Dolphins Play, While Evolutionists Invent How

[miss3v3lyn]

Awesome!!!!!!

[jesusfanmitch]

One word: FAITH.

[andyrosebrook]

There are huge amounts of scientific evidence, especially from fossil records which you can see in any museum, that dolphins and humans evolved through natural selection over millions of years. Where is the scientific evidence for a creator? There is none. Claiming we don't have ENOUGH evidence for evolution does not act as evidence for YOUR theory about an invisible man in the sky controlling everything.

[Aerosteon]

Does this mean god was a Dolphin?

[Jesusisthetruth1]

I dont like much debate with lames online but i just must say that God is so awsome!! or in the athiest view it would be your big bang pile of soup turning into this is so cool!! lol

[mistergarth]

Huh? How does dolphin play support creationism? Is every trait and every behaviour supposed to immediately enhance survival in the creationists' mis-interpretation of natural selection?

[mostliberal]

I've noticed that every species that has reached intelligence levels close to our own (whales and dolphins, chimpanzees, and elephants), have complex emotions, creativity, playfulness, altruism, some form of language, and long term memory. Also homosexuality happens in a lot of species, and morals exist in many social animals.

[Jerimiah10]

I watched this video, then read the comments, and then I sat confused. How did this video turn into a chance for evolutionist to try to call everyone but them ignorant about all things? Discuss for me the evolution imparitive behind this awsome video showing you an incredible skill, used by dolphins for no other reason than play. You sound desperate and pathetic. Oh, and yes, evolution does address the origins of life, it has to, unless life was intellegently produced.

[TheSuperTrain]

You bring up an important point. You ask the scientific community: How would evolution select for something like play? Unfortunately, I do not have the space here to explain complex mechanisms and such. I would suggest looking at some credible sources on the topic of Evolutionary Psychology. (Continued on next post)

[TheSuperTrain]

More importantly, however, is that while science may not have an answer for every specific evolutionary question, it is constantly generating new ideas based on empirical evidence. Even though it can't currently explain everything, it doesn't throw out the huge amount of evidence we have for evolution. That would be like saying "Since one of these crayons is defective, we need to destroy all the crayons in the world" Rather, we would fix the one problem we found. (Continued on next post)

[TheSuperTrain]

You say that only simple traits, like color, hair length, and such can be selected. I respond with the question: If mutations can occur at any point in the genetic code, what stops diversity from occurring in a multitude of ways, such as body shape? For example, there are a set of very important genes, called hox genes, that code for specific body plans, such as the location of legs and arms. If one of these is mutated, extreme changes can occur, which can then be selected for or against.

[fellowservant34]

The presence of God is made known to man by the awesome and intelligent things in which he has created all around us, therefore man is without excuse.

[TheSuperTrain]

Natural Selection is not a random process, by definition. Although not a "sentient" selector, it is still able to "select" for certain traits. This is by the simple fact that individuals within a population that are better suited for an environment, or better able to compete against other animals, will be more likely to survive and reproduce. Thus nature "selects" for certain traits without being a "conscious" selector; just because some natural process selects, an intelligence is not implied.

[Howie47]

Very simple traits, like color variation, hair length, claw or beak length, granted, can be selected. But N.A. can't explain how new integrated, interdependent complex systems can be built up. 1 to 3 maybe 4 mutations might accidently accumulate every blue moon. But new systems like wings & radar building up in mice and turning them into bats. Is improbable to the nth degree. Explain how NS can build novel complex systems, step by step? Try adding single parts to a engine to build turbo boost!

[4570sharps]

AMEN!!!

[hersheybarblues]

Natural selection's mentioned in one of the commentaries as a possible cause of the dolphins intellegence. I would say that so called natural selection implies a selector. How can a random process bring about intellegent creatures?

[ScottishAtheist]

Cool video btw, never seen dolphins do that before. Thanks BereanBeacon.

[TheSuperTrain]

Hmmm... I would consider another possibility: natural selection favored the evolution of intelligence in dolphins, as it did in the development of humans.

[ViciousAnimus]

That's an interesting fact about dolphins. God is indeed creative with his creation.

[bailesie]

Wow.. Evolution debunked... I'm converted.

[4570sharps]

I'm sorry, did I miss something? Did this video claim to "debunk" evolution? The video simply attests to the wonder of God's creation & says NOTHING about evolution.

[zahir13]

That is fun to watch. Thanks!

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the lying movement called Creationism, which distorts Christianity for a vile political agenda.

[korzon]

Catholics run the world not Christians.They hate true beleivers and you the same.

[zahir13]

Wow. A totally absurd statement. Catholics run the US? The UK? Russia? China?  India? Really?

I'm assuming you think I "hate" true believers as well. Which is just as absurd--but I suspect believing that makes you feel better.

[4570sharps]

If we could document evolutionists who distort science for the sake of a "vile political agendas" would that make evolution a "lying movement"?

[zahir13]

No, most of all because Evolution is not a lie but an observable process in nature with tons and tons of evidence to back it up. Creationism on the other hand is a lie, a transparent deceit to anyone who approaches it with an open mind. Which is not to say all believers in Evolution are nice people. And I say this as a devout Christian.

[4570sharps]

Certainly there are some really bad creationists out there who appear to have been somewhat deceitful but so have many evolutionists. Do u speak of Young earth creationism, Old earth Creationism or Intelligent design when referring to "creationism"? With regard to evolution, what I hear u saying is that b/c we observe very small changes in an organism today then we have to assume that a single celled organism is the origin of all life on earth & that "tons & tons" of evidence will back this up??

[ReptilianFreemason]

@4570sharps

ALL forms of creationism are based on baseless lies & have nothing in the way of emprical evidence supporting any of their claims.

Give us some examples of "evolutionist" deceit.

I think you'll also find that the colossal mountain of evidence we have supporting evolution, equates to a little more to than just observing small changes within an organism. This just highlights your ignorance on the subject, therefore, why speak about something you don't understand so arrogantly?

[zahir13]

Actually we observe all kinds of mutation, including full speciation (i.e. new species) today. Evolution's tons and tons of evidence include fossils, cladology, genetics, anatomy, etc.

BTW, evolution does not deal with the origins of life. That is abiogenesis. That fundamental misunderstanding is typical of creationist's advocates. It is like complaining to a filmmaker about the design of your t.v. set.

[KnowledgeAddicted]

@zahir13 u should tell them what they are, cos i watch plenty of debates with evolutionists and what they say is that there is no evidence except of nice stories they call "elegant", forget tons of tons of evidence.

You really should watch some debates creationists-evolutionists and not only evolutionists materials where they give u million arguments that doesnt hold water in discussion with creationist

[zahir13]

I have watched such "debates" as well as actually studied the subject. Your characterization of these debates is precisely the kind of deceit I find rampant among the defenders of creationism. I suggest you look up the videos of AronRa and Thunderf00t for excellent precis' on evolutionary science as well as maybe a college course or two on the subject.

[KnowledgeAddicted]

@zahir13 i did, i know their vids very well. Not impressed.

By the way, i was evolutionist myself, and tunderfoot is the one i took my evolutionary arguments from. 2 years later, i translate creationist vids into polish, to share some knowledge thats being hide from people.

[zahir13]

Given your earlier statements, I frankly regard your judgment as unreliable. The tone of your comments have been of dismissal rather than actual reference to evidence--fossils, the genetic record, the system of cladology, etc. For instance, actual evolution that has been observed including punctuated equaliberia. You are spreading lies, because that is all creationism is--distortions and lies. For example, that THIS video is somehow evidence for creationism!

[KnowledgeAddicted]

@zahir13 "punctuated equaliberia" is an absolute nonsense, darwinism was at least logical, even if with no proves. even your guru richard dawkins admits that.

[zahir13]

Punctuated equaliberia HAS BEEN OBSERVED.

And if you are repeating the usual nonsense re: Richard Dawkins then you are engaging in what creationists routinely do--cherrypicking out of context. It is a form of deceit common in the movement. As I said, creationism is a pack of lies, and you are openly spreading of them.

[4570sharps]

When has punctuated equaliberia been observed?

[zahir13]

BAck in the 1970s, involving an accidental hybrid of two different kinds of seaweed. The resulting offspring were not only viable (i.e. fertile with one another, creating viable offspring themselves) but were totally different--combining the number of chromosomes of each original parent. An entirely new species created in one generation.

[Bereitwilligkeit]

Uhhhh? And which one turned into a Dolphin?

[KnowledgeAddicted]

@zahir13 "Punctuated equaliberia" HAS BEEN OBSERVED EVEROBODY!!! lol u dont hear that every day.

hopefully u're better in belly dancing then science. The name is "punctuated equilibrium" by the way.

[zahir13]

No answer to my point, but just mockery with a slight dig at me personally. Parr for the course with those defending Creationism.

And btw, I used the plural of equilibrium.

[ryan84160]

@KnowledgeAddicted Hopefully you are better fucking your sister THAN you are at speaking the English language.

[ReptilianFreemason]

@4570sharps

There's nothing stopping you moron, you are free to examine, test & either verify or debunk any claim you like as long as you have credible evidence.

Let's hear this evidence that's somehow managed to remain hidden from the scientific community for the past 150 yrs & makes you believe you have a greater understanding of biology than every biologist on the planet. We're all ears........oh, & when you've finished, feel free to go pick up your Nobel Prize.

[4570sharps]

Ha yes, I the smell of ruffled feathers, emotionalist intimidation tactics and ad hominem argumentation. My favorite!

As long as you ONLY assume pure scientific naturalism (which is the only presupposition allowed in the scientific community today) and God actually did supernaturally create, from nothing, a world predominantly governed by natural processes then how would you know?

[ReptilianFreemason]

@4570sharps

1> Ad-hominem argument? I'm addressing the fact you deny the demonstrably proven fact of evolution, how have you managed to perceive this as being an ad-hominem argument?

Firstly, you deny ALL evidence for evolution. Secondly you deny ALL evidence against creationism/young earth/intelligent design. Lastly you can't offer a single peer-reviewed paper submitted by a single creationist. This is mainly due to the fact that creationists REFUSE to submit their work for peer-review.....

[4570sharps]

Calling your opponent a 'moron' to preface everything else you say about them is Ad-Hominem. 2nd, facts are things like fossils and geological strata, evolution is theory. Who was it that said the following- "This just highlights your ignorance on the subject, therefore, why speak about something you don't understand so arrogantly?"

When did I deny "ALL" evidence for evolution? There is some merit to the theory, even for creationists. I deny evolution through pure scientific naturalism ;-)

[4570sharps]

Obviously, as I've already mentioned, if the fundamental bias I already pointed out above exists in modern science, then no creationist can get a fare 'trail' under current peer-review standards.

[SofaKingLoaded]

Bias my butt.. there is simply nothing to be peer reviewed.. Creationism is a Theory? Really?

How is it logically consistent or falsifiable? What are it's explicit boundary conditions? How is it empirically testable? What are it's verified predictions? It's reproducible results? It's criteria for interpreting data? What is it's paradigm or problem solving model? How is it consistent with preexisting, ancillary theories? How is it correctable, dynamic, tentative or even useful?

[SofaKingLoaded]

C'mon throw us a bone here..

Creationists don't get peer reviewed because not only can they not explain why it passes muster as legitimate scientific Theory.. they can't even describe WHAT THE HELL IT IS... aside of course, from god done it...

[4570sharps]

Exactly, Creationism is not just seeking to explain a unifying theory of biology, as evolution does. Its presuppositions require a much more over arching epistemology, i.e. God. Therefore creationists will always be better at poking holes in theories of biogenesis and naturalistic evolution then they will be at 'proving' the supernatural through the criteria of naturalism. But, then again, science is much better at disproving things than proving things too, isn't it?

[4570sharps]

U guys r REALLY good at putting words in peoples mouths, building straw man arguements & then shooting them down. The obvious problem w/ creationism is that is CAN NOT be a scientific theory b/c scientific theory must be a collection of concepts that are observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together w/ scientific laws that express relationships between observations of such concepts. Creationism goes beyond this, its the origin of all concepts, laws, logic, phenomena, etc.

[SofaKingLoaded]

It cannot be a scientific theory (agreed) but their "scientists" are being discriminated against in the "peer review process"? Again, peer review of what exactly?

"Creationism goes beyond this, its the origin of all concepts, laws, logic, phenomena, etc. "

So it explains exactly Nothing..

[4570sharps]

Could you please use all of your own criteria listed above and apply it to the evolution and origin of birds?

[ReptilianFreemason]

2> ....prior to publication, hence why it will NEVER be viewed as credible, scientific, impartial or most importantly, taught to kids in schools alongside real science.

How can intelligent debate possibly take place under such conditions?

[zahir13]

You are perfectly within your rights to presume an answer to certain scientific questions is "magic." However, science does not deal with magic and presumes that such does not exist.. You can believe otherwise, but you cannot call your belief science--and frankly it seems more sensible to see if some other explanation fits the facts FIRST. Since other explanations do and continue to work, I'll go with them. None of which threatens my Faith.

[4570sharps]

Sir, if you presume God exists (and you do) then logically that presupposition supersedes any belief is absolute 100% evolution through scientific naturalism. U r in fact admitting that "magic" (more appropriately termed as God's supernatural workings within His created naturalistic universe) and yet will not allow for that presupposition to find its expression in anything you deem "scientific". Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument, I understand the atheist but u sir I do not understand.

[zahir13]

I use Occam's Razor--the simpler explanation that explains all the known facts is usually the correct one. My own view is that God made (and is making) the cosmos and part of our duty is to understand the creation, not wave our hands and call it a miracle when we don't like the answers. Plenty of scientists are Christians and have zero problem with this.

[4570sharps]

If modern science were totally open to all view points then perhaps u could show me a dissertation or pear-reviewed work on the presence of carbon 14 in almost all known geological substances thought to be older then 100,000 years? There r so many other indicators of an earth far younger then 4 billion years & yet y does modern science exclude them? Would 2 billion years be enough time for biogenesis & naturalistic evolution to mathematically work itself out? How about 1 billion? 500 million?

[ReptilianFreemason]

@4570sharps

1* I really don't understand your point regarding carbon 14? Please explain. We have over 200 methods of dating, all confirming each other, are you telling us they're all wrong? We can split the atom, put man on the moon, probes on distant worlds, transplant organs yet when it comes to evolution & the dating of the earth, we somehow manage to get it so spectacularly wrong?? The accepted age of the earth hasn't been in question for over 50 years, confirmed using ever advancing....

[ReptilianFreemason]

2* ....independent technology.

Incidentally, i'm yet to hear a single person who isn't a fundamentalist voice ANY concern about evolution or dating methods. I think that speaks for itself ;)

What are these "indicators of an earth far younger than 4 billion years" old you mention? Without knowing of them i can only assume that they have been discredited by stonger, conflicting evidence & the peer-review system. You really need to start talking facts & specifics otherwise we'll get nowhere.

[4570sharps]

Fact, carbon 14 is present in all diamonds, a geological crystal said to be millions of years old. How is that possible and why does it seem as though no one in the modern scientific community is willing to investigate this? PLEASE note, no one is advocating Radiocarbon dating of diamonds, we're only asking how carbon 14 can still be present in them?

[ScottishAtheist]

4570sharps is it your sincerely held belief that 99.99% of the worlds scientists are purposely misleading themselves, each other, and the whole world - just so your delusion of creationism is true?

I mean, is there ever a point in the day when you say, "I know what I think makes no sense, but mommy and daddy said it was true, so it must be, it MUST be!"

Or do you like being a minority, because you can flip it around and pretend that you're extremely clever, and all of science are wrong? lol

[wimscheers]

Bottlenose Dolphins are also know for their outlandish sexual escapades, including homosexual behavior. Just for the record.

[4570sharps]

Well, sense dolphins don't possess the "Imago Dei" who cares? Even so, all of creation fell into corruption when man sinned.

Romans 8:20-21

"For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God."

[hersheybarblues]

All that primordial goo must have randomly formed Dolphins with their intellegence! The intellegence of man and beast, consciousness, conscious(at least in man) and the tremendous complexity of creation contradict Darwinian evolution. Either man and the beasts were directly created or God masterminded the evolutionary process.

[zahir13]

Um...no it doesn't and you clearly don't understand what Evolution means. For the record, I (like most Christians) see no conflict between Evolution and my Faith.

[4570sharps]

zahir13,  lets test the spirits of men here.

What would you say to me if I asked you the following question; Do I need to become a Christian to have eternity with God and if so, why?

[zahir13]

No, because ALL souls return to God and to God's eternal, unconditional and limitless love. However, if your heart and soul are not open to that love, then what you experience is Hell (for God did not make Hell, men did). Such is the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

[ReptilianFreemason]

What the hell does this have to do with debunking evolution??? You've really crowbarred that one in haven't you!

lol, shocking.