Imagine being dumb enough to think that the Noah's ark was actually real.
In a wonder irony, creationists are best evidence that humans evolved from lower order primates. There are many smart humans but then there are also creationists. :)
@TheCelticChimp, You silly simian, you said,"Imagine being dumb enough to think that the Noah's ark was actually real."
- As opposed to what? Fish evolving into human beings? That's your intelligent alternative? That's even more outlandish!!
At least today, we can understand hundreds of animals loading into a train or a ship. But, I've yet to know of a creature turning into something totally different.
@ZebrasFirst Yes, but the Ark would have required millions of animals (if not more) and all the food for them ... including meat for the meat eaters .. without refrigeration ...
@WildCatsKitten1 You want me to explain the peer review process on the you tube comments section? Or are you just spamming the channel to get my direct questions you seem to have a hard time answering off the front page?
@WildCatsKitten1 "When was a scientific test carried out on the claim that a claim is not credible unless it is published?"
You can't be seriously asking for a scientific test on what is an agreed apon standard? Seriously?! Your countering my questions, with a question of your own, answer them, I'll even relent and let you give me a non published scientist if you want.
@MaximusArurealius You just quoted earlier work, then my own reference, in an attempt to challenge my point that he LATTER changed his mind, read that twice if it doesn't jump out at you the first time.
@Craig, listen asshole, you're not going to resurrect LUCY. She's a hoax and everyone knows it. NO credible scientist will even touch that. So keep on believing but please stop pushing your idiocy off on me. OK lamebrain.
@Craig, oOOOOOOH I like this one "Can you name one credible, published scientist that disagrees with Lucy" That's funny and when I do you set your self up as an authority on who is and who is not a credible scientist. hahahahaa AND THEN you pull out the One True Scotsman Fallacy and say "Well he isn't a real scientist."
@Craigmw45, you're really dishonest aren't you? If not you won't mind googling Lucy fraud. You'll find everything you need. If you can't do that then just fuck off.
@MaximusArurealius You seem to do a lot of insulting, backed up by very little or no facts what so ever. Can you tell me one way in which Lucy is more similar to chimps and whyÉ
@MaximusArurealius "They found out that you couldn't really tell the difference between Lucy and a rainforest Chimpanzee that you might find in the San Diego Zoo."
I cited 4 papers in my last comments. All 4 of them disagree with you. Perhaps you could come up with something more interesting then restating your argument, in the face of a pretty overwhelming rebuttal.
I say overwhelming rebuttal since I assume you actually read all 4, rather then stay willfully ignorant.
@Craigmw45 "All 4 of them disagree with you." SO.... YOU got four papers that are bullshit. BUT of course YOU can't tell the difference between and ape and a human so I forgive you.
@MaximusArurealius "can't tell the difference between and ape and a human so I forgive you
Well considering humans are classified as apes as well, and a creationist, was the one who came up with such a classification, I donèt think there is much of a differance.
1. "And then of course there was Lucy. This is one of my all time favorites ... discovered in Ethiopia by Donald Johansson in 1974. It was dated at being three million years old. It was diagrammed at the very "Y" that separates man from ape. Now Johansson is a humble man and as a humble man he claimed humbly that Lucy was the most important find made by anyone in the history of the entire human race. cont.
@MaximusArurealius You must have choosen not to have read anything I wrote.
Sure 40% of Lucy was found, fortunately we're bilaterally symmetrical animals, so what we find on the left side, is the same as what's missing on the right. Further you also seemed to have missed or just ignore the other 113 examples of this species, I'm sure they contain some of the missing 60%. Her founder(?) didn't admit she's just an ape.
Insults don't get you very far in an debate, can you provide a fact or two?
@Craigmw45 OH just listen to this: "I'm sure they contain some of the missing 60%" HAR HAR HAR "I'm sure" hahahahahaaa yeah you're sure dummass. I have been debating this issue of Lucy for a long long time. You know jack shit about it by your idiotic statements. LISTEN asshole--
"With Lucy, I was told to make her more ape-like, or more 'transitional' in appearance. Given a cast of a skull and other drawings, and was asked to improve on these, and make her look more transitional. I had to make some things up. I did a sketch, they said 'no'. I kept adding and subtracting until they got what they wanted."
Lucy: 40% more-or-less complete australopithicus skeleton. Lucy's actual remains did not include hands or feet. Other skeletons of the same creature have hands and feet which are clearly those of an ape.
Not looking good for Lucy. You might as well quit while you're behind. hahahahaha
@Craigmw45 EVOLUTIONIST Dr. Solly Zuckerman was head of the Dept. of Anatomy of the University of Birmingham England. Along with his team of scientist that studied Australopithecus for 15 years. Compared them with the teeth of 100 gorilla & chimpanzees, the pelvic bones of more than 70 humans & 94 great apes. They studied where the skull balances on the spinal column with about 800 skulls of apes. Zuckerman- of the Australopithecus FAMILY "THEY ARE JUST APES"
@Craigmw FROM: Thinking about the evidence, Centre for Human Biology Resource Paper, no.1, 36pp., Centre for Human Biology (your reference)
"It is now recognized widely that the australopithecines are not structurally closely similar to humans, they must have been living at least in part in arboreal [tree] environments, and many of the later specimens were contemporaneous or almost so with the earlier members of the genus Homo. 2"
There isnt a fallacy in that, since it wasn't the rebuttal to your argument. You should check up the meaning of the word fallacy, since stating a fact isn't on.
@Craigmw45 "Its a very unconvincing when your own reference disagrees with your argument." HAR HAR HAR you must have been talking to yourself. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
ARE you too stupid to know that Lucy is basically ignored because she FAILED. NOBODY except a dummass like you will defend her. Give up dummass.
I'm not sure if you know how silly this argument is.
I'm sure you know that Humans, are of course, just apes as well. You can thank Linnaeus, a creationist, for that classification. What your really saying, is its just an ape, exactly like humans.
I haven't forgotten that you claimed every single transitional fossil is a hoax. Pointing out, mostly false, disagreements among scientists isn't evidence of a hoax.
@Craigmw45 "I'm sure you know that Humans, are of course, just apes as well." HAR HAR HAR HAR Is your granny one of those red-assed, blue-faced, butt picker monkeys? HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
There are no transitionals. The idea of transitional is a false assumption, based on circular logic. That's why Gould came up with Punctuated Equilibrium to explain why there are no transitionals.
BTW apes are not human. It's just part of the same bullshit hoax of evolution.
@MaximusArurealius Ran into the character limit for my hands and feet references.
Neuromusculoskeletal computer modeling and simulation of upright, straight-legged, bipedal locomotion of Australopithecus afarensis (AL 288-1), A Nagano
Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion, WEH Harcourt‐Smith
Interpreting the posture and locomotion of Australopithecus afarensis: where do we stand, CV Ward
She most conclusively walked bipedal (on two legs)
@Craigmw45 "She most conclusively walked bipedal (on two legs)" OH BULLshit. She's a hoax and the scientists promoting her are liars.
"As to Australopithecus afarensis, we know now, that scientific discoveries have left assumptions regarding this "Lucy" totally unfounded. The famous French scientific magazine, "Science et Vie," accepted this truth under the headline "Adieu, Lucy," in its February 1999 issue, and confirmed that Australopithecus cannot be considered an ancestor of man."
@MaximusArurealius I'd be very impressed if you could back up anything you just said with real facts?
Sure piltdown man was a hoax, but Lucy? There are currently 113 other examples of Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) have an explanation for any of them?
@MaximusArurealius So the tens of thousands of missing links we have found over the years? what are they? Why do they get progressively more human as time goes forward. Why do they all show up in the right area, in the right strata?
Judging by your last comment you seem to be happy to pretend they don't exist, but pretending won't make thousands of them go away, I would like some other explanation.
@WildCatsKitten1 Craig is a dumshit and years behind in scientific discovery, but of course the facts PWN Lucy and all his other fantasies so he stays away from the newspapers. HAR HAR HAR HAR
Who here thinks GFunkMachine (such an intelligent screen name, NOT) is also "the Science Foundation"? Thumbs this up if you think they are the same person.
@TheSciencefFiction "if you have the nerve for a discussion you can click 'reply' by my username" HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR Yes, because you're always there just as Wildcat said. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
WOW Fiction, you are so fun to debate. When are you going to post a vid of you and Sarfati debating. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
That FACT ^ is observed in computers, knowledge, nature, and everywhere on Earth.
Mutations (most of which are neutral) do not have the ability to add large amounts of information.
Even if one claims "beneficial mutations" then even those do not have the ability to add the amount of information needed to explain the radical bio-diversity here.
Prime example (bats, which are flying mammals with SONAR). These facts destroy evolutionism thoroughly.
Members of the religion of evolutionism fail to understand the difference between observable science, common sense, and the scientific method. Evolution is another idiotic religion.
@evoTARDSareINSANE So now you're wanting to demonstrate your illiteracy in another field of science, information theory.
In information theory, information is defined as that which makes distinction possible. Evolution has already been shown to have naturalistic mechanisms which can and do increase functional quantities of information in genomes.
No, sorry. Your ignorance of how descent with modification works still doesn't constitute an argument against evolution.
@TheScienceFiction "Evolution has already been shown to have naturalistic mechanisms which can and do increase functional quantities of information in genomes."
HAR HAR HAR HAR That's funny and YOU claim you debated Sarfati? HAR HAR HAR He would have kicked your ass. Do you have any idea how stupid that statement is? Do you know the difference between natural and naturalistic? I doubt it. You're a big mouth with no brain behind it.
TSF wouldnt know a biology textbook if it hit him over the head.
I've never seen such idiocy in all my life.
The man is this video (Dr. Jonathan Safarti) is a PHD chemist (yes, he has a doctorate science degree, unlike the ape-man "believing" evotroll and his other troll accounts below lol)
Give it a rest with your disproven fallacies and erroneous speculation evo-heads. You belong to a time-based "faith" system. A doctrine of absurdity.
@evoTARDSareINSANE I've debated Sarfati personally, the man couldn't even form a cogent syllogism and ultimately resorted to censoring the conversation when he couldn't give any explanation at all for human chromosome 2 other than 'my magic man just made it that way'
I did not reply to your first comment to me here instantly dumb dumb, if i reply to you and then you send an instant reply to me then there is a big difference dumb dumb.
Just like yesterday, I post a comment to you and you replied instantly hahahahahahahaha, If i reply straight away after you have replined instantly then we are already engaged in dialogue girlie man,there is a big difference aspie and putting lol shows you to be a fag
No double syandard girlie, I replied to you after an hour, thus I couldn't have replied instantly, replying to you once you have replied and we are engaged in conversation is not replying instantly aspie, No wonder you are so dumb and getting your ass kicked by everyone here.
@WildCatsKitten1 Why are you so unable to provide a single example of anything I've been wrong on? If I'm getting my ass kicked showing how I was wrong at least once should be a piece of cake. Thus far you haven't managed even that.
@TheScienceFickshun, how about an example of where you lied? "I've debated Sarfati personally, the man couldn't even form a cogent syllogism and ultimately resorted" Three lies in less than one sentence. That must be some kind of record. You never debated Sarfati because he would have kicked your stupid ass. Just listening to this video shows his expertise in argument. So THAT also makes you a liar. You are also a Dodge-ball Master.
"ultimately resorted to censoring the conversation when he couldn't give any explanation at all for human chromosome 2 other than 'my magic man just made it that way"
I expect you to provide a link of you debating him and him saying " my magic man made it that way" or I will take it you are lying.
Thescientismfoundation is a clown with socks, that gfunk is one of his socks, the name of his account sets off the alarm bells that we are dealing with an aspie.
@WildCatsKitten1 I appreciate you demonstrating that creationist trolls have nothing but personal attacks and other fallacy as opposed to actual arguments.
@egzek3 Intelligence is needed to create software code or assemble a computer! FAR MORE intelligence is needed for the assemblance of the first Cell and thereby DNA. A DNA code is far more complex in design than All the Worlds Softwares COMBINED!! Therefore we can deduce Intelligent DESIGN! Homochirality and hydrolysis would prevent life from ever starting! It is chemically and mathematically impossible for a single protein to form!!
@5tonyvvvv Once again remaining retarded of the fact that you're using a completely erroneous analogy (comparing a non-living computer to a living cell) doesn't constitute an argument.
Looks like Pseudo-Science Foundation and his other evoTROLL accounts are spamming this video with more arguments from ignorance and disproven fallacies
There's not one evolutionist that has EVER explained the following....
The "evolutionary adaptation" that magically caused the sudden increase in brain/cranial size in hominids, the polar opposite (and contradictory) "evolution" of humans and chimps from an UNFOUND "ape-man" or a logical evolutionary explanation of the different races of humans
@evoTARDSareINSANE I already gave a potential pathway for the increase in hominid cranial size. This is the problem, creationists think ignorance is a way of knowing things.
@TheScienceFickshun "This is the problem, creationists think ignorance is a way of knowing things" OH really? That's just hilarious since ALL of evolution is based on one logical fallacy after another. Transitional fossils, atavisms, vestigial organs, etc. are all arguments from ignorance and circular logic. Now let's hear your whining asshole.
The killer whale and dolphin are separate species, they are however both marine mammals who split from a common ancestor. Assuming it is even true as I didn't look it up, they could conceivably mate. The line between species can be fuzzy precisely because they have been evolved.
We do have an explanation for the fall and the flood. They are myths, they didn't actually happen. They are stories in a book with no actual evidence to support them. The only reason to believe them would be the assumption that the texts describing them are accurate.
Natural selection doesn't need to remove random mutations. Most have no apparent effects. The few with negative effects are filtered out of populations because those individuals don't mate as often. Those with positive effects survive longer and mate more. Many have no effect at the time but could later in a changed environment or with compounded mutations over time. These differential survival rates picking "more fit" individuals are what we call natural selection.
"After splitting up sometimes two populations can no longer interbred with each other and therefore they are separate species" - And that's evolution.
facts are becoming all the trend that shows things like the bible claim that the moon generates light,which it doesnt,bats are not of the bird family,the earth doesnt have 4 corners etc.Its unfortunate that christians in general cant just admit there are things that are off in the bible.at least when science realizes it made a mistake they admit it.Also just because someone has a phd doesnt make them a scientist.kent hovind made that claim and he doesnt know the 1st thing about science.
"Can you tell us that one next story time? " No but i can tell you how magic man who poofed every species ever into instant existance from absolutely nothing but a handful of dust (apart from one lady made from a rib of all things). That's pretty good fun too.
@pilgrimpater Cool story bro. I think I prefer the one where something comes out of nothing and how we were once soup better though. Can you tell us that one next story time?
Further DESTROYING the RELIGION of evolution is this FACT....
Homo Sapiens 1st appeared at least 200,000 years ago and we are still Homo Sapiens today. We have "migrated" to all continents on Earth and the population migration and isolation has NOT produced a new species
Neanderthals (which share upto 99.5% DNA with us, which means they are CLOSER in genetics to us then chimps) were PROVEN by scientists (including evolutionists) to NOT be where we came from
@evoTARDSareINSANE "we are still Homo Sapiens today." That's right because in the natural world 200K years is but a blip. SO where were humans 2 millions years ago when there millions of other mammal species? Why do you assume that evolution should occur at such a rapid rate?
FYI Neanderthal DNA is found in all races apart from those who srayed in Africa where there would have been no interaction. So what the hell is your point?
@evoTARDSareINSANE I doubt very much whether a chemist can be smarter than a microbiologist on the topic of microbiology (& of course it works the other way round for chemistry). However everything Sarfati says in the 2 vids, we have all heard before & all debunked before. It's so easy & to cap it all, to lose total credibility, it turns out he is a creotard who believes magic man poofed everything into existence from nothing. If that's the calibre of his science then he should stick to chess.
@evoTARDSareINSANE Well try any topic raised here but to answer your question the fact is that the fossil record shows this HAS happened. And here is the rub because all it is, is microevolution i.e. no new features just a change in size. Certainly the human cranium, as opposed to other apes, has shown a merging of certain bones, thus allowing for expansion of the brain in which to grow. Natural Selection is bound to favour the larger brain.
@evoTARDSareINSANE You'd love to know about population and migration? So glad that at last you are becoming more inquisitive rather than believing the dross that you are spoon fed.
It is indeed all about population and initially isolation. Any allele frequency change will become more influential the smaller the initial population. As that population becomes more successful (advantaged) it can then expand but with the advantageous allele frequency well and truly fixed as dominant. Easy.
I even messaged Dawkins this question personally and he failed to answer it
Population migration, isolation, and environmental impact on a species CANNOT cause the dramatic increase in brain size and cranial skull size seen in the hominid chain
Environmental influence makes some sense on things such as "bird beaks, limb size, and color" but not in the loss of hair follicles and dramatic brain size increase (as in ape to man evolution)
@evoTARDSareINSANE The sad thing is that i apparently fail in answering the question but you cannot tell me why. Just saying CANNOT is merely spouting a slogan (yet again).
In one sentnce you say the brain can't grow and in the next you say that limbs can.
A reducing cranial brow (redundant to man as his jaw needs to be less strong) as observed in the fossil record, leaves plenty of room for an increase in brain capacity. It's microlevolution just as much as limb increase/decrease size. Easy.
Evolutionists state that "adaptation to the environment" is what causes physical change in a species and physical interaction with the environment (like reaching for food, digging in the ground, etc) would have no reason to cause a rapid and steady progression of brain growth.
Further DESTROYING ev-LIE-ution is the FACT that Homo Sapiens now live on ALL 7 CONTINENTS (including antarctica) and still havent magically become a NEW species.
@evoTARDSareINSANE "would have no reason to cause a rapid and steady progression of brain growth." Yet, as i pointed out before, you claim that limbs can grow. Of course as usual you have totally shyed away from explaining this contradiction in claims. Yes humans HAVE migrated from Africa to the 7 continents as traced by anthropologists. That's why we have the various races (with evolution as the ONLY explanation). Come on now, surely you can do better than this.
Also, there is no such thing as "microevolution". Thats a term used by evolutionists to describe variations in size and color within a specie's population due to DNA recombination during reproduction and neutral mutations
There is no "evolution" occurring. There is also no "evolution" taking place in natural selection either.
Of course organisms which arent equipped to compete for survival will die. There is no "transformative change" (aka evolution) occurring in that scenario.
@evoTARDSareINSANE "no such thing as microevolution" It is just a general term that describes evolution whereby populations of different species can still physically interbreed. A wolf can still interbreed with a dog yet they are different sprecies. That would be microevolution. If there is no microevolution then how do you explain husbandry where all we do is speed up nature by enforced selection? Macro is just micro over an extended period. Again you insist on slogans with no explanations.
As populations increase their gene pools increase, which ONLY cause more variations among that specific species.
Bacteria is a great example......countless types of bacteria exist and no observed evidence of it ever becoming multicellular (which is good, because we need bacteria to live inside us and stay single-celled). Bacteria maintains the ecosystem
Hybridization (which occurs in many plants, insects, and in some animals, like the Liger for example) is not evolution either
@evoTARDSareINSANE "As populations increase their gene pools increase, " That's the whole point. For new beneficial alleles to predominate then a small population is necessary. As that original population grows there is no reason for that allele frequency to diminish.
There would be no benefit to bacteria becoming multicellular when they can mutate & adapt so damned well. Again totally irrelevant.
Hybridization is indeed not evolution. Well done and a star for you.
@pilgrimpater Single cell bacteria do not turn into multicell bacteria, and become more complex organisms, stop using moronic dawkins chemistry that has never been observed!!
@5tonyvvvv "Single cell bacteria do not turn into multicell bacteria, " Correct. because they mutate so prolifically, there would be no evolutionary adavntage to become multicellular in fact it might even be deleterious. Ykur getting there..
@evoTARDSareINSANE Actually Microevolution is a term used more by creotards than by scientists.
So if recombination is not the resaon for change in size then tell me what is.
"Of course organisms which arent equipped to compete for survival will die. "
Possibly, of all the guff you have posted to me, the only thing approaching any verification with fact. Well done. But of course they die if their allele frequency supplies a massive survival disadvantage, just other alleles give an advantage.
There has never been evidence of a living organism magically gaining information from its environment and then somehow miraculously passing that info to its offspring (therefore, there is no evolution at all, no micro or macro)
Examples.....how does human skin help us? In ancient times man froze to death numerous times (some still do today)
Facial eye characteristics of Asian humans --> no evolutionary benefit
Only natural selection is correct, and that's not true evolution.
@evoTARDSareINSANE I think you will find gene duplication is well documented by real scientists. There is absolutely NO reason why "extra" information cannot be passed to offspring.
"how does human skin help us? " Coupled witn sweat it provides a natural temperature control whereas fur would cause overheating. Guess what, in cold conditions we invented something called clothes (maybe you are a nudist). Skin pigment, plenty of benefit. Who says there should be a benefit to Asian eyes? Irrelevent
@5tonyvvvv "Abiogenesis is absurd and IMPOSSIBLE!! " do you think that such a slogan gives your word view any credibility? It's hardly a killer argument is it.
I'm afraid that since my earlier comment on the fossil sequence is still relevant and hence still supports evolution while destoying that old bronze age myth of yours.
@pilgrimpater Learn Hydrolysis and Homochirality! Abiogenesis is IMPOSSIBLE!!! Its laughable! There is ZERO repeatable, observable chemistry for it!! Only failed experiments!!! molecules can't self assemble!
@5tonyvvvv I couldn't give a flying fig about abiogenesis. What floats my boat is the topic of Evolution which is all about speciation. It's just like when i go to see a concerrt. As long as i enjoy the music i don't give a stuff how the orchestra got there. Surely you can get it now. Btw creation can't be true as it is described twice and is contradictory. According to your "logic" this invalidates the whole of the rest of the Bible (which is pretty easy anyway).
@thedirtybubble2 These are terms used by creotards to avoid the embarrassment of the hole they dug themselves into by having invented the concept of "kind" as an apology for the impossible logistics of the Ark myth.
In reality macroevolution is merely microevolution over a longer period & probably no longer used in evolutionary circles. Basically it's all evolution.
When i use the terms i use as common ground when responding to creationists.
@thedirtybubble2 "cuz i dont realy understand how something can change into something completly different"
Don't you? The answer is time. Definite but unperceivable changes accumulate. Tell you what this might help you. What day did you become an adult? You don't know, of course because every morning you look in the mirror you see absolutely no change from the morning before (hangovers excepted). Yet you will have photos of you as a baby, toddler, child, teen, adult. So it is with evolution.
@thedirtybubble2 "cuz i dont realy understand how something can change into something completly different"
Don't you? The answer is time. Definite but unperceivable changes accumulate. Tell you what this might help you. What day did you become an adult? You don't know, of course because every morning you look in the mirror you see absolutely no change from the morning before (hangovers excepted). Yet you will have photos of you as a baby, toddler, child, teen, adult. So it is with evolution.
@pilgrimpater Hydrolysis and Homochirality would prevent life from ever starting!! The soupists seem to think that proteins self-assembled from a mixture of amino acids in the primordial soup. If true, how do you explain the fact that the earliest proteins only formed from L-amino acids? The soupists try to get around this by supposing that there was natural enrichment for L-amino acids over D-amino acids in the soup. Either way Racemic Mixtures NEVER WORK!!!
@pilgrimpater Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
@5tonyvvvv "Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins." Not a disaster just an unknown but that is a million miles from the point because what happened AFTER abiogenesis is what's relevant here. The evidence for evolution as OBSERVED via the fossil sequence is what is relevant for this video. Just because i haven't got a clue as to when you purchased your computer & what make/model it is doesn't disprove that you wrote your two comments. Abi and Evo are seperate topics.
@pilgrimpater HAHAHAAH!! Evolution has never been OBSERVED EVER!! its a Faith!!! Fossil records show animals DIED!!! Variation exists, but never have we seen any evidence of any KIND of animal becoming something different or new! With new INFORMATION! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
@5tonyvvvv Well it HAS been observed but that is just the icing on the cake. Fossil sequence = 1st spong before first jawless fish before first jawed fish before first amphibian before first reptile before first mammals and birds. That little OBSERVED sequence is what makes Evolution a fact and while abiogenesis is necessary for first life, evolution describes what happened after.
"but never have we seen any KIND of animal becoming something different" Good as that would disprove Evolution.
@evoTARDSareINSANE 'Thats a term used by evolutionists to describe variations in size and color within a specie's population'
Gee except for the fact that we've seen over 1000 speciation events directly. The idea of 'change within kinds' is non-sense that creationists have to sell themselves to reject the only logical ramification of the accrual of continual change.
refutation? Please....
CommitToFocus 1 month ago
Refute Dawkins ? Or Darwin? Why don't you prove evolution wrong?
gregrutz 1 month ago
He lost me as soon as he said that the "flood" was an historic fact.
ComicPenius 3 months ago
Creationism is hilarious :)
Imagine being dumb enough to think that the Noah's ark was actually real.
In a wonder irony, creationists are best evidence that humans evolved from lower order primates. There are many smart humans but then there are also creationists. :)
TheCelticChimp 3 months ago
@TheCelticChimp, You silly simian, you said,"Imagine being dumb enough to think that the Noah's ark was actually real."
- As opposed to what? Fish evolving into human beings? That's your intelligent alternative? That's even more outlandish!!
At least today, we can understand hundreds of animals loading into a train or a ship. But, I've yet to know of a creature turning into something totally different.
ZebrasFirst 1 month ago
@ZebrasFirst Yes, but the Ark would have required millions of animals (if not more) and all the food for them ... including meat for the meat eaters .. without refrigeration ...
pubuman 1 month ago
@ZebrasFirst That's because evolution has nothing to do with a creature 'turning into something totally different'
Evolution is continual accrued change over generations.
TheScienceFoundation 1 week ago
"completely discredited with Climategate."
Climategate was email exchange, not related to peer review at all.
Can you tell me one way in which Lucy is more similar to chimps and why?
Can you name one credible, published (or not I suppose) scientist that disagrees with Lucy?
And I'm still waiting for evidence of a hoax, which is how this whole convo started.
I see you managed to spam my question off th front page by ranting about peer review, but here they are again
Craigmw45 5 months ago
@Craigmw45 "Climategate was email exchange, not related to peer review at all" They really have you brainwashed don't they? hahahahahhaaaaa
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 I told you where to look go do it, its not that hard.
Craigmw45 5 months ago in playlist More videos from 100huntley
@Craigmw45
It seems to be hard for you and that is because you do not have such a test.
There is no scientific test carried out on the claim that in order for a claim to be credible it has to be peer reviewed.
if there is such a test and it is not hard to find then it is for you to provide it, that is your burden as that is your argument.
You have no such test and thus you fail.
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 You want me to explain the peer review process on the you tube comments section? Or are you just spamming the channel to get my direct questions you seem to have a hard time answering off the front page?
Craigmw45 5 months ago in playlist More videos from 100huntley
Comment removed
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@Craigmw45
You can waffle on about the peer review process all you want, I am asking a question that is simple for your simple mind,
When was a scientific test carried out on the claim that a claim is not credible unless it is published?
And you can also tell me, which publication was this published in?
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 "When was a scientific test carried out on the claim that a claim is not credible unless it is published?"
You can't be seriously asking for a scientific test on what is an agreed apon standard? Seriously?! Your countering my questions, with a question of your own, answer them, I'll even relent and let you give me a non published scientist if you want.
Craigmw45 5 months ago in playlist More videos from 100huntley
@Craig, the peer review process is just another hoax and was completely discredited with Climategate.
OK let's here all your copy paste canned arguments for this. HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius You just quoted earlier work, then my own reference, in an attempt to challenge my point that he LATTER changed his mind, read that twice if it doesn't jump out at you the first time.
Craigmw45 5 months ago
@Craig, listen asshole, you're not going to resurrect LUCY. She's a hoax and everyone knows it. NO credible scientist will even touch that. So keep on believing but please stop pushing your idiocy off on me. OK lamebrain.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Can you name one credible, published scientist that disagrees with LucyÉ
And I'm still waiting for evidence of a hoax, which is how this whole convo started.
Craigmw45 5 months ago
@Craigmw45
Can you please tell me and max and the viewers of this video the answer to this question.
When was a scientific test carried out on the claim that a claim has to be published in order to be credible?
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Google peer review.
Craigmw45 5 months ago in playlist More videos from 100huntley
Comment removed
Craigmw45 5 months ago
@Craigmw45
why are you adressing me as maximus and sending a point about climate gate to me when i never raised climate gate?
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@Craig, oOOOOOOH I like this one "Can you name one credible, published scientist that disagrees with Lucy" That's funny and when I do you set your self up as an authority on who is and who is not a credible scientist. hahahahaa AND THEN you pull out the One True Scotsman Fallacy and say "Well he isn't a real scientist."
HAR HAR HAR HAR I know your routine.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius "One True Scotsman Fallacy and say "Well he isn't a real scientist.""
HAR HAR, isn't a scientist.
Your maintaining that Lucy has been abandoned by the whole scientific community. Name one scientist that thinks so, can't be hard.
Craigmw45 5 months ago
@Craigmw45, you're really dishonest aren't you? If not you won't mind googling Lucy fraud. You'll find everything you need. If you can't do that then just fuck off.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius You seem to do a lot of insulting, backed up by very little or no facts what so ever. Can you tell me one way in which Lucy is more similar to chimps and whyÉ
Craigmw45 5 months ago in playlist More videos from 100huntley
@MaximusArurealius "They found out that you couldn't really tell the difference between Lucy and a rainforest Chimpanzee that you might find in the San Diego Zoo."
I cited 4 papers in my last comments. All 4 of them disagree with you. Perhaps you could come up with something more interesting then restating your argument, in the face of a pretty overwhelming rebuttal.
I say overwhelming rebuttal since I assume you actually read all 4, rather then stay willfully ignorant.
Craigmw45 5 months ago in playlist More videos from 100huntley
@Craigmw45
What is preventing you from naming the logical fallacies in max's comment?
If there are fallacies then you should be able to name them.
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@Craigmw45 "All 4 of them disagree with you." SO.... YOU got four papers that are bullshit. BUT of course YOU can't tell the difference between and ape and a human so I forgive you.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius
Do you think craig is a sock of the troll the ScientismClowndation?
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 He could be a sock of Clowndation. They both ignore the facts and keep their religion going.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius "can't tell the difference between and ape and a human so I forgive you
Well considering humans are classified as apes as well, and a creationist, was the one who came up with such a classification, I donèt think there is much of a differance.
Craigmw45 5 months ago in playlist More videos from 100huntley
1. "And then of course there was Lucy. This is one of my all time favorites ... discovered in Ethiopia by Donald Johansson in 1974. It was dated at being three million years old. It was diagrammed at the very "Y" that separates man from ape. Now Johansson is a humble man and as a humble man he claimed humbly that Lucy was the most important find made by anyone in the history of the entire human race. cont.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
So,approx.16,000 "kinds" went on the ark-and within a couple of thousand years,became millions of species?
Oh,and they spread all over the globe in that time also,leaving no evidence of their "ark origin".
Amazing that a "doctor" of anything could believe this!
Somebody please explain.............?
leapinglizardking 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius "Lucy, Donald C. Johanson, came to the conclusion that Lucy was not an ape-man"
No he didn't. His website is becominghuman(dot)org. go there and figure out his opinion from the man him self.
"Other skeletons of the same creature have hands and feet which are clearly those of an ape"
No, that's just made up. Much more human then ape
Morphological affinities of the Australopithecus afarensis hand on the basis of manual proportions and relative thumb lenght
Craigmw45 5 months ago in playlist More videos from 100huntley
@MaximusArurealius You must have choosen not to have read anything I wrote.
Sure 40% of Lucy was found, fortunately we're bilaterally symmetrical animals, so what we find on the left side, is the same as what's missing on the right. Further you also seemed to have missed or just ignore the other 113 examples of this species, I'm sure they contain some of the missing 60%. Her founder(?) didn't admit she's just an ape.
Insults don't get you very far in an debate, can you provide a fact or two?
Craigmw45 5 months ago in playlist More videos from 100huntley
@Craigmw45 OH just listen to this: "I'm sure they contain some of the missing 60%" HAR HAR HAR "I'm sure" hahahahahaaa yeah you're sure dummass. I have been debating this issue of Lucy for a long long time. You know jack shit about it by your idiotic statements. LISTEN asshole--
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
Doolan, evolutionist artist:
"With Lucy, I was told to make her more ape-like, or more 'transitional' in appearance. Given a cast of a skull and other drawings, and was asked to improve on these, and make her look more transitional. I had to make some things up. I did a sketch, they said 'no'. I kept adding and subtracting until they got what they wanted."
Humiliating huh? hahahahahaaa
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
Evidence shows that "Lucy" was simply a knuckle-walking true ape, and NOT upright-walking, as Dawkins wrongly asserted.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
Lucy: 40% more-or-less complete australopithicus skeleton. Lucy's actual remains did not include hands or feet. Other skeletons of the same creature have hands and feet which are clearly those of an ape.
Not looking good for Lucy. You might as well quit while you're behind. hahahahaha
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@Craigmw45 EVOLUTIONIST Dr. Solly Zuckerman was head of the Dept. of Anatomy of the University of Birmingham England. Along with his team of scientist that studied Australopithecus for 15 years. Compared them with the teeth of 100 gorilla & chimpanzees, the pelvic bones of more than 70 humans & 94 great apes. They studied where the skull balances on the spinal column with about 800 skulls of apes. Zuckerman- of the Australopithecus FAMILY "THEY ARE JUST APES"
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Good job on copy pasting a Gish argument.
Unfortunately in 1950 Zuckerman lost the debate and his position was abandoned, by even him self, in the end he concluded it was defiantly bipedal.
Thinking about the evidence, Centre for Human Biology Resource Paper, no.1, 36pp., Centre for Human Biology
Its a very unconvincing when your own reference disagrees with your argument.
PS I wanted evidence of the supposed hoax, not an disagreement on its stature.
Craigmw45 5 months ago
@Craigmw FROM: Thinking about the evidence, Centre for Human Biology Resource Paper, no.1, 36pp., Centre for Human Biology (your reference)
"It is now recognized widely that the australopithecines are not structurally closely similar to humans, they must have been living at least in part in arboreal [tree] environments, and many of the later specimens were contemporaneous or almost so with the earlier members of the genus Homo. 2"
HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius "It is now recognized widely that the australopithecines are not structurally closely similar to humans,"
Errr wow... Googling your quote, I find it's from
The Order of Man, Yale University Press, New Haven
Which is certainly not my reference. Is there an exception to that 6th commandment when it comes to arguing about evolution?
Craigmw45 5 months ago in playlist More videos from 100huntley
@CraigMoronWimp BTW you failed to name the logical fallacies from my comment below.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@Craig, Here it is again and I want an answer.
"Good job on copy pasting a Gish argument"
What kind of double logical fallacy did you just commit?
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius
There isnt a fallacy in that, since it wasn't the rebuttal to your argument. You should check up the meaning of the word fallacy, since stating a fact isn't on.
Craigmw45 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius
craig thinks his mother is related to apes because he caught her picking her ass
hahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@Craigmw45 "Its a very unconvincing when your own reference disagrees with your argument." HAR HAR HAR you must have been talking to yourself. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
ARE you too stupid to know that Lucy is basically ignored because she FAILED. NOBODY except a dummass like you will defend her. Give up dummass.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@Craigmw45 "Good job on copy pasting a Gish argument" What kind of double logical fallacy did you just commit?
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius "FAMILY "THEY ARE JUST APES""
I'm not sure if you know how silly this argument is.
I'm sure you know that Humans, are of course, just apes as well. You can thank Linnaeus, a creationist, for that classification. What your really saying, is its just an ape, exactly like humans.
I haven't forgotten that you claimed every single transitional fossil is a hoax. Pointing out, mostly false, disagreements among scientists isn't evidence of a hoax.
Craigmw45 5 months ago in playlist More videos from 100huntley
@Craigmw45 "I'm sure you know that Humans, are of course, just apes as well." HAR HAR HAR HAR Is your granny one of those red-assed, blue-faced, butt picker monkeys? HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
There are no transitionals. The idea of transitional is a false assumption, based on circular logic. That's why Gould came up with Punctuated Equilibrium to explain why there are no transitionals.
BTW apes are not human. It's just part of the same bullshit hoax of evolution.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Ran into the character limit for my hands and feet references.
Neuromusculoskeletal computer modeling and simulation of upright, straight-legged, bipedal locomotion of Australopithecus afarensis (AL 288-1), A Nagano
Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion, WEH Harcourt‐Smith
Interpreting the posture and locomotion of Australopithecus afarensis: where do we stand, CV Ward
She most conclusively walked bipedal (on two legs)
Craigmw45 5 months ago in playlist More videos from 100huntley
@Craigmw45 "She most conclusively walked bipedal (on two legs)" OH BULLshit. She's a hoax and the scientists promoting her are liars.
"As to Australopithecus afarensis, we know now, that scientific discoveries have left assumptions regarding this "Lucy" totally unfounded. The famous French scientific magazine, "Science et Vie," accepted this truth under the headline "Adieu, Lucy," in its February 1999 issue, and confirmed that Australopithecus cannot be considered an ancestor of man."
FAIL
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius I'd be very impressed if you could back up anything you just said with real facts?
Sure piltdown man was a hoax, but Lucy? There are currently 113 other examples of Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) have an explanation for any of them?
Craigmw45 5 months ago in playlist More videos from 100huntley
@MaximusArurealius So the tens of thousands of missing links we have found over the years? what are they? Why do they get progressively more human as time goes forward. Why do they all show up in the right area, in the right strata?
Judging by your last comment you seem to be happy to pretend they don't exist, but pretending won't make thousands of them go away, I would like some other explanation.
Craigmw45 5 months ago in playlist More videos from 100huntley
@Craigmw45 "I would like some other explanation." OH of course you would. hahahahahahhaa Anything other than the truth.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius
You are pwning that idiot craig.
I am still waiting for the scientismClowndation to provide a link to safarti saying " my magic man made it that way"
Until he does then we can take it that the darwimp is lying.
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Craig is a dumshit and years behind in scientific discovery, but of course the facts PWN Lucy and all his other fantasies so he stays away from the newspapers. HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Can you give a single example of anything I've been wrong about? Yes or no.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
Let's take a poll.....
Who here thinks GFunkMachine (such an intelligent screen name, NOT) is also "the Science Foundation"? Thumbs this up if you think they are the same person.
TSF = known evotroll
Nuff said
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE I see more ignorant assertion and personal attacks from you, but nothing resembling a response to anything I've actually said.
Also, if you have the nerve for a discussion you can click 'reply' by my username to let me know what non-sense of yours you want me to refute.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheSciencefFiction "if you have the nerve for a discussion you can click 'reply' by my username" HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR Yes, because you're always there just as Wildcat said. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
WOW Fiction, you are so fun to debate. When are you going to post a vid of you and Sarfati debating. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
Information NECESSITATES a SOURCE.
That FACT ^ is observed in computers, knowledge, nature, and everywhere on Earth.
Mutations (most of which are neutral) do not have the ability to add large amounts of information.
Even if one claims "beneficial mutations" then even those do not have the ability to add the amount of information needed to explain the radical bio-diversity here.
Prime example (bats, which are flying mammals with SONAR). These facts destroy evolutionism thoroughly.
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE
well said
Members of the religion of evolutionism fail to understand the difference between observable science, common sense, and the scientific method. Evolution is another idiotic religion.
buffboynick 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE So now you're wanting to demonstrate your illiteracy in another field of science, information theory.
In information theory, information is defined as that which makes distinction possible. Evolution has already been shown to have naturalistic mechanisms which can and do increase functional quantities of information in genomes.
No, sorry. Your ignorance of how descent with modification works still doesn't constitute an argument against evolution.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFiction "Evolution has already been shown to have naturalistic mechanisms which can and do increase functional quantities of information in genomes."
HAR HAR HAR HAR That's funny and YOU claim you debated Sarfati? HAR HAR HAR He would have kicked your ass. Do you have any idea how stupid that statement is? Do you know the difference between natural and naturalistic? I doubt it. You're a big mouth with no brain behind it.
PWNED
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Have you yet managed to come up with what part of Dawkins' quote is wrong?
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceClowndation, quit crying. You're just making a fool of yourself. hahahahaha
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Have you managed yet to show which part of that quote is wrong?
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
TSF wouldnt know a biology textbook if it hit him over the head.
I've never seen such idiocy in all my life.
The man is this video (Dr. Jonathan Safarti) is a PHD chemist (yes, he has a doctorate science degree, unlike the ape-man "believing" evotroll and his other troll accounts below lol)
Give it a rest with your disproven fallacies and erroneous speculation evo-heads. You belong to a time-based "faith" system. A doctrine of absurdity.
Evolutionists are a disgrace to REAL science.
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE I've debated Sarfati personally, the man couldn't even form a cogent syllogism and ultimately resorted to censoring the conversation when he couldn't give any explanation at all for human chromosome 2 other than 'my magic man just made it that way'
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
'my magic man just made it that way'
Ahhhh and there is the aspergers from you again.
hahahahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 There's your denial and obvious subconscious realization that what you believe is borderline mentally retarded.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Thanks for the instant reply aspie, more evidence that you never leave your mothers basement skipper.
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 "Thanks for the instant reply aspie"
As you reply within a minute, lol. Projection much?
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"as you reply within a minute"
I did not reply to your first comment to me here instantly dumb dumb, if i reply to you and then you send an instant reply to me then there is a big difference dumb dumb.
Try again aspie
hahahahahahahahha
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 "I did not reply to your first comment to me here instantly"
@WildCatsKitten1 There's your denial and obvious subconscious realization that what you believe is borderline mentally retarded.
TheScienceFoundation 7 minutes ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Thanks for the instant reply aspie, more evidence that you never leave your mothers basement skipper.
WildCatsKitten1 6 minutes ago
>7 minutes ago
>6 minutes ago
More denial from our projecting mental case.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Just like yesterday, I post a comment to you and you replied instantly hahahahahahahaha, If i reply straight away after you have replined instantly then we are already engaged in dialogue girlie man,there is a big difference aspie and putting lol shows you to be a fag
hahahahahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Now you're trying to employ a double standard to save a little face and sorry to break it to you, it's failing.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
No double syandard girlie, I replied to you after an hour, thus I couldn't have replied instantly, replying to you once you have replied and we are engaged in conversation is not replying instantly aspie, No wonder you are so dumb and getting your ass kicked by everyone here.
hahahahahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1
*standard
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 So you're saying we weren't engaged in conversation once you replied? It's so entertaining to watch you fundies trip over yourselves.
'getting your ass kicked by everyone here.'
What's a single point of mine that was validly refuted by anyone?
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"So you're saying we weren't engaged in conversation once you replied?"
hahahhahahahah You are slow
" It's so entertaining to watch you fundies trip over yourselves."
Oh look the science worshipper calling another fundie
hahahahahahahahahahha
You are funny aspie
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Nice to see you dodge the last question there;
What's a single point of mine that was validly refuted by anyone? Be specific.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"Nice to see you dodge the last question there."
Nice to see you shifting the conversation because you are getting your ass kicked.
try again aspie.
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 You claimed I'm getting my ass kicked, I'm asking for a single instance of it
What's a single point of mine that was validly refuted by anyone? Be specific.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
why do you use your gfunk sock account as well as this account?
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 I like how you accuse me of trying to change the subject just as you try to change the subject, lol.
You claimed I'm getting my ass kicked, what have I been shown to be wrong on thus far? Give a single example.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Why are you so defensive about getting your ass kicked?
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Why are you so unable to provide a single example of anything I've been wrong on? If I'm getting my ass kicked showing how I was wrong at least once should be a piece of cake. Thus far you haven't managed even that.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Why do you need to use your gfunk account for support?
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Can you give a single example of anything I've been wrong about? Yes or no.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFickshun, how about an example of where you lied? "I've debated Sarfati personally, the man couldn't even form a cogent syllogism and ultimately resorted" Three lies in less than one sentence. That must be some kind of record. You never debated Sarfati because he would have kicked your stupid ass. Just listening to this video shows his expertise in argument. So THAT also makes you a liar. You are also a Dodge-ball Master.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@TheScienceFiction "Can you give a single example of anything I've been wrong about? Yes or no"
Read my replies. Were those enough asshole?
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"I've debated Sarfati personally"
unsubstantiated claim.
"ultimately resorted to censoring the conversation when he couldn't give any explanation at all for human chromosome 2 other than 'my magic man just made it that way"
I expect you to provide a link of you debating him and him saying " my magic man made it that way" or I will take it you are lying.
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE
Thescientismfoundation is a clown with socks, that gfunk is one of his socks, the name of his account sets off the alarm bells that we are dealing with an aspie.
hahahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 I appreciate you demonstrating that creationist trolls have nothing but personal attacks and other fallacy as opposed to actual arguments.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
“Creationist trolls”
aww poor Mr Scientism can't take the truth and starts crying about it, go and run to your mommy aspie.
hahahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 It would be kind of sad at this point if you thought you were making anyone but yourself look bad.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@egzek3 Intelligence is needed to create software code or assemble a computer! FAR MORE intelligence is needed for the assemblance of the first Cell and thereby DNA. A DNA code is far more complex in design than All the Worlds Softwares COMBINED!! Therefore we can deduce Intelligent DESIGN! Homochirality and hydrolysis would prevent life from ever starting! It is chemically and mathematically impossible for a single protein to form!!
5tonyvvvv 5 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Once again remaining retarded of the fact that you're using a completely erroneous analogy (comparing a non-living computer to a living cell) doesn't constitute an argument.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
Looks like Pseudo-Science Foundation and his other evoTROLL accounts are spamming this video with more arguments from ignorance and disproven fallacies
There's not one evolutionist that has EVER explained the following....
The "evolutionary adaptation" that magically caused the sudden increase in brain/cranial size in hominids, the polar opposite (and contradictory) "evolution" of humans and chimps from an UNFOUND "ape-man" or a logical evolutionary explanation of the different races of humans
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE "UNFOUND "ape-man" "
There are 32 species of transitional forms between humans and our common ancestor with chimps. How many more do you want.
Also, can you provide a definition of information? And explain how DNA its self should be considered info?
Craigmw45 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE I already gave a potential pathway for the increase in hominid cranial size. This is the problem, creationists think ignorance is a way of knowing things.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFickshun "This is the problem, creationists think ignorance is a way of knowing things" OH really? That's just hilarious since ALL of evolution is based on one logical fallacy after another. Transitional fossils, atavisms, vestigial organs, etc. are all arguments from ignorance and circular logic. Now let's hear your whining asshole.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
The killer whale and dolphin are separate species, they are however both marine mammals who split from a common ancestor. Assuming it is even true as I didn't look it up, they could conceivably mate. The line between species can be fuzzy precisely because they have been evolved.
sypher113 5 months ago
We do have an explanation for the fall and the flood. They are myths, they didn't actually happen. They are stories in a book with no actual evidence to support them. The only reason to believe them would be the assumption that the texts describing them are accurate.
sypher113 5 months ago
Natural selection doesn't need to remove random mutations. Most have no apparent effects. The few with negative effects are filtered out of populations because those individuals don't mate as often. Those with positive effects survive longer and mate more. Many have no effect at the time but could later in a changed environment or with compounded mutations over time. These differential survival rates picking "more fit" individuals are what we call natural selection.
sypher113 5 months ago
"After splitting up sometimes two populations can no longer interbred with each other and therefore they are separate species" - And that's evolution.
sypher113 5 months ago
Time to wake up humanity! Imaginary friends stop being funny when you're an adult!
pedroalvesmkt 5 months ago
What a load of rubbish! I can't believe I actually watched this entire clip.
kingkong8974 5 months ago 2
"The holy land" :P
I puke!
arbide3 5 months ago
facts are becoming all the trend that shows things like the bible claim that the moon generates light,which it doesnt,bats are not of the bird family,the earth doesnt have 4 corners etc.Its unfortunate that christians in general cant just admit there are things that are off in the bible.at least when science realizes it made a mistake they admit it.Also just because someone has a phd doesnt make them a scientist.kent hovind made that claim and he doesnt know the 1st thing about science.
ranchai100 5 months ago
POE's law is strong this thread.
IndulgingExistence 5 months ago
Evolutionism = ignorance and nonsensical FALLACIES
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE No, not understanding evolution still doesn't constitute an argument against it, sorry.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE
Best Youtube post of the month.
Good job.
kissmygrittsyall 5 months ago
@kissmygrittsyall I don't think you know what a good post looks like.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
"Can you tell us that one next story time? " No but i can tell you how magic man who poofed every species ever into instant existance from absolutely nothing but a handful of dust (apart from one lady made from a rib of all things). That's pretty good fun too.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater Cool story bro. I think I prefer the one where something comes out of nothing and how we were once soup better though. Can you tell us that one next story time?
Corruptfred 5 months ago
@Corruptfred I'll do it for pilgrimpater
something comes out of nothing -->watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
how we were once soup -->watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
IndulgingExistence 5 months ago
Further DESTROYING the RELIGION of evolution is this FACT....
Homo Sapiens 1st appeared at least 200,000 years ago and we are still Homo Sapiens today. We have "migrated" to all continents on Earth and the population migration and isolation has NOT produced a new species
Neanderthals (which share upto 99.5% DNA with us, which means they are CLOSER in genetics to us then chimps) were PROVEN by scientists (including evolutionists) to NOT be where we came from
Evolution = ignorance and fallacies
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE "we are still Homo Sapiens today." That's right because in the natural world 200K years is but a blip. SO where were humans 2 millions years ago when there millions of other mammal species? Why do you assume that evolution should occur at such a rapid rate?
FYI Neanderthal DNA is found in all races apart from those who srayed in Africa where there would have been no interaction. So what the hell is your point?
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
This man ^ is a PHD Chemist__FACT
Brilliant man. He is also a master chess champion. Genius man, much smarter than Dawkins.
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE I doubt very much whether a chemist can be smarter than a microbiologist on the topic of microbiology (& of course it works the other way round for chemistry). However everything Sarfati says in the 2 vids, we have all heard before & all debunked before. It's so easy & to cap it all, to lose total credibility, it turns out he is a creotard who believes magic man poofed everything into existence from nothing. If that's the calibre of his science then he should stick to chess.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater
"However everything Sarfati says in the 2 vids, we have all heard before & all debunked before"
I'd love to hear how its been "debunked" lol.
I'd also love to hear ANY evolutionist explain the dramatic increase in brain/cranial size which magically came from the unfound ape-man.
Type "Chimpanzee and human X Ray" on Google Images and look at the stunning difference in brain size.
I'd love to know how "population migration and isolation" causes brains to magically grow LOL
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE Well try any topic raised here but to answer your question the fact is that the fossil record shows this HAS happened. And here is the rub because all it is, is microevolution i.e. no new features just a change in size. Certainly the human cranium, as opposed to other apes, has shown a merging of certain bones, thus allowing for expansion of the brain in which to grow. Natural Selection is bound to favour the larger brain.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE You'd love to know about population and migration? So glad that at last you are becoming more inquisitive rather than believing the dross that you are spoon fed.
It is indeed all about population and initially isolation. Any allele frequency change will become more influential the smaller the initial population. As that population becomes more successful (advantaged) it can then expand but with the advantageous allele frequency well and truly fixed as dominant. Easy.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater
Another evolutionist FAILS this question
I even messaged Dawkins this question personally and he failed to answer it
Population migration, isolation, and environmental impact on a species CANNOT cause the dramatic increase in brain size and cranial skull size seen in the hominid chain
Environmental influence makes some sense on things such as "bird beaks, limb size, and color" but not in the loss of hair follicles and dramatic brain size increase (as in ape to man evolution)
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago 2
@evoTARDSareINSANE The sad thing is that i apparently fail in answering the question but you cannot tell me why. Just saying CANNOT is merely spouting a slogan (yet again).
In one sentnce you say the brain can't grow and in the next you say that limbs can.
A reducing cranial brow (redundant to man as his jaw needs to be less strong) as observed in the fossil record, leaves plenty of room for an increase in brain capacity. It's microlevolution just as much as limb increase/decrease size. Easy.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater
Once again you totally missed the point.
Evolutionists state that "adaptation to the environment" is what causes physical change in a species and physical interaction with the environment (like reaching for food, digging in the ground, etc) would have no reason to cause a rapid and steady progression of brain growth.
Further DESTROYING ev-LIE-ution is the FACT that Homo Sapiens now live on ALL 7 CONTINENTS (including antarctica) and still havent magically become a NEW species.
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE "would have no reason to cause a rapid and steady progression of brain growth." Yet, as i pointed out before, you claim that limbs can grow. Of course as usual you have totally shyed away from explaining this contradiction in claims. Yes humans HAVE migrated from Africa to the 7 continents as traced by anthropologists. That's why we have the various races (with evolution as the ONLY explanation). Come on now, surely you can do better than this.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater
Also, there is no such thing as "microevolution". Thats a term used by evolutionists to describe variations in size and color within a specie's population due to DNA recombination during reproduction and neutral mutations
There is no "evolution" occurring. There is also no "evolution" taking place in natural selection either.
Of course organisms which arent equipped to compete for survival will die. There is no "transformative change" (aka evolution) occurring in that scenario.
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE "no such thing as microevolution" It is just a general term that describes evolution whereby populations of different species can still physically interbreed. A wolf can still interbreed with a dog yet they are different sprecies. That would be microevolution. If there is no microevolution then how do you explain husbandry where all we do is speed up nature by enforced selection? Macro is just micro over an extended period. Again you insist on slogans with no explanations.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater
As populations increase their gene pools increase, which ONLY cause more variations among that specific species.
Bacteria is a great example......countless types of bacteria exist and no observed evidence of it ever becoming multicellular (which is good, because we need bacteria to live inside us and stay single-celled). Bacteria maintains the ecosystem
Hybridization (which occurs in many plants, insects, and in some animals, like the Liger for example) is not evolution either
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE "As populations increase their gene pools increase, " That's the whole point. For new beneficial alleles to predominate then a small population is necessary. As that original population grows there is no reason for that allele frequency to diminish.
There would be no benefit to bacteria becoming multicellular when they can mutate & adapt so damned well. Again totally irrelevant.
Hybridization is indeed not evolution. Well done and a star for you.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater Single cell bacteria do not turn into multicell bacteria, and become more complex organisms, stop using moronic dawkins chemistry that has never been observed!!
5tonyvvvv 5 months ago
@5tonyvvvv "Single cell bacteria do not turn into multicell bacteria, " Correct. because they mutate so prolifically, there would be no evolutionary adavntage to become multicellular in fact it might even be deleterious. Ykur getting there..
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE Actually Microevolution is a term used more by creotards than by scientists.
So if recombination is not the resaon for change in size then tell me what is.
"Of course organisms which arent equipped to compete for survival will die. "
Possibly, of all the guff you have posted to me, the only thing approaching any verification with fact. Well done. But of course they die if their allele frequency supplies a massive survival disadvantage, just other alleles give an advantage.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater
There has never been evidence of a living organism magically gaining information from its environment and then somehow miraculously passing that info to its offspring (therefore, there is no evolution at all, no micro or macro)
Examples.....how does human skin help us? In ancient times man froze to death numerous times (some still do today)
Facial eye characteristics of Asian humans --> no evolutionary benefit
Only natural selection is correct, and that's not true evolution.
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE I think you will find gene duplication is well documented by real scientists. There is absolutely NO reason why "extra" information cannot be passed to offspring.
"how does human skin help us? " Coupled witn sweat it provides a natural temperature control whereas fur would cause overheating. Guess what, in cold conditions we invented something called clothes (maybe you are a nudist). Skin pigment, plenty of benefit. Who says there should be a benefit to Asian eyes? Irrelevent
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater Abiogenesis is absurd and IMPOSSIBLE!!
5tonyvvvv 5 months ago
@5tonyvvvv "Abiogenesis is absurd and IMPOSSIBLE!! " do you think that such a slogan gives your word view any credibility? It's hardly a killer argument is it.
I'm afraid that since my earlier comment on the fossil sequence is still relevant and hence still supports evolution while destoying that old bronze age myth of yours.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater Learn Hydrolysis and Homochirality! Abiogenesis is IMPOSSIBLE!!! Its laughable! There is ZERO repeatable, observable chemistry for it!! Only failed experiments!!! molecules can't self assemble!
5tonyvvvv 5 months ago
@5tonyvvvv I couldn't give a flying fig about abiogenesis. What floats my boat is the topic of Evolution which is all about speciation. It's just like when i go to see a concerrt. As long as i enjoy the music i don't give a stuff how the orchestra got there. Surely you can get it now. Btw creation can't be true as it is described twice and is contradictory. According to your "logic" this invalidates the whole of the rest of the Bible (which is pretty easy anyway).
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater What is Micro and Macro-Evolution?
thedirtybubble2 5 months ago
Comment removed
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@thedirtybubble2 These are terms used by creotards to avoid the embarrassment of the hole they dug themselves into by having invented the concept of "kind" as an apology for the impossible logistics of the Ark myth.
In reality macroevolution is merely microevolution over a longer period & probably no longer used in evolutionary circles. Basically it's all evolution.
When i use the terms i use as common ground when responding to creationists.
I hope that answers your question.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater so how would evolution work? cuz i dont realy understand how something can change into something completly different
thedirtybubble2 5 months ago
@thedirtybubble2 "cuz i dont realy understand how something can change into something completly different"
Don't you? The answer is time. Definite but unperceivable changes accumulate. Tell you what this might help you. What day did you become an adult? You don't know, of course because every morning you look in the mirror you see absolutely no change from the morning before (hangovers excepted). Yet you will have photos of you as a baby, toddler, child, teen, adult. So it is with evolution.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@thedirtybubble2 "cuz i dont realy understand how something can change into something completly different"
Don't you? The answer is time. Definite but unperceivable changes accumulate. Tell you what this might help you. What day did you become an adult? You don't know, of course because every morning you look in the mirror you see absolutely no change from the morning before (hangovers excepted). Yet you will have photos of you as a baby, toddler, child, teen, adult. So it is with evolution.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater Hydrolysis and Homochirality would prevent life from ever starting!! The soupists seem to think that proteins self-assembled from a mixture of amino acids in the primordial soup. If true, how do you explain the fact that the earliest proteins only formed from L-amino acids? The soupists try to get around this by supposing that there was natural enrichment for L-amino acids over D-amino acids in the soup. Either way Racemic Mixtures NEVER WORK!!!
5tonyvvvv 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins. All amino acids in proteins are 'LEFT-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'RIGHT-handed'. Chirality!
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!. Which life can't use!! Its what we see in nature and in labs!
Life never came about by time chance natural processes! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 5 months ago
@5tonyvvvv "Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins." Not a disaster just an unknown but that is a million miles from the point because what happened AFTER abiogenesis is what's relevant here. The evidence for evolution as OBSERVED via the fossil sequence is what is relevant for this video. Just because i haven't got a clue as to when you purchased your computer & what make/model it is doesn't disprove that you wrote your two comments. Abi and Evo are seperate topics.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@pilgrimpater HAHAHAAH!! Evolution has never been OBSERVED EVER!! its a Faith!!! Fossil records show animals DIED!!! Variation exists, but never have we seen any evidence of any KIND of animal becoming something different or new! With new INFORMATION! IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 5 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Well it HAS been observed but that is just the icing on the cake. Fossil sequence = 1st spong before first jawless fish before first jawed fish before first amphibian before first reptile before first mammals and birds. That little OBSERVED sequence is what makes Evolution a fact and while abiogenesis is necessary for first life, evolution describes what happened after.
"but never have we seen any KIND of animal becoming something different" Good as that would disprove Evolution.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE 'Thats a term used by evolutionists to describe variations in size and color within a specie's population'
Gee except for the fact that we've seen over 1000 speciation events directly. The idea of 'change within kinds' is non-sense that creationists have to sell themselves to reject the only logical ramification of the accrual of continual change.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE No one said the environment caused the chain (except ignorant creationists apparently)
Genetics caused the change, the environment selected for it.
If you can't even understand the basics of mutation and selection why do you feel competent commenting at all?
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago