the only reason to insist it isn't, is that science debate does not allow super-natural explanations by default.
It's like someone asks you to discuss the color of milk, but warns you white is not an option.. and if you dare say 'let's test maybe it is white', you get 'but we KNOW it's not white, how stupid can you be'
what's wrong with having a bias? we're all human
before evolution had a proof, people went digging cause they believed it. that's bias too..
This is reality. The marines (I did not capitalize the word so as to show disrespect.) shell hospitals, mosques & orphanages. So? Why shouldn't they sodomize each other? In their perverse world of swappin' undies it makes perfect sense. [“The only traditions of the Royal Navy are rum, sodomy and the lash.” — Quote attributed to warmongering blimp & Prime Minister: Winston Churchill]
A son can impregnate his mother; a father cannot impregnate his son, therefore as logic dictates: to forbid a father & son from marrying makes no sense in this colorful world of homosexual rights of matrimony. To mar, to marry & to march across the multi-dimensional (perchance inter-dimensional) marshes what mingle, mix & mesh the spaces blank, hollow & vacuous into hyper-spacial & hyper-spherical realms restrict us from cannibalizing infants.
Conjecture is important as one can't revise, invent, innovate, improve upon, or correct without imagination. Without imagination what would be the current state of unnatural chemiatrics: hydrazine sulphate regarding cancer and the like? That's the answer. We postulate to fill in the blanks of what our meager senses are incapable of registering. Science is knowledge as perceived by humans. How might it be otherwise?
Abortion is the lynch pin upon which eu-genics is hinged. Are Human Beings THE premiere life-form of this planet: Earth? That's the question. Those who believe not condemn their unborn children to forceps & vacuum tubes to make room for snail darters & eaglets.
“All things weird are normal in this whore of cities.” — Eddie Constantine as secret agent 003 Lemmy Caution in Jean-Luc Godard's 1965 film “Alphaville”
How can anyone take Miller seriously anymore. One of the main supporting evidences for the theory of Darwinian evolution (morphology) that Miller uses is "junk DNA". he still has his article on his website despite the plethora of recent information that clearly refutes it.
I.D. will be verified within 10 years and the pseudo intellectual liberal philosophers that permeate science will have their "reasoning abilities" exposed to the entire world.
IN THE PROCESSING OF EVOLUTION one must have patience as the evolutionary process takes billions of years. People who work in universities say so. Before being hired as "people who work in universities" they are questioned about the evolutionary process. They agree with their interviewer that it takes billions of years. The interviewed and the interviewers are frustrated by how long the evolutionary process takes, which by the way is billions of years.
@TheWorldFarOff "IN THE PROCESSING OF EVOLUTION one must have patience as the evolutionary process takes billions of years"
Incorrect. You do not have billions of years. You have a few million (according to Gould) at the Cambrian explosion that you must account for. Then according to P.E. you can not include stasis (no evolution taking place) in your equation. Start at the end zone in a foot ball field (4.5BYA) and walk towards the other end zone, the Cambrian explosion is 80 yards away at 20YL
creationism is not science, creationsts dont use the scientific method, creationism is proven false and in science when a theory is proven false it has to be re examend and rewriten, but creationsts don do that, they say it has to be true by way of religious authority! real science is anti-athoritative!!! evolution has been proven true because of evedence, there is no evedence for creationism!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I invite anyone to read the responses that I have gotten to my intial string of posts. I believe they help demonstate that evolution is a major sacred cow, a belief system that to a large extent is adhered to because of hositility toward the idea of any Diety. Are you seeing science based answers? No, there is a lot of invective and faith based responses, no science at all. I have debated evo.ution for over 2 yrs, Abt 90% of the evo fans start that way & 99% will eventually end that way.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Drgamedood God means someone in control. There is 0 "in control" via so called evolution. Everything is accidental. God also means something supernatural. Evolution is founded squarely on naturalism, in fact that is why Miller & others are fighting tooth & nail to keep the very mention of supernatural possibilities out of the school systems. (All while, though, Miller claims to be a believer in Yeshua, aka Jesus, and can be seen on Colbert agreeing that "He created all that is.,.") Cont.
@LoricaLady "Everything is accidental" No, it's not. Natural Selection is the absolute anti-thesis of "accidental".
"supernatural possibilities" The supernatural is not observed anywhere. This means it comes ENTIRELY out of people's imagination. That makes the supernatural imaginary. And that's why it doesn't have a place in science class. Science is about reality.
And Miller is a Roman Catholic, yes. So you are kinda refuting yourself there. Clearly you can believe in god AND evolution.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Drgamedood Cont. Aristotle, a pagan, correctly gave us the 1st law of logic, namely, Two contradictory statements cannot both be true. It cannot both be true that things happened by accident and that YHWH, aka God (or any other "Diety") caused them to happen. In addition to that there is evidence everywhere, from the cellular level to us in complete form, of irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity cannot happen by accidental processes in nature. I will give just 1 ex. of i.c. Cont.
@LoricaLady "It cannot both be true that things happened by accident and that YHWH, aka God (or any other "Diety") caused them to happen"
Evolution by mutation and natural selection is a process that shapes species. Why is it so hard to do as the pope does and say that evolution is simply the mechanism by which god created the diversity of life?
"irreducible complexity" IC has been refuted and is also a blatant argument from ignorance fallacy, just fyi.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Drgamedood This is somewhat different from Michael Behe's example. Please look at a picture of the flagellar motor and whip. Now,let's say thata the motor that turns the whip and/or the whip are "emerging", i.e. starting to evolve. Let's say a little filament is formed on the whip, or a bump that theoretically aeons from now could turn into a whip. What good is it doing in the mean time? None. Why would evo drive a useless accident to completion. Ditto the motor. Cont.
@LoricaLady "Please look at a picture of the flagellar motor and whip" Please do your research. That (very old) argument from Behe has been explained and refuted. And for the record, even if we would not have an explanation right now, it doesn't mean that we won't find one tomorrow. Saying "i don't know" doesn't prove or disprove ANYTHING.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Drgamedood Cont. What could would an accidental "bump" be that is never going to be a motor until it is not only fully formed in it's own right, but fully connected to a fully completed whip? Why & how could accidental processes drive those two parts to completion, not only indidviduall, but synchronously, while they are totally useless? You, no one, will be able to explain how such things could happen. There is of course 0 data that it ever did or could. You are looking at a miracle. I.C.
"You, no one, will be able to explain how such things could happen" Again, even if accepting that as correct, saying 'I don't know' is NOT proving or disporving ANYTHING- except that it proves that there is something you don't have an explanation for (yet).
@LoricaLady "You are looking at a miracle" Interesting. I'ld like to go into that if you don't mind. This is interesting. Please answer these questions:
Do you define a "miracle" as something that can't be explained? If no, how DO you define a mircale? How do you recognise a "miracle"? What IS a "miracle"?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Drgamedood Friend, if you do believe in YHWH, aka God, you might want to ask yourself how thrilled He might be at having accidental products of nature being given the credit for His exquisite works. ;-)
@LoricaLady I believe evolution was his way of making life on earth. It's all a part of his plan. So this dichotomy between religion and science that idiots like yourself like to portray is a false one.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Drgamedood How does name calling further the purposes of science. I did not create the dichotomy. It was already there. I have given you an example of irreducible complexity. How can irrediucible complexity come about through random accidental processes? It cannot. You will not be able to explain to yourself how the flagellar whip & it's motor could evolve synch-ron-ously & use-less-ly for aeons thru so called evolution. Plz learn real science & some manners. You're on ignore. Bye!
Hey creatard ignoring the fact your fundy kids would never be smart enuff or you could ever afford (living in a very low income area, which just happens to havce alot of fundies) would you like your kids to go to Harvard or Yale? You know places that prove evolution!
@LoricaLady "...you might want to ask yourself how thrilled He might be at having accidental products of nature being given the credit for His exquisite works." This statement is intended to sarcastically evoke fear, which religion relies heavily upon. You might want to ask yourself how petty and small-minded God is if, knowing every experience we have ever had and every piece of evidence we have ever seen, He chooses to be insulted by those who draw incorrect conclusions—and condemn them.
@LoricaLady "a belief system that to a large extent is adhered to because of hositility toward the idea of any Diety" No, not because of any hostility to any of your imaginary friends... Just because it is infuriating that so many people deny solid scientific facts based on bronze age mythology and imaginary bullshit.
How would you feel if a dominant group in your culture suddenly starts to say that "gravity is bullshit, intelligent falling is the truth!!"? Or that 2+2 equals 5?
@LoricaLady "No, there is a lot of invective and faith based responses, no science at all." +200.000 peer reviewed papers, observed speciation instances in the lab as well as the wild, observed beneficial mutations in the lab as well as the wild, fossil record, phylogenetic tree, comparative anatomy, geographic spread of species, ... prove you incorrect about that.
@LoricaLady Can you show me the mechanisms, by which a supernatural being creates a fully functioning, complex organism? Only scientific explanations, please. Can you show me verifiable evidence, which proves, that supernatural powers have an effect on natural processes? Strictly scientific explanations, and no anecdotal hearsay, please. And straight forward answers, no sidetracking or answering with counter questions, please.
@LoricaLady hostility toward the idea of any Deity? I would have to agree with you on that one! Didn't Dawkins admit that we could be created by intelligent Design but NOT by God but by Aliens that evolved on there world and then created us? lol
@LoricaLady. Why don't you just use the early Christian tactic and stone people that don't read ur retarded book? ID, creationism, and the bible are fucking stupid^3
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Barkeroni Perhaps if you would learn to respond to science with science based reples, instead of obscenities & irrelevant insults, you would come out of the matrix. Hope so. In the meantime, however, you are on ignore. I do prefer to spend my time "debating" with those who are objective and civil and science based.
@LoricaLady keep rejecting clear evidence, science, OTHER theories to suit your worldview. Bottom line is you have absolutely no argument to support a creator. Imagine having a choice to either walk into a building with a library of info that supports ID, or walking into a building with info that supports evolution. You would have trouble absorbing all the material and evidence supporting evolution in your lifetime. ID, is basically 2 weeks of fairy tales and "please believe me!"
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Barkeroni I have been going thru the vid systematically addressing the acutal issues there. You sent me a post which is basically composed of ad hominems logical fallacies, and vague faith based statements. Would you care to say something that is scientific and civil to refute my posts. Or did you even read them? Maybe you think you can just dismiss dissenting voices, including scientists, without ever listening to them because you are so sure that you are right you don't have to think?
@LoricaLady I love this, you questioning a seasoned biologist to provide logical fallacies to you??? Lets start by breaking down the evolution theory. Please present me ONE fact, question, scratchie headie thought you may have that refutes evolution. I am asking for one! I could sit here all night and pick apart the bible, "intelligent" design, creationism, and all other jiberesh spouted by people like you. but in the end, it is basically arguing with someone that questions gravity.
@LoricaLady your idea of "thinking" is an agenda - believe this or you could perish. you are a perfect example of a brainwashed troll trying to put nonsense into young minds. Please give me one, simple, summed up, idea, thought, fact, that you believe a creator did all this. After your proof, we can move on to why it is the creator of Christianity. The god that condones slavery, murder etc...I have a copy of your bullshit Bible, I would never let my 12 year old read that rated X nonsense.
@Barkeroni //Why don't you just use the early Christian tactic and stone people that don't read ur retarded book? ID, creationism, and the bible are fucking stupid^3//
You realize that Ken Miller is Roman Catholic, right?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. 2nd, within just 20 min. you will see major evolutionists admitting that they have no actual proof for things like transitional forms, or evoltuion period. You will see them saying things like "We must not let a Divine foot in the door" along with those admissions. Very enlightening. Their adherence to their beliefs, while admitting they have no evidence for them, is one reason many say evolution is a religion - & my friends, they are working to make it the state religion.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
3:05 Miller says that if creationists believe that evolution leads to a decline of moral values then "it doesn't matter" about the science. B.S. again. If you believe that everything must have a material cause, if you are uncomfortable with any matches between Scriptures & the hard core data, then who says it "doesn't matter" for you if the evidence conflicts with your belief system? See my home page where Thermodynamic Arguments For Creation is posted. 1st, you will see both sides given.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. Compare both sides to the actual data that is out there, exposing where logical fallacies, theoreticals presented as scientific evidence & general illogic prevail. Yes, there are creation scientists, and in abundance. I would not like to have to count how many are on that site. They are just as degreed and experienced in science as evolutionists. But in this vid you are being led to believe it's all, & only, about belief systems - while evo is presented as being pure science. B.S..
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. Aside from all that MIller is giving the impression that the AIG, & other sites, are only & all about moral values. True, they give their beliefs in Scriptures right up front & they are free to come to their own conclusions about where Darwinism has been leading the nation. By far, however, most of the information is of a sceintific nature. This is the standard approach: Give the evoutionists' point of view with quotes & references. Give the creation scientists point of view. Cont.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
1:58 It is true that Answers in Genesis & some other creation websites believe there is a correlation between teaching evolution & moral decline. They get this, however, from evoltuionists like Darwin who was a blatant and genoicidal racist, from people like HItler & Marx who admired Darwin and used his beliefs to justify "survival of the fittest" as opposed to compassion and help for the weak, to present the image that they were the "more evolved" & deserving to live. Cont.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. People are very tired of having their children taught something as science when it is not, when it is actually ANTI scientific. They are fighting back. Evoevangelists can make all the videos & set up all the political battles they want. Most people (including those in court) will not see thru the logical fallacies, propaganda technqiues and generaly sophistry - well, let's call them what they really are, lies. But the truth will stay the same. Let those see who have eyes to see.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. We all know that many life forms have variant colors. The bug pinned to the tree trunk, the wonderful example - lie - of "evolution", was exactly the same as all the other bugs of different colors. No change in species. Nothing. Miller & Urey tried to prove biogenesis. They got the wrong handed kind of amino acids, the kind where life can never exist. They got great peer reviews! Little children were told their experiment showd life can come from nonlife. The list goes on and on.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. Let's see, wouldn't it be a LIE, as shown in the picture, to teach little children that something is science when it fact it is based on 0 evidence and in fact flies in the face of a LAW of scieince? Then the other lies, like the peppered moth was supposedly "evolving" due to the industrial revoltuion. Children were shown it pinned to a tree trunk - tho the bugs always stay in the tree tops. The color change that supposedly showed evolution had always existed. It was just a variant.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. It is commonly found in "science" books in school libraries, is presented as scientific fact on shows like Nova, and was mentioned as a reality on the Colbert show while Miller was there - though Miller never told the truth: it is anti scientific. 1st there is not one shred of evidence that life can come from inorganic matter, much less for the fictional primal pond "conditions". 100% of all times life is seen to come from life. Period. That is why there is a LAW of biogenesis.
Cont. If one in fact does know that comparing evolution to the true, operational, sciences is based on the logical fallacy of equivocation, but acts as if they are all the dame, then should one be teaching anything? Let's look at some ways in which people, especially little children, are taught to believe things are scientific when they actually are not testable, repeatable and/or observable and in fact fly in the fact of the laws of science. 1st the primal pond theory. Cont.
Cont, Correction - I meant to mark 1:25 as the place where Miller uses the logical fallacy of equivocation to ask his rhetorical Q. I believe he knows better, that he knows cell biology, physiology & organic chemistry aren't the same kind of "science" at all as evolution (which is the true pseudo science btw.) Those 3 are testable, repeatable, observable. They are operational sciences therefore, which evo is not. Let's see, if somoene doesn't know that, simple fact, should he teach science?
This is not a response to pseudo science. This talk comes from about a 2 hr. long vid. For the 1st 14 of it virutlaly no science is discussed. Instead Miller does a lot of self promo & mostly uses a barrage of propaganda techniques. In his attack on the man who claimed he would go to hell he uses, as he frequently does, the propaganda technique of ridicule, along with the poisoining the well strategy as this precedes the actual "science" part of the vid. 3:25? Why not cell biology, etc? Cont.
The W.T.C. Complex was a white elephant: always below maximum occupancy. E.P.A. was hounding the Towers' owners to remove the asbestos. The cost = 1 billion dollars. Acid-rain (acidic rain) has killed 100's of blades of grass!] I have a hunch that the plane that exploded near Pittsburgh, on Tuesday 11 Sept. 2001, was meant for W.T.C. Building #7.
During the process of succumbing to the chronic metabolic disease cancer, ignorant victims discover their true selves and the beauty of living life to the fullest by acknowledging each precious minute in the company of kith & kin. No one who craps out from gonorrhea does this.
The flagellar motor complexus is enough to frustrate frontal-bone-beaten-monkey-lovers in Dover & Santa Monica. Evolutionists (indoctrinates and congregants) can't differentiate between speculation and knowledge (knowledge of things that are physically/mathematically measured and/or measurable) as their grasp of the English language is threadbare at best.
That's the same bacterial flagellum that was created specifically to enable bacteria to kill humans, with people often dying in agony due to the nature of the diseases caused by the bacteria right? Whoever this designer is he's apparently a bit of a cunt.
Have i got this correct that you, a religious fundamentalist who's entire belief system is based on blind faith & unquestioned authority, is calling anybody who accepts the incontrovertible fact of evolution, "indoctrinated"? Are you also spuriously claiming the bacterial flagella to be irreducibly complex or are you being satirical?
Have i got this correct that you, a religious fundamentalist who's entire belief system is based on blind faith & unquestioned authority, is calling anybody who accepts the incontrovertible fact of evolution, "indoctrinated"? Are you also spuriously claiming the bacterial flagella to be irreducibly complex or are you being satirical?
The scientists haven't been able to find any transitional fossils. It is really embarrassing for them. So they play around with definitions as usual. Suddenly they say ALL organisms are "transitional." That just solves the whole problem. It's "Voila, we win, we proved evolution. We can all go home now." HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR If everything is transitional just why the hell are they still looking for the missing link? And getting all excited over Ida?
@MaximusArurealius Do you know why they are still looking for missing links? Because we weren't given all the answers. Several of them have already been found, but you simply can't expect every little piece of knowledge to be given to us in a silver platter, like primitive religions pretend to do. However, the information scientists have managed to find already is enough to safely conclude this fact is reliable. If it wasn't, you wouldn't even have modern biology.
1. Evolution is a dogmatic religious belief un-backed by science and supported only by radical atheism. Atheism, a dogmatic belief requires evolution to disprove God, all belief in God, and to attack religion. Atheists will foist any fake, tell any lie, commit any fraud to maintain the evolution hoax. Atheists tell us there are mountains of evidence for evolution and then point to silly drawings of monkeys getting taller or museum plaster statues of so-called early man, and this is their dogma.
2. Take for example the fact the evolutionists shriek and rail against design, but consider this, design presents no opposition to evolution whatsoever! The very concept of evolution is a design. You can see design even in their phony Phylogenetic Tree of Life. Design refutes atheism and that is their real bone of contention.
3. Next, atheists go into a frenzy that evolution is an "undirected process," then they say "evolution predicts" with childish pompous tones, as if it was lost in space, but now knows where it's going (how comic). Evolutionists accuse their opposition of "religious rigidity," this is merely an attack technique, a smoke screen, a logical fallacy used to forestall the argument, because they cannot defeat the science that rejects evolution, they must have this crutch to keep from falling flat.
4. Atheists falsely claim all science to themselves and accuse Christians of being anti-science, yet their inner circles work fastidiously to blackball scientists who are not of the Atheist religion. Their so-called peer review system, as we have seen with Climategate, is scandalously false and dishonest to it's very core. The main purpose is to defeat Christianity.
5. However, the majority of Christians have no doctrine concerning evolution. They are free to believe it or not. They are free to make up their minds with the use of science. Atheists on the other hand have no such freedom. They have no choice but to believe in evolution. For them evolution is a dogma. And all they have is weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, crying out "go read your Bible."
6. The eight hundred pound gorilla in the room is the fossil record. That is the only real scientific evidence of life and it's progression. They do not have even one series of any fossil showing an extended progression from one type of creature to another completely different creature. There should be thousands that are intuitively obvious to the casual observer without fabrication or storytelling. What do they have to date? They have nothing.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
7. The evolution scientists can no longer contain the lie that the fossil record supports evolution. They are already saying how unimportant the fossil record is and soon they won't even bring it up. It's the same with Abiogenesis, speciation, and the phenomena of infertility with the parent stock. All of those failed and so they distance themselves from them. Now they are even saying that no change is still evolution.
@MaximusArurealius "fossil record...soon they won't even bring it up" What a dumb ass thing to copy and paste. Did you get that from Kent Hovind? The fossil record only confirms the nested hierarchy that molecular biology shows idiot boy. Maybe you should stop paying taxed like brother Kent and see where that gets you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@hovindlake02 Nope, wrote it myself asshole. OH BULLL SHITTTT The fossil record shows no such as gradualism. Give up asshole you don't know anything about biology.
@MaximusArurealius You wrote that garbage all by yourself? Wow, you are even more stupider than I thought. Who said the fossil record shows only gradualism? You didn't read before you posted again did you? So what does the fossil record show? Animals poofed into existence all at once and then a big flood and then super evolution? Maybe that's YOUR theory but a theory is more than a guess idiot boy!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@foxlake02 Apparently you didn't read you idiot. Now go back and read what I wrote. No such thing as gradualism you lamebrain. You need to take my evolution test to prove you know something about evolution.
@MaximusArurealius You don't have a clue for what you copy and paste. No biologist believes in only gradualism or punctuated equilibrium. It's like the nature/nurture debate. The fact that you are crude and stupid isn't only your genetic makeup and it's not just the fact that you got abused as a child and you were home schooled. It is a combination of both. You may have turned out ok anyway if it wasn't for all that inbreeding.
@MaximusArurealius The fossil record shows more than enough transitional fossils for the honest skeptic. The problem is, your a damn liar who is afraid to look.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@foxlake02 I already looked asshole. There are NO transitional fossils. You can keep whining all you want, but that's not going to make them appear. The ONLY reason you believe in such is because you're relying on argument by authority. Somebody told you it is true and you can't get over the fact that whoever it was either lied to you or was an ignoramus.
@MaximusArurealius Argument by authority hey? You mean like when Kent Hovind says plants aren't really alive because they don't bleed or baby lizards will grow up to be fire breathing dragons? Is that the kind of authority you are talking about max? The transitions are obvious. Why don't you try going to a natural history museum or crack open a biology book idiot boy?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@foxlake02 hahahahaha You always get so wound up when you don't know what to say. BTW no, design is obvious, transitions are merely arguing the circle like the fundies do with the Bible. hahahahahhahaa HAR HAR HAR
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@OneStupidFuckingQuestion, whine whine whine, You're using what's called "The Sockpuppet Logical Fallacy" You know you can't win so you bitch about sockpuppets. Others bitch about religion instead when they lose, but not you. You cry about socks. You yell "troll" often too don't you? hahahahahahahaaa
@MaximusArurealius Cant win? Awe, I'm sorry little one, who gave you the idea that there was any kind of "something" going on between you and the rest of the world that you had a chance of winning or losing?
You cant deal with reality because you are too stupid and angry to even try... thats your fault.
Maybe you will grow up one of these days, but I doubt it.
@MaximusArurealius You are the idiot who said "no one gives a shit about tax evasion" on a Kent Hovind video. The fact that you defend his silly make believe stories tells me that you are a fundie yourself. Not to mention disregarding nested hierarchy, atavisms, ERVs and transitional fossils. Give it up stooooopid. You're a fundie AND a liar.
@MaximusArurealius No transitional fossils? Every single fossil is a transitional form. The thing is that you fail to realize stuff doesn't magically shift form from a generation to another. It's a periodic process. Claiming there aren't any transitional fossils only demonstrates you have no clue about how evolution works. Science doesn't need arguments from authorities, because it's observable by anyone. If you prefer to stick to primitive bronze age myths, that's your call.
@hellbellz222, "Every single fossil is a transitional form" HAR HAR HAR HAR you're completely brainwashed. hahahahaha how fucking stupid. Listen closely. I'll say it slowly...there...... are..... no.... transitional..... fossils. OK? Transitional fossils are an assumption. If evolution were true there would be transitional fossils, but they haven't found a single one to date.
Transitional fossils are an assumption and only an assumption. They assume evolution is true. This called circular logic. If a creationist tried such a thing the evolutionists would be all up in arms. So why are they using circular logic? Not one of those transitionals can be proved to be a transitional. Go find a large group of living turtles, all different sizes and varieties. Line them up and "voila" EVOLUTION! Get the picture?
"If I knew of any Evolutionary transitional's, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them in my book, 'Evolution' " -- Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils
The scientists can no longer contain the lie that the fossil record supports evolution. They are already saying how unimportant the fossil record is and soon they won't even bring it up. It's the same with abiogenesis, speciation, and the phenomena of infertility with the parent stock. All of those failed and so they distance themselves from them. Now they are even saying that no change is still evolution.
@DumbHammer, why do you think Gould came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium? It's his explanation for why they couldn't find any transitional fossils.
@MaximusArurealius You still don't get it, do you? Every single ancestor, every single living thing, is a transitional form to something else, even us. You simply can't expect 3 perfectly distinguishable species to pop out of a single one within a few generations. Nobody said evolution happened at the same steady state always, so i don't even see how punctuated equilibrium can be relevant in studying transitional forms.
@MaximusArurealius An example of your way of thinking, and how it can be easily proven that every fossil is a transitional form: Lets take 15 different stages of human evolution. When asked about the first 5 and the last 5, people can usually tell consistently it's a primitive ape, or a human. However, when asked about the middle ones, opinions are usually divided. They simply can't agree wether it's a developed ape or an underdeveloped human.
@MaximusArurealius Point being, people usually think evolution means a new species magically popped out of another one instantly, or within very few generations, which is simply not the case. Several transitional forms have already been acknowledged by the scientific comunity, but you can't expect every single fossil to be found. Kinda like a 1000 piece puzzle which has around 150 pieces missing. You can tell the overall figure the puzzle forms, but there are still those 150 pieces to be found.
@MaximusArurealius Change over time is a fact, verified and acknowledged by the scientific comunity. Evolution is the backbone of modern biology, so i don't even understand why do creationists insist on debunking it with childish arguments that simply can't be proven, such as imaginary friends (aka gods). What is funny is that they usually think disproving evolution will automatically prove their fantasies real, like evolution's aim was to destroy the primitive myths it happens to debunk.
@MaximusArurealius "There are more than enough transitional forms to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy. The fact that you are an ignorant knot teacher who is afraid to look and lies about it is your problem." Stephen J Gould Natural History, May 1994
@MaximusArurealius "If you had given me a blank piece of paper and a blank check, I could not have drawn you a theoretical intermediate any better or more convincing than Ambulocetus. MaximusMagoo who by verbal trickery can make white black, and black white, will never be convinced of anything, but Ambulocetus is the very animal that he proclaimed impossible in theory." Gould- Natural History, May 1994
Don't know why this is a top-rated comment. Yes, it displays the right sentiments, but with the wrong attitude...
Yes, the religious and deluded need to be approached firmly and rationally.
But ad homs will only further alienate them from the truth, by impregnating their minds with the notion that Atheists are mostly angry, mouthy misanthropes.
Stating that a MORON, is a MORON, is not an ad hominem by definition. i didn't attack his character in order to disprove his arguments. that would be an ad hominem.
i think you should study a little bit more before trying to write, kid.
You and I are both intelligent people, yet you feel the need to make this haughty distinction between us by saying "I think you should study a little bit more before trying to write, kid," as if to imply that I am a child and somehow am incapable of writing. You also felt the need to capitalize "MORON" as if doing so would somehow make your assessment more accurate.
This... grumpiness is an emotion; these comprise otherwise-rational folk.
So chill. I merely suggested that you be a bit nicer.
Emotions are an innate part of our brains. We can't avoid them. In fact... being rational is to be able to control how to control those emotions.
as i said.... stating that maxtard is a MORON, is a statement of fact.
talk to him, you will see what i am talking about. Maxitard is a loser, who doesn't give a shit about science. He is just the typical creationist zealot of the worst kind. it's for you to play with.
so...stop bothering me. suggestion: try talk to max.
Sorry if you felt bothered. I just feel that there are many people like you who have the intelligence to spread logic and reason to the square footage around them, but not the patience to deal with that volatile substance we might call "stupidity" properly.
For a funny summary of what I'm trying to say, search for "Dawkins vs. Tyson". I'm only trying to say to you what Neil DeGrasse Tyson is trying to say to Richard Dawkins in that vid.
well... you clearly ignore what Dawkins said to Tyson:
It's facts, if you don't like it, you can fuck off, to paraphrase Dawkins.
People like maxtard don't want to listen to logic or reason, they live isolated and powerless in their little corner. youtube is just a small window they have to the world, and they shroud themselves in anonymity
they are just toys for us to play with. i do spread knowledge to students. i do teach those who want to listen.maxtard, doesn't want to listen
My entire point revolves around the fact that people like that don't want to listen because some science advocates insult them and seem condescending and angry. Much like someone saying "If you don't like science, fuck off." It just isn't very compelling.
If I didn't already like science, and someone gave me that argument, it wouldn't convince me, whereas eloquently stated arguments posed by people like Tyson would.
your logic is wrong. max is not a kid. an adult not wanting to listen about the laws of his countries or not recognizing the laws, it's irrelevant. because ignorance or denial of laws or facts, is not an excuse. unless you are mentally insane, that is.
"isn't very compelling"? and who gives a fuck about that? maxtard is an adult. i am not forcing him to learn.
maybe your personality is afraid of talking to max or to learn the difference between adults and children.
This guy who you have interchangeably referred to as "max" and "maxtard" may not be a child, but he once was. And the likely reason for his views was that as a child, he was indoctrinated into believing them. Perhaps it isn't. But the point is, is that there is a whole range of reasons that an adult might be willfully-ignorant. Perhaps they have never had the logical, reasonable side of the coin explained to them in non-hostile terms that they can understand.
Innocent and naive? Why? Because I'm not as hostile/angry in my ways? Because I choose to debate the types of people who'll listen to reason, rather than the types of people who apparently don't? I fight for the same cause as you. Just differently. Do you have data on which approach is better? Or are you just convinced by yourself? These things need to be discussed, and I'm not naive for wanting to discuss them. It's an opportunity for new knowledge. Something you should support.
the thing to be discussed, is HOW an adult become like maxtard. A person with low cognitive capacity and CLEAR persistent delusions solely supported on the religious nonsense of "God did it".
I think it's because the secular govt doesn't enforce regulations in order to put aside religious nonsense out of schools.
But the true thing i see here is: religion is dying. Individuals like maxtard, utter morons, are left overs of what isolated religious communities produced.
Also, I just attempted to entertain your suggestion and talk to him, however, numerous comments on his channel state that he is a troll, and is falsely heralding utterly false beliefs for the sake of enraging people like us.
I suppose he's succeeded. Perhaps that's why he seemed so incurably stupid to you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
8. Without the fossil record, they have nothing. They fabricate the theory of transitional fossils, but cannot prove a single one to be transitional. This is embarrassing for them. So here's what they have done. They simply make an ex cathedra pronouncement, "All organisms are transitional. Now everyone can go home. We've proved evolution, whoopee!"
@YaWhatIThoughtYa Greetiongs fromGermany, and I totally agree! He is precious for doing so! It is truly RELIEVING, to perceive that faith-infected brains can still work properly, and I am in awe! For this reason I have a LOT OF appreciation for the TRUE Christians, iow: Roman-Catholics ♥♥♥♥♥♥ and Lutheran Protestants.♥♥♥♥♥♥
I think Ken Miller misses the point quiet badly here. If you have no religious belief then you can adopt evolution relatively easily (and not too critically). If you have a religious belief you have to take on a lot more - including the moral implications.
"It cannot test those claims since they are unrepeatable events"
It can test those claims very easily by reviewing evidence(as I have shown).
This evidence, as you have said, is available to everyone but some, like yourself, ignore it and claim it is just coming from a "predetermined conclusion." Science has heroes, but not prophets. In the scientific world no one and no theory is above criticism and all are subject to good evidence and good argument.
@OgeronimonominoregO "I didn't ignore it. I asked you questions about it which you refused to answer"
No you didn't ask questions about the evidence, your response was:
"None of those prove common ancestry."
Nice try though. You dismissed the evidence and methods of demonstrating common ancestry out of hand. Again, I cannot teach you years of biological sciences in 300 characters especially if you dismiss science out of hand because it doesn't agree with your conclusion.
@OgeronimonominoregO You repeatedly ignore all evidence presented and then ask for an impossible standard of proof. All the evidence I discussed previously(that you ignore) tells a story, whether you accept it is your problem, you are not worth my time.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Kurpalac "You repeatedly ignore all the evidence presented and then ask for an impossible standard of proof." You crack me up. Your theory is impossible, that's why it can't meet a standard of proof.
Your argument is fallacious you just don't see it. The burden of proof is completely on you. Science deals only with the natural world - it must be testable.
There are MANY other possibilities/explanations about to the origin of life, many of which as equally devoid of evidence as the concept of Biblical Creation - should science have to disprove those as well? No, the burden of proof is on the people representing those arguments.
@OgeronimonominoregO "then how can it make claims about the *origin* of the natural world?"
Common descent isn't testable only according to YOU. It is very easily testable and has been done thousands of times. Your willingness to ignore the overwhelming evidence of common descent is your problem, not one of science. We can use genetics, zoology, paleontology, even basic breeding practices of domestic animals to see the common descent of life forms.
You can watch the video I posted on Human chromosome #2 for one example of a prediction that evolution made and what the evidence shows. You can also compare our DNA to that of other great apes and see how closely related we are. You can also compare the insertion of viral DNA in the human genome and see the exact same insertion points in the Chimpanzee. If you REALLY are interested, take a zoology class or even and entry level college biology course even.
@OgeronimonominoregO I very clearly demonstrated ways to test common ancestry and all you reply with is "None of those prove common ancestry." Our common ancestor lived somewhere between 5-7 mya - I don't know EXACTLY what species it was - but the fact that we share common ancestry with the other great apes is irrefutable unless you believe in an intentionally deceptive God or Goddess who is trying to trick us. It is not assumed, it what the best evidence demonstrates.
@Kurpalac How did you test common ancestry? You just asserted it. There's nothing to test against. Do you have the DNA of the supposed common ancestor? Do you have a specimen? Tell me how you TEST that an unknown unseen supposed common ancestor between two living non-interbreeding species exists. All you are doing is imposing a particular worldview on every piece of data. This is demonstrated by the fact that dissimilarity between species is ALSO "evidence" of CA.
@OgeronimonominoregO Further, if you want a working model of evolution look at artificial selection in breeding animals. The domesticated dog, in all of its many forms, is a descendant of the wolf(genetic testing and human history confirm). Every member of this breed comes from a common ancestor yet you have a Boston Terrier and a German Shepherd - two animals that if in the wild would be categorized as different species - sharing common ancestry.
If you continue to make baseless unfounded comments unrelated to the video presented I will block you. Thank you to those who have kept this a respectful discussion.
Why is this even a debate? You don't "believe" in evolution. You accept it as a scientific theory or not. And technically you don't even do that -- you accept science or you don't. And in science the only reason you don't accept the accepted theory is if you are researching a contradictory theory or another theory contradicts with it in the first place, in which case it is not accepted science anyways. So unless creationists are opposed to the scientific method, they have no excuse.
@Houshalter when we mean believe it is for the sake of distinguishing ourselves. this need simply rises because there are religious people who dont accept it which in essence, respective to them, is not believing.
@hislord, well its really annoying when we have to put up with changes in our terminology just because a bunch of insane people make up a significant part of our population.
i have always seen science to be a independent of faith. science does not dictate if gods true or not, its what people make of their beliefs, their close mindedness. im a evolutionary biologist at cambridge university, my brother is a professor of physics at oxford university. both of us are regular church goers and whole heartedly believe in evolution and the big bang theory.
the bible does not say that god created you personally, in the sense that he forms you with his own hands. i believe that evolution was the mechanism that executed that plan that god had to bring us into being. science is fact religion is beyond fact. i believe in god for personal reasons, because god seems very real to me, it surpasses a just the feeling of him being real. its beyond that absurdity of talking snakes.
Hahaa! That book-cover was hilarious! "The Talking Snake" was there to teach "evil evolution" to someone! Great!: )
winterstellar 4 months ago
yes, ID is directly tied to religion.
the only reason to insist it isn't, is that science debate does not allow super-natural explanations by default.
It's like someone asks you to discuss the color of milk, but warns you white is not an option.. and if you dare say 'let's test maybe it is white', you get 'but we KNOW it's not white, how stupid can you be'
what's wrong with having a bias? we're all human
before evolution had a proof, people went digging cause they believed it. that's bias too..
1whitemoon 5 months ago 2
There sure is a lot of 'copy/paste' going on in the comments from religious know-nothings.
Dionysus187 5 months ago 16
This is reality. The marines (I did not capitalize the word so as to show disrespect.) shell hospitals, mosques & orphanages. So? Why shouldn't they sodomize each other? In their perverse world of swappin' undies it makes perfect sense. [“The only traditions of the Royal Navy are rum, sodomy and the lash.” — Quote attributed to warmongering blimp & Prime Minister: Winston Churchill]
OneDollarBook 5 months ago
A son can impregnate his mother; a father cannot impregnate his son, therefore as logic dictates: to forbid a father & son from marrying makes no sense in this colorful world of homosexual rights of matrimony. To mar, to marry & to march across the multi-dimensional (perchance inter-dimensional) marshes what mingle, mix & mesh the spaces blank, hollow & vacuous into hyper-spacial & hyper-spherical realms restrict us from cannibalizing infants.
OneDollarBook 5 months ago
Conjecture is important as one can't revise, invent, innovate, improve upon, or correct without imagination. Without imagination what would be the current state of unnatural chemiatrics: hydrazine sulphate regarding cancer and the like? That's the answer. We postulate to fill in the blanks of what our meager senses are incapable of registering. Science is knowledge as perceived by humans. How might it be otherwise?
OneDollarBook 5 months ago
Abortion is the lynch pin upon which eu-genics is hinged. Are Human Beings THE premiere life-form of this planet: Earth? That's the question. Those who believe not condemn their unborn children to forceps & vacuum tubes to make room for snail darters & eaglets.
TheWorldFarOff 5 months ago
“All things weird are normal in this whore of cities.” — Eddie Constantine as secret agent 003 Lemmy Caution in Jean-Luc Godard's 1965 film “Alphaville”
TheWorldFarOff 5 months ago
How can anyone take Miller seriously anymore. One of the main supporting evidences for the theory of Darwinian evolution (morphology) that Miller uses is "junk DNA". he still has his article on his website despite the plethora of recent information that clearly refutes it.
I.D. will be verified within 10 years and the pseudo intellectual liberal philosophers that permeate science will have their "reasoning abilities" exposed to the entire world.
Miller has no idea what is needed to prove EVO
toobsucker 5 months ago
IN THE PROCESSING OF EVOLUTION one must have patience as the evolutionary process takes billions of years. People who work in universities say so. Before being hired as "people who work in universities" they are questioned about the evolutionary process. They agree with their interviewer that it takes billions of years. The interviewed and the interviewers are frustrated by how long the evolutionary process takes, which by the way is billions of years.
TheWorldFarOff 6 months ago
@TheWorldFarOff "IN THE PROCESSING OF EVOLUTION one must have patience as the evolutionary process takes billions of years"
Incorrect. You do not have billions of years. You have a few million (according to Gould) at the Cambrian explosion that you must account for. Then according to P.E. you can not include stasis (no evolution taking place) in your equation. Start at the end zone in a foot ball field (4.5BYA) and walk towards the other end zone, the Cambrian explosion is 80 yards away at 20YL
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker : Proper evolution, chemical & otherwise, requires extraordinary patience.
TheWorldFarOff 5 months ago
@TheWorldFarOff "Proper evolution, chemical & otherwise, requires extraordinary patience."
Why have not the multi millions of generation years of fruit flies & singled celled organism produced it?
We have bacteria with 250MYO DNA identical to modern bacteria DNA. We have living fossils over 500MYO
The reason why P.E. was invented is because this mythical morphology does not exist
Stasis is the predominate feature in the fossil record because stasis is the predominate feature in DNA
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker : You'll change your tune in 2.5 billion years.
TheWorldFarOff 5 months ago
@TheWorldFarOff "You'll change your tune in 2.5 billion years. "
You will change yours within 20 years. Remember that prediction
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker
What, are you psychic now or did God tell you?
im1penguin 1 week ago
creationism is not science, creationsts dont use the scientific method, creationism is proven false and in science when a theory is proven false it has to be re examend and rewriten, but creationsts don do that, they say it has to be true by way of religious authority! real science is anti-athoritative!!! evolution has been proven true because of evedence, there is no evedence for creationism!
pbrskater26 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I invite anyone to read the responses that I have gotten to my intial string of posts. I believe they help demonstate that evolution is a major sacred cow, a belief system that to a large extent is adhered to because of hositility toward the idea of any Diety. Are you seeing science based answers? No, there is a lot of invective and faith based responses, no science at all. I have debated evo.ution for over 2 yrs, Abt 90% of the evo fans start that way & 99% will eventually end that way.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady I believe in God and evolution. :)
You sir, have just been refuted.
Drgamedood 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Drgamedood God means someone in control. There is 0 "in control" via so called evolution. Everything is accidental. God also means something supernatural. Evolution is founded squarely on naturalism, in fact that is why Miller & others are fighting tooth & nail to keep the very mention of supernatural possibilities out of the school systems. (All while, though, Miller claims to be a believer in Yeshua, aka Jesus, and can be seen on Colbert agreeing that "He created all that is.,.") Cont.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady "Everything is accidental" No, it's not. Natural Selection is the absolute anti-thesis of "accidental".
"supernatural possibilities" The supernatural is not observed anywhere. This means it comes ENTIRELY out of people's imagination. That makes the supernatural imaginary. And that's why it doesn't have a place in science class. Science is about reality.
And Miller is a Roman Catholic, yes. So you are kinda refuting yourself there. Clearly you can believe in god AND evolution.
ScientificBob 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Drgamedood Cont. Aristotle, a pagan, correctly gave us the 1st law of logic, namely, Two contradictory statements cannot both be true. It cannot both be true that things happened by accident and that YHWH, aka God (or any other "Diety") caused them to happen. In addition to that there is evidence everywhere, from the cellular level to us in complete form, of irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity cannot happen by accidental processes in nature. I will give just 1 ex. of i.c. Cont.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady "It cannot both be true that things happened by accident and that YHWH, aka God (or any other "Diety") caused them to happen"
Evolution by mutation and natural selection is a process that shapes species. Why is it so hard to do as the pope does and say that evolution is simply the mechanism by which god created the diversity of life?
"irreducible complexity" IC has been refuted and is also a blatant argument from ignorance fallacy, just fyi.
ScientificBob 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Drgamedood This is somewhat different from Michael Behe's example. Please look at a picture of the flagellar motor and whip. Now,let's say thata the motor that turns the whip and/or the whip are "emerging", i.e. starting to evolve. Let's say a little filament is formed on the whip, or a bump that theoretically aeons from now could turn into a whip. What good is it doing in the mean time? None. Why would evo drive a useless accident to completion. Ditto the motor. Cont.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady "Please look at a picture of the flagellar motor and whip" Please do your research. That (very old) argument from Behe has been explained and refuted. And for the record, even if we would not have an explanation right now, it doesn't mean that we won't find one tomorrow. Saying "i don't know" doesn't prove or disprove ANYTHING.
ScientificBob 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Drgamedood Cont. What could would an accidental "bump" be that is never going to be a motor until it is not only fully formed in it's own right, but fully connected to a fully completed whip? Why & how could accidental processes drive those two parts to completion, not only indidviduall, but synchronously, while they are totally useless? You, no one, will be able to explain how such things could happen. There is of course 0 data that it ever did or could. You are looking at a miracle. I.C.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady Whatch and learn: watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
"You, no one, will be able to explain how such things could happen" Again, even if accepting that as correct, saying 'I don't know' is NOT proving or disporving ANYTHING- except that it proves that there is something you don't have an explanation for (yet).
ScientificBob 9 months ago
@LoricaLady "You are looking at a miracle" Interesting. I'ld like to go into that if you don't mind. This is interesting. Please answer these questions:
Do you define a "miracle" as something that can't be explained? If no, how DO you define a mircale? How do you recognise a "miracle"? What IS a "miracle"?
ScientificBob 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Drgamedood Friend, if you do believe in YHWH, aka God, you might want to ask yourself how thrilled He might be at having accidental products of nature being given the credit for His exquisite works. ;-)
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady I believe evolution was his way of making life on earth. It's all a part of his plan. So this dichotomy between religion and science that idiots like yourself like to portray is a false one.
Drgamedood 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Drgamedood How does name calling further the purposes of science. I did not create the dichotomy. It was already there. I have given you an example of irreducible complexity. How can irrediucible complexity come about through random accidental processes? It cannot. You will not be able to explain to yourself how the flagellar whip & it's motor could evolve synch-ron-ously & use-less-ly for aeons thru so called evolution. Plz learn real science & some manners. You're on ignore. Bye!
LoricaLady 9 months ago
@LoricaLady
Hey creatard ignoring the fact your fundy kids would never be smart enuff or you could ever afford (living in a very low income area, which just happens to havce alot of fundies) would you like your kids to go to Harvard or Yale? You know places that prove evolution!
gorilla199uncensored 9 months ago
@LoricaLady '' come about through random accidental processes?''
First, Evolution is not '' through random accidental processes''
Second, nothing is 'irrediucible complex'' You just don't know how it happened.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@LoricaLady "...you might want to ask yourself how thrilled He might be at having accidental products of nature being given the credit for His exquisite works." This statement is intended to sarcastically evoke fear, which religion relies heavily upon. You might want to ask yourself how petty and small-minded God is if, knowing every experience we have ever had and every piece of evidence we have ever seen, He chooses to be insulted by those who draw incorrect conclusions—and condemn them.
SamcasticAtGmail 9 months ago
@LoricaLady "a belief system that to a large extent is adhered to because of hositility toward the idea of any Diety" No, not because of any hostility to any of your imaginary friends... Just because it is infuriating that so many people deny solid scientific facts based on bronze age mythology and imaginary bullshit.
How would you feel if a dominant group in your culture suddenly starts to say that "gravity is bullshit, intelligent falling is the truth!!"? Or that 2+2 equals 5?
ScientificBob 9 months ago
@LoricaLady "No, there is a lot of invective and faith based responses, no science at all." +200.000 peer reviewed papers, observed speciation instances in the lab as well as the wild, observed beneficial mutations in the lab as well as the wild, fossil record, phylogenetic tree, comparative anatomy, geographic spread of species, ... prove you incorrect about that.
ScientificBob 9 months ago 2
@LoricaLady Can you show me the mechanisms, by which a supernatural being creates a fully functioning, complex organism? Only scientific explanations, please. Can you show me verifiable evidence, which proves, that supernatural powers have an effect on natural processes? Strictly scientific explanations, and no anecdotal hearsay, please. And straight forward answers, no sidetracking or answering with counter questions, please.
leungchaan 8 months ago
@LoricaLady hostility toward the idea of any Deity? I would have to agree with you on that one! Didn't Dawkins admit that we could be created by intelligent Design but NOT by God but by Aliens that evolved on there world and then created us? lol
Crazywoodman 8 months ago
@LoricaLady Oh ok.
wowamonn 8 months ago
@LoricaLady. Why don't you just use the early Christian tactic and stone people that don't read ur retarded book? ID, creationism, and the bible are fucking stupid^3
Barkeroni 10 months ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Barkeroni Perhaps if you would learn to respond to science with science based reples, instead of obscenities & irrelevant insults, you would come out of the matrix. Hope so. In the meantime, however, you are on ignore. I do prefer to spend my time "debating" with those who are objective and civil and science based.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady keep rejecting clear evidence, science, OTHER theories to suit your worldview. Bottom line is you have absolutely no argument to support a creator. Imagine having a choice to either walk into a building with a library of info that supports ID, or walking into a building with info that supports evolution. You would have trouble absorbing all the material and evidence supporting evolution in your lifetime. ID, is basically 2 weeks of fairy tales and "please believe me!"
Barkeroni 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Barkeroni I have been going thru the vid systematically addressing the acutal issues there. You sent me a post which is basically composed of ad hominems logical fallacies, and vague faith based statements. Would you care to say something that is scientific and civil to refute my posts. Or did you even read them? Maybe you think you can just dismiss dissenting voices, including scientists, without ever listening to them because you are so sure that you are right you don't have to think?
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady I love this, you questioning a seasoned biologist to provide logical fallacies to you??? Lets start by breaking down the evolution theory. Please present me ONE fact, question, scratchie headie thought you may have that refutes evolution. I am asking for one! I could sit here all night and pick apart the bible, "intelligent" design, creationism, and all other jiberesh spouted by people like you. but in the end, it is basically arguing with someone that questions gravity.
Barkeroni 10 months ago
@LoricaLady your idea of "thinking" is an agenda - believe this or you could perish. you are a perfect example of a brainwashed troll trying to put nonsense into young minds. Please give me one, simple, summed up, idea, thought, fact, that you believe a creator did all this. After your proof, we can move on to why it is the creator of Christianity. The god that condones slavery, murder etc...I have a copy of your bullshit Bible, I would never let my 12 year old read that rated X nonsense.
Barkeroni 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Barkeroni //Why don't you just use the early Christian tactic and stone people that don't read ur retarded book? ID, creationism, and the bible are fucking stupid^3//
You realize that Ken Miller is Roman Catholic, right?
BronyEditor 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. 2nd, within just 20 min. you will see major evolutionists admitting that they have no actual proof for things like transitional forms, or evoltuion period. You will see them saying things like "We must not let a Divine foot in the door" along with those admissions. Very enlightening. Their adherence to their beliefs, while admitting they have no evidence for them, is one reason many say evolution is a religion - & my friends, they are working to make it the state religion.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
3:05 Miller says that if creationists believe that evolution leads to a decline of moral values then "it doesn't matter" about the science. B.S. again. If you believe that everything must have a material cause, if you are uncomfortable with any matches between Scriptures & the hard core data, then who says it "doesn't matter" for you if the evidence conflicts with your belief system? See my home page where Thermodynamic Arguments For Creation is posted. 1st, you will see both sides given.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. Compare both sides to the actual data that is out there, exposing where logical fallacies, theoreticals presented as scientific evidence & general illogic prevail. Yes, there are creation scientists, and in abundance. I would not like to have to count how many are on that site. They are just as degreed and experienced in science as evolutionists. But in this vid you are being led to believe it's all, & only, about belief systems - while evo is presented as being pure science. B.S..
LoricaLady 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. Aside from all that MIller is giving the impression that the AIG, & other sites, are only & all about moral values. True, they give their beliefs in Scriptures right up front & they are free to come to their own conclusions about where Darwinism has been leading the nation. By far, however, most of the information is of a sceintific nature. This is the standard approach: Give the evoutionists' point of view with quotes & references. Give the creation scientists point of view. Cont.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
1:58 It is true that Answers in Genesis & some other creation websites believe there is a correlation between teaching evolution & moral decline. They get this, however, from evoltuionists like Darwin who was a blatant and genoicidal racist, from people like HItler & Marx who admired Darwin and used his beliefs to justify "survival of the fittest" as opposed to compassion and help for the weak, to present the image that they were the "more evolved" & deserving to live. Cont.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. People are very tired of having their children taught something as science when it is not, when it is actually ANTI scientific. They are fighting back. Evoevangelists can make all the videos & set up all the political battles they want. Most people (including those in court) will not see thru the logical fallacies, propaganda technqiues and generaly sophistry - well, let's call them what they really are, lies. But the truth will stay the same. Let those see who have eyes to see.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. We all know that many life forms have variant colors. The bug pinned to the tree trunk, the wonderful example - lie - of "evolution", was exactly the same as all the other bugs of different colors. No change in species. Nothing. Miller & Urey tried to prove biogenesis. They got the wrong handed kind of amino acids, the kind where life can never exist. They got great peer reviews! Little children were told their experiment showd life can come from nonlife. The list goes on and on.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. Let's see, wouldn't it be a LIE, as shown in the picture, to teach little children that something is science when it fact it is based on 0 evidence and in fact flies in the face of a LAW of scieince? Then the other lies, like the peppered moth was supposedly "evolving" due to the industrial revoltuion. Children were shown it pinned to a tree trunk - tho the bugs always stay in the tree tops. The color change that supposedly showed evolution had always existed. It was just a variant.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. It is commonly found in "science" books in school libraries, is presented as scientific fact on shows like Nova, and was mentioned as a reality on the Colbert show while Miller was there - though Miller never told the truth: it is anti scientific. 1st there is not one shred of evidence that life can come from inorganic matter, much less for the fictional primal pond "conditions". 100% of all times life is seen to come from life. Period. That is why there is a LAW of biogenesis.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
Cont. If one in fact does know that comparing evolution to the true, operational, sciences is based on the logical fallacy of equivocation, but acts as if they are all the dame, then should one be teaching anything? Let's look at some ways in which people, especially little children, are taught to believe things are scientific when they actually are not testable, repeatable and/or observable and in fact fly in the fact of the laws of science. 1st the primal pond theory. Cont.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
Cont, Correction - I meant to mark 1:25 as the place where Miller uses the logical fallacy of equivocation to ask his rhetorical Q. I believe he knows better, that he knows cell biology, physiology & organic chemistry aren't the same kind of "science" at all as evolution (which is the true pseudo science btw.) Those 3 are testable, repeatable, observable. They are operational sciences therefore, which evo is not. Let's see, if somoene doesn't know that, simple fact, should he teach science?
LoricaLady 10 months ago
This is not a response to pseudo science. This talk comes from about a 2 hr. long vid. For the 1st 14 of it virutlaly no science is discussed. Instead Miller does a lot of self promo & mostly uses a barrage of propaganda techniques. In his attack on the man who claimed he would go to hell he uses, as he frequently does, the propaganda technique of ridicule, along with the poisoining the well strategy as this precedes the actual "science" part of the vid. 3:25? Why not cell biology, etc? Cont.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We have absolutely irrefutable physical evidence all about evolution over on the GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum.
GoodScienceForYou 10 months ago
The W.T.C. Complex was a white elephant: always below maximum occupancy. E.P.A. was hounding the Towers' owners to remove the asbestos. The cost = 1 billion dollars. Acid-rain (acidic rain) has killed 100's of blades of grass!] I have a hunch that the plane that exploded near Pittsburgh, on Tuesday 11 Sept. 2001, was meant for W.T.C. Building #7.
FinallyTheNight 11 months ago
Logic dictates that the human brain is finite in its capacity and therefor, as logic dictates, incapable of fathoming the infinite.
AffirmedConclusion 1 year ago
During the process of succumbing to the chronic metabolic disease cancer, ignorant victims discover their true selves and the beauty of living life to the fullest by acknowledging each precious minute in the company of kith & kin. No one who craps out from gonorrhea does this.
FinallyTheNight 1 year ago
The flagellar motor complexus is enough to frustrate frontal-bone-beaten-monkey-lovers in Dover & Santa Monica. Evolutionists (indoctrinates and congregants) can't differentiate between speculation and knowledge (knowledge of things that are physically/mathematically measured and/or measurable) as their grasp of the English language is threadbare at best.
FinallyTheNight 1 year ago
@FinallyTheNight
That's the same bacterial flagellum that was created specifically to enable bacteria to kill humans, with people often dying in agony due to the nature of the diseases caused by the bacteria right? Whoever this designer is he's apparently a bit of a cunt.
nakedapedude 1 year ago
@nakedapedude : Your menstrual problems are not relevant.
FinallyTheNight 1 year ago
@FinallyTheNight
Oh hey what a well though out response, you really got me there.
Dumb fuck.
nakedapedude 1 year ago
@nakedapedude : Let's sort through your personal problems together.
FinallyTheNight 1 year ago
@FinallyTheNight
Have i got this correct that you, a religious fundamentalist who's entire belief system is based on blind faith & unquestioned authority, is calling anybody who accepts the incontrovertible fact of evolution, "indoctrinated"? Are you also spuriously claiming the bacterial flagella to be irreducibly complex or are you being satirical?
ReptilianFreemason 11 months ago
@FinallyTheNight
Have i got this correct that you, a religious fundamentalist who's entire belief system is based on blind faith & unquestioned authority, is calling anybody who accepts the incontrovertible fact of evolution, "indoctrinated"? Are you also spuriously claiming the bacterial flagella to be irreducibly complex or are you being satirical?
ReptilianFreemason 11 months ago
The scientists haven't been able to find any transitional fossils. It is really embarrassing for them. So they play around with definitions as usual. Suddenly they say ALL organisms are "transitional." That just solves the whole problem. It's "Voila, we win, we proved evolution. We can all go home now." HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR If everything is transitional just why the hell are they still looking for the missing link? And getting all excited over Ida?
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius Do you know why they are still looking for missing links? Because we weren't given all the answers. Several of them have already been found, but you simply can't expect every little piece of knowledge to be given to us in a silver platter, like primitive religions pretend to do. However, the information scientists have managed to find already is enough to safely conclude this fact is reliable. If it wasn't, you wouldn't even have modern biology.
hellhammerz666 1 year ago 4
@MaximusArurealius
One wonders just what you think a transitional form IS, based on your argument.
rkyeun 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty Dumpty took a great fall.
All the King's horses and
all the King's men could not
find a single transitional animal
in the whole fossil kingdom.
Yours Truly, Maximus Arurealius
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1. Evolution is a dogmatic religious belief un-backed by science and supported only by radical atheism. Atheism, a dogmatic belief requires evolution to disprove God, all belief in God, and to attack religion. Atheists will foist any fake, tell any lie, commit any fraud to maintain the evolution hoax. Atheists tell us there are mountains of evidence for evolution and then point to silly drawings of monkeys getting taller or museum plaster statues of so-called early man, and this is their dogma.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
2. Take for example the fact the evolutionists shriek and rail against design, but consider this, design presents no opposition to evolution whatsoever! The very concept of evolution is a design. You can see design even in their phony Phylogenetic Tree of Life. Design refutes atheism and that is their real bone of contention.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
3. Next, atheists go into a frenzy that evolution is an "undirected process," then they say "evolution predicts" with childish pompous tones, as if it was lost in space, but now knows where it's going (how comic). Evolutionists accuse their opposition of "religious rigidity," this is merely an attack technique, a smoke screen, a logical fallacy used to forestall the argument, because they cannot defeat the science that rejects evolution, they must have this crutch to keep from falling flat.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
4. Atheists falsely claim all science to themselves and accuse Christians of being anti-science, yet their inner circles work fastidiously to blackball scientists who are not of the Atheist religion. Their so-called peer review system, as we have seen with Climategate, is scandalously false and dishonest to it's very core. The main purpose is to defeat Christianity.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
5. However, the majority of Christians have no doctrine concerning evolution. They are free to believe it or not. They are free to make up their minds with the use of science. Atheists on the other hand have no such freedom. They have no choice but to believe in evolution. For them evolution is a dogma. And all they have is weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, crying out "go read your Bible."
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
6. The eight hundred pound gorilla in the room is the fossil record. That is the only real scientific evidence of life and it's progression. They do not have even one series of any fossil showing an extended progression from one type of creature to another completely different creature. There should be thousands that are intuitively obvious to the casual observer without fabrication or storytelling. What do they have to date? They have nothing.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
7. The evolution scientists can no longer contain the lie that the fossil record supports evolution. They are already saying how unimportant the fossil record is and soon they won't even bring it up. It's the same with Abiogenesis, speciation, and the phenomena of infertility with the parent stock. All of those failed and so they distance themselves from them. Now they are even saying that no change is still evolution.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius "fossil record...soon they won't even bring it up" What a dumb ass thing to copy and paste. Did you get that from Kent Hovind? The fossil record only confirms the nested hierarchy that molecular biology shows idiot boy. Maybe you should stop paying taxed like brother Kent and see where that gets you.
foxlake02 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@hovindlake02 Nope, wrote it myself asshole. OH BULLL SHITTTT The fossil record shows no such as gradualism. Give up asshole you don't know anything about biology.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius You wrote that garbage all by yourself? Wow, you are even more stupider than I thought. Who said the fossil record shows only gradualism? You didn't read before you posted again did you? So what does the fossil record show? Animals poofed into existence all at once and then a big flood and then super evolution? Maybe that's YOUR theory but a theory is more than a guess idiot boy!
foxlake02 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@foxlake02 Apparently you didn't read you idiot. Now go back and read what I wrote. No such thing as gradualism you lamebrain. You need to take my evolution test to prove you know something about evolution.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius You don't have a clue for what you copy and paste. No biologist believes in only gradualism or punctuated equilibrium. It's like the nature/nurture debate. The fact that you are crude and stupid isn't only your genetic makeup and it's not just the fact that you got abused as a child and you were home schooled. It is a combination of both. You may have turned out ok anyway if it wasn't for all that inbreeding.
foxlake02 1 year ago
@foxlake02 wah wah wah wah
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius The fossil record shows more than enough transitional fossils for the honest skeptic. The problem is, your a damn liar who is afraid to look.
foxlake02 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@foxlake02 I already looked asshole. There are NO transitional fossils. You can keep whining all you want, but that's not going to make them appear. The ONLY reason you believe in such is because you're relying on argument by authority. Somebody told you it is true and you can't get over the fact that whoever it was either lied to you or was an ignoramus.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius Argument by authority hey? You mean like when Kent Hovind says plants aren't really alive because they don't bleed or baby lizards will grow up to be fire breathing dragons? Is that the kind of authority you are talking about max? The transitions are obvious. Why don't you try going to a natural history museum or crack open a biology book idiot boy?
foxlake02 1 year ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@foxlake02 hahahahaha You always get so wound up when you don't know what to say. BTW no, design is obvious, transitions are merely arguing the circle like the fundies do with the Bible. hahahahahhahaa HAR HAR HAR
YOU LOSE ASSHOLE
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius You lost the moment you created 20-30 sock accounts to spam your insecurities across Youtube.
You are the asshole, kid.
You are the one who cant tolerate anything but your specific version of a fairy tale, even when you already know its not true.
So very sad.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@OneStupidFuckingQuestion, whine whine whine, You're using what's called "The Sockpuppet Logical Fallacy" You know you can't win so you bitch about sockpuppets. Others bitch about religion instead when they lose, but not you. You cry about socks. You yell "troll" often too don't you? hahahahahahahaaa
PWNED POWNED AND OWNED
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusMagoo "You know you can't win so you bitch about sockpuppets" Well isn't THAT the pot calling the kettle black. Project much???
foxlake02 1 year ago 2
@MaximusArurealius Cant win? Awe, I'm sorry little one, who gave you the idea that there was any kind of "something" going on between you and the rest of the world that you had a chance of winning or losing?
You cant deal with reality because you are too stupid and angry to even try... thats your fault.
Maybe you will grow up one of these days, but I doubt it.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 25
@MaximusArurealius
You need an education badly...
LamaPaj 1 year ago 3
@LamaPaj Yeah, I know. 2 degrees just wasn't enough for me. BTW did you ever make it through jr. high?
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius
If you had two degrees you wouldnt be so retarded, lol.
LamaPaj 1 year ago 2
@MaximusArurealius You are the idiot who said "no one gives a shit about tax evasion" on a Kent Hovind video. The fact that you defend his silly make believe stories tells me that you are a fundie yourself. Not to mention disregarding nested hierarchy, atavisms, ERVs and transitional fossils. Give it up stooooopid. You're a fundie AND a liar.
foxlake02 1 year ago 3
@BitchFace02, wah wah wah you puur puur widdo teeng.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius No transitional fossils? Every single fossil is a transitional form. The thing is that you fail to realize stuff doesn't magically shift form from a generation to another. It's a periodic process. Claiming there aren't any transitional fossils only demonstrates you have no clue about how evolution works. Science doesn't need arguments from authorities, because it's observable by anyone. If you prefer to stick to primitive bronze age myths, that's your call.
hellhammerz666 1 year ago
@hellbellz222, "Every single fossil is a transitional form" HAR HAR HAR HAR you're completely brainwashed. hahahahaha how fucking stupid. Listen closely. I'll say it slowly...there...... are..... no.... transitional..... fossils. OK? Transitional fossils are an assumption. If evolution were true there would be transitional fossils, but they haven't found a single one to date.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
Transitional fossils are an assumption and only an assumption. They assume evolution is true. This called circular logic. If a creationist tried such a thing the evolutionists would be all up in arms. So why are they using circular logic? Not one of those transitionals can be proved to be a transitional. Go find a large group of living turtles, all different sizes and varieties. Line them up and "voila" EVOLUTION! Get the picture?
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
"If I knew of any Evolutionary transitional's, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them in my book, 'Evolution' " -- Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
The scientists can no longer contain the lie that the fossil record supports evolution. They are already saying how unimportant the fossil record is and soon they won't even bring it up. It's the same with abiogenesis, speciation, and the phenomena of infertility with the parent stock. All of those failed and so they distance themselves from them. Now they are even saying that no change is still evolution.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius You must be trolling. You must be.
No one is really this ignorant...
xSolraccarloSx 1 year ago 2
@DumbHammer, why do you think Gould came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium? It's his explanation for why they couldn't find any transitional fossils.
YOU LOSE
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius You still don't get it, do you? Every single ancestor, every single living thing, is a transitional form to something else, even us. You simply can't expect 3 perfectly distinguishable species to pop out of a single one within a few generations. Nobody said evolution happened at the same steady state always, so i don't even see how punctuated equilibrium can be relevant in studying transitional forms.
hellhammerz666 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius An example of your way of thinking, and how it can be easily proven that every fossil is a transitional form: Lets take 15 different stages of human evolution. When asked about the first 5 and the last 5, people can usually tell consistently it's a primitive ape, or a human. However, when asked about the middle ones, opinions are usually divided. They simply can't agree wether it's a developed ape or an underdeveloped human.
hellhammerz666 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius Point being, people usually think evolution means a new species magically popped out of another one instantly, or within very few generations, which is simply not the case. Several transitional forms have already been acknowledged by the scientific comunity, but you can't expect every single fossil to be found. Kinda like a 1000 piece puzzle which has around 150 pieces missing. You can tell the overall figure the puzzle forms, but there are still those 150 pieces to be found.
hellhammerz666 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius Change over time is a fact, verified and acknowledged by the scientific comunity. Evolution is the backbone of modern biology, so i don't even understand why do creationists insist on debunking it with childish arguments that simply can't be proven, such as imaginary friends (aka gods). What is funny is that they usually think disproving evolution will automatically prove their fantasies real, like evolution's aim was to destroy the primitive myths it happens to debunk.
hellhammerz666 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius "There are more than enough transitional forms to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy. The fact that you are an ignorant knot teacher who is afraid to look and lies about it is your problem." Stephen J Gould Natural History, May 1994
foxlake02 1 year ago 12
@MaximusArurealius "If you had given me a blank piece of paper and a blank check, I could not have drawn you a theoretical intermediate any better or more convincing than Ambulocetus. MaximusMagoo who by verbal trickery can make white black, and black white, will never be convinced of anything, but Ambulocetus is the very animal that he proclaimed impossible in theory." Gould- Natural History, May 1994
foxlake02 1 year ago
@Maxipad aka Bobby Sungenis aka Oedipus.
Oh what the fuck Shitgenis?
Still trolling YouTube and spamming your moronic vitriol?
Give it up moron, all you are achieving is to make Catholics look like fuckwits and assholes.
You win. We are now all Jebus loving, God fearing, bigoted, homophobic Catholics. You have now earned your place in Gods kingdom.
Now fuck off!!
ChickenHawk110 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik Chikendik HAR HAR HAR what's the matter dunce boy? Can't think of an argument? wah wah wah
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius
hey look! more people calling you an idiot and proving that you are a dumb ignorant knot teacher! lolol
keep praying to your fairy God mother, you moron.
transtlantic 1 year ago 32
@transtlantic
Don't know why this is a top-rated comment. Yes, it displays the right sentiments, but with the wrong attitude...
Yes, the religious and deluded need to be approached firmly and rationally.
But ad homs will only further alienate them from the truth, by impregnating their minds with the notion that Atheists are mostly angry, mouthy misanthropes.
Which we often are.
But there's more to it!
Npowell01 7 months ago
@Npowell01
Stating that a MORON, is a MORON, is not an ad hominem by definition. i didn't attack his character in order to disprove his arguments. that would be an ad hominem.
i think you should study a little bit more before trying to write, kid.
transtlantic 7 months ago
You and I are both intelligent people, yet you feel the need to make this haughty distinction between us by saying "I think you should study a little bit more before trying to write, kid," as if to imply that I am a child and somehow am incapable of writing. You also felt the need to capitalize "MORON" as if doing so would somehow make your assessment more accurate.
This... grumpiness is an emotion; these comprise otherwise-rational folk.
So chill. I merely suggested that you be a bit nicer.
Npowell01 7 months ago
@Npowell01
Emotions are an innate part of our brains. We can't avoid them. In fact... being rational is to be able to control how to control those emotions.
as i said.... stating that maxtard is a MORON, is a statement of fact.
talk to him, you will see what i am talking about. Maxitard is a loser, who doesn't give a shit about science. He is just the typical creationist zealot of the worst kind. it's for you to play with.
so...stop bothering me. suggestion: try talk to max.
transtlantic 7 months ago
@transtlantic
Sorry if you felt bothered. I just feel that there are many people like you who have the intelligence to spread logic and reason to the square footage around them, but not the patience to deal with that volatile substance we might call "stupidity" properly.
For a funny summary of what I'm trying to say, search for "Dawkins vs. Tyson". I'm only trying to say to you what Neil DeGrasse Tyson is trying to say to Richard Dawkins in that vid.
Peace.
Npowell01 7 months ago
@Npowell01
well... you clearly ignore what Dawkins said to Tyson:
It's facts, if you don't like it, you can fuck off, to paraphrase Dawkins.
People like maxtard don't want to listen to logic or reason, they live isolated and powerless in their little corner. youtube is just a small window they have to the world, and they shroud themselves in anonymity
they are just toys for us to play with. i do spread knowledge to students. i do teach those who want to listen.maxtard, doesn't want to listen
transtlantic 7 months ago
@transtlantic
My entire point revolves around the fact that people like that don't want to listen because some science advocates insult them and seem condescending and angry. Much like someone saying "If you don't like science, fuck off." It just isn't very compelling.
If I didn't already like science, and someone gave me that argument, it wouldn't convince me, whereas eloquently stated arguments posed by people like Tyson would.
But maybe that's just my personality. Who knows.
Npowell01 7 months ago
@Npowell01
your logic is wrong. max is not a kid. an adult not wanting to listen about the laws of his countries or not recognizing the laws, it's irrelevant. because ignorance or denial of laws or facts, is not an excuse. unless you are mentally insane, that is.
"isn't very compelling"? and who gives a fuck about that? maxtard is an adult. i am not forcing him to learn.
maybe your personality is afraid of talking to max or to learn the difference between adults and children.
transtlantic 7 months ago
@transtlantic
This guy who you have interchangeably referred to as "max" and "maxtard" may not be a child, but he once was. And the likely reason for his views was that as a child, he was indoctrinated into believing them. Perhaps it isn't. But the point is, is that there is a whole range of reasons that an adult might be willfully-ignorant. Perhaps they have never had the logical, reasonable side of the coin explained to them in non-hostile terms that they can understand.
Just for future ref
Npowell01 7 months ago
@Npowell01
"pergaps they have never had the logical, reasonable side of the coin explained to them"
and who gives a fuck? he is an adult. "for future ref"? are you stupid?
falsely heralding utterly false beliefs? no he isn't. he is indeed a troll, but he really believes in the crap he is posting.
Perhaps you should try to talk to max and realize you live in a very innocent and naive world view.
transtlantic 7 months ago
@transtlantic
Innocent and naive? Why? Because I'm not as hostile/angry in my ways? Because I choose to debate the types of people who'll listen to reason, rather than the types of people who apparently don't? I fight for the same cause as you. Just differently. Do you have data on which approach is better? Or are you just convinced by yourself? These things need to be discussed, and I'm not naive for wanting to discuss them. It's an opportunity for new knowledge. Something you should support.
Npowell01 7 months ago
@Npowell01
you are innocent and naive by believing that maxtard listens to reason and gives a shit about science.
hostile and angry? i am not that. but you are turning to that now.
Tell me... where are those people you are talking about in youtube?
If i have data on which approach is better? do you?
I do have some background on some psychiatric therapy tactics, what about you?
want me to start mentioning sources? your call.
What does need to be discussed? do tell.
transtlantic 7 months ago
@Npowell01
the thing to be discussed, is HOW an adult become like maxtard. A person with low cognitive capacity and CLEAR persistent delusions solely supported on the religious nonsense of "God did it".
I think it's because the secular govt doesn't enforce regulations in order to put aside religious nonsense out of schools.
But the true thing i see here is: religion is dying. Individuals like maxtard, utter morons, are left overs of what isolated religious communities produced.
transtlantic 7 months ago
@transtlantic
cont.
Also, I just attempted to entertain your suggestion and talk to him, however, numerous comments on his channel state that he is a troll, and is falsely heralding utterly false beliefs for the sake of enraging people like us.
I suppose he's succeeded. Perhaps that's why he seemed so incurably stupid to you.
Npowell01 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
8. Without the fossil record, they have nothing. They fabricate the theory of transitional fossils, but cannot prove a single one to be transitional. This is embarrassing for them. So here's what they have done. They simply make an ex cathedra pronouncement, "All organisms are transitional. Now everyone can go home. We've proved evolution, whoopee!"
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
Ken Miller responds to creationism pretty much by pointing his finger and saying, "Creationist!!!"
YaWhatIThoughtYa 1 year ago
@YaWhatIThoughtYa Greetiongs fromGermany, and I totally agree! He is precious for doing so! It is truly RELIEVING, to perceive that faith-infected brains can still work properly, and I am in awe! For this reason I have a LOT OF appreciation for the TRUE Christians, iow: Roman-Catholics ♥♥♥♥♥♥ and Lutheran Protestants.♥♥♥♥♥♥
kleenex3000 1 year ago
@kleenex3000
If only you could send this message back in time to the wars of religion etc.
Hrimpurstala 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The place for real dating mworld5.info
mchamiify 1 year ago
Comment removed
boonemusic 1 year ago
I think Ken Miller misses the point quiet badly here. If you have no religious belief then you can adopt evolution relatively easily (and not too critically). If you have a religious belief you have to take on a lot more - including the moral implications.
That's all.
AndyWhite007 1 year ago
"It cannot test those claims since they are unrepeatable events"
It can test those claims very easily by reviewing evidence(as I have shown).
This evidence, as you have said, is available to everyone but some, like yourself, ignore it and claim it is just coming from a "predetermined conclusion." Science has heroes, but not prophets. In the scientific world no one and no theory is above criticism and all are subject to good evidence and good argument.
Kurpalac 1 year ago 4
@OgeronimonominoregO "I didn't ignore it. I asked you questions about it which you refused to answer"
No you didn't ask questions about the evidence, your response was:
"None of those prove common ancestry."
Nice try though. You dismissed the evidence and methods of demonstrating common ancestry out of hand. Again, I cannot teach you years of biological sciences in 300 characters especially if you dismiss science out of hand because it doesn't agree with your conclusion.
Kurpalac 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO You repeatedly ignore all evidence presented and then ask for an impossible standard of proof. All the evidence I discussed previously(that you ignore) tells a story, whether you accept it is your problem, you are not worth my time.
Kurpalac 1 year ago
@Kurpalac "All the evidence I discussed previously(that you ignore)
tells a story"
I didn't ignore it. I asked you questions about it which you refused
to answer. And I know it's story-telling, that's why I ask the questions.
You can't possibly test against CA because there's no life you'll
accept as not being related already. Therefore, there's no way to
differentiate between species possibly having CA and those not.
All have a CA because that's the dogma imposed on all the data.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Kurpalac "You repeatedly ignore all the evidence presented and then ask for an impossible standard of proof." You crack me up. Your theory is impossible, that's why it can't meet a standard of proof.
YOU LOSE so just shut up.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@ogeron
Your argument is fallacious you just don't see it. The burden of proof is completely on you. Science deals only with the natural world - it must be testable.
There are MANY other possibilities/explanations about to the origin of life, many of which as equally devoid of evidence as the concept of Biblical Creation - should science have to disprove those as well? No, the burden of proof is on the people representing those arguments.
Kurpalac 1 year ago
@Kurpalac You don't even understand what I'm saying.
If "science deals only with the natural world," then how
can it make claims about the *origin* of the natural world?
Whenever "scientists" do so they are not acting as
scientists, but philosophers. How can you subject philosophical
questions to the scientific method? You can't.
"It must be testable." I agree. And common descent is
not testable, yet it is still taught as "science".
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO "then how can it make claims about the *origin* of the natural world?"
Common descent isn't testable only according to YOU. It is very easily testable and has been done thousands of times. Your willingness to ignore the overwhelming evidence of common descent is your problem, not one of science. We can use genetics, zoology, paleontology, even basic breeding practices of domestic animals to see the common descent of life forms.
Kurpalac 1 year ago
@Kurpalac "It is very easily testable"
How? How can you test that an extinct
animal is your ancestor?
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
You can watch the video I posted on Human chromosome #2 for one example of a prediction that evolution made and what the evidence shows. You can also compare our DNA to that of other great apes and see how closely related we are. You can also compare the insertion of viral DNA in the human genome and see the exact same insertion points in the Chimpanzee. If you REALLY are interested, take a zoology class or even and entry level college biology course even.
Kurpalac 1 year ago
@Kurpalac But none of those things prove common
ancestry between man and ape unless you assume CA
in the first place. And in science as well as logic you simply
can't assume your conclusion. You have to prove it.
There is just no empirical way to test the idea. Similarity
between similar species is just a given. And when species
are dissimilar, the same exact claim for a CA is made!
It is clearly a belief about origins and not a testable
falsifiable scientific claim.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO I very clearly demonstrated ways to test common ancestry and all you reply with is "None of those prove common ancestry." Our common ancestor lived somewhere between 5-7 mya - I don't know EXACTLY what species it was - but the fact that we share common ancestry with the other great apes is irrefutable unless you believe in an intentionally deceptive God or Goddess who is trying to trick us. It is not assumed, it what the best evidence demonstrates.
Kurpalac 1 year ago
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO Further, if you want a working model of evolution look at artificial selection in breeding animals. The domesticated dog, in all of its many forms, is a descendant of the wolf(genetic testing and human history confirm). Every member of this breed comes from a common ancestor yet you have a Boston Terrier and a German Shepherd - two animals that if in the wild would be categorized as different species - sharing common ancestry.
Kurpalac 1 year ago
@Kurpalac I'm talking about the theory that all life on
earth shares a common ancestor. I'm not talking about
dog breeding. I understand that every dog has parents.
What you are claiming is that every species is literally
related by ancestry to every other.
Have you tried breeding dogs with fish? If not, then don't
tell me that dog breeding means that dogs and fish
share a common ancestor.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
If you continue to make baseless unfounded comments unrelated to the video presented I will block you. Thank you to those who have kept this a respectful discussion.
Kurpalac 1 year ago
This is pathetic. All he is doing is using rhetoric to make fun of
people. He is also treating lightly the fact that evolution does in fact claim
to explain the origin of species. It claims that we are not designed or
created.
He is totally disingenuous here if he thinks we should take such claims
lightly! The hubris he displays is exactly what has corrupted science.
He is conflating all sorts of things and not bringing any clarity.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
Thank you, Doctor Miller :-)
bersa888 1 year ago
lol @ 134 retards who thumb-downed
chert95 1 year ago
Why is this even a debate? You don't "believe" in evolution. You accept it as a scientific theory or not. And technically you don't even do that -- you accept science or you don't. And in science the only reason you don't accept the accepted theory is if you are researching a contradictory theory or another theory contradicts with it in the first place, in which case it is not accepted science anyways. So unless creationists are opposed to the scientific method, they have no excuse.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter when we mean believe it is for the sake of distinguishing ourselves. this need simply rises because there are religious people who dont accept it which in essence, respective to them, is not believing.
hislord 1 year ago
@hislord, well its really annoying when we have to put up with changes in our terminology just because a bunch of insane people make up a significant part of our population.
Houshalter 1 year ago
i have always seen science to be a independent of faith. science does not dictate if gods true or not, its what people make of their beliefs, their close mindedness. im a evolutionary biologist at cambridge university, my brother is a professor of physics at oxford university. both of us are regular church goers and whole heartedly believe in evolution and the big bang theory.
hislord 1 year ago
the bible does not say that god created you personally, in the sense that he forms you with his own hands. i believe that evolution was the mechanism that executed that plan that god had to bring us into being. science is fact religion is beyond fact. i believe in god for personal reasons, because god seems very real to me, it surpasses a just the feeling of him being real. its beyond that absurdity of talking snakes.
hislord 1 year ago
@hislord Your way of thinking is quite nice. It's good to know that there are still good people among the religious ^__^
DarkZholt 1 year ago
@DarkZholt hahaha thanks, i cant at all understand why people