@Resi2birkin Sorry, theist. You're the one attacking established science. The burden of proof is on you to show how the scientific consensus is wrong, and you must support your position with actual scientific evidence. And don't even try quoting your holy book, that is not scientific evidence.
Regarding small brains: you got even the most fundamental concept of evolution wrong, that of common ancestry. If you're going to attack science, at least learn some of the fundamentals.
@terrymorse The burden of proof also lies on the evolutionist considering there is NO EMPIRICAL evidence for their claims... (Just fanciful stories and assumption-based "logic").
Evolution is supposed to be "scientific" yet it contains no empirical evidence. Evolution is assumed off the evidence, not proven by it. Show us ONE just ONE piece of empirical evidence for evolution.
Empirical = observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable
@Gilbertus1986 epic fail, creationism has no empiraical evidence. Theres many straightforward proof of evolution, viruses develop drug resistance for example. I'm sure it is testable, observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Now what is creationism? not observable, not testable, not repetable and not falsifiable.
Bacteria developing resistance is evidence of variation WITHIN a species, NOT changing to BECOME A NEW species, (like the breeds of a species, they are variants). Since the bacteria, is STILL bacteria, it hasn't changed species hence it hasn't evolved into another species.
Evolving into other species is EXTRAPOLATED of this, it is not empirically proven
Testable - Ongoing discovery of fossils by prediction.
Repeatable - Spray mosquitoes, examine survivors. Alternatively, freeze yourself for 100 million years so I don't have to explain everything to you.
Falsifiable - Show me a modern rabbit fossil from the Cretaceous period.
One piece of evidence doesn't mean anything, if you'd ever studied a science you'd know that. It's like finding 1 watch and concluding "the watch industry is competitive".
So you observe the fossil record "evolving" then? The fossil record doesn't tell you the MECHANISM, or the causation.
The survivors of the mozzies are STILL mozzies, no evolution (change of species), has occured.
Your rabbit comment is stupid. How about, show us ALL the millions of transitional forms from millions of years of evolution (for just one species). Where is the line of progression of changes, even Darwins says there should be one! Where is it?
@Gilbertus1986 "The fossil record doesn't tell you the MECHANISM, or the causation." OK, I accept that, what does then?
I'll tell you, genes, we're in an age when we have mapped the entire human genome, nothing is beyond our archive and it's updated constantly. We are now able to specifically attribute the presence of certain genetic information to a characteristic.
How does this information arise? Mutation, the proliferation of our imperfections which we'll always have.
@ihaterobbie123 The fossil record shows periods of statis, (no change) and (literally) JUMPS to the next fully formed species. Thus evolution is assumed in this line of evidence.
PM sent about mutation as it is probably over 1500 words
I do know science. (More than you from the look of your post)... Since I have debunked all your alledged "empirical evidence" in just one reply ;) Good try though.
@Gilbertus1986 If only an example of a new species can satisfy you then I'll have to explain something to you. A species doesn't reach a tipping point when it simply becomes another one. Each successive generation will be of the same species as it's immediate relatives. What you have to consider is how much it has changed since it's ancestor say 200,000,000,000 generations ago.
There's 1,2,3 and 4. 1 can mate with 2, 2 mates with 3, 3 mates 4. 1 cannot mate with 3 or 4 etc.
@ihaterobbie123 Define what a species is, THEN we can check to see if some have "evolved" or not.. Without this definition, evolutionists are "jumping the gun" with their "theory", since you cannot be sure if its a different species or not.
@Gilbertus1986 A species is the taxonomical rank assigned to an animal which shares a complete set of unique alleles with all other members of that species.
And there is not just the fossil record, a much more useful asset is animals which have been frozen as DNA can be recovered from them.
One thing you've got to understand is the irrelevance of the term "transitional forms". Every animal on this planet is in a constant state of transition, life is a spectrum.
However I do have to ask, didn't you read any of my comments to mcmadbat, since you are just repeating the same DEBUNKED "evidence"... Read what I told him / her first, saves me having to type it again and again.
@Gilbertus1986 "The survivors of the mozzies are STILL mozzies" Ah, the supposed difference between so-called "micro/macro" evolution?
OK, let's call macro-evolution 100 and let's call micro-evolution 1. So, we get a lot of 1, most of the time this 1 isn't suitable and is discarded but eventually we find a helpful 1 which we keep. What next? Well, we find another 1 which makes 2. This goes on and on until we get 100, but 100 doesn't just happen all at once.
@ihaterobbie123 You are assuming that macro is 100 and micro is 1, macro could be A and micro could be B for all you know.
Micro deals with variation of the same old traits, (to get differing breeds, but with the same body plan etc).. With macro you need a mechanism that enables NEW traits to emerge. Even Dawkins doesn't know what this mechanism is despite it being a pillar of the "theory".
@Gilbertus1986 That is a myth, there are 4 main types of mutation. One of these is called insertion and it's a frame shift mutation. It's nothing short of an extra amino acid being added to a sequence.
Despite that it won't convince you, did you know a trait can change it's function? To put it simply the gene responsible for your eye being brown could undergo a mutation (most likely a frame shift) and give you one nostril. Of course that won't happen but I'm just illustrating here.
@Resi2birkin "A Muslim, when faced with what appears to be a contradiction between the Qur’ân and a scientific fact knows there can only be two possibilities:
1. That which is being construed as a scientific “fact” is not in actuality a fact.
2. The verse that is being construed as being in conflict with science is being misinterpreted, misapplied, or misunderstood."
A clear description of how and why fundamentalist theists attack science that conflicts with their holy texts.
@Resi2birkin Here is some more "science" from your book: semen comes from between a man's backbone and ribs; every ear of corn has 100 grains; fevers are caused by the fire of hell; the earth is spread out like a carpet held in place by mountains; the sun moves around the earth and sets in a muddy spring; mountains have feelings, emotions and personality; stars and comets chase after evil spirits; stars are as close to the earth surface as the moon, or closer.
@Resi2birkin "Scientific miracles" is an oxymoron. I saw your video and was unimpressed. Your holy book is not science, even if it has a few phrases that might be interpreted to match our current knowledge of the natural world. You cherry picked and you got lucky. For every claimed "scientific miracle" in your book, I can cite several scientific falsehoods.
@Resi2birkin Theism and modern evolutionary biology are not incompatible. Theists who deny evolution are in the minority. And you can't use an ancient book to prove anything scientifically. If books were proof, I could use "Twas the Night Before Christmas" to prove the existence of Santa Claus. Science depends on evidence, not stories, and there is substantial evidence supporting evolution. You just need to look at the evidence with an open mind.
@Resi2birkin Humans did not evolve from modern apes. Humans and modern chimpanzees share a common ancestor, an ancient ape that probably lived 5-7 million years ago and no longer exists.
No science is unbiased in that it assesses the actual data and doesn't attempt to let a worldview justify creating assuptions. I am not being dishonest I am forwarding the facts on, the fact that REAL science is not based on assumptions.
Furthermore you haven't even attempted to disprove anything I have said and establish your case of me as a lier. Hence perhaps you are wrong in saying I was telling lies. Which then means YOU are dishonest by spouting smoke and accusations with no basis.
"A scientific theory hinges on empirical findings, and remains subject to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered certain."
h t t p://enDOTwikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Scientific_method
Yes it is wikipedia, however it is another example of your ineptitude of the realisation on what REAL science is. Empirical science is REAL science, anything else is social science.
Ask a Question: The scientific method starts when you ask a question about something that you observe: How, What, When, Who, Which, Why, or Where?
w w w DOTsciencebuddiesDOTorg/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_methodDOTshtml
Experimental data based on presupposition is not empirical, if it has no grounds in what occurs in reality. This is why REAL OBSERVATIONS are the first step to any hypothesis.
Lol. SO in saying that I have falsified the video makers (so called) "FACT", as I do have an iota of understanding of evolutionary principles, (yes I completed the challenge), actually its because of this that I don't believe in it, as each proponent doesn't fit correctly with each other and reality...
Just a point of clarification. You have a testable hypothesis, not a theory (1:37). =) I've seen one other of your videos and I know you know the difference. Be well and good luck with your experiment.
Furthermore, there needs to be a method of how these NEW GENETIC DATA come about, however no scientist has come up with a good answer. (What you are saying is variation. VARIATION IS NOT EVOLUTION, as it is confined to the original structure of the original genetic data, ie- the changes can only do so much before NEW DATA is needed to create a new organism). Please... SCIENTISTS admit this point, don't argue because you don't like the facts.
Evolution has no drive, no purpose it is mindless. As such why do we find such order and design, within life. Take DNA for example, it is an incredibly complex code, each region can code for many many different proteins, also there are codes that help to repair errors in the DNA... (erasing the mutations needed for evolution!!), how can such a complex system, evolve on luck and blind chance... (that is what evolution is essentially, as there is no thought process behind its mechanisms)
3. The second law of thermodynamics states that in any closed system energy will gradually be dispersed (primarily through friction and radiative heat) until that system no longer has enough usable energy to function.
2. One major line of evidence used to support evolution is genetics. The study of DNA provides both the mechanism for variation as well as mathematical models which accurately predict the rate at which variation can occur. Specifically, retroviral DNA has been isolated and identified as evidence that separate species evolved from a common ancestor.
1. All biological organisms reproduce with slight variation. Since more offspring are produced than can survive, creatures which are better adapted to their environments will survive to generate more offspring than creatures which are less adapted. Populations of a species which are separated will evolve according to different environmental pressures and gradually become more different.
1) The theory of evolution is the theory that Life can evolve into complex forms from a single simple cell
2) The fossil records (Btw macro evolution is basically just a lot of microevolution within 1 being)
3)The second law of thermodynamics in simple terms means that within a CLOSED system basically energy can run out (enthropy and non useable energy) energy that can be used can only dicrease
lol.. its all clear to me that evolution theory is a big contradiction to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. coz if evolution is true, then there must be a huge amount of force to make it evolve but as of now. nothing founds. thats why it contradicts the 2nd law. and also back to the time when human race, homo erectus, etc. doesnt exist.. how can u make evolve something if u start from zero. ^_^
perhaps i just dont get it, but isnt it extremly hypocritical to demand scientific understanding from others while misusing the terms "fact" and "theory" ?
(not a creationist, I'd just like to test my understanding)
1: Reproduction with Variation+Natural Selection causes eventual speciation. These new species repeat the process and life becomes better adapted to their niche.
2: Retroviral DNA found in Apes and Humans. Nylon-eating bacteria
3: In any closed system, entropy can never decrease, only increase. Therefore the amount of usable energy can only decrease
(Note: M-theory states that even our universe as a whole may not be a closed system)
The answer is what you have said in your response to dsmagee but the way people have thought of creationism is the probable-fact that aliens created humans with genetic engineering which sounds sort of crazy, or maybe like something that L ron hubbard scribbled down one day, but I noticed that you seem an open minded guy that takes full advantage of the internet so I hope you will take the time to look up jordan maxwell on youtube. And I do apologize as I do not quite remember, oh excuse me...
...remember what exactly you should search for but maybe try: JORDAN MAXWELL ON CREATIONISM or something like that should do it. It does explain missing links and how the creationism theory got so out of hand.
3) In a closed system (that part is important!), the amount of entropy can only increase. Which is a fancy way of saying that the amount of usable energy in the system can only DEcrease.
I'm not going to spoon-feed you, but I can point you in the right direction if you tell me what you want to know.
I'll start by taking my own challenge.
1) Organisms reproduce with variations. These variations are inherited. Some organisms reproduce more than others. The changes that tend to benefit reproduction tend to become more common.
2) Similarity of protein sequences forms a phylogenetic tree that matches the one based on morphology.
Evolution is unproved and unproveable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable. Sir Arthur Keith (he wrote the forward of the 100th anniversary edition of Darwins book, Origin of Species in 1959)
@mcmeister89 Dude if you knew what evolution actually was you wouldn't put Aids resistance as "proof" of evolution..
Evolution is where an organism changes into a completely new species. What you have mentioned is variation, nothing more. Variation does happen, however at the end of the day the organism hasn't changed species. Also to assume it would over millions of years ISN'T SCIENTIFIC... I suggest stop reading biased materialist propaganda and look for neutral scientific reports.
@Gilbertus1986 Evolution CAN lead to a new species, but it does this over a LONG TIME. It is simply the change of inherited traits over successive generations. The AIDS resistance mutation is an inheritable trait which means it can be transferred to further generations. In other words, it's evolution.
How is it not scientific just because it happens over a long time period? How does the length of time change its validity? The death of a star takes BILLIONS of years, but we know that happens.
Now the one method that has been given to satisfy evolution is random mutation, (evolution is mindless, so is natural selection, as such it must be random. Otherwise if intelligence is involved it gives rise to design theories).... However we see in nature that all mutations are detrimental... ie- GENETIC DISORDERS... Why else do our DNA have repairation algorithims built within itself to help fix mutations that do occur?
@Gilbertus1986 Also, tell me how the report I sent you to was biased propaganda? It was done at a major university well known in the microbiology community for its work. This would be like saying you didn't believe a medical report from the New England Journal of Medicine.
Please, read how the experiment was conducted and explain to me how it was biased?
Also, you have yet to tell me what SCIENCE you proclaim to be studying at your university. Please, what is your area of expertise?
You are making assumptions, assumptions are not facts no matter how many times you think it.
For a species to become a DIFFERENT species it needs DIFFERENT genes.. Not just a couple of random changes, seriously we are talking about billions of base pairs, do you really think just changing one or two will create a new species?
@mcmeister89 Then perhaps your interpretation of the facts is biased... An inheritable trait doesn't prove evolution dude. If anything it proves the Bible as it says that each kind with produce theri own kind... Ie a dog will produce a dog... The genes for a dog are inherited hence it is proving the Bible correct.
Now please tell me why you think the world is millions of years old, back in Darwins time they said it was just a few hundred thousand....lol ;)
Sorry, but evolution doesn't work like it does on Pokemon. Evolution *is* about the gradual variations to a species, which over a *vastly extended* period of time will produce a new species adapted to differing environmental variables. To say that evolution "magically" creates new species is just like saying an invisible supernatural being placed all life on the planet in exactly the same forms that are here today.
@flapjackboy When did I mention pokemon? Or was that a cheap shot at TRYING to be funny... Read Mendels 1st LAW of Genetics. It states that an organism will normally have the same amount of chromosomes in each cell as its parents... Now how many chromosomes in each cell do you have? Now how many does a single celled organism?? Just saying "vastly extended time" doesn't cut it when LAWS of Biology are being defied by Evolution.
You didn't specifically mention pokemon, but your interpretation of evolution, that a species suddenly transforms into something new is analogous to the way it works in pokemon and is a typical strawman argument used by creationists.
Actually, amoebas have 100-300 times more chromosomes than a human, so don't try going down that route.
@flapjackboy No you talking about pokemon IS YOUR OWN STRAWMAN, and you admitted to it by saying that it was not my words but yours.
No I think I will go down this road as it is a logical question as Evolution DOES DEFY MENDELS LAWS... How do we get differing amount of chromosomes (without defects), when that is what is observed.. ie- polyploidy, downs syndrome.... Or using your logic you can claim that people with downs syndrome are the next "evolutionary link"... Is that logical?
@Gilbertus1986 You know what? I don't know all the answers about how evolution works and neither do you, but at least I keep an open mind about it instead of just saying "God dun it!"
Evolution is a *scientific* theory about how life develops and changes, *not* how it started and as such, it is malleable and changes as new *facts* are discovered. Religious dogma just says "That book there says a magical sky man placed all life on the planet, makes sense to me." is just retarded.
@flapjackboy Lol at least you admit your lack of knowledge. I NEVER said God dun it, so please dont be deceptive and put words in my mouth. Furthermore, a SCIENTIFIC theory DEMANDS EMPIRICAL evidence If you know of ANY empirical evidence for evolution, that doesn't first base itself on assumption or presuposition then please post it. Otherwise open yourself to the concept that perhaps evolution is not a true science, its more like a social science and as such is more like an religion / ideology.
@Gilbertus1986 "If you know of ANY empirical evidence for evolution, that doesn't first base itself on assumption or presuposition then please post it."
You clearly do not understand how science works. Not surprising really. Look, you can't have a scientific theory without making assumptions. This is a base model for the theory. Experiments are then performed to compare the results against the model and if needed, a new model is formed from the evidence. Lather, rinse and repeat.
@flapjackboy "Look, you can't have a scientific theory without making assumptions"
Are you serious! A scientific hypothesis / theory REQUIRES empirical evidence, ie actual observations. Otherwise how can it be determined to be real or just an assumption, (which you just said). I can say I have been to the moon, but if I don't have a photo of me on the moon, (empirical evidence), then how can you tell that I am telling the truth.
@flapjackboy Obviously you haven't studied at Uni, it was the first thing I was taught in my Biology lectures as well as Biotechnology lectures, (there was no need to go over it in Chemistry as that is solely based on observations anyway).
Empirical science, (actual first hand observations) will RULE over any other amount or kind of evidence. If empirical evidence falsifies a theory, or a proponent of said theory, then it IS falsified. PERIOD.
@Gilbertus1986 And this must be why you're a creationist apologetic now, because you clearly are incapable of understanding the proper order of events when developing a scientific theory. First comes the hypothesis. This is our 'assumption' that we seek to test the validity of. We develop a model from this and experiments to give us our observed data (empirical evidence) to compare against our model. So yes, science is the testing of 'assumptions'.
@flapjackboy Wrong again!! First comes OBSERVATION which then leads to the hypothesis. Seriously read a book about the scientific method and stop attempting to twist the scientific method into something which evolution can be regarded by. I do know the proper order of events and these scientific sites agree with me
@Gilbertus1986 Yes, the hypothesis is built around our observations, but that is merely an 'assumption' about the observed phenomena based on current understanding. Experimentation then either confirms or disproves the hypothesis.
@flapjackboy So you admit and OBSERVATION must first be made. Thank you for admiting MY point. An observation is NOT an assumption, no matter how many times you say it, (and so dogmatically too), go read a dictionary on the definitions of these words, perhaps then you will see reason.
@flapjackboy I am not a creationist. I just realise that evolution has many logic holes that will need to be filled before I waste any time in believing in something so ideological and faith based
@flapjackboy Will you admit that the DNA code is a code? If it is a code, then it is information. Where does information come from if not from intelligence, show me any other empirically observed feature in nature that shows information being generated via random occurance. If you cannot, then the DNA code is evidence AGAINST evolution.... (Which is what it was when it first was discovered, until the evos re-designed their hypothesis)
@flapjackboy Name calling will get you no-where. A code is Information, where does information come from.... Does it come from nothing, no. It comes from intelligence, ie- a human can create a book which contains information, can the wind do this. Seriously think about it and lose some of that anger
@flapjackboy Furthermore I was asking you for proof that DNA is not information from intelligence. I have given you evidence that it is, (ie- the book), for you to deny this you will need to give evidence that it isn't. All you have to do is provide some facts... Yes actual facts.
@flapjackboy Yet another strawman, did I say anything about a watchmaker. All I have said is a logical conclusion of the facts of reality, you have done NOTHING to show me wrong, apart from silly comments, nor have you actually given ANY scientifica evidence for evolution, like I asked for. Hence, it seems you are grasping at straws.
@Gilbertus1986 "Furthermore I was asking you for proof that DNA is not information from intelligence." So much for your superior grasp of scientific principles. You surely must know that it is impossible to prove a negative claim, therefore, it is up to you to prove that DNA *is* the result of intelligent design. Please show me one piece of credible evidence for ID.
FACT: Evolution cannot account for systems in Biology that require all of its diverse parts to function effectively. As for each step to be selected for it needs to have a benefitial purpose, yet how is there a benefit when the system doesn't work due to not having the right parts.
FACT: Mutations have been observed to occur in specific areas on DNA, whilst some areas are untouched... This is not RANDOM mutation.
@flapjackboy Whole fossil record my arse.. where are the transitional forms? Also for evolution to take billions of years there must be literally Trillions of transitional forms. This is the evidence evolution needs, where is it? Furthermore a line of progression is needed with these tranisional forms, joining dots is not science it is assumption. Need I pull out the dictionary to prove to you assumptions are NOT scientific.
@flapjackboy Phylogenetic trees are assumption based. Again assumptions are not scientific.... All this non-scientific "data", leads me to ask, where is the scientific evidence for this so-called "scientific theory"
@flapjackboy I never said anything about a magical sky wizard, so you've just created a strawman, as well as a lie. All I have shown you are the FACTS of reality, what facts have you shown, (No I'm not asking for assumptions ;) )
You are welcome to attempt to show how they are "lies", otherwise you are just blowing smoke in the face of science. Post up some EMPIRICAL, (falsifiable + repeatable + observable) evidence... I keep asking for it and nobody obliges.
All what I have said has been proven by micro-biology and the complex mechanisms used in cells. We know much more about cells than Darwin could have ever dreamed of, hence he never knew of such complexity when formulating his "theory".
You are welcome to attempt to show how they are lies"
Basically, you keep repeating the same claim that there is no evidence for evolution. That's a lie. There is loads and loads of evidence, from various scientific disciplines, including paleontology, genetics, biochemistry and the geographical distribution of life. They all complement each other perfectly.
@MomoTheBellyDancer If you have bothered to read what I have said earlier and actually LOOK at the evidence in unbiased (scientific) manner, then you will see that I have already debunked all the so-called "evidences" you have put forth... Please have a read and look for yourself.
I will admit to ONE evidence that is helpful to evolution, but is NOT conclusive. Is that fossils of dinosaurs are found lower than other fossils. However this is still assumption based as to HOW that has occured.
Science is biased, toward finding the truth. All you do is simply dismiss the evidence, which is highly dishonest.
"fossils "
Fossils help, but that are not only or even the best evidence we have. Even without fossils, the genetic makeup of life on earth shows it all shares a common ancestors. All of it. No exceptions.
@MomoTheBellyDancer I dismiss the current evidence as they are not evidence, they are assumptions. Science is not based on assumptions, philosophy... If evolution was not called a "scientific" theory then I would have no problem with the use of assumption based data.
You see genetic relatedness, where others see the common mark of a designer. Did you know that we share 75% of our DNA with worms.... Hmm perhaps that 96% we share with chimps isn't that great after all :p lol
"I dismiss the current evidence as they are not evidence, they are assumptions. "
The evidence consists of observations made in the real world. There is nothing being assumed in any way. Reality is as it is and the evolutionary model is a very good fit.
"You see genetic relatedness, where others see the common mark of a designer."
A designer that even leaves in endogenous retroviruses to indicate we and other great apes share a common ancestor. What for? To test our faith?
@MomoTheBellyDancer No taking the observed data to attempt to vindicate an event that hasn't been observed is STILL assumptions. I understand what you are saying, however SCIENCE is EMPIRICAL. PERIOD. If you wish to claim Evolution as a social science or as an ideology (which it is!) or a philosophical look on evidence to try and fit them together then be my guest... However it is by no means scientific when there is no empirical validity.
Look up the definition of EMPIRICAL. Its obvious you either do not know what it is, or fail to comprehend that none of the evidence of evolution holds under empirical validity. Here is but a brief summary of what empirical evidence MUST do
1- be DIRECTLY observable, so no assumptions
2- be repeatable, so other people can test your results- thats why we write up papers in magazines
3- be falsifiable, so you can definitivly know when it is a success or a fail
Yes being directly observable is a requirement and if you feel it isn't then you really aren't a being scientific. Where has evolution been directly observed, (and no micro evolution is not macro evolution as I have proven to others here, please read what I told them).
Finding fossils is not repeatable in terms of empirical.... Repeatable as in repeatable experiments... You do realise that it is EXPERIMENTS that are done to prove a hypothesis.
I have never admitted any kind of faith, for your information I am agnostic. As such YOU have lied.
Yes most experiments are undertaken in a lab... and that is where EMPIRICAL evidence comes from. If you don't inherently know this then you obviously don't know what science really is and I am just wasting my time repeating myself in an attempt in enlightening you in HOW science works.
About what? I don't care about your faith. All I see is that you're spreading lies.
"Yes most experiments are undertaken in a lab"
So the experiment to determine whether Einstein's formula correctly predicts Mercury's orbit wasn't one? And that we can't create supernovas in a lab means they don't exist?
"EMPIRICAL evidence" Again: /watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
"I am just wasting my time"
Yes. You should spend it reading up on the subjects you criticize.
Obviously you have no intention of an honest debate as you have double backed and criticised me for things that you originally said, ( a deceitful tactic, but one that is commonly used)
"Obviously you have no intention of an honest debate"
There's a word for what you're doing: projection.
"How about you stop lying for your faith"
Well, you keep spouting propaganda from creationist web sites, and if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
But in the end, I always addressed your lies, never your faith, whatever it may be. Now how about addressing the issues I raised, instead of applying the creationist tactic of constantly diverting the subject?
"Well, you keep spouting propaganda from creationist web sites, and if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..."
Well what? Well nothing..
Here you use your assumption-based reasoning, it is a prime example of evolutionary "logic". Yet in the end you are wrong in your assumption. I am agnostic. Hence assuption based reasoning fails by the fact that they are based on assumptions NOT facts.
Frankly, I find that extremely hard to believe. You respond in the typical way of a Christian creationist. You lie about science, so I wouldn't be surprised if you lied about this as well.
Here the twist comes yet again, (unsurprisingly), my point is proven.
I was asking for EMPIRICAL evidence. Not assumption based crap from your evo-religious site. Its obvious you know of none as you are not commited to put YOUR word with them.
I ask my initial claim yet again! Can you show me some EMPIRICAL evidence that doesn't rely on assumptions or first pre-suppose evolution. If you attempt to twist this another time, then you have proven my point again.
My definition of EMPIRICAL is based on what my lecturers at UNIVERSITY have told me, what do you stand by? Your evo-religious site?
This proves my point that you are only here to waste time, and equivocate meanings. I have cracked onto your game and have asked you to address the initial issue you wormed out of. You don't like this so you attempt to bow out before the facade of your smoke and mirrors has run out.
You say I have been diverting the subject. My initial claims were for YOU to show me some EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of evolution. Instead YOU have twisted and turned out of doing this, as such you have addressed nothing, apart from your need to troll and not answer questions directly.
I ask my initial claim again! Can you show me some EMPIRICAL evidence that doesn't rely on assumptions or first pre-suppose evolution. If you attempt to twist this again, then you have proven my point.
"YOU to show me some EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of evolution. "
You can easily look it up for yourself. Go to the Talkorigins website, type "evidence for evolution" in the search box, and check out the bibliographies. You don't have to take my word on it; it's out there.
What you are attempting to do is attacking the man, and slip away from providing the EMPIRICAL evidence I have asked for. I don't lie about science when I say for something to be scientific it REQUIRES EMPIRICAL validity... You have totaly defied this point, and have attempted to argue on what is empirical is, (equivocation and word games).
Stop twisting like a snake and provide the evidence that shows evolution is scientific.
@MomoTheBellyDancer I can't show you fossil bunnies, but I can show you fossil birds... (yes they look just like modern birds and lived at the time of the dinosaurs)... Look up Confuciornus... It are these fossils found in China that has lead scientists to believe that Archeopteryx actually is NOT a transitional form.
No, they don't. That have both dinosaur-like and bird-like features. They're intermediates.
"Confuciornus"
... is likely closer related to modern birds than Archaeopteryx, but clearly not a bird in the modern sense. Archaeopteryx still stands as the most basal form with bird-characteristics we know of.
How about you stop lying for your faith and start hitting the books? Hmmm?
"You do realize experiments don't only take place in labs, do you"
Now this
"So the experiment to determine whether Einstein's formula correctly predicts Mercury's orbit wasn't one? And that we can't create supernovas in a lab means they don't exist?"
I am not saying lies, I am asking for EMPIRICAL evidence for evolution, something which you have been shown lacking in
I am still waiting for ACTUAL EMPIRICAL evidence not crap from evo-religious sites
Evolution is unproved and unproveable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable. Sir Arthur Keith (he wrote the forward of the 100th anniversary edition of Darwins book, Origin of Species in 1959)
"Yes evolution has been observed, it just hasn't been observed while it has been happening"- RICHARD DAWKINS interviewed with Bill Moyers (taken from a debate)
If you want proof of a Great Flood you can go dig a hole in your backyard. You will not find the geological column that evolutionary scientists have dreamed up. Of which fossils fall into their circular reasoned time periods. Instead you will find the Pennsylvanian Period over here, missing here, upside down here, the Jurassic over there, missing here, Cambrian here and a little there-exactly what one would expect to find if a worldwide flood occured-sedimentary layering charicteristic of floods
Are you really that dumb? You really think that the entire scientific community is in on one giant conspiracy to try and make the evidence seem counter to young earth creationism? ...I am at a loss for words.
The Flu Virus merely adapts, it reshuffles its gentic "cards," there is no introduction of new gentic material which causes the Flu virus to evolve into a completely differnet species. That's the idea behind macro-evolution, but that can't happen naturally, which is a foundational folly when it comes to the theory of evolution.
I still don't know how evolutionists have expanded on Darwin's finding's that different birds adapted to their environment and stretched that out to macro-evolution.
No one was actually there so no one can prove anything. And back to the religion of evolution...There is more evidence supporting YEC than there is supporting evolution or an old Earth which means that it takes more faith to believe the THEORY of evolution than it does to believe creationism.
Random mutations cannot lead to a completely new lifeform-you can't get mutations of a dino's DNA to produce bird-like traits and all living things are irreducibly complex-go ahead and look that term up.
What? Just because no one was there doesn't make it unprovable. If you walked into a sealed room with a dead woman with a bullet in her head and a guy with a handgun, but you didn't see it. isn't it just logical to conclude that the man killed the woman with the handgun? You need to learn a lot about evolution, since you call it "random mutations". That is a common idiocy in ID supporters.
First off, you're referring to OEC, which is also theistic evolution, which is also unbiblical. Also, there is overwhelming evidence that the Earth can't be billions of years old.
And I am saying that belief in the theory of evolution is as much as a belief that a supreme being created everything simply because no one was there. I can't prove creation and you can't prove evolution. What we can do is come to a logical conclusion, which, of course, is the Book of Genesis and a Great Flood.
"And I am saying that belief in the theory of evolution is as much as a belief that a supreme being created everything simply because no one was there."
How is it a logical conclusion? Evolution has more evidence than gravity, but Genesis and Noah have no proof outside of the bible realm. Evolution has to do with many natural events, while the bible has only to do with magick. Please, you really don't make much of an impression when you have such a misunderstanding of evolution. It never said that god can't exist if it is true.
Evolution does not stand up to scientific scrutiny, glyphs. There is actually overwhelming evidence suggesting a worldwide flood approx. 4,500 years ago, exactly where The Bible places. Isn't it odd that using the known population growth rate for the human population, we plug in Noah's family,8, and if we set the model to 4,500 years we come up with just over 6 billion people-darn near the world populaion today. Isn't it just a coincidence that no river on Earth is more than 4,500 years old?
Is it merely a coincidence that there is no real-life geological column that we find in textbooks, but rather we found sedimentary layering one might expect to see following flooding? Is it merely a coincidence that we find aquatic fossils on the peaks of the highest mountains-exactly what we would expect if a worldwide flood occured? Is it merely a coincidence that every single prophecy made by The Bible, laced with extreme specificity, has come true?
Evolution and God cannot coincide. Evolution is not biblical. If Evolution is true then that means that death entered the world before sin. The book of Romans specifically tells us that death entered the world following sin, the fall of man, adam and eve.The book of Isiah provides us with a description of a newly formed Earth in which "the lion eats straw like the ox" and the children lay with the vipers but they are not harmed.
When describing the days of creation, Moses uses the Hebrew word "Yom" which, if placed next to a numeral, can only be intepreted as a literal 24-hour day-which is exactly what happens in the Hebrew text of the Bible. If God wanted Moses to write that these "days" were actually millions or billions of years, then he possessed the vocabulary to do so. However, this is irrelevant because evolution holds no weight when examined under scientific scrutiny. It simply does not retain any validity.
Obviously you have no knowledge of how evolution works or the hundreds of tests it has withstood over the last 150 years. You claim many things but show no proof. I can however, show that evolution has withstood large amounts of scrutiny. Your claims are idiotic anyways. it wouldn't be in the science curriculum if it wasn't a good explanation for natural phenomena. Why do you think you need a new FLU vaccine every year? Because the flu virus EVOLVES.
You seem to be (implicitly) saying that belief in a God and belief in the theory of evolution are mutually exclusive...
What makes you say that? Couldn't an all-powerful being "create" a system that would work autonomously for billions of years to arrive at a desired end?
Refuting evolution doesn't prove that Yahweh exists or that he "wrote" the Buybull, if that's where you're coming from.
I have plenty of videos that deal with Yahweh. Let's stick w/evolution on this one, please.
Maybe you should consider providing some scientific evidence rather than simply resorting to name-calling and inventing derogatory terms used to ridicule those who can out-debate you or provide actual scientific evidence refuting evolution.
My assignment to you: create a model of a closed system with a stack of papers and an open system with a stack of papers and prove to me that the stack of papers in the open system aren't more disorganized and less complex in nature than the papers contained within the closed system. Also, one iota of scientific evidence supporting evolution might be appreciable in a debate regarding evolution.
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFact: Evolution Is Religion based on metaphysical ideas.
2) due to those variations, some offspring will reproduce more than others
3) as time goes on these variations accumulate
Where are the metaphysics?
What is your definition of "religion"?
(make sure your definition isn't equally applicable to Mets fandom, Conservatism, and plumbing - if you stretch a word far enough to mean ANYTHING, then you are communicating NOTHING when you use it.)
What you're describing is micro-evolution, which is completely true and accepted-we see it every day. Macro-evolution, or Darwinian evolution, is a species changing to a completely different species. However, to do this new genetic material has to be introduced into that organisms genome. This CANNOT occur naturally. So the real question is how a dinosaur evolve into a bird without the addition of genetic material, which may I remind CANNOT occur in nature.
There can be an increase of genetic information. If genetic information cannot be added, then how is there genetic information for nylon eating bacteria(which is not natural)? Scientists have retried this and the same result came. Nylon eating bacteria.
Well I will continue this "debate" later, if you'd call it that anyway for not much counter-evidence is become thrown my way for I must retire to my quarters. Tomorrow is Easter. Go visit your family of something and enjoy a day instituted to celebrate the resurrection of THE Messiah.
You're right about the inaccuracy of punctuated equilibrium. There is no scientific consensus because there is no evidence for it except for the lack of transitional fossils to support evolution. Stephen Jay Gould, the foremost guru of modern Darwinism, has admitted that there is a surprising lack of fossil evidence for the theory of evolution. Thus, Gould and other evolutionists have accepted punctuated equilibrium simply because that cannot possibly consider Divine Intervention.
"Stephen Jay Gould, the foremost guru of modern Darwinism, has admitted that there is a surprising lack of fossil evidence for the theory of evolution."
You'd think so if you got all of your information from creationist fucktard quote-miners.
"simply because that cannot possibly consider Divine Intervention"
...and now you are impugning character rather than making an actual point.
I could just as easily say that "you cannot possibly consider that the universe wasn't made just for you".
The fossil record in an evolutionary museum is merely a creative arrangement of numerous types of fossils found throughout history, not an actual linear representation. Take a stack of papers and place one in an open system and one in a closed one. The open system will be bombarded by rocks, random energy, and solar rays. Now, tell me which stack of papers has become the least organized and thus entropy has occurred at a faster rate in the system in which the papers are the least organized.
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFact: The establishment of the theory of punctuated equilibrium has been fabricated by evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould to explain away the complete and utter ABSENCE of a transitional fossil record.
And "within a closed system" should be added onto the end of #3. I know you will tell me that the Earth doesn't apply since it is not a closed system. This is a bologna argument because entropy will occur at a faster rate in an open system.
1. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor. Source: darwins theory of evolution (dot) com
2. The complete absence of a transitional fossil record supports the theory of punctuated equilibrium.
3. "the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. "- allaboutscience (dot) org
Already, I have blown evolution out of the water with points 2 and 3.
Wrong!! The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. First he created the earth, then he created the Big Bang that created the rest of the universe.
No, it's those who advocate the theory of evolution that try to obfuscate what it says and hide behind big latinized words so they can feel intelligent somehow. The truth is that evolution is a pile of shit and it's about as realistic as Poke-e-Mon. Those who protest the theory DO understand it, you DON'T. Let me explain it to you: It says there's no Creator and you came from a fucking ape. Jackass.
technically your theory is actually a hypothesis :3
brianpv1 9 months ago
@Resi2birkin Sorry, theist. You're the one attacking established science. The burden of proof is on you to show how the scientific consensus is wrong, and you must support your position with actual scientific evidence. And don't even try quoting your holy book, that is not scientific evidence.
Regarding small brains: you got even the most fundamental concept of evolution wrong, that of common ancestry. If you're going to attack science, at least learn some of the fundamentals.
terrymorse 1 year ago
@terrymorse The burden of proof also lies on the evolutionist considering there is NO EMPIRICAL evidence for their claims... (Just fanciful stories and assumption-based "logic").
Evolution is supposed to be "scientific" yet it contains no empirical evidence. Evolution is assumed off the evidence, not proven by it. Show us ONE just ONE piece of empirical evidence for evolution.
Empirical = observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 epic fail, creationism has no empiraical evidence. Theres many straightforward proof of evolution, viruses develop drug resistance for example. I'm sure it is testable, observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Now what is creationism? not observable, not testable, not repetable and not falsifiable.
mcmadbat3 1 year ago
@mcmadbat3 Nope!
Bacteria developing resistance is evidence of variation WITHIN a species, NOT changing to BECOME A NEW species, (like the breeds of a species, they are variants). Since the bacteria, is STILL bacteria, it hasn't changed species hence it hasn't evolved into another species.
Evolving into other species is EXTRAPOLATED of this, it is not empirically proven
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
Observable - Fossil record
Testable - Ongoing discovery of fossils by prediction.
Repeatable - Spray mosquitoes, examine survivors. Alternatively, freeze yourself for 100 million years so I don't have to explain everything to you.
Falsifiable - Show me a modern rabbit fossil from the Cretaceous period.
One piece of evidence doesn't mean anything, if you'd ever studied a science you'd know that. It's like finding 1 watch and concluding "the watch industry is competitive".
ihaterobbie123 1 year ago
@ihaterobbie123 BAHAHAHA!!!
So you observe the fossil record "evolving" then? The fossil record doesn't tell you the MECHANISM, or the causation.
The survivors of the mozzies are STILL mozzies, no evolution (change of species), has occured.
Your rabbit comment is stupid. How about, show us ALL the millions of transitional forms from millions of years of evolution (for just one species). Where is the line of progression of changes, even Darwins says there should be one! Where is it?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 "The fossil record doesn't tell you the MECHANISM, or the causation." OK, I accept that, what does then?
I'll tell you, genes, we're in an age when we have mapped the entire human genome, nothing is beyond our archive and it's updated constantly. We are now able to specifically attribute the presence of certain genetic information to a characteristic.
How does this information arise? Mutation, the proliferation of our imperfections which we'll always have.
I hope that helped.
ihaterobbie123 1 year ago
@ihaterobbie123 The fossil record shows periods of statis, (no change) and (literally) JUMPS to the next fully formed species. Thus evolution is assumed in this line of evidence.
PM sent about mutation as it is probably over 1500 words
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@ihaterobbie123 BAHAHAHA!!!
I do know science. (More than you from the look of your post)... Since I have debunked all your alledged "empirical evidence" in just one reply ;) Good try though.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 If only an example of a new species can satisfy you then I'll have to explain something to you. A species doesn't reach a tipping point when it simply becomes another one. Each successive generation will be of the same species as it's immediate relatives. What you have to consider is how much it has changed since it's ancestor say 200,000,000,000 generations ago.
There's 1,2,3 and 4. 1 can mate with 2, 2 mates with 3, 3 mates 4. 1 cannot mate with 3 or 4 etc.
Hope that helped.
ihaterobbie123 1 year ago
@ihaterobbie123 Define what a species is, THEN we can check to see if some have "evolved" or not.. Without this definition, evolutionists are "jumping the gun" with their "theory", since you cannot be sure if its a different species or not.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 A species is the taxonomical rank assigned to an animal which shares a complete set of unique alleles with all other members of that species.
And there is not just the fossil record, a much more useful asset is animals which have been frozen as DNA can be recovered from them.
One thing you've got to understand is the irrelevance of the term "transitional forms". Every animal on this planet is in a constant state of transition, life is a spectrum.
ihaterobbie123 1 year ago
@ihaterobbie123
However I do have to ask, didn't you read any of my comments to mcmadbat, since you are just repeating the same DEBUNKED "evidence"... Read what I told him / her first, saves me having to type it again and again.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 "The survivors of the mozzies are STILL mozzies" Ah, the supposed difference between so-called "micro/macro" evolution?
OK, let's call macro-evolution 100 and let's call micro-evolution 1. So, we get a lot of 1, most of the time this 1 isn't suitable and is discarded but eventually we find a helpful 1 which we keep. What next? Well, we find another 1 which makes 2. This goes on and on until we get 100, but 100 doesn't just happen all at once.
I hope that helped.
ihaterobbie123 1 year ago
@ihaterobbie123 You are assuming that macro is 100 and micro is 1, macro could be A and micro could be B for all you know.
Micro deals with variation of the same old traits, (to get differing breeds, but with the same body plan etc).. With macro you need a mechanism that enables NEW traits to emerge. Even Dawkins doesn't know what this mechanism is despite it being a pillar of the "theory".
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 That is a myth, there are 4 main types of mutation. One of these is called insertion and it's a frame shift mutation. It's nothing short of an extra amino acid being added to a sequence.
Despite that it won't convince you, did you know a trait can change it's function? To put it simply the gene responsible for your eye being brown could undergo a mutation (most likely a frame shift) and give you one nostril. Of course that won't happen but I'm just illustrating here.
ihaterobbie123 1 year ago
@terrymorse
"Scientific Assumption" is also an oxymoron, (one I made)
Since Science is nothing without empirical validity. It is what separates science and philosophy
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Resi2birkin "A Muslim, when faced with what appears to be a contradiction between the Qur’ân and a scientific fact knows there can only be two possibilities:
1. That which is being construed as a scientific “fact” is not in actuality a fact.
2. The verse that is being construed as being in conflict with science is being misinterpreted, misapplied, or misunderstood."
A clear description of how and why fundamentalist theists attack science that conflicts with their holy texts.
terrymorse 1 year ago
@Resi2birkin Here is some more "science" from your book: semen comes from between a man's backbone and ribs; every ear of corn has 100 grains; fevers are caused by the fire of hell; the earth is spread out like a carpet held in place by mountains; the sun moves around the earth and sets in a muddy spring; mountains have feelings, emotions and personality; stars and comets chase after evil spirits; stars are as close to the earth surface as the moon, or closer.
terrymorse 1 year ago
@Resi2birkin "Scientific miracles" is an oxymoron. I saw your video and was unimpressed. Your holy book is not science, even if it has a few phrases that might be interpreted to match our current knowledge of the natural world. You cherry picked and you got lucky. For every claimed "scientific miracle" in your book, I can cite several scientific falsehoods.
terrymorse 1 year ago
@Resi2birkin Theism and modern evolutionary biology are not incompatible. Theists who deny evolution are in the minority. And you can't use an ancient book to prove anything scientifically. If books were proof, I could use "Twas the Night Before Christmas" to prove the existence of Santa Claus. Science depends on evidence, not stories, and there is substantial evidence supporting evolution. You just need to look at the evidence with an open mind.
terrymorse 1 year ago
@Resi2birkin Humans did not evolve from modern apes. Humans and modern chimpanzees share a common ancestor, an ancient ape that probably lived 5-7 million years ago and no longer exists.
terrymorse 1 year ago
No science is unbiased in that it assesses the actual data and doesn't attempt to let a worldview justify creating assuptions. I am not being dishonest I am forwarding the facts on, the fact that REAL science is not based on assumptions.
Furthermore you haven't even attempted to disprove anything I have said and establish your case of me as a lier. Hence perhaps you are wrong in saying I was telling lies. Which then means YOU are dishonest by spouting smoke and accusations with no basis.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
"A scientific theory hinges on empirical findings, and remains subject to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered certain."
h t t p://enDOTwikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Scientific_method
Yes it is wikipedia, however it is another example of your ineptitude of the realisation on what REAL science is. Empirical science is REAL science, anything else is social science.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Ask a Question: The scientific method starts when you ask a question about something that you observe: How, What, When, Who, Which, Why, or Where?
w w w DOTsciencebuddiesDOTorg/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_methodDOTshtml
Experimental data based on presupposition is not empirical, if it has no grounds in what occurs in reality. This is why REAL OBSERVATIONS are the first step to any hypothesis.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Lol. SO in saying that I have falsified the video makers (so called) "FACT", as I do have an iota of understanding of evolutionary principles, (yes I completed the challenge), actually its because of this that I don't believe in it, as each proponent doesn't fit correctly with each other and reality...
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
1. When living organisms adapt or mutate over time in reaction to it's environment.
2. The Bonobo (pigmy chimp)
3. Generally referes to the loss of energy during tranfer. Some improperly equate it theories to the human DNA chain or other living organisms.
ENDLESSSOLUTIONS 1 year ago
Just a point of clarification. You have a testable hypothesis, not a theory (1:37). =) I've seen one other of your videos and I know you know the difference. Be well and good luck with your experiment.
BrooklynRagtag 1 year ago
Furthermore, there needs to be a method of how these NEW GENETIC DATA come about, however no scientist has come up with a good answer. (What you are saying is variation. VARIATION IS NOT EVOLUTION, as it is confined to the original structure of the original genetic data, ie- the changes can only do so much before NEW DATA is needed to create a new organism). Please... SCIENTISTS admit this point, don't argue because you don't like the facts.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Evolution has no drive, no purpose it is mindless. As such why do we find such order and design, within life. Take DNA for example, it is an incredibly complex code, each region can code for many many different proteins, also there are codes that help to repair errors in the DNA... (erasing the mutations needed for evolution!!), how can such a complex system, evolve on luck and blind chance... (that is what evolution is essentially, as there is no thought process behind its mechanisms)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
3. The second law of thermodynamics states that in any closed system energy will gradually be dispersed (primarily through friction and radiative heat) until that system no longer has enough usable energy to function.
May I join this debate please?
jklarson66 1 year ago
2. One major line of evidence used to support evolution is genetics. The study of DNA provides both the mechanism for variation as well as mathematical models which accurately predict the rate at which variation can occur. Specifically, retroviral DNA has been isolated and identified as evidence that separate species evolved from a common ancestor.
jklarson66 1 year ago
1. All biological organisms reproduce with slight variation. Since more offspring are produced than can survive, creatures which are better adapted to their environments will survive to generate more offspring than creatures which are less adapted. Populations of a species which are separated will evolve according to different environmental pressures and gradually become more different.
jklarson66 1 year ago
Cosmic Evolution: Big Band theory- how matter came from ltterally NOTHING??
Chemical Evolution: How the different elements came about via fusion of Hydrogen... (Yes even the UNSTABLE ones???)
Planetary evolution: How planets and stars formed.. We have seen stars die, yet are to see a single one form.
Biological evolution / Macro evolution: Origin of the species, Darwins hypothesis.
Micro-evolution: Variation WITHIN a species, accounts for the different breeds of species.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
1) The theory of evolution is the theory that Life can evolve into complex forms from a single simple cell
2) The fossil records (Btw macro evolution is basically just a lot of microevolution within 1 being)
3)The second law of thermodynamics in simple terms means that within a CLOSED system basically energy can run out (enthropy and non useable energy) energy that can be used can only dicrease
a4eva44 1 year ago
lol.. its all clear to me that evolution theory is a big contradiction to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. coz if evolution is true, then there must be a huge amount of force to make it evolve but as of now. nothing founds. thats why it contradicts the 2nd law. and also back to the time when human race, homo erectus, etc. doesnt exist.. how can u make evolve something if u start from zero. ^_^
MEmikhailME 1 year ago
@MEmikhailME
how can you reach 1000 if you start from 0?
1+1+1+1+1+1 and so on
same with evolution
20324758 1 year ago
@MEmikhailME Your understanding of evolution is mind-baffling. In a bad way.
mcmeister89 1 year ago
Ffffffffffffact: this video is based completely on the opinion of the author and has no support and cannot be supported as it is opinion
201223896 1 year ago
perhaps i just dont get it, but isnt it extremly hypocritical to demand scientific understanding from others while misusing the terms "fact" and "theory" ?
tazardar 2 years ago
just very stereotypical and prejudice
verchonator 2 years ago
(not a creationist, I'd just like to test my understanding)
1: Reproduction with Variation+Natural Selection causes eventual speciation. These new species repeat the process and life becomes better adapted to their niche.
2: Retroviral DNA found in Apes and Humans. Nylon-eating bacteria
3: In any closed system, entropy can never decrease, only increase. Therefore the amount of usable energy can only decrease
(Note: M-theory states that even our universe as a whole may not be a closed system)
Gruegirl 2 years ago
The answer is what you have said in your response to dsmagee but the way people have thought of creationism is the probable-fact that aliens created humans with genetic engineering which sounds sort of crazy, or maybe like something that L ron hubbard scribbled down one day, but I noticed that you seem an open minded guy that takes full advantage of the internet so I hope you will take the time to look up jordan maxwell on youtube. And I do apologize as I do not quite remember, oh excuse me...
WHYNOTTTTTTyeah 2 years ago
...remember what exactly you should search for but maybe try: JORDAN MAXWELL ON CREATIONISM or something like that should do it. It does explain missing links and how the creationism theory got so out of hand.
WHYNOTTTTTTyeah 2 years ago
1) Decent with modification and natural selection. (changes in allele frequencies over time)
2) Pseudogene sequence, Retroviruses, Transposons, and flat-out observation.
3) Entropy of a closed system will increase over time. (Pump gas into a vacuum and it will expand to fill the container, making it less ordered)
TheFifthApes 2 years ago
3) In a closed system (that part is important!), the amount of entropy can only increase. Which is a fancy way of saying that the amount of usable energy in the system can only DEcrease.
RabidApe 2 years ago
@RabidApe
2nd law accounts for the energy absorbed in a system, (as unuseable heat energy).
S= q/T
Also is defined as energy = order, entropy = chaos
Whereby chaos increases as order decreases.
The entropy in the universe on the whole is always increasing
The big question is, is that if due to natural law the universe is slowly becoming chaotic, HOW did it start with order?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@RabidApe
3. Prove how "nothing" can "explode" and create the universe.
4. Prove that there is nothing, SCIENCE cannot prove, that there is no realm for spirituality to exist.
Do this and you have shown that science actually has proof of evolution,as right now.. It has zip.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
....but that's why you have the internet!
I'm not going to spoon-feed you, but I can point you in the right direction if you tell me what you want to know.
I'll start by taking my own challenge.
1) Organisms reproduce with variations. These variations are inherited. Some organisms reproduce more than others. The changes that tend to benefit reproduction tend to become more common.
2) Similarity of protein sequences forms a phylogenetic tree that matches the one based on morphology.
RabidApe 2 years ago
@RabidApe
Evolution is unproved and unproveable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable. Sir Arthur Keith (he wrote the forward of the 100th anniversary edition of Darwins book, Origin of Species in 1959)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@RabidApe
Here is a CHALLENGE for YOU.
1. Define a RANDOM unexplained mutation, that has an advantageous implication. (Not a neutral mutation please)
2. Show evidence of the development of wings, perhaps an organisms with stumps that became half-wings and "evolved" into fully fledged wings.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
1.) AIDS resistance in humans and drug resistant bacteria.
2.) This is a flawed question. A single organism isn't going to spontaneously generate wings. It would happen over millenia
3.) We can't yet, that's what we're working on. Probably has to do with dark/anti-matter.
4.) Given this is based on technology, there are things we can't explain yet. Duh.
Proof: search "bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab". What do you know, evolution was tested/proved.
mcmeister89 1 year ago
@mcmeister89 Dude if you knew what evolution actually was you wouldn't put Aids resistance as "proof" of evolution..
Evolution is where an organism changes into a completely new species. What you have mentioned is variation, nothing more. Variation does happen, however at the end of the day the organism hasn't changed species. Also to assume it would over millions of years ISN'T SCIENTIFIC... I suggest stop reading biased materialist propaganda and look for neutral scientific reports.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Evolution CAN lead to a new species, but it does this over a LONG TIME. It is simply the change of inherited traits over successive generations. The AIDS resistance mutation is an inheritable trait which means it can be transferred to further generations. In other words, it's evolution.
How is it not scientific just because it happens over a long time period? How does the length of time change its validity? The death of a star takes BILLIONS of years, but we know that happens.
mcmeister89 1 year ago
@mcmeister89
Now the one method that has been given to satisfy evolution is random mutation, (evolution is mindless, so is natural selection, as such it must be random. Otherwise if intelligence is involved it gives rise to design theories).... However we see in nature that all mutations are detrimental... ie- GENETIC DISORDERS... Why else do our DNA have repairation algorithims built within itself to help fix mutations that do occur?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Also, tell me how the report I sent you to was biased propaganda? It was done at a major university well known in the microbiology community for its work. This would be like saying you didn't believe a medical report from the New England Journal of Medicine.
Please, read how the experiment was conducted and explain to me how it was biased?
Also, you have yet to tell me what SCIENCE you proclaim to be studying at your university. Please, what is your area of expertise?
mcmeister89 1 year ago
@mcmeister89 Wrong again.
You are making assumptions, assumptions are not facts no matter how many times you think it.
For a species to become a DIFFERENT species it needs DIFFERENT genes.. Not just a couple of random changes, seriously we are talking about billions of base pairs, do you really think just changing one or two will create a new species?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@mcmeister89 Then perhaps your interpretation of the facts is biased... An inheritable trait doesn't prove evolution dude. If anything it proves the Bible as it says that each kind with produce theri own kind... Ie a dog will produce a dog... The genes for a dog are inherited hence it is proving the Bible correct.
Now please tell me why you think the world is millions of years old, back in Darwins time they said it was just a few hundred thousand....lol ;)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
Sorry, but evolution doesn't work like it does on Pokemon. Evolution *is* about the gradual variations to a species, which over a *vastly extended* period of time will produce a new species adapted to differing environmental variables. To say that evolution "magically" creates new species is just like saying an invisible supernatural being placed all life on the planet in exactly the same forms that are here today.
flapjackboy 1 year ago
@flapjackboy When did I mention pokemon? Or was that a cheap shot at TRYING to be funny... Read Mendels 1st LAW of Genetics. It states that an organism will normally have the same amount of chromosomes in each cell as its parents... Now how many chromosomes in each cell do you have? Now how many does a single celled organism?? Just saying "vastly extended time" doesn't cut it when LAWS of Biology are being defied by Evolution.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
You didn't specifically mention pokemon, but your interpretation of evolution, that a species suddenly transforms into something new is analogous to the way it works in pokemon and is a typical strawman argument used by creationists.
Actually, amoebas have 100-300 times more chromosomes than a human, so don't try going down that route.
flapjackboy 1 year ago
@flapjackboy No you talking about pokemon IS YOUR OWN STRAWMAN, and you admitted to it by saying that it was not my words but yours.
No I think I will go down this road as it is a logical question as Evolution DOES DEFY MENDELS LAWS... How do we get differing amount of chromosomes (without defects), when that is what is observed.. ie- polyploidy, downs syndrome.... Or using your logic you can claim that people with downs syndrome are the next "evolutionary link"... Is that logical?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 You know what? I don't know all the answers about how evolution works and neither do you, but at least I keep an open mind about it instead of just saying "God dun it!"
Evolution is a *scientific* theory about how life develops and changes, *not* how it started and as such, it is malleable and changes as new *facts* are discovered. Religious dogma just says "That book there says a magical sky man placed all life on the planet, makes sense to me." is just retarded.
flapjackboy 1 year ago
@flapjackboy Lol at least you admit your lack of knowledge. I NEVER said God dun it, so please dont be deceptive and put words in my mouth. Furthermore, a SCIENTIFIC theory DEMANDS EMPIRICAL evidence If you know of ANY empirical evidence for evolution, that doesn't first base itself on assumption or presuposition then please post it. Otherwise open yourself to the concept that perhaps evolution is not a true science, its more like a social science and as such is more like an religion / ideology.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 "If you know of ANY empirical evidence for evolution, that doesn't first base itself on assumption or presuposition then please post it."
You clearly do not understand how science works. Not surprising really. Look, you can't have a scientific theory without making assumptions. This is a base model for the theory. Experiments are then performed to compare the results against the model and if needed, a new model is formed from the evidence. Lather, rinse and repeat.
flapjackboy 1 year ago
@flapjackboy "Look, you can't have a scientific theory without making assumptions"
Are you serious! A scientific hypothesis / theory REQUIRES empirical evidence, ie actual observations. Otherwise how can it be determined to be real or just an assumption, (which you just said). I can say I have been to the moon, but if I don't have a photo of me on the moon, (empirical evidence), then how can you tell that I am telling the truth.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@flapjackboy Obviously you haven't studied at Uni, it was the first thing I was taught in my Biology lectures as well as Biotechnology lectures, (there was no need to go over it in Chemistry as that is solely based on observations anyway).
Empirical science, (actual first hand observations) will RULE over any other amount or kind of evidence. If empirical evidence falsifies a theory, or a proponent of said theory, then it IS falsified. PERIOD.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 And this must be why you're a creationist apologetic now, because you clearly are incapable of understanding the proper order of events when developing a scientific theory. First comes the hypothesis. This is our 'assumption' that we seek to test the validity of. We develop a model from this and experiments to give us our observed data (empirical evidence) to compare against our model. So yes, science is the testing of 'assumptions'.
flapjackboy 1 year ago
@flapjackboy Wrong again!! First comes OBSERVATION which then leads to the hypothesis. Seriously read a book about the scientific method and stop attempting to twist the scientific method into something which evolution can be regarded by. I do know the proper order of events and these scientific sites agree with me
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Yes, the hypothesis is built around our observations, but that is merely an 'assumption' about the observed phenomena based on current understanding. Experimentation then either confirms or disproves the hypothesis.
flapjackboy 1 year ago
@flapjackboy So you admit and OBSERVATION must first be made. Thank you for admiting MY point. An observation is NOT an assumption, no matter how many times you say it, (and so dogmatically too), go read a dictionary on the definitions of these words, perhaps then you will see reason.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@flapjackboy I am not a creationist. I just realise that evolution has many logic holes that will need to be filled before I waste any time in believing in something so ideological and faith based
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Comment removed
flapjackboy 1 year ago
@flapjackboy Will you admit that the DNA code is a code? If it is a code, then it is information. Where does information come from if not from intelligence, show me any other empirically observed feature in nature that shows information being generated via random occurance. If you cannot, then the DNA code is evidence AGAINST evolution.... (Which is what it was when it first was discovered, until the evos re-designed their hypothesis)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Now who's making assumptions, dipshit? "It's a code, therefore it must have been intelligently designed!"
flapjackboy 1 year ago
@flapjackboy Name calling will get you no-where. A code is Information, where does information come from.... Does it come from nothing, no. It comes from intelligence, ie- a human can create a book which contains information, can the wind do this. Seriously think about it and lose some of that anger
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@flapjackboy Furthermore I was asking you for proof that DNA is not information from intelligence. I have given you evidence that it is, (ie- the book), for you to deny this you will need to give evidence that it isn't. All you have to do is provide some facts... Yes actual facts.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Oh, so now you're trotting out the watchmaker argument?
flapjackboy 1 year ago
@flapjackboy Yet another strawman, did I say anything about a watchmaker. All I have said is a logical conclusion of the facts of reality, you have done NOTHING to show me wrong, apart from silly comments, nor have you actually given ANY scientifica evidence for evolution, like I asked for. Hence, it seems you are grasping at straws.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gilbertus1986 "Furthermore I was asking you for proof that DNA is not information from intelligence." So much for your superior grasp of scientific principles. You surely must know that it is impossible to prove a negative claim, therefore, it is up to you to prove that DNA *is* the result of intelligent design. Please show me one piece of credible evidence for ID.
flapjackboy 1 year ago
@flapjackboy
FACT: Evolution cannot account for systems in Biology that require all of its diverse parts to function effectively. As for each step to be selected for it needs to have a benefitial purpose, yet how is there a benefit when the system doesn't work due to not having the right parts.
FACT: Mutations have been observed to occur in specific areas on DNA, whilst some areas are untouched... This is not RANDOM mutation.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 Logic holes? Like what? Common ancestry? Phylogenetic trees? The whole fossil record? DNA?
flapjackboy 1 year ago
@flapjackboy Whole fossil record my arse.. where are the transitional forms? Also for evolution to take billions of years there must be literally Trillions of transitional forms. This is the evidence evolution needs, where is it? Furthermore a line of progression is needed with these tranisional forms, joining dots is not science it is assumption. Need I pull out the dictionary to prove to you assumptions are NOT scientific.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@flapjackboy Phylogenetic trees are assumption based. Again assumptions are not scientific.... All this non-scientific "data", leads me to ask, where is the scientific evidence for this so-called "scientific theory"
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Comment removed
flapjackboy 1 year ago
@flapjackboy I never said anything about a magical sky wizard, so you've just created a strawman, as well as a lie. All I have shown you are the FACTS of reality, what facts have you shown, (No I'm not asking for assumptions ;) )
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 What facts? Next you'll be saying that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex.
flapjackboy 1 year ago
@flapjackboy
FACT: Information comes from intelligence, no where in reality does a code or information appear from nothing
FACT: Evolution doesn't contain empirical evidence, rather it uses assumptions
FACT: Evolution defies Mendels 1st Law. Thus evolution doesn't fit within the laws of biology
FACT: a recent study has found that natural selection DOES NOT LEAD TO FIXATION OF A TRAIT. As such the role of Natural selection does jack.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
Calling your lies facts does not actually make them factual. Who do you think you're fooling?
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
You are welcome to attempt to show how they are "lies", otherwise you are just blowing smoke in the face of science. Post up some EMPIRICAL, (falsifiable + repeatable + observable) evidence... I keep asking for it and nobody obliges.
All what I have said has been proven by micro-biology and the complex mechanisms used in cells. We know much more about cells than Darwin could have ever dreamed of, hence he never knew of such complexity when formulating his "theory".
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
You are welcome to attempt to show how they are lies"
Basically, you keep repeating the same claim that there is no evidence for evolution. That's a lie. There is loads and loads of evidence, from various scientific disciplines, including paleontology, genetics, biochemistry and the geographical distribution of life. They all complement each other perfectly.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer If you have bothered to read what I have said earlier and actually LOOK at the evidence in unbiased (scientific) manner, then you will see that I have already debunked all the so-called "evidences" you have put forth... Please have a read and look for yourself.
I will admit to ONE evidence that is helpful to evolution, but is NOT conclusive. Is that fossils of dinosaurs are found lower than other fossils. However this is still assumption based as to HOW that has occured.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
"unbiased (scientific) manner"
Science is biased, toward finding the truth. All you do is simply dismiss the evidence, which is highly dishonest.
"fossils "
Fossils help, but that are not only or even the best evidence we have. Even without fossils, the genetic makeup of life on earth shows it all shares a common ancestors. All of it. No exceptions.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer I dismiss the current evidence as they are not evidence, they are assumptions. Science is not based on assumptions, philosophy... If evolution was not called a "scientific" theory then I would have no problem with the use of assumption based data.
You see genetic relatedness, where others see the common mark of a designer. Did you know that we share 75% of our DNA with worms.... Hmm perhaps that 96% we share with chimps isn't that great after all :p lol
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
"I dismiss the current evidence as they are not evidence, they are assumptions. "
The evidence consists of observations made in the real world. There is nothing being assumed in any way. Reality is as it is and the evolutionary model is a very good fit.
"You see genetic relatedness, where others see the common mark of a designer."
A designer that even leaves in endogenous retroviruses to indicate we and other great apes share a common ancestor. What for? To test our faith?
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer No taking the observed data to attempt to vindicate an event that hasn't been observed is STILL assumptions. I understand what you are saying, however SCIENCE is EMPIRICAL. PERIOD. If you wish to claim Evolution as a social science or as an ideology (which it is!) or a philosophical look on evidence to try and fit them together then be my guest... However it is by no means scientific when there is no empirical validity.
What is the go with endogenous retroviruses?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gilbertus1986
"an event that hasn't been observed is STILL assumptions"
So we can't convict convict someone for murder, even when his fingerprints are found on the murder weapon?
"SCIENCE is EMPIRICAL"
Yes, and we have massive amounts of empirical data on evolution.
"What is the go with endogenous retroviruses"
Look it up.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Look up the definition of EMPIRICAL. Its obvious you either do not know what it is, or fail to comprehend that none of the evidence of evolution holds under empirical validity. Here is but a brief summary of what empirical evidence MUST do
1- be DIRECTLY observable, so no assumptions
2- be repeatable, so other people can test your results- thats why we write up papers in magazines
3- be falsifiable, so you can definitivly know when it is a success or a fail
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
"EMPIRICAL"
/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
"DIRECTLY observable"
That's not a requirement. Even so, evolution has been directly observed.
"repeatable"
We keep finding fossils in the exact layer we expect them to. The location of ERVs is consistent in all primate species, including humans.
"falsifiable"
Fossil bunnies in the pre-Cambrian.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Yes being directly observable is a requirement and if you feel it isn't then you really aren't a being scientific. Where has evolution been directly observed, (and no micro evolution is not macro evolution as I have proven to others here, please read what I told them).
Finding fossils is not repeatable in terms of empirical.... Repeatable as in repeatable experiments... You do realise that it is EXPERIMENTS that are done to prove a hypothesis.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
"being directly observable is a requirement"
Nope. You're just making that one up. Indirect evidence is also evidence. Nobody ever saw electrons directly. Are you saying they don't exist? .
"Where has evolution been directly observed"
Google "Observed instances of speciation".
"Finding fossils is not repeatable"
It is when we repeatedly find the fossils where we expect to find them.
"EXPERIMENTS"
You do realize experiments don't only take place in labs, do you?
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
I have never admitted any kind of faith, for your information I am agnostic. As such YOU have lied.
Yes most experiments are undertaken in a lab... and that is where EMPIRICAL evidence comes from. If you don't inherently know this then you obviously don't know what science really is and I am just wasting my time repeating myself in an attempt in enlightening you in HOW science works.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
"As such YOU have lied."
About what? I don't care about your faith. All I see is that you're spreading lies.
"Yes most experiments are undertaken in a lab"
So the experiment to determine whether Einstein's formula correctly predicts Mercury's orbit wasn't one? And that we can't create supernovas in a lab means they don't exist?
"EMPIRICAL evidence" Again: /watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
"I am just wasting my time"
Yes. You should spend it reading up on the subjects you criticize.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Obviously you have no intention of an honest debate as you have double backed and criticised me for things that you originally said, ( a deceitful tactic, but one that is commonly used)
You said this
"How about you stop lying for your faith"
Now you say this
" I don't care about your faith"
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
"Obviously you have no intention of an honest debate"
There's a word for what you're doing: projection.
"How about you stop lying for your faith"
Well, you keep spouting propaganda from creationist web sites, and if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
But in the end, I always addressed your lies, never your faith, whatever it may be. Now how about addressing the issues I raised, instead of applying the creationist tactic of constantly diverting the subject?
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"Well, you keep spouting propaganda from creationist web sites, and if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..."
Well what? Well nothing..
Here you use your assumption-based reasoning, it is a prime example of evolutionary "logic". Yet in the end you are wrong in your assumption. I am agnostic. Hence assuption based reasoning fails by the fact that they are based on assumptions NOT facts.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
"I am agnostic"
Frankly, I find that extremely hard to believe. You respond in the typical way of a Christian creationist. You lie about science, so I wouldn't be surprised if you lied about this as well.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Here the twist comes yet again, (unsurprisingly), my point is proven.
I was asking for EMPIRICAL evidence. Not assumption based crap from your evo-religious site. Its obvious you know of none as you are not commited to put YOUR word with them.
I ask my initial claim yet again! Can you show me some EMPIRICAL evidence that doesn't rely on assumptions or first pre-suppose evolution. If you attempt to twist this another time, then you have proven my point again.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
"EMPIRICAL "
That word REALLY does not mean what you think it means. Get a clue already. Read some books. Get educated.
Your stupidity has totally corroded my patience, so I'm bowing out. Have a nice day!
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Oh really, why because YOU say so?
My definition of EMPIRICAL is based on what my lecturers at UNIVERSITY have told me, what do you stand by? Your evo-religious site?
This proves my point that you are only here to waste time, and equivocate meanings. I have cracked onto your game and have asked you to address the initial issue you wormed out of. You don't like this so you attempt to bow out before the facade of your smoke and mirrors has run out.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
You say I have been diverting the subject. My initial claims were for YOU to show me some EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of evolution. Instead YOU have twisted and turned out of doing this, as such you have addressed nothing, apart from your need to troll and not answer questions directly.
I ask my initial claim again! Can you show me some EMPIRICAL evidence that doesn't rely on assumptions or first pre-suppose evolution. If you attempt to twist this again, then you have proven my point.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
"YOU to show me some EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of evolution. "
You can easily look it up for yourself. Go to the Talkorigins website, type "evidence for evolution" in the search box, and check out the bibliographies. You don't have to take my word on it; it's out there.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
And yes I am agnostic.
What you are attempting to do is attacking the man, and slip away from providing the EMPIRICAL evidence I have asked for. I don't lie about science when I say for something to be scientific it REQUIRES EMPIRICAL validity... You have totaly defied this point, and have attempted to argue on what is empirical is, (equivocation and word games).
Stop twisting like a snake and provide the evidence that shows evolution is scientific.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer I can't show you fossil bunnies, but I can show you fossil birds... (yes they look just like modern birds and lived at the time of the dinosaurs)... Look up Confuciornus... It are these fossils found in China that has lead scientists to believe that Archeopteryx actually is NOT a transitional form.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
"they look just like modern birds "
No, they don't. That have both dinosaur-like and bird-like features. They're intermediates.
"Confuciornus"
... is likely closer related to modern birds than Archaeopteryx, but clearly not a bird in the modern sense. Archaeopteryx still stands as the most basal form with bird-characteristics we know of.
How about you stop lying for your faith and start hitting the books? Hmmm?
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
You said this
"You do realize experiments don't only take place in labs, do you"
Now this
"So the experiment to determine whether Einstein's formula correctly predicts Mercury's orbit wasn't one? And that we can't create supernovas in a lab means they don't exist?"
I am not saying lies, I am asking for EMPIRICAL evidence for evolution, something which you have been shown lacking in
I am still waiting for ACTUAL EMPIRICAL evidence not crap from evo-religious sites
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gilbertus1986
"the experiment to determine whether Einstein's formula correctly predicts Mercury's orbit "
It did not take place in a lab, and neither do most other astronomical experiments. They're still empirical, though.
"EMPIRICAL"
Okay, for the last time (since you don't seem to get it anyway): /watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
There's loads of empirical evidence for evolution. Denying that amounts to lying.
"evo-religious sites"
And with this you still claim not to be a creationist?
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
not even close.
sorry.
RabidApe 2 years ago
@RabidApe
Evolution is unproved and unproveable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable. Sir Arthur Keith (he wrote the forward of the 100th anniversary edition of Darwins book, Origin of Species in 1959)
"Yes evolution has been observed, it just hasn't been observed while it has been happening"- RICHARD DAWKINS interviewed with Bill Moyers (taken from a debate)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
If you want proof of a Great Flood you can go dig a hole in your backyard. You will not find the geological column that evolutionary scientists have dreamed up. Of which fossils fall into their circular reasoned time periods. Instead you will find the Pennsylvanian Period over here, missing here, upside down here, the Jurassic over there, missing here, Cambrian here and a little there-exactly what one would expect to find if a worldwide flood occured-sedimentary layering charicteristic of floods
gamerbarons360 2 years ago
Are you really that dumb? You really think that the entire scientific community is in on one giant conspiracy to try and make the evidence seem counter to young earth creationism? ...I am at a loss for words.
Ev3rliving 2 years ago
The Flu Virus merely adapts, it reshuffles its gentic "cards," there is no introduction of new gentic material which causes the Flu virus to evolve into a completely differnet species. That's the idea behind macro-evolution, but that can't happen naturally, which is a foundational folly when it comes to the theory of evolution.
I still don't know how evolutionists have expanded on Darwin's finding's that different birds adapted to their environment and stretched that out to macro-evolution.
gamerbarons360 2 years ago
Can you tell me any way to walk a mile other than taking one step at a time?
RabidApe 2 years ago
I don't have time to watch DonExodus2's videos right now but I will and I will be happy to rebuke them...
gamerbarons360 2 years ago
No one was actually there so no one can prove anything. And back to the religion of evolution...There is more evidence supporting YEC than there is supporting evolution or an old Earth which means that it takes more faith to believe the THEORY of evolution than it does to believe creationism.
Random mutations cannot lead to a completely new lifeform-you can't get mutations of a dino's DNA to produce bird-like traits and all living things are irreducibly complex-go ahead and look that term up.
gamerbarons360 2 years ago
So-called irreducible complexity is a by-product of evolution, not a "refutation":
watch?v=LZdCxk0CnN4
RabidApe 2 years ago
What? Just because no one was there doesn't make it unprovable. If you walked into a sealed room with a dead woman with a bullet in her head and a guy with a handgun, but you didn't see it. isn't it just logical to conclude that the man killed the woman with the handgun? You need to learn a lot about evolution, since you call it "random mutations". That is a common idiocy in ID supporters.
Thothsglyphs 2 years ago
First off, you're referring to OEC, which is also theistic evolution, which is also unbiblical. Also, there is overwhelming evidence that the Earth can't be billions of years old.
And I am saying that belief in the theory of evolution is as much as a belief that a supreme being created everything simply because no one was there. I can't prove creation and you can't prove evolution. What we can do is come to a logical conclusion, which, of course, is the Book of Genesis and a Great Flood.
gamerbarons360 2 years ago
"which is also unbiblical"
According to YOU.
"And I am saying that belief in the theory of evolution is as much as a belief that a supreme being created everything simply because no one was there."
Sorry, I can't follow your grammar there.
RabidApe 2 years ago
"I can't prove creation"
Ok, glad you can admit it.
"you can't prove evolution"
Wrong. Watch these videos from (Christian!) DonExodus2:
watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0
watch?v=-CvX_mD5weM
RabidApe 2 years ago
How is it a logical conclusion? Evolution has more evidence than gravity, but Genesis and Noah have no proof outside of the bible realm. Evolution has to do with many natural events, while the bible has only to do with magick. Please, you really don't make much of an impression when you have such a misunderstanding of evolution. It never said that god can't exist if it is true.
Thothsglyphs 2 years ago
Evolution does not stand up to scientific scrutiny, glyphs. There is actually overwhelming evidence suggesting a worldwide flood approx. 4,500 years ago, exactly where The Bible places. Isn't it odd that using the known population growth rate for the human population, we plug in Noah's family,8, and if we set the model to 4,500 years we come up with just over 6 billion people-darn near the world populaion today. Isn't it just a coincidence that no river on Earth is more than 4,500 years old?
gamerbarons360 2 years ago
Is it merely a coincidence that there is no real-life geological column that we find in textbooks, but rather we found sedimentary layering one might expect to see following flooding? Is it merely a coincidence that we find aquatic fossils on the peaks of the highest mountains-exactly what we would expect if a worldwide flood occured? Is it merely a coincidence that every single prophecy made by The Bible, laced with extreme specificity, has come true?
gamerbarons360 2 years ago
Evolution and God cannot coincide. Evolution is not biblical. If Evolution is true then that means that death entered the world before sin. The book of Romans specifically tells us that death entered the world following sin, the fall of man, adam and eve.The book of Isiah provides us with a description of a newly formed Earth in which "the lion eats straw like the ox" and the children lay with the vipers but they are not harmed.
gamerbarons360 2 years ago
When describing the days of creation, Moses uses the Hebrew word "Yom" which, if placed next to a numeral, can only be intepreted as a literal 24-hour day-which is exactly what happens in the Hebrew text of the Bible. If God wanted Moses to write that these "days" were actually millions or billions of years, then he possessed the vocabulary to do so. However, this is irrelevant because evolution holds no weight when examined under scientific scrutiny. It simply does not retain any validity.
gamerbarons360 2 years ago
...still waiting for you to refute DonExodus2's vids....
RabidApe 2 years ago
Sorry I have too many deadlines right now and I should be in bed already...
gamerbarons360 2 years ago
"Sorry I have too many deadlines right now and I should be in bed already... "
But you have time to leave your drivel...
RabidApe 2 years ago
Obviously you have no knowledge of how evolution works or the hundreds of tests it has withstood over the last 150 years. You claim many things but show no proof. I can however, show that evolution has withstood large amounts of scrutiny. Your claims are idiotic anyways. it wouldn't be in the science curriculum if it wasn't a good explanation for natural phenomena. Why do you think you need a new FLU vaccine every year? Because the flu virus EVOLVES.
Thothsglyphs 2 years ago
So it seems as though this debate is over considering a lack of scientific or logical evidence being brought to the table concerning evolution.
But there is still one thing I can do:
Pray for you and hope one day that you find the truth and with the help of the One who created you...accept the truth...
gamerbarons360 2 years ago
you won't be the first, but I don't think it will do any good:
watch?v=j6u-kJSCuSk
RabidApe 2 years ago
You seem to be (implicitly) saying that belief in a God and belief in the theory of evolution are mutually exclusive...
What makes you say that? Couldn't an all-powerful being "create" a system that would work autonomously for billions of years to arrive at a desired end?
Refuting evolution doesn't prove that Yahweh exists or that he "wrote" the Buybull, if that's where you're coming from.
I have plenty of videos that deal with Yahweh. Let's stick w/evolution on this one, please.
RabidApe 2 years ago
Maybe you should consider providing some scientific evidence rather than simply resorting to name-calling and inventing derogatory terms used to ridicule those who can out-debate you or provide actual scientific evidence refuting evolution.
gamerbarons360 2 years ago
I've got hundreds of other videos, PLENTY of which deal with evolution and cite PLENTY of evidence.
RabidApe 2 years ago
My assignment to you: create a model of a closed system with a stack of papers and an open system with a stack of papers and prove to me that the stack of papers in the open system aren't more disorganized and less complex in nature than the papers contained within the closed system. Also, one iota of scientific evidence supporting evolution might be appreciable in a debate regarding evolution.
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFact: Evolution Is Religion based on metaphysical ideas.
gamerbarons360 2 years ago
evolution in a nutshell:
1) individuals reproduce with variation
2) due to those variations, some offspring will reproduce more than others
3) as time goes on these variations accumulate
Where are the metaphysics?
What is your definition of "religion"?
(make sure your definition isn't equally applicable to Mets fandom, Conservatism, and plumbing - if you stretch a word far enough to mean ANYTHING, then you are communicating NOTHING when you use it.)
RabidApe 2 years ago
What you're describing is micro-evolution, which is completely true and accepted-we see it every day. Macro-evolution, or Darwinian evolution, is a species changing to a completely different species. However, to do this new genetic material has to be introduced into that organisms genome. This CANNOT occur naturally. So the real question is how a dinosaur evolve into a bird without the addition of genetic material, which may I remind CANNOT occur in nature.
gamerbarons360 2 years ago
"However, to do this new genetic material has to be introduced into that organisms genome. This CANNOT occur naturally."
This statement reveals a profound ignorance on your part. You obviously don't know a thing about genetics.
Start with the wikipedia article on "mutation", or better yet, enroll in biology 101.
RabidApe 2 years ago
There can be an increase of genetic information. If genetic information cannot be added, then how is there genetic information for nylon eating bacteria(which is not natural)? Scientists have retried this and the same result came. Nylon eating bacteria.
Thothsglyphs 2 years ago
Well I will continue this "debate" later, if you'd call it that anyway for not much counter-evidence is become thrown my way for I must retire to my quarters. Tomorrow is Easter. Go visit your family of something and enjoy a day instituted to celebrate the resurrection of THE Messiah.
gamerbarons360 2 years ago
You're right about the inaccuracy of punctuated equilibrium. There is no scientific consensus because there is no evidence for it except for the lack of transitional fossils to support evolution. Stephen Jay Gould, the foremost guru of modern Darwinism, has admitted that there is a surprising lack of fossil evidence for the theory of evolution. Thus, Gould and other evolutionists have accepted punctuated equilibrium simply because that cannot possibly consider Divine Intervention.
gamerbarons360 2 years ago
"Stephen Jay Gould, the foremost guru of modern Darwinism, has admitted that there is a surprising lack of fossil evidence for the theory of evolution."
You'd think so if you got all of your information from creationist fucktard quote-miners.
"simply because that cannot possibly consider Divine Intervention"
...and now you are impugning character rather than making an actual point.
I could just as easily say that "you cannot possibly consider that the universe wasn't made just for you".
RabidApe 2 years ago
The fossil record in an evolutionary museum is merely a creative arrangement of numerous types of fossils found throughout history, not an actual linear representation. Take a stack of papers and place one in an open system and one in a closed one. The open system will be bombarded by rocks, random energy, and solar rays. Now, tell me which stack of papers has become the least organized and thus entropy has occurred at a faster rate in the system in which the papers are the least organized.
gamerbarons360 2 years ago
Your concept of entropy (and "open systems" and "closed systems") is so wrong it's funny.
Thanks for the laugh.
RabidApe 2 years ago
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFact: The establishment of the theory of punctuated equilibrium has been fabricated by evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould to explain away the complete and utter ABSENCE of a transitional fossil record.
And "within a closed system" should be added onto the end of #3. I know you will tell me that the Earth doesn't apply since it is not a closed system. This is a bologna argument because entropy will occur at a faster rate in an open system.
gamerbarons360 2 years ago
I don't think there is a scientific consensus in support of punctuated equilibrium.
You can keep saying that there are no transitional fossils, but that doesn't make it true. Go to a museum.
"entropy will occur at a faster rate in an open system. "
Where the hell did you get that idea?
RabidApe 2 years ago
1. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor. Source: darwins theory of evolution (dot) com
2. The complete absence of a transitional fossil record supports the theory of punctuated equilibrium.
3. "the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. "- allaboutscience (dot) org
Already, I have blown evolution out of the water with points 2 and 3.
Good day, Sir!
gamerbarons360 2 years ago
You completely missed the mark on #2.
You weren't specific enough on #3.
And neither of those "blows evolution out of the water".
Fail.
RabidApe 2 years ago
man you think you're smart when you're actually stupid
FAGEEHA2 2 years ago
wat
RabidApe 2 years ago
Wrong!! The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. First he created the earth, then he created the Big Bang that created the rest of the universe.
Prove me wrong?
bigboy45454545 2 years ago
No, it's those who advocate the theory of evolution that try to obfuscate what it says and hide behind big latinized words so they can feel intelligent somehow. The truth is that evolution is a pile of shit and it's about as realistic as Poke-e-Mon. Those who protest the theory DO understand it, you DON'T. Let me explain it to you: It says there's no Creator and you came from a fucking ape. Jackass.
sevenYearOldBoy 2 years ago
"It says there's no Creator"
interesting... my biology textbook doesn't make a reference one way or the other...
I'm pretty sure that the theory only has to do with how life diversifies over time - not the ultimate origin of life (let alone the universe).
Can you find a textbook or journal article that backs up your claim?
RabidApe 2 years ago