades killed a few thousand people over 600 years (mostly in self-defense). Atheist regimes killed over 100 million in a few decades (mostly their own people in times of peace.)
Jesus went beyond the Golden Rule and said "Love your enemies." That was a new concept in human history.
You are so angry against Christianity (so much so that you are willing to bend the facts) that I am compelled to ask where your hatred comes from if not from religion.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@DeathsOpenDoorWay But the bigger point is that even if Christians killed more people (they didn't), we could rightly call them hypocrites because killing is the opposite of the teachings of Christ (eg. love your enemies, turn the other cheek, etc.). But atheists have no objective morality and thus - even if there was no logical pathway from atheism to genocide (there is, eg. survival of the fittest) - murder can always be justified.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@DeathsOpenDoorWay I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're right. And I do want to study it some more. But when did we switch from mass murder to freedom of speech? My claim is that atheists are responsible for more murders in the past 100 years than religion - and certainly Christianity - has done in the past 2,000. That is demonstrably true. (cont.)
bestvalue 3 months ago
@DeathsOpenDoorWay Interesting. I'll check out the Spinoza connection to free speech as that is something I've never heard before. And I never thought of blasphemy as a violation of freedom of speech. We don't have the freedom to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. With rights come responsibilities.
I am anything but illogical. You'll see when you read my new book, "How To Debate An Atheist." I'll send you a free copy when it comes out. :^D
bestvalue 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
@DeathsOpenDoorWay Apparently the founding fathers of America would disagree with you. Freedom of speech is one of those "inalienable rights" that was "endowed by our Creator." If man decides our rights, they can just as easily be taken away.
Galileo was a Christian and was condemned to house arrest not so much for his science but for the fact that he mocked the Pope. Kind of a stupid move on his part. Again, still no causal link between religion and violence. Cite some sources.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@DeathsOpenDoorWay Where the real danger of atheism comes into play is when the non-believer attempts to eradicate religion and replace it with his own humanistic utopia based on man's word rather than God's. The 20th century demonstrated to us that when this happens, chaos always ensues and mass genocide of the dissidents inevitably follows. Check out "The Irrational Atheist" by Vox Day for much more detail on this. There is no causal link between religion and violence. None. It's a myth.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue Sure thing. Fascism in any form is no different from religious zealots who attempt to impose their beliefs on others.
claudelebel55 3 months ago
@claudelebel55 Sorry, Claude, I don't know which one of my posts you're referring to. I have several conversations going on at once on different sites.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@DeathsOpenDoorWay Notice that when a Christian lies, we can call him a hypocrite because he believes it is wrong to lie. But if an atheist lies, he is just being . . . well . . . himself because he does not believe in absolute morality.
While atheism can be defined as a lack of belief in God, that is not how it has been traditionally defined throughout history. It is a semantic trick of the New Atheists to shift the burden of proof so they don't have to defend their worldview. (cont.)
bestvalue 3 months ago
@DeathsOpenDoorWay Oh yeah, that's the third sign . . . the accusation of lying which ignores the fact that Christians believe it is wrong to lie and atheist do not. I suppose it is just a coincidence then that all the biggest mass murders in history were atheists? But then atheists do have tremendous faith in chance. Seriously, go read a history book. If you're going to make obviously false claims like "Christians have murdered more than anyone," I can't trust you to have an adult conversation.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@DeathsOpenDoorWay Got the facts wrong again. Atheists have killed more people in the last 100 years than Christianity - and in fact all religions - have in all of human history. This is well-documented. The belief that religion causes violence is a myth.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@DeathsOpenDoorWay Funny how atheists always make unsubstantiated claims without ever providing any evidence. That's the first sign that they have no valid arguments. The second sign is the ad hominem attacks and the profanity. Watch for that coming next.
bestvalue 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible.
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation Despotism 2nd Dark Age until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
I read this book anxiously waiting for Dawkins to reveal the promised evidence for evolution and was sadly disappointed that he provided absolutely none. And since he admits that his previous books provided no evidence but merely assumed evolution to be true, I'm still waiting. :^(
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue Your idiot understanding of the evidence does not refute the evidence, it just proves you're stupid.
ExistentialistPeace 3 months ago
@ExistentialistPeace But he did not provide any evidence except stuff that even a creationist would agree with. You can't look at minor changes to dogs, which is observable and then wave your hand and claim that that magically provides evidence that every species on earth - including human and oak trees hummingbirds and whales - share a common ancestor. By that logic, I present the fact that I can jump two feet in the air and flap my arms as evidence that I can fly across the country.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue He provided an enormous amount of evidence. Evidence that most creationists can't stand. The issue regarding dogs, show that all of the different variety of dogs we have all came from wolves. That is a dramatic change in a short period of time. Given billions of years, much more significant changes can occur. He also provided much more evidence than the reference to dogs.
ExistentialistPeace 3 months ago
@ExistentialistPeace The most ardent creationist in the world does not deny that all the dogs in the world are descended from Eurasian wolves. In fact, that is an integral part of their model. But to extrapolate that fact and claim it as evidence for common ancestry is fallacious at best and dishonest at worst. Creationists have no fear of the evidence. Their claim is that the overwhelming evidence refutes evolution.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue It is evidence. However, what you are failing to see is that it is not the only evidence to support evolution. But, of course, it's evidence of evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact. Religios just look foolish arguing against science. There is no evidence that religios have to prove any thing they claim. It's over for the religios. Even in America, religios are on the way out.
ExistentialistPeace 3 months ago
@ExistentialistPeace Evidence is not the same as fact. It is an interpretation of the facts that seems to support a particular conclusion. For example, the big bang and the anthropic principle are strong scientific evidence for the existence of God but I would never say that the existence of God is a fact. I'm not sure if you're aware that the scientific method cannot actually provide absolute PROOF. Scientists never claim that anything is 100% proven in an absolute sense.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@ExistentialistPeace I will bet you are wrong about religion being on its way out. We are hardwired to worship something. Even if God doesn't exist, religion will not go away as long as it confers a survival advantage. Studies show that religious people are happier and live longer. This current atheist movement will be but a small footnote in history after its high priests (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennet) are dead.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue There is no survival value to willful ignorance. The evidence is in: Religious people tend to be dumber, less educated, and less successful than atheists. And none of the people you mentioned are the leaders of atheism.
ExistentialistPeace 3 months ago
@ExistentialistPeace That's only because you want to believe that you are a freethinker and that atheism has no leaders. But most young atheists are getting their ideas from these four men. A more accurate leader of atheism would be Stalin who killed millions in the his attempt to eradicate religion.
As far as religion not conferring a survival advantage, read it and weep. Can't argue with the facts.
livescience. com/4017-churchgoers-live-longer. html
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue information has never been easier to obtain, its so difficult to shelter children from logic, for this reason religion despite the healthy guidelines it provides people to live by, in a time guidance was needed the fairytales were beneficial, now we have systems of rules of our own to live by. god is the boogyman you invent to your child to stop him going out the door at night.
keliangarcia 3 months ago
@keliangarcia "information has never been easier to obtain" Yes, there has NEVER been more evidence for the existence of God.
"its so difficult to shelter children from logic" True, yet atheists still try to do it. The atheist worldview cannot even account for the the laws of logic.
"now we have systems of rules of our own to live by" Yes, we live by one immutable rule: "Thou shalt not judge" which refutes itself by judging those who choose to judge. Atheism is illogical, irrational and false.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue illogical,irrational thats just your judgement
keliangarcia 3 months ago
@bestvalue so dogs are descended from wolves, so what do you call the natural selection influenced metamorphisis from wolf to jack russel?
keliangarcia 3 months ago
@keliangarcia That's known as microevolution and there's not a creationist in the world who denies it. That occurs by natural selection (or in this case artificial selection) acting on random genetic mutations. Notice that domestic dogs have lost genetic information and are less healthy than wolves. They would not survive in nature. Turn all the domestic dogs loose into the wild and 500 years from now you'd probably be left with just wolves again. It's still got NOTHING to do with evolution.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue ther is thousands of creationists that deny that fact, selective breeding is evolution Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Only those who actually think the world was made a few years back by some black man deny evolution,The rate of continental drift carrying the arc of fallen volcanic rocks(.......-120,00km-..........) fallen from an eruption give a timeline of 93,000yrs since the eruption
LinguisticsMajor99 3 months ago
@LinguisticsMajor99 "ther is thousands of creationists that deny that fact"
Oh yeah? Name one. Apparently we have another person who has absolutely no clue what the evolution debate is really about. It's about the inability of genetic mutations to generate new information. The creationist model requires microevolution to get all the millions of "species" today from the thousands of "kinds" that were on Noah's ark just 4500 years ago. A creationist thought of natural selection before Darwin did.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue As already mentioned on this page the lenski trial of e coli generated new information from a mutation, your arguments are dated.
LinguisticsMajor99 3 months ago
@bestvalue view the comments on "how to shutup pesky creationists"
T0NYRIG0lI 3 months ago
@bestvalue Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations
everything to do with evolution by definition you idiot.
LinguisticsMajor99 3 months ago
@bestvalue u didnt read it did you, get somebody who can to read it to you
LinguisticsMajor99 3 months ago
@bestvalue "soft tissue surviving in dinosaur bones isnt new, These results show empirically that structure-function relationships at the molecular level could contribute to selective preservation in fossilized vertebrate remains across geological time, suggest a ‘preservation motif’, and bolster current concepts linking collagen structure to biological function. This non-random distribution supports the hypothesis that the peptides are produced by the extinct organisms" CONFIRMED
T0NYRIG0lI 3 months ago
@T0NYRIG0lI I know it's not new. They've found it in a hadrosaur and archaeopteryx as well. Just goes to show how unfalsifiable evolution is. You guys will believe anything as long as it's not God. If we had predicted that find, you would have said we were crazy. Now that it has been confirmed evolutionists dishonestly work it into the theory. Same goes for "junk" DNA, vestigial structures and out order fossils. There's no falsifying it.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue the decay rate of radioactive isotopes isnt falsifiable either, nor the tree rings representing each season mapped into a system of "finger prints" dendrochronology blows the 4500yrs out of the water aswell, ther is a mountain of evidence, ther is not one iota of evidence of a god, if god created earth who created god or is it a special rule? the bible tells us the earth is the center of the universe but no we orbit the sun do you deny this also?
666Sanshou 3 months ago
@666Sanshou Lots of evidence for God for those who are willing to look (eg. the big bang, the anthropic principle). The Bible doesn't say we are at the center of the universe but we may very well be (which has nothing to do with our orbit around the sun). Besides,why is it atheists always have to bring it around to the Bible? I could give plenty of scientific evidence for God without ever mentioning the Bible. Try to stick to the evidence and not your biases against religion.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue Galileo Galilei spent the remainder of his life under house arrest because of the church for publishing work proving the earth is not the center, in all reality if a god existed he would show himself everyone would behave and live in harmony, you "could" provide evidence no you cant or you would.
666Sanshou 3 months ago
@666Sanshou Your view of the Galileo affair is a myth perpetuated by atheists. It's not true. Study it. No, everyone would not behave because human beings always want to do their own thing without rules. That is the root of sin and the true motivation behind atheism. (It's never about the evidence.)
The big bang and the anthropic principle are strong evidence for the existence of God.
bestvalue 2 months ago
@bestvalue its documented from as many creationist sources as atheist,In 1992, Pope John Paul II declared that the ruling against Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension." Pope Benedict XVI paid tribute to the Italian astronomer and physicist 23/9/1996, saying he and other scientists had helped the faithful better understand and "contemplate with gratitude the Lord's works. you can read the popes public adress on the many religous sites,u r distorting
666Sanshou 2 months ago
@bestvalue after reading your comments i do not believe you are a creationist the majority do accept evolution as a fact and the apology to galileo was before 60,000 people , you are simply a troll giving faith a bad name.
LinguisticsMajor99 2 months ago
@LinguisticsMajor99 Well, you'd better believe it pal. I've written 2 books and gone on national TV about it. The videos are here on YouTube.
bestvalue 2 months ago
@bestvalue how many are best sellers?
LinguisticsMajor99 2 months ago