Do any of you evolutionists know anything about the history of the evolution theory? How Darwin stole the idea from his poor friend Russell Wallace, how he changed things in his theory later? Do you want to talk about lamarckism, the stretching of giraffe necks, punctuated equilibrium, etc. It is all fairy tales. It's childish to beleive it if you studied all phases of it.
So now that we know Mike's "powerful and well illustrated" talks involve using power point to make pointform presentations with no real factual evidence against evolution....
What's the point of this? All he does is use the bible against scientific knowledge. That's not disproving anything.
"If we are not free , then we are slaves , think about it " . Exactly that's why the bible is such ridiculous garbage , it contradicts itself . First it says God controls everything , but then says we have free will . Can't have it both ways . Also Jesus is a direct rip-off of the God Horus , so we don't even have original fiction here . The funny part : people think Jesus was an actual person LOL .
He fails in so many ways! He confuses the sciences with evolution, he doesn't know about punctuated equilibrium, he quotes an old book with no backing data against modern theories with thousands of papers of backing data (pubmedcentral - search for evolution).
Fail fail fail. ignorant. There is no excuse for such pathetic ignorance anymore. There is no excuse for standing up and espousing it, as that is immoral.
The Cambrian Explosion has been explained. A rapid increase of the O2 level enabled little plankton sized critters to grow so big that they could be fossilized.
im not sure i would call hundreds of millions of years "sudden" if your believe is that something created all this in six days. call me stupid though cause all i have is a post-graduate degree that gets me called "doctor" in a hospital all day.
On a very general note...it's people like this Mike that are contributing to the dumbing down of this country...what a shame. Thanks to JonLTD...I might have to put you on my heroes list!
It is this guy that is opening the eyes of those who can have spiritual cleansing and get their lives aligned with something meaningful.....Darwinism, evolution and such revels in the fact that there is no meaning to life. Look towards things like fractals that indicate to us a form in nature that very heavily suggest a design to life and this includes human life. Scientist Arthur C. Clarke mentioned this in a documentary as the thumbprint of God.
I also share your disappointed with people who are hindering the potential of mankind. Imagine the things we could have learnt if people disregard these bronze age myths and stop slowing down progress. It baffles the mind. Take care.
Just by listening to the opening minute, the "lecturer" shows no scientific understanding what-so-ever! He keeps using the words "evolved" to describe geological and physical processes. Evolution is the model put forward to describe the diversity of life! Not the creation of: The universe, the planet or the beginning of life! These are simply known as The Big Bang, planet formation and abiogenesis. The "lecturer" clearly knows nothing about the subject, therefore is biased and ill-educated.
Oh come on you can't be serious. You are asserting that his whole lecture is wrong based on his use of the term "evolution" to describe as you put it to describe geological and physical processes? What happaned to weighing the arguments based on merit? You are obviously being lazy and dismissive. And its obvious to any high schooler that he is using the term "evolution" in a general way which is acceptable. Like the evolution of someones character or a group...
Oh well. I completely apologise for pointing out that this man is showing a complete lack of understanding of a serious topic of debate. If I went to watch a lecture conducted by an esteemed person in that field and used the main topic, ie evolution, and attribute it to totally unrelated events and use it incorrectly, I'd automatically be annoyed. It shows ignorancre, no subject understanding and fundementally wrong. Ironic as you lump me in with "you youtube Athiests".
First of he wasn't showing a lack of understanding of this topic as I have shown. The meaning of evolution basically means "unfolding" and can be used in a very general when talking about other processes that aren't actually evolution. You're nitpicking. Oh and true you never said he was wrong (In so many words anyway) you just strongly insinuated that he was based on him not using each spacific word to describe other processes. Yeah no problems with that logic...
No, you used Evolution as an analogy, like someones character through time, which is perfectly valid in an analogous sense. Not throwing the word about and using it 100% incorrectly. I don't know how evolution can even be used as an analogy to the big bang and planet formation. And to re-emphasise, if I went to a lecture in my field of study, and the lecturer used the main word of debate out of context and attribute it to unrelated processes, alarm bells would be ringing.
Also, I never said that the lecturer is wrong. I said he was ill-educated and biased on the subject. Which he clearly is by going against the hundreds and thousands of people of scientists and researchers of a specialised field who have been collecting samples for centuries and documenting their finds via the Scientific method and peer reviewed literature that is continuously scrutinised which, more-or-less, leads to one thing.. The entire fossil record agreeing with the model of Evolution.
And the fossil record does not support evolution. I always hear that said on a popur level but no actually examples are given that aren't horribly flawed! If evolution were true there should be an ABUNDANCE of transitional forms. Not just a handful. There isn't. Also evolution is pseudoscience. It's only made to appear scientific. It steps outside the methodology of science because let me guess you have never observed evolution? I thought so.
The reason why they would be ringing as these people are meant to be peers in their specialised subject, and people are meant to be impressionable towards them. If they are using the word fundamentally wrong, then they are passing on incorrect information to people and lead to them not having a full understanding and the meaning behind the terms. A bit like a Creationist with the term "Evolution". People simply attribute Evolution with Athiesm and sin due to how it's taught to them.
The more we talk the more you seem to be proving my earlier point. You are hung up on his use of the word evolution which is trivial because I think you and I both know WHAT processes he is talking about despite(even if lazy)his use of the word evolution. In fact the "evolution of the solar system" is a phrase I see often used in cosmology. But ok lets say you are right. Then what? If anything it merly shows he is a poor teacher who needs to clean up his terminology. Not wrong outright.
How is Evolution a "pseudoscience"? Ironic as both Creationism and Intellegent Design was thrown out of the court room being labelled a "pseudoscience" where-as Evolution remains the best, and most plausible way, to account for the diversity of life. Evolution & Speciation can and have been observed, and I would like you to tell me how it "steps outside the methodology of science". Again, it is such an insult for people like you to discredit over 150 years of research to countless Scientists.
Evolution is psedoscience because it steps outside of the scientific method. (i.e. observation and experimentation) I say it has never been observed. You claim that it has. So now the burden is on you to to cite an example of evolution being observed so that I can reply.
Right! KryptikMuzikMadnezz you are right! We can't figure out who murdered anyone because nobody else was there! That's why the police don't look at evidence anymore and people who murder get away with it all the time. You have to actually observe the murder to figure out who is guilty, right?
First off the example you use is flawed. Using police peicing together evidence for a murder case with evolution is a flawed comparison because you are assuming that the so called "evidence" for evolution is fair and objective. What you have is a poor hypothesis that is assumed to be true so any evidence that can possibly "support" the poor hypothesis is overexagerated and any that contradicts it is discarded. Your example would have been more true to life if...
So? I'm aware of bias in collecting evidence yet I (And even many scientists) believe evolution is unscientific. Because they are "aware" of it proves nothing.
(Cont) the police in it were biased and already had a suspect in mind (i.e. Evolution) and iterpretted all evidence to point to this suspect while the evidence was widly open to interpretation and circumstantial ... all the while completely ignoring the evidence that suspect number 2 did it (i.e. design.)
KryptikMuzikMadnezz, in both cases a hypothesis is made and then tested. A hypothesis is not a bias. The police see 3 suspects Peter, Mark and Judas .. then test each hypothesis. Evolutionary theory has won all such tests. Intelligent Design has failed all such tests. Saying "daddy did it" and "you can't see daddy" is a non answer, avoiding the issue (but commonly done by theists).
Farvision, I'd dissagree with you that Evolutionary theory has "won all tests." That is a bold statement, one I've seen many times but when the examples are "cited" they are horribly flawed. Secondly, by and large in the scientific community there is a bias towards evolution. Design isn't taken seriously therefor not seriously considered. Like the police thinking only Peter could have done it because "We all know Mark sure couldn't have done it and anyone who thinks so is crazy"...
Read the story of Tiktaalik. So called design has been looked at very closely by many people and it fails. For example, the computation of low probability is fatally flawed (events don't multiply in time) but repeated by ID advocates. Also, to your point, failed cases get corrected so what we have now fits the data.
As for low probability. I have to say that I find most Atheists I've come across don't actually understand the argument. Its this misunderstanding that leads to confusion.
If most atheists understood that it is not legal to multiply the probabilities the way the ID advocates do, then perhaps the ID advocates would have given up sooner. Not everybody understands every argument.
Just the way you have talked to me by saying that I'm saying "Daddy did it" shows the condecending attitude I'm speaking of. And btw please don't do that it only makes you sound like a Dawkins/Hichens parrot.
"Why We Believe in Gods - Andy Thomson - American Atheists 09"
at richarddawkinsdotnet. We have brain mechanisms that set us up to think beings did things. Also, theists say "Our Father In Heaven" so that's equivalent to 'daddy did it'. I do agree it is slightly condescending and sorry you are offended, but it's a rather close match to the 'design' explanation.
I'll try and check those out. Granted some theists say "Our Father In Heaven"... but that is in no way saying "daddy did it" ... One in a warm avail to God ... and the other is a very lazy way of trying to explain the things that go on in the universe/world. Granted some theists do say "daddy did it" sort of speak. But not all and its lazy to lump us all together that way. Thats like saying all atheists are by default rational while theists are not. I hope you don't belive that is true
Also, that might be true that we do indeed have brain Mechanisms that set us up to "think beings did things." In fact my personal belief system doesn't exclude this possibility. I've seen Atheists use this line of argument before. But the important thing to realise is that weather or not we do have those mechanisms in our brain or not has absolutely NO bearing on the objective truth or weather or not there actually IS such beings. It would only mean we are "programmed" to believe such.
(Note for you weather -> whether - check that spelling, you make that error often) Right. It does not say there are or are not gods, it just says why we will tend to think they exist. But in the absence of any positive evidence for gods, we come to a full understanding of the situation. Most atheists do not absolutely say there are no gods, just that they are not likely to exist and that what we see in the world is consistent with things like that programming.
Ah, right Weather ... whether. My bad, see english isn't my first language its actually my 7th just right after Latin & Klingon! >XD~ Hope it wasn't hard to decipher.
"But in the absence of any positive evidence for gods, we come to a full understanding of the situation." I'd disagree with the premise that there is not positive evidence for God. Ok maybe not hard DIRECT scientific evidence like a polaroid of him in a bar or something. But that fits perfectly with the definition of God...
Congratulations on all your languages! Thanks for taking that as a hopefully useful suggestion. Your writing is clear enough, I'm just a picky eater ... ;-)
As a scientist i'm almost painfully aware of what constitutes publishable evidence. We spent an extra 5 years on one project trying to get evidence that a referee would have demanded. So I have not seen any evidence of any gods that I could publish. It's a high bar, true, but if there were a god it should be easy to show.
Despite our diffrences of belief I just want to thank you for having this dicusion being that you are a scientist and all. I hope it doesn't come across that I am in anyway in contemp of the years you have no doubt put into this issue. Plus I like knowing that the people I am debating are "worthy opponents." ....
(Cont) That being said, I wonder how you can justify your earlier comment: "It's a high bar, true, but if there were a god it should be easy to show?" Does that not amount to personal opinion?
Sure it's an opinion. I find it an intriguing thought actually. If there were a god(s) then things would be a lot different than we observe. What we observe is as if there were no gods. It doesn't prove they don't exist of course. But if a god designed humans, we would not have nerves in front of our light sensors and we would not have a blind spot. Your Inner Fish explains a few other oddities that come from us being fish once upon a time - what an odd thought that is!
(Cont) i.e Him being an immaterial spirit creature beyond the pysical realm. Science isn't equipped in the first place to try and justifiably ascertain if God exists or to demand "Hard evidence" because science only deals with the pysical realm/universe. And Atheists did indeed used to say there was no God, the new definition of atheism "lack of belief in God" seems to have been adopted because with the old definition they had to do the intellectual hard work of explaining their position.
(physical :-) The issue, though, is that for example the Intelligent Design Advocates claim that a god designed beings - so the god interacts with this world. But the evidence shows that it is not a breeding by a god, it is random events and natural selection - evolution. If the god is outside the universe and doesn't interact with it, that's a deistic god. It might be there, but so is Batman - there is no reason to think it's real.
"But the evidence shows that it is not a breeding by a god, it is random events and natural selection - evolution." I think the so called evidence for evolution is suspect. Not to sound repetative but that is what has been on trial in our debate, Evolution in the first place, now you say the evidence points to evolution and I say it can't possibly point to evolution because it hasn't been observed in the first place. The evidence is merly interpretted to conform to evolutionary theory.
(merely) The thing is that the evidence that supports evolutionary theory is literally overwhelming. Go to pubmedcentral and search for 'evolution'. Today (Oct 31, 2009) it is 126473 papers that you can read! To get a better idea of the total literature, go to pubmed, where you will find 253200 papers! A quarter of a million papers essentially all of which support the theory!
By citing all these papers I think you are basically saying that since there is so many works on it by so many scientists that its true. But Majority opinion proves nothing, and student of history knows that science has been notoriously WRONG in the past. i.e. The earth being flat. And that baser metals could be turned into gold. (Alchemy) Besides I could also direct you to papers on design.
You are right in a way. The point is that a lot of people have found the theory useful and have been able to build on it. The design concept has not had that success. You don't need to point me to the design papers - I'm familiar with them. Every one I have examined has fatal flaws. Behe, for example, fails to notice that a roman arch would be impossible by his scheme. Dembski messes up his mathematics, etc. Actually they rarely are able to publish because of the flaws.
I think its presumptuous of you to say that I need not direct you to design papers because you are familiar with them. Thats like me telling you that I don't need to consider anything you tell me because I know it already. I also find that Atheist books and such also have fatal flaws... Take Richard Dawkins god delusion, his opening logic and the heart of his book is appaling. Even if you are right that Behe and Dembski are flawed. All that shows is that..well Behe & Dembski are flawed.
If you want you can point to things. But I'm just saying that I've read a lot and know the basic arguments pretty well already. They all fail. Interesting that you found the God Delusion to have flaws - I'm glad you read it. I didn't find any flaws (though it's been a while since I read it). Can you name the worst flaw?
As for Behe and Dembski - they form the basic core of the intelligent design movement. That's been pretty well debunked, especially since the Dover trial.
That means that the design concept from theists still has no evidence that is not better explained by evolutionary theory.
Aha! The old dover trial! Well along with my critique of Dawkins book I think I'll also have to send you a PM on the dover trial as well. I'll just say that it wasn't fair here and safe the other stuff for later. After I do I hope that we can at least agree that the trial was completly unfair. I'd understand that that does not mean you automatically renounce your atheism. =)
Did you read the Kitzmiller decision? it's amazing the Bush Republican appointed judge - how fair can you get? - actually understood the science and knocked the defendants for their lies ... The whole pandas and people word switch was pretty amazing proof that ID is creationism ... so, no, it seemed fair to me.
"You have to actually observe the murder to figure out who is guilty, right?" Um??? This disturbs me btw. Again you are trying to draw a similarity between a murder case and evolution. First of all in a murder case you already know that if someone was murdered that "someone exists" ... Evolution is a mechanism. Weather or not that mechanism takes place is what we are debating ... so YES ... In the case of evolution it HAS to be observed! Especially if you want to call it science!
No, a murder case might be an accidental death or a suicide. So the death of a person is a mechanism too. You are wrong about the need for direct observation. Do you think DNA exists? We knew it existed in 1944 when Avery, MacLeod, and McCarty published. The best you could see would be a transparent glob. It was much later that we "saw" it with AFM. Science works by making hypotheses and then seeing whether the evidence matches or not. Direct observation is nice but not always possible.
Not in the example we were oginally using it wasn't. It was a murder case. (Because in our debate we have 2 suspects ... Evolution and design) To say that a death is a mechanism because it was accidental or a suicide is indeed true. But that has NO bearing whatsoever on OUR debate. As for DNA of course I believe it exists, but again we are talking about a micoscopic strand of something physical within us that can and has been observed/seen....
When someone dies we don't know the cause, so a murder case might not actually be murder. What is "observed"? The original genetics was done by breeding and showed that when traits assorted together they would become unlinked based on a "distance". So the original observation of DNA was based on frequencies of recombination of traits. That genes were in a linear order was not seen physically for many years. Thus we don't need to see something directly to know it is true.
I think you have just proved my point Farvision. Observe... "Thus we don't need to see something directly to know it is true." I agree with you, do you see how you may have proved my point? but in order for something to be called "Science" or "scientific" it MUST be observed. The scientists you mentioned earlier may have been right about genetics, but it was gained through OBSERVATION. It was simply a belief until it was proven true, they had "faith" if you will.
No. The point is that we did not need to see DNA inside cells to know that the genes were linearly arranged. Likewise we do not need to actually see a fish evolve into tiktaalik and then into an amphibian to know it happened. However, we have observed evolution in the lab and in nature. Definition: faith is belief without evidence (or despite it).
I think there is a flaw in that conclusion. You say we do not need to see DNA inside cells to know the genes were linearly arranged. Yet how did they come to this conclusion that they were linearly arranged? From your earlier post "So the original observation of DNA was based on frequencies of recombination of traits" They made an observation, and it paned out.....
Genetics is an amazing science. Merely by breeding animals or plants together one can make powerful inferences about their genetic structure. Genes that do not assort by Mendelian laws are on the same chromosome. But sometimes they separate - recombine. They mapped the genes and found they fell on a line. Closer genes recombine less. So people inferred that genes were on a linear object. When DNA was discovered, that explained the effect. It was a much stronger result than "panned out" implies.
I don't think I was minimizing what they did by using the term "panned out." But the fact remains they drew conclusions on what they OBSERVED then were proven correct as science advanced. Evolution is diffrent because it is a preconcieved idea that is taken to be true. So the scientific community at large seems to look at any evidence through an evolutionary lense.
Well, yes and no. Evolution was not a preconceived for a long time. But it was repeatedly confirmed so many times that we now do take it as correct. First, it is simple. Second, we know the exact mechanisms down to the atomic level. The recent genomic sequencing confirmed the tree and that matches the fossils, and developmental details. It just all fits together beautifully. Separate origins do not fit this picture.
There is a lot of claims here. But I don't think anyone would stand up to scrutiny provided actual examples. Again usually the "evidence" is open to many interpretations yet evolution wins out. Suprise suprise.
No, if an alternative were to arise, then the person who finds it stands to be extremely famous. I don't know what alternative explanations there are. Basically, evolutionary theory has wiped out the alternative explanations at this point. But I'd be interested to see alternatives that could withstand the scientific process.
(Cont) Based on your apparent concession that evolution doesn't fallow the criteria of science then it should be obvious that it isn't science. That isn't me trying to be difficult or mean it just isn't science. And I'm quiet familiar with some of the instinces of observed evolution in that lab that you are speaking of and none measure up. i.e retrovirus, gadflies.
No. Evolution proposes what happened. We then make tests of it and the tests confirm it. The tests have not denied the basic idea - ever. Yes, punctuated equilibrium, yes gene rearrangements. But the general picture stands since Darwin. Just like the genetics, we can know something (genes are on a line) without seeing it directly.
I'm still not sure how the DNA example parallel's evolution. I agree you can know something without having to see it directly. I believe in God and have never seen him. It seems that there is a double standard here. Belief in God is irrational because I can't see him, but its acceptable to believe in evolution even though it hasn't been observed? What? In this case they concluded genes were in a line because of the observations they made. But any observations you make about "evolution"...
Ok, so geneticists figured out genes were in a line without seeing even what a gene was. They thought they were "beads on a string" at first. We can know that fish evolved through Tiktaalik or its cousins to become amphibia without actually being there - because it fits the evidence together and in this case was predicted! But there isn't evidence for a god, that's what is different. The design is well explained by the simpler replication with error and selection concept.
I think there is evidence for God. I think the evidence for God you may be looking for is unjustifiably high. "The design is well explained by the simpler replication with error and selection concept." I don't belive this is true. In fact I'd venture to say that it has holes in it that have been glossed over, and when examined critically cannot hold its water.
For a major claim like god, the bar should be high.
I'll be happy to evaluate your best evidence. as for glossing over - what is missing? True there are lots of unknowns but the basic mechanism is well established. Thermal noise leads to errors in replication. Populations grow exponentially (doubling). Malthus: not everybody can win. So some win, some lose. Ones with better genetic programs tend to win more ... that's it!
There is actually a nobel prize winning Evolutionist/Atheist who actually conceeds that evolution is a myth. I'll be happy to admite that his knowledge of Evolution is probably WAY more advanced then my own but. His admission is quiet shocking and confirms what I believe to be true. i.e Evolution being a myth. I think he knew of the things that were "missing" that you speak probably more then most.
Which person got the Nobel and said this? Was his field actually biology or was it not related - such as physics? I have found that physicists generally fail badly to understand basic biology.
Dr. George Wald, Novel Peace Prize winner for Science in 1967. Dr. Wald says the following:
"When if comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion:
(Cont) That of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." (Dennis Lindsay, "The Dinosaur Dilemma," Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November, 1982, pp. 4-5, 14.)
Well, then, Wald was wrong. There is another possibility - that life arose under the right conditions. Pasteur's experiment was done in contemporary conditions. A huge difference is oxygen and the large number of species already here. So a primitive would not have a chance. But since 1954 (the time of the quote) we have made some progress: RNA world is the biggest. Look up the work of Szostak (who just got the Nobel) - his work on the origins is quite nice.
I'd agree some progress might have been made sinse 67. But nothing that could negate Wald's statement. The brutal honesty alone of Wald leads me to believe he really did know that evolution is a myth. But as he pointed out chose to believe it anyway.
Ok, so the point is that we don't have to observe DNA directly to know that genes are in a line. It was an entirely mental exercise, but the geneticists KNEW genes were in a line. The same happens with evolution. In both cases one then makes testable predictions. When would the fish to amphibian transition occur? 85 million years ago. Where to look? 3 places of that kind of rock are exposed on the surface. Woah! One we haven't checked out yet, the arctic ... and that's where they found it.
(Cont) can't be tested. Because according to the theory of evolution its a very long and slow process that noone can observe. So by default its attributed to evolution? If we use that standard of science I can then form amodel for how life got here. All I'd have to do is form a theory that it more or less consistent with the conditions we see today and call it science. For example. If I had a gash on my neck that was self inflicted, I could tell someone that an alien from space came & cut me.
So you hypothesize that an alien cut your neck? I would find out which hand you use normally. I would look for a bloody knife. I ask you a lot of questions about the alien ... You are right handed (say) and the cut is on the left of your neck - consistent. You evade many questions about the alien. You claim it landed in your back yard but the grass is fine there. The neighbors next door are having an outdoor party and they report nothing unusual... No one piece of evidence proves a theory.
So basically you "interview me" to see if everything is consistent. Say my story was air tight. And I was ambedextrous. And was able to get ride of any evidence that would prove my story false. Then what?
There is a saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If there were no evidence, just your word, then I simply would not believe you. Nor would most people.
So DNA is a double helix. How do we know? The initial data was the chemical structure and X-ray crystallography. But later Wang did beautiful topological experiments that showed that it can be supercoiled. That's like what happens to a rubber band on a toy airplane when you twist the propeller a lot - it bunches up. Another line of evidence is AFM. All lines point to the same thing.
And this definition of faith you give here is no definition of faith that I fallow. I can see why you would have such a bad taste in your mouth any time you hear the word faith if this is the definition of faith you feel we all subscribe to.
So belief in evolution is in no way scientifically more credible then design. Because both require a measure of faith. And neither has been observed. In this way evolution steps outside of science because the scientific method requires observation. In this way evolution is a belief like any other religion.
So, no, evolution is not a faith idea. There is evidence for evolution occurring. Design has no evidence and has counter evidence (your blind spot being a nice example). Again, read the Tiktaalik story.
I don't think this qualifies for "counter evidence." For example in Christianity and even Islam men "Fell from Grace" ... were once perfect and became imperfect through sin in other words. And as a result our bodies also became imperfect hence things like sickness or deformaties or what have you. But apart from that, calling that a "counter evidence" for design doesn't work because it would be based on the premise that God MUST or would have HAD to make us perfect. It could be argued otherwise.
Yes, but if you argue that "god made humans with badly designed eyes" then this doesn't explain why god was so immoral (!) and also it goes against one of the main reasons people think that there is a god, namely that things are often optimal. But this result is quite understandable from evolution - we got stuck with the initial design and the octopus got th e better one! (Eyes evolved independently some 40 times apparently.)
"Yes, but if you argue that "god made humans with badly designed eyes" then this doesn't explain why god was so immoral" You may have to clarify here because I'm not sure what you mean. also I don't think you can say, especially as an atheist why people believe in God. For me it has nothing to do with things being optimal.
God could have designed our eyes so we see as well as eagles. But to have the eagle design and not put it into the favored being is just immoral. Imagine a company using substandard tires on your car that blow out and kill you when they have the technology to make good tires. Many people cite the (apparent!) design as a reason to believe. Check out: Why We Believe in Gods - Andy Thomson - American Atheists 09
Your whole arguement here hinges on God being immoral for not giving us perfect eyes if he indeed could have. The fallacy with this line of logic is that IF there is a God. You are not in a position to say what IS or IS not moral and immoral. On the contrary simply BECAUSE God does something that is the standard of morality. Besides, he can have morally sufficient reasons for us not having perfect eyes that you just may be ignorant to. And your version of morality may be diffrent from mine.
No, we have morals apparently both genetic and socially and do not come from god. Did people kill before Moses brought down the commandments? Morality probably evolved. So your and my morality probably are pretty similar. It is clear that creating beings that are substandard when one could do better (at no cost!) is immoral. It is also clear that blaming us for the "sins" of two people long ago is also immoral. Hmm. The whole basis of Christianity is immoral!
"It is clear that creating beings that are substandard when one could do better (at no cost!) is immoral." This assertion self destructs all on its own. If God exists then HE determines what is moral and immoral and you are in no position to judge what is or isn't. If he does not exist then you are merely condeming God by a standard or morality that can't be proven to be true or objective. It would only be a bio socio spinoff of evolution.
See, if there is NO God you can't say what is or is not moral because then there would be noway to prove that it is true or objective. It would amount to nothing more then another human opinion. In fact on the evolutionary Atheistic worldview I could argue that "Only the strong survive" and go rape and pillage anyone I saw fit as long as it was in my power to do so, and you couldn't rationally or intellectually tell me it is either right or wrong.
No, morality has to do with evolutinary survival of the local tribe. Tribes that don't have members killing each other or stealing will survive better. Raping and pillaging the OTHER tribe ... that's ok! Gee, that's what the world looks like now!
Oh I never said tribes raping and killing EACH other. They eat their neighbors. People of diffrent tribes. That would ensure the survival of my tribe at the expense of the other tribe.
So let me get this straight, you would condemn God for giving us less then perfect eyes, but its okay to kill my neigbor if he isn't part of my tribe to ensure the survival of my own? This is "morality?" Under that logic it is then PERFECTLY acceptable for me to kill YOU and all those YOU love if it were to better me and those I love in some way. Is that what you are basically saying?
Yes, I would condemn god for bad design. I was explaining the source of morality. Notice that people actually act the way you describe. I do react negatively to those scenarios apparently because I consider myself a citizen of the world. So the whole world is my tribe. But the original tribe was a very small unit and another tribe 20 miles away was really far away.
Again by "condemning God" for bad design you have to subscribe to a form or morality/ethics. But if he exists morality is HIS domain. Don't you see, by the mere fact that he is the creator you have no right to condemn him for what is right or wrong no matter how "wrong" it seems in your eyes. As God he has no obligation to give you perfect eyes or to make your life easy or to stop you from being his by a train should that happen. And again he can have perfectly sufficient reasons for...
No, I don't buy that. Being creator does not make him able to define morality. Morality is about how we treat each other. It is clear that God was immoral to kill everyone on the planet in the (supposed) flood. He kills a million people while the devil only kills about 10. Clearly if it is a commandment to not kill, then he violates his own commandment and is therefore immoral. Period. it's obvious. If you made a woman from clay, you would NOT have the right to do what you will with her.
o man you are deluded if you think the devil kills only 10.and God is evil because he killed people in the flood.your judgment on God is crazy and whit out proper study of the scriptures.our God is moral ,and made morals in the first place,and day before the flood the people where evil,hole the lands was full of evil people that polluted the human race.Bible say that people in the last day say:that Good is evil and that evil is Good,thx you for giving the example,another prophecy fulfilled lol
@jesusLostChildren777 EXACTLY! i agree with jesuslost. this guy "farvision" doesnt understand that the reason the lord destroyed man wa sbecuase we were destroying god!!sinniing , and turning against him , and disrespecting him..
ahh , this is just typical reactions to someone who does little to NO research.becuase to someone like u and i , that do , comments like the above me us LAUGH!!!
"No, I don't buy that. Being creator does not make him able to define morality." Ok how does this NOT follow? Being that he is the creator that is EXACTLY what it means! (That he can define morality) If he gave you life and a brain, then it is his porogative to do whatever he wishes with you or me or anyone. "Morality is about how we treat each other." I actually agree with this statement. But I'm a human like you, if God wanted to end your life right now that wouldn't be...
I've actually a little familiar with "ape chromosome fusion." And I hope you don't mean to insinuate that my knowledge of evolution is lacking, because I find that I have a very sufficient knowledge of evolution. At least based on some of the Atheist's I've debated on the internet.
No, my purpose here is to help educate people and I learn too. So I'm glad you have some knowledge of that amazing story. Basically it says that we did evolve from a common ancestor with the other primates.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz, read Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin. That's the story of Tiktaalik and it is indeed a test. Evolution is a perfectly good science, with testable hypotheses, data evidence and so on. It works. Also, look up nylonase and ring species.
"Again, it is such an insult for people like you to discredit over 150 years of research to countless Scientists." So in affect your logic goes like this... Sinse a large number of scientists claim something to be true then it is? Collecting the testomonies of various scientists proves nothing. Every student of history knows that scientists have been notoriously wrong in the past. i.e. The earth being flat, the sun and planets revolving around the earth...
(cont) and that baser metals could be transformed into gold (alchemy) and numerous other notions that now are known to be totally untrue. So one ought not be swayed simply by the philisophical, creedal statements of certain scientists who may have personal reasons for wanting to believe in evolution. Besides there are many scientists who DON'T belive in evolution. You put to much stock unjustifiably in the objectivity of the scientific community at large.
(Cont) He wasn't getting bogged down in the terminology. That is why I am appaled by you youtube Atheist's and evolutionists. You form weak and petty counter arguments to try and salvage your worldview that would stagger anyone with critical thinking skills. Whats more is that on top of all that you will get a ton of "thumbs up" on your weak counter arguments. Disgusting!
"The 'Patterson story' illustrates two common creationist enthusiasms: taking statements out of context, and refusing to recognize corrections when made."
Quote mining is a wonderful thing. You see, it is in fact libelous and/or slanderous. And these are considered and used in courts of law (which disregard ID/Creationism as a psuedo-science) in defending somebodys good name from horrific quote mining and mis quoting like the creationists, and you, do. So, we've also established you're a liar.
Ah the old Creationsts circular logic. A creationist provides a quote from another creationist quoting a professor of palaeontology refuting evolution.. I provide a direct quote from the man himself saying he's been a victim of quote mining.. And now the moron wants proof. And I'm only happy to assist: talkorigins [DOT] ÓRG [SLASH] faqs [SLASH] patterson [SLASH] patterson [DOT] gif -- an actual document written AND SIGNED by Patterson himself. It'
You were quoting Patterson? I didn't realize that. O.K. so if I was wrong about what he said. It still doesn't prove that quoting people is unqualified, when you're quoting accurately. By the way, I'm really not trying to make you angry. However, I do find that those who that are not at peace with their Creator, are often angry at others, including the Creator. Once I made peace with God (the Creator) I am now at peace with the rest of the world. I am confident in His Word.
I'm almost crying with laughter, Psalm119128. Your persistance is quite admirable. JonLTD, I'd leave it mate. You've made some irrefutable points which are 100% logical and from a rational thinker. Well done.
I am not continuing any more with this circular argument. I'm actually amazed that someone can be so ignorant.
Proof that the bible isn't true? Ok.. Ok.. No evidence anywhere ever supports its claims. So now, I want proof that there are no such things as Unicorns.
"You were quoting Patterson? I didn't realize that. O.K."
If you actually read the quote, it's clearly written in first person and signed at the bottom by Patterson. So, what have we established? You pedal misquoted people who aren't alive to defend themselves, you don't read/take on board arguining posts, you believe evolution accounts for the origin of the universe and you require no evidence to believe stories. This alone makes any argument with you pointless. You are Ignorance personified.
I quoted Patterson because I trusted it to be an accurate quote, which I thought made a great point. I didnt take on all the opposing posts to what I had previously said simply because I take them to be unfounded (even though the ones that quoted did not think so). I dont believe that evolution accounts for the origin of the universe. I believe the Bible because it has changed my life, and theres no real proof I know of thats against it. So Im ignorance personified?
"and for you to just assume the process of evolution to be the reason for the universe' existence" Quote from you, about 24 hours ago. It's statements like this that makes me realise you have no scientific knowledge, or the limited amounts you have are either jaded or biased. You believe what I say in unfounded? Despite everything I have said is present in peer reviewed literature and believed by the vast majority in the scientific community? You will not consider both sides. You ARE ignorance.
(Part 2) I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school curricula. In short the article does not fairly represent my views. But even if it did, so what? The issue should be resolved by rational discussion, and not by quoting 'authorities,' which seems to be the creationists' principal mode of argument." (Letter from Colin Patterson to Steven W. Binkley, June 17, 1982).
(Part 1) "I was too naive and foolish to guess what might happen: the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape to Luther Sunderland... Since, in my view, the tape was obtained unethically, I asked Sunderland to stop circulating the transcipt, but of course to no effect. There is not much point in my going through the article point by point. I was putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record and was speaking only about systematics, a specialized field...
If you're not willing to do at least this, then I would think that you are just afraid that if it is true, you will have to face a holy God in your sins. "God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble" (James 4:6). Many of wonderful testimonies of finally giving up their search to disprove God, and just humbling themselves and admitting they were wrong (it's not that hard, but man's hearts are hard) and God has given them peace with Him, as He has myself, through Christ.
"which is a great tool for explaining the natural world" -- Don't you think that is such a cop out in describing the universe? People can believe what they want, but plugging in a god to fill in the gaps just seems so hollow. Also, your question about the fossil record? Everything was fully formed. Everything. The animals job was to survive and pass on its DNA. Only through minor adjustments over MILLIONS of years changes an animal to adapt to new environments. A chimp is as evolved as a human.
the Spirit and the bride say come quickly Lord Jesus....comfort yourselves with the words of scripture as wickedness increases world wide.watch and pray.accept Jesus as your God and saviour and show evidence of being born again,by having a change of mind and heart,whereby the heart was the worst thing to God and people,but now the best.
I was just making a comment of appriciation and what I believe. I have the right to make a Christain comment on a Christain video. I don't have to prove it to you.
That was my point. There is no evidence throughout this entire universe that a god made it. I just wanted some proof. But as you obviously can't deliver I'll have to look else-where for answers on such a awe-inspiring system. Never mind.. I do hope you realise that the world is more than 6000 years old too.
without trying to be offensive I'll cut in. The God that the bible talks about is said to exist outside the physical realm and so science, which is a great tool for explaining the natural world, is ill equipped to prove God's existence. But what we can do with science is investigate the natural claims of the bible. Eg,Is there evidence for instant creation? Is there evidence for a young solar system? Do species appear in the fossil record fully formed? These are questions that science can answer
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls." Albert Einstein - 1845-1955. The difference? There is SOLID evidence of this man existing. A fucking bronze age bible quote will not turn my head you pathetic sheep. Do NOT patronise me.
I have no angst against anyone, but only His love, joy and peace in my heart because I have come to know this holy, loving, and just God of creation and ruler of the universe.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse....Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...." (Romans 1:19-22)
You put your confidence in a mere man's fallen logic ("lean not unto your own understanding...." Prov. 3:5)? I put my trust in the Word of the Creator, the Bible. It's is the only Book around that can be trusted, and has stood the test of time, and all the ranting and ravings of angry and rebellious men against it, who don't want to acknowledge the One who owns the whole universe, and themselves also. I am a fool for Christ (the only One who died and rose again), whose fool are you?
That wasn't my point. My point was any monkey can quote to back up their claim. Like it or like it not, there is not ONE scrap of evidence of ANY god being present. The book you quote from descends from bronze age mythology with countless contradictions. Hell, lets sell our daughters into slavery and stone a man for working on the sabbath and punish man kind for eternity for eating the fruits of knowledge. And I put my confidence in a remarkable man who.. (1 of 2)
Can somebody PLEASE upload Mike's presentation on "Dating Rocks and Fossils"? I have the DVD but it's been corrupted. I'm lost without it !!!
erikthered11 6 months ago
Do any of you evolutionists know anything about the history of the evolution theory? How Darwin stole the idea from his poor friend Russell Wallace, how he changed things in his theory later? Do you want to talk about lamarckism, the stretching of giraffe necks, punctuated equilibrium, etc. It is all fairy tales. It's childish to beleive it if you studied all phases of it.
thesacredcowtipper 8 months ago
Keep spreading the Truth Gods living word the Bible. evolution is nothing but a Fairytal with not 1 piece of evidence suporting it.
coolvideo28 1 year ago
Time to face the facts guys - evolution is a fake view - the same way people believed the earth was flat. Creation is the only possible answer!
heinno777 1 year ago
So now that we know Mike's "powerful and well illustrated" talks involve using power point to make pointform presentations with no real factual evidence against evolution....
What's the point of this? All he does is use the bible against scientific knowledge. That's not disproving anything.
Zxceelxuz 1 year ago
Proper title: "Mike Riddle Exposes his utter incapacity for rational thought, and complete ignorance of modern science"
suzykreemcheese 1 year ago 2
OH my non existent god!!!! this guy has no clue what he is talking about! he has obvious not even graduated high school
cheetawakeboarder 1 year ago
"If we are not free , then we are slaves , think about it " . Exactly that's why the bible is such ridiculous garbage , it contradicts itself . First it says God controls everything , but then says we have free will . Can't have it both ways . Also Jesus is a direct rip-off of the God Horus , so we don't even have original fiction here . The funny part : people think Jesus was an actual person LOL .
MindofaJedi 1 year ago
@grayj85 Morality is defined by what is socially acceptable. Its nothing to do with god.
Im not a murderer, not because god says its wrong, but because PEOPLE think its wrong. not god.
Are you saying that without religion you would be running around the streets raping and killing random people?
gordon1201 1 year ago
@gordon1201
"Morality is defined by what is socially acceptable."
Be careful with that statement, though. After all, at one point it was socially acceptable to own slaves and treat them like animals or worse.
Scarface1034 1 year ago
It doesn't prove that there is a creator, it just shows evolution MIGHT be wrong. There could be another way for animals to change.
Maybe every few million years, earth is seeded with new creatures, and the rest are killed off, by aliens?
How do you explain the fact that 65 million years ago, there were dinosaurs, but no humans?
gordon1201 1 year ago
He fails in so many ways! He confuses the sciences with evolution, he doesn't know about punctuated equilibrium, he quotes an old book with no backing data against modern theories with thousands of papers of backing data (pubmedcentral - search for evolution).
Fail fail fail. ignorant. There is no excuse for such pathetic ignorance anymore. There is no excuse for standing up and espousing it, as that is immoral.
farvision 2 years ago
The Cambrian Explosion has been explained. A rapid increase of the O2 level enabled little plankton sized critters to grow so big that they could be fossilized.
HomoBorealis 2 years ago
im not sure i would call hundreds of millions of years "sudden" if your believe is that something created all this in six days. call me stupid though cause all i have is a post-graduate degree that gets me called "doctor" in a hospital all day.
this idiot probably doesnt even have a GED
nukemed 2 years ago
On a very general note...it's people like this Mike that are contributing to the dumbing down of this country...what a shame. Thanks to JonLTD...I might have to put you on my heroes list!
MuscleMaxZ1 2 years ago 2
It is this guy that is opening the eyes of those who can have spiritual cleansing and get their lives aligned with something meaningful.....Darwinism, evolution and such revels in the fact that there is no meaning to life. Look towards things like fractals that indicate to us a form in nature that very heavily suggest a design to life and this includes human life. Scientist Arthur C. Clarke mentioned this in a documentary as the thumbprint of God.
ricardoglut2007 2 years ago
Nice to see my efforts are appreciated =)
I also share your disappointed with people who are hindering the potential of mankind. Imagine the things we could have learnt if people disregard these bronze age myths and stop slowing down progress. It baffles the mind. Take care.
JonLTD 2 years ago
Yeah JonLTD...imagine...gee sounds like a song! LOL You are officially my friend. :-)
MuscleMaxZ1 2 years ago
Just by listening to the opening minute, the "lecturer" shows no scientific understanding what-so-ever! He keeps using the words "evolved" to describe geological and physical processes. Evolution is the model put forward to describe the diversity of life! Not the creation of: The universe, the planet or the beginning of life! These are simply known as The Big Bang, planet formation and abiogenesis. The "lecturer" clearly knows nothing about the subject, therefore is biased and ill-educated.
FittedDescription 2 years ago 2
Oh come on you can't be serious. You are asserting that his whole lecture is wrong based on his use of the term "evolution" to describe as you put it to describe geological and physical processes? What happaned to weighing the arguments based on merit? You are obviously being lazy and dismissive. And its obvious to any high schooler that he is using the term "evolution" in a general way which is acceptable. Like the evolution of someones character or a group...
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
Oh well. I completely apologise for pointing out that this man is showing a complete lack of understanding of a serious topic of debate. If I went to watch a lecture conducted by an esteemed person in that field and used the main topic, ie evolution, and attribute it to totally unrelated events and use it incorrectly, I'd automatically be annoyed. It shows ignorancre, no subject understanding and fundementally wrong. Ironic as you lump me in with "you youtube Athiests".
FittedDescription 2 years ago
First of he wasn't showing a lack of understanding of this topic as I have shown. The meaning of evolution basically means "unfolding" and can be used in a very general when talking about other processes that aren't actually evolution. You're nitpicking. Oh and true you never said he was wrong (In so many words anyway) you just strongly insinuated that he was based on him not using each spacific word to describe other processes. Yeah no problems with that logic...
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
No, you used Evolution as an analogy, like someones character through time, which is perfectly valid in an analogous sense. Not throwing the word about and using it 100% incorrectly. I don't know how evolution can even be used as an analogy to the big bang and planet formation. And to re-emphasise, if I went to a lecture in my field of study, and the lecturer used the main word of debate out of context and attribute it to unrelated processes, alarm bells would be ringing.
FittedDescription 2 years ago
Also, I never said that the lecturer is wrong. I said he was ill-educated and biased on the subject. Which he clearly is by going against the hundreds and thousands of people of scientists and researchers of a specialised field who have been collecting samples for centuries and documenting their finds via the Scientific method and peer reviewed literature that is continuously scrutinised which, more-or-less, leads to one thing.. The entire fossil record agreeing with the model of Evolution.
FittedDescription 2 years ago
And the fossil record does not support evolution. I always hear that said on a popur level but no actually examples are given that aren't horribly flawed! If evolution were true there should be an ABUNDANCE of transitional forms. Not just a handful. There isn't. Also evolution is pseudoscience. It's only made to appear scientific. It steps outside the methodology of science because let me guess you have never observed evolution? I thought so.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
The reason why they would be ringing as these people are meant to be peers in their specialised subject, and people are meant to be impressionable towards them. If they are using the word fundamentally wrong, then they are passing on incorrect information to people and lead to them not having a full understanding and the meaning behind the terms. A bit like a Creationist with the term "Evolution". People simply attribute Evolution with Athiesm and sin due to how it's taught to them.
FittedDescription 2 years ago
The more we talk the more you seem to be proving my earlier point. You are hung up on his use of the word evolution which is trivial because I think you and I both know WHAT processes he is talking about despite(even if lazy)his use of the word evolution. In fact the "evolution of the solar system" is a phrase I see often used in cosmology. But ok lets say you are right. Then what? If anything it merly shows he is a poor teacher who needs to clean up his terminology. Not wrong outright.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
How is Evolution a "pseudoscience"? Ironic as both Creationism and Intellegent Design was thrown out of the court room being labelled a "pseudoscience" where-as Evolution remains the best, and most plausible way, to account for the diversity of life. Evolution & Speciation can and have been observed, and I would like you to tell me how it "steps outside the methodology of science". Again, it is such an insult for people like you to discredit over 150 years of research to countless Scientists.
FittedDescription 2 years ago
Evolution is psedoscience because it steps outside of the scientific method. (i.e. observation and experimentation) I say it has never been observed. You claim that it has. So now the burden is on you to to cite an example of evolution being observed so that I can reply.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
Google
Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island
stefansv 2 years ago
Comment removed
stefansv 2 years ago
Right! KryptikMuzikMadnezz you are right! We can't figure out who murdered anyone because nobody else was there! That's why the police don't look at evidence anymore and people who murder get away with it all the time. You have to actually observe the murder to figure out who is guilty, right?
farvision 2 years ago
First off the example you use is flawed. Using police peicing together evidence for a murder case with evolution is a flawed comparison because you are assuming that the so called "evidence" for evolution is fair and objective. What you have is a poor hypothesis that is assumed to be true so any evidence that can possibly "support" the poor hypothesis is overexagerated and any that contradicts it is discarded. Your example would have been more true to life if...
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
Scientists are quite aware of bias in collecting evidence. That's why raw evidence is presented and why sometimes double blind trials are done.
farvision 2 years ago
So? I'm aware of bias in collecting evidence yet I (And even many scientists) believe evolution is unscientific. Because they are "aware" of it proves nothing.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
(Cont) the police in it were biased and already had a suspect in mind (i.e. Evolution) and iterpretted all evidence to point to this suspect while the evidence was widly open to interpretation and circumstantial ... all the while completely ignoring the evidence that suspect number 2 did it (i.e. design.)
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
KryptikMuzikMadnezz, in both cases a hypothesis is made and then tested. A hypothesis is not a bias. The police see 3 suspects Peter, Mark and Judas .. then test each hypothesis. Evolutionary theory has won all such tests. Intelligent Design has failed all such tests. Saying "daddy did it" and "you can't see daddy" is a non answer, avoiding the issue (but commonly done by theists).
farvision 2 years ago
Farvision, I'd dissagree with you that Evolutionary theory has "won all tests." That is a bold statement, one I've seen many times but when the examples are "cited" they are horribly flawed. Secondly, by and large in the scientific community there is a bias towards evolution. Design isn't taken seriously therefor not seriously considered. Like the police thinking only Peter could have done it because "We all know Mark sure couldn't have done it and anyone who thinks so is crazy"...
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
Read the story of Tiktaalik. So called design has been looked at very closely by many people and it fails. For example, the computation of low probability is fatally flawed (events don't multiply in time) but repeated by ID advocates. Also, to your point, failed cases get corrected so what we have now fits the data.
farvision 2 years ago
As for low probability. I have to say that I find most Atheists I've come across don't actually understand the argument. Its this misunderstanding that leads to confusion.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
If most atheists understood that it is not legal to multiply the probabilities the way the ID advocates do, then perhaps the ID advocates would have given up sooner. Not everybody understands every argument.
farvision 2 years ago
Just the way you have talked to me by saying that I'm saying "Daddy did it" shows the condecending attitude I'm speaking of. And btw please don't do that it only makes you sound like a Dawkins/Hichens parrot.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
Ok, watch this:
watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg
"Why We Believe in Gods - Andy Thomson - American Atheists 09"
at richarddawkinsdotnet. We have brain mechanisms that set us up to think beings did things. Also, theists say "Our Father In Heaven" so that's equivalent to 'daddy did it'. I do agree it is slightly condescending and sorry you are offended, but it's a rather close match to the 'design' explanation.
farvision 2 years ago
I'll try and check those out. Granted some theists say "Our Father In Heaven"... but that is in no way saying "daddy did it" ... One in a warm avail to God ... and the other is a very lazy way of trying to explain the things that go on in the universe/world. Granted some theists do say "daddy did it" sort of speak. But not all and its lazy to lump us all together that way. Thats like saying all atheists are by default rational while theists are not. I hope you don't belive that is true
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
Fair enough - generalizations are generally over generalizations, like this one!
farvision 2 years ago
Also, that might be true that we do indeed have brain Mechanisms that set us up to "think beings did things." In fact my personal belief system doesn't exclude this possibility. I've seen Atheists use this line of argument before. But the important thing to realise is that weather or not we do have those mechanisms in our brain or not has absolutely NO bearing on the objective truth or weather or not there actually IS such beings. It would only mean we are "programmed" to believe such.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
(Note for you weather -> whether - check that spelling, you make that error often) Right. It does not say there are or are not gods, it just says why we will tend to think they exist. But in the absence of any positive evidence for gods, we come to a full understanding of the situation. Most atheists do not absolutely say there are no gods, just that they are not likely to exist and that what we see in the world is consistent with things like that programming.
farvision 2 years ago
Ah, right Weather ... whether. My bad, see english isn't my first language its actually my 7th just right after Latin & Klingon! >XD~ Hope it wasn't hard to decipher.
"But in the absence of any positive evidence for gods, we come to a full understanding of the situation." I'd disagree with the premise that there is not positive evidence for God. Ok maybe not hard DIRECT scientific evidence like a polaroid of him in a bar or something. But that fits perfectly with the definition of God...
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
Congratulations on all your languages! Thanks for taking that as a hopefully useful suggestion. Your writing is clear enough, I'm just a picky eater ... ;-)
As a scientist i'm almost painfully aware of what constitutes publishable evidence. We spent an extra 5 years on one project trying to get evidence that a referee would have demanded. So I have not seen any evidence of any gods that I could publish. It's a high bar, true, but if there were a god it should be easy to show.
farvision 2 years ago
Despite our diffrences of belief I just want to thank you for having this dicusion being that you are a scientist and all. I hope it doesn't come across that I am in anyway in contemp of the years you have no doubt put into this issue. Plus I like knowing that the people I am debating are "worthy opponents." ....
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
Thanks! ("discussion", English is terrible for spelling!)
I hope you have learned a few points.
farvision 2 years ago
(Cont) That being said, I wonder how you can justify your earlier comment: "It's a high bar, true, but if there were a god it should be easy to show?" Does that not amount to personal opinion?
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
Sure it's an opinion. I find it an intriguing thought actually. If there were a god(s) then things would be a lot different than we observe. What we observe is as if there were no gods. It doesn't prove they don't exist of course. But if a god designed humans, we would not have nerves in front of our light sensors and we would not have a blind spot. Your Inner Fish explains a few other oddities that come from us being fish once upon a time - what an odd thought that is!
farvision 2 years ago
(Cont) i.e Him being an immaterial spirit creature beyond the pysical realm. Science isn't equipped in the first place to try and justifiably ascertain if God exists or to demand "Hard evidence" because science only deals with the pysical realm/universe. And Atheists did indeed used to say there was no God, the new definition of atheism "lack of belief in God" seems to have been adopted because with the old definition they had to do the intellectual hard work of explaining their position.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
(physical :-) The issue, though, is that for example the Intelligent Design Advocates claim that a god designed beings - so the god interacts with this world. But the evidence shows that it is not a breeding by a god, it is random events and natural selection - evolution. If the god is outside the universe and doesn't interact with it, that's a deistic god. It might be there, but so is Batman - there is no reason to think it's real.
farvision 2 years ago
"But the evidence shows that it is not a breeding by a god, it is random events and natural selection - evolution." I think the so called evidence for evolution is suspect. Not to sound repetative but that is what has been on trial in our debate, Evolution in the first place, now you say the evidence points to evolution and I say it can't possibly point to evolution because it hasn't been observed in the first place. The evidence is merly interpretted to conform to evolutionary theory.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
(merely) The thing is that the evidence that supports evolutionary theory is literally overwhelming. Go to pubmedcentral and search for 'evolution'. Today (Oct 31, 2009) it is 126473 papers that you can read! To get a better idea of the total literature, go to pubmed, where you will find 253200 papers! A quarter of a million papers essentially all of which support the theory!
farvision 2 years ago
By citing all these papers I think you are basically saying that since there is so many works on it by so many scientists that its true. But Majority opinion proves nothing, and student of history knows that science has been notoriously WRONG in the past. i.e. The earth being flat. And that baser metals could be turned into gold. (Alchemy) Besides I could also direct you to papers on design.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
You are right in a way. The point is that a lot of people have found the theory useful and have been able to build on it. The design concept has not had that success. You don't need to point me to the design papers - I'm familiar with them. Every one I have examined has fatal flaws. Behe, for example, fails to notice that a roman arch would be impossible by his scheme. Dembski messes up his mathematics, etc. Actually they rarely are able to publish because of the flaws.
farvision 2 years ago
I think its presumptuous of you to say that I need not direct you to design papers because you are familiar with them. Thats like me telling you that I don't need to consider anything you tell me because I know it already. I also find that Atheist books and such also have fatal flaws... Take Richard Dawkins god delusion, his opening logic and the heart of his book is appaling. Even if you are right that Behe and Dembski are flawed. All that shows is that..well Behe & Dembski are flawed.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
If you want you can point to things. But I'm just saying that I've read a lot and know the basic arguments pretty well already. They all fail. Interesting that you found the God Delusion to have flaws - I'm glad you read it. I didn't find any flaws (though it's been a while since I read it). Can you name the worst flaw?
farvision 2 years ago
As for Behe and Dembski - they form the basic core of the intelligent design movement. That's been pretty well debunked, especially since the Dover trial.
That means that the design concept from theists still has no evidence that is not better explained by evolutionary theory.
farvision 2 years ago
Aha! The old dover trial! Well along with my critique of Dawkins book I think I'll also have to send you a PM on the dover trial as well. I'll just say that it wasn't fair here and safe the other stuff for later. After I do I hope that we can at least agree that the trial was completly unfair. I'd understand that that does not mean you automatically renounce your atheism. =)
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
Did you read the Kitzmiller decision? it's amazing the Bush Republican appointed judge - how fair can you get? - actually understood the science and knocked the defendants for their lies ... The whole pandas and people word switch was pretty amazing proof that ID is creationism ... so, no, it seemed fair to me.
farvision 2 years ago
It seemed like it was probably fair to be to at first. But that wasn't the case.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
"You have to actually observe the murder to figure out who is guilty, right?" Um??? This disturbs me btw. Again you are trying to draw a similarity between a murder case and evolution. First of all in a murder case you already know that if someone was murdered that "someone exists" ... Evolution is a mechanism. Weather or not that mechanism takes place is what we are debating ... so YES ... In the case of evolution it HAS to be observed! Especially if you want to call it science!
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
No, a murder case might be an accidental death or a suicide. So the death of a person is a mechanism too. You are wrong about the need for direct observation. Do you think DNA exists? We knew it existed in 1944 when Avery, MacLeod, and McCarty published. The best you could see would be a transparent glob. It was much later that we "saw" it with AFM. Science works by making hypotheses and then seeing whether the evidence matches or not. Direct observation is nice but not always possible.
farvision 2 years ago
Not in the example we were oginally using it wasn't. It was a murder case. (Because in our debate we have 2 suspects ... Evolution and design) To say that a death is a mechanism because it was accidental or a suicide is indeed true. But that has NO bearing whatsoever on OUR debate. As for DNA of course I believe it exists, but again we are talking about a micoscopic strand of something physical within us that can and has been observed/seen....
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
When someone dies we don't know the cause, so a murder case might not actually be murder. What is "observed"? The original genetics was done by breeding and showed that when traits assorted together they would become unlinked based on a "distance". So the original observation of DNA was based on frequencies of recombination of traits. That genes were in a linear order was not seen physically for many years. Thus we don't need to see something directly to know it is true.
farvision 2 years ago
I think you have just proved my point Farvision. Observe... "Thus we don't need to see something directly to know it is true." I agree with you, do you see how you may have proved my point? but in order for something to be called "Science" or "scientific" it MUST be observed. The scientists you mentioned earlier may have been right about genetics, but it was gained through OBSERVATION. It was simply a belief until it was proven true, they had "faith" if you will.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
No. The point is that we did not need to see DNA inside cells to know that the genes were linearly arranged. Likewise we do not need to actually see a fish evolve into tiktaalik and then into an amphibian to know it happened. However, we have observed evolution in the lab and in nature. Definition: faith is belief without evidence (or despite it).
farvision 2 years ago
I think there is a flaw in that conclusion. You say we do not need to see DNA inside cells to know the genes were linearly arranged. Yet how did they come to this conclusion that they were linearly arranged? From your earlier post "So the original observation of DNA was based on frequencies of recombination of traits" They made an observation, and it paned out.....
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
Genetics is an amazing science. Merely by breeding animals or plants together one can make powerful inferences about their genetic structure. Genes that do not assort by Mendelian laws are on the same chromosome. But sometimes they separate - recombine. They mapped the genes and found they fell on a line. Closer genes recombine less. So people inferred that genes were on a linear object. When DNA was discovered, that explained the effect. It was a much stronger result than "panned out" implies.
farvision 2 years ago
I don't think I was minimizing what they did by using the term "panned out." But the fact remains they drew conclusions on what they OBSERVED then were proven correct as science advanced. Evolution is diffrent because it is a preconcieved idea that is taken to be true. So the scientific community at large seems to look at any evidence through an evolutionary lense.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
Well, yes and no. Evolution was not a preconceived for a long time. But it was repeatedly confirmed so many times that we now do take it as correct. First, it is simple. Second, we know the exact mechanisms down to the atomic level. The recent genomic sequencing confirmed the tree and that matches the fossils, and developmental details. It just all fits together beautifully. Separate origins do not fit this picture.
farvision 2 years ago
There is a lot of claims here. But I don't think anyone would stand up to scrutiny provided actual examples. Again usually the "evidence" is open to many interpretations yet evolution wins out. Suprise suprise.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
No, if an alternative were to arise, then the person who finds it stands to be extremely famous. I don't know what alternative explanations there are. Basically, evolutionary theory has wiped out the alternative explanations at this point. But I'd be interested to see alternatives that could withstand the scientific process.
farvision 2 years ago
(Cont) Based on your apparent concession that evolution doesn't fallow the criteria of science then it should be obvious that it isn't science. That isn't me trying to be difficult or mean it just isn't science. And I'm quiet familiar with some of the instinces of observed evolution in that lab that you are speaking of and none measure up. i.e retrovirus, gadflies.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
No. Evolution proposes what happened. We then make tests of it and the tests confirm it. The tests have not denied the basic idea - ever. Yes, punctuated equilibrium, yes gene rearrangements. But the general picture stands since Darwin. Just like the genetics, we can know something (genes are on a line) without seeing it directly.
it is science and successful science at that.
farvision 2 years ago
I'm still not sure how the DNA example parallel's evolution. I agree you can know something without having to see it directly. I believe in God and have never seen him. It seems that there is a double standard here. Belief in God is irrational because I can't see him, but its acceptable to believe in evolution even though it hasn't been observed? What? In this case they concluded genes were in a line because of the observations they made. But any observations you make about "evolution"...
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
Ok, so geneticists figured out genes were in a line without seeing even what a gene was. They thought they were "beads on a string" at first. We can know that fish evolved through Tiktaalik or its cousins to become amphibia without actually being there - because it fits the evidence together and in this case was predicted! But there isn't evidence for a god, that's what is different. The design is well explained by the simpler replication with error and selection concept.
farvision 2 years ago
I think there is evidence for God. I think the evidence for God you may be looking for is unjustifiably high. "The design is well explained by the simpler replication with error and selection concept." I don't belive this is true. In fact I'd venture to say that it has holes in it that have been glossed over, and when examined critically cannot hold its water.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
For a major claim like god, the bar should be high.
I'll be happy to evaluate your best evidence. as for glossing over - what is missing? True there are lots of unknowns but the basic mechanism is well established. Thermal noise leads to errors in replication. Populations grow exponentially (doubling). Malthus: not everybody can win. So some win, some lose. Ones with better genetic programs tend to win more ... that's it!
farvision 2 years ago
There is actually a nobel prize winning Evolutionist/Atheist who actually conceeds that evolution is a myth. I'll be happy to admite that his knowledge of Evolution is probably WAY more advanced then my own but. His admission is quiet shocking and confirms what I believe to be true. i.e Evolution being a myth. I think he knew of the things that were "missing" that you speak probably more then most.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
Which person got the Nobel and said this? Was his field actually biology or was it not related - such as physics? I have found that physicists generally fail badly to understand basic biology.
farvision 2 years ago
Dr. George Wald, Novel Peace Prize winner for Science in 1967. Dr. Wald says the following:
"When if comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion:
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
(Cont) That of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." (Dennis Lindsay, "The Dinosaur Dilemma," Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November, 1982, pp. 4-5, 14.)
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
Well, then, Wald was wrong. There is another possibility - that life arose under the right conditions. Pasteur's experiment was done in contemporary conditions. A huge difference is oxygen and the large number of species already here. So a primitive would not have a chance. But since 1954 (the time of the quote) we have made some progress: RNA world is the biggest. Look up the work of Szostak (who just got the Nobel) - his work on the origins is quite nice.
farvision 2 years ago
I'd agree some progress might have been made sinse 67. But nothing that could negate Wald's statement. The brutal honesty alone of Wald leads me to believe he really did know that evolution is a myth. But as he pointed out chose to believe it anyway.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
Ok, so the point is that we don't have to observe DNA directly to know that genes are in a line. It was an entirely mental exercise, but the geneticists KNEW genes were in a line. The same happens with evolution. In both cases one then makes testable predictions. When would the fish to amphibian transition occur? 85 million years ago. Where to look? 3 places of that kind of rock are exposed on the surface. Woah! One we haven't checked out yet, the arctic ... and that's where they found it.
farvision 2 years ago
(Cont) can't be tested. Because according to the theory of evolution its a very long and slow process that noone can observe. So by default its attributed to evolution? If we use that standard of science I can then form amodel for how life got here. All I'd have to do is form a theory that it more or less consistent with the conditions we see today and call it science. For example. If I had a gash on my neck that was self inflicted, I could tell someone that an alien from space came & cut me.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
(Cont) But it wouldn't be true even though its consistent with the fact that my neck is cut.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
So you hypothesize that an alien cut your neck? I would find out which hand you use normally. I would look for a bloody knife. I ask you a lot of questions about the alien ... You are right handed (say) and the cut is on the left of your neck - consistent. You evade many questions about the alien. You claim it landed in your back yard but the grass is fine there. The neighbors next door are having an outdoor party and they report nothing unusual... No one piece of evidence proves a theory.
farvision 2 years ago
So basically you "interview me" to see if everything is consistent. Say my story was air tight. And I was ambedextrous. And was able to get ride of any evidence that would prove my story false. Then what?
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
There is a saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If there were no evidence, just your word, then I simply would not believe you. Nor would most people.
farvision 2 years ago
So DNA is a double helix. How do we know? The initial data was the chemical structure and X-ray crystallography. But later Wang did beautiful topological experiments that showed that it can be supercoiled. That's like what happens to a rubber band on a toy airplane when you twist the propeller a lot - it bunches up. Another line of evidence is AFM. All lines point to the same thing.
farvision 2 years ago
And this definition of faith you give here is no definition of faith that I fallow. I can see why you would have such a bad taste in your mouth any time you hear the word faith if this is the definition of faith you feel we all subscribe to.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
Well it's a useful definition but it comes from websters 2a. google:
websters faith
(fallow should be "follow")
farvision 2 years ago
firm belief in something for which there is no proof
farvision 2 years ago
So belief in evolution is in no way scientifically more credible then design. Because both require a measure of faith. And neither has been observed. In this way evolution steps outside of science because the scientific method requires observation. In this way evolution is a belief like any other religion.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
So, no, evolution is not a faith idea. There is evidence for evolution occurring. Design has no evidence and has counter evidence (your blind spot being a nice example). Again, read the Tiktaalik story.
farvision 2 years ago
I don't think this qualifies for "counter evidence." For example in Christianity and even Islam men "Fell from Grace" ... were once perfect and became imperfect through sin in other words. And as a result our bodies also became imperfect hence things like sickness or deformaties or what have you. But apart from that, calling that a "counter evidence" for design doesn't work because it would be based on the premise that God MUST or would have HAD to make us perfect. It could be argued otherwise.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
Yes, but if you argue that "god made humans with badly designed eyes" then this doesn't explain why god was so immoral (!) and also it goes against one of the main reasons people think that there is a god, namely that things are often optimal. But this result is quite understandable from evolution - we got stuck with the initial design and the octopus got th e better one! (Eyes evolved independently some 40 times apparently.)
farvision 2 years ago
"Yes, but if you argue that "god made humans with badly designed eyes" then this doesn't explain why god was so immoral" You may have to clarify here because I'm not sure what you mean. also I don't think you can say, especially as an atheist why people believe in God. For me it has nothing to do with things being optimal.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
God could have designed our eyes so we see as well as eagles. But to have the eagle design and not put it into the favored being is just immoral. Imagine a company using substandard tires on your car that blow out and kill you when they have the technology to make good tires. Many people cite the (apparent!) design as a reason to believe. Check out: Why We Believe in Gods - Andy Thomson - American Atheists 09
richarddawkinsdotnet /watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg
farvision 2 years ago
Your whole arguement here hinges on God being immoral for not giving us perfect eyes if he indeed could have. The fallacy with this line of logic is that IF there is a God. You are not in a position to say what IS or IS not moral and immoral. On the contrary simply BECAUSE God does something that is the standard of morality. Besides, he can have morally sufficient reasons for us not having perfect eyes that you just may be ignorant to. And your version of morality may be diffrent from mine.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
No, we have morals apparently both genetic and socially and do not come from god. Did people kill before Moses brought down the commandments? Morality probably evolved. So your and my morality probably are pretty similar. It is clear that creating beings that are substandard when one could do better (at no cost!) is immoral. It is also clear that blaming us for the "sins" of two people long ago is also immoral. Hmm. The whole basis of Christianity is immoral!
farvision 2 years ago
"It is clear that creating beings that are substandard when one could do better (at no cost!) is immoral." This assertion self destructs all on its own. If God exists then HE determines what is moral and immoral and you are in no position to judge what is or isn't. If he does not exist then you are merely condeming God by a standard or morality that can't be proven to be true or objective. It would only be a bio socio spinoff of evolution.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
See, if there is NO God you can't say what is or is not moral because then there would be noway to prove that it is true or objective. It would amount to nothing more then another human opinion. In fact on the evolutionary Atheistic worldview I could argue that "Only the strong survive" and go rape and pillage anyone I saw fit as long as it was in my power to do so, and you couldn't rationally or intellectually tell me it is either right or wrong.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
No, morality has to do with evolutinary survival of the local tribe. Tribes that don't have members killing each other or stealing will survive better. Raping and pillaging the OTHER tribe ... that's ok! Gee, that's what the world looks like now!
farvision 2 years ago
Oh I never said tribes raping and killing EACH other. They eat their neighbors. People of diffrent tribes. That would ensure the survival of my tribe at the expense of the other tribe.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
"In some cultures they have dinner with their neighbors and in others they eat them, what is your prefference?" It would all be subjective.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
It depends on whether your neighbor is part of your tribe or not
farvision 2 years ago
So let me get this straight, you would condemn God for giving us less then perfect eyes, but its okay to kill my neigbor if he isn't part of my tribe to ensure the survival of my own? This is "morality?" Under that logic it is then PERFECTLY acceptable for me to kill YOU and all those YOU love if it were to better me and those I love in some way. Is that what you are basically saying?
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
Yes, I would condemn god for bad design. I was explaining the source of morality. Notice that people actually act the way you describe. I do react negatively to those scenarios apparently because I consider myself a citizen of the world. So the whole world is my tribe. But the original tribe was a very small unit and another tribe 20 miles away was really far away.
farvision 2 years ago
Again by "condemning God" for bad design you have to subscribe to a form or morality/ethics. But if he exists morality is HIS domain. Don't you see, by the mere fact that he is the creator you have no right to condemn him for what is right or wrong no matter how "wrong" it seems in your eyes. As God he has no obligation to give you perfect eyes or to make your life easy or to stop you from being his by a train should that happen. And again he can have perfectly sufficient reasons for...
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
No, I don't buy that. Being creator does not make him able to define morality. Morality is about how we treat each other. It is clear that God was immoral to kill everyone on the planet in the (supposed) flood. He kills a million people while the devil only kills about 10. Clearly if it is a commandment to not kill, then he violates his own commandment and is therefore immoral. Period. it's obvious. If you made a woman from clay, you would NOT have the right to do what you will with her.
farvision 2 years ago
o man you are deluded if you think the devil kills only 10.and God is evil because he killed people in the flood.your judgment on God is crazy and whit out proper study of the scriptures.our God is moral ,and made morals in the first place,and day before the flood the people where evil,hole the lands was full of evil people that polluted the human race.Bible say that people in the last day say:that Good is evil and that evil is Good,thx you for giving the example,another prophecy fulfilled lol
jesusLostChildren777 2 years ago
@jesusLostChildren777 EXACTLY! i agree with jesuslost. this guy "farvision" doesnt understand that the reason the lord destroyed man wa sbecuase we were destroying god!!sinniing , and turning against him , and disrespecting him..
ahh , this is just typical reactions to someone who does little to NO research.becuase to someone like u and i , that do , comments like the above me us LAUGH!!!
Tg3377 1 year ago
"No, I don't buy that. Being creator does not make him able to define morality." Ok how does this NOT follow? Being that he is the creator that is EXACTLY what it means! (That he can define morality) If he gave you life and a brain, then it is his porogative to do whatever he wishes with you or me or anyone. "Morality is about how we treat each other." I actually agree with this statement. But I'm a human like you, if God wanted to end your life right now that wouldn't be...
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
(cont) allowing bad things to befall you that you are simply ignorant of. Something that eludes your own intellect. could that not be possible?
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
Evolution has not.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
I suggest you learn more about evolution. Look up Ken Miller's talk on human and ape chromosome fusion. Read about ring species. Look up SELEX.
farvision 2 years ago
I've actually a little familiar with "ape chromosome fusion." And I hope you don't mean to insinuate that my knowledge of evolution is lacking, because I find that I have a very sufficient knowledge of evolution. At least based on some of the Atheist's I've debated on the internet.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
No, my purpose here is to help educate people and I learn too. So I'm glad you have some knowledge of that amazing story. Basically it says that we did evolve from a common ancestor with the other primates.
farvision 2 years ago
KryptikMuzikMadnezz, read Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin. That's the story of Tiktaalik and it is indeed a test. Evolution is a perfectly good science, with testable hypotheses, data evidence and so on. It works. Also, look up nylonase and ring species.
farvision 2 years ago
"Again, it is such an insult for people like you to discredit over 150 years of research to countless Scientists." So in affect your logic goes like this... Sinse a large number of scientists claim something to be true then it is? Collecting the testomonies of various scientists proves nothing. Every student of history knows that scientists have been notoriously wrong in the past. i.e. The earth being flat, the sun and planets revolving around the earth...
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
(cont) and that baser metals could be transformed into gold (alchemy) and numerous other notions that now are known to be totally untrue. So one ought not be swayed simply by the philisophical, creedal statements of certain scientists who may have personal reasons for wanting to believe in evolution. Besides there are many scientists who DON'T belive in evolution. You put to much stock unjustifiably in the objectivity of the scientific community at large.
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
(Cont) He wasn't getting bogged down in the terminology. That is why I am appaled by you youtube Atheist's and evolutionists. You form weak and petty counter arguments to try and salvage your worldview that would stagger anyone with critical thinking skills. Whats more is that on top of all that you will get a ton of "thumbs up" on your weak counter arguments. Disgusting!
KryptikMuzikMadnezz 2 years ago
"The 'Patterson story' illustrates two common creationist enthusiasms: taking statements out of context, and refusing to recognize corrections when made."
Quote mining is a wonderful thing. You see, it is in fact libelous and/or slanderous. And these are considered and used in courts of law (which disregard ID/Creationism as a psuedo-science) in defending somebodys good name from horrific quote mining and mis quoting like the creationists, and you, do. So, we've also established you're a liar.
JonLTD 2 years ago
What proof do you have for these things?
Psalm119128 2 years ago
And can you show me that I really mis-quoted Patterson?
Psalm119128 2 years ago
Ah the old Creationsts circular logic. A creationist provides a quote from another creationist quoting a professor of palaeontology refuting evolution.. I provide a direct quote from the man himself saying he's been a victim of quote mining.. And now the moron wants proof. And I'm only happy to assist: talkorigins [DOT] ÓRG [SLASH] faqs [SLASH] patterson [SLASH] patterson [DOT] gif -- an actual document written AND SIGNED by Patterson himself. It'
Slam fucking dunk.
JonLTD 2 years ago
You were quoting Patterson? I didn't realize that. O.K. so if I was wrong about what he said. It still doesn't prove that quoting people is unqualified, when you're quoting accurately. By the way, I'm really not trying to make you angry. However, I do find that those who that are not at peace with their Creator, are often angry at others, including the Creator. Once I made peace with God (the Creator) I am now at peace with the rest of the world. I am confident in His Word.
Psalm119128 2 years ago
How about some proof that the Bible is not true?
Psalm119128 2 years ago
I'm almost crying with laughter, Psalm119128. Your persistance is quite admirable. JonLTD, I'd leave it mate. You've made some irrefutable points which are 100% logical and from a rational thinker. Well done.
FittedDescription 2 years ago 2
Thanks FittedDescription, I've invited you to be a friend. Good to see someone who listens to reason and is not ignorant.
JonLTD 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
Psalm119128 2 years ago
I am not continuing any more with this circular argument. I'm actually amazed that someone can be so ignorant.
Proof that the bible isn't true? Ok.. Ok.. No evidence anywhere ever supports its claims. So now, I want proof that there are no such things as Unicorns.
End of argument.
JonLTD 2 years ago
"You were quoting Patterson? I didn't realize that. O.K."
If you actually read the quote, it's clearly written in first person and signed at the bottom by Patterson. So, what have we established? You pedal misquoted people who aren't alive to defend themselves, you don't read/take on board arguining posts, you believe evolution accounts for the origin of the universe and you require no evidence to believe stories. This alone makes any argument with you pointless. You are Ignorance personified.
JonLTD 2 years ago
I quoted Patterson because I trusted it to be an accurate quote, which I thought made a great point. I didnt take on all the opposing posts to what I had previously said simply because I take them to be unfounded (even though the ones that quoted did not think so). I dont believe that evolution accounts for the origin of the universe. I believe the Bible because it has changed my life, and theres no real proof I know of thats against it. So Im ignorance personified?
Psalm119128 2 years ago
"and for you to just assume the process of evolution to be the reason for the universe' existence" Quote from you, about 24 hours ago. It's statements like this that makes me realise you have no scientific knowledge, or the limited amounts you have are either jaded or biased. You believe what I say in unfounded? Despite everything I have said is present in peer reviewed literature and believed by the vast majority in the scientific community? You will not consider both sides. You ARE ignorance.
JonLTD 2 years ago
Comment removed
Psalm119128 2 years ago
(Part 2) I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school curricula. In short the article does not fairly represent my views. But even if it did, so what? The issue should be resolved by rational discussion, and not by quoting 'authorities,' which seems to be the creationists' principal mode of argument." (Letter from Colin Patterson to Steven W. Binkley, June 17, 1982).
Nice quote mining. You see, I research the truth.
JonLTD 2 years ago
(Part 1) "I was too naive and foolish to guess what might happen: the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape to Luther Sunderland... Since, in my view, the tape was obtained unethically, I asked Sunderland to stop circulating the transcipt, but of course to no effect. There is not much point in my going through the article point by point. I was putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record and was speaking only about systematics, a specialized field...
JonLTD 2 years ago
If you're not willing to do at least this, then I would think that you are just afraid that if it is true, you will have to face a holy God in your sins. "God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble" (James 4:6). Many of wonderful testimonies of finally giving up their search to disprove God, and just humbling themselves and admitting they were wrong (it's not that hard, but man's hearts are hard) and God has given them peace with Him, as He has myself, through Christ.
Psalm119128 2 years ago
This video is an excellent resource!
Psalm119128 2 years ago
"which is a great tool for explaining the natural world" -- Don't you think that is such a cop out in describing the universe? People can believe what they want, but plugging in a god to fill in the gaps just seems so hollow. Also, your question about the fossil record? Everything was fully formed. Everything. The animals job was to survive and pass on its DNA. Only through minor adjustments over MILLIONS of years changes an animal to adapt to new environments. A chimp is as evolved as a human.
JonLTD 2 years ago 2
the Spirit and the bride say come quickly Lord Jesus....comfort yourselves with the words of scripture as wickedness increases world wide.watch and pray.accept Jesus as your God and saviour and show evidence of being born again,by having a change of mind and heart,whereby the heart was the worst thing to God and people,but now the best.
bibliosca 2 years ago
Yes I'm glad that Jesus Christ is the creator of the universe. Well thought out series.
RJL738 2 years ago
Prove it.
FittedDescription 2 years ago 2
I was just making a comment of appriciation and what I believe. I have the right to make a Christain comment on a Christain video. I don't have to prove it to you.
RJL738 2 years ago
That was my point. There is no evidence throughout this entire universe that a god made it. I just wanted some proof. But as you obviously can't deliver I'll have to look else-where for answers on such a awe-inspiring system. Never mind.. I do hope you realise that the world is more than 6000 years old too.
FittedDescription 2 years ago
Comment removed
RJL738 2 years ago
You are trying to provoke me, it won't work, go troll somewhere else.
I don't want to deliver, I will not make a comment and have to debate on almost every one.
Leave me alone, you can't say there is no evidence, when you don't know everything.
RJL738 2 years ago
What do you define as evidence?
JonLTD 2 years ago
without trying to be offensive I'll cut in. The God that the bible talks about is said to exist outside the physical realm and so science, which is a great tool for explaining the natural world, is ill equipped to prove God's existence. But what we can do with science is investigate the natural claims of the bible. Eg,Is there evidence for instant creation? Is there evidence for a young solar system? Do species appear in the fossil record fully formed? These are questions that science can answer
eklektos777 2 years ago 2
"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." Psalm 53:1, the Holy Bible KJV
Psalm119128 2 years ago
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls." Albert Einstein - 1845-1955. The difference? There is SOLID evidence of this man existing. A fucking bronze age bible quote will not turn my head you pathetic sheep. Do NOT patronise me.
FittedDescription 2 years ago
I have no angst against anyone, but only His love, joy and peace in my heart because I have come to know this holy, loving, and just God of creation and ruler of the universe.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse....Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...." (Romans 1:19-22)
Psalm119128 2 years ago
You put your confidence in a mere man's fallen logic ("lean not unto your own understanding...." Prov. 3:5)? I put my trust in the Word of the Creator, the Bible. It's is the only Book around that can be trusted, and has stood the test of time, and all the ranting and ravings of angry and rebellious men against it, who don't want to acknowledge the One who owns the whole universe, and themselves also. I am a fool for Christ (the only One who died and rose again), whose fool are you?
Psalm119128 2 years ago
That wasn't my point. My point was any monkey can quote to back up their claim. Like it or like it not, there is not ONE scrap of evidence of ANY god being present. The book you quote from descends from bronze age mythology with countless contradictions. Hell, lets sell our daughters into slavery and stone a man for working on the sabbath and punish man kind for eternity for eating the fruits of knowledge. And I put my confidence in a remarkable man who.. (1 of 2)
FittedDescription 2 years ago