Sarfati is a great mind and he really makes evolution look stupid. When he debates, his enemies tend to fall back to philosophical arguments - if they touch on science he shreds them. Evolution is quack science.
@alyosha24601 I think you have hit on something. hahahahahaa Evolution == a belief system backed only by faked evidence. Piltdown man, Java man, Nebraska man, Neanderthal man, Peking man, Archeopteryx, Archaeoraptor, Lucy, dinos turning into birds, Frankenstein experiments, failed germ and fly experiments, failed Abiogenesis experiments, monkeys turning into men, and the phony Phylogenetic Tree of Life. AND nothing creating everything. HAR HAR HAR
@MaximusArurealius Piltdowm Man was always controversial among scientists. Nebraska Man & Archeoraptor were never accepted by the scientific community in the first place. Java Man & Peking Man are 2 early examples of Homo erectus.
@MaximusArurealius By not providing evidence to the contrary and instead resorting to ad hominem attacks, you deny your opinions any merit. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Dr Sarfati started food for thought. I knew about "junk DNA" and damages as we humans continued on. What if ?? The return of Saviour Jesus Christ coincides not only with Biblical prophecy but also with the needs of our physical makeup. Perhaps our DNA and other areas of natural atrophy is reaching the point of necessary interception by our Lord and Creator. Of course evolutionists would argue we are getting better not worse, eventually to be gods....I suppose.
Science is not about having an explanation for something but about backing up what you say with repeatable experiments and observations.Since is not about fitting knowledge to a certain belief even if that belief happen to be the ultimate true. Science is all about what we can observe and explain by natural explanations. Science itself never tries to support any particular view of anything. Sarfati attempts to support his point of view with science but is that really science then?
Not that I recall, but I wouldn't be suprised if an aspie atheist like yourself who goes around worshiping science like a sophomoric twat thinks those that you engage with ran from you when in fact they have a life unlike you whom spends your time spamming from your mothers basement in the worship of science.
@WildCatsKitten1 Did you see how he can't prove Dawkins statement to be true, but continues to demand that I explain it to him? He knows that if he answers my question and attempts to prove Dawkins statement true he's fucked. He knows he's in trouble. HAR HAR HAR
@TheScienceFiction, you keep answering a question with a question. Now tell me how it's a true statement. OH you can't? I didn't think so. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
ThescientismClownDation tried to shift the subject after I pwned him on part 1, And then kept demanding that I point it out to him, that is the aspies tactic, Furthermore you will notice that if you come here after many hours and post then he will instantly reply, hahahahahahahahahaha, The silly kid playing scientist is only worthy of scorn.
@WildCatsKitten1 He's funny. He likes to answer questions with questions. That way he doesn't have to show his ass. HAR HAR HAR HAR He's all upset about Dawkins claim of "illusion" of design, but he can't prove it's an illusion. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
@WildCatsKitten1 "ThescientismClownDation tried to shift the subject after I pwned him on part 1" No doubt. He's a sneaky little pest. He argues a lot like MrMegaDouche. hahahahahahhaha
@evoTARDSareINSANE I see a lot of personal attacks and projection of your scientific illiteracy on your part but I dont' see you responding to anything I've actually said.
“Few are aware of the great number of mammal species found with dinosaurs. Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers; almost as many as the number of dinosaur species. These include nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons."
I suspect most phd's aren't bright unless they agree with you eh "thesciencefoundation". As someone who has been objective to both views and seen Sarfati in debate, he displays an astuteness in his scientific field who defends his position very well. Credit given where credit due. His new book looks liike a good read.
@Santifica It's not a matter of agreeing with me directly, it's the fact everything I bring to the table is backed by mountains of actual data. 'he displays an astuteness in his scientific field who defends his position very well'
As someone who's actually debated Sarfati, he can't even formulate a valid syllogism and he actually admits in his book that he's going to assume the bible is the 'unalloyed truth' no matter what. You can't be objective and think that's not biased.
Let me get this right: so it doesn't bother you the slightest that Sarfati start out with an outright lie in the start?
(Sarfati redefines what evolution is - see " evolution" at wikipedia for a definition - and then accuses all biologist for using this common agreed definition as "bait and switch" - in doing so he makes himself guilty of what he accuses others for! One shall NOT bear false witness is one of the ten commends but Sarfati seams feel free to ignore that one.)
@jomen112 look this is not right and you are not being fair (and I am not a Creationist).
"Sarfati redefines.." he did no such thing on many counts. Some of which are: it is not his definition at all, and it is the very definition used by Richard Dawkins in his latest book and that definition was NOT an invention of Dawkins either but rather a received definition. But that definition does get baited and switched or equivocated on.
@TheScienceFiction "He equivocates genetics to rust spots on a car" I claim YOU are not competent. You are basically a liar. Do you even know what the word "equivocate" means asshole? How can we take you seriously or competent when you don't know basic words.
@TheScienceFickshun, HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR afraid to answer aren't you? Continued answering with a question isn't doing you much good now is it? Now prove the statement is true or shut up.
@TheScienceFrickshun, you dummass. I don't need to demonstrate it. It's obvious to anyone who is honest. You don't want to admit what's wrong with it. That's why you wouldn't confirm it. You can't prove it to be true. Here it is again just for you to ponder "Blind laws of physics produce the illusion of design" Now tell, me do you agree with that statement?
@MaximusArurealius "@TheScienceFrickshun, you dummass. I don't need to demonstrate it. It's obvious to anyone who is honest"
The problem is that if you make a claim in a debate and do not demonstrate the correctness then there is no reason for the opponent to believe in the "obvious" truth of the claim. This is basic debate technique. You cannot assume it is the opponents burden to prove any claim you might make.
By the way it is well know that asking "yes/no"question is not really honest.
@jomen112 BACK to THIS "By the way it is well know that asking "yes/no"question is not really honest"
"Have you stopped kill people? Answer only with "Yes" or "No""
Dumbo, that is a loaded question employed by interrogators to put a subject on the spot. So you should have said, "Loaded questions are not really honest. There is nothing wrong with a yes/no question." Damn, you're not very smart and it's obvious that English is not your first language.
@jomen112 "Case closed" Damn you're stupid. It's about the question not the answer you dumshit. Loaded questions are merely a minor group of questions. It's only one type of yes/no questions dipshit.
@jomen112 "Do you concede with the thesis that evolution is changes over time?" NO, my dam car changes over time. My dog changes over time. My watch changes over time. SO NO that's not evolution, but it proves that you and other evolutionaries are exceptionally simple minded.
@MaximusArurealius "My watch changes over time. SO NO that's not evolution, but it proves that you and other evolutionaries are exceptionally simple minded."
I don't see what this has to do with anything at all. Evolution is *defined* as change of gene frequency in a population over time. Is your dog a population? Does clocks replicate? Is any of them gene frequency?
I was discussing bait and switch while referring to wikipedias definition with my statement so I dotn see what you try to add.
@jomen112 Here's the real definition. "And, the first living beings were bacteria, they stuck together, formed simple multi celled organisms (like portugese man of war does) and these becteria eventually evolved into fish. Fish went out of land and became a reptile. Most Reptiles were extinct, but some MAMMALS survived, these mammals bred and created a vast veriety of animals. Monkeys evolved into bi peds, which evolved into humans." Written by an evotard.
You are pretty entertaining do you know that? However that so called definition of evolution you claim it to be is pretty useless. The purpose of a definition is to clarify the meaning of something. What you quote above is story telling and has nothing to do with A) the definition of evolution and B) Sarfati's claim about bait and switch which my comment was about. Sarfati simply makes a lie and hopes none will call it.
@jomen112 Wrong dumbo, evolution is ALL about where man came from and that is it. It postulates that we all began as a one celled organism, which evolved into a fish, then a land creature and then a mammal, and then a monkey which became a man. This change over time crap is just a bullshit smoke screen to cover that 1 there is no evidence of such 2 denial of what evolution really is. If you don't understand that, you have failed to grasp reality that evolution is a denial of God.
@MaximusArurealius wrote "Wrong dumbo, evolution is ALL about [LONG RAMBLE ABOUT EVOLUTION CUT WAY]"
You are to believe and say whatever you like, however I still fail to see what this has to do with my OP or even what it is you try to say or argue about?
@MaximusArurealius wrote "you have failed to grasp reality that evolution is a denial of God."
Why do you think I failed to grasp this? The Christian theology perfectly denies itself and dont need the theory of evolution to do that. Creationists target evolution as a distraction from its own theology's internal logical failures. When the belief of a religion that is assumed to be held on faith and be The Truth needs external validation then something is utterly wrong with that belief.
@jomen112 "When the belief of a religion that is assumed to be held on faith... blah blah blah" jom, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
@MaximusArurealius wrote "This change over time crap is just a bullshit smoke screen to cover that 1 there is no evidence of such 2 denial of what evolution really is. "
I have not disputed these claims, however what puzzle me is the fact that you do agree with me that Sarfati in fact is refusing to accept the consensus definition established by evolutionary biologist and thereby, intentionally or not, you are supporting my point.
@MaximusArurealius wrote "You don't have a point. To have a point you have to know what you're talking about. YOU DON'T."
So if - as you claim - I do not have a point, what is it then you are debating with me? After all you started this discussion by making a comment on my claim that Sarfati is caught lying by claiming that evolution is not about decent with modification.
@MaximusArurealius wrote "It postulates that we all began as a one celled organism, which evolved into a fish, then a land creature and then a mammal, and then a monkey which became a man. " == an imprecise way to say that things change over time without explain how or what it is that changes.
"This change over time crap is just a bullshit smoke screen"
Still you you seams to agree that this is what evolution is all about. Which makes me wonder what and who you are trying to argue with?
@jomen112 Here's the definition. "And, the first living beings were bacteria, they stuck together, formed simple multi celled organisms (like portugese man of war does) and these becteria eventually evolved into fish. Fish went out of land and became a reptile. Most Reptiles were extinct, but some MAMMALS survived, these mammals bred and created a vast veriety of animals. Monkeys evolved into bi peds, which evolved into humans." Written by an evotard.
@jomen112 did you see anything in there about change of gene frequency in a population over time? No, evolution isn't about that. It's about proving that men evolved from monkeys. They have failed to prove a single damn thing so now they are down to "change over time." OH it's even worse than that, they are NOW saying that neutral change is change and get this, no change is change. They are really hurting. I haven't heard ONE evotard that could outdo Sarfati. He is tops.
You can not just make up a definition ex nil to win an argument but must use the common agreed on by made by biologist else you are intellectual dishonest. The definition I use is the common agreed. Don't believe me on my words but check wikipedia for yourself.
That said I have hard to see what all this has to do with my original claim that "Sarfati redefines what evolution is". But weather or not you understand it you just underline the fact that my claim is correct.
@jomen112 BTW I didn't make up that definition. An evotard did. I copied and saved for uneducated morons like you. But this whole thing about where man came from is why people call evolution a religion and a creation story for atheists.
I did not dispute the truth in your quoting it from an "evotard" and frankly where or who made the quote is completely irrelevant to me. The point I wanted to make is that you need to use a common agreed definition of evolution made by evolutionary biologist - since we now talk about evolution you can then not cherry pick a definition that suits your claim unless there is a consensus in doing so. In other words you do not have the freedom of making a first interpretation.
@jomen112 "you need to use a common agreed definition of evolution made by evolutionary biologist" No I don't. Biologists are not the ones who determine it anyway. There IS no set definition. Every biologist has a different one. I don't have to accept anyone's definition. The one I wrote is the real definition of evolution. YOU don't want to accept it? Tuff shit. BUT it is correct. Evolution is all about man's beginning and God and the atheist religion.
@MaximusArurealius wrote "The one I wrote is the real definition of evolution. YOU don't want to accept it? Tuff shit. BUT it is correct. "
That definition is a wordy way to say that "evolution is decent with modification", i.e. changes over time. The problem with such definition is that it is to general. It is not useful as a technical definition because it does not provide with a mechanism for how or what the changes are. It works for teaching kids in school but not professional biologist.
@jomen112 "That definition is a wordy way to say that "evolution is decent with modification", i.e. changes over time" WRONG, changes over time and descent with modification are two entirely different things. You don't even understand your own terms OR the English language. "too general" Sorry buddy, the truth is always simple. BTW changes over time is not technical. It describes nothing. "It works for teaching kids in school," i.e., brainwashing children. Thanks for admitting that.
@MaximusArurealius "@ScienceFiction, "descent with modification is change over time." HAR HAR HAR yeah and so is the time on my watch. hahahahahahaa"
Watches do not replicate but living things does. That is the meaning of the word "descent" in this definition. This is a fundamental principle of the theory of evolution. If you compare the digits of a watch with "descent with modification" then -and I apologize for having to say this- you only show that you do not understand what descent means.
@jomen112 You only show that you don't know what words mean. You're practically illiterate ya moron. Learn to spell and use proper grammar. Your last paragraph is incoherent.
@MaximusArurealius wrote "You only show that you don't know what words mean. You're practically illiterate ya moron. Learn to spell and use proper grammar. Your last paragraph is incoherent. "
I will now assume I am wrong, by asking you this question: what concept did you try to explain or refute with your analogy?
@MaximusArurealius wrote ""It works for teaching kids in school," i.e., brainwashing children. Thanks for admitting that"
I never claimed that. I said it is suitable for kids.If it is used for kids I do not know. The definition you use is not a usable definition as it does not defines the mechanism behind change. It simply states something happens but not how. That is why it is not a good one and hence not used by professional biologist. The definition I gave implies decent with modification.
@MaximusArurealius " "you need to use a common agreed definition of evolution made by evolutionary biologist" No I don't. " Yes you do. "Biologists are not the ones who determine it anyway." Yes they are. "There IS no set definition. " Yes it is. "Every biologist has a different one." No they don't. "The one I wrote is the real definition of evolution" No it isn't. "YOU don't want to accept it?" Correct. "Tuff shit. BUT it is correct" No it isn't.
By the way I have sufficient evidence to overturn the null-hypothesis "there exists no common ancestor" making the null-hypothesis virtual false, i.e a fact. I do not expect you or anyone else for that matter to prove the null-hypothesis but the point is I can show you are wrong. Because I got the proof - and I know how to deduce it based only on observational data, i.e. now living things AND I can prove this with no reference to the theory of evolution or a single fossils.
OH BULLSHIT "Common ancestor" is a myth invented when transitional forms were disproven by the fossil record and research such as the U of Oregon bird study that proved dinos didn't become birds. They immediately said birds and dinos have a common ancestor. It's an easy way out. They don't have to prove anything. They just say it. There is no proof of common ancestor. It's merely conjecture without any support. They had no other answer so they just said, "duh, must be a common ancestor duh."
Common ancestor is an observed fact. The observed fact is that all *living* things forms a nested hierarchy. The nested hierarchy is an observed property of a set based on unique characteristic - the opposite of similarities. Either it exist or it does not exist a nested hierarchy in set - and it does exist! Therefore it cannot be an "invented myth" by any means. Your claim is trivial false. This fact was known long before Darwin.
@MaximusArurealius wrote "They immediately said birds and dinos have a common ancestor. It's an easy way out. They don't have to prove anything. They just say it."
@MaximusArurealius wrotre "There is no proof of common ancestor. It's merely conjecture without any support."
Wrong! And I can prove you are wrong - with no reference to either fossil or the theory of evolution. To prove a common ancestor one need to show that the *set *of living things has the property of a nested hierarchy. However I should not have to prove this because this has been proven over hundred years ago. To be ignorant of this poof is not an evidence against a common ancestor.
@jomen112 Sorry dummass, You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. Did one of your teachers tell you this? Try to think for yourself for a change. There ARE no common ancestors.
Denying a fact does make the fact disappear. If you think this is not a fact AND to convince me and mostly every single living biologist that this is the case then you will need to show and present some evidence onto why this is not a fact. Just claiming an established scientific fact is not a fact is not good enough. When you done you are guaranteed to win the Nobel price in biology. Any biologist would kill to know what you know...
@jomen112 "Just claiming an established scientific fact is not a fact is not good enough" It's not an established scientific fact. Who told you it is? You believe everything they tell you. You are a weak willy. AND no they're not giving anyone a Nobel for proving evolution wrong. They already know it's wrong.
@MaximusArurealius ""Common ancestor" is a myth invented when transitional forms were disproven by the fossil record"
That is factual incorrect:
The first scientifically described dinosaur was Megalosaurus in 1824.
"In a series of essays written ca 1741-51, Maupertuis put forward, for the first time, a completely evolutionary explanation for the whole existing range of organism by differentiation from common ancestors."
-- The New Cambridge modern history, Volume 1, J. S. Bromley, page 62
I just pointed out for you that dinosaur was scientifically describe at least 75 years AFTER common ancestors was a concept. Your claims was that common ancestor was "invented" after studies of dinosaur. Your claim is so obvious false even a child can see this. However, I am not surprise you deny this as well just like you deny every other scientific facts.
@jomen, "I just pointed out for you that dinosaur was scientifically describe at least 75 years AFTER common ancestors was a concept." OH no shit! HAR HAR HAR You should have said, "made up the concept of common ancestor." Dinos have nothing to do with it.
@jomen "That is factual incorrect" NO, it is factually correct. Common ancestor is a myth. You can't even name one. Ya know what dummass. They made of lot of mistakes and got caught. They knew it would be easy to catch them if they gave a name to the "common ancestor" so they didn't give it a name. HAR HAR HAR HAR
@MaximusArurealius wrote "Did your mother give birth to a human and a monkey? And which one were you?"
Do you understand that due to the fact we can tell that human only gives birth to humans and monkey only gives birth to monkeys is part of the observable facts that we have a common ancestor? Ask what makes human unique compared to a monkey.The answer to that question both explains why human always will give birth to humans and never monkeys and why monkeys and humans share a common ancestor.
@jomen112 "Do you understand that due to the fact we can tell that human only gives birth to humans and monkey only gives birth to monkeys is part of the observable facts that we have a common ancestor?"
CONGRATULATIONS ASSHOLE you just made my forum's Stupid Quotes by Evolutionists thread.
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
You have NO idea how stupid that is do you? hahahahahahahahahhaa
Way to go idiot boy, now put your dunce hat on and get on the dunce stool.
Scientific truth are most often contradicting our intuition of what things ought to be.
If you consider what modification with decent means and combine that knowledge with unique characteristics then you will realize that if two things share unique combination of characteristics then they MUST share common ancestor. This is why we know every human baby is born by humans and this is why we know human descent from apes.
@jomen112 In case you didn't understand what you said, I will explain. The fact that a species can only give birth to its own is proof that there is no such thing as a common ancestor for monkeys and humans. Can you grasp that? Dam you evotards are stupid.
@MaximusArurealius wrote "The fact that a species can only give birth to its own is proof that there is no such thing as a common ancestor for monkeys and humans. "
That is incorrect. This is not about similarities! The observation that every living being gives birth to something that is not an identical twin to them self but still shares a combination of unique characteristics with there parents is what proves that any living being can only be produced by the same type of organisms.
@jomen112 "shares a combination of unique characteristics with there parents is what proves that any living being can only be produced by the same type of organisms" You keep contradicting yourself.
"That is incorrect. This is not about similarities! The observation that every living being gives birth to something that is not an identical twin... " HAR HAR HAR JammedIn, you're a dummass and haven't a clue as to what you're talking about.
@MaximusArurealius wrote "you're a dummass and haven't a clue as to what you're talking about."
That may very well be the case but that does not prove your are right about a common ancestor. The laws of evolutionary phylogeny does not permit something to change into something fundamental different. Evolution creates variety that cause new lineages. Everything that is born is a modification of its ancestor. This is observed in the taxonomy and that is why we know common decent is a fact.
As long you are making false statement about evolution I will spell common deskent in any way I like. Fair enough?
"is an assumption based on evolution"
No it is not. It is an fact because it has been observed and can be proven to be so. We observer this in the taxonomy. Do you agree that taxonomy has been correctly done? If you do then it follows directly from this that common ancestor is a fact weather you want it or not.
@MaximusArurealius Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi... These are just some ancestors that humans, chimps, and some other primates share.
@Santifica It's not a matter of just agreeing with me. I follow the data no matter what so typically yes, anyone who hasn't arrived at the same conclusion I have independent of my arriving at it probably isn't bright or possibly has an agenda. Sarfati seems to fall in the latter category. As someone who has actually debated Sarfati, he can't even from a cogent syllogism and he didn't know/wouldn't acknowledge that there were processes that naturally affect the handedness of amino acids.
@TheScienceFickshun "he can't even from a cogent syllogism" How can we be sure that 1. Is true, and you're not lying 2. Or that YOU are able to perform such a feat.
Richard Lewontin, a world leader in evolution says: ‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, ... in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism ... no matter how counter-intuitive ... for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." This basically explains it all. You take a lie over truth solely to remove God. Irresponsible ignorance.
@SelfPromoting No I said that even if the tomb being empty were an accurate statement it's meaningless. I never accepted it and never claimed I did, tacitly or otherwise.
I never said one was true, I said that even if it was true it's meaningless. It's like saying there are no noodles in my cabinet, therefore it arose as the flying spaghetti monster.
@SelfPromoting It's because it's a meaningless question, I never said the biblical account was correct, I said even if it were correct the most you could say is that we don't have a corpse.
@SelfPromoting I said at most there was an empty tomb. The claim that he rose in front of 500 people is part of the text that you're trying to demonstrate as accurate and reliable in the first place.
As an aside, note however that I have no problem with followers of any faith, so long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on others. I do respect the Christian emphasis on humility and forgiveness, but I've always tried to keep an open mind and look at all sides of the debate, which means rigorously analyzing all arguments.
It's really kinda sad to see all the name calling here, and and the highly emotional dialog, rather than some factual debating. And that goes for all sides of this arugument
@alexymo89 I agree, once it descends into trash talking everyone becomes hypocrites. As for what he gets wrong - he understates the impact of mutation on the change in phenotypes, and ignores evidence of observed increases in "genetic information," to use one of his major arguments. He also offers no reason for why he chooses to accept a Christian worldview over the myriad of other religions, and why it should be considered as more ordered when there are in fact more flaws and contradictions.
@kirklandfoodwrap Its interesting you should say that, Jonathan actually does address some of the observations to support increase in information in the book referenced in the video. Speifically Richard Lenski's e coli experiments, as I am sure you are familiar with. I will re-read this and get back to you about it, it's been a while since i've read it.
@alexymo89 He does not acknowledge the extensive amount of evidence pointing to the earth having existed for billions of years, and so uses that to justify his argument that mutations could not have led to the diversity we see today. I am curious as to what he says about Lenski's experiments though.
Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, and these gentleman are certainly no exception. Dr. Sarfati is evidently very intelligent, there is no disputing that; however, the fact of the matter is (despite having a background in science) he gets a lot of science wrong here...
@AndromedasCake No its not, i also have many friends in all fields of science that say everything he says is quite legit, and if you know so much, why dont you challenge him?, huh?.
As you obviously know sooooo much more then a guy with a double PH.d.
@85Aheadstix wrote "everything he [Sarfati] says is quite legit"
If you claim this then my conclusion must be that you have not check *all* Sarfati's claims by yourself. Please look up the definition of evolution and then compare it to how Sarfati defines it when he talks about how biologist "bait and switch" in the begging of the first part. If you after this still think that "everything" Sarfati says is legit, then I cannot help you understand...
@allan3141 wrote "even I am failing to recognise the point your are trying to make here. Could you elaborate?"
Sorry I seams to have missed your question here. Sarfati said something like 'if that is what evolution is then I would believe in it'. However Sarfati refuse to acknowledge the consensus definition of evolution and then conclude what he assumed. Based on this concept he then accuse Dawkin's for bait&switch while at the same time he makes himself guilty of doing the same thing.
@OnADeadMachine LMAO at you! Just because the man uses a crude analogy doesn't make him an idiot. This guys I.Q. is higher than you, and your nephews combined. Youtubers calling this man an idiot is like a person thats never been in a fight calling the heavyweight champ a wimp! LOL
Anyone who labels this man an idiot or pseudo-scientist is a complete idiot. I have no problem with a person disagreeing with Safarti's interpretation of the evidence, but when you resort to calling this man a "buffoon" and "tard" because his views contradict your own presuppositions it only proves your ignorance.
16 people think they are smarter than Dr. Sarfati. Thats hilarious to no end. Just look at the comments below. These weak, small, pathetic little boys, who couldnt get a woman without paying them, have the nerve to call a real life genius a "tard"! I love it! There is nothing more pathetic than a man so weak he buys into everything his professors tell him.
@FlameGurl06 He says 5 million years is not enough time for Chimps and Humans to diverge. We are only 1.4% different. Darwin didn't know about mutations and proved evolution.
''UPHILL MUTATIONS'' ??? What an IDiot. NOT a Scientist. Scientists don't use 'world views''
What a pile of piffle. Assertions, building on misinformation – but not a shred of evidence.
plumdrix 2 weeks ago
0:56 I do not hope people, who do not wash ], D huhaha... .
NEWSITYRAP 1 month ago
Sarfati is a great mind and he really makes evolution look stupid. When he debates, his enemies tend to fall back to philosophical arguments - if they touch on science he shreds them. Evolution is quack science.
alyosha24601 4 months ago
@alyosha24601 I think you have hit on something. hahahahahaa Evolution == a belief system backed only by faked evidence. Piltdown man, Java man, Nebraska man, Neanderthal man, Peking man, Archeopteryx, Archaeoraptor, Lucy, dinos turning into birds, Frankenstein experiments, failed germ and fly experiments, failed Abiogenesis experiments, monkeys turning into men, and the phony Phylogenetic Tree of Life. AND nothing creating everything. HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Piltdowm Man was always controversial among scientists. Nebraska Man & Archeoraptor were never accepted by the scientific community in the first place. Java Man & Peking Man are 2 early examples of Homo erectus.
prschuster 2 months ago
@MaximusArurealius By not providing evidence to the contrary and instead resorting to ad hominem attacks, you deny your opinions any merit. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
thewetflarp 4 months ago
Comment removed
MrHoolits 4 months ago
"Microphones aren't for listening they are for talking"
--MaximusAururealius
odinata 5 months ago
Dr Sarfati started food for thought. I knew about "junk DNA" and damages as we humans continued on. What if ?? The return of Saviour Jesus Christ coincides not only with Biblical prophecy but also with the needs of our physical makeup. Perhaps our DNA and other areas of natural atrophy is reaching the point of necessary interception by our Lord and Creator. Of course evolutionists would argue we are getting better not worse, eventually to be gods....I suppose.
tonysshadow 5 months ago
Awsome video, love hearing real Science.
coolvideo28 5 months ago
@coolvideo28
Science is not about having an explanation for something but about backing up what you say with repeatable experiments and observations.Since is not about fitting knowledge to a certain belief even if that belief happen to be the ultimate true. Science is all about what we can observe and explain by natural explanations. Science itself never tries to support any particular view of anything. Sarfati attempts to support his point of view with science but is that really science then?
jomen112 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius So have you yet managed to show how Dawkins was wrong yet in the quote you claim is a lie?
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceClowndation, did I say it was a lie? Please quote me. I see that quote is still making you grovel before me. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius /all_comments?v=dADUBcoEEHw
@TheScienceFoundation "Blind laws of physics produce the illusion of design" - Richard Dawkins
Do you really need further proof that Dawkins is a liar?
MaximusArurealius 2 months ago
So now you're a liar about calling Dawkins a liar
Have you yet managed to show that he's even wrong in that quote?
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
The Pseudo Science Foundation has numerous TROLL accounts.
I wouldnt be surprised if "GFunkMachine" (oh yes, the screen name of a true "intellectual" sarcasm) is TSF.
TSF has no concept of basic biology.
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE
TheScientismfoundation seems like a teenage atheist.
hahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Haven't we had a discussion to the point where you tucked tail and ran?
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
Comment removed
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@TheScientismFoundation
Not that I recall, but I wouldn't be suprised if an aspie atheist like yourself who goes around worshiping science like a sophomoric twat thinks those that you engage with ran from you when in fact they have a life unlike you whom spends your time spamming from your mothers basement in the worship of science.
Get a life knobhead
hahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Nice to see that you don't have anything but personal attacks on that channel either.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Did you see how he can't prove Dawkins statement to be true, but continues to demand that I explain it to him? He knows that if he answers my question and attempts to prove Dawkins statement true he's fucked. He knows he's in trouble. HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius How was Dawkins wrong in any way in the quote you claimed was a lie?
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFiction, you keep answering a question with a question. Now tell me how it's a true statement. OH you can't? I didn't think so. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius
ThescientismClownDation tried to shift the subject after I pwned him on part 1, And then kept demanding that I point it out to him, that is the aspies tactic, Furthermore you will notice that if you come here after many hours and post then he will instantly reply, hahahahahahahahahaha, The silly kid playing scientist is only worthy of scorn.
hahahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 He's funny. He likes to answer questions with questions. That way he doesn't have to show his ass. HAR HAR HAR HAR He's all upset about Dawkins claim of "illusion" of design, but he can't prove it's an illusion. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 I like that. "TheScienceClowndation" HAR HAR HAR That's goodl HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 "ThescientismClownDation tried to shift the subject after I pwned him on part 1" No doubt. He's a sneaky little pest. He argues a lot like MrMegaDouche. hahahahahahhaha
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Can you give a single example of anything I've been wrong about? Yes or no.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE I see a lot of personal attacks and projection of your scientific illiteracy on your part but I dont' see you responding to anything I've actually said.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
What a pile of nonsense.
arbide3 5 months ago
500 characters, however, seem to be more than enough to promote the use circumstantial Ad Hominems in these parts.
severianofurth 5 months ago
500 characters is simply not enough to debunk Sarfati. Let's be kind and say that he should stick to chess.
pilgrimpater 5 months ago
“Few are aware of the great number of mammal species found with dinosaurs. Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers; almost as many as the number of dinosaur species. These include nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons."
Markus77x7 6 months ago
@Markus77x7 Are you serious? If so, I'd really like to see this. Do you have any links? Thank you.
M3PanoS 6 months ago
@M3PanoS Of course. Creation.com/werner-living-fossils . Dr. Sarfati's site.
Markus77x7 6 months ago
@Markus77x7 thanks for the link buddy :)
M3PanoS 6 months ago
@Markus77x7 wrote " Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers"
What is it that is so extra ordinary with this that it need to be mentioned? Mammals been around for at least 125 million years.
jomen112 6 months ago
I suspect most phd's aren't bright unless they agree with you eh "thesciencefoundation". As someone who has been objective to both views and seen Sarfati in debate, he displays an astuteness in his scientific field who defends his position very well. Credit given where credit due. His new book looks liike a good read.
Santifica 7 months ago 2
@Santifica It's not a matter of agreeing with me directly, it's the fact everything I bring to the table is backed by mountains of actual data. 'he displays an astuteness in his scientific field who defends his position very well'
As someone who's actually debated Sarfati, he can't even formulate a valid syllogism and he actually admits in his book that he's going to assume the bible is the 'unalloyed truth' no matter what. You can't be objective and think that's not biased.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@Santifica
Let me get this right: so it doesn't bother you the slightest that Sarfati start out with an outright lie in the start?
(Sarfati redefines what evolution is - see " evolution" at wikipedia for a definition - and then accuses all biologist for using this common agreed definition as "bait and switch" - in doing so he makes himself guilty of what he accuses others for! One shall NOT bear false witness is one of the ten commends but Sarfati seams feel free to ignore that one.)
jomen112 6 months ago 3
Comment removed
allan3141 5 months ago
Comment removed
allan3141 5 months ago
Comment removed
allan3141 5 months ago
@jomen112 look this is not right and you are not being fair (and I am not a Creationist).
"Sarfati redefines.." he did no such thing on many counts. Some of which are: it is not his definition at all, and it is the very definition used by Richard Dawkins in his latest book and that definition was NOT an invention of Dawkins either but rather a received definition. But that definition does get baited and switched or equivocated on.
allan3141 5 months ago
@allan3141 He equivocates genetics to rust spots on a car. Would you really claim he is competent?
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFiction "He equivocates genetics to rust spots on a car" I claim YOU are not competent. You are basically a liar. Do you even know what the word "equivocate" means asshole? How can we take you seriously or competent when you don't know basic words.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius So have you yet been able to demonstrate how Dawkins was even wrong, much less wrong intentionally, in the quote you provided?
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFickshun "I follow the data no matter what" OH BULLSHIT
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@TheScienceFickshun, You refused to say you agreed with him so he must be wrong.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius How was he wrong in any way in the quote?
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFickshun, HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR afraid to answer aren't you? Continued answering with a question isn't doing you much good now is it? Now prove the statement is true or shut up.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@TheScienceFrickshun, you dummass. I don't need to demonstrate it. It's obvious to anyone who is honest. You don't want to admit what's wrong with it. That's why you wouldn't confirm it. You can't prove it to be true. Here it is again just for you to ponder "Blind laws of physics produce the illusion of design" Now tell, me do you agree with that statement?
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius "@TheScienceFrickshun, you dummass. I don't need to demonstrate it. It's obvious to anyone who is honest"
The problem is that if you make a claim in a debate and do not demonstrate the correctness then there is no reason for the opponent to believe in the "obvious" truth of the claim. This is basic debate technique. You cannot assume it is the opponents burden to prove any claim you might make.
By the way it is well know that asking "yes/no"question is not really honest.
jomen112 5 months ago
@jomen112 "By the way it is well know that asking "yes/no"question is not really honest"
1 hahahahaha source dumbo?
2 if you make a claim in a debate
This is not a debate. It's an argument.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius
1. Have you stopped kill people? Answer only with "Yes" or "No".
2. "It's obvious to anyone" - nothing is obvious. Or do you perhaps think they world is flat? That was namely obvious to everyone not to long ago....
jomen112 5 months ago
@jomen112 BACK to THIS "By the way it is well know that asking "yes/no"question is not really honest"
"Have you stopped kill people? Answer only with "Yes" or "No""
Dumbo, that is a loaded question employed by interrogators to put a subject on the spot. So you should have said, "Loaded questions are not really honest. There is nothing wrong with a yes/no question." Damn, you're not very smart and it's obvious that English is not your first language.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius wrote "Dumbo, that is a loaded question employed by interrogators to put a subject on the spot."
Case closed.
jomen112 5 months ago
@jomen112 "Case closed" Damn you're stupid. It's about the question not the answer you dumshit. Loaded questions are merely a minor group of questions. It's only one type of yes/no questions dipshit.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius wrote "Damn you're stupid ... you dumshit. ... dipshit."
That may very well be the case. But that does not make all your arguments correct. Or does it?
jomen112 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius .
Arguments made by you:
"You are a liar."
"Do you even know .... asshole?"
"How can we take you seriously "
"you don't know basic words. "
And what are you factual argument to support these claims?
jomen112 5 months ago
@allan3141
Hi,
Would you mind to give the title and perhaps even the page reference to the book of Dawkins you are referring to?
jomen112 5 months ago
@allan3141
""Sarfati redefines.." he did no such thing on many counts"
I am not sure what it is you are disputing. Do you concede with the thesis that evolution is changes over time?
jomen112 5 months ago
@jomen112 "Do you concede with the thesis that evolution is changes over time?" NO, my dam car changes over time. My dog changes over time. My watch changes over time. SO NO that's not evolution, but it proves that you and other evolutionaries are exceptionally simple minded.
PWNED AND SCHOOLED
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius "My watch changes over time. SO NO that's not evolution, but it proves that you and other evolutionaries are exceptionally simple minded."
I don't see what this has to do with anything at all. Evolution is *defined* as change of gene frequency in a population over time. Is your dog a population? Does clocks replicate? Is any of them gene frequency?
I was discussing bait and switch while referring to wikipedias definition with my statement so I dotn see what you try to add.
jomen112 5 months ago
@jomen112 You don't see??? that's seems to be your whole problem, bad vision. Go see an eye doctor.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius wrote "You don't see??? that's seems to be your whole problem, bad vision. Go see an eye doctor."
What does this has to do with anything at all?
jomen112 5 months ago
@jomen112 Here's the real definition. "And, the first living beings were bacteria, they stuck together, formed simple multi celled organisms (like portugese man of war does) and these becteria eventually evolved into fish. Fish went out of land and became a reptile. Most Reptiles were extinct, but some MAMMALS survived, these mammals bred and created a vast veriety of animals. Monkeys evolved into bi peds, which evolved into humans." Written by an evotard.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius wrote "Here's the real definition. [etc]"
You are pretty entertaining do you know that? However that so called definition of evolution you claim it to be is pretty useless. The purpose of a definition is to clarify the meaning of something. What you quote above is story telling and has nothing to do with A) the definition of evolution and B) Sarfati's claim about bait and switch which my comment was about. Sarfati simply makes a lie and hopes none will call it.
jomen112 5 months ago
@jomen112 Wrong dumbo, evolution is ALL about where man came from and that is it. It postulates that we all began as a one celled organism, which evolved into a fish, then a land creature and then a mammal, and then a monkey which became a man. This change over time crap is just a bullshit smoke screen to cover that 1 there is no evidence of such 2 denial of what evolution really is. If you don't understand that, you have failed to grasp reality that evolution is a denial of God.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius wrote "Wrong dumbo, evolution is ALL about [LONG RAMBLE ABOUT EVOLUTION CUT WAY]"
You are to believe and say whatever you like, however I still fail to see what this has to do with my OP or even what it is you try to say or argue about?
jomen112 5 months ago
@jomen112 "however I still fail to see what this has to do with my OP or even what it is you try to say or argue about?" SO?
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius wrote "you have failed to grasp reality that evolution is a denial of God."
Why do you think I failed to grasp this? The Christian theology perfectly denies itself and dont need the theory of evolution to do that. Creationists target evolution as a distraction from its own theology's internal logical failures. When the belief of a religion that is assumed to be held on faith and be The Truth needs external validation then something is utterly wrong with that belief.
jomen112 5 months ago
@jomen112 "When the belief of a religion that is assumed to be held on faith... blah blah blah" jom, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius wrote "jom, you don't know what the hell you're talking about."
You are free to believe that if you want. That is okay with me.
jomen112 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius wrote "This change over time crap is just a bullshit smoke screen to cover that 1 there is no evidence of such 2 denial of what evolution really is. "
I have not disputed these claims, however what puzzle me is the fact that you do agree with me that Sarfati in fact is refusing to accept the consensus definition established by evolutionary biologist and thereby, intentionally or not, you are supporting my point.
jomen112 5 months ago
@jomen112 You don't have a point. To have a point you have to know what you're talking about. YOU DON'T.
No point. FAIL
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
I wrote "you are supporting my point. "
@MaximusArurealius wrote "You don't have a point. To have a point you have to know what you're talking about. YOU DON'T."
So if - as you claim - I do not have a point, what is it then you are debating with me? After all you started this discussion by making a comment on my claim that Sarfati is caught lying by claiming that evolution is not about decent with modification.
jomen112 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius wrote "It postulates that we all began as a one celled organism, which evolved into a fish, then a land creature and then a mammal, and then a monkey which became a man. " == an imprecise way to say that things change over time without explain how or what it is that changes.
"This change over time crap is just a bullshit smoke screen"
Still you you seams to agree that this is what evolution is all about. Which makes me wonder what and who you are trying to argue with?
jomen112 5 months ago
@jomen112 Nobody gives a shit what you wonder.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@jomen112 I just clarified it.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@jomen112 Here's the definition. "And, the first living beings were bacteria, they stuck together, formed simple multi celled organisms (like portugese man of war does) and these becteria eventually evolved into fish. Fish went out of land and became a reptile. Most Reptiles were extinct, but some MAMMALS survived, these mammals bred and created a vast veriety of animals. Monkeys evolved into bi peds, which evolved into humans." Written by an evotard.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@jomen112 did you see anything in there about change of gene frequency in a population over time? No, evolution isn't about that. It's about proving that men evolved from monkeys. They have failed to prove a single damn thing so now they are down to "change over time." OH it's even worse than that, they are NOW saying that neutral change is change and get this, no change is change. They are really hurting. I haven't heard ONE evotard that could outdo Sarfati. He is tops.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius
You can not just make up a definition ex nil to win an argument but must use the common agreed on by made by biologist else you are intellectual dishonest. The definition I use is the common agreed. Don't believe me on my words but check wikipedia for yourself.
That said I have hard to see what all this has to do with my original claim that "Sarfati redefines what evolution is". But weather or not you understand it you just underline the fact that my claim is correct.
jomen112 5 months ago
@jomen112 BTW I didn't make up that definition. An evotard did. I copied and saved for uneducated morons like you. But this whole thing about where man came from is why people call evolution a religion and a creation story for atheists.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius
I did not dispute the truth in your quoting it from an "evotard" and frankly where or who made the quote is completely irrelevant to me. The point I wanted to make is that you need to use a common agreed definition of evolution made by evolutionary biologist - since we now talk about evolution you can then not cherry pick a definition that suits your claim unless there is a consensus in doing so. In other words you do not have the freedom of making a first interpretation.
jomen112 5 months ago
@jomen112 "you need to use a common agreed definition of evolution made by evolutionary biologist" No I don't. Biologists are not the ones who determine it anyway. There IS no set definition. Every biologist has a different one. I don't have to accept anyone's definition. The one I wrote is the real definition of evolution. YOU don't want to accept it? Tuff shit. BUT it is correct. Evolution is all about man's beginning and God and the atheist religion.
FAIL BOZO
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius wrote "The one I wrote is the real definition of evolution. YOU don't want to accept it? Tuff shit. BUT it is correct. "
That definition is a wordy way to say that "evolution is decent with modification", i.e. changes over time. The problem with such definition is that it is to general. It is not useful as a technical definition because it does not provide with a mechanism for how or what the changes are. It works for teaching kids in school but not professional biologist.
jomen112 5 months ago
@jomen112 "That definition is a wordy way to say that "evolution is decent with modification", i.e. changes over time" WRONG, changes over time and descent with modification are two entirely different things. You don't even understand your own terms OR the English language. "too general" Sorry buddy, the truth is always simple. BTW changes over time is not technical. It describes nothing. "It works for teaching kids in school," i.e., brainwashing children. Thanks for admitting that.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
@MaximusArurealius No they're not, descent with modification is change over time.
Say, have you yet managed to prove how Dawkins was wrong in that quote?
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@ScienceFiction, "descent with modification is change over time." HAR HAR HAR yeah and so is the time on my watch. hahahahahahaa
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius "@ScienceFiction, "descent with modification is change over time." HAR HAR HAR yeah and so is the time on my watch. hahahahahahaa"
Watches do not replicate but living things does. That is the meaning of the word "descent" in this definition. This is a fundamental principle of the theory of evolution. If you compare the digits of a watch with "descent with modification" then -and I apologize for having to say this- you only show that you do not understand what descent means.
jomen112 4 months ago
@jomen112 You only show that you don't know what words mean. You're practically illiterate ya moron. Learn to spell and use proper grammar. Your last paragraph is incoherent.
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius wrote "You only show that you don't know what words mean. You're practically illiterate ya moron. Learn to spell and use proper grammar. Your last paragraph is incoherent. "
I will now assume I am wrong, by asking you this question: what concept did you try to explain or refute with your analogy?
jomen112 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius wrote ""It works for teaching kids in school," i.e., brainwashing children. Thanks for admitting that"
I never claimed that. I said it is suitable for kids.If it is used for kids I do not know. The definition you use is not a usable definition as it does not defines the mechanism behind change. It simply states something happens but not how. That is why it is not a good one and hence not used by professional biologist. The definition I gave implies decent with modification.
jomen112 4 months ago
@jomen112 Hey dumshit, learn to spell "descent." OK?
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius wrote "Hey dumshit, learn to spell "descent." OK?"
Ok.
jomen112 4 months ago
jomen112 4 months ago
@jomen112 Yes it is.
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius wrote "Yes it is."
No it isn't!
By the way, since I represent the null-hypothesis you will need to prove your (positive) claim.
jomen112 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius
By the way I have sufficient evidence to overturn the null-hypothesis "there exists no common ancestor" making the null-hypothesis virtual false, i.e a fact. I do not expect you or anyone else for that matter to prove the null-hypothesis but the point is I can show you are wrong. Because I got the proof - and I know how to deduce it based only on observational data, i.e. now living things AND I can prove this with no reference to the theory of evolution or a single fossils.
jomen112 4 months ago
OH BULLSHIT "Common ancestor" is a myth invented when transitional forms were disproven by the fossil record and research such as the U of Oregon bird study that proved dinos didn't become birds. They immediately said birds and dinos have a common ancestor. It's an easy way out. They don't have to prove anything. They just say it. There is no proof of common ancestor. It's merely conjecture without any support. They had no other answer so they just said, "duh, must be a common ancestor duh."
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius wrote ""Common ancestor" is a myth "
Common ancestor is an observed fact. The observed fact is that all *living* things forms a nested hierarchy. The nested hierarchy is an observed property of a set based on unique characteristic - the opposite of similarities. Either it exist or it does not exist a nested hierarchy in set - and it does exist! Therefore it cannot be an "invented myth" by any means. Your claim is trivial false. This fact was known long before Darwin.
jomen112 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius wrote "They immediately said birds and dinos have a common ancestor. It's an easy way out. They don't have to prove anything. They just say it."
I agree.
jomen112 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius wrotre "There is no proof of common ancestor. It's merely conjecture without any support."
Wrong! And I can prove you are wrong - with no reference to either fossil or the theory of evolution. To prove a common ancestor one need to show that the *set *of living things has the property of a nested hierarchy. However I should not have to prove this because this has been proven over hundred years ago. To be ignorant of this poof is not an evidence against a common ancestor.
jomen112 4 months ago
@jomen112 Sorry dummass, You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. Did one of your teachers tell you this? Try to think for yourself for a change. There ARE no common ancestors.
FAIL
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius wrote "There ARE no common ancestors."
Denying a fact does make the fact disappear. If you think this is not a fact AND to convince me and mostly every single living biologist that this is the case then you will need to show and present some evidence onto why this is not a fact. Just claiming an established scientific fact is not a fact is not good enough. When you done you are guaranteed to win the Nobel price in biology. Any biologist would kill to know what you know...
jomen112 4 months ago
@jomen112 "Just claiming an established scientific fact is not a fact is not good enough" It's not an established scientific fact. Who told you it is? You believe everything they tell you. You are a weak willy. AND no they're not giving anyone a Nobel for proving evolution wrong. They already know it's wrong.
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius ""Common ancestor" is a myth invented when transitional forms were disproven by the fossil record"
That is factual incorrect:
The first scientifically described dinosaur was Megalosaurus in 1824.
"In a series of essays written ca 1741-51, Maupertuis put forward, for the first time, a completely evolutionary explanation for the whole existing range of organism by differentiation from common ancestors."
-- The New Cambridge modern history, Volume 1, J. S. Bromley, page 62
jomen112 4 months ago
@jomen112 That's funny moron. There is no mention of "common ancestor."
OWNED hahahahahahaa
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius wrote "There is no mention of "common ancestor."
Baha! You ARE caught with your pants down lying!
I just pointed out for you that dinosaur was scientifically describe at least 75 years AFTER common ancestors was a concept. Your claims was that common ancestor was "invented" after studies of dinosaur. Your claim is so obvious false even a child can see this. However, I am not surprise you deny this as well just like you deny every other scientific facts.
jomen112 4 months ago
@jomen, "I just pointed out for you that dinosaur was scientifically describe at least 75 years AFTER common ancestors was a concept." OH no shit! HAR HAR HAR You should have said, "made up the concept of common ancestor." Dinos have nothing to do with it.
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@jomen "That is factual incorrect" NO, it is factually correct. Common ancestor is a myth. You can't even name one. Ya know what dummass. They made of lot of mistakes and got caught. They knew it would be easy to catch them if they gave a name to the "common ancestor" so they didn't give it a name. HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@Jammedit Did your mother give birth to a human and a monkey? And which one were you?
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius wrote "Did your mother give birth to a human and a monkey? And which one were you?"
Do you understand that due to the fact we can tell that human only gives birth to humans and monkey only gives birth to monkeys is part of the observable facts that we have a common ancestor? Ask what makes human unique compared to a monkey.The answer to that question both explains why human always will give birth to humans and never monkeys and why monkeys and humans share a common ancestor.
jomen112 4 months ago
@jomen112 "Do you understand that due to the fact we can tell that human only gives birth to humans and monkey only gives birth to monkeys is part of the observable facts that we have a common ancestor?"
CONGRATULATIONS ASSHOLE you just made my forum's Stupid Quotes by Evolutionists thread.
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
You have NO idea how stupid that is do you? hahahahahahahahahhaa
Way to go idiot boy, now put your dunce hat on and get on the dunce stool.
PWNED
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius wrote "You have NO idea how stupid that is do you?"
Scientific truth are most often contradicting our intuition of what things ought to be.
If you consider what modification with decent means and combine that knowledge with unique characteristics then you will realize that if two things share unique combination of characteristics then they MUST share common ancestor. This is why we know every human baby is born by humans and this is why we know human descent from apes.
jomen112 4 months ago
@jomen112 In case you didn't understand what you said, I will explain. The fact that a species can only give birth to its own is proof that there is no such thing as a common ancestor for monkeys and humans. Can you grasp that? Dam you evotards are stupid.
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius wrote "The fact that a species can only give birth to its own is proof that there is no such thing as a common ancestor for monkeys and humans. "
That is incorrect. This is not about similarities! The observation that every living being gives birth to something that is not an identical twin to them self but still shares a combination of unique characteristics with there parents is what proves that any living being can only be produced by the same type of organisms.
jomen112 4 months ago
@jomen112 "shares a combination of unique characteristics with there parents is what proves that any living being can only be produced by the same type of organisms" You keep contradicting yourself.
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
"That is incorrect. This is not about similarities! The observation that every living being gives birth to something that is not an identical twin... " HAR HAR HAR JammedIn, you're a dummass and haven't a clue as to what you're talking about.
FAIL
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius wrote "you're a dummass and haven't a clue as to what you're talking about."
That may very well be the case but that does not prove your are right about a common ancestor. The laws of evolutionary phylogeny does not permit something to change into something fundamental different. Evolution creates variety that cause new lineages. Everything that is born is a modification of its ancestor. This is observed in the taxonomy and that is why we know common decent is a fact.
jomen112 4 months ago
@jomen112 Common DESCENT (learn to spell fuckhead) is an assumption based on evolution. It's merely circular logic. They just made it up.
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius wrote "Common DESCENT (learn to spell fuckhead)"
As long you are making false statement about evolution I will spell common deskent in any way I like. Fair enough?
"is an assumption based on evolution"
No it is not. It is an fact because it has been observed and can be proven to be so. We observer this in the taxonomy. Do you agree that taxonomy has been correctly done? If you do then it follows directly from this that common ancestor is a fact weather you want it or not.
jomen112 4 months ago
@jomen112 Hey dummass, you don't know what you're talking about ya idiot. And no there is NO common ancestor. It's a fantasy of evotardation.
FAIL
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@MaximusArurealius Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi... These are just some ancestors that humans, chimps, and some other primates share.
thewetflarp 4 months ago
@thewetflarp NO they aren't dummass. BUT thanks for proving yourself an idiot by bringing them up.
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@jomen, got any proof that I made a false statement about evolution?
MaximusArurealius 4 months ago
@Santifica It's not a matter of just agreeing with me. I follow the data no matter what so typically yes, anyone who hasn't arrived at the same conclusion I have independent of my arriving at it probably isn't bright or possibly has an agenda. Sarfati seems to fall in the latter category. As someone who has actually debated Sarfati, he can't even from a cogent syllogism and he didn't know/wouldn't acknowledge that there were processes that naturally affect the handedness of amino acids.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFickshun "he can't even from a cogent syllogism" How can we be sure that 1. Is true, and you're not lying 2. Or that YOU are able to perform such a feat.
MaximusArurealius 5 months ago
to all the keyboard warriors out there: all the heavens declare the glory of God
1337KAM22 7 months ago
Richard Lewontin, a world leader in evolution says: ‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, ... in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism ... no matter how counter-intuitive ... for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." This basically explains it all. You take a lie over truth solely to remove God. Irresponsible ignorance.
xAquinasx 8 months ago
@xAquinasx So basically you're quoting someone who seems to support the position you already wanted to take.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@SelfPromoting No I said that even if the tomb being empty were an accurate statement it's meaningless. I never accepted it and never claimed I did, tacitly or otherwise.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@SelfPromoting That's exactly what I said, you copied and pasted it yourself
"so the best argument that could be made there is no dead jesus."
I said that even if the argument of an empty tomb were true, it's meaningless.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@SelfPromoting I'll point out one more time.
I never said one was true, I said that even if it was true it's meaningless. It's like saying there are no noodles in my cabinet, therefore it arose as the flying spaghetti monster.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@SelfPromoting It's because it's a meaningless question, I never said the biblical account was correct, I said even if it were correct the most you could say is that we don't have a corpse.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@SelfPromoting I said at most there was an empty tomb. The claim that he rose in front of 500 people is part of the text that you're trying to demonstrate as accurate and reliable in the first place.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@SelfPromoting The claim existing is not evidence that it's inherently true
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
@SelfPromoting No, there was one book claiming he arose in front of 500 people.
I can write a book right now that says the flying spaghetti monster made his noodly appendage known to 50,000,000 people.
TheScienceFoundation 8 months ago
As an aside, note however that I have no problem with followers of any faith, so long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on others. I do respect the Christian emphasis on humility and forgiveness, but I've always tried to keep an open mind and look at all sides of the debate, which means rigorously analyzing all arguments.
kirklandfoodwrap 9 months ago
It's really kinda sad to see all the name calling here, and and the highly emotional dialog, rather than some factual debating. And that goes for all sides of this arugument
alexymo89 9 months ago
@alexymo89 I agree, once it descends into trash talking everyone becomes hypocrites. As for what he gets wrong - he understates the impact of mutation on the change in phenotypes, and ignores evidence of observed increases in "genetic information," to use one of his major arguments. He also offers no reason for why he chooses to accept a Christian worldview over the myriad of other religions, and why it should be considered as more ordered when there are in fact more flaws and contradictions.
kirklandfoodwrap 9 months ago
@kirklandfoodwrap Its interesting you should say that, Jonathan actually does address some of the observations to support increase in information in the book referenced in the video. Speifically Richard Lenski's e coli experiments, as I am sure you are familiar with. I will re-read this and get back to you about it, it's been a while since i've read it.
alexymo89 9 months ago
@alexymo89 He does not acknowledge the extensive amount of evidence pointing to the earth having existed for billions of years, and so uses that to justify his argument that mutations could not have led to the diversity we see today. I am curious as to what he says about Lenski's experiments though.
kirklandfoodwrap 9 months ago
@alexymo89 Sarfati has already been refuted, look back at the series of comments by 'TheScienceFoundation'
AndromedasCake 8 months ago
So what specifically does he get wrong here?
alexymo89 9 months ago
Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, and these gentleman are certainly no exception. Dr. Sarfati is evidently very intelligent, there is no disputing that; however, the fact of the matter is (despite having a background in science) he gets a lot of science wrong here...
kirklandfoodwrap 9 months ago
Johnno, you are a legend!, i use his arguments to shut the mouths or moronic Evolutionists and atheists everywhere!.
85Aheadstix 9 months ago
@85Aheadstix How would you do that? Everything he says about evolution is demonstrably wrong.
AndromedasCake 8 months ago
@AndromedasCake No its not, i also have many friends in all fields of science that say everything he says is quite legit, and if you know so much, why dont you challenge him?, huh?.
As you obviously know sooooo much more then a guy with a double PH.d.
85Aheadstix 7 months ago
@85Aheadstix wrote "everything he [Sarfati] says is quite legit"
If you claim this then my conclusion must be that you have not check *all* Sarfati's claims by yourself. Please look up the definition of evolution and then compare it to how Sarfati defines it when he talks about how biologist "bait and switch" in the begging of the first part. If you after this still think that "everything" Sarfati says is legit, then I cannot help you understand...
jomen112 6 months ago
@jomen112 even I am failing to recognise the point your are trying to make here. Could you elaborate?
allan3141 5 months ago
@allan3141 wrote "even I am failing to recognise the point your are trying to make here. Could you elaborate?"
Sorry I seams to have missed your question here. Sarfati said something like 'if that is what evolution is then I would believe in it'. However Sarfati refuse to acknowledge the consensus definition of evolution and then conclude what he assumed. Based on this concept he then accuse Dawkin's for bait&switch while at the same time he makes himself guilty of doing the same thing.
jomen112 5 months ago
LMAO at the people who call this man an idiot.
FlameGurl06 9 months ago
@FlameGurl06 Probably because he is. I mean analogizing mutations to rust on a car? My nephew learned better than that in 7th grade biology.
OnADeadMachine 9 months ago
@OnADeadMachine LMAO at you! Just because the man uses a crude analogy doesn't make him an idiot. This guys I.Q. is higher than you, and your nephews combined. Youtubers calling this man an idiot is like a person thats never been in a fight calling the heavyweight champ a wimp! LOL
FlameGurl06 9 months ago
Simply brilliant. Compelling arguments. I am going to buy this book
GordyJosie 9 months ago
Anyone who labels this man an idiot or pseudo-scientist is a complete idiot. I have no problem with a person disagreeing with Safarti's interpretation of the evidence, but when you resort to calling this man a "buffoon" and "tard" because his views contradict your own presuppositions it only proves your ignorance.
ginaboyan 9 months ago
@ginaboyan But Creationists have never studied the fossils, or geology, or astronomy, or any science and then get on YouTube and prove it.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@ginaboyan No, it's pointing out his stupidity. His views contradict reality.
AndromedasCake 8 months ago
16 people think they are smarter than Dr. Sarfati. Thats hilarious to no end. Just look at the comments below. These weak, small, pathetic little boys, who couldnt get a woman without paying them, have the nerve to call a real life genius a "tard"! I love it! There is nothing more pathetic than a man so weak he buys into everything his professors tell him.
FlameGurl06 10 months ago
@FlameGurl06 He says 5 million years is not enough time for Chimps and Humans to diverge. We are only 1.4% different. Darwin didn't know about mutations and proved evolution.
''UPHILL MUTATIONS'' ??? What an IDiot. NOT a Scientist. Scientists don't use 'world views''
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz 1.4% difference = millions of mutations
guitardrummer321 9 months ago