have you watched his other video? he didn't state that at all and even said the opposite of the clip here. clearly you stopped the clip at a point which was convenient for your case.
Its actually quite fascinating and a testament to the versatility of bacteria. "However, these mutations do not account for the origin of the enzyme or transport protein specificity, merely their degeneration. Thus, this adaptive versatility has imposed limits as well, and this fits well within the types of mutational changes predicted by a creation model." by Kevin L. Anderson, PhD, and Georgia Purdom, PhD May 27, 2009
Right, i think you guys should stick to grasping Berlinski's arguments (because you don't remotely understand them).
Berlinski has never once argued that Evolution has been 'refuted" or that it definitely wasn't true.
Let's a see a man with a post doctorate in Molecular Biology a doctorate in Philosophy and a degree in Mathematics versus a Youtube nerd that can't even decipher what he is saying.
@periechontology How come I keep running into these high school kids trying to sound half way intelligent? Do they even realize this guy was working on finishing up his second PHD while these guys were still wetting their diapers?
If you guys really want to debate this guy so bad try meeting at least half the qualifications he has then stand in line. Oh but wait... by then you might be convinced of the truth anyway and doubt evolution just like he has.
Berlinski's logic: "You have a picture of someone as a baby, then as a 5 year old, then as a 10 year old then a teenager, then as a young adult, then at middle age, but the photo as a toddler is missing, therefore the child never grew up"
This idiot shouldn't be in any academic arena. I wouldn't trust him to sort my laundry!
@cctman "I can disprove your poor analogy in less than 10 secs." Ha ha!!...........No....You have actually made an argument, that human beings never grow from babies to adults , and made the point for me, that Berlinski's argument is poor!!
Or are you saying that you know for certain that the people in the photo are verifiably NOT the same person?
Bearing in mind that photos would be presented, that COULD be verified, in this case.
@Tobytrim No photo could be used as evidence of someone's existence. Any photo could be CG created or manipulated. So sorry that analogy of using photos as evidence doesn't stand.
Furthermore ... no fossil can be evidence of any evolution. You can't prove that fossil ever had children. That specimen may have been sterile or died before it had children.
@cctman "No photo could be used as evidence of someone's existence. Any photo could be CG created or manipulated"
Your resort to the ridiculous, is as childish as Berlinski's, and serves to demonstrate how bad HIS argument actually is!!
Fossils are far from the only evidence for evolution., They serve to demonstrate the morphological change that is possible through evolution. They are verified through the predictions they allow us to make and confirm.
@cctman" No photo could be used as evidence of someone's existence"
Nor do you understand the point of my analogy by the way!
I was refuting the fact that Berlinski doesn't understand how change over time is possible.. That I mentioned a photo is moot. - Or are you desputing that a baby actually becomes a toddler, a toddler a child, a child an adult etc?
I really didn't expect some moron to argue that every family photo, ever taken, could have been doctored or forged! - Lol
@cctman "You can't prove that fossil ever had children."
Ha ha!! - If you have to rely on the possibility EVERY fossil EVER found being sterile to make your argument, I'm afraid you've lost before you begin!!
Or are you saying that they weren't the product of procreation either?
Notwithstanding that, fossil study doesn't even rely on direct lineages anyway, as we know that life evolves through diversification, and the selection by environment of more viable branch of life .
@Tobytrim Good thing I didn't rely on EVERY fossil EVER found, I'm only dealing with the ones you could present to me as evidence which of course they can't be as I have explained.
@Tobytrim Oh please tell me about these viable sources for biological evolution. I would love for you to try and demonstrate independent verifiable evidence for macro-micro evolution. What you have historical evidence? LOL!
@cctman "I would love for you to try and demonstrate independent verifiable evidence for macro-micro evolution"
Let's then!
Evolution is evolution. Only people with a religious agenda think there's "a micro macro boundary", for which I have never heard a significant explanation of of where it is exactly.
Define what you are calling "macro" evolution, and why you think it is restricted from happening, once "micro evolution" occurs? I take it you are not denying evolution happens then?
@Tobytrim "for which I have never heard a significant explanation of of where it is exactly." What do you mean where it is?
Well since according to scripture the world is approximately 6,000 +- years there is not enough time nor is it scientifically possible for a concept of macro evolution to occur. So macro evolution are changes that would require input of new genetic DNA into an organisms genome. They would have to be passed traits not temporary that are later removed as in nylon bacteria.
@cctman "Well since according to scripture the world is approximately 6,000 +- years"
Ha ha!! - Are you SERIOUSLY contentending that the scientific evidence available supports a 6,000 year old universe, and not a 4.6 billion year old Earth, and a 13.7 year old universe?
Or do you really think that science has it so wrong, and sheep herding bronze age beduins had it right?
I need to know what kind of irrational and deluded type I'm dealing with here?- Lol!!
@cctman "They would have to be passed traits not temporary that are later removed as in nylon bacteria"
Hmm...This is confusing?? You seem to be refuting your own argument here? - Bacterium nylonaise IS an observable fact- Are you denying this? If you're not, then what you are claiming as necessary HAS to have happened, or it wasn't necessary?
Or are you claiming that "Nylonaise" is a product of latterday "special creation" by God" , in the 70-80 years since nylon has existed?
@cctman "So macro evolution are changes that would require input of new genetic DNA into an organisms genome."
There are quite a few ways through which nature can, and does, introduce new DNA within a given genome u and alter it's structure!.
The observed and repeated " duplication/frame shift", in nylonaise is an excellent example. Why are you not aware of these? - If this subject is of such interest to you?
You seem to be using your own ignorance to try to win an argument??!!
No, better than that!! Biological evidence which can be observed today!! But first I need to know your precise definition of "macro" evolution? I don't want you changing the goal-posts AFTER you have been schooled on this!
Do you consider speciation to be "Macro" evolution?
@Tobytrim See below... macro evolution is not speciation, not mutations and not natural selection. Those are all valid and observed concepts of science. Evolution is not. It can't be tested, demonstrated in a lab nor can it even be falsified.
@cctman "macro evolution is not speciation, not mutations and not natural selection. Those are all valid and observed concepts of science. Evolution is not"
Ha ha!! What do you think biological evolution is , if not all those things?? What ignorance!!! Define what "micro" evolution is? or "macro evolution" if it isn't speciation??
@cctman" Evolution is not. It can't be tested, demonstrated in a lab nor can it even be falsified."
Are you seriously suggesting that evolution has not been testably observed both in nature AND in the laboratory?
Bacterium nylonaise (which YOU already brought up!) has been observed in both for a start! As have various viruses which have evolved resistances to anti biotics, and various bacteria by deliberately controlled phylogeny. Higher forms have also been observed .
@Tobytrim "Are you seriously suggesting that evolution has not been testably observed both in nature AND in the laboratory?" Yes! I definitely am. As for the example of nylon eating bacteria, The temporary change eventually appears to destroy important subsystems such as the transport and reproductive system. I would also like to point out that Arthrobacter sp. K172. This bacterium employs three enzymes for nylon degradation, EI , EII, and EIII. Only detailed studies have been performed on EII.
@cctman "I'm only dealing with the ones you could present to me as evidence which of course they can't be as I have explained."
I've been having fun with you because I don't want to show you your stupidity in assuming evolution is a straight line!
Biological evolution is about divergence and adaptation. A fossil is SAMPLE of a divergence, indicating phylogenic change. A direct lineage isn't even necessary because verifiable predictions can be made from them.
@Tobytrim I'm not the one making an argument to this point you are. I'm just pointing out the obvious flaw in your claim. If your going to claim that a fossil dug up is part of a transitional form. All you can point out is that there are similarities between id and some other one dug up. You can not prove that they are related or part of the same lineage. Any fossil you dig up can not be proven to have produced any children. So all you have is a creative belief.
Nope! The pattern established by the fossils are a small part of the predicability which can be either falsified, or verified. No belief or speculation is necessary as the predictions made, from fossils already found, are verified from the fossils which are later found from the information gathered from each fossil.
For example, the fossil record for whales was sparse till the existing evidence allowed them to find the intermediates.
How can Berlinski go from "there are gaps in the fossil record" to "that refutes the theory of evolution"? This guy must be on a different plane of consciousness. Or, more than likely, he is out of his mind.
Did I wake up one day and realize that most people in the world are totally delusional?
For the truth about religion & top Bible scholarship try Robert M. Price, ' The reason driven life '. Also Dan Barker, Valerie Tarico, John W. Loftus, Victor J. Stenger. For humanity's shared moral core & belief in Matt 7v12 The Golden Rule try wisdomcommons. Also try comparative religion- read the 1500BCE papyrus of Ani & the Koran & Book of Mormon on skepticsannotatedbible. No one would give credence to such writings except for peer pressure & threats of death & hell. See. RichardDawkinsnet
@grfield1 No problem, you wont mind it then if i steal your money in your house, while your security camera records me. It won't completely capture my escape, because i have a device that can disable your camera for 5 seconds (sometimes a bit more, or less). Since you can't see my whole escape with your money, i guess i can have it, for you won't believe i did it :p there are gaps in the proof that i did it. And like david says, the 'why' doesn't matter, RIGHT? ^^
@devilzown11 The point Berlinksi is making refers to Darwin's claim that millions of transitional forms would be found. Over 2 centuries of fossil research show few dubious results. Your camera analogy is invalid. Evolution has no eye witnesses. Over many years I have heard your so-called experts admit and deny that transitions exist, and also that evoultion stands robustly even without any transitions or even any fossils at all for that matter
@grfield1 You can test evolution. Breeding dogs to have certain traits is a perfect example of it. Mais is too. Do you think mais has always been so fruitful? Ofc not, it was a plant providing tiny little seeds. We bred for it to have great results. Also, Darwin invented it, but never perfected it :-) It's a theory, and hence by defenition subject to chance and tweaking where needed. That's still better then a pseudo scientific explanation :p
@devilzown11 What u r describing is variation within a kind or even classical breeding which were well known for thousands of years before Charlie Darwin popularized natural selection. They respresent the limits of variation and not one kind turning into another kind. Evolution is the only game in town if you only accept a natural explanation. You have started with a bias. It is a fairytale that explains simple to comlex forms, that never happened. An utter impossibility.
@grfield1 I don't mind exploring ID, or turning it into a research programme. The problem is, there's hardly anything to research about it :-) irreducible complexity isn't irreducable... and well, once that is taken out of the equation, there's not much more going for ID.. I don't swear by evolution, if a better theory is proposed, but well, there really isn't atm. So bias has nothing to do with it. So far, evolution explains most of it.
@zytigon life was not restricted ot the garden there was lots of room to spread out and also Gd knew ahead of time that we would fall and sin and death would ensue. In Genesis there is given a synopsis of creation and then Chapter 2 goes on to give details. I thought that was common knoledge. I have no problem believing that God created the sun after the vegetation.
@grfield1 What gave light to the plants before the sun was formed ? The 'God' of the Bible is the imagination of primitive men. Yahweh is a primate & makes many cruel decisions because primitive men hadn't got too far in their thinking. To be fair,in many ways this is a cruel, hostile world so it isn't surprising that is reflected in their ideas. Your fears of hell have bent your thinking, time to have courage &. read Dawkins, ' The greatest show on earth ' & Talkorigins & Truth-saves
@zytigon The plants were created fully formed before the light was made. I've read Dawkins. Did u know that he is a zologist. His book is crap and full of opinions devoid of facts. Microbe to Microbiologist evolution is a complete fairy tale.
@grfield1 Where do you suggest the light came from? Was the face of Jesus shining down before the Sun was formed? There are a lot of ideas in ' The greatest show on earth ', it is surely a gross exaggeration to condemn them all? Peter Atkins is one of Britains leading professors of chemistry. He seems confident of the theory of evolution. As Robert M. Price said, ' Bible writers were doing the science of 700BCE & would probably turn in their grave that people today idolize their theories.
@zytigon Plants can live for a long time without light...the sun was made only hours later. Scientists supposedly have to come up with answers that are natural, no matter what evidence they come up with. Evolution is the only game in town. Check some stuff by Stephen Meyer and John Sanford. They are both scientists and they dont buy evolution for a second. TOE is a fairytale.
@grfield1 Why would 'God' want to make plants first ? It would be illogical. The order of Genesis ch 2 is different from ch1. In Gen2 v7 'God' created man first before any plants, Ch 1v11 has plants created on day 3 & man on day 6. The accounts are different because there were several creation myth stories going about & editors weren't sure which one to pick, so they put in two main ones even though they contradict. Don't you think it odd that 'God' considered animals as man's mate 2v20 ?Myths
@zytigon No it isn't illogical to make plants first, you have to start somewhere and God wanted the garden ready to place man in it. I dont see 2 different accounts in genesis. I see a synopsis and then a detailed account. Also the animals were Adam's friends, he knew and named all of them. It is obvious that they could never be more than friends. Adam needed a female version of himself and that's what God provided
@grfield1 Also read about Chromosome 2 (human) on wikipedia. All members of Hominidae except humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.
@zytigon I know all about Chromosome 2. It was debunked about 2 years ago becuase of newer technology. We were ablle to compare the chimpos and ours more closely than ever before. They are vastly different. EVO's now say that we are closer related to Orangutans than chimps now. Y r behind in your info. Regardless, even if our genetics were very similar with any other organism, it just points to a common designer
@grfield1 The Genesis Eden idea of no death wouldn't have worked because animals( humans) would quickly have become overcrowded. Life on earth is billions of years old. Geology shows the movement of the tectonic plates. The ANE people who wrote Genesis were guessing. Gen 1v14 Sun & moon were created after 1v11 vegetation? Gen 2 account different from ch1. Adam lived more than two days therefore a day can't be millions of years. Try reading Gary Greenberg, '101 myths of the Bible'
@grfield1 "Over 2 centuries of fossil research show few dubious results." There are thousands of well-documented, openly available, and independently verified results. "Evolution has no eye witnesses. " It does, as both micro- and macro-evolution have been observed numerous times. And again, well-documented, openly available, and independently verified. "Over many years I have heard your so-called experts admit and deny that transitions exist" Then I suggest you quit appealing to ...
... and do the research yourself. Once again- well documented, etc. "evoultion stands robustly even without any transitions or even any fossils at all for that matter" That because it does- the genetic evidence is incontrovertible, regardless of how you misrepresent the fossil record.
@Roj899 Um Igotta call bullshit on your response. If the answer was so easily attainable in any high school biology book you should have easily summarized it here. Better yet, can you name the Book ,chapter and page in biology text book that answers the specific question I asked?
Or do you think people will just believe that the answer is there some where even if you cant seem to articulate it yourself. That should call into question your own mental capability wouldnt it.
@Roj899 You forgot something "rejection of theory if enough contradictory evidence and numerous holes are found within it.. That is how science advances. Honest examination of theory and the guts to dismiss it as hogwash. It is the very back bone of science. Thats why we no longer believe the earth is flat or that the planet earth is the center of the universe.
@Roj899 And what rule of science is that claims only a mammalian fossil next to t-rex can disprove evolution?
Why cant a fossil of the horse shoe crab that pre dates even the t-rex suffice to falsify the theory? why not the fossil of a jelly fish?
both are still alive today and unchanged. Both pre-date the t-rex. Please explain the scientific principle you emply to claim that only mammalian fossils could falsify evolution theory.
@Roj899 What in the fossil theory proves evolution theory? the enormous gaps, the lack of ancestral fossils from the largest source of fossils the cambrian and precambrian? Last I checked, I can do actual experiments to show me the immediate effects of gravity, there are mathematical proofs for it that can be back tested. Nothing of the sort for evolution theory. Seems to me like you are the one with the problem understanding the difference between applied science and theoretical science
@Roj899 I do not mean to imply that a second or third theory (explanation, lol) is valid or credible only that there is no mandatory need to consider the matter closed. This way science remains open minded as it should be.
@Roj899 Agreed, And yeah I got the satire, I only objected because you were arguing against something that I was not proposing. I apologize as well. My final comment. I would say "the law of Gravity" is a fact, with at least two theories which may or may not explain how and why it exists or functions. Could we agree that "living organisms exist" is fact and that theories again merely try to explain how & why, granted some more popular, but in the end only theory, allowing wiggle room? THX
@Roj899 During our brief discussion you have "evolved" from a teacher who believes in Allah, to speaking gibberish about talking snakes, to now claiming to be a "scientist". I suspect your next beneficial mutation will make you an astronaut or perhaps a bike racer. I have no desire to convince you of anything, I simply remain a skeptic and have little need for further discussion.
@Roj899 wrote: "99% of suitably qualified people are in consensus." 99% of Catholics believe the Pope, 99% of prisoners believe they are innocent. Prior to Hubble, 99% of "qualified people" believed the Universe was infinite. Mass belief does not make something fact. A "scientist" should know that.
I remain a skeptic and only claimed different positions can exist, not "many competing theories", those are purely your words. Those like yourself feel the need to convince everyone to belief.
@Roj899 David Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematicss. He has also taught at such universities as Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Universite de Paris.
@Roj899 You seem unable to grasp the fact that I have defended Berlinslki's position as an agnostic who is completely unconvinced by the claim that science only supports a macro evolution position. You may want to expand your knowledge on these issues so that you can see there is far more than two simplistic positions. Until then your comments only betray your ignorance.
@Roj899 Go for it ! Your explanation will likely be more rational than evolution and my kids have enough critical thinking skills to be swayed by neither.
You sir are a bubbling buffoon. The gaps in the fossil record are so enormous that one can make the valid argument that they do not show any of the gradualist evolutionary developments that darwin argues for. It is the vastness of the gaps that invalidates the theory. To use your dumb bank robbery analogy, thats like being found with single 5 dollar bill from the heist and then being accused of robbing the bank!!! Get some acne cream and a razor, it wont make you smarter, but you wont look dumb
Berlinski is an arsehole! He is quite obviously being payed by one of the churches to spout this bullshit, noone sane would think we can discard evolution until we have a fossil of every species that has ever lived!
I don't think that is what he is saying. He is pressing the speaking on if the fossil record's showing of transition fossils, SUPPORTS darwinian theory. Which it doesn't, it have a handful of transitional fossils, like seriously, less than a dozen, and for an organism to go through a macro change, we need tens of *thousands*. In this case, the fossil record doesn't support darwinian theory as it doesn't show the preponderance we would expect.
You obviously miss Berlinski's point. Every position has an explanation, Berlinski simply makes mincemeat of the premise that the fossil record automatically supports evolution, it does not. Explanations to supplement the theory are required allowing for competing explanations which can also explain the evidence.
You'd do better to differentiate between yound earth creationism and the rest of creationism. They're not the same, not by a long shot. Since you don't know the difference, and I'm not a young earth creationist, your point is therefore a red herring.
False. I would agree that young earth creationism has pretty much been demolished. But that is not the only game in town, and claiming that ALL "biblical creationism" has been proven false is simply ludicrous.
You'd have to actually educate yourself on what Christians believe, because you're arguing against a VERY small group of theories which not many Christians adhere to. And since I certainly don't adhere to them, you need to come up with something else.
@XForceBowhunter... Coming from a mental pygmy such as yourself I somehow doubt that I will be loosing any sleep over that narky little whine. Toughen up - for as long as you try to argue about things you have no knowledge you will be laughed at - just like little davy is.
It's not a matter of being tough. I don't get off the internet and go cry because people with 40 IQs type idiocy on the internet. It just doesn't bother me. But I reiterate the fact that your posts paint you as someone not very bright.
According to the logic of Miss Piggy it would be enough to find two fossils, for example one of a crocodile and one of a horse, to prove that horses evolved from crocodiles....!!!??
Karl Popper explained how Darwin's theory in and of itself could not be proven because it is an imposes a story into biology and anatomy. Sure you might believe that the story makes sense for yourself, but to call it a proof goes beyond normal reason. I have been trying to receive an intelligent explanation of why people believe in evolution but they all presuppose it to be true because 'fossil records' and because 'its been proven'. I wish it was that easy.
The reason evolution was proven true was not just by fossils, but by dna, by geology, chemistry, modern medicine, etc. The bible was proven false in the same way, by science.
No and no. You can't prove a theory and especially a fabrication like evolution, unless we start seeing things evolve. The Bible cannot be disproven by science because it is not a theorem. The doctrine that the world is only 8000 years old is disproven because we have the science to date fossils and the number is much larger. Explain it to me. Stop quoting your high school text book.
Yes but evolution is a directly observable and provable fact in the present, and evolution that has occured in the past has is also proved by science. Creationism, i.e. "the invisible man did it!", is merely wishful thinking, and i use the word "thinking" very loosely. Don't you agree schoolchildren need to be protected from harmful unscientific mumbo jumbo such as creationism? I mean, you wouldnt bring psuedoscience into our schools, would you?
The creation story explains the condition of humanity. It is not a pseudoscience. Your belief that the Bible is a book of science is very juvenile and underdeveloped.
I think school children shouldn't be protected. I think they should learn different positions, however, this never happens. That is why I asked you to explain to me how it is proven. Saying fossil records is nice, but that is not a proof.
If you seriously want to learn about evolution, then ask me, and I'll be your teacher. Personally, I think schoolchildren deserve a quality education that doesnt involve bronze aged superstitious mumbo jumbo like creationism (aka "the invisible man did it!"). You wouldnt want to bring mumbo jumbo creationism into our classrooms, would you?
I'm asking you to explain. I can think of much worst superstition to teach in school. They don't teach creationism in school. They teach the creation story.
Asking me to explain evolution is like asking a doctor to explain medicine to you, or asking an engineer to explain engineering to you. Please be more specific. What specifically do you want to learn. See, this is the problem. Most people who doubt evolution dont even know enough about the theory to ask a specific question. They're all like "just explain it".
No its like asking a mechanic how to take a twin turbo V6 out of a Nissan 300ZX and putting in a 350 motor. I'm asking you to explain how its proven. If I can put a 350 into a Nissan 300zx then its proof that I can put one in. If evolution is proven, you ll be able to explain why and how it happened.
So let me get this straight, you havent even bothered to do your research and learn about the evolution proof yourself, and this is why you think someone can write you a short message teaching you an entire branch of biology, as if it's some short quick thing. Does that make any sense to you? How about this, you cite me the single biggest, most convincing piece of scientific evidence supporting the idea an invisible man made the universe.
You're very confident in what you believe but very reluctant to explain it. Science studies the physical, how are they going to support the metaphysical? Now if you're a materialist, then I won't argue with you. You're lost enough as it is.
We did, that is why we have religions. We have an inherent belief in God. There are also miracles, post death experiences. A materialist is like an ant on a book, he sees the ink but fails to acknowledge the pen and the penman writing it.
Flesh that analogy of the bank robbers out in specifics for applying it to the fossil record. I'm interested to see if that is a false analogy, or i'm needing more information on what exactly you meant.
I'm very skeptical of evolution (macro, common ancestry, full blown w/ chemical evolution and abiogenesis, the materialist's wet dream). What I am much more accepting of is adaptation. SELECTION ACTING ON ADAPTATION, which means that the creature's conscious intent as well as the cell's ability to control its internal environment beyond just patterns of molecules has much more power to explain than natural selection on random variation which sound to me like God did it, but from a materialist.
I can't believe that Berlinski is sincere in his arguments - he's a sort of chatroom troll ahead of his time, or something. He just enjoys firing off fallacies. He stays calm and arrogant and assholish because he doesn't really give a crap, it's a game of some sort to him. Maybe just a way to make easy money and travel.
So... we're supposed to just assume that the fossil record WILL provide evidence when currently it provides no or negligible evidence? Would it make sense that i argued FOR darwinian evolution by saying "there are no evidences in the fossil record that support my belief, but we know that it really does support my belief." It's like saying theres a spaghetti monster in the sky and you should believe in him because we havent found any evidence of him.
wow, all of you have distorted what "science" is; nobody saying the faults; you would expect evolutionists to say the faults in the evolution theory; but, they don't; no science here; ONLY BELIEFS IN MYSTERIOUS WORLDS
Exactly! If you rob a bank and spend part of the money, the police can't just go around and arrest the first person who happens to have the same amount or less, money than what was stolen. But that is exactly what evolution is doing. They are assuming without any filling in of the gaps... that it is somehow proof of evolution.
@strattgatt The fossil record is just one piece of the puzzle. There are many more pieces that all point to the same thing.
Using the bank robber analogy: the stolen money is not the only evidence used to convict the robbers. If there is DNA evidence, surveillance videos, and witness testimonies, even if the money is not all there, they can still convict. At the same time, they CANNOT convict the innocent person who happens to have the same amount of money using the other evidence.
@sleazybtd They only point to what you point them at. You have a very strong faith. It is unfortunate that you would waste it on something so pointless. ta ta.
@strattgatt So if a person has fresh gunshot residue on his hands, has the victim's blood splatter on his clothes, and has a gun in his bag whose ballistic fingerprints match the bullet found in the victim. I can make all that evidence point to someone else?
The evidence for evolution by themselves can probably be explained by different things, but when taken all together, the only theory which fits ALL the evidence is evolution. If you come up with another theory that fits, you'll be famous.
@strattgatt Reasonable ideas are great, but the part where creationists always fail is the part where they have to present their evidence and defend it. If your reasonable idea falls apart under scrutiny, then your idea was not reasonable and you have to be honest enough to accept this.
The theory of evolution has withstood over 150 years of scientific scrutiny, and in the past few decades, has even withstood legal scrutiny. Since Darwin presented his idea, all the new evidence found has supported it and even strengthened it. So what does it say about people who still don't accept evolution?
@sleazybtd It says nothing. All believers in all religions will tell you the same thing. And even under the scrutiny of other people their convictions remain strong. Opposition only strengthens their belief. Evolution is a religion.
@strattgatt If you say that evolution is a religion, then it's obvious that you don't understand evolution or even science in general.
Evolution doesn't rely on faith. It relies on evidence. Every challenge ever brought by creationists has been answered. The only problem is that creationists never listen or don't understand the answer. Instead of asking questions about the answers, they just ignore the answer.. Creationists have been asking the same questions over and over for over a century.
@strattgatt Would you care to point out which part is not true?
Have you ever heard this question before? "If man evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?" Why do creationists keep asking this question as if they're the first one to ever ask it? Why don't they do just a little bit of research?
@sleazybtd Why should i point them out? Read David Berlinski's book. He points them out better than i can. I am not very good at undoing brainwashing.
@strattgatt You're the one who made the claim that my previous post "doesn't have a shred of truth to it", so why are you refusing to point out which part is false? You accuse me of telling a lie, then refuse to back it up? Sounds dishonest.
I've never read Berlinski's books, but I've watched the videos of him. Almost all his arguments are logical fallacies and distortions. There are many videos on Youtube refuting his claims and points out how he's lying.
@strattgatt "They do research but, much like my posts, which have disappeared because they disagreed with the religion of evolution, the research is covered up and hidden away because the truth is offensive. Not that you can not find it, you simply don't want to find it."
For some reason, this reply isn't showing up.
Anyway, why don't you post one of these "offensive hidden truths" so that I can't deny what's in front of my face. Of course you'll refuse because you don't have any such truths.
@strattgatt I agree with sleazybtd, but I feel the need to add to this, as I see this "evolution is a religion" idea floating around far too much.
Do you consider the theory of gravity to be a religion? No, thats absurd. Do you consider any other theory to be a religion? No, that too, is absurd. Evolution is simply the explanation for how we evolved once life began to arise on our planet. To say it is religion is a profound failure to grasp what science is.
@strattgatt "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny"
Really? It only take 2 seconds to find the definition of religion. Look Evolution happened and is still happening, thats it, no religion, no mumbo jumbo. It's just the process of how life arises on planets as we can see it.
Although I am interested on how you could possibly rationalize your claim. Ha.
@MRfullon Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
I guess when you willingly belong to a religion, it is more easy to see what a religion is.
And evolution does not fall under the definition that you yourself put forwards. Evolution says nothing about the "purpose" of the universe. Purpose, in that context, is something prescriptive. Evolution, like all forms of natural science, is only descriptive.
And that's ignoring the obvious fact that evolution has nothing to do with the origin's of the universe. That's the big bang theory, dude.
@strattgatt What don't you understand here, even by the definition you gave evolution does not fit. Break it down, it does not contain moral code, govern human affairs, claim the purpose of humans and it's not a set of beliefs! I'm only going to say this one more time. It SIMPLY is the process of how we developed from microscopic organisms, to what we are today. THAT IS IT! Is the process of your t.v. being made a religion? NO!
@Tripockets well, that's an ignorant bullshit statement. hitler was a christian and he killed millions.
the reason we don't listen to you is because you don't make any sense, not because we think we know everything, which we don't, but i don't expect you to understand that.
@Tripockets it is possible to believe in evolution and believe in god.
of course, evolution has loads of evidence to back it up, while god's existence (which by the way is your job, as the believer, to prove) has little to nothing.
@doaftheloaf Its the other way around: You have the world in which you exist. Those who believe explain existence of the world as the act of God. Now it is your turn, as an atheist to explaint existence of the world , of the Cosmos.
"Those who believe explain existence of the world as the act of God. " - sure, they explain it that way, but when it comes to things like evidence and proof they come up empty. they can't even show that there is a god to act.
we know the universe began with the big bang - all the evidence suggests it. what caused that, we don't know, but you're arguing from ignorance when you suggest it must be a deity.
@VladislavGomulka and as the believer, it is your task to prove your god exists. it is not mine to prove he doesn't, any more than it is yours to prove zeus or allah or quetzalcoatl or the flying spaghetti monster or the tooth fairy exist (i assume you don't believe in these - if you do it is your task to prove them).
@doaftheloaf Your problem you cannot read. The world exist. I say it was created by God. Now it is your turn to tell me, who or what created the Cosmos. What is your answer? If you don't have one than you believe in miracles.
@VladislavGomulka you saying god created the world does not mean a god actually created the world. my not knowing the cause of the big bang does not mean it came about miraculously, or by a deity. that would be an argument from ignorance.
"i don't know how this happened, therefore it must have been a deity" is a shitty argument and any rational person knows it.
@doaftheloaf It is a very promitive way to run away from an elementary question. Yu say I am wrong saying God created the world, but now is your turn to tell who or what created the world. Stop running cowardly from my question instead of exercising in demagoguery.
@VladislavGomulka i'm not running from your question. i'm telling you directly that i don't know what caused the big bang. that doesn't mean it was created by a deity. therefore, i repeat, "i don't know how this happened, therefore it must have been a deity" is a shitty argument and any rational person knows it.
i'm not even saying you're necessarily wrong, but you don't have any credible evidence. why then should i believe you?
@doaftheloaf You remind me of a husband, who returns from a long absense and finds his wife pregnant. Even before her opening her mouth he says "Darling I see you a pregnant, but who cares?" How doyou suggest to discuss other issues before deciding on the fundamental ontological issue? Isn't what you are doing a Medieval obscurantism?
It's a mathematical fact that in a finite collection of discrete points there will always be a gap between two consecutive points.
This is of course obvious to anyone who's studied any math at all, much more when you've written a book on Calculus. The only conclusion this allows for is that Berlinsky knows what he is saying is ridiculous, and has some other motive for saying it.
@doaftheloaf berlinsky proved his point consistently and persuasive in his book:The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions. I enjoyed the book immensely.
What he actually proved is that he's a well-spoken, gigantic tool.
His book, when coupled with the ACTUAL assertions of science, and further aligned with the ample refutation of his claims, renders his potent diction as irrelevent as the charms of a Carnie.
Every time he confronts biologists in these platforms, he tries to cunningly bend them into admissions that they aren't, and wouldn't make. Just as he distorts in his books.
@Hzqi I think you might have competely different opinion if you read his book (did you???) not from political standpoint as it appears you did, but from the objective point of view of a person who is interested in truth, not who overpisses whom.
It makes a lot of sense. You sound like a creationist. "Just because we don't have the complete (insert imagination here) we can't use it as evidence for (insert philosophy here). We need to keep both evolutionism and creationism out of the classroom with there unscientific pretentions.
We came from monkeys that came from lizards that came from fish that came from single cells that came from rocks. How can you possibly reason with an imbecile that believes this? Might as well be speaking to a liberal (oh yeah; you mostly are).
Plus you have to somehow fit plants and insects into this, what a bunch of Psychotic,
So, apart from mischaracterizing what the science actually asserts, you consider it psychotic to see reason in concepts you don't have a working understanding of?
It helps to actually comprehend before you side with or spurn an idea.
The fact that you start with "came from monkeys" is an immediate telltale. You don't have a clue. Oh, and lizards are quite distinct in the nested hierarchy. We only share lineage way, way back in the fenestrae. Which are not lizards.
So if I understand correctly the whole point of your argument is that we may or may not find the transitional fossil forms, that "no one says we'll find any", to quote your own comment on the video. To me, sir, that sounds incredibly close to what one may call faith. You seem to believe in something that no one has ever found for certain, you simply have faith that it exists in coherence with the remaining parts of your theory on the origin of species.
So what does Berlinski want? Is he insinuating that because we don't have a fossil of every species and their intermediates, the whole thing fails? Even your most ignorant creationist knows that for an organism to be fossilized requires a special set of circumstances. At 0:24 he says his "his interest in divine creation is negligible". You have got to be joking. This is basically the driving force behind most people who won't accept evolution. Evolution undermines their whole belief structure.
@Tripockets Feel better now that you have called me a fool a few times? A little playground repartee and some frothing at the mouth does wonders when you have nothing of substance to say.
.
"you believe you hold ultimate truth or something or that you have discovered something and other people can't understand it because you are so very smart and have all the answers."
.
I agree that "this is not a conversation" - this is called 'projection' and it is pretty much all you do.
@Tripockets Great - so when I deny your specious accusation that atheism spawns violent tyrannical regimes, I prove your point. Then you throw a bunch of other stuff at the wall, including the suggestion that atheists "know it all" and "anything goes", hoping something sticks.
.
You are using the hydra method of debate - that is, for every point your opponent makes, reply with at least two new points, the less related to the thesis, the better. Have fun talking to yourself.
@Tripockets "they get paid by the rockefeller..."
.
Actually they don't but why let the truth spoil your story. They certainly don't sucker pensioners into donating their grocery money to build more televangelical TV studios to rob more pensioners with. The pastor's dog needs an air conditioned pooch-condo... Dig deep people, Jehovah is hurting this month. Come on, Granny, you don't need that heart medication! It's just keeping you from your eternal reward!
Feel free to go to this posting of the same video watch?v=UtMGXtJszbQ and let TJae1, who lurves to write in l33t and punctuates w~ith tild~es, know how vacuous and intellectually dishonest his hero and himself is/are.
"My interest in divine creation is negligible..." except that it pays the bills and it is the only thing you these days, feeding intellectual compost to the creation movement.
.
How can you tell when Berlinski is spouting bullshit? His mouth is moving.
The Abrahamic faiths fail as serious accounts of the natural world and our place in it. Eg. Moses passed on the ''staff of god'' to Aaron who used it to impress Pharao with various plagues and blights.
How much magic which defies the laws of chemistry and physics are they perpared to believe? How gullible are religious people? How much shit will they swallow before they finally puke it back up?
Why are they so incredibly determined to accept nonsense? Is it the herd mentality or fear of death?
What disproves god is that there is no physical evidence anywhere to be found for a god. There is plenty of evidence for nature. Nature surrounds us. We examine it, measure it, manipulate it and use it. Only in imagination does god exist and there are many of them in many cultures through time. The Abrahamic gods just have the biggest membership list....and they are all proveably not true. Adam, Eve, burning bushes and parting seas and staffs turning rivers to blood and dust into gnats is silly.
Seems to be the problem in the fossil record issue. Evolutionist insists that transitional records is expected to be rare. I agree, transitions from single cell to horse is unreasonable, but if these changes happen in small chunks and considering the amount of changes required from land to sea and visa versa, we should be up to our eyeballs in fossils considering they number of fossils already found. Even Darwin raised this problem.
We are up to our eyeballs in fossils of intermediate species. Creationists don't want to look at the evidence. There are many intermediate species and more being found all the time. They didn't all die conveniently in mud holes with labels on them so that pedants like Berlinski would be satisfied. Actually, DNA evidence of existing species proves our connection with every living thing. Consider how wolves 'evolved' into various dog breeds by selective breeding. If we can do it, why can't nature?
have you watched his other video? he didn't state that at all and even said the opposite of the clip here. clearly you stopped the clip at a point which was convenient for your case.
irhjma30000 2 weeks ago
Its actually quite fascinating and a testament to the versatility of bacteria. "However, these mutations do not account for the origin of the enzyme or transport protein specificity, merely their degeneration. Thus, this adaptive versatility has imposed limits as well, and this fits well within the types of mutational changes predicted by a creation model." by Kevin L. Anderson, PhD, and Georgia Purdom, PhD May 27, 2009
cctman 1 month ago
Right, i think you guys should stick to grasping Berlinski's arguments (because you don't remotely understand them).
Berlinski has never once argued that Evolution has been 'refuted" or that it definitely wasn't true.
Let's a see a man with a post doctorate in Molecular Biology a doctorate in Philosophy and a degree in Mathematics versus a Youtube nerd that can't even decipher what he is saying.
periechontology 3 months ago
@periechontology How come I keep running into these high school kids trying to sound half way intelligent? Do they even realize this guy was working on finishing up his second PHD while these guys were still wetting their diapers?
If you guys really want to debate this guy so bad try meeting at least half the qualifications he has then stand in line. Oh but wait... by then you might be convinced of the truth anyway and doubt evolution just like he has.
cctman 1 month ago
Berlinski's logic: "You have a picture of someone as a baby, then as a 5 year old, then as a 10 year old then a teenager, then as a young adult, then at middle age, but the photo as a toddler is missing, therefore the child never grew up"
This idiot shouldn't be in any academic arena. I wouldn't trust him to sort my laundry!
Tobytrim 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tobytrim
That's because you're a moron
periechontology 3 months ago
@Tobytrim I can disprove your poor analogy in less than 10 secs.
baby photo is CG 3d model #1
5 year old person 1 is in photo
10 year old person is actually person #2 's twin brother
middle age person is actually CG model #2
Enjoy!
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman "I can disprove your poor analogy in less than 10 secs." Ha ha!!...........No....You have actually made an argument, that human beings never grow from babies to adults , and made the point for me, that Berlinski's argument is poor!!
Or are you saying that you know for certain that the people in the photo are verifiably NOT the same person?
Bearing in mind that photos would be presented, that COULD be verified, in this case.
Tobytrim 1 month ago
@Tobytrim No photo could be used as evidence of someone's existence. Any photo could be CG created or manipulated. So sorry that analogy of using photos as evidence doesn't stand.
Furthermore ... no fossil can be evidence of any evolution. You can't prove that fossil ever had children. That specimen may have been sterile or died before it had children.
cctman 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cctman "No photo could be used as evidence of someone's existence. Any photo could be CG created or manipulated"
Your resort to the ridiculous, is as childish as Berlinski's, and serves to demonstrate how bad HIS argument actually is!!
Fossils are far from the only evidence for evolution., They serve to demonstrate the morphological change that is possible through evolution. They are verified through the predictions they allow us to make and confirm.
You characters are a joke!!
Tobytrim 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cctman" No photo could be used as evidence of someone's existence"
Nor do you understand the point of my analogy by the way!
I was refuting the fact that Berlinski doesn't understand how change over time is possible.. That I mentioned a photo is moot. - Or are you desputing that a baby actually becomes a toddler, a toddler a child, a child an adult etc?
I really didn't expect some moron to argue that every family photo, ever taken, could have been doctored or forged! - Lol
Tobytrim 1 month ago
@cctman "You can't prove that fossil ever had children."
Ha ha!! - If you have to rely on the possibility EVERY fossil EVER found being sterile to make your argument, I'm afraid you've lost before you begin!!
Or are you saying that they weren't the product of procreation either?
Notwithstanding that, fossil study doesn't even rely on direct lineages anyway, as we know that life evolves through diversification, and the selection by environment of more viable branch of life .
Tobytrim 1 month ago
@Tobytrim Good thing I didn't rely on EVERY fossil EVER found, I'm only dealing with the ones you could present to me as evidence which of course they can't be as I have explained.
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman "Good thing I didn't rely on EVERY fossil EVER found, I'm only dealing with the ones you could present to me"
Ha ha! - So just the fossils were found for some species which might have been sterile???!!! Do you know which ones they were???
And this negates the viability of biological evolution, in the face of all the other independently sourced verifying evidence???
Your reasoning is choice!! Lol!!
Tobytrim 1 month ago
@Tobytrim Oh please tell me about these viable sources for biological evolution. I would love for you to try and demonstrate independent verifiable evidence for macro-micro evolution. What you have historical evidence? LOL!
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman "I would love for you to try and demonstrate independent verifiable evidence for macro-micro evolution"
Let's then!
Evolution is evolution. Only people with a religious agenda think there's "a micro macro boundary", for which I have never heard a significant explanation of of where it is exactly.
Define what you are calling "macro" evolution, and why you think it is restricted from happening, once "micro evolution" occurs? I take it you are not denying evolution happens then?
Tobytrim 1 month ago
@Tobytrim "for which I have never heard a significant explanation of of where it is exactly." What do you mean where it is?
Well since according to scripture the world is approximately 6,000 +- years there is not enough time nor is it scientifically possible for a concept of macro evolution to occur. So macro evolution are changes that would require input of new genetic DNA into an organisms genome. They would have to be passed traits not temporary that are later removed as in nylon bacteria.
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman "Well since according to scripture the world is approximately 6,000 +- years"
Ha ha!! - Are you SERIOUSLY contentending that the scientific evidence available supports a 6,000 year old universe, and not a 4.6 billion year old Earth, and a 13.7 year old universe?
Or do you really think that science has it so wrong, and sheep herding bronze age beduins had it right?
I need to know what kind of irrational and deluded type I'm dealing with here?- Lol!!
Tobytrim 1 month ago
@cctman "They would have to be passed traits not temporary that are later removed as in nylon bacteria"
Hmm...This is confusing?? You seem to be refuting your own argument here? - Bacterium nylonaise IS an observable fact- Are you denying this? If you're not, then what you are claiming as necessary HAS to have happened, or it wasn't necessary?
Or are you claiming that "Nylonaise" is a product of latterday "special creation" by God" , in the 70-80 years since nylon has existed?
Tobytrim 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cctman "So macro evolution are changes that would require input of new genetic DNA into an organisms genome."
There are quite a few ways through which nature can, and does, introduce new DNA within a given genome u and alter it's structure!.
The observed and repeated " duplication/frame shift", in nylonaise is an excellent example. Why are you not aware of these? - If this subject is of such interest to you?
You seem to be using your own ignorance to try to win an argument??!!
Tobytrim 1 month ago
@cctman "What you have historical evidence? LOL!"
No, better than that!! Biological evidence which can be observed today!! But first I need to know your precise definition of "macro" evolution? I don't want you changing the goal-posts AFTER you have been schooled on this!
Do you consider speciation to be "Macro" evolution?
Tobytrim 1 month ago
@Tobytrim See below... macro evolution is not speciation, not mutations and not natural selection. Those are all valid and observed concepts of science. Evolution is not. It can't be tested, demonstrated in a lab nor can it even be falsified.
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman "macro evolution is not speciation, not mutations and not natural selection. Those are all valid and observed concepts of science. Evolution is not"
Ha ha!! What do you think biological evolution is , if not all those things?? What ignorance!!! Define what "micro" evolution is? or "macro evolution" if it isn't speciation??
Tobytrim 1 month ago
@cctman" Evolution is not. It can't be tested, demonstrated in a lab nor can it even be falsified."
Are you seriously suggesting that evolution has not been testably observed both in nature AND in the laboratory?
Bacterium nylonaise (which YOU already brought up!) has been observed in both for a start! As have various viruses which have evolved resistances to anti biotics, and various bacteria by deliberately controlled phylogeny. Higher forms have also been observed .
in nature.
Tobytrim 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tobytrim "Are you seriously suggesting that evolution has not been testably observed both in nature AND in the laboratory?" Yes! I definitely am. As for the example of nylon eating bacteria, The temporary change eventually appears to destroy important subsystems such as the transport and reproductive system. I would also like to point out that Arthrobacter sp. K172. This bacterium employs three enzymes for nylon degradation, EI , EII, and EIII. Only detailed studies have been performed on EII.
cctman 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cctman "I'm only dealing with the ones you could present to me as evidence which of course they can't be as I have explained."
I've been having fun with you because I don't want to show you your stupidity in assuming evolution is a straight line!
Biological evolution is about divergence and adaptation. A fossil is SAMPLE of a divergence, indicating phylogenic change. A direct lineage isn't even necessary because verifiable predictions can be made from them.
Tobytrim 1 month ago
Comment removed
cctman 1 month ago
@Tobytrim I'm not the one making an argument to this point you are. I'm just pointing out the obvious flaw in your claim. If your going to claim that a fossil dug up is part of a transitional form. All you can point out is that there are similarities between id and some other one dug up. You can not prove that they are related or part of the same lineage. Any fossil you dig up can not be proven to have produced any children. So all you have is a creative belief.
cctman 1 month ago
@cctman "So all you have is a creative belief"
Nope! The pattern established by the fossils are a small part of the predicability which can be either falsified, or verified. No belief or speculation is necessary as the predictions made, from fossils already found, are verified from the fossils which are later found from the information gathered from each fossil.
For example, the fossil record for whales was sparse till the existing evidence allowed them to find the intermediates.
Tobytrim 1 month ago
@Tobytrim There are so many assumptions in these statements I don't even know where to start correcting you...
cctman 1 month ago
How can Berlinski go from "there are gaps in the fossil record" to "that refutes the theory of evolution"? This guy must be on a different plane of consciousness. Or, more than likely, he is out of his mind.
Did I wake up one day and realize that most people in the world are totally delusional?
Emaniac69 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For the truth about religion & top Bible scholarship try Robert M. Price, ' The reason driven life '. Also Dan Barker, Valerie Tarico, John W. Loftus, Victor J. Stenger. For humanity's shared moral core & belief in Matt 7v12 The Golden Rule try wisdomcommons. Also try comparative religion- read the 1500BCE papyrus of Ani & the Koran & Book of Mormon on skepticsannotatedbible. No one would give credence to such writings except for peer pressure & threats of death & hell. See. RichardDawkinsnet
zytigon 4 months ago
agree with you here
gejost 4 months ago in playlist More videos from StutteringDave
Actually Berlinski is right, u can't use the gaps in the fossil record as evidence for evolution...a lack of evidence is not evidence
grfield1 7 months ago
@grfield1 No problem, you wont mind it then if i steal your money in your house, while your security camera records me. It won't completely capture my escape, because i have a device that can disable your camera for 5 seconds (sometimes a bit more, or less). Since you can't see my whole escape with your money, i guess i can have it, for you won't believe i did it :p there are gaps in the proof that i did it. And like david says, the 'why' doesn't matter, RIGHT? ^^
devilzown11 7 months ago
@devilzown11 The point Berlinksi is making refers to Darwin's claim that millions of transitional forms would be found. Over 2 centuries of fossil research show few dubious results. Your camera analogy is invalid. Evolution has no eye witnesses. Over many years I have heard your so-called experts admit and deny that transitions exist, and also that evoultion stands robustly even without any transitions or even any fossils at all for that matter
grfield1 7 months ago
@grfield1 You can test evolution. Breeding dogs to have certain traits is a perfect example of it. Mais is too. Do you think mais has always been so fruitful? Ofc not, it was a plant providing tiny little seeds. We bred for it to have great results. Also, Darwin invented it, but never perfected it :-) It's a theory, and hence by defenition subject to chance and tweaking where needed. That's still better then a pseudo scientific explanation :p
devilzown11 7 months ago
@devilzown11 What u r describing is variation within a kind or even classical breeding which were well known for thousands of years before Charlie Darwin popularized natural selection. They respresent the limits of variation and not one kind turning into another kind. Evolution is the only game in town if you only accept a natural explanation. You have started with a bias. It is a fairytale that explains simple to comlex forms, that never happened. An utter impossibility.
grfield1 7 months ago
@grfield1 I don't mind exploring ID, or turning it into a research programme. The problem is, there's hardly anything to research about it :-) irreducible complexity isn't irreducable... and well, once that is taken out of the equation, there's not much more going for ID.. I don't swear by evolution, if a better theory is proposed, but well, there really isn't atm. So bias has nothing to do with it. So far, evolution explains most of it.
devilzown11 7 months ago
Comment removed
zytigon 4 months ago
@zytigon life was not restricted ot the garden there was lots of room to spread out and also Gd knew ahead of time that we would fall and sin and death would ensue. In Genesis there is given a synopsis of creation and then Chapter 2 goes on to give details. I thought that was common knoledge. I have no problem believing that God created the sun after the vegetation.
grfield1 4 months ago
@grfield1 What gave light to the plants before the sun was formed ? The 'God' of the Bible is the imagination of primitive men. Yahweh is a primate & makes many cruel decisions because primitive men hadn't got too far in their thinking. To be fair,in many ways this is a cruel, hostile world so it isn't surprising that is reflected in their ideas. Your fears of hell have bent your thinking, time to have courage &. read Dawkins, ' The greatest show on earth ' & Talkorigins & Truth-saves
zytigon 4 months ago
@zytigon The plants were created fully formed before the light was made. I've read Dawkins. Did u know that he is a zologist. His book is crap and full of opinions devoid of facts. Microbe to Microbiologist evolution is a complete fairy tale.
grfield1 4 months ago
@grfield1 Where do you suggest the light came from? Was the face of Jesus shining down before the Sun was formed? There are a lot of ideas in ' The greatest show on earth ', it is surely a gross exaggeration to condemn them all? Peter Atkins is one of Britains leading professors of chemistry. He seems confident of the theory of evolution. As Robert M. Price said, ' Bible writers were doing the science of 700BCE & would probably turn in their grave that people today idolize their theories.
zytigon 4 months ago
@zytigon Plants can live for a long time without light...the sun was made only hours later. Scientists supposedly have to come up with answers that are natural, no matter what evidence they come up with. Evolution is the only game in town. Check some stuff by Stephen Meyer and John Sanford. They are both scientists and they dont buy evolution for a second. TOE is a fairytale.
grfield1 4 months ago
@grfield1 Why would 'God' want to make plants first ? It would be illogical. The order of Genesis ch 2 is different from ch1. In Gen2 v7 'God' created man first before any plants, Ch 1v11 has plants created on day 3 & man on day 6. The accounts are different because there were several creation myth stories going about & editors weren't sure which one to pick, so they put in two main ones even though they contradict. Don't you think it odd that 'God' considered animals as man's mate 2v20 ?Myths
zytigon 4 months ago
@zytigon No it isn't illogical to make plants first, you have to start somewhere and God wanted the garden ready to place man in it. I dont see 2 different accounts in genesis. I see a synopsis and then a detailed account. Also the animals were Adam's friends, he knew and named all of them. It is obvious that they could never be more than friends. Adam needed a female version of himself and that's what God provided
grfield1 4 months ago
@grfield1 Also read about Chromosome 2 (human) on wikipedia. All members of Hominidae except humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.
zytigon 4 months ago
@zytigon I know all about Chromosome 2. It was debunked about 2 years ago becuase of newer technology. We were ablle to compare the chimpos and ours more closely than ever before. They are vastly different. EVO's now say that we are closer related to Orangutans than chimps now. Y r behind in your info. Regardless, even if our genetics were very similar with any other organism, it just points to a common designer
grfield1 4 months ago
@grfield1 The Genesis Eden idea of no death wouldn't have worked because animals( humans) would quickly have become overcrowded. Life on earth is billions of years old. Geology shows the movement of the tectonic plates. The ANE people who wrote Genesis were guessing. Gen 1v14 Sun & moon were created after 1v11 vegetation? Gen 2 account different from ch1. Adam lived more than two days therefore a day can't be millions of years. Try reading Gary Greenberg, '101 myths of the Bible'
zytigon 4 months ago
Comment removed
zytigon 4 months ago
@grfield1 "Over 2 centuries of fossil research show few dubious results." There are thousands of well-documented, openly available, and independently verified results. "Evolution has no eye witnesses. " It does, as both micro- and macro-evolution have been observed numerous times. And again, well-documented, openly available, and independently verified. "Over many years I have heard your so-called experts admit and deny that transitions exist" Then I suggest you quit appealing to ...
LeonhardEuler1 4 months ago
... and do the research yourself. Once again- well documented, etc. "evoultion stands robustly even without any transitions or even any fossils at all for that matter" That because it does- the genetic evidence is incontrovertible, regardless of how you misrepresent the fossil record.
LeonhardEuler1 4 months ago
*appealing to authority. ;)
LeonhardEuler1 4 months ago
haha.. you're an idiot. Fix your hair.
chris7777777777777 8 months ago
@Roj899 Um Igotta call bullshit on your response. If the answer was so easily attainable in any high school biology book you should have easily summarized it here. Better yet, can you name the Book ,chapter and page in biology text book that answers the specific question I asked?
Or do you think people will just believe that the answer is there some where even if you cant seem to articulate it yourself. That should call into question your own mental capability wouldnt it.
karamarouge 8 months ago
@Roj899 You forgot something "rejection of theory if enough contradictory evidence and numerous holes are found within it.. That is how science advances. Honest examination of theory and the guts to dismiss it as hogwash. It is the very back bone of science. Thats why we no longer believe the earth is flat or that the planet earth is the center of the universe.
karamarouge 8 months ago
@Roj899 And what rule of science is that claims only a mammalian fossil next to t-rex can disprove evolution?
Why cant a fossil of the horse shoe crab that pre dates even the t-rex suffice to falsify the theory? why not the fossil of a jelly fish?
both are still alive today and unchanged. Both pre-date the t-rex. Please explain the scientific principle you emply to claim that only mammalian fossils could falsify evolution theory.
karamarouge 8 months ago
@Roj899 What in the fossil theory proves evolution theory? the enormous gaps, the lack of ancestral fossils from the largest source of fossils the cambrian and precambrian? Last I checked, I can do actual experiments to show me the immediate effects of gravity, there are mathematical proofs for it that can be back tested. Nothing of the sort for evolution theory. Seems to me like you are the one with the problem understanding the difference between applied science and theoretical science
karamarouge 8 months ago
Cool, All the best.
Galmozzi99 9 months ago
@Roj899 I do not mean to imply that a second or third theory (explanation, lol) is valid or credible only that there is no mandatory need to consider the matter closed. This way science remains open minded as it should be.
Galmozzi99 9 months ago
@Roj899 Agreed, And yeah I got the satire, I only objected because you were arguing against something that I was not proposing. I apologize as well. My final comment. I would say "the law of Gravity" is a fact, with at least two theories which may or may not explain how and why it exists or functions. Could we agree that "living organisms exist" is fact and that theories again merely try to explain how & why, granted some more popular, but in the end only theory, allowing wiggle room? THX
Galmozzi99 9 months ago
@Roj899 During our brief discussion you have "evolved" from a teacher who believes in Allah, to speaking gibberish about talking snakes, to now claiming to be a "scientist". I suspect your next beneficial mutation will make you an astronaut or perhaps a bike racer. I have no desire to convince you of anything, I simply remain a skeptic and have little need for further discussion.
Galmozzi99 9 months ago
@Roj899 wrote: "99% of suitably qualified people are in consensus." 99% of Catholics believe the Pope, 99% of prisoners believe they are innocent. Prior to Hubble, 99% of "qualified people" believed the Universe was infinite. Mass belief does not make something fact. A "scientist" should know that.
I remain a skeptic and only claimed different positions can exist, not "many competing theories", those are purely your words. Those like yourself feel the need to convince everyone to belief.
Galmozzi99 9 months ago
@Roj899 David Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematicss. He has also taught at such universities as Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Universite de Paris.
Berlinski's credentials are real, yours unlikely.
Galmozzi99 9 months ago
@Roj899 You seem unable to grasp the fact that I have defended Berlinslki's position as an agnostic who is completely unconvinced by the claim that science only supports a macro evolution position. You may want to expand your knowledge on these issues so that you can see there is far more than two simplistic positions. Until then your comments only betray your ignorance.
Galmozzi99 9 months ago
@Roj899 Go for it ! Your explanation will likely be more rational than evolution and my kids have enough critical thinking skills to be swayed by neither.
Galmozzi99 9 months ago
You sir are a bubbling buffoon. The gaps in the fossil record are so enormous that one can make the valid argument that they do not show any of the gradualist evolutionary developments that darwin argues for. It is the vastness of the gaps that invalidates the theory. To use your dumb bank robbery analogy, thats like being found with single 5 dollar bill from the heist and then being accused of robbing the bank!!! Get some acne cream and a razor, it wont make you smarter, but you wont look dumb
karamarouge 9 months ago
Berlinski is an arsehole! He is quite obviously being payed by one of the churches to spout this bullshit, noone sane would think we can discard evolution until we have a fossil of every species that has ever lived!
greeny202a 9 months ago
I don't think that is what he is saying. He is pressing the speaking on if the fossil record's showing of transition fossils, SUPPORTS darwinian theory. Which it doesn't, it have a handful of transitional fossils, like seriously, less than a dozen, and for an organism to go through a macro change, we need tens of *thousands*. In this case, the fossil record doesn't support darwinian theory as it doesn't show the preponderance we would expect.
DigitalDecadence 9 months ago
You obviously miss Berlinski's point. Every position has an explanation, Berlinski simply makes mincemeat of the premise that the fossil record automatically supports evolution, it does not. Explanations to supplement the theory are required allowing for competing explanations which can also explain the evidence.
Galmozzi99 10 months ago
Yeah, people call Berlinski's criticism "crap" because they don't have a scientific answer to it, video poster included.
It's human nature to insult people who raise legitimate criticism. His argument is not self defeating.
You claim the fossils are "too rare". They shouldn't be, and that's the problem.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
But fossils totally destroy the idea of creationism.
robocong7420 11 months ago
@robocong7420
You'd do better to differentiate between yound earth creationism and the rest of creationism. They're not the same, not by a long shot. Since you don't know the difference, and I'm not a young earth creationist, your point is therefore a red herring.
XForceBowhunter 11 months ago
@XForceBowhunter
I was referring to biblical creationism, which has been proven false by science. But also proven false by basic logic and reasoning.
robocong7420 11 months ago
@robocong7420
False. I would agree that young earth creationism has pretty much been demolished. But that is not the only game in town, and claiming that ALL "biblical creationism" has been proven false is simply ludicrous.
You'd have to actually educate yourself on what Christians believe, because you're arguing against a VERY small group of theories which not many Christians adhere to. And since I certainly don't adhere to them, you need to come up with something else.
XForceBowhunter 11 months ago
@XForceBowhunter .... If your height is comparable to your IQ you will never have to pay full fair on the bus.
Fromanttodugong 10 months ago
@Fromanttodugong
That's typically the sort of response I see when people aren't intelligent enough to articulate their side of an argument.
XForceBowhunter 10 months ago
@XForceBowhunter... Coming from a mental pygmy such as yourself I somehow doubt that I will be loosing any sleep over that narky little whine. Toughen up - for as long as you try to argue about things you have no knowledge you will be laughed at - just like little davy is.
Fromanttodugong 10 months ago
@Fromanttodugong
It's not a matter of being tough. I don't get off the internet and go cry because people with 40 IQs type idiocy on the internet. It just doesn't bother me. But I reiterate the fact that your posts paint you as someone not very bright.
XForceBowhunter 10 months ago
According to the logic of Miss Piggy it would be enough to find two fossils, for example one of a crocodile and one of a horse, to prove that horses evolved from crocodiles....!!!??
metaldario 1 year ago
@metaldario
no but even one transitional fossil destroys creationism, and scores have been discovered
robocong7420 11 months ago
It's the exact same that is said for ID. Just because it does not exist, dosen't means that it's not there.
Islandboyy02 1 year ago
Karl Popper explained how Darwin's theory in and of itself could not be proven because it is an imposes a story into biology and anatomy. Sure you might believe that the story makes sense for yourself, but to call it a proof goes beyond normal reason. I have been trying to receive an intelligent explanation of why people believe in evolution but they all presuppose it to be true because 'fossil records' and because 'its been proven'. I wish it was that easy.
grant1r 1 year ago
@grant1r
The reason evolution was proven true was not just by fossils, but by dna, by geology, chemistry, modern medicine, etc. The bible was proven false in the same way, by science.
robocong7420 11 months ago
@robocong7420
No and no. You can't prove a theory and especially a fabrication like evolution, unless we start seeing things evolve. The Bible cannot be disproven by science because it is not a theorem. The doctrine that the world is only 8000 years old is disproven because we have the science to date fossils and the number is much larger. Explain it to me. Stop quoting your high school text book.
grant1r 11 months ago
@grant1r
Yes but evolution is a directly observable and provable fact in the present, and evolution that has occured in the past has is also proved by science. Creationism, i.e. "the invisible man did it!", is merely wishful thinking, and i use the word "thinking" very loosely. Don't you agree schoolchildren need to be protected from harmful unscientific mumbo jumbo such as creationism? I mean, you wouldnt bring psuedoscience into our schools, would you?
robocong7420 11 months ago
@robocong7420
The creation story explains the condition of humanity. It is not a pseudoscience. Your belief that the Bible is a book of science is very juvenile and underdeveloped.
I think school children shouldn't be protected. I think they should learn different positions, however, this never happens. That is why I asked you to explain to me how it is proven. Saying fossil records is nice, but that is not a proof.
grant1r 11 months ago
@grant1r
If you seriously want to learn about evolution, then ask me, and I'll be your teacher. Personally, I think schoolchildren deserve a quality education that doesnt involve bronze aged superstitious mumbo jumbo like creationism (aka "the invisible man did it!"). You wouldnt want to bring mumbo jumbo creationism into our classrooms, would you?
robocong7420 11 months ago
@robocong7420
I'm asking you to explain. I can think of much worst superstition to teach in school. They don't teach creationism in school. They teach the creation story.
grant1r 11 months ago
@grant1r
Asking me to explain evolution is like asking a doctor to explain medicine to you, or asking an engineer to explain engineering to you. Please be more specific. What specifically do you want to learn. See, this is the problem. Most people who doubt evolution dont even know enough about the theory to ask a specific question. They're all like "just explain it".
robocong7420 11 months ago
@robocong7420
No its like asking a mechanic how to take a twin turbo V6 out of a Nissan 300ZX and putting in a 350 motor. I'm asking you to explain how its proven. If I can put a 350 into a Nissan 300zx then its proof that I can put one in. If evolution is proven, you ll be able to explain why and how it happened.
grant1r 11 months ago
@grant1r
So let me get this straight, you havent even bothered to do your research and learn about the evolution proof yourself, and this is why you think someone can write you a short message teaching you an entire branch of biology, as if it's some short quick thing. Does that make any sense to you? How about this, you cite me the single biggest, most convincing piece of scientific evidence supporting the idea an invisible man made the universe.
robocong7420 11 months ago
@robocong7420
You're very confident in what you believe but very reluctant to explain it. Science studies the physical, how are they going to support the metaphysical? Now if you're a materialist, then I won't argue with you. You're lost enough as it is.
grant1r 11 months ago
@grant1r
think of it this way, if there were any evidence that an invisible man made the universe, we'd have heard of it by by now.
robocong7420 11 months ago
@robocong7420
We did, that is why we have religions. We have an inherent belief in God. There are also miracles, post death experiences. A materialist is like an ant on a book, he sees the ink but fails to acknowledge the pen and the penman writing it.
grant1r 11 months ago
@grant1r
Oh come now - "post death experiences"??? I'm talking about scientific evidence that an invisible man made the universe. There isn't any.
robocong7420 11 months ago
Flesh that analogy of the bank robbers out in specifics for applying it to the fossil record. I'm interested to see if that is a false analogy, or i'm needing more information on what exactly you meant.
1tmoch 1 year ago
I'm very skeptical of evolution (macro, common ancestry, full blown w/ chemical evolution and abiogenesis, the materialist's wet dream). What I am much more accepting of is adaptation. SELECTION ACTING ON ADAPTATION, which means that the creature's conscious intent as well as the cell's ability to control its internal environment beyond just patterns of molecules has much more power to explain than natural selection on random variation which sound to me like God did it, but from a materialist.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
the author of this video is so much more educated than berlinski
jmasterdude89 1 year ago
I can't believe that Berlinski is sincere in his arguments - he's a sort of chatroom troll ahead of his time, or something. He just enjoys firing off fallacies. He stays calm and arrogant and assholish because he doesn't really give a crap, it's a game of some sort to him. Maybe just a way to make easy money and travel.
murfleblurg 1 year ago
@murfleblurg This^
MRfullon 1 year ago
So... we're supposed to just assume that the fossil record WILL provide evidence when currently it provides no or negligible evidence? Would it make sense that i argued FOR darwinian evolution by saying "there are no evidences in the fossil record that support my belief, but we know that it really does support my belief." It's like saying theres a spaghetti monster in the sky and you should believe in him because we havent found any evidence of him.
xxgg55 1 year ago
wow, all of you have distorted what "science" is; nobody saying the faults; you would expect evolutionists to say the faults in the evolution theory; but, they don't; no science here; ONLY BELIEFS IN MYSTERIOUS WORLDS
tumordick 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sleazybtd Alright, I have watched the first video that you told me to watch. So far, Berlinski 1 Bearded guy 0 but i will continue to watch.
strattgatt 1 year ago
Exactly! If you rob a bank and spend part of the money, the police can't just go around and arrest the first person who happens to have the same amount or less, money than what was stolen. But that is exactly what evolution is doing. They are assuming without any filling in of the gaps... that it is somehow proof of evolution.
strattgatt 1 year ago
@strattgatt The fossil record is just one piece of the puzzle. There are many more pieces that all point to the same thing.
Using the bank robber analogy: the stolen money is not the only evidence used to convict the robbers. If there is DNA evidence, surveillance videos, and witness testimonies, even if the money is not all there, they can still convict. At the same time, they CANNOT convict the innocent person who happens to have the same amount of money using the other evidence.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@sleazybtd They only point to what you point them at. You have a very strong faith. It is unfortunate that you would waste it on something so pointless. ta ta.
strattgatt 1 year ago
@strattgatt So if a person has fresh gunshot residue on his hands, has the victim's blood splatter on his clothes, and has a gun in his bag whose ballistic fingerprints match the bullet found in the victim. I can make all that evidence point to someone else?
The evidence for evolution by themselves can probably be explained by different things, but when taken all together, the only theory which fits ALL the evidence is evolution. If you come up with another theory that fits, you'll be famous.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@sleazybtd If it were not as hard to prove a reasonable idea to an Islamic, as it is to prove one to an evolutionist, i would be famous.
strattgatt 1 year ago
@strattgatt Reasonable ideas are great, but the part where creationists always fail is the part where they have to present their evidence and defend it. If your reasonable idea falls apart under scrutiny, then your idea was not reasonable and you have to be honest enough to accept this.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@sleazybtd Certainly. The same could be said for evolutionists or darwinists.
strattgatt 1 year ago
@strattgatt That principle applies to everyone.
The theory of evolution has withstood over 150 years of scientific scrutiny, and in the past few decades, has even withstood legal scrutiny. Since Darwin presented his idea, all the new evidence found has supported it and even strengthened it. So what does it say about people who still don't accept evolution?
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@sleazybtd It says nothing. All believers in all religions will tell you the same thing. And even under the scrutiny of other people their convictions remain strong. Opposition only strengthens their belief. Evolution is a religion.
strattgatt 1 year ago
@strattgatt If you say that evolution is a religion, then it's obvious that you don't understand evolution or even science in general.
Evolution doesn't rely on faith. It relies on evidence. Every challenge ever brought by creationists has been answered. The only problem is that creationists never listen or don't understand the answer. Instead of asking questions about the answers, they just ignore the answer.. Creationists have been asking the same questions over and over for over a century.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@sleazybtd That is the company line yes. Very Good. Unfortunately, it does not have a shred of truth to it.
strattgatt 1 year ago
@strattgatt Would you care to point out which part is not true?
Have you ever heard this question before? "If man evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?" Why do creationists keep asking this question as if they're the first one to ever ask it? Why don't they do just a little bit of research?
sleazybtd 1 year ago
Comment removed
strattgatt 1 year ago
@sleazybtd Why should i point them out? Read David Berlinski's book. He points them out better than i can. I am not very good at undoing brainwashing.
strattgatt 1 year ago
@strattgatt You're the one who made the claim that my previous post "doesn't have a shred of truth to it", so why are you refusing to point out which part is false? You accuse me of telling a lie, then refuse to back it up? Sounds dishonest.
I've never read Berlinski's books, but I've watched the videos of him. Almost all his arguments are logical fallacies and distortions. There are many videos on Youtube refuting his claims and points out how he's lying.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
@strattgatt "They do research but, much like my posts, which have disappeared because they disagreed with the religion of evolution, the research is covered up and hidden away because the truth is offensive. Not that you can not find it, you simply don't want to find it."
For some reason, this reply isn't showing up.
Anyway, why don't you post one of these "offensive hidden truths" so that I can't deny what's in front of my face. Of course you'll refuse because you don't have any such truths.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sleazybtd Alright, I have watched the first video that you told me to watch. So far, Berlinski 1 Bearded guy 0 but i will continue to watch.
strattgatt 1 year ago
@strattgatt I agree with sleazybtd, but I feel the need to add to this, as I see this "evolution is a religion" idea floating around far too much.
Do you consider the theory of gravity to be a religion? No, thats absurd. Do you consider any other theory to be a religion? No, that too, is absurd. Evolution is simply the explanation for how we evolved once life began to arise on our planet. To say it is religion is a profound failure to grasp what science is.
MRfullon 1 year ago
@MRfullon However, to say Evolution is not a religion, is a profound failure to grasp what a religion is.
strattgatt 1 year ago
@strattgatt "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny"
Really? It only take 2 seconds to find the definition of religion. Look Evolution happened and is still happening, thats it, no religion, no mumbo jumbo. It's just the process of how life arises on planets as we can see it.
Although I am interested on how you could possibly rationalize your claim. Ha.
MRfullon 1 year ago
@MRfullon Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
I guess when you willingly belong to a religion, it is more easy to see what a religion is.
I maintain that Evolution is a religion.
strattgatt 1 year ago
@strattgatt
And evolution does not fall under the definition that you yourself put forwards. Evolution says nothing about the "purpose" of the universe. Purpose, in that context, is something prescriptive. Evolution, like all forms of natural science, is only descriptive.
And that's ignoring the obvious fact that evolution has nothing to do with the origin's of the universe. That's the big bang theory, dude.
StutteringDave 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StutteringDave You are pathetic.
strattgatt 1 year ago
@strattgatt What don't you understand here, even by the definition you gave evolution does not fit. Break it down, it does not contain moral code, govern human affairs, claim the purpose of humans and it's not a set of beliefs! I'm only going to say this one more time. It SIMPLY is the process of how we developed from microscopic organisms, to what we are today. THAT IS IT! Is the process of your t.v. being made a religion? NO!
MRfullon 1 year ago
@MRfullon Ok. ok. Live in the dark.
strattgatt 1 year ago
@strattgatt Your delusional.
MRfullon 1 year ago
@MRfullon Nope.
strattgatt 1 year ago
@strattgatt Then your lying.
MRfullon 1 year ago
@Tripockets well, that's an ignorant bullshit statement. hitler was a christian and he killed millions.
the reason we don't listen to you is because you don't make any sense, not because we think we know everything, which we don't, but i don't expect you to understand that.
doaftheloaf 1 year ago
@Tripockets it is possible to believe in evolution and believe in god.
of course, evolution has loads of evidence to back it up, while god's existence (which by the way is your job, as the believer, to prove) has little to nothing.
doaftheloaf 1 year ago
@doaftheloaf Its the other way around: You have the world in which you exist. Those who believe explain existence of the world as the act of God. Now it is your turn, as an atheist to explaint existence of the world , of the Cosmos.
VladislavGomulka 1 year ago
@VladislavGomulka the world is not evidence that a god created it.
"Those who believe explain existence of the world as the act of God. " - sure, they explain it that way, but when it comes to things like evidence and proof they come up empty. they can't even show that there is a god to act.
we know the universe began with the big bang - all the evidence suggests it. what caused that, we don't know, but you're arguing from ignorance when you suggest it must be a deity.
doaftheloaf 1 year ago
@VladislavGomulka and as the believer, it is your task to prove your god exists. it is not mine to prove he doesn't, any more than it is yours to prove zeus or allah or quetzalcoatl or the flying spaghetti monster or the tooth fairy exist (i assume you don't believe in these - if you do it is your task to prove them).
doaftheloaf 1 year ago
@doaftheloaf Your problem you cannot read. The world exist. I say it was created by God. Now it is your turn to tell me, who or what created the Cosmos. What is your answer? If you don't have one than you believe in miracles.
VladislavGomulka 1 year ago
@VladislavGomulka you saying god created the world does not mean a god actually created the world. my not knowing the cause of the big bang does not mean it came about miraculously, or by a deity. that would be an argument from ignorance.
"i don't know how this happened, therefore it must have been a deity" is a shitty argument and any rational person knows it.
doaftheloaf 1 year ago
@doaftheloaf It is a very promitive way to run away from an elementary question. Yu say I am wrong saying God created the world, but now is your turn to tell who or what created the world. Stop running cowardly from my question instead of exercising in demagoguery.
VladislavGomulka 1 year ago
@VladislavGomulka i'm not running from your question. i'm telling you directly that i don't know what caused the big bang. that doesn't mean it was created by a deity. therefore, i repeat, "i don't know how this happened, therefore it must have been a deity" is a shitty argument and any rational person knows it.
i'm not even saying you're necessarily wrong, but you don't have any credible evidence. why then should i believe you?
doaftheloaf 1 year ago
@doaftheloaf You remind me of a husband, who returns from a long absense and finds his wife pregnant. Even before her opening her mouth he says "Darling I see you a pregnant, but who cares?" How doyou suggest to discuss other issues before deciding on the fundamental ontological issue? Isn't what you are doing a Medieval obscurantism?
VladislavGomulka 1 year ago
@VladislavGomulka i'm not sure where you're going with this.
the fundamental issue is whether god exists, is it not? well, i repeat, you don't have any credible evidence. why then should i believe you?
exactly what am i obscuring?
doaftheloaf 1 year ago
It's a mathematical fact that in a finite collection of discrete points there will always be a gap between two consecutive points.
This is of course obvious to anyone who's studied any math at all, much more when you've written a book on Calculus. The only conclusion this allows for is that Berlinsky knows what he is saying is ridiculous, and has some other motive for saying it.
Fuglebolle 1 year ago
Berlinsky is a genius.
VladislavGomulka 1 year ago
@VladislavGomulka he really ought to show it sometime, then.
doaftheloaf 1 year ago
@doaftheloaf berlinsky proved his point consistently and persuasive in his book:The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions. I enjoyed the book immensely.
VladislavGomulka 1 year ago
@VladislavGomulka
What he actually proved is that he's a well-spoken, gigantic tool.
His book, when coupled with the ACTUAL assertions of science, and further aligned with the ample refutation of his claims, renders his potent diction as irrelevent as the charms of a Carnie.
Every time he confronts biologists in these platforms, he tries to cunningly bend them into admissions that they aren't, and wouldn't make. Just as he distorts in his books.
Hzqi 1 year ago
@Hzqi I think you might have competely different opinion if you read his book (did you???) not from political standpoint as it appears you did, but from the objective point of view of a person who is interested in truth, not who overpisses whom.
VladislavGomulka 1 year ago
It makes a lot of sense. You sound like a creationist. "Just because we don't have the complete (insert imagination here) we can't use it as evidence for (insert philosophy here). We need to keep both evolutionism and creationism out of the classroom with there unscientific pretentions.
Docta305 1 year ago
Lunacy beyond comprehension:
We came from monkeys that came from lizards that came from fish that came from single cells that came from rocks. How can you possibly reason with an imbecile that believes this? Might as well be speaking to a liberal (oh yeah; you mostly are).
Plus you have to somehow fit plants and insects into this, what a bunch of Psychotic,
Delusional bull crap.
MARK1212WHY 1 year ago
@MARK1212WHY the lunacy is that this is your understanding of evolution.
doaftheloaf 1 year ago
@MARK1212WHY
So, apart from mischaracterizing what the science actually asserts, you consider it psychotic to see reason in concepts you don't have a working understanding of?
It helps to actually comprehend before you side with or spurn an idea.
The fact that you start with "came from monkeys" is an immediate telltale. You don't have a clue. Oh, and lizards are quite distinct in the nested hierarchy. We only share lineage way, way back in the fenestrae. Which are not lizards.
Hzqi 1 year ago
So if I understand correctly the whole point of your argument is that we may or may not find the transitional fossil forms, that "no one says we'll find any", to quote your own comment on the video. To me, sir, that sounds incredibly close to what one may call faith. You seem to believe in something that no one has ever found for certain, you simply have faith that it exists in coherence with the remaining parts of your theory on the origin of species.
skull1death 1 year ago
So what does Berlinski want? Is he insinuating that because we don't have a fossil of every species and their intermediates, the whole thing fails? Even your most ignorant creationist knows that for an organism to be fossilized requires a special set of circumstances. At 0:24 he says his "his interest in divine creation is negligible". You have got to be joking. This is basically the driving force behind most people who won't accept evolution. Evolution undermines their whole belief structure.
ptango101 1 year ago
@ptango101
"Is he insinuating that because we don't have a fossil of every species and their intermediates, the whole thing fails?"
Yes, he does. And yes, that makes him an idiot.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@Tripockets Feel better now that you have called me a fool a few times? A little playground repartee and some frothing at the mouth does wonders when you have nothing of substance to say.
.
"you believe you hold ultimate truth or something or that you have discovered something and other people can't understand it because you are so very smart and have all the answers."
.
I agree that "this is not a conversation" - this is called 'projection' and it is pretty much all you do.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Tripockets Project much?
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Tripockets Great - so when I deny your specious accusation that atheism spawns violent tyrannical regimes, I prove your point. Then you throw a bunch of other stuff at the wall, including the suggestion that atheists "know it all" and "anything goes", hoping something sticks.
.
You are using the hydra method of debate - that is, for every point your opponent makes, reply with at least two new points, the less related to the thesis, the better. Have fun talking to yourself.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Tripockets "they get paid by the rockefeller..."
.
Actually they don't but why let the truth spoil your story. They certainly don't sucker pensioners into donating their grocery money to build more televangelical TV studios to rob more pensioners with. The pastor's dog needs an air conditioned pooch-condo... Dig deep people, Jehovah is hurting this month. Come on, Granny, you don't need that heart medication! It's just keeping you from your eternal reward!
Noisegator 1 year ago
Feel free to go to this posting of the same video watch?v=UtMGXtJszbQ and let TJae1, who lurves to write in l33t and punctuates w~ith tild~es, know how vacuous and intellectually dishonest his hero and himself is/are.
Noisegator 1 year ago
"My interest in divine creation is negligible..." except that it pays the bills and it is the only thing you these days, feeding intellectual compost to the creation movement.
.
How can you tell when Berlinski is spouting bullshit? His mouth is moving.
Noisegator 1 year ago
The Abrahamic faiths fail as serious accounts of the natural world and our place in it. Eg. Moses passed on the ''staff of god'' to Aaron who used it to impress Pharao with various plagues and blights.
How much magic which defies the laws of chemistry and physics are they perpared to believe? How gullible are religious people? How much shit will they swallow before they finally puke it back up?
Why are they so incredibly determined to accept nonsense? Is it the herd mentality or fear of death?
exchangeisno 1 year ago
What disproves god is that there is no physical evidence anywhere to be found for a god. There is plenty of evidence for nature. Nature surrounds us. We examine it, measure it, manipulate it and use it. Only in imagination does god exist and there are many of them in many cultures through time. The Abrahamic gods just have the biggest membership list....and they are all proveably not true. Adam, Eve, burning bushes and parting seas and staffs turning rivers to blood and dust into gnats is silly.
exchangeisno 1 year ago
Seems to be the problem in the fossil record issue. Evolutionist insists that transitional records is expected to be rare. I agree, transitions from single cell to horse is unreasonable, but if these changes happen in small chunks and considering the amount of changes required from land to sea and visa versa, we should be up to our eyeballs in fossils considering they number of fossils already found. Even Darwin raised this problem.
zsifk 1 year ago
We are up to our eyeballs in fossils of intermediate species. Creationists don't want to look at the evidence. There are many intermediate species and more being found all the time. They didn't all die conveniently in mud holes with labels on them so that pedants like Berlinski would be satisfied. Actually, DNA evidence of existing species proves our connection with every living thing. Consider how wolves 'evolved' into various dog breeds by selective breeding. If we can do it, why can't nature?