Science is debated through wee researched papers published in peer-reviewed journals. NOT on stage in 15 minute soundbites in front of a layman audience.
Popular evolutionary scientists Dawkins and Hawking refuse to debate with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at ICR, The Institure for Creation Research. They only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, and WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their reproductive system and other vital organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
When extremely intelligent people come to polar opposite conclusions while looking at the same evidence, it is apparant that the difference is in their worldviews/frameworks, not in empical science. Still, evolutionists refuse to agknowledge the fact that they themselves interperate evidence through their own ideologies which they accept on a basis of faith. They invent self-serving rules for what "real science" is and isn't. They only except naturalistic explanations for phillosophical reasons.
"When extremely intelligent people come to polar opposite conclusions while looking at the same evidence, it is apparant that the difference is in their worldviews/frameworks, not in empical science. Still, evolutionists refuse to agknowledge the fact that they themselves interperate..."
- incorrect, the differnce between these is that evolution is a conclusion reached through subjecting evidence to science (the most effective mechanism for identifying what is true)
@xXTheRatXx Correct, Science does not use magic, voodoo or supernatural beings. Scientists are of all religions, they have bias towards their favorite theories and fudge the data, they are only human. That is why there is peer review. Religion knows the answers from the start, so you only look for evidence that supports your stories.
The fact the scientist don't want to enter a 3-ring circus does not discredit them. These people are scientists not hucksters. Its not about who wins a debate directed to an audience who doesn't understand the science, it’s about who has the real science. We can be deceived by people or we can take it upon ourselves to learn about evolution. It's amazing how quickly it becomes apparent that this so called creation science has no right to be taught anywhere as science. Learn the truth.
EUGENIE C. SCOTT knows that you can't educate a creatard in one debate. Nothing you show them will change their minds because they are brainwashed. There is no debate, evolution has been proven.
@gregrutz First dino 'blood' extracted from ancient bone
A hadrosaur bone buried for 80 million years has yielded a mix of proteins and microstructures resembling cells that may help shed light on dinosaur evolution. Doesn't appear to be a creationist site. BTW, how do know what constitutes a Christian? Also a debate is not for education but to show which side has the facts and wins. Cluck
@BereanBeacon1 Wins what? Evolution is studied in every Biology class. Scientists won.
A CHRISTian is someone who thinks Jesus CHRIST died for our sins.
Yes, they are finding more in the FOSSILS [rock not bone] they they could have imagined, the fossil is still 70 Million years old and dinosaurs evolved for 160 Million years.
I don't feel like trudging through video after video of creationist pandering. Point me to articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals and I will look into it.
@MomoTheBellyDancer You cannot understand because you are spiritually dead and love darkness.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1Corinthians 2:14
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. John 3:19
"You cannot understand because you are spiritually dead and love darkness."
Ad hominem attacks! How cute! And since you're still spewing Bible verses, I have a nice one for you from the Bhagavad Gita, which I think fits you like a glove:
Delusion arises from anger. The mind is bewildered by delusion. Reasoning is destroyed when the mind is bewildered. One falls down when reasoning is destroyed.
So you're not even TRYING to come up with any arguments anymore. What is one to think of someone who starts posting irrelevant quotes from their favorite religious text and links to totally unrelated videos? The only proper response is contempt, mixed with a good dose of pity. I, sir, salute you for representing creationists in all their splendor.
@MomoTheBellyDancer You have the words of death and I have the words of life.
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Hebrews 4:12
"You have the words of death and I have the words of life."
That's rather ironic, considering your god supposedly killed all the the world once already .. and then there's the whole deal with nailing someone to a cross as a sacrifice.
But we seem to have diverged from science quite a bit. As the Bhagavad Gita states: "Better indeed is knowledge than mechanical practice. "
@gregrutz And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2Thessalonians 2:7-12
@BereanBeacon1 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
Science is not determined through debates. If creationists think they have anything worthwhile to add to the scientific body of knowledge they should publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals. You know, like all scientists have to do.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Evolutionists are determined by how they run to the hen house. No one is allowed to even question their science fiction and so peer review is just another straw man from their Lame Excuse Handbook. Cluck, cluck.
"Evolutionists are determined by how they run to the hen house."
No, SCIENTISTS have done so. We simply don't have the time and energy to give every runaway idea equal attention. Scientists therefore have established a set of rules, of which the most important is: provide evidence for your claims. If you can't: sorry, try again. It's a rough and tough process, but it's one that WORKS. Deal with it.
@MomoTheBellyDancer All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
@MomoTheBellyDancer Your evolution is science fiction and that's why you don't dare debate it in a science controlled public forum. We grasp real science as you do, then evolutionists slip in their science fiction as a sleazy salesman using the bate and switch technique.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Wiki does it all the time. They present real science and then science fiction.
Science Fiction:
Complex eyes appear to have first evolved within a few million years, in the rapid burst of evolution known as the Cambrian explosion. There is no evidence of eyes before the Cambrian, but a wide range of diversity is evident in the Middle Cambrian Burgess shale.
Who cares? Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
"Complex eyes appear to have first evolved within a few million years"
Complex eyes have evolved several times over in very different organisms. So what?
"no evidence of eyes before the Cambrian"
Precursors to complex eyes may have existed, like light-sensitive patches of skin. Either way, the Pax-6 gen, dealing with eye development, was likely already present BEFORE the Cambrian.
I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not. Isaiah 66:4
@MomoTheBellyDancer "But precursors to more complex eyes may have existed," is conjecture and does not fit in the definition of science.
Science fiction: specimen is hundreds of millions years old.
This is real science.
First dino 'blood' extracted from ancient bone h t t p://w w wDOTnewscientistDOTcom/article/dn17060-first-dino-blood-extracted-from-ancient-boneDOThtml
@BereanBeacon1 No, Mary is a Christian Paeontologist. She is upset with people misusing her work and lying about what she said. She knows the dinosaur fossil is 70 million years old. She works with fossils every day. She is an ''evolutionist''.
incidently .. have you already found any answers addressing and explaining the following observations:
a. Human chromosome 2
b. The distribution of ERV's in the primate chromosomes
c. Ring species/speciation
I can, of course, add other observations. Such as, but not limited to, the whale limbs and attached muscle distribution, Tiktaalik, the human tail and attached muscles, and much, much more. But let's not do the Gish Gallop and leave it at these first three (a through c, see above).
@wimahlers but none of these observations go to the central claim of the Theory of Evolution, that is that Random Mutations acted on by non-random Natural Selection is what produced what we observe is the field biology from biochemical pathways and, on through, organelles, specialised cells, organs, systems, various limbs, instincts and the different classes, and even consciousness etc. So can you produce a list of observations supporting the actual theory
@wimahlers (1) Hi thank you for your reply. I have no problem with ring species in principle. Indeed it’s surprising when it doesn't happen. The explanation given is the two groups have been genetically isolated for so long that their genomes have become so out of phase that viable recombination is no longer possible. But even taking this as red with no quibbles ......Cont…
@wimahlers Cont…(2) this hardly seems strong evidence that Random Mutations acted on by Non-random Natural Selection can in principle produce, in time, complete new biochemical pathways, organelles, specialised cells, new organs, systems, classes, instincts and indeed consciousness. Have you got any examples more pertinent to these issues?
"this hardly seems strong evidence that Random Mutations acted on by Non-random Natural Selection can in principle produce, in time, complete new biochemical pathways, organelles, specialised cells, new organs, systems, classes, instincts and indeed consciousness".
.
And indeed it did, does and will continue to do so. A good example is the ape called "Homo sapien". Proof for a common ancestry see: human chromosome 2 and the ERV distribution within the primates.
@wimahlers (1a) but you have again given evidence in support of The Theory of Common Descent and not for the Theory as to what 'drives' it (the mechanism.) I thought you had understood that that is what I was asking for and that I had made that clear. Cont….
@wimahlers (2a) I am asking for a list of observations, empirical findings, facts, data, indeed any category of evidence that justify claiming, that the hypothesis, that Random Mutations acted on by Non-random Natural Selection is what produced all the things claimed of it (and that it set itself to explaining,) is a well established Scientific Theory. I trust my question is clear. If not, I am happy to elaborate.
@wimahlers (1c) Hi Wim, we seem to be misunderstanding each other. So can I clarify an issue? Do you accept that there is a distinction between The Theory of Common Descent (ancestry), and theories as to what mechanism(s) drove that ancestry? I not discussing Common Descent, I am assuming that is true. I am trying to discuss the modern theory of the mechanism under neo-Darwinism. Cont…
And talking about facts, fact is that creationists have no model at all. No explanation for anything (other than "goddidit"). And despite, crying wolf, have absolutely not a single argument that falsifies even a minor detail of the current evolution theory. All these facts creationists try to hide by ignoring the overwhelming evidence that is there, quote mining, distortions, out right lies, and the ever boring "not (good) enough" excuse. Even though they have no theory themselves.
"Do you accept that there is a distinction between The Theory of Common Descent (ancestry), and theories as to what mechanism(s) drove that ancestry?"
.
No! I don't know what you mean by that. Accept that common descent is an observation, therefore a fact. As such it is not very interesting. What is interesting is the explanation of this fact. That is described by the evolution theory. Sure, there are more mechanisms known now then in Darwin's time. But that is just details.
@wimahlers (2c) Of course HC2 and ERV’s are great observations; but not of what I asked about. Unless you can explain how, say, ERV’s are strong support for the proposed mechanism of neo-Darwinism? I of course accept Lenski’s work IS in the area I am talking about. (If you reply could you please continue to post after my very last comment so as not to jumble up the conversation and make it un-followable?)
"Unless you can explain how, say, ERV’s are strong support for the proposed mechanism of neo-Darwinism?.
.
ERV's indeed strongly support the evolution theory. Indeed, if the pattern would have been (just about) anything else it would actually have falsified the evolution theory.
Ironically creationists often refer, how boring, to the Piltdown man fraud. But creationists must realize that if the Piltdown man was for real it would actually have falsified(!) common descent!
@wimahlers (1d) Wim you introduce a host of things having nothing to do with what I have said nor asked; and in fact ignore, as if I had not said them, things I have made every effort to make clear. Your reply is completely at odds with what *I* have said to you. Cont....
@wimahlers …(2d) I certainly have not got clarity with regard to my question, "Do you accept that there is a distinction between The Theory of Common Descent (ancestry), and theories as to what mechanism(s) drove that ancestry?" For although you answer with an emphatic "No!" you then immediately follow with, "I don't know what you mean by that." And go on, in contradiction to your “No!” to make a distinction. Cont..
@wimahlers (3d) In any case, I have informed you clearly, and in numerous ways, and on a number of occasions, that I am NOT talking about Common Descent; but you still reply about Common Descent. You must see that that might be found a tad frustrating by me. Cont..
"I am NOT talking about Common Descent; but you still reply about Common Descent. "
Evolution is ALL about common descent. If you leave that out, then what the heck are you talking about? Shared ERVs in the genome of humans and chimpanzees shows they both share a common ancestor. It's evidence for evolution, pure and simple.
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Evolution is ALL about common descent. If you leave that out, then what the heck are you talking about?" Of course it isn't. The idea of Common Descent and the Mechanism that drives it are two very different concepts. Even Darwin said so in his "An Historical Sketch." You are certainly confused; since the Theory Common Descent is not even Darwin's idea, but precedes him and this is well documented. His theory is a theory of mechanism. As is neo-Darwinism properly understood.
@MomoTheBellyDancer "So what?" Because that alone is indicative of the vast difference to which I refer. And your next comment (namely 'Which explains how common descent is possible') also recognises this difference. I am not talking about the old version of the Theory and I made that plain, I am talking about the modern formulation. I mentioned Darwin only to show that Darwin's original theory, and is modern version, are theories of the mechanism.
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Descent with modification is the mechanism, common descent is its effect" Modification is the mechanism! So what is the mechanism of the modification: and the answer to that question finally beings us to the actual theory. I am trying to discuss that; both with you, and with the previous poster. The distinction is clear, it is not me that is failing to understand. The very same point was made by Lynn Margulis as recently as April this year.
Honestly, you have totally lost me. What "actual theory" are you talking about? If it's evolutionary theory, it's the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms. Then there's universal common descent, which, of course, occurs through the previously mentioned changes of inherited traits. There's ample evidence for any of these, so what exactly is your problem?
@MomoThe (1) "What 'actual theory' are you talking about?" The theory that innovations (New specialised cells, organelles, tissues, organs, limbs, systems, classes, instincts, and even consciousness and ecosystems) are the product of Non Random Natural Selection acting on Random Mutations. Your "it's the change over time in one or more inherited traits *FOUND* in populations of organisms" formulation skirts over the main issue and is a bit light on detail for a serious scientific theory. Cont
"The theory that innovations (New specialised cells, organelles, tissues, organs, limbs, systems, classes, instincts, and even consciousness and ecosystems) are the product of Non Random Natural Selection acting on Random Mutations"
No such theory exists. Evolution is not about "innovations". It's about change. It can mean that features might be gained, or that they might be lost, or that they get a whole new function. You're fighting a straw man.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Cont (2) In what really explanatory sense is, say, the dorsal fin of a whale an inherited trait or “found”? How readily is a plausible explanation yielded by neo-Darwinism? And how testable is that explanation anyway? And this is assuming, and not questioning, that in fact a land based mammal (be it cow, bear, or dog like, or whatever) did transition into a whale. Non of those creatures has a dorsal fin.
"How readily is a plausible explanation yielded by neo-Darwinism? "
New features are the result of slow accumulation of changes. It's a process that builds on what is already there, which also applies to dorsal fins of dolphins.
"how testable is that explanation anyway?"
You look for a sequence of organisms with gradually adapted features, of which many have been found.
"And this is assuming (...) that in fact a land based mammal (...) did transition into a whale."
The evolution of whales is very well documented and there's no excuse for you not to know about it.
"Non of those creatures has a dorsal fin."
Actually, dorsal fins were present in most species of whale, although some species lost it again. You might also take note that several species of sea organisms developed distinct dorsal fins independently, like sharks.
@wimahlers (4d) I asked you a precise question, "can [you] explain how ERV’s are strong support for the proposed mechanism of neo-Darwinism?" You reply, "ERV's indeed strongly support the evolution theory" and go on to speak about common descent and about "Darwin's time," but I clearly asked about neo-Darwinism and specifically NOT about common descent. Cont..
I have no comments on darwinism or neo-darwinism, the modern synthesis or any particular historical labelling. Those labels are utterly unimportant other than referrring to specific scientific refinements in time.
Again, "the theory of common descent" is incorporated in the current theory of evolution. In fact "the theory of common descent" describes the mechanisms of this common descent. So, again, No! There is no distinction. Again, what do you mean?
@allan3141 I still have no idea what you are fishing at with your usage of the label "neo-darwinism". But perhaps you are going to explain that now. I claim the following:
1. Creationist have no vialbe alternative scientific explanation equal to or surpassing the explanatory power of the current evolution theory.
2. There currently is not a single scientifically relevant claim that falsifies the evolution theory.
3. Every naturalistic discovery made in the past centuries confirms evolution.
"I asked you a precise question, "can [you] explain how ERV’s are strong support for the proposed mechanism of neo-Darwinism?"
.
The distribution of ERV's within the primate species is the explanation.
If you do not understand that than it follows that you do not know what ERV's are. Do you know what ERV's are and do you understand that the distribution of the ERV's in the primate gene pool is explained by common descent?
@wimahlers (5d) How you can fit Piltdown Man into the conversation is anyone’s guess; but while also saying that people who refer to it are boring makes it a tad funny and ironic you must admit. Can I humbly suggest that you re-read our comments so far and tell me where things have gone wrong?
"Question, was the judge a scientist in the Dover trial and if not why was that acceptable?"
.
No! But as you so painfully explained yourself in various writings, the Dover trial was not about science but about a book and the separation of religion and state. Do you suddenly have another opinion now?
Since I have answered all of your questions are you able to answer some of mine? To remind:
Evolution (see A thru E), Chromosome 2, ERV's, define devolution, ring species...
Me: I agree! Science is most definitely not a debate contest in which the best debater wins. It is based on independently verified empirical evidence. That is why I ask for the links that contains the information that explains human chromosome 2, ERV's, ring speciation, the order of the fossil layer, etc. Show me.
You: Did you know that all 50 states have God in their preambles?
@wimahlers Why didn't the states adhere to your misinterpretation of the "separation of church and state". 50 witnesses believed in the God of the Bible.
"Why didn't the states adhere to your misinterpretation of the "separation of church and state". 50 witnesses believed in the God of the Bible."
.
First, this has nothing to do with the subject at hand: Evoution vs. creation. Secondly, I misinterpreted nothing. It was you who referred to the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial. And here is the judge's conclusion: tinyurl(dot)com/63km25c
Read it! So if you think the judge misinterpreted the case than take it up with judge Jones.
When do you creationists ever learn that science is not a debate.
If you have scientific objections write a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Not a single creationists ever did. Frankly, I have not met a creationists intelligent enough to write such a paper. But feel free to challenge me on this or any scientific subject on this matter. I am not a scientists. But that really places me on your level. Because you are also not. However, I know were to find the science. You don; t..
@wimahlers Joseph Mastropaolo, The Life Science Prize
I have published 22 science articles in peer reviewed science journals, one of which was entitled, An objective ancestry test for fossil bones. The Physiologist 45 (4): 343, 2002.
That you advocate a 340-year-old superstition suggests that you are the ignorant or purposely malevolent party. Do you have any science credentials to the contrary?
"Do you have any science credentials to the contrary?"
.
No, I personally have no science credentials. But it is good to finally meet a person that starts with something substantial. Now let me introduce something substantial. What can you tell about human chromosome 2? How do you explain ERV's? What is your explanation for Ensatina eschscholtzii (Ring speciation, see: watch?v=PjcFSy1KCTI)
To name a few. All this is evidence for evolution. What evidence invalidates it?
@wimahlers There is no point in debating here. Come to The Life Science Prize or find an evolutionists that will debate according to scientific guide lines and earn a $1,000. If you have the evidence accept the challenge.
I consider such prizes rather suspicious. Like the Kent Hovind $250,000 prize. Sofar I haver never found an independent commission behind these so called prizes. But, perhaps, in your case I am judgmental based on previous experiences. So, who decides I meet the challenge?
As to my claim, not a single creationists ever wrote a peer-reviewed scientific paper, I am just curious, by whom was your paper reviewed? And what was the scientific response and counter response?
How do you reconcile or counter your conclusion with the following study? See tinyurl(dot)com /6cxyrcw
As to your paper, I find two references questionable. Sarfati+Oxnard. Perhaps you are not aware of some scientific criticism, for example tinyurl(dot)com /6kth864
It seems to me that you are not a scientists. Because no honest scientists will let a judge decide on science. But I am willing to take your bet given some reeasonable conditions. Such as:
a. That you scientifically define the term "devolution".
b. Find a judge who has practical scientific experiences in the subject related sciences.
c. Since science is not based on the judgement of one person, let the verdict be scrutinized by mutiple independent scientific sources.
"Too many conditions and so another name added to the debate dodgers list. "
.
Let me see ... because I demand independent verification from persons at organizations that have actually studied the subject matter you call that too many conditions?
Why do you dodge my questions related to biological observed phenomena such as ring species, ERV and chromosome 2? Can't you specify a link or source with an alternative explanation? Your remark sounds like a copout. Convince me!
LOL- Got the attention of the incredulous Mr. Priest! With NOT ONLY his less-than-witty "Hot Air" remark again BUT ALSO a mention on the life-science prize. OMG!!!!!!
I've told you before the reason it'll be a cold day across the River Styx before you get anyone to waste there time on your game-ending Life Science prize.
You may not have time to answer every wild comment, but you did have time to waste on the useless video. Did it contain any evidence actually refuting evolutionary theory?
All true believers in evolutionism wnat is hot air Intenet discussion. The Life Science Prize has proven they have no science. Dr. Mastopaolo has called their bluff.
Creationists don't have the time to answer every wild comment posted on YouTube.
@theinsectmanofwv And reputable scientists, who have actually more important things to do (e.g. doing actual research), don't have the time to answer every debate challenge uttered by some unimportant creationist like Mastropaolo. He's like a skinny guy in the audience of a boxing match, who screams "I challenge you!" at the champion under the general noise of the audience and then claims victory, when he's ignored. Pathetic.
Call it whatever you want- goofy, a lie, darwinism, the monster under the stairs, the story of life on our planet- doesn't change what it is. A very - very - well supported scientific theory.
You keep screaming there's so much against evolution, but you never say WHAT that is (other than "the bible tells me so").
No one is suppressing your freedom of speech- just looks like a lot of folks think what you are saying isn't worth the wasted pixels on their screen.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@MrNobodyWV YT has given you haters of the freedom of speech the opprotunity to supress the other side as you do in all other outlets. Still, I won't block your comments, as we support an open discussion.
You mean you won't block comments because you wouldn't be able to see the ones from those who are as misguided and delusional as yourself telling you that everything you say makes perfect sense?
Mebbe/mebbe not- YouTube understands that the interwebz (which it is a part of) may contain a lot of garbage. Since it would be counterproductive to its profit margins to allow users to vote your ignorance promoting videos into oblivion. It allows stupid comments to suffer that fate.=]
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@MrNobodyWV "Goofy" is an eccellant word for evolution. Still, our Lame Excuse Book is being filled rapidly. I see our freedom of speech is being attacked by negative votes which is SOP for evolutionists.
Its the simple minds.... they come up with something witty and have to say it over and over and over (and over, and over, and over)- Makes them feel better about perpetuating ignorance. =]
It's very evident that the Evolutionist purpose is to use science to keep the "Divine foot out of the door". A statement made by one of their own. "we must keep the Divine foot out of the door, at all cost.". They hate creationist exposing the straw-man consistency of their materialist paradigm. A worldview that is a necessity for protecting their position and standing in society. If the existence of God is made official, they are delegated to the bottom of the heap.
@TheScienceFoundation It's the Divine foot kept out of science, which just happens to conveniently correspond to the atheist secular world view. And what pray tell is your definition of super natural? Any thing that can't or hasn't been explained by "M.N."? No one on earth knows were the line between natural & supernatural is. People like you pretend to be "know it alls" that have it all figured out. Your real science stoppers. With "it all has to fit our preconceived paradigm." Hypocrites!
@Howie47 it corresponds with methodological naturalism because science is an inductive process, that means positive evidence for positive claims, not just jamming supernatural being X in a gap because it can't be disproven.
'And what pray tell is your definition of super natural?'
Anything that is by definition untestable and unable to be held to constant certain variables.
@TheScienceFoundation LOL, you make me laugh! Scientist make claims, "consider Hawking's recent junk",
which has NO evidence, positive or neg. Just like many, theories (Darwinism) they just jam supernatural happenings into a creator-less paradigm. There are many many observations that can't be held to constant certain variables. All you people do is cherry pick what you want to be super natural and what you proclaim is scientific. Your not scientist. Your thought police!
@Howie47 'Your real science stoppers. With "it all has to fit our preconceived paradigm."'
Within the realm of methodological naturalism is the only way science could function, if we were to pretend any magical 'explanation' is a legitimate theoretical model then science would grind to a halt as unfalsifiable claims just poured in.
@TheScienceFoundation You guys suggest magic all the time. Yet a creator who would be infinitely more intelligent then man. Would only SEEM like a magician to the heathen. You never noticed that Darwinism is unfalsifiable? There isn't even any alternative hypothesis allowed. That would falsify it. Are you really blind to how hypocritical your talk is? God operates within very set variables. That's why some people end up going to hell. They won't listen to the causes and effects.
@Howie47 'Yet a creator who would be infinitely more intelligent then man'
That could only result in either infinite regress or special pleading, both fallacies.
'You never noticed that Darwinism is unfalsifiable'
You can't notice something that isn't true, find an amphibian more genetically similar to a mammal than any other amphibian, evolution would be falsified.
'There isn't even any alternative hypothesis allowed.'
No, There isn't even any alternative hypothesis evidenced.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@TheScienceFoundation Such silly dishonestly you proclaim, publicly, without a bat of the eye! LOL It's not infinite regress nor is it special pleading. Only morons think minds can't identify thoughts from other minds! I.D. has a perfectly good scientific theory. Maybe you should visit, "cosmicfingerprints. /blog and read his "testable hypothesis for I.D." Though I doubt your abilities at science.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@TheScienceFoundation You have neither thought any of this through very far, and you haven't investigated the what information your opposition has. Because you really do not want to know. From all the post I've read from you, all you got is the warn out straw-man propaganda of the old paradigm defenders. They all ran out of specific scientific answers a long time ago. Now you just argue semantics, make ad hominem attacks and do allot of hand waving.
@TheScienceFoundation It is unfalsifiable because no alternative hypothesis are allowed to test it against. A little slow on the uptake! Your supposed to be a rep. of "The Science Foundation"?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Howie47 Many of us have come to the conclusion that TSF is merely an ostrich that is trying to hide his head in the sands of evolution thinking that his sins will escape God's notice. It has been suggested that he is part of the militant-homosexual community that has members such as Dawkins and Krauss which has an agenda to attack Christianity and especially young earth creationists as much as they can. Some even are paid to do this!
@NateWardawg Now you're just projecting, it's not 'a belief that there is no god' it's 'the lack of belief in god due to underwhelming lack of evidence'
There's an overwhelming amount of evidence that there is a God. There are 66 books in my Bible written by over 40 different authors and not only has it never been proven false, it's been proven true time and again despite overwhelming amounts of criticism. :)
For instance, scoffers used to say the Bible was false because the Hittites were fictional. Instead we know "because of" the Bible :)
@NateWardawg 'There are 66 books in my Bible written by over 40 different authors and not only has it never been proven false,'
It says bats are birds, the earth sits on foundations, the earth was covered in a deluge and you can see all the kingdoms of earth from a high mountain. All those assertions are demonstrably wrong/false.
What she actually said was that creationists see debates as matters of winning public opinion and that they have no shame in flinging mountains of fallacy in order to 'win' the favor of the crowd.
@TheScienceFoundation This is just more from The Lame Excuse Handbook. In The Life Science Prize courtroom "fallacies" would not be allowed and a judgment would be based on just the "facts". Contact Joe Mastropaolo for details, his credentials and peer review articles. Evolutionists cannot allow the "crowd" to know.
@BereanBeacon1 In the scientific peer review not only are fallacies found out in a brutal process of scrutiny, but if anyone were to present evidence against such a well founded theory as evolution there's no way they would be denied a Nobel prize
So in your challenge, replace 'evolutionists' with 'creationists' 'life science prize courtroom' with scientific peer review
also why dont these guys tell the truth?parts,not all,but parts have been proven true in evolution,not to mention the mapping of the human genome which gives further credibility to evolution.And unlike most if not all christian claims that evolution promotes and therefore undermines their claim to a god,it doesnt.Thats cosmology,a totally different science altogether and christian scolars know this yet perposly lie to further the agenda of their god,who commands you must not lie.
@ranchai100 It's not even cosmology that claims that there is no God. It's scripture that makes claims that are in conflict with demonstrable reality, therefore it's that scripture that, when put in context with reality, shows the claim of there being a specific described God to be wrong.
@ranchai100 and did you know that Charles Darwin said in his own words "If anyone finds any evidence that goes against my theory it would all fall apart" or something like that and we've found tons of things like that, but I especially like you to find them
@Vlaxerman343 but your evidence is not evidence.also when science finds that a theory is wrong they admit it,christians dont.And yes darwin was wrong on many things regarding evolution because he lacked the technology to show him this.some of what is now known didnt even occur to darwin at that time,such as the mapping of the human genome proving that the majority of evolution is indeed correct.
@ranchai100 and i'm not saying it was wrong it was just an interesting fact, and hundreds of years later with better technology we have even less evidence with it than what we did back when people were just coming upt with the hypothesis of evolution
@Vlaxerman343 also 1 fallacy in science that was believed for a long time is that we evolved from monkeys,but a number of years ago that was proven wrong,not by christians but by scientist who realized that while we do share a common ancestry with monkeys,we did not evolve from them.science in this matter proved itself wrong and corrected itself.when was the last time christians in authority did that when thay were proved wrong?never.
@Vlaxerman343 I fallacy is that bats are of the bird family as stated in the bible,this has been proven wrong through genetics,you cant take 1 passage of scripture and say it proves god did it,because thanyou are using circular thinking.trying to prove your point because your holy book says it is so it must be.Another is the earth being the center of the universe.You'd think that an all knowing god wouldnt have got these things wrong and would have been clear on this when he inspired the bible
Science is debated through wee researched papers published in peer-reviewed journals. NOT on stage in 15 minute soundbites in front of a layman audience.
Atzanteol1 1 month ago
There is no debate about IF evolution happens. Debating religion is a waste of time.
Scientific fact: Dinosaurs had feathers.
gregrutz 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Popular evolutionary scientists Dawkins and Hawking refuse to debate with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at ICR, The Institure for Creation Research. They only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, and WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their reproductive system and other vital organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
When extremely intelligent people come to polar opposite conclusions while looking at the same evidence, it is apparant that the difference is in their worldviews/frameworks, not in empical science. Still, evolutionists refuse to agknowledge the fact that they themselves interperate evidence through their own ideologies which they accept on a basis of faith. They invent self-serving rules for what "real science" is and isn't. They only except naturalistic explanations for phillosophical reasons.
xXTheRatXx 7 months ago
@xXTheRatXx *empirical
xXTheRatXx 7 months ago
@xXTheRatXx uh no, the reason we accept evolution is because it is the ONLY explanation for the variety of life supported by evidence, period.
wearestarstuffsagan 5 months ago
@xXTheRatXx
"When extremely intelligent people come to polar opposite conclusions while looking at the same evidence, it is apparant that the difference is in their worldviews/frameworks, not in empical science. Still, evolutionists refuse to agknowledge the fact that they themselves interperate..."
- incorrect, the differnce between these is that evolution is a conclusion reached through subjecting evidence to science (the most effective mechanism for identifying what is true)
types10000 3 months ago
@xXTheRatXx Correct, Science does not use magic, voodoo or supernatural beings. Scientists are of all religions, they have bias towards their favorite theories and fudge the data, they are only human. That is why there is peer review. Religion knows the answers from the start, so you only look for evidence that supports your stories.
gregrutz 2 months ago
The fact the scientist don't want to enter a 3-ring circus does not discredit them. These people are scientists not hucksters. Its not about who wins a debate directed to an audience who doesn't understand the science, it’s about who has the real science. We can be deceived by people or we can take it upon ourselves to learn about evolution. It's amazing how quickly it becomes apparent that this so called creation science has no right to be taught anywhere as science. Learn the truth.
b991228 7 months ago
@b991228 Thank you.
Find the love of God here.
Audio, Gospel of John Chapter 1 AV h t t p://w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=Ao4uaIjd3xs
BereanBeacon1 7 months ago
EUGENIE C. SCOTT knows that you can't educate a creatard in one debate. Nothing you show them will change their minds because they are brainwashed. There is no debate, evolution has been proven.
@4:28 ''easily shot down by non scientists.''
THEN WHY CAN'T YOU PROVE EVOLUTION WRONG ??????
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz First dino 'blood' extracted from ancient bone
A hadrosaur bone buried for 80 million years has yielded a mix of proteins and microstructures resembling cells that may help shed light on dinosaur evolution. Doesn't appear to be a creationist site. BTW, how do know what constitutes a Christian? Also a debate is not for education but to show which side has the facts and wins. Cluck
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 Wins what? Evolution is studied in every Biology class. Scientists won.
A CHRISTian is someone who thinks Jesus CHRIST died for our sins.
Yes, they are finding more in the FOSSILS [rock not bone] they they could have imagined, the fossil is still 70 Million years old and dinosaurs evolved for 160 Million years.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1
"A hadrosaur bone buried for 80 million years has yielded a mix of proteins and microstructures resembling cells "
Notice how there's no mention of actual blood being obtained from the fossil. It also still states that the fossil is 80 million years old.
"Also a debate is not for education but to show which side has the facts and wins. "
Debates are usually only showcases for the rhetorical skills of the participants. Science is done in the peer-reviewed literature.
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Video titles:
Green River Formation Fossil Has Original Soft Tissue
Ancient Dinosaur Blood (68,000,000 Years)
Fossil Fraud Embarrasses Scientists
Scientist Draws With Extinct Squid Ink
AMBER EXPOSES EVOLUTION
Evolution: The Itsy-Bitsy Spider
Fantastic Australian Amber Supports Young World
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1
"Video titles"
I don't feel like trudging through video after video of creationist pandering. Point me to articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals and I will look into it.
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer You cannot understand because you are spiritually dead and love darkness.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1Corinthians 2:14
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. John 3:19
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1
"You cannot understand because you are spiritually dead and love darkness."
Ad hominem attacks! How cute! And since you're still spewing Bible verses, I have a nice one for you from the Bhagavad Gita, which I think fits you like a glove:
Delusion arises from anger. The mind is bewildered by delusion. Reasoning is destroyed when the mind is bewildered. One falls down when reasoning is destroyed.
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being. Psalm 104:33
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1
"Psalm 104:33"
Lessee. Ah, here's a nice one:
"I do not believe in a fate that falls on men however they act; but I do believe in a fate that falls on them unless they act." - Buddha
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Abigail Sings Scripture Play List - h t t p://w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/view_play_list?p=34B22E9C0526344F
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1
So you're not even TRYING to come up with any arguments anymore. What is one to think of someone who starts posting irrelevant quotes from their favorite religious text and links to totally unrelated videos? The only proper response is contempt, mixed with a good dose of pity. I, sir, salute you for representing creationists in all their splendor.
Have a nice day!
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer You have the words of death and I have the words of life.
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Hebrews 4:12
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BereanBeacon1
"You have the words of death and I have the words of life."
That's rather ironic, considering your god supposedly killed all the the world once already .. and then there's the whole deal with nailing someone to a cross as a sacrifice.
But we seem to have diverged from science quite a bit. As the Bhagavad Gita states: "Better indeed is knowledge than mechanical practice. "
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2Thessalonians 2:7-12
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
Science is not determined through debates. If creationists think they have anything worthwhile to add to the scientific body of knowledge they should publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals. You know, like all scientists have to do.
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Evolutionists are determined by how they run to the hen house. No one is allowed to even question their science fiction and so peer review is just another straw man from their Lame Excuse Handbook. Cluck, cluck.
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1
"Evolutionists are determined by how they run to the hen house."
No, SCIENTISTS have done so. We simply don't have the time and energy to give every runaway idea equal attention. Scientists therefore have established a set of rules, of which the most important is: provide evidence for your claims. If you can't: sorry, try again. It's a rough and tough process, but it's one that WORKS. Deal with it.
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1
"All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. "
Evolutionary biologists publish their findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals with names attached. You can look up their articles easily.
"You can evolve from a chicken"
That's the dumbest bullshit I have heard in a long while. You don't seem to grasp even the most basic concepts of evolution.
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Your evolution is science fiction and that's why you don't dare debate it in a science controlled public forum. We grasp real science as you do, then evolutionists slip in their science fiction as a sleazy salesman using the bate and switch technique.
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1
"Your evolution is science fiction"
Then it's science fiction with a massive amount of evidence in its favor.
"We grasp real science"
Nobody can say stuff like "evolve from a chicken" and still maintain that they grasp science.
"sleazy salesman using the bate and switch technique. "
Give one example. ONE.
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Wiki does it all the time. They present real science and then science fiction.
Science Fiction:
Complex eyes appear to have first evolved within a few million years, in the rapid burst of evolution known as the Cambrian explosion. There is no evidence of eyes before the Cambrian, but a wide range of diversity is evident in the Middle Cambrian Burgess shale.
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1
"Wiki does it all the time. "
Who cares? Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
"Complex eyes appear to have first evolved within a few million years"
Complex eyes have evolved several times over in very different organisms. So what?
"no evidence of eyes before the Cambrian"
Precursors to complex eyes may have existed, like light-sensitive patches of skin. Either way, the Pax-6 gen, dealing with eye development, was likely already present BEFORE the Cambrian.
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Evolution:
I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not. Isaiah 66:4
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1
"Isaiah 66:4"
Bible verses are irrelevant.
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "But precursors to more complex eyes may have existed," is conjecture and does not fit in the definition of science.
Science fiction: specimen is hundreds of millions years old.
This is real science.
First dino 'blood' extracted from ancient bone h t t p://w w wDOTnewscientistDOTcom/article/dn17060-first-dino-blood-extracted-from-ancient-boneDOThtml
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1
"is conjecture "
No, it's determined from comparing modern jellyfish with fossilized ones, among others.
"First dino 'blood' extracted from ancient bone"
h t t p://w w wDOTtalkoriginsDOTorg/faqs/dinosaur/bloodDOThtml
Stop getting your information from creationist sites only.
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer palaeontologist Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University is a creationist?
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BereanBeacon1
"palaeontologist Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University is a creationist? "
I have no clue, It has absolutely no bearing on her work, in any case.
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 No, Mary is a Christian Paeontologist. She is upset with people misusing her work and lying about what she said. She knows the dinosaur fossil is 70 million years old. She works with fossils every day. She is an ''evolutionist''.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz So, NewScientist is a Christian site and the writer lied? Mary is calling Jesus Christ a liar, not that you would care.
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BereanBeacon1
"Mary is calling Jesus Christ a liar"
She is doing no such thing. She merely presents her findings. Of course, the meat of her work can be found in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
incidently .. have you already found any answers addressing and explaining the following observations:
a. Human chromosome 2
b. The distribution of ERV's in the primate chromosomes
c. Ring species/speciation
I can, of course, add other observations. Such as, but not limited to, the whale limbs and attached muscle distribution, Tiktaalik, the human tail and attached muscles, and much, much more. But let's not do the Gish Gallop and leave it at these first three (a through c, see above).
wimahlers 10 months ago
@wimahlers but none of these observations go to the central claim of the Theory of Evolution, that is that Random Mutations acted on by non-random Natural Selection is what produced what we observe is the field biology from biochemical pathways and, on through, organelles, specialised cells, organs, systems, various limbs, instincts and the different classes, and even consciousness etc. So can you produce a list of observations supporting the actual theory
allan3141 9 months ago
@allan3141,
.
"So can you produce a list of observations supporting the actual theory"
.
Yes!
Otherwise it would not be a scientific theory. To name one to start with: Ring species.
What is your explanation for ring species?
wimahlers 9 months ago
@wimahlers (1) Hi thank you for your reply. I have no problem with ring species in principle. Indeed it’s surprising when it doesn't happen. The explanation given is the two groups have been genetically isolated for so long that their genomes have become so out of phase that viable recombination is no longer possible. But even taking this as red with no quibbles ......Cont…
allan3141 9 months ago
@wimahlers Cont…(2) this hardly seems strong evidence that Random Mutations acted on by Non-random Natural Selection can in principle produce, in time, complete new biochemical pathways, organelles, specialised cells, new organs, systems, classes, instincts and indeed consciousness. Have you got any examples more pertinent to these issues?
allan3141 9 months ago
@allan3141,
.
"this hardly seems strong evidence that Random Mutations acted on by Non-random Natural Selection can in principle produce, in time, complete new biochemical pathways, organelles, specialised cells, new organs, systems, classes, instincts and indeed consciousness".
.
And indeed it did, does and will continue to do so. A good example is the ape called "Homo sapien". Proof for a common ancestry see: human chromosome 2 and the ERV distribution within the primates.
wimahlers 9 months ago
@wimahlers (1a) but you have again given evidence in support of The Theory of Common Descent and not for the Theory as to what 'drives' it (the mechanism.) I thought you had understood that that is what I was asking for and that I had made that clear. Cont….
allan3141 9 months ago
@wimahlers (2a) I am asking for a list of observations, empirical findings, facts, data, indeed any category of evidence that justify claiming, that the hypothesis, that Random Mutations acted on by Non-random Natural Selection is what produced all the things claimed of it (and that it set itself to explaining,) is a well established Scientific Theory. I trust my question is clear. If not, I am happy to elaborate.
allan3141 9 months ago
@allan3141,
.
"am asking for a list of observations, empirical findings, facts, data, indeed any category of evidence"
.
Human chromosome 2 is an observation, empirical finding, fact, data, indeed a category of evidence.
The distribution of ERV's within the primates is an observation, empirical finding, fact, data, indeed a category of evidence.
And so is - see tinyurl(dot)com/3r6jr2 an observation, empirical finding, fact, data, indeed a category of evidence.
There you have it!
wimahlers 9 months ago
@wimahlers (1c) Hi Wim, we seem to be misunderstanding each other. So can I clarify an issue? Do you accept that there is a distinction between The Theory of Common Descent (ancestry), and theories as to what mechanism(s) drove that ancestry? I not discussing Common Descent, I am assuming that is true. I am trying to discuss the modern theory of the mechanism under neo-Darwinism. Cont…
allan3141 9 months ago
@allan3141
And talking about facts, fact is that creationists have no model at all. No explanation for anything (other than "goddidit"). And despite, crying wolf, have absolutely not a single argument that falsifies even a minor detail of the current evolution theory. All these facts creationists try to hide by ignoring the overwhelming evidence that is there, quote mining, distortions, out right lies, and the ever boring "not (good) enough" excuse. Even though they have no theory themselves.
wimahlers 9 months ago
@allan3141,
.
"Do you accept that there is a distinction between The Theory of Common Descent (ancestry), and theories as to what mechanism(s) drove that ancestry?"
.
No! I don't know what you mean by that. Accept that common descent is an observation, therefore a fact. As such it is not very interesting. What is interesting is the explanation of this fact. That is described by the evolution theory. Sure, there are more mechanisms known now then in Darwin's time. But that is just details.
wimahlers 9 months ago
@wimahlers (2c) Of course HC2 and ERV’s are great observations; but not of what I asked about. Unless you can explain how, say, ERV’s are strong support for the proposed mechanism of neo-Darwinism? I of course accept Lenski’s work IS in the area I am talking about. (If you reply could you please continue to post after my very last comment so as not to jumble up the conversation and make it un-followable?)
allan3141 9 months ago
@allan3141,
.
"Unless you can explain how, say, ERV’s are strong support for the proposed mechanism of neo-Darwinism?.
.
ERV's indeed strongly support the evolution theory. Indeed, if the pattern would have been (just about) anything else it would actually have falsified the evolution theory.
Ironically creationists often refer, how boring, to the Piltdown man fraud. But creationists must realize that if the Piltdown man was for real it would actually have falsified(!) common descent!
wimahlers 9 months ago
@wimahlers (1d) Wim you introduce a host of things having nothing to do with what I have said nor asked; and in fact ignore, as if I had not said them, things I have made every effort to make clear. Your reply is completely at odds with what *I* have said to you. Cont....
allan3141 9 months ago
@wimahlers …(2d) I certainly have not got clarity with regard to my question, "Do you accept that there is a distinction between The Theory of Common Descent (ancestry), and theories as to what mechanism(s) drove that ancestry?" For although you answer with an emphatic "No!" you then immediately follow with, "I don't know what you mean by that." And go on, in contradiction to your “No!” to make a distinction. Cont..
allan3141 9 months ago
@wimahlers (3d) In any case, I have informed you clearly, and in numerous ways, and on a number of occasions, that I am NOT talking about Common Descent; but you still reply about Common Descent. You must see that that might be found a tad frustrating by me. Cont..
allan3141 9 months ago
@allan3141
"I am NOT talking about Common Descent; but you still reply about Common Descent. "
Evolution is ALL about common descent. If you leave that out, then what the heck are you talking about? Shared ERVs in the genome of humans and chimpanzees shows they both share a common ancestor. It's evidence for evolution, pure and simple.
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Evolution is ALL about common descent. If you leave that out, then what the heck are you talking about?" Of course it isn't. The idea of Common Descent and the Mechanism that drives it are two very different concepts. Even Darwin said so in his "An Historical Sketch." You are certainly confused; since the Theory Common Descent is not even Darwin's idea, but precedes him and this is well documented. His theory is a theory of mechanism. As is neo-Darwinism properly understood.
allan3141 8 months ago
@allan3141
"The idea of Common Descent and the Mechanism that drives it are two very different concepts. "
All life forms are related because of descent with modification. They are two sides of the same coin.
"Even Darwin said so"
What Darwin said is totally irrelevant to modern evolutionary science, which marched on in the 150 years since then.
"is not even Darwin's idea"
So what?
"His theory is a theory of mechanism"
Which explains how common descent is possible.
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "So what?" Because that alone is indicative of the vast difference to which I refer. And your next comment (namely 'Which explains how common descent is possible') also recognises this difference. I am not talking about the old version of the Theory and I made that plain, I am talking about the modern formulation. I mentioned Darwin only to show that Darwin's original theory, and is modern version, are theories of the mechanism.
allan3141 8 months ago
@allan3141
"Because that alone is indicative of the vast difference to which I refer. "
Squabbling over what Darwin man said is totally useless. His work is only of historical interest and of no relevance anymore to modern biology.
"theories of the mechanism."
Descent with modification is the mechanism, common descent is its effect. What's so hard to understand about this?
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Descent with modification is the mechanism, common descent is its effect" Modification is the mechanism! So what is the mechanism of the modification: and the answer to that question finally beings us to the actual theory. I am trying to discuss that; both with you, and with the previous poster. The distinction is clear, it is not me that is failing to understand. The very same point was made by Lynn Margulis as recently as April this year.
allan3141 8 months ago
@allan3141
"the actual theory."
Honestly, you have totally lost me. What "actual theory" are you talking about? If it's evolutionary theory, it's the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms. Then there's universal common descent, which, of course, occurs through the previously mentioned changes of inherited traits. There's ample evidence for any of these, so what exactly is your problem?
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
@MomoThe (1) "What 'actual theory' are you talking about?" The theory that innovations (New specialised cells, organelles, tissues, organs, limbs, systems, classes, instincts, and even consciousness and ecosystems) are the product of Non Random Natural Selection acting on Random Mutations. Your "it's the change over time in one or more inherited traits *FOUND* in populations of organisms" formulation skirts over the main issue and is a bit light on detail for a serious scientific theory. Cont
allan3141 8 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
@allan3141
"The theory that innovations (New specialised cells, organelles, tissues, organs, limbs, systems, classes, instincts, and even consciousness and ecosystems) are the product of Non Random Natural Selection acting on Random Mutations"
No such theory exists. Evolution is not about "innovations". It's about change. It can mean that features might be gained, or that they might be lost, or that they get a whole new function. You're fighting a straw man.
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Cont (2) In what really explanatory sense is, say, the dorsal fin of a whale an inherited trait or “found”? How readily is a plausible explanation yielded by neo-Darwinism? And how testable is that explanation anyway? And this is assuming, and not questioning, that in fact a land based mammal (be it cow, bear, or dog like, or whatever) did transition into a whale. Non of those creatures has a dorsal fin.
allan3141 8 months ago
@allan3141
"How readily is a plausible explanation yielded by neo-Darwinism? "
New features are the result of slow accumulation of changes. It's a process that builds on what is already there, which also applies to dorsal fins of dolphins.
"how testable is that explanation anyway?"
You look for a sequence of organisms with gradually adapted features, of which many have been found.
(cont ...)
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
@allan3141
"And this is assuming (...) that in fact a land based mammal (...) did transition into a whale."
The evolution of whales is very well documented and there's no excuse for you not to know about it.
"Non of those creatures has a dorsal fin."
Actually, dorsal fins were present in most species of whale, although some species lost it again. You might also take note that several species of sea organisms developed distinct dorsal fins independently, like sharks.
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
@wimahlers (4d) I asked you a precise question, "can [you] explain how ERV’s are strong support for the proposed mechanism of neo-Darwinism?" You reply, "ERV's indeed strongly support the evolution theory" and go on to speak about common descent and about "Darwin's time," but I clearly asked about neo-Darwinism and specifically NOT about common descent. Cont..
allan3141 9 months ago
@allan3141
.
"neo-Darwinism"
.
I have no comments on darwinism or neo-darwinism, the modern synthesis or any particular historical labelling. Those labels are utterly unimportant other than referrring to specific scientific refinements in time.
Again, "the theory of common descent" is incorporated in the current theory of evolution. In fact "the theory of common descent" describes the mechanisms of this common descent. So, again, No! There is no distinction. Again, what do you mean?
wimahlers 9 months ago
@allan3141 I still have no idea what you are fishing at with your usage of the label "neo-darwinism". But perhaps you are going to explain that now. I claim the following:
1. Creationist have no vialbe alternative scientific explanation equal to or surpassing the explanatory power of the current evolution theory.
2. There currently is not a single scientifically relevant claim that falsifies the evolution theory.
3. Every naturalistic discovery made in the past centuries confirms evolution.
wimahlers 9 months ago
@allan3141,
.
"I asked you a precise question, "can [you] explain how ERV’s are strong support for the proposed mechanism of neo-Darwinism?"
.
The distribution of ERV's within the primate species is the explanation.
If you do not understand that than it follows that you do not know what ERV's are. Do you know what ERV's are and do you understand that the distribution of the ERV's in the primate gene pool is explained by common descent?
If you think not than please motivate why not.
wimahlers 9 months ago
Comment removed
allan3141 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wimahlers (5d) How you can fit Piltdown Man into the conversation is anyone’s guess; but while also saying that people who refer to it are boring makes it a tad funny and ironic you must admit. Can I humbly suggest that you re-read our comments so far and tell me where things have gone wrong?
allan3141 9 months ago
@wimahlers
Errata:
Before somebody mention it ... the term:
Homo sapien
Must, of course, be:
Homo sapiens
(or Homo sapiens sapiens, if you prefer to reference the latest model -- us!)
wimahlers 9 months ago
The fact evolution consist in its basic form of the following observations:
a. Every species produce more offspring than needed to replace itself.
b. Not all offspring survives to procreate themselves.
c. There is variation in the offspring.
d. Lifeforms existed in the past for which we have found not a single living trace in the present.
e. Lifeforms exist now for which we have found not a single trace in the past.
Do you agree that the statements A through E above are observed facts?
wimahlers 10 months ago
@wimahlers Question, was the judge a scientist in the Dover trial and if not why was that acceptable?
BereanBeacon1 10 months ago
@BereanBeacon1.
.
"Question, was the judge a scientist in the Dover trial and if not why was that acceptable?"
.
No! But as you so painfully explained yourself in various writings, the Dover trial was not about science but about a book and the separation of religion and state. Do you suddenly have another opinion now?
Since I have answered all of your questions are you able to answer some of mine? To remind:
Evolution (see A thru E), Chromosome 2, ERV's, define devolution, ring species...
wimahlers 10 months ago
@wimahlers No, it is a time waster to debate here.
Did you know that all 50 states have God in their preambles?
BereanBeacon1 10 months ago
@BereanBeacon1,
You: No, it is a time waster to debate here.
Me: I agree! Science is most definitely not a debate contest in which the best debater wins. It is based on independently verified empirical evidence. That is why I ask for the links that contains the information that explains human chromosome 2, ERV's, ring speciation, the order of the fossil layer, etc. Show me.
You: Did you know that all 50 states have God in their preambles?
Me: By Zeus, what has that to do with science?
wimahlers 10 months ago
@wimahlers Why didn't the states adhere to your misinterpretation of the "separation of church and state". 50 witnesses believed in the God of the Bible.
BereanBeacon1 10 months ago
@BereanBeacon1,
.
"Why didn't the states adhere to your misinterpretation of the "separation of church and state". 50 witnesses believed in the God of the Bible."
.
First, this has nothing to do with the subject at hand: Evoution vs. creation. Secondly, I misinterpreted nothing. It was you who referred to the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial. And here is the judge's conclusion: tinyurl(dot)com/63km25c
Read it! So if you think the judge misinterpreted the case than take it up with judge Jones.
wimahlers 10 months ago
Comment removed
allan3141 9 months ago
All evolutionists have is Internet hot air.
the Life Science Prize rules!
theinsectmanofwv 10 months ago
@theinsectmanofwv ,
.
"the Life Science Prize rules!"
.
Do you agree that you are, like me, ignorant on many subjects in the field of the many dispersed independent sciences and scientific fields?
Do you agree that it is more easily to convince one person than it is to convince many independent persons?
Do you agree that within the sciences independent verification of a claim is a required necessity?
How is a single non-scientific judge supposed to be and do all that? The prize is naive.
wimahlers 10 months ago
@theinsectmanofwv Question, was the judge a scientist in the Dover trial and if not why was that acceptable to evolutionists?
BereanBeacon1 10 months ago
When do you creationists ever learn that science is not a debate.
If you have scientific objections write a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Not a single creationists ever did. Frankly, I have not met a creationists intelligent enough to write such a paper. But feel free to challenge me on this or any scientific subject on this matter. I am not a scientists. But that really places me on your level. Because you are also not. However, I know were to find the science. You don; t..
wimahlers 10 months ago
@wimahlers Joseph Mastropaolo, The Life Science Prize
I have published 22 science articles in peer reviewed science journals, one of which was entitled, An objective ancestry test for fossil bones. The Physiologist 45 (4): 343, 2002.
That you advocate a 340-year-old superstition suggests that you are the ignorant or purposely malevolent party. Do you have any science credentials to the contrary?
Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
California State University, Long Beach
BereanBeacon1 10 months ago
@BereanBeacon1,
.
"Do you have any science credentials to the contrary?"
.
No, I personally have no science credentials. But it is good to finally meet a person that starts with something substantial. Now let me introduce something substantial. What can you tell about human chromosome 2? How do you explain ERV's? What is your explanation for Ensatina eschscholtzii (Ring speciation, see: watch?v=PjcFSy1KCTI)
To name a few. All this is evidence for evolution. What evidence invalidates it?
wimahlers 10 months ago
@wimahlers There is no point in debating here. Come to The Life Science Prize or find an evolutionists that will debate according to scientific guide lines and earn a $1,000. If you have the evidence accept the challenge.
BereanBeacon1 10 months ago
@BereanBeacon1,
I consider such prizes rather suspicious. Like the Kent Hovind $250,000 prize. Sofar I haver never found an independent commission behind these so called prizes. But, perhaps, in your case I am judgmental based on previous experiences. So, who decides I meet the challenge?
wimahlers 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wimahlers This is the page that has all the details. h t t p://lifescienceprizedotorg
BereanBeacon1 10 months ago
@BereanBeacon1,
As to my claim, not a single creationists ever wrote a peer-reviewed scientific paper, I am just curious, by whom was your paper reviewed? And what was the scientific response and counter response?
How do you reconcile or counter your conclusion with the following study? See tinyurl(dot)com /6cxyrcw
As to your paper, I find two references questionable. Sarfati+Oxnard. Perhaps you are not aware of some scientific criticism, for example tinyurl(dot)com /6kth864
wimahlers 10 months ago
@BereanBeacon1,
.
"If you have the evidence accept the challenge"
.
Evidence for evolution, as mentioned before:
a. Human chromosome 2
b. ERV;s
c. Ring species/speciation
Want more? I have more.
wimahlers 10 months ago
@BereanBeacon1,
It seems to me that you are not a scientists. Because no honest scientists will let a judge decide on science. But I am willing to take your bet given some reeasonable conditions. Such as:
a. That you scientifically define the term "devolution".
b. Find a judge who has practical scientific experiences in the subject related sciences.
c. Since science is not based on the judgement of one person, let the verdict be scrutinized by mutiple independent scientific sources.
wimahlers 10 months ago
@wimahlers Too many conditions and so another name added to the debate dodgers list.
BereanBeacon1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BereanBeacon1,
.
"Too many conditions and so another name added to the debate dodgers list. "
.
Let me see ... because I demand independent verification from persons at organizations that have actually studied the subject matter you call that too many conditions?
Why do you dodge my questions related to biological observed phenomena such as ring species, ERV and chromosome 2? Can't you specify a link or source with an alternative explanation? Your remark sounds like a copout. Convince me!
wimahlers 10 months ago
I am not too chicken to avoid making my name known.
Even 5 year olds know when someone has all hot air.
Nice to know you are fixated on me. Get a life.
Bye!
theinsectmanofwv 10 months ago
LOL- Got the attention of the incredulous Mr. Priest! With NOT ONLY his less-than-witty "Hot Air" remark again BUT ALSO a mention on the life-science prize. OMG!!!!!!
I've told you before the reason it'll be a cold day across the River Styx before you get anyone to waste there time on your game-ending Life Science prize.
You may not have time to answer every wild comment, but you did have time to waste on the useless video. Did it contain any evidence actually refuting evolutionary theory?
MrNobodyWV 1 year ago 5
All true believers in evolutionism wnat is hot air Intenet discussion. The Life Science Prize has proven they have no science. Dr. Mastopaolo has called their bluff.
Creationists don't have the time to answer every wild comment posted on YouTube.
theinsectmanofwv 1 year ago
@theinsectmanofwv And reputable scientists, who have actually more important things to do (e.g. doing actual research), don't have the time to answer every debate challenge uttered by some unimportant creationist like Mastropaolo. He's like a skinny guy in the audience of a boxing match, who screams "I challenge you!" at the champion under the general noise of the audience and then claims victory, when he's ignored. Pathetic.
leungchaan 10 months ago
Call it whatever you want- goofy, a lie, darwinism, the monster under the stairs, the story of life on our planet- doesn't change what it is. A very - very - well supported scientific theory.
You keep screaming there's so much against evolution, but you never say WHAT that is (other than "the bible tells me so").
No one is suppressing your freedom of speech- just looks like a lot of folks think what you are saying isn't worth the wasted pixels on their screen.
MrNobodyWV 1 year ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MrNobodyWV YT has given you haters of the freedom of speech the opprotunity to supress the other side as you do in all other outlets. Still, I won't block your comments, as we support an open discussion.
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1
You mean you won't block comments because you wouldn't be able to see the ones from those who are as misguided and delusional as yourself telling you that everything you say makes perfect sense?
Mebbe/mebbe not- YouTube understands that the interwebz (which it is a part of) may contain a lot of garbage. Since it would be counterproductive to its profit margins to allow users to vote your ignorance promoting videos into oblivion. It allows stupid comments to suffer that fate.=]
MrNobodyWV 1 year ago 6
That Priest/Mastropaolo/Chessstick fellow.... I can tell when he's thinking hard- anyone else hear the sizzling in the audio.
I'm guessing the actual video was changed out for these goofy pictures and animations because you knew no one would take this blowing smoke seriously.
MrNobodyWV 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MrNobodyWV "Goofy" is an eccellant word for evolution. Still, our Lame Excuse Book is being filled rapidly. I see our freedom of speech is being attacked by negative votes which is SOP for evolutionists.
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ms. Scott may consider it a compliment given that evolution and
eugenics are so closely allied.
theinsectmanofwv 1 year ago
Could Mr Priest please stop saying "Eugenics Scott?" That is extremely, extremely vulgar.
thud0 1 year ago
@thud0
Its the simple minds.... they come up with something witty and have to say it over and over and over (and over, and over, and over)- Makes them feel better about perpetuating ignorance. =]
MrNobodyWV 1 year ago
lucfer world. and he out to kill all who let him. thats man souls. Yeshua,Jesus will have the last word. sadly many do fall with out thinking.
iwalkjesuswaymommy7 1 year ago
It's very evident that the Evolutionist purpose is to use science to keep the "Divine foot out of the door". A statement made by one of their own. "we must keep the Divine foot out of the door, at all cost.". They hate creationist exposing the straw-man consistency of their materialist paradigm. A worldview that is a necessity for protecting their position and standing in society. If the existence of God is made official, they are delegated to the bottom of the heap.
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 t's very evident that the Evolutionist purpose is to use science to keep the "Divine foot out of the door".
You're taking it personal, *no* supernatural explanation is allowed in science, whether it's yours, Zeus or the flying spaghetti monster.
'A worldview that is a necessity for protecting their position and standing in society'
Methodological naturalism is a methodology, not a worldview, and it's a necessity for usefully understanding reality.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago 3
@TheScienceFoundation It's the Divine foot kept out of science, which just happens to conveniently correspond to the atheist secular world view. And what pray tell is your definition of super natural? Any thing that can't or hasn't been explained by "M.N."? No one on earth knows were the line between natural & supernatural is. People like you pretend to be "know it alls" that have it all figured out. Your real science stoppers. With "it all has to fit our preconceived paradigm." Hypocrites!
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 it corresponds with methodological naturalism because science is an inductive process, that means positive evidence for positive claims, not just jamming supernatural being X in a gap because it can't be disproven.
'And what pray tell is your definition of super natural?'
Anything that is by definition untestable and unable to be held to constant certain variables.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago 3
@TheScienceFoundation LOL, you make me laugh! Scientist make claims, "consider Hawking's recent junk",
which has NO evidence, positive or neg. Just like many, theories (Darwinism) they just jam supernatural happenings into a creator-less paradigm. There are many many observations that can't be held to constant certain variables. All you people do is cherry pick what you want to be super natural and what you proclaim is scientific. Your not scientist. Your thought police!
Howie47 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Howie47 'Just like many, theories (Darwinism) they just jam supernatural happenings into a creator-less paradigm'
Such as?
'There are many many observations that can't be held to constant certain variables'
Such as?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago 6
@Howie47 'Your real science stoppers. With "it all has to fit our preconceived paradigm."'
Within the realm of methodological naturalism is the only way science could function, if we were to pretend any magical 'explanation' is a legitimate theoretical model then science would grind to a halt as unfalsifiable claims just poured in.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago 3
@TheScienceFoundation You guys suggest magic all the time. Yet a creator who would be infinitely more intelligent then man. Would only SEEM like a magician to the heathen. You never noticed that Darwinism is unfalsifiable? There isn't even any alternative hypothesis allowed. That would falsify it. Are you really blind to how hypocritical your talk is? God operates within very set variables. That's why some people end up going to hell. They won't listen to the causes and effects.
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 'Yet a creator who would be infinitely more intelligent then man'
That could only result in either infinite regress or special pleading, both fallacies.
'You never noticed that Darwinism is unfalsifiable'
You can't notice something that isn't true, find an amphibian more genetically similar to a mammal than any other amphibian, evolution would be falsified.
'There isn't even any alternative hypothesis allowed.'
No, There isn't even any alternative hypothesis evidenced.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago 15
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@TheScienceFoundation Such silly dishonestly you proclaim, publicly, without a bat of the eye! LOL It's not infinite regress nor is it special pleading. Only morons think minds can't identify thoughts from other minds! I.D. has a perfectly good scientific theory. Maybe you should visit, "cosmicfingerprints. /blog and read his "testable hypothesis for I.D." Though I doubt your abilities at science.
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 'It's not infinite regress nor is it special pleading'
You're invoking an even more complex entity to explain observed complexity, what other possible ramification is there?
'I.D. has a perfectly good scientific theory'
ID doesn't even have a valid hypothesis, it jumps from observation to conclusion through bare assertion.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@TheScienceFoundation You have neither thought any of this through very far, and you haven't investigated the what information your opposition has. Because you really do not want to know. From all the post I've read from you, all you got is the warn out straw-man propaganda of the old paradigm defenders. They all ran out of specific scientific answers a long time ago. Now you just argue semantics, make ad hominem attacks and do allot of hand waving.
Howie47 1 year ago
@Howie47 In the time it took me to come here from my email I could've researched all the information my opposition has 10 times over.
'Because you really do not want to know'
Then present it right now, show us what the creationists have been keeping secret from the actual scientific community.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago 19
@Howie47 'That would falsify it'
Which is it? Is it unfalsifiable or would an alternative hypothesis falsify it?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation It is unfalsifiable because no alternative hypothesis are allowed to test it against. A little slow on the uptake! Your supposed to be a rep. of "The Science Foundation"?
Howie47 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Howie47 'It is unfalsifiable because no alternative hypothesis are allowed to test it against'
That's not the way falsification works, the falsification itself is also an inductive process completely independent of any alternative possibilities.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Howie47 Many of us have come to the conclusion that TSF is merely an ostrich that is trying to hide his head in the sands of evolution thinking that his sins will escape God's notice. It has been suggested that he is part of the militant-homosexual community that has members such as Dawkins and Krauss which has an agenda to attack Christianity and especially young earth creationists as much as they can. Some even are paid to do this!
thechessstick 1 year ago
I like that!! I want to see more towns segregated from the progressive liberal faggots.
ZmajSnoshaj 1 year ago
@ZmajSnoshaj I'd love to give the conservatives the south and maybe Alaska, they'd last about a year.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I agree, everyone is religious. The atheists who comment on these videos especially.
Webster's definition of religious says:
1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
3a: "scrupulously and conscientiously faithful" <-- to the "belief" that there's no God
3b: "fervent, zealous" <-- to attack those who do
But, of course they'll deny it and ignore the dictionary and go by their own personal definition and expect us to fall in line with them. :)
NateWardawg 1 year ago
@NateWardawg Now you're just projecting, it's not 'a belief that there is no god' it's 'the lack of belief in god due to underwhelming lack of evidence'
We don't attack you, we correct your fallacies.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation "belief in god due to underwhelming lack of evidence"
This is simply just "talk"
There's an overwhelming amount of evidence that there is a God. There are 66 books in my Bible written by over 40 different authors and not only has it never been proven false, it's been proven true time and again despite overwhelming amounts of criticism. :)
For instance, scoffers used to say the Bible was false because the Hittites were fictional. Instead we know "because of" the Bible :)
NateWardawg 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NateWardawg 'There are 66 books in my Bible written by over 40 different authors and not only has it never been proven false,'
It says bats are birds, the earth sits on foundations, the earth was covered in a deluge and you can see all the kingdoms of earth from a high mountain. All those assertions are demonstrably wrong/false.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
What she actually said was that creationists see debates as matters of winning public opinion and that they have no shame in flinging mountains of fallacy in order to 'win' the favor of the crowd.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation This is just more from The Lame Excuse Handbook. In The Life Science Prize courtroom "fallacies" would not be allowed and a judgment would be based on just the "facts". Contact Joe Mastropaolo for details, his credentials and peer review articles. Evolutionists cannot allow the "crowd" to know.
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 In the scientific peer review not only are fallacies found out in a brutal process of scrutiny, but if anyone were to present evidence against such a well founded theory as evolution there's no way they would be denied a Nobel prize
So in your challenge, replace 'evolutionists' with 'creationists' 'life science prize courtroom' with scientific peer review
and
$10,000 with Nobel Prize
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago 2
also why dont these guys tell the truth?parts,not all,but parts have been proven true in evolution,not to mention the mapping of the human genome which gives further credibility to evolution.And unlike most if not all christian claims that evolution promotes and therefore undermines their claim to a god,it doesnt.Thats cosmology,a totally different science altogether and christian scolars know this yet perposly lie to further the agenda of their god,who commands you must not lie.
ranchai100 1 year ago 2
@ranchai100 It's not even cosmology that claims that there is no God. It's scripture that makes claims that are in conflict with demonstrable reality, therefore it's that scripture that, when put in context with reality, shows the claim of there being a specific described God to be wrong.
garouHH 1 year ago
@garouHH thats true,1 is that bats are birds,which is incorrect and a whole slew of others.
ranchai100 1 year ago
@ranchai100 and did you know that Charles Darwin said in his own words "If anyone finds any evidence that goes against my theory it would all fall apart" or something like that and we've found tons of things like that, but I especially like you to find them
Vlaxerman343 1 year ago
@Vlaxerman343 but your evidence is not evidence.also when science finds that a theory is wrong they admit it,christians dont.And yes darwin was wrong on many things regarding evolution because he lacked the technology to show him this.some of what is now known didnt even occur to darwin at that time,such as the mapping of the human genome proving that the majority of evolution is indeed correct.
ranchai100 1 year ago
@ranchai100 and i'm not saying it was wrong it was just an interesting fact, and hundreds of years later with better technology we have even less evidence with it than what we did back when people were just coming upt with the hypothesis of evolution
Vlaxerman343 1 year ago
@Vlaxerman343 my apologies friend,I misunderstood what you were saying.sorry about that
ranchai100 1 year ago
@ranchai100 it's alright just so you know
Vlaxerman343 1 year ago
@Vlaxerman343 also 1 fallacy in science that was believed for a long time is that we evolved from monkeys,but a number of years ago that was proven wrong,not by christians but by scientist who realized that while we do share a common ancestry with monkeys,we did not evolve from them.science in this matter proved itself wrong and corrected itself.when was the last time christians in authority did that when thay were proved wrong?never.
ranchai100 1 year ago
@Vlaxerman343 I fallacy is that bats are of the bird family as stated in the bible,this has been proven wrong through genetics,you cant take 1 passage of scripture and say it proves god did it,because thanyou are using circular thinking.trying to prove your point because your holy book says it is so it must be.Another is the earth being the center of the universe.You'd think that an all knowing god wouldnt have got these things wrong and would have been clear on this when he inspired the bible
ranchai100 1 year ago
@ranchai100 and nobody evne knew what bats were back then, so now what?
Vlaxerman343 1 year ago
@Vlaxerman343 'and we've found tons of things like that'
Such as?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago