When a doctor treats his patients he does not consult the origin of species, A doctor does not have to believe his ancestors were fish in order to effectively treat his patients either, As for technology again you are deluded if you think that it has anything to do with believing in Darwinian evolution.
The only argument that will defeat evolution is the one that everyone would accept. Counterproof. Just one single piece of reproducible evidence would destroy the whole theory. It hasn't happened yet, and a lot of people are trying.
Thanks for the reply. My understanding of the argument for ID is that is has two strands. Where science has not explained the origin of any particular phenotype, A designer is suggested. Where evidence has not yet been presented, evolution is denegrated. I also note this is achieved with a certain amount of ridicule. The argument presented logically is If A cannot be proven, B must be true. This is a faith based argument not a logical argument as there is no proof of B.
@DishrackDarwin Who did the designing? Any theory of the origins of life that requires an external input then introduces the need to explain the external input.
@vinnytheninny, You know who did the designing. You're basically dishonest. But the fact is science doesn't need to explain WHO. It merely needs to recognize that an intelligence designed. This isn't a murder trial where we need to know who designed the crime. BUT you do know so stop the smoke blowing. We have NEVER met an atheist who #1 didn't know which God is the real God #2 which God to hate and #3 which religion to hate. BTW there's no such thing as an atheist.
@vinnytheninny, You ask for evidence of design? HAR HAR HAR HOO HOO HOO HEE HEEeeee! that's just hilarious. Thanks for proving that you are a liar. Design is patently obvious to the most casual observer. It is self-evident. ONLY atheists deny the existence of design and demand proof for it. It's because you are intellectually dishonest. And it is proof that evolution is a hoax and that all the scientists who deny it are liars. You are hereby
It seems that vinnie cannot be trusted with his claim of a naturalistic theory of evolution and that is why he dodges the question, he is like a greasy politican who is asked about one of his claims so in response he does not answer but asks a question in reply.
hey dimwit, you have said there is a theory of evolution and you ruled out design therefore you have to show your naturalistic theory of evolution, the burden is on you to produce the evidence for your claimed theory.
when did scientists observe reptile to mammal evolution and what mechanisms did they observe causing this to happen?
@WildCatsKitten1 :-) I can see I must have irritated you for you to be spouting such vehemence. Do I really have to list out all the types of evidence again. Living creatures adapting to their environments (peppered moth), the diversification of species (Finches in Hawaii), the mechanisms of mutations from genetics. Remember, your only a women - Know your place - Genesis 19 7-8 or perhaps 31-36 or Judges 19 25-26 - nice fairy to believe in.
Falling back on attacking the strawman of the bible, you have no original thought and no ability to defend your position so you just post the same old crap.
@DishrackDarwin The original comment demonstrates a misunderstanding of the structure of ideas within evolution. If you cannot get the basic structure of the ideas right, you need to return to the subject and do some reading to get your head round that structure. If you want to argue against evolution at least read credible literature on the subject, don't just use the internet. The assessment stands.
The ambient rate of change is still an area of research. What is apparent is that the rate of mutation of genes is surprisingly high, but mechanisms exist to manage the rate of mutation within the wider gene pool. This can work to stabilise the population under the right conditions.
There is still much research to be done into what drives change. What is certain is that evolution does demonstrate variations in rate of change. This in itself is not surprising, many species will find themselves under pressure from a variety of factors. Adaptation is the name of the game when you want to succeed in a changing environment. Again the peppered moth is a fine example of this, reacting quickly to changing environments under the action of natural selection.
'When a theory is either refuted or proven by "Dating" evidence as extremely old, making it either no longer available or impossible to verify.' - repeat please in English (American or other) This sentence does not actually make any sense or follow any rules of grammar.
There is no example of how evolution uses a hypothesis already disproven. There is no illustration of chronological snobbery (Whatever that may be) although there is some very poorly constructed sentences "Though" or "Through"? Which was it supposed to be? An example of scientists deceiving in the evolutionary debate would have been nice to illustrate some very obscure points.
@vincewilkinson "hasty generalization" is to say that anyone who doesn't agree with evolution don't understand the science.."begging the question" to say evolution must be true because why would a God create disease.."argument to future" to say we are finding new evidence of evolution all the time, cont..
@aaugoaa So your video, which pardon me if I've got this wrong, seems to be a misguided attack on Evolution, is really just a series of criticisms of people who don't understand how to argue a point, rather than finding any flaws in the theory of evolution itself.
Punctuated equilibrium and gradualism are competing models of evolution. These are encompassed within evolutionary theory. Are you trying to deliberately mislead people into thinking that evolution is not as widely accepted as it actually is within scientific circles. Neo-lamarkism is a recognition of the impact of environment on evolution, so all these mechanisms impact evolution. There is only one theory of evolution, possibly the most widely accepted scientific theory!
Teleological? Have you access to some evidence not apparent to humanity that might suggest teleological cause. The interest in science would be immense. I'm sure scientists would fall over themselves for the accolade of the first to document design at work in nature. That truly would be unique in the annals of human history. Of course that would also beg the question of origin, nature and motive.
"Teleological? Have you access to some evidence not apparent to humanity that might suggest teleological cause."
Oh, so let us test you for how much you understand about evolution, so you do not believe design is involved and you believe evolution is a naturalistic theory, therefore that means if it is a theory the hypothesis that evolution occured naturally must have been tested and naturalistic mechanisms will have been shown to do what you believe they can do.
If you want evidence of evolution, pop your head into your fridge. There you will find lots of products that are the results of evolutionary selection, much of which has changed remarkably from their natural source, fortunately for us!. We have benefited from genetic mutations. Have you ever eaten legumes. It was a genetic mutation that allows us to use the seeds, as their pods no longer split and caste their seeds into the soil, allowing us to harvest the seeds for our consumption.
All domesticated animals are the result of harnessed evolution. This makes life much easier for farmers who farm relatively calm and placid animals that yield a profitable amount of meat in reasonable time.
Nature demonstrated beautifully the process of evolution, this time due to environmental changes. The genetic turn and turn about of the peppered moth being one of the exceptionally well documented responses of evolution to environmental change under natural selection. I leave you to seek further the veracity of this example.
All it would take to destroy evolution is a single piece of counter evidence. I for would would happily acknowledge that evidence were it to be presented. All arguments such as "What mechanisms did scientists observe" are pointless. The fact that the change hasn't been observed doesn't infer it didn't happen. Equally, there is certainly evidence enough to suggest it did happen, to be found in genetics and intermediate fossil evidence .
"What mechanisms did scientists observe" are pointless. The fact that the change hasn't been observed doesn't infer it didn't happen."
Missing the point completely, you claimed that there is a theory of evolution and you believe this to have occured naturally, so it would be a " naturalistic theory of evolution" that would mean that the hypothesis has been tested and we can witness naturalistic mechanisms doing what they were hypothesized to do.
Now either we have an untested hypothesis and you are ignorant of what a "naturalistic theory of evolution" would entail in order to be a theory, either the hypothesis was tested and naturalistic mechanisms were shown to do what was hypothesized or the hypothesis was tested and naturalistic mechanisms were shown to have failed producing the evolution that was believed that they were capable of.
We have a theory. That is a hypothesis supported by a huge amount of evidence. I can only touch upon the evidence, so it's up to you to set aside your fear of there not being a design fairy and looking at how nature does diversify and adapt,in very short and long time spans.
Now instead of spamming me with your lame comebacks, I expect you to prove that you have a naturalistic theory of evolution, claiming what you believe is naturalistic is begging the question.
So you can either troll me with spam or you can back up your claim of a naturalistic theory.
when did scientists observe reptiles evolving to mammals and by what mechanisms did they observe this to occur?
That means the hypothesis cannot be tested and thus your claim of a naturalistic theory of evolution is false, the only way you can claim to have a naturalistic theory is if we can test the mechanisms and once those mechanisms pass the test then it will become a theory, so even if evolution occured to say it occured naturally is begging the question.
You ask- what does it prove? it proves you are full of shit
Why did you lie about a naturalistic theory of evolution?
Here now lies exposed your failure to reason logically. Unfortunately your are totally wrong in your conclusion. A (Evolution) implies B (mammals and reptiles evolved from a common species). B cannot be proven. But A also implies C, D, E, F, G and many many more examples. B becomes irrelevant. You cannot disprove B, so A still stands, as strong as ever. Thank you!
Even if we accept that reptile to mammal evolution occured, for you to claim that it occured naturally is begging the question, that it occured naturally is the hypothesis, if we cannot test naturalistic mechanisms then the claim that it is natural is an untested hypothesis.
Why did you lie about a "naturalistic theory of evolution"?
@WildCatsKitten1 We can and do observe and test naturalistic mechanisms in evolution. It has been tested and proven in living species. your professor's problem was one of historical evolution. So your claim that evolution is untested cannot be further from the truth. Again, there is no lie here.
"We can and do observe and test naturalistic mechanisms in evolution"
before you said it can't be tested because it takes millions of years and now you are saying it can be tested. you are contradicting yourself. You need to make a consistent argument and stick to it, you are all over the place.
"It has been tested and proven in living species."
You believe in common descent (macro evolution) by naturalistic mechanisms, thus either we can test this hypothesis or we can't, if it has been proven then you should be able to give me the observed mechanisms which shows you are lying about a naturalistic theory.
why did you lie about a naturalistic theory of evolution?
"The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else. Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh"
@WildCatsKitten1 I am in full agreement with you and your professor on this point. We do have to question assumptions, there is nothing wrong with that. But, when the theory fits all the available evidence, it can be regarded as true, until counter evidence is provided. So while it is still a theory, there is nothing out there to compete with it as far as evidential support goes.
Please also note he is talking about the history of life, and "a whole lot". That does not mean parts of it cannot be proven and the remainder inferred.
You still haven't provided evidence of " a naturalistic theory"
Thus the claim that what you believe is natural is an unsubstantiated claim.
just saying that there is a theory of evolution is a proof by assertion, you have to provide the evidence that the theory you believe in "naturalistic evolution" can be tested, saying that it can't because of millions of years ago means it is an untested hypothesis.
bit.ly oEc1 - It's not a long document. It covers research findings over the last decade. If It is clear you do not like a naturalistic theory of evolution. I'm not sure I know why. If you are right, then you will have nothing to lose by reading this document from 'Nature' website. It is but a small amount of the evidence supporting natural selections. The evidence for evolution is cumulatively incontrovertible. If you have been told otherwise I suggest you have been lied to.
Oh But it is you repeating the mantra of a theory of evolution, you claimed it was naturalistic, I have buried you that is why you cannot dig yourself out of trouble, you claim over and over about a naturalisic theory and yet you cannot provide the evidence.
Why did you lie about a naturalistic theory of evolution?
Imitation is the highest form of flattery! You have buried nothing. You ignore the evidence I present. You have a fixation about lying, why? Look at the evidence.
@WildCatsKitten1 I assume now your still at school. Reptiles did not evolve into mammals. This shows your lack of knowledge of this subject. Both reptiles and mammals are vertebrates. It is worth noting the majority of the earths vertebrates are not land dwellers, but water dwellers. Both reptiles and mammals have a common ancestor - Tiktaalik. Both reptiles and mammals share features of this shallow water fish, found at Ellesmere Island in Canada lived some 375 million years ago.
@WildCatsKitten1 Good for you, you finally managed to find some evidence for yourself. I was beginning to give up hope. I do recommend the National Academy of Sciences link which dates to 2008 and is probably more current than your own reference and more authoritative.
The problem is that you have failed to find and provide any evidence that what you believe is a theory of naturalistic evolution, you are still failing there.
In providing the evidence for the early evolution of mammals yourself, you have answered your own question that only you are interested in. In what way have you proved evolution as being incorrect. I have already provided you with observed examples of evolution in action, e.g. the Peppered Moth. Which you repeatedly ignore. Have you looked at the evidence of the peppered moth yet? I presume not. And you jump and shout like a school child? Most immature behaviour.
@WildCatsKitten1 Again, empty. You cannot say anything to disprove evolution. It must be frustrating to dislike evolution and have no way of discrediting it. :-) All you can do is what your doing, produced foggy noise with little or no substance. The evidence is all around you, and you know it.
Saying that humans and apes have a common ancestor does not tell us how that occured, michael behe believes in descent with design, you believe in descent without design, if your claim of descent without design is more than a hypothesis then you should have evidence that mechanisms were observed causing this to happen.
what mechanisms did scientists observe causing humans to evolve from an ancestor shared with apes?
@WildCatsKitten1 - Mechanisms can be inferred without direct observation, based upon indirect evidence (ie, carbon dating, DNA, fossil record). Evolution is a THEORY, SUPPORTED BY a mass of EVIDENCE from multiple scientific disciplines. The scientific method has resulted in some of the major advancements of the last 100+ years, which even creationists have enjoyed. Yet, when one's religion conflicts with these same methods, the rules are rewritten or called into doubt. Oh well. Peace.
And even scientists infer different things because they do not have direct observation of the mechanisms involved.
There is no theory of evolution, for example whale evolution occuring by natural selection has not passed the hypothesis stage so it is a mistake to call TENS a scientific theory it is a hypothesis.
"The scientific method has resulted in some of the major advancements of the last 100+ years, which even creationists have enjoyed. Yet, when one's religion conflicts with these same methods, the rules are rewritten or called into doubt. Oh well. Peace."
That comment shows an attitude of scientism, You are treating the scientists that you have faith in as priests that must not be questioned and you are treating science as some all knowing entity.
Thanks for telling me what I think! One of the most important aspects of the scientific method is the exact opposite of what you said: scientists, their data & conclusions are repeatedly questioned as new evidence is discovered. The intent of my original post was that you & others accept the fruits of science (medicine, DNA, nuclear fission), but reject it when it supports evolution. Sci method is merely a process of gaining knowledge-- not a religion. Why do you reject it?
Science is a process not a position, If anyone is rejecting science it is yourself because your scientism shows that you do not believe that people should question what your evolutionary priests preach, you have turned your faith in darwinism into a religion that must not be questions and rejected the fact that scientific ideas are provisional and not carved in stone.
@WildCatsKitten1 - Here's why: I suspect your intense skepticism of Darwinism stems from you protecting a faith in creationism or another non-scientific belief. Further, in other areas of broadly-accepted and supported knowledge that are not in conflict with your articles of faith, I bet you do not have such a high level of skepticism. I like knowing apes are our cousins. But I'll stop now. This all started because this video is so full of crap I had to comment to/with someone. Peace.
The problem is that you are passing off your assumptions about anothers motivations instead of defending what you believe and that shows what you believe is for emotional reasons not rational ones, As for hyper skepticism, pointing out that things like whale evolution occuring by ns+rm is an untested hypothesis is a fact that does not require much skepticism if somebody does make the claim that ns+rm is behind the occurence of whale evolution etc.
And there is no agreement even amongst evolutionary proponents as to the mechanisms involved, You can believe in large scale evolution and be skeptical of darwinism, being skeptical of darwinism does not make one a creationist, it is a false dichotomy.
For the sake of argumentation let us say that you are correct and that apes are our cousins, That does not tell us how this change occured, it does not tell us if it was descent with design, descent without design, it does not tell us what mechanisms were involved, Also if humans were so closely related to apes then that would be localized change and not indicative of a macro event, common descent=! Darwinism
Sorry, you lost me, & I have studied anthropology (bio & cultural) & a bit of religion at the uni level. Nothing you have said here is a flaw in the Facts of Evolution nor the Theory of Evolution. In the marketplace of ideas I appreciate & value some of the non-violent fringes of society, even those that agree w/ this video. I just don't want a fringe view like this video to influence public education standards, as often happens in the US. I am going to go eat a banana now.
You haven't identified what theory of evolution you believe, but i suspect that you believe in various hypothesis that have never been confirmed by the scientific method, there really is no theory as such but various contradictory hypothesis.
@WildCatsKitten1 Evolution: The fact the frequency of the appearance of alleles in a population of organisms changes over time. The theory of evolution: A number of theories that explain, to the best of current knowledge, by what mechanisms evolution occurs. Evolution is based on the scientific method. Tests can determine whether or not the theory is correct as it stands. Thousands of tests have been made, & the current theories have passed (not disproved). "Confirmation" is a false standard.
Variation has been confirmed but you are confusing that use with your faith in an undirected hypothesis creating new kinds and that has never been confirmed in the laboratory, thousands of experiments with fruit flies and moths failed to create evidence for macro evolutionary change, you get a wide variety of fruit flies but no new structures.
I would suggest you have faith in the hypothesis of darwinian evolution and you are entitled to that faith.
@yarmantc then you might want to tell this forum who you really are, because your account is fairly young, with no normal features such as favorites, or uploads, maybe a sock account? then you could tell this forum why you would claim that you have "faith" in God, yet mock intelligent design
@aaugoaa I am a husband, father, business partner, community member, etc. I have a newer account-- big deal. My words posted here are all you should care about. Faith in God does not equal acceptance of ID. Someone who acknowledges a full spectrum of faiths and ideas of God, would not make such a statement. That's more like a specific religious doctrine talking.
@yarmantc i never asked for your personal details, i simple asked you, about evolution. the thing is anyone can say, it's true so there, which is kind of what you do, i believe evolution happens, i just don't agree with all it's claims.
so you think that intelligent design is not part of everything we see, well i doubt that.
@aaugoaa Please. You clearly questioned who I was and what motives I had. Scroll down and re-read. Back on topic: I find great wonder and amazement in the world around us. I am in awe of the many forces that are way beyond our comprehension. So much is unexplained, and I'm OK with that. The cool thing is we have applied logic and reason to understand very much. Remember- Copernicus was jailed for blasphemy, saying the earth revolved around the sun. Do you not see parallels with evolution?
If man falsely attributed “thunder” to the direct hand of God [divine intervention, aka a miracle or a conscious and specific override of natural law] instead of attributing it to the indirect hand of God [products of the laws and systems He set in place], it says only that we did not quite understand how things worked just yet.
Yet if we were wrong about whether it was the direct hand of God or not, this could never disprove the existence of God, though it would have shown an imperfect understanding of God.
But neither tell us anything about how the descent or evolution might have occurred, as to whether the process was gradual or sudden, or as to whether the causal mechanism was Darwinian, Lamarckian, vitalistic or even creationist
Such a theory of descent is therefore devoid of any significant meaning and equally compatible with almost any philosophy of nature." (Denton, M.J., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," Burnett Books: London, 1985, pp.154-155"
@WildCatsKitten1 "No the people that are seen as blasphemous are the ones that question darwinian evolution..."
I had it all wrong. Copernicus was not jailed for his science: Galileo was prosecuted by the Vatican for his support of the Copernican revolution. You point back to this insane notion that science/darwinism are a "religion." People of faith need to reconcile their faith with the facts. The facts will not be edited to fit your religion.What an exercise in futility this was. Peace out.
Merriam Webster has faith down as: Belief in something for which there is no proof, Well there is no proof For Darwinism, Evolutionary just so stories are not scientific, They lay outside of scientific testability, and Darwinism is your religion, You do not like people questioning your faith and you are emotional about it, But the fact that Darwinism is your religion will not be edited out just because it offends you, You need to quit whinging and accept it.
@WildCatsKitten1 I reply only due to concern that your way of thinking, in concert with like-minded zealots, will influence the quality of my child's education. I've posted nothing related to my faith in science. At some point a rational person must accept a body of overwhelming evidence- not blindly, but with comprehension of its status. A THEORY STANDS UNTIL EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED TO _DISPROVE_ IT. Your demands for "proof" of evolution are illogical, and intellectually dishonest.
A darwinian zealot accusing others of being zealots, Priceless.
The fact that you want your child to accept Darwinism uncritically shows you do not care for his education but you want him to be indoctrinated, You want him to be an unthinking zombie that just parrots what he is told and not to question it.
There is no overwhelming body of evidence for Darwinism, There is overwhelming evidence that the same types of animals produce the same types of animals, Darwinian just so stories are not evidence.
"Your demands for "proof" of evolution are illogical, and intellectually dishonest"
There is your comprehension problem again, I never demanded proof from you, I pointed out a definition of "FAITH" in response to you accusing others of faith and faith is a belief in something for which there is no proof, And the fact that you admit that you cannot prove it just verifies the faith that you have in darwinian just so stories.
You cannot disprove darwinian just so stories because darwinists can claim that there is not enough time to show that natural selection acting on rm can cause the things they claim to happen as happening.
We cannot test the claim that whale evolution was caused by either mutations or natural selection or a combination of the two of them, that claim cannot be falsified, So to ask for falsification of such claims is ridiculous.
The darwinian hypothesis is not a theory and has to be taken on faith, The fact that there is no agreement by scientists on how the evolution from one kind of living thing to a different kind of living thing is meant to have occured shows that darwinan evolution has never passed the hypothesis stage.
So when you talk about questioning Science, Which is a reification because Science is not an entity, cont:
People are not questioning science, They are skeptical of claims that are being made by particular scientists.
From your posts I get the impression that you reject the conclusions of particular scientists that do not think Darwinian Evolution is correct because you hold to it for emotional reasons, However I won't accuse you of not agreeing with the conclusions of science because I will leave you to commit the fallacy of reification.
@WildCatsKitten1 - I quit. You win this one, young grasshopper. Just be sure to thank a few thousand Darwinian evolutionists when your life is saved through medicine or technology. And please don't vote or speak up at any school board meetings in Michigan, USA.
In fact biological organisms are being studied and modelled for intelligent design solutions, worship of the bearded buddha is not needed, darwinian just so stories are just a narrative gloss, How living things function and the pressuposition of design is all that is needed.
You might want to remember people like kepler,newton, boyle and faraday etc for the coming of modern science, all of them god believers.
You might want to remember god believer louis pasteur that showed that living organisms come from living organisms and also his germ theory contribution to medicine, you might want to thank Dr Raymond V. Damadian Creationist and the inventor of MRI.
You might want to condemn the Darwinian assumption of junk dna which moecular biologist John Mattick called one of the biggest mistakes in biology especially because it has implications when it comes to medicine.
You might want to remember the father of the computer Charles Babbage- A Christian, Without your computer then you would not be able to post your ignorant and ill informed crap.
@WildCatsKitten1 Cute. You are wrong to say anything I have written here means I am not a person of religious faith. You disconnect religious faith & acceptance of peer-reviewed science-based knowledge like 'Darwinism'. I am grateful for inventors & doctors of religious faith. But, most advances are achieved through scientific processes that also give us understanding of Evolution. Regarding scientists who are creationists: that's a VERY small minority, and probably almost no anthropologists.
Darwinism has failed in the lab, failed in the bacterial studies, failed in the fruit fly studies, You are not accepting peer reviewed science, You are rejecting it.
I never raised about Creationism, However as people want to protect their careers then it is in their interests to feign their support of the Bearded Buddha so you have no way of knowing what scientists believe and if they voice more skepticism privately.
@WildCatsKitten1 Now that evolution has been sacked, what other disciplines of science and work of Nobel laureates will you be debunking next? Astronomy? Particle physics?
Paleontologist J. Y. Chen said, “In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.”
@aaugoaa You threaten to block anyone who uses words like religious or atheism to describe this video but the terminology you use for example "Darwinists" is taken right out of the creationist hand book. There's a tone in your "voice" in this video that is very familiar. You seem to deny evolution, dating methods, and borrow from Kirk Cameron ( a well known creationist in America) when demonstrating what evolution should produce. Why should anyone take you seriously?
@metalsusa1 to be honest i spent at least 2 years debating evolution science i never met one person who could keep on topic about evolution science without bringing religion or atheism into the reasoning. even you have done it in your first comment. i got bored with it, and found it pointless. i no longer debate evolution science. i deleted most of my videos on the subject about a year ago, and have never looked back. so i will decline your offer of a discussion on the topic. :0)
@aaugoaa Alright, fair enough. But considering the creationist/evolution debates going on on You Tube you will be hard pressed not to encounter it. Your video is very reminiscent of creationist arguments and understanding of the theory.
@WildCatsKitten1 Regarding which theory I ascribe to, it is the kind they teach at respected state university level, the kind that does not rely on an untestable existence of intelligent designers, fairies, or ghosts. And for me, that still leaves plenty of room for my God and my faith.
If intelligent design is not scientifically testable then that means that darwinism( non design) is unfalsifiable and is nothing more than unscientific dogma.
And yet you never questioned your university teacher, As an atheist you accepted it uncritically because the idea of design was not one that you liked so you were happy to accept it uncritically.
The claim that ns+rm caused the evolution of the eye is a hypothesis that has never been confirmed so there is no theory, the same for the heart, the lungs, kidneys, reproductive system, the human brain, human conciousness, the hypothesis for how these things evolved have never been confirmed and thus they are various hypothesis not a theory, sorry.
@yarmantc.. ok you came here with rhetorical language, yet never really said anything, why don't you tell this forum what knowledge of evolution you have actual evidence for, you know, like a "example" instead of just giving "lip service" like a salesman, for a start there is no evidence that "apes are our cousins" evolution science only claims a common ancestor, so why don't YOU start with your evidence for that statement.
@aaugoaa You will not get "my evidence" in 500 characters. As said before, it seems you accept the conclusions & fruits of mainstream science (like your PC) when it does not conflict with your faith. Some people interpret holy books as textbooks and then reject an entire category of broadly accepted science when it conflicts with the book. There have been and will be errors in the interpretations of the evidence for a common ancestor w/ apes. But the evidence is overwhelming. peace
The computer is because of technological engineering not science, Technology is creating the world that never was and science is about discovering the world the way that it is, In fact technology existed before the science came into being.
And the father of the computer was Charles Babbage who was a Christian.
"Some people interpret holy books as textbooks and then reject an entire category of broadly accepted science when it conflicts with the book."
Your faith in Darwinism is not science, Science is a method not an ideology, You seem to be obsessed with motive mongering and that suggests that you are projecting your own emotional motivations and that you accept Darwinism for emotional reasons not rational ones, cont:
if you were accepting for rational reasons then you would not be coming out with the crap that you are and would be secure with people questioning your Darwininan faith.
@WildCatsKitten1 Once upon a time people thought thunder was the wrath of the gods, and we thought bloodletting was good medicine. Science showed, wait-- Proved-- otherwise. "You don't have to believe in Darwinism to believe in common ancestry," Now look who's talking with the dung beetles. Please explain how your statement does not rest upon Darwinism / evolution. I'm here for some civil sparring.
"Once upon a time people thought thunder was the wrath of the gods"
Even if we understand how it works, this doesn’t keep God from using it any more than man’s understanding of electricity keeps us from using it. You see, these God-fearing scientists did believe that God created thunder but since the world operated by comprehensible laws he set in place, they wanted to know HOW it worked.
I should also like to add that understanding how something works says nothing about whether God exists or not [except that the very comprehensibility of the universe speaks more for a Creator God than an improbable series of purely naturalistic free lunches!]
Michael Denton pointed out very nicely why descent does not = darwinism
"It is true that both genuine homologous resemblance, that is, where the phenomenon has a clear genetic and embryological basis (which as we have seen above is far less common than is often presumed), and the hierarchic patterns of class relationships are suggestive of some kind of theory of descent. cont:
"Sci method is merely a process of gaining knowledge-- not a religion. Why do you reject it?"
And scientism is treating science like a religion that must not be questioned, questioning your faith in darwinism is not a rejection of science but your uncritical acceptance of darwinism is anti scientific, You really need to quit projecting.
It is perfectly reasonable and rational to question Ideas that are put forward by scientists just like you would any other endeavour, Your point is an ad hominem and a non sequitur because it does not follow that people are questioning it for religious reasons but your comment does show that you are religious in how you treat science.
We can get into a game of motive mongering but it would be more mature if you do not side track the issues with such things.
I never said talk of origins was anything. You do a lot of putting your thought's into other peoples heads, and you de not read what other people are posting. Slightly egotistical if I may observe. You are lost in your ow little world. The point I would make about the talk of origins web site is that it i a discussion forum. The science papers are more important. I'd suggest you seek out some reading that may help you improve your knowledge base.
"I'd suggest you seek out some reading that may help you improve your knowledge base."
Oh the irony
You do not even know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, Instead of projecting your own failure, i suggest that get reading then you will not get in a muddle, you do not even know what theory you are meant to believe in.
Latest research suggests the development of human conciousness relates to the need to use sophisticated strategies in order to improving the chances of mating successfully. Our intellects may well have evolved not to solve particular problems, but to outwit each other. There are other theories which may all play a role in the development of intelligence. This idea relates to the Red Queen hypothesis of co-evolution. You can read up in the second of the links I sent you.
Child, look at yourself in the mirror. You and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. Your arms bracteate, you have opposable thumbs, you have a coccyx, the remnant vestigial tail. We have a shared genetic code with other species. Look at the near indistinguishable embryonic form of humans and other living creatures. What do you want to begin? All of this evidences evolution.
Handwaving things away is not going to help you, saying there is a theory of evolution is one thing but your hypothesis is that this occured naturally, thus we should be able to test the hypothesis and if you cannot produce anything but variation and limited change then your claim of a theory is false.
The burden is on you to prove your claim of a theory that is naturally occuring.
1) What theory is proven? Kindly state when a theory can be proven.show references.
2) In science authority goes to the data, observations, and facts not personalities.
3) Provide examples of what you are talking about don't just say it's so. Stat the argument then show why you think it is not correct.
Helixbuilder 1 week ago
evolution = time based "faith" system
Its a CULT, the cult of the non-existent ape-man
evoTARDSareINSANE 5 months ago
Notice the atheists trolls, giving the thumbs down?
Christistruth1 7 months ago
evolutionists lack critical thinking skills, basic logic, and the ability to separate reality from erroneous speculation
The outdated theory has now become a cult.
buffboynick 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buffboynick what about abiogenesis can you help with with that i go to this site edwardtbabinski.us
matrixlone 7 months ago
@buffboynick yeah, like 99.9% of the scientists are total rednecks...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 month ago
When a doctor treats his patients he does not consult the origin of species, A doctor does not have to believe his ancestors were fish in order to effectively treat his patients either, As for technology again you are deluded if you think that it has anything to do with believing in Darwinian evolution.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
I missed out common design.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
The only argument that will defeat evolution is the one that everyone would accept. Counterproof. Just one single piece of reproducible evidence would destroy the whole theory. It hasn't happened yet, and a lot of people are trying.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
"Just one single piece of reproducible evidence would destroy the whole theory."
You have no theory, only various hypothesis.
try again.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
Thanks for the reply. My understanding of the argument for ID is that is has two strands. Where science has not explained the origin of any particular phenotype, A designer is suggested. Where evidence has not yet been presented, evolution is denegrated. I also note this is achieved with a certain amount of ridicule. The argument presented logically is If A cannot be proven, B must be true. This is a faith based argument not a logical argument as there is no proof of B.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@DishrackDarwin Who did the designing? Any theory of the origins of life that requires an external input then introduces the need to explain the external input.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vinnytheninny, You know who did the designing. You're basically dishonest. But the fact is science doesn't need to explain WHO. It merely needs to recognize that an intelligence designed. This isn't a murder trial where we need to know who designed the crime. BUT you do know so stop the smoke blowing. We have NEVER met an atheist who #1 didn't know which God is the real God #2 which God to hate and #3 which religion to hate. BTW there's no such thing as an atheist.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
Where is the evidence of design?
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vinnytheninny, You ask for evidence of design? HAR HAR HAR HOO HOO HOO HEE HEEeeee! that's just hilarious. Thanks for proving that you are a liar. Design is patently obvious to the most casual observer. It is self-evident. ONLY atheists deny the existence of design and demand proof for it. It's because you are intellectually dishonest. And it is proof that evolution is a hoax and that all the scientists who deny it are liars. You are hereby
POWNED for lying.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius
It seems that vinnie cannot be trusted with his claim of a naturalistic theory of evolution and that is why he dodges the question, he is like a greasy politican who is asked about one of his claims so in response he does not answer but asks a question in reply.
hahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahha
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 You nailed him.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius
You notice that vince can only spam me with moronic and childish comebacks but continues to dodge my question, It Shows that he is full of shit.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 I follow your lead on that one. It's what you seem to know best.
What do you think the answer to your question is? Or is that one you want to dodge?
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
hey dimwit, you have said there is a theory of evolution and you ruled out design therefore you have to show your naturalistic theory of evolution, the burden is on you to produce the evidence for your claimed theory.
when did scientists observe reptile to mammal evolution and what mechanisms did they observe causing this to happen?
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 :-) I can see I must have irritated you for you to be spouting such vehemence. Do I really have to list out all the types of evidence again. Living creatures adapting to their environments (peppered moth), the diversification of species (Finches in Hawaii), the mechanisms of mutations from genetics. Remember, your only a women - Know your place - Genesis 19 7-8 or perhaps 31-36 or Judges 19 25-26 - nice fairy to believe in.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson.
Falling back on attacking the strawman of the bible, you have no original thought and no ability to defend your position so you just post the same old crap.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@DishrackDarwin Give your side of the argument? You've said nothing so far!
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@DishrackDarwin The original comment demonstrates a misunderstanding of the structure of ideas within evolution. If you cannot get the basic structure of the ideas right, you need to return to the subject and do some reading to get your head round that structure. If you want to argue against evolution at least read credible literature on the subject, don't just use the internet. The assessment stands.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
The ambient rate of change is still an area of research. What is apparent is that the rate of mutation of genes is surprisingly high, but mechanisms exist to manage the rate of mutation within the wider gene pool. This can work to stabilise the population under the right conditions.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
There is still much research to be done into what drives change. What is certain is that evolution does demonstrate variations in rate of change. This in itself is not surprising, many species will find themselves under pressure from a variety of factors. Adaptation is the name of the game when you want to succeed in a changing environment. Again the peppered moth is a fine example of this, reacting quickly to changing environments under the action of natural selection.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@DishrackDarwin
i know dude, vince is just another drone repeating the same old script.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
'When a theory is either refuted or proven by "Dating" evidence as extremely old, making it either no longer available or impossible to verify.' - repeat please in English (American or other) This sentence does not actually make any sense or follow any rules of grammar.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
There is no example of how evolution uses a hypothesis already disproven. There is no illustration of chronological snobbery (Whatever that may be) although there is some very poorly constructed sentences "Though" or "Through"? Which was it supposed to be? An example of scientists deceiving in the evolutionary debate would have been nice to illustrate some very obscure points.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson "hasty generalization" is to say that anyone who doesn't agree with evolution don't understand the science.."begging the question" to say evolution must be true because why would a God create disease.."argument to future" to say we are finding new evidence of evolution all the time, cont..
aaugoaa 1 year ago
@aaugoaa So your video, which pardon me if I've got this wrong, seems to be a misguided attack on Evolution, is really just a series of criticisms of people who don't understand how to argue a point, rather than finding any flaws in the theory of evolution itself.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
"who don't understand how to argue a point, rather than finding any flaws in the theory of evolution itself."
which theory of evolution?
darwinism? neo lamarckism? punctuated equillibrium? gradualism? hopeful monster? etc:
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
Punctuated equilibrium and gradualism are competing models of evolution. These are encompassed within evolutionary theory. Are you trying to deliberately mislead people into thinking that evolution is not as widely accepted as it actually is within scientific circles. Neo-lamarkism is a recognition of the impact of environment on evolution, so all these mechanisms impact evolution. There is only one theory of evolution, possibly the most widely accepted scientific theory!
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
"There is only one theory of evolution, possibly the most widely accepted scientific theory!"
Really
Now please do tell us.
Is this "theory of evolution" a designed process or would you say this theory of evolution is non teleological?
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
Teleological? Have you access to some evidence not apparent to humanity that might suggest teleological cause. The interest in science would be immense. I'm sure scientists would fall over themselves for the accolade of the first to document design at work in nature. That truly would be unique in the annals of human history. Of course that would also beg the question of origin, nature and motive.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
"Teleological? Have you access to some evidence not apparent to humanity that might suggest teleological cause."
Oh, so let us test you for how much you understand about evolution, so you do not believe design is involved and you believe evolution is a naturalistic theory, therefore that means if it is a theory the hypothesis that evolution occured naturally must have been tested and naturalistic mechanisms will have been shown to do what you believe they can do.
cont:
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
So you claim a theory of evolution and that this theory is natural, thus we must have the experimental evidence of these nauralistic mechanisms.
What mechanisms did scientists observe cause reptile to mammal evolution and when did they witness this taking place?
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
If you want evidence of evolution, pop your head into your fridge. There you will find lots of products that are the results of evolutionary selection, much of which has changed remarkably from their natural source, fortunately for us!. We have benefited from genetic mutations. Have you ever eaten legumes. It was a genetic mutation that allows us to use the seeds, as their pods no longer split and caste their seeds into the soil, allowing us to harvest the seeds for our consumption.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
All domesticated animals are the result of harnessed evolution. This makes life much easier for farmers who farm relatively calm and placid animals that yield a profitable amount of meat in reasonable time.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
Nature demonstrated beautifully the process of evolution, this time due to environmental changes. The genetic turn and turn about of the peppered moth being one of the exceptionally well documented responses of evolution to environmental change under natural selection. I leave you to seek further the veracity of this example.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
All it would take to destroy evolution is a single piece of counter evidence. I for would would happily acknowledge that evidence were it to be presented. All arguments such as "What mechanisms did scientists observe" are pointless. The fact that the change hasn't been observed doesn't infer it didn't happen. Equally, there is certainly evidence enough to suggest it did happen, to be found in genetics and intermediate fossil evidence .
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
"What mechanisms did scientists observe" are pointless. The fact that the change hasn't been observed doesn't infer it didn't happen."
Missing the point completely, you claimed that there is a theory of evolution and you believe this to have occured naturally, so it would be a " naturalistic theory of evolution" that would mean that the hypothesis has been tested and we can witness naturalistic mechanisms doing what they were hypothesized to do.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
Now either we have an untested hypothesis and you are ignorant of what a "naturalistic theory of evolution" would entail in order to be a theory, either the hypothesis was tested and naturalistic mechanisms were shown to do what was hypothesized or the hypothesis was tested and naturalistic mechanisms were shown to have failed producing the evolution that was believed that they were capable of.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
We have a theory. That is a hypothesis supported by a huge amount of evidence. I can only touch upon the evidence, so it's up to you to set aside your fear of there not being a design fairy and looking at how nature does diversify and adapt,in very short and long time spans.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
Now instead of spamming me with your lame comebacks, I expect you to prove that you have a naturalistic theory of evolution, claiming what you believe is naturalistic is begging the question.
So you can either troll me with spam or you can back up your claim of a naturalistic theory.
when did scientists observe reptiles evolving to mammals and by what mechanisms did they observe this to occur?
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 The mechanism is genes! Simple genetic mutation over time. As it is with all variation
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
This happened million of years ago. It could not be observed, only inferred from the fossil record. - Happy. What does that prove?
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
That means the hypothesis cannot be tested and thus your claim of a naturalistic theory of evolution is false, the only way you can claim to have a naturalistic theory is if we can test the mechanisms and once those mechanisms pass the test then it will become a theory, so even if evolution occured to say it occured naturally is begging the question.
You ask- what does it prove? it proves you are full of shit
Why did you lie about a naturalistic theory of evolution?
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
Here now lies exposed your failure to reason logically. Unfortunately your are totally wrong in your conclusion. A (Evolution) implies B (mammals and reptiles evolved from a common species). B cannot be proven. But A also implies C, D, E, F, G and many many more examples. B becomes irrelevant. You cannot disprove B, so A still stands, as strong as ever. Thank you!
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
bzzzzz wrong
Even if we accept that reptile to mammal evolution occured, for you to claim that it occured naturally is begging the question, that it occured naturally is the hypothesis, if we cannot test naturalistic mechanisms then the claim that it is natural is an untested hypothesis.
Why did you lie about a "naturalistic theory of evolution"?
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 We can and do observe and test naturalistic mechanisms in evolution. It has been tested and proven in living species. your professor's problem was one of historical evolution. So your claim that evolution is untested cannot be further from the truth. Again, there is no lie here.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
"We can and do observe and test naturalistic mechanisms in evolution"
before you said it can't be tested because it takes millions of years and now you are saying it can be tested. you are contradicting yourself. You need to make a consistent argument and stick to it, you are all over the place.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
"It has been tested and proven in living species."
You believe in common descent (macro evolution) by naturalistic mechanisms, thus either we can test this hypothesis or we can't, if it has been proven then you should be able to give me the observed mechanisms which shows you are lying about a naturalistic theory.
why did you lie about a naturalistic theory of evolution?
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
"The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else. Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh"
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 I am in full agreement with you and your professor on this point. We do have to question assumptions, there is nothing wrong with that. But, when the theory fits all the available evidence, it can be regarded as true, until counter evidence is provided. So while it is still a theory, there is nothing out there to compete with it as far as evidential support goes.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
Please also note he is talking about the history of life, and "a whole lot". That does not mean parts of it cannot be proven and the remainder inferred.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
You still haven't provided evidence of " a naturalistic theory"
Thus the claim that what you believe is natural is an unsubstantiated claim.
just saying that there is a theory of evolution is a proof by assertion, you have to provide the evidence that the theory you believe in "naturalistic evolution" can be tested, saying that it can't because of millions of years ago means it is an untested hypothesis.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
bit.ly oEc1 - It's not a long document. It covers research findings over the last decade. If It is clear you do not like a naturalistic theory of evolution. I'm not sure I know why. If you are right, then you will have nothing to lose by reading this document from 'Nature' website. It is but a small amount of the evidence supporting natural selections. The evidence for evolution is cumulatively incontrovertible. If you have been told otherwise I suggest you have been lied to.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
"If you have been told otherwise I suggest you have been lied to."
I have been lied to by you
why did you lie about a theory of naturalistic evolution?
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
if you claim a theory then You are obligated to prove that assertion or you are lying.
when did scientists observe reptile to mammal evolution and by what mechanisms did they observe this to occur by?
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 I think you are losing the plot here. All you are doing is repeating a disproven mantra. Time to stop digging! TTFN
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
Oh But it is you repeating the mantra of a theory of evolution, you claimed it was naturalistic, I have buried you that is why you cannot dig yourself out of trouble, you claim over and over about a naturalisic theory and yet you cannot provide the evidence.
Why did you lie about a naturalistic theory of evolution?
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
h**p: //bit.ly /oEc1
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
Imitation is the highest form of flattery! You have buried nothing. You ignore the evidence I present. You have a fixation about lying, why? Look at the evidence.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
"You ignore the evidence I present."
You have provided no observed instances of naturalistic evolution causing reptile to mammal evolution.
why did you lie?
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 I assume now your still at school. Reptiles did not evolve into mammals. This shows your lack of knowledge of this subject. Both reptiles and mammals are vertebrates. It is worth noting the majority of the earths vertebrates are not land dwellers, but water dwellers. Both reptiles and mammals have a common ancestor - Tiktaalik. Both reptiles and mammals share features of this shallow water fish, found at Ellesmere Island in Canada lived some 375 million years ago.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
"The transition from reptile to mammal has an excellent record. The following fossils are just a sampling."
w w w .c b u . edu / ~esalgado/BIOL346/ reptilestomammals .doc
Doesn't tell us what mechanisms were observed causing this to happen.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Good for you, you finally managed to find some evidence for yourself. I was beginning to give up hope. I do recommend the National Academy of Sciences link which dates to 2008 and is probably more current than your own reference and more authoritative.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
Good for me, I showed you to be wrong.
So you think talk origins is crap, ok thanks
hahahhahahahhahahha.
The problem is that you have failed to find and provide any evidence that what you believe is a theory of naturalistic evolution, you are still failing there.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
In providing the evidence for the early evolution of mammals yourself, you have answered your own question that only you are interested in. In what way have you proved evolution as being incorrect. I have already provided you with observed examples of evolution in action, e.g. the Peppered Moth. Which you repeatedly ignore. Have you looked at the evidence of the peppered moth yet? I presume not. And you jump and shout like a school child? Most immature behaviour.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
The peppered moth even if it wasn't a fraud would be a cosmetic change not an example of macro evolution.
sorry.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Are you suggesting that example is a fraud?
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You really do have stooped low!
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
You have 0 evidence for macro evolution or the mechanisms causing them, you are arguing for variation and cosmetic changes.
hahahahhahahahhahahahahha
I love morons like you that project their own failure on to others, classic!
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Again, empty. You cannot say anything to disprove evolution. It must be frustrating to dislike evolution and have no way of discrediting it. :-) All you can do is what your doing, produced foggy noise with little or no substance. The evidence is all around you, and you know it.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
Saying that humans and apes have a common ancestor does not tell us how that occured, michael behe believes in descent with design, you believe in descent without design, if your claim of descent without design is more than a hypothesis then you should have evidence that mechanisms were observed causing this to happen.
what mechanisms did scientists observe causing humans to evolve from an ancestor shared with apes?
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 - Mechanisms can be inferred without direct observation, based upon indirect evidence (ie, carbon dating, DNA, fossil record). Evolution is a THEORY, SUPPORTED BY a mass of EVIDENCE from multiple scientific disciplines. The scientific method has resulted in some of the major advancements of the last 100+ years, which even creationists have enjoyed. Yet, when one's religion conflicts with these same methods, the rules are rewritten or called into doubt. Oh well. Peace.
yarmantc 1 year ago
@yarmantc
And even scientists infer different things because they do not have direct observation of the mechanisms involved.
There is no theory of evolution, for example whale evolution occuring by natural selection has not passed the hypothesis stage so it is a mistake to call TENS a scientific theory it is a hypothesis.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
"The scientific method has resulted in some of the major advancements of the last 100+ years, which even creationists have enjoyed. Yet, when one's religion conflicts with these same methods, the rules are rewritten or called into doubt. Oh well. Peace."
That comment shows an attitude of scientism, You are treating the scientists that you have faith in as priests that must not be questioned and you are treating science as some all knowing entity.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1
Thanks for telling me what I think! One of the most important aspects of the scientific method is the exact opposite of what you said: scientists, their data & conclusions are repeatedly questioned as new evidence is discovered. The intent of my original post was that you & others accept the fruits of science (medicine, DNA, nuclear fission), but reject it when it supports evolution. Sci method is merely a process of gaining knowledge-- not a religion. Why do you reject it?
yarmantc 1 year ago
@yarmantc
"but reject it when it supports evolution. "
Non sequitur
Science is a process not a position, If anyone is rejecting science it is yourself because your scientism shows that you do not believe that people should question what your evolutionary priests preach, you have turned your faith in darwinism into a religion that must not be questions and rejected the fact that scientific ideas are provisional and not carved in stone.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1
Hmm...scientism? I think the scientific method is a gift from God. Why do you reject God's gift to us?
yarmantc 1 year ago
@yarmantc
How specifically is being skeptical of darwinism rejecting the scientific method?
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 - Here's why: I suspect your intense skepticism of Darwinism stems from you protecting a faith in creationism or another non-scientific belief. Further, in other areas of broadly-accepted and supported knowledge that are not in conflict with your articles of faith, I bet you do not have such a high level of skepticism. I like knowing apes are our cousins. But I'll stop now. This all started because this video is so full of crap I had to comment to/with someone. Peace.
yarmantc 1 year ago
@yarmantc
The problem is that you are passing off your assumptions about anothers motivations instead of defending what you believe and that shows what you believe is for emotional reasons not rational ones, As for hyper skepticism, pointing out that things like whale evolution occuring by ns+rm is an untested hypothesis is a fact that does not require much skepticism if somebody does make the claim that ns+rm is behind the occurence of whale evolution etc.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
And there is no agreement even amongst evolutionary proponents as to the mechanisms involved, You can believe in large scale evolution and be skeptical of darwinism, being skeptical of darwinism does not make one a creationist, it is a false dichotomy.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
For the sake of argumentation let us say that you are correct and that apes are our cousins, That does not tell us how this change occured, it does not tell us if it was descent with design, descent without design, it does not tell us what mechanisms were involved, Also if humans were so closely related to apes then that would be localized change and not indicative of a macro event, common descent=! Darwinism
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1
Sorry, you lost me, & I have studied anthropology (bio & cultural) & a bit of religion at the uni level. Nothing you have said here is a flaw in the Facts of Evolution nor the Theory of Evolution. In the marketplace of ideas I appreciate & value some of the non-violent fringes of society, even those that agree w/ this video. I just don't want a fringe view like this video to influence public education standards, as often happens in the US. I am going to go eat a banana now.
yarmantc 1 year ago
@yarmantc
You haven't identified what theory of evolution you believe, but i suspect that you believe in various hypothesis that have never been confirmed by the scientific method, there really is no theory as such but various contradictory hypothesis.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Evolution: The fact the frequency of the appearance of alleles in a population of organisms changes over time. The theory of evolution: A number of theories that explain, to the best of current knowledge, by what mechanisms evolution occurs. Evolution is based on the scientific method. Tests can determine whether or not the theory is correct as it stands. Thousands of tests have been made, & the current theories have passed (not disproved). "Confirmation" is a false standard.
yarmantc 1 year ago
@yarmantc
Variation has been confirmed but you are confusing that use with your faith in an undirected hypothesis creating new kinds and that has never been confirmed in the laboratory, thousands of experiments with fruit flies and moths failed to create evidence for macro evolutionary change, you get a wide variety of fruit flies but no new structures.
I would suggest you have faith in the hypothesis of darwinian evolution and you are entitled to that faith.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc then you might want to tell this forum who you really are, because your account is fairly young, with no normal features such as favorites, or uploads, maybe a sock account? then you could tell this forum why you would claim that you have "faith" in God, yet mock intelligent design
aaugoaa 1 year ago
@aaugoaa I am a husband, father, business partner, community member, etc. I have a newer account-- big deal. My words posted here are all you should care about. Faith in God does not equal acceptance of ID. Someone who acknowledges a full spectrum of faiths and ideas of God, would not make such a statement. That's more like a specific religious doctrine talking.
yarmantc 1 year ago
@yarmantc i never asked for your personal details, i simple asked you, about evolution. the thing is anyone can say, it's true so there, which is kind of what you do, i believe evolution happens, i just don't agree with all it's claims.
so you think that intelligent design is not part of everything we see, well i doubt that.
aaugoaa 1 year ago
@aaugoaa Please. You clearly questioned who I was and what motives I had. Scroll down and re-read. Back on topic: I find great wonder and amazement in the world around us. I am in awe of the many forces that are way beyond our comprehension. So much is unexplained, and I'm OK with that. The cool thing is we have applied logic and reason to understand very much. Remember- Copernicus was jailed for blasphemy, saying the earth revolved around the sun. Do you not see parallels with evolution?
yarmantc 1 year ago
@yarmantc
If man falsely attributed “thunder” to the direct hand of God [divine intervention, aka a miracle or a conscious and specific override of natural law] instead of attributing it to the indirect hand of God [products of the laws and systems He set in place], it says only that we did not quite understand how things worked just yet.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
Yet if we were wrong about whether it was the direct hand of God or not, this could never disprove the existence of God, though it would have shown an imperfect understanding of God.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
But neither tell us anything about how the descent or evolution might have occurred, as to whether the process was gradual or sudden, or as to whether the causal mechanism was Darwinian, Lamarckian, vitalistic or even creationist
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
Such a theory of descent is therefore devoid of any significant meaning and equally compatible with almost any philosophy of nature." (Denton, M.J., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," Burnett Books: London, 1985, pp.154-155"
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
"Copernicus was jailed for blasphemy, saying the earth revolved around the sun. Do you not see parallels with evolution?"
No the people that are seen as blasphemous are the ones that question darwinian evolution, You seem a little confused.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
Comment removed
yarmantc 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 "No the people that are seen as blasphemous are the ones that question darwinian evolution..."
I had it all wrong. Copernicus was not jailed for his science: Galileo was prosecuted by the Vatican for his support of the Copernican revolution. You point back to this insane notion that science/darwinism are a "religion." People of faith need to reconcile their faith with the facts. The facts will not be edited to fit your religion.What an exercise in futility this was. Peace out.
yarmantc 1 year ago
@yarmantc
"point back to this insane notion that science/darwinism are a "religion"
I have never said science is a religion, I said Treating science like a religion is scientism, You have poor comprehension.
Science is a method nothing more, it is not Darwinism, You are conflating your faith in darwinism with a method which shows you are very confused.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
Merriam Webster has faith down as: Belief in something for which there is no proof, Well there is no proof For Darwinism, Evolutionary just so stories are not scientific, They lay outside of scientific testability, and Darwinism is your religion, You do not like people questioning your faith and you are emotional about it, But the fact that Darwinism is your religion will not be edited out just because it offends you, You need to quit whinging and accept it.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 I reply only due to concern that your way of thinking, in concert with like-minded zealots, will influence the quality of my child's education. I've posted nothing related to my faith in science. At some point a rational person must accept a body of overwhelming evidence- not blindly, but with comprehension of its status. A THEORY STANDS UNTIL EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED TO _DISPROVE_ IT. Your demands for "proof" of evolution are illogical, and intellectually dishonest.
yarmantc 1 year ago
@yarmantc
A darwinian zealot accusing others of being zealots, Priceless.
The fact that you want your child to accept Darwinism uncritically shows you do not care for his education but you want him to be indoctrinated, You want him to be an unthinking zombie that just parrots what he is told and not to question it.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
"I've posted nothing related to my faith in science"
But your posts are related to your faith in Darwinism.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
There is no overwhelming body of evidence for Darwinism, There is overwhelming evidence that the same types of animals produce the same types of animals, Darwinian just so stories are not evidence.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
"A THEORY STANDS UNTIL EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED TO _DISPROVE_ IT."
There is no theory of Darwinism, Only an unproven hypothesis.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
"Your demands for "proof" of evolution are illogical, and intellectually dishonest"
There is your comprehension problem again, I never demanded proof from you, I pointed out a definition of "FAITH" in response to you accusing others of faith and faith is a belief in something for which there is no proof, And the fact that you admit that you cannot prove it just verifies the faith that you have in darwinian just so stories.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
You cannot disprove darwinian just so stories because darwinists can claim that there is not enough time to show that natural selection acting on rm can cause the things they claim to happen as happening.
We cannot test the claim that whale evolution was caused by either mutations or natural selection or a combination of the two of them, that claim cannot be falsified, So to ask for falsification of such claims is ridiculous.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
The darwinian hypothesis is not a theory and has to be taken on faith, The fact that there is no agreement by scientists on how the evolution from one kind of living thing to a different kind of living thing is meant to have occured shows that darwinan evolution has never passed the hypothesis stage.
So when you talk about questioning Science, Which is a reification because Science is not an entity, cont:
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
People are not questioning science, They are skeptical of claims that are being made by particular scientists.
From your posts I get the impression that you reject the conclusions of particular scientists that do not think Darwinian Evolution is correct because you hold to it for emotional reasons, However I won't accuse you of not agreeing with the conclusions of science because I will leave you to commit the fallacy of reification.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 - I quit. You win this one, young grasshopper. Just be sure to thank a few thousand Darwinian evolutionists when your life is saved through medicine or technology. And please don't vote or speak up at any school board meetings in Michigan, USA.
yarmantc 1 year ago
Comment removed
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
In fact biological organisms are being studied and modelled for intelligent design solutions, worship of the bearded buddha is not needed, darwinian just so stories are just a narrative gloss, How living things function and the pressuposition of design is all that is needed.
You might want to remember people like kepler,newton, boyle and faraday etc for the coming of modern science, all of them god believers.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
You might want to remember god believer louis pasteur that showed that living organisms come from living organisms and also his germ theory contribution to medicine, you might want to thank Dr Raymond V. Damadian Creationist and the inventor of MRI.
You might want to condemn the Darwinian assumption of junk dna which moecular biologist John Mattick called one of the biggest mistakes in biology especially because it has implications when it comes to medicine.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
You might want to remember the father of the computer Charles Babbage- A Christian, Without your computer then you would not be able to post your ignorant and ill informed crap.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Cute. You are wrong to say anything I have written here means I am not a person of religious faith. You disconnect religious faith & acceptance of peer-reviewed science-based knowledge like 'Darwinism'. I am grateful for inventors & doctors of religious faith. But, most advances are achieved through scientific processes that also give us understanding of Evolution. Regarding scientists who are creationists: that's a VERY small minority, and probably almost no anthropologists.
yarmantc 1 year ago
Comment removed
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
Darwinism has failed in the lab, failed in the bacterial studies, failed in the fruit fly studies, You are not accepting peer reviewed science, You are rejecting it.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
I never raised about Creationism, However as people want to protect their careers then it is in their interests to feign their support of the Bearded Buddha so you have no way of knowing what scientists believe and if they voice more skepticism privately.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Now that evolution has been sacked, what other disciplines of science and work of Nobel laureates will you be debunking next? Astronomy? Particle physics?
yarmantc 1 year ago
@yarmantc
Paleontologist J. Y. Chen said, “In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.”
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@aaugoaa You threaten to block anyone who uses words like religious or atheism to describe this video but the terminology you use for example "Darwinists" is taken right out of the creationist hand book. There's a tone in your "voice" in this video that is very familiar. You seem to deny evolution, dating methods, and borrow from Kirk Cameron ( a well known creationist in America) when demonstrating what evolution should produce. Why should anyone take you seriously?
metalsusa1 1 month ago
@metalsusa1 to be honest i spent at least 2 years debating evolution science i never met one person who could keep on topic about evolution science without bringing religion or atheism into the reasoning. even you have done it in your first comment. i got bored with it, and found it pointless. i no longer debate evolution science. i deleted most of my videos on the subject about a year ago, and have never looked back. so i will decline your offer of a discussion on the topic. :0)
aaugoaa 1 month ago
@aaugoaa Alright, fair enough. But considering the creationist/evolution debates going on on You Tube you will be hard pressed not to encounter it. Your video is very reminiscent of creationist arguments and understanding of the theory.
I will respect your wishes though. Good day.
metalsusa1 1 month ago
@aaugoaa I will not stay down. I'll keep it respectful and on point, bring it. Let's see how much you really understand about evolution.
metalsusa1 1 month ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Regarding which theory I ascribe to, it is the kind they teach at respected state university level, the kind that does not rely on an untestable existence of intelligent designers, fairies, or ghosts. And for me, that still leaves plenty of room for my God and my faith.
yarmantc 1 year ago
@yarmantc
If intelligent design is not scientifically testable then that means that darwinism( non design) is unfalsifiable and is nothing more than unscientific dogma.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
And yet you never questioned your university teacher, As an atheist you accepted it uncritically because the idea of design was not one that you liked so you were happy to accept it uncritically.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
The claim that ns+rm caused the evolution of the eye is a hypothesis that has never been confirmed so there is no theory, the same for the heart, the lungs, kidneys, reproductive system, the human brain, human conciousness, the hypothesis for how these things evolved have never been confirmed and thus they are various hypothesis not a theory, sorry.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
When was the hypothesis that human cognition evolved by ns+rm tested?
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc.. ok you came here with rhetorical language, yet never really said anything, why don't you tell this forum what knowledge of evolution you have actual evidence for, you know, like a "example" instead of just giving "lip service" like a salesman, for a start there is no evidence that "apes are our cousins" evolution science only claims a common ancestor, so why don't YOU start with your evidence for that statement.
aaugoaa 1 year ago
@aaugoaa You will not get "my evidence" in 500 characters. As said before, it seems you accept the conclusions & fruits of mainstream science (like your PC) when it does not conflict with your faith. Some people interpret holy books as textbooks and then reject an entire category of broadly accepted science when it conflicts with the book. There have been and will be errors in the interpretations of the evidence for a common ancestor w/ apes. But the evidence is overwhelming. peace
yarmantc 1 year ago
@yarmantc
" fruits of mainstream science (like your PC"
The computer is because of technological engineering not science, Technology is creating the world that never was and science is about discovering the world the way that it is, In fact technology existed before the science came into being.
And the father of the computer was Charles Babbage who was a Christian.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
"Some people interpret holy books as textbooks and then reject an entire category of broadly accepted science when it conflicts with the book."
Your faith in Darwinism is not science, Science is a method not an ideology, You seem to be obsessed with motive mongering and that suggests that you are projecting your own emotional motivations and that you accept Darwinism for emotional reasons not rational ones, cont:
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
if you were accepting for rational reasons then you would not be coming out with the crap that you are and would be secure with people questioning your Darwininan faith.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
You don't have to believe in Darwinism to believe in common ancestry, there could be common ancestry or there could be common design.
There are three possibilities.
1. Common Design without descent
2.Descent without Design
3.Design with descent.
Even if a person rejected number 1, it still does not mean 2 is true and that 3 did not occur, common descent=!Darwinism
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Once upon a time people thought thunder was the wrath of the gods, and we thought bloodletting was good medicine. Science showed, wait-- Proved-- otherwise. "You don't have to believe in Darwinism to believe in common ancestry," Now look who's talking with the dung beetles. Please explain how your statement does not rest upon Darwinism / evolution. I'm here for some civil sparring.
yarmantc 1 year ago
@yarmantc
"Once upon a time people thought thunder was the wrath of the gods"
Even if we understand how it works, this doesn’t keep God from using it any more than man’s understanding of electricity keeps us from using it. You see, these God-fearing scientists did believe that God created thunder but since the world operated by comprehensible laws he set in place, they wanted to know HOW it worked.
cont:
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
I should also like to add that understanding how something works says nothing about whether God exists or not [except that the very comprehensibility of the universe speaks more for a Creator God than an improbable series of purely naturalistic free lunches!]
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
"Now look who's talking with the dung beetles"
"I'm here for some civil sparring."
You mean that you are here for people to be civil to you but you do not expect to be civil in return?
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
"Science showed, wait-- Proved-- otherwise. "
Fallacy of reification.
Only particular scientists can show anything. To treat science as an entity that you worship and I do see worship in your comments is Scientism.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
Michael Denton pointed out very nicely why descent does not = darwinism
"It is true that both genuine homologous resemblance, that is, where the phenomenon has a clear genetic and embryological basis (which as we have seen above is far less common than is often presumed), and the hierarchic patterns of class relationships are suggestive of some kind of theory of descent. cont:
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
"Sci method is merely a process of gaining knowledge-- not a religion. Why do you reject it?"
And scientism is treating science like a religion that must not be questioned, questioning your faith in darwinism is not a rejection of science but your uncritical acceptance of darwinism is anti scientific, You really need to quit projecting.
Try again
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
Comment removed
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@yarmantc
It is perfectly reasonable and rational to question Ideas that are put forward by scientists just like you would any other endeavour, Your point is an ad hominem and a non sequitur because it does not follow that people are questioning it for religious reasons but your comment does show that you are religious in how you treat science.
We can get into a game of motive mongering but it would be more mature if you do not side track the issues with such things.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
You say the evidence is all around me and yet you provide 0 evidence of naturalistic mechanisms causing common descent.
As you have a hypothesis that this occured naturally then these mechanisms must have been tested and observed causing this to happen.
Please answer my question and provide the evidence.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Show me what you believe, so we can all have a laugh.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
When did scientists observe humans evolve from a common ancestor shared with apes and by what mechanisms did they observe causing this to happen?
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
I never said talk of origins was anything. You do a lot of putting your thought's into other peoples heads, and you de not read what other people are posting. Slightly egotistical if I may observe. You are lost in your ow little world. The point I would make about the talk of origins web site is that it i a discussion forum. The science papers are more important. I'd suggest you seek out some reading that may help you improve your knowledge base.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
, Talk origins is like the evolunatics bible and they constantly refer to it and the articles on there.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
"I'd suggest you seek out some reading that may help you improve your knowledge base."
Oh the irony
You do not even know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, Instead of projecting your own failure, i suggest that get reading then you will not get in a muddle, you do not even know what theory you are meant to believe in.
Priceless!
hahahhahahhahahahahahhha
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
Perhaps you are lost here. Is that the meaning of the word 'thory' in daily usage or the scientific meaning? There is a difference.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
Seems you believe in a hypothesis that has not been tested and you think it is a theory.
hahahhahahahahhahahahahhahah
How did human conciousness evolve and what mechanisms did scientists observe causing human conciousness to come into being for the first time?
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
Latest research suggests the development of human conciousness relates to the need to use sophisticated strategies in order to improving the chances of mating successfully. Our intellects may well have evolved not to solve particular problems, but to outwit each other. There are other theories which may all play a role in the development of intelligence. This idea relates to the Red Queen hypothesis of co-evolution. You can read up in the second of the links I sent you.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
Child, look at yourself in the mirror. You and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. Your arms bracteate, you have opposable thumbs, you have a coccyx, the remnant vestigial tail. We have a shared genetic code with other species. Look at the near indistinguishable embryonic form of humans and other living creatures. What do you want to begin? All of this evidences evolution.
vincewilkinson 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
Handwaving things away is not going to help you, saying there is a theory of evolution is one thing but your hypothesis is that this occured naturally, thus we should be able to test the hypothesis and if you cannot produce anything but variation and limited change then your claim of a theory is false.
The burden is on you to prove your claim of a theory that is naturally occuring.
cont:
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
The fact that you do not know that this transition is said to have taken place shows that you are projecting.
Try again you failure.
hahahhahahahhahahahahhahahha
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@vincewilkinson
In fact, that same piece is on the talk origins site.
hahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahha
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago