ANYONE: If you see no reply to any poster below, they know they are on ignore for things like name calling, personal insults and false accusations of lying. Some of them follow me & others around YT with such tactics. If you would care to make their same "points" I will be happy to reply with what I feel is "the rest of the story." However, I only debate with those who are civil & objective.
the Law of Conservation of Matter: During an ordinary chemical change, there is no detectable increase or decrease in the quantity of matter.
The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.
This are both laws not theories. So let's say that evolution is true, everything has to come from something but something can't come from nothing. Where did everything truly originate? It's all from God. We did not come from an animal. Animals
@celena028 you don't know the difference between laws and theories? look for the definitions before i start making fun of you . "everything has to come from something but something can't come from nothing. Where did everything truly originate? It's all from God" i personally don't know the answer for that question neither do you , if you do i just need some proof.
"We did not come from an animal. " wishful thinking but all the evidence point that you and i are both animals.
ANYONE: If you see no response to some posters they know they're on ignore for things like name calilng, personal insults and gross obscenities. I limit my time by debating with those who can be civil & objective. If I kept posting to all who called me names, cussed at me and sometimes far worse, I'd need 10 lifetimes. I will be more than happy to respond to their same "points", and tell what I feel is "the rest of the story" if anyone cares to make them in a way which leaves out verbal abuse.
I simply love the inane comments by creationists. It's as though their life depended on discrediting evolution. Just so they get to keep their imaginary friend.
And so what? If the evolution theory were wrong, would that in any way validate their particular flavour of a religious book?
@StopSpamming1 I just don't love the way YT evo-ites are always attacking religion & the Bible so often instead of getting down to business & actually defending evolution with science & logic. Evo stands or falls on those 2 pillars regardless of what you or I think about the Bible. I just don't love the way evo-ites get into name calling like "inane" and make vague comments w/o really demonstrating why their believe what they do Can you debate w/o the strawman logical fallacy of religioin? Cont
@StopSpamming1 You mention gravity & music. Those things are testable, observable and repeatable. Evolution is not. "And no there is nothing to debate." I.E. you're coppin' out.
} "Those things are testable, observable and repeatable"
Well, so is evolution. Otherwise it would not be called a scientific theory - just as are gravity and music. With the difference that evolution is better substantiated than gravity.
Do you also debate gravity as passionately as evolution?
} "I.E. you're coppin' out"
If that's what you want to call it to satisfy your little ego, yes.
Because it is futile. You see only what you allow yourself to believe.
@StopSpamming1 If you can do it w/o resorting to personal insults, name calling & gross obscenities,& w/o the irrelevant strawman of religion, tell just 1 thing that is testable, repeatable and observable that demonstrates you are a modified ape. Don't just say it's so, demonstrate that you can defend your statement with actual data, not faith based statements. If you aren't up to that, just insult me, name call me etc.,I'll get the point and put you on ignore as you will evidently.wish.
I am not a "modified ape". We are ALL a kind of ape.
And if you want to know why, don't ask me, just enter proof humans are apes into a search engine and you will get religious and factual suggestions. That enables you to form an informed opinion.
And that was my last suggestion and reaction to your belief.
@StopSpamming1 I''m not the one that needs to do the research, friend, you are. Like others before you, you could have cited "evidence" like the chromsome 2 fusion, "transitional fossils" & "similar homology." But you didn't. Probably because you are just accepting....on faith...that evolution is true since you've been inundated with it all your life and were (like most people in school) never really taught critical thinking much less logical fallacies.You are the one with the religion. Cont.
@StopSpamming1 Cont.You have faith when they tell you that Fossil A led to B & C & to you based on magical thinking about "missing links" (can you tell them from never existed links?) & their invisible descendants' invisible descendants' progeny leading to you (or any oher life form) with invisible dots. You probably believe there is a Geologic Column somewhere on the earth with everything arranged neatly from Cambrian to now.
You may believe in the evidenceless anti science primal pond. Cont.
@StopSpamming1 Cont.You probably believe that Darwin showed at least 1 ex. of how any species originated in his book - which he certainly never did. You believe on faith when they tell you that viruses that lead to different kinds of colds are "evolving" though they are still all...viruses! You believe a lot of stuff fella. But you can't articulate it. If/when you can articulate it you might have learned the difference between actual evidence & faith based belief systems.& use YOUR mind.
@StopSpamming1 Cont. I most certainly am not any kind of ape whatsoever. However, if you want to go on believing that, hey, who am I to burst your bubble. But if you ever start to wonder if just maybe it ain't true - you are the one who needs to start searching Google. Practice what you preach. I've read both sides intensely for years.
Have your? Rhetorical Q. (But I'm positive the answer is no on both subjects.)
@LoricaLady you don't agree with the theory then bring a better one but please don't mention ID or creationism because scientically speaking they don't even make a good hypothesis. I'm waiting.
@MrTheblackmessenger I do not have to bring a better theory. (Tho I happen to have one.) By the laws of logic if you can demonstrate that one postulate is false, that does not mean you have to present a true one. The 1st one is true or not. Period. Also, it is not for you to tell me or anyone, "Don't mention" this or that. In addition saying "They don't make a good hypothesis" with no rationale given for your position.does not really contribute anything in the way of science or logic. Cont.
@LoricaLady sorry mam your laws of logic are irrelevant in science especially when it comes to theories , in science we hold into truth a theory that explains better the observable data that we have until a better theory is presented, evolution could be proven wrong in the future but since there is no challenging scientific theory and the fact that we can still make a lot of predictions with our current one, it's normal to say that evolution by natural selection is a fact!
@MrTheblackmessenger "In science we hold onto truth a theory that explains better the observable data...." Hang onto those words. Now pick one thing that is observable, testable and repeatable to show that evoution ever happened. Then be prepared to defend it. Saying "Read this site...all scientitst believe...what about talking snakes..." will not be valid. Use your own mind & your own words and give DATA to support your contention. We'll get to the other areas you think support evo later.
@LoricaLady this a 500 words comment space so I'll try to be straight .this an experiment every student in medical college does to explain how how bacteria develop drug resistance . if you take for example, colony of staphylococcus Aureus(SA) , we know that they can be killed by penicillin or it's derivative drugs( methiciilin). you take that colony and administrate them with enough dose of penicillin , what you will realize is that not all of them were killed....con't
@MrTheblackmessenger Drug resistance to in bacteria is called an example of evo. It's not. It's an ex. of how all living things have the ability to adapt within LIMITS and to pass onto their descendants certain helpful traits within LIMITS. Note that the bacteria stay bacteria. Counless billions are multiplying & dying at astronomical rates. Why don't we see even 1 turning into something other than a bacteria - ditto algae & other micro organisms all steadfastly staying within their genus? Cnt
@LoricaLady "It's an ex. of how all living things have the ability to adapt within LIMITS and to pass onto their descendants certain helpful traits within LIMITS" you just failed in your own trap , you just define evolution ; what you are doing is like saying you can have words but you can not make a sentence and that's a fallacy , by the way can you tell me what's the name of that phenomena that stops micro evolution to become macro? how does it work?
@MrTheblackmessenger I don't believe in any kind of evolution, micro or macro. I have to go for now. Please just as 1 Q at a time. PLEASE. That's just all I have time for.
:What you are doing is saying you can have word but not make a sentence." There is ev-i-dence for words making sentences. Where is the ev-i-dence that Tiktaalik ever had any progeny signicantly different from itself, ditto ape fossils. Where is the ev-i-dence
that our human Chrom. 2 came from chimps or apes? Cont.
@LoricaLady "I don't believe in any kind of evolution, micro or macro. I have to go for now" but you just admitted that beneficial traits were past from parents to offsprings and that's my friend is what evolution is all about. if you look at a sentence you can recognize and know that it was formed by words right? the same if you look at the fossil record you can see how species are gradually changing over time by accumulation of new traits.
@LoricaLady " that our human Chrom. 2 came from chimps or apes?chimps are apes , other apes have 48 chromosomes but we have 46 because of the chromosome 2 fusion.
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. Where is the ev-i-dence for how DNA can come about or ever did come about? Where is the ev-i-dence for fins to feet, scales to feathers, fish to tetrapods, tetrapods to birds? There are countless billions of fossils,, billions of just 1 kind of nautiloid alone in the Grand Canyon. They told you those changes occured. Where is the ev-i-dence? As usual, the answer is - in the opposite direction as there are no inbetweeners found in those countless billions of fossils.
@LoricaLady "Where is the ev-i-dence for how DNA can come about or ever did come about" that topic is being studied by abiogenesis not evolution. "Where is the ev-i-dence for fins to feet, scales to feathers, fish to tetrapods, tetrapods to birds?" why do chickens have a gene for teeth?."There are countless billions of fossils,, billions of just1 kindof nautiloid alone in the Grand Canyon.They told you those changes occured.Where is the ev-i-dence?read about the fossilization.
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. It's your turn to answer some Qs. Give the evidence showing a fusion of 2 human chromosomes, making a superficial match with a chimp's different kind of chromosomes, means that we evolved from nonchimps. Explain why bacteria, algae & all organisms stay in their same genus. Expain how DNA could get the new info it must have in order to turn a species into a new genus. Ev-i-dence now, not the usual evo "might have...we infer...milllions of years ago...probably."
@LoricaLady "Give the evidence showing a fusion of 2 human chromosomes, making a superficial match with a chimp's different kind of chromosomes, means that we evolved from nonchimps. " the chromosome 2 has 3 telomeres how is that possible if it's not a fusion? you will see that in chimps and orangutans the genes contains in the human chromosome 2 are contained by to separate chromosomes that fit in shapes with the fused chromosome 2. how is that . lol
@LoricaLady con't ... now take those who were not killed and and put them in perfect condition of reproduction then administrate penicillin again what you will see is that instead of killing them you will make them reproduce faster . and there you have your drug resistant SA. but that still just and observation that the SA have the property to become resistant to penicillin if you are using methicillin you can call it MRSA. but how do we know that this cause by evolution? ....
@LoricaLady con't 2 ... because we know how penicillin works in a molecular level to have antibiotic properties , so we can trace back the genetic making of the MRSA and a SA in fact some SA had a mutation that made them become resistant to β-lactam antibiotics ( penicillin and methicillin) , and when you put them to the environmental pressure( natural selection) those who had that mutation survived to become MRSA. We just proved that the observation we made earlier... con't 3.
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. "We just proved that the observation we made earlier..." No, you just proved that evolution is NOT happening, because every last bacteria stayed a bacteria and there is 0 evidence whatsoever that any of them ever have been, or ever will be, anything but a bacteria or that any of them will ever start climbing up Darwin's Tree. What you see is basically stasis with small changes within a steadfastly fixed genus. Cont.
@LoricaLady "you just proved that evolution is NOT happening, because every last bacteria stayed a bacteria " you are not following i was talking about drug resistance happen because of mutation. i was not talking about changing them into frogs lol! if that's the idea you have of evolution then i understand your confusion . it takes a lot of time to have formation of new species. to become a new genus it takes a lot of mutations a natural selection to rule the game.
@LoricaLady ....was in fact the result of evolution by natural selection. and to confirm this we now take one single SA and make it reproduce for many generations ,we go through the same process and what we have is the same result. we can repeat this over and over again. from this experiment we can predict that if you only use penicillin like drugs to treat SA infection there is a good chance that the patient will develop drug resistance , so it's better to use a couple of AB.
@LoricaLady why did say that creationism and ID don't make a good scientific hypothesis? science by definition explains the natural world within the natural world. another thing is for and hypothesis to consider as scientific , it need to be testable and falsifiable ; how do you do this with a supernatural creator or designer? how do you make predictions with that ? maybe you can see some sort of design in evolution but that's an illusion caused by natural selection.
@MrTheblackmessenger "Maybe you can see some sort of design in evolution but that's an illusion caused by natural selection. Maybe as one of your proofs for evolution you can tell me when, where & how N.S. is ever seen to lead from a new species to a new genus. We knew about speciation long before Darwinism. According to his "Tree" things go from a species to a genus. Where is the ev-i-dence for that? Or you could give data on how mutations lead to a new genus. Take your pick & defend it.
@LoricaLady "According to his "Tree" things go from a species to a genus. " from species to genus or from genus to species they can go both ways but do you understand that in taxonomy there are intermediary phases(domain kingdom family etc...) that the offsprings of a species have to go to be consider as a new genus? we can trace back this changes in the fossil record by monophyly , morphology ,biogeography etc...then look at their DNA sequence which perfectly match up .
@MrTheblackmessenger "From species to genus or from genus to species they can go both ways." Where is any evidence whatever that anything ever has gone, or currently is going, from genus to species? Unless you mean that new species of life forms are occuring. Yes, there are 200 species of bees. They are all bees. Leo & Kitty are both cats. We knew about speciation before Darwinism. Where is any change from species to genus ever seen? W/O data to support its existence the "Tree" is bogus.
@LoricaLady "Where is any evidence whatever that anything ever has gone, or currently is going, from genus to species" just go and look at the fossil record: the beginning of every branch of the tree is a genus that's how it works . evolution is a random process so we don't predict the future with it.
@MrTheblackmessenger Your "evidence" is look at a Tree? That's not evidence. That's faith. Look at the fossil record? I did. It shows stasis and abrupt appearance. You cited the fossil record. Defend 1, just 1, example of how it shows evolution. Miller said Titktaalik is "as good as it gets". Show me, with evidence, how you KNOW its descendants turned into tetrapods. Give 1 shred of evidence. Don't just keeping SAYING things happened based on evo dogma. SHOW your EVIDENCE it happened..
@LoricaLady it's not only about the fossil record it's also about their age and how thy appear over time for example you won't find dinosaurs fossils in the Precambrian or human fossils in the Paleozoic if you could then you will completely destroy evolution theory. that's one of the prediction made by evolution theory , not you wining lottery , or the frog giving birth to an elephant. it does no happen like that
@MrTheblackmessenger I manage my time on YT by only debating with folks as long as they are civil & objective (which for YT evo fans is usually, not very long if at all, sadly). If I kept on respondiong to posts with everyone who falsely accused me of lying, personally insulted me, cussed me, called me names (& said worse things) I'd need several lifetimes to keep responding to them all. I wish you well and hope something has sunk in on you, but that's up to. You're on ignore for good.
@LoricaLady I'm glad we had this discussion and i believe you learned something from it i did too. i enjoyed it . i believe you to be very intelligent but misguided , please read less from creationist websites it will help you. I'm a neurologist , for me it's perfectly normal for people to disagree on topics . good luck!
@MrTheblackmessenger You have the usual stereotype of creationists - people who only read one side. How can you still think that when I have given ample evidence I know exactly what Miller & others have been saying? I have read and analyzed, right here on YT in these little boxes, quite a few articles from evolutionary literature & Miller's entire presentations, but my fave to debunk is Talk Spin, er Talk Origins. I suggest you follow your own advice and learn to carefully study BOTH sides.
@LoricaLady You are asking people to study astrology along side astronomy. You are asking people to study the stork theory along side biology. You are asking people to study that God did it along side evolution. What is wrong with you? You got a screw lose or something? What is it that you do't "get" about Intelligent Design as the Trojan Horse of bull shit, that has absolutely no supporting evidence other than a magical claim that cannot possibly compete with science, which is true?
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. Taxonomy is a system of using words to label characteristics of animals. It is not evidence for anything. How it is interpreted by evolutionists is based on magical thinking and logical fallacies. As always. (But I wish you had taken a break at the so called evolving bacteria & just stuck to 1 topic for time's sake. But I will address this too.) Let's look at what Miller calls "as good as it gets for a transitional form." Tiktaalik. He uses taxonomy. Cont.
@LoricaLady "Taxonomy is a system of using words to label characteristics of animals. " so according to you they just randomly name those species ? yeah you are just proving my point that you know little about evolution so why are you lying about something you don't understand?
@MrTheblackmessenger You are now on ignore. You have followed the usual pattern of YT evo fans. Evade Qs for actual evidence, but show lots of faith that you are, just as they told you, only the great great etc. grandbabby of Ma & Pa Ape. Use personal insults instead of data & accuse the other person of lying to avoid data.
When people get really unpleasant with me I tell them this thing that sounds unpleasant but has good intentions: Learn to use YOUR mind & come out of the matrix. BYE!
@LoricaLady " . grandbabby of Ma & Pa Ape." we are still apes , still primates and still cordae. i never insulted you ,.about the lying part yes you are or you are just ignorant about the fact that you were lying and i can understand that,you've just been misinformed what i will remember from the conversation is that you didn't know that things you thought to be proof of designer could be explained by natural selection,which is the real real reason things are the way they are.
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. He can't use the DNA (again you are really adding in too many "proofs", please stick to one at a time for time's sake) because DNA doesn't hold up for the aeons that they claim fossils have existed. He uses things like "similar homology" and "characteristics of" like all evolutionists making transitional fossil claims.
We are told that Tiktaalik turned into a tetrapod based on such things. This is magical thinking, faith, not science. There is 0 evidence...
@LoricaLady "We are told that Tiktaalik turned into a tetrapod based on such things" it easy to say that when you don't study these things . so now tell us what tiktaalik is a fish with legs? why would a fish have tetrapods features? the evidence comes from comparative anatomy , biogeography and by dating the fossil. is that rocket science to you?
@MrTheblackmessenger ...that Tik's descendants were ever anything but 100% fish like him, or that he wasn't just 1 of innumerable extinct life forms that never had any progeny significantly different from itself in any way. Yet we are told, based on its invisible descendants' invisible descendants to draw lines to the invisible dots that connect them to tetrapods! And they call that science. Google Melbourne Museum Tiktaalic replica to see a great example of visual deception that evo uses. Cnt
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. Compare it to the real fossil. Notice the conveniently missing back end for this "best example" of a transition. The artist has put in back legs/fins such as are never seen in nature and certainly never on a 100% fish. Then it has made the tiny frontal fins about 5X bigger than the fossil's & given them musculature nowhere found on it. Why? For its magical climb up onto dry land. Evo lit has been replete with fraudulent art from the start & this continues. Cont.
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. They tell you you are a modified ape with the same techniques. You know that drawing that shows a line of apes leading to man? Totally w/o evidence. They find (few, paltry & often fragmented) some bones of some primates and use the same magical thinking, the same evidenceless, invisible, descendants' descendants to connect imaginary dots from them to you. Sometime Google quotes from world famous paleontologist Colin Patterson about transitions & evo in general. Cont
@MrTheblackmessenger Why don't you explain to me why irreducible complexiity (which is at the foundation of i.d. & creationism) "doesn't even make a good hypothesis." Use data, not just your unspecified & humble opinion. See if you can avoid name calling, cursing, personal insults and the Bible Bash Dance (i.e. switching the topic to religion, away from scientific data & logic, and flailing away at the Bible.) Are you up to the challenge?
@LoricaLady about irreducible complexity just type here one youtube " kenneth miller on irreducible complexity" you will see how he debunked that idea during the DOVER's TRIAL. if you don't start using the bible or personal attack i won't do that neither this is a debate not a fight.
@MrTheblackmessenger Miller didn't debunk anything in the Dover Trial. That's his spin on what happened. What he did was hand over to the state, to a politically appointed judge with no science training, and non science trained lawyers, the "right" to decide what is science & what is not. His big point of "proof" there was the Chromsome Fusion #2. Would you like to make that be your 1st "proof" for evolution, which you will have to defend with data. Pick 1 thing & support it with data.
@LoricaLady really?did you watch the whole thing ?what about this :watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU? Behe was clearly shown to be incompetent and a lazy scientists , he said evolution by natural selection could not explain the body immune system and was handled a tone of books that were proving him wrong( that was my favorite part) .the judge was a conservative btw . he mentioned the chromosome 2 because at the time it was the last discovery that confirm that we and other apes are related.
@MrTheblackmessenger "Biogeography". Do you mean the so called Geologic Column? It is nowhere to be found on earth, though it is commonly presented in textbooks as an actual reality. You can find "Cambrian" fossils dotting the mountain ranges around the world. Fossils are no way in neat little niches. As usual the evidence goes in the opposite direction. And then they use magical thinking to explain the lack of any Column by telling us they know what happened millions of years ago. Cont.
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. "Millions of years ago" is so conveniently unobservable, untestable and unrepeatable for both fossils and the evolution that was supposedly occuring in those magical times.
Onto Chrom. 2. I believe Behe had not yet heard this argument as it was a new one.
Let's look at it. The usual dataless speculation piled ontop of logical fallacies. 1) Fallacy of the single cause, i.e. "We see something and only evo can explain it!" Uh, about 1 in 1000 people have...
@MrTheblackmessenger ...an aditional fused chromosome. In fact lots of animals have fused chromosomes. How come they aren't saying that additional fused chromosome that some people have isn't the result of evo too - ditto those other animals? Because they can't come up with some superficial match to evo theory. Now you tell me. How do they know that one fusion came from apes & that the other one didn't? There is no way to observe, test or repeat that the Chrom. 2 fusion came from apes...
@MrTheblackmessenger ...Yet they tell you they KNOW where the fusion came from and they call that "science." 2) Fallacy of Incomplete Comparison. The fusion involves human chromosomes, not ape chromosomes. Ape chromosomes are not the same size and have a different frequency and other differences not seen in human chromosomes. Oh, but don't forgot those invisible lines in the invisible millioins of years ago that we can believe somehow, w/0 evidence, changed ape chromosomes into ours. Cont.
@MrTheblackmessenger ...3) Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy. This is the favorite. If there's any similarity, no matter how small, it's called evidence! If Tik had some "characteristic" of a Tetrapod, even tho it's 100% fish, well obviously it turned into a Tetrapod! If DNA has some similarities to other DNA, well obviously 1 turned into the other. Of course they have no evidence that new DNA, as is needed for anything above speciation, can be created by known processes.
@MrTheblackmessenger .. But they have faith....lots of....faith, that it happened anyway. Snakes look lots like worms. Bees, birds & moths fly. Chimps & tobacco have 48 chromosomes. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. Oh, and see if you can figure out why they compare out chromosomes to chimps when no one is even saying we are evolved from chimps! Oh, yeal, I forgot, somewhere millioins of years ago invsiible imaginary lines (somehow) can explain for us how there is a connection. Cont.
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. Behe is the 1 who is a true scientist. I think it is disgraceful & unprofessional the way Miller attacks him. I've seen him in a presentation on Dover trial putting up a court drawing of himself where he looks scholarly and scientific. But the picture he puts up of Behe demonizes him. It is a caricature from the New Yorker made to make the man look like a stupid fish.
Let's analyze some of Miller's so called debunks of Behe's irreducible copmplexity examples. Cont.
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. He takes a mousetrap, mangles it and tells us that he has just demonstrated that the mousetrap id not irreducibly complex since it can still catch "really stupid mice." True to evo style we get a statement of "fact" with 0 evidence, i.e. we never see any flattened, dead rodents. He even showed just the coil & the cheese at 1 point & told us it could catch mice too? So they're gonna impale themselves on the pointy part of the coil to get the cheese? Lol. Cont.
@LoricaLady you are just proving evolution without knowing it , the mouse trap thing really got you . he proved that if you remove different part of the seemingly "irreducible complex" bacteria flagellum you still have some very functional structures proving that they evolved to make a flagellum . that was how you shut a creationist; did you hear Behe say something? he knew Dr Miller got him with that one.
@MrTheblackmessenger Ok I will leave you this one last refutation for your benefit and for the benefit of any others, then I'm finished.
The usual evo "debunk" re the bacterial flagellum is based, as always, on logical fallacies & speculation presented as factual evidence. 1) Strawman logical fallacy. Behe said the bug will not work if all its parts are not in place. So they do a bait & switch. They talk about "co option" & "dual purpose" of the parts,not the total bug.Cont.
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. 2) Inicomplete Comparison. They point to some simpler cells and say - w/0 evidence as always of course - that well, the flagellum must have been simpler in the past too. Just ignore that the simpler bug has a different purpose and is not observed to be evolving into anything (like 100% of life on the planet).
Magical thinking as usual. Somehow in ways we can't see things happened "millioins of years ago" and presto, that's how you got the flagellum. Cont.
@LoricaLady "that well, the flagellum must have been simpler in the past too. Just ignore that the simpler bug has a different purpose and is not observed to be evolving into anything (like 100% of life on the planet)." i believe with that statement if you read unbiased sources you could become a genius in evolution biology , you are answering your own question.
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. Now here is something for you to think about. You think you know evo. You say accurately that it cannot predict the future. So look at the flagellar whip on a sperm cell and tell me how & why evo is going to be able to do these things: Drive the "emerging" "evolving" whip to completion, ditto the rotary motor that turns it, while both are initially useless for aeons? Ask what "dual purpose" or "co option" 1 can have w/o the other totally in place and fully formed.
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. Now imagine the egg in a totally other body. How & why is unthinking evo going to be able to drive it to completion (in any life form anywhere that has 2 genders) before the reproductive system of the other gender is complete? You make this argument sound like a wrestling match with words like "got him with that one." In a way it is. It is a wrestling match for your mind. And the one who is being "gotten" so far, friend, is YOU. Get free of b.s. Finis
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. Then he uses the tie clip for a paper clip, showing "dual purpose" which supposedly somehow is to make us think that means the mousetrap is not i.c. Of course the mousetrap was designed to catch mice, but nevermind that. The clip on it, holding his tie in place, was made by hi tech machinery, i.e. intelligent design, and intelligent design via a mind & a hand put it on his tie. Then there is the so called debunk of Behe's i.c. example in human blood clotting. Cont.
@MrTheblackmessenger Are we ever shown how humans are faring just as well with some of their blood clotting mechanism impaired and/or missing? Of course not. Suddenly we're shown a screen image of a puffer fish and a dolphin! They don't need all the parts that humans need, so there ya go, that refutes Behe's example of i.c. Of course we aren't marine animals & no one is saying we evolved from puffer fish or dolphins, but hey, don't forget about those imaginary lines from millions of years ago.
@StopSpamming1 Cont. Can you give me some evidence from the fossil record or biology that shows you really are the offspring of Ida & Lucy & other apes? Can you do it w/o resorting to name calling, personal insults & gross obscenities and really....debaaate? If so you will be one of the very, very few YT evo fans who could. (Less than 1% in about 200 instances.) Show you understand biology & paleontology & defend your belief system that you are just a modified ape. If you can.
What I can't stand is these stupid gravitationalists. Gravity is only a theory and its absurd. If gravity is a fact, then how come the moon goes around the earth? According to gravity theory the suns gravity is greater, so the moon should go around the sun.
Gravity theory fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. Whats more they are teaching this totally unproven junk to our kids in schools.
They should at least teach the other side of the argument, angel string theory!
ANYONE: If you see no reply to some posters, they know they're on ignore for: name calling, personal insults, gross obscenities, false accusations of lying, campaiging to hide my posts, & in the case of Foxlake & Brospec, sexual harrassment. Those Expelled tactics used by Miller vid guarddogs - who trail & attack not just me but others on YT -are of course antithetical to true science. Tho I like to counter disinformation, I only have time for those who are science based, civil & objective.
@LoricaLady i have proved that your argumentations on the idea that god's commandments concerning kosher and non-kosher food are determined by health do not hold water. instead of addressing the clear contradictions in your lame arguments, you gave me a sexist didactical sneer and had blocked me (allegedly because you cannot bear using the word SHIT -ooooh, big deal...)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@ANYONE: If you see no reply to some posters, they know they're on ignore for: name calling, personal insults, gross obscenities, false accusations of lying, campaigning to hide my posts &, in the case of Foxlake & Brospec, sexual harrassment. These Expelled tactics used by evo watchdogs - who trail & attack not just me but others on YT - are of course counterproductive to true science. Tho I like to address disinformation, I only debate with those who are science based, objective & civil.
@LoricaLady Do you have anything other than woeful Ken Ham propaganda to bring to the conversation? Like some form of actual evidence that refutes evolution? If you intend to provide links to videos which have their comments and ratings disabled, they'll be ignored, because those actions are tacit admissions of the weakness of their arguments.
@lo2enge "Ken Ham propaganda" falls into the category of Presuming Omniscience Logical Fallacy. I don't intend to provide any links whatsoever. If you want to see some vids though I have favorited them on my home page. While you are asking me, indirectly, for evidence that evo is not true, I notice you provided nothing of a scientific comment yourself. However, I will mention the 2 major props (other than lots of logical fallacies) so called evolution is built upon. #1. Natural selection.
@LoricaLady "Presuming Omniscience Logical Fallacy" what's that? My statement was an ad hominem, but you can't just invent terms and expect people to understand them.. what omniscience am i presuming? I looked through your favourites page, but any videos with actual content seem to be from comment blockers, or lengthy rambling presentations with no evidence whatsoever. I would prefer links to peer-reviewed scientific papers if there is a single one out there.
@lo2enge If you don't know what presuming omniscience is, look it up on Google. I never mentioned Ken Ham, nor is he faovrited on my home page. (As a matter of fact I have learned tons, though, from the highly degreed and even peer reviewed sci-en-tists he features on his web page - just by no means not only him.) You want peer reviewed papers that agree with your point of view. You do want to look outside the box. Expelled explains about the politization of the peer review process. Cont.
@LoricaLady If you truly believe peer-review to be biased, you have a weak understanding of how science works. I would like to see actual evidence, not empty assertions.
I googled the phrase and found no clear reference, maybe i should look at AiG for this info?
Degrees like the ones WildwoodClaire's cat has? (the cat even has a PhD, letters mean nothing without coming from a respectable institution)
@lo2enge Don't be so...unenergetic. It is obvious you have not even bothered to check out the credentials for scientists on Ken Ham's website. If you are going to present yourself as science based, please be so kind as to actually do some minimal research.
@lo2enge Some examples of peer reviews include the raves Miller & Urey's experiments got when they managed to get some amino acids from some test tubes. (As usual, using, ahem! intelligently designed labs with intelligent (?) design while saying they are recreating the accidental processes of nature. Rollling eyes.) They got the wrong kind of amino acids, the wrong handed kind. They basically produced a tar which is hostile to life. Yet little children were taught this was evidence...
@LoricaLady Disagreeing with experimental conclusions of how abiogenesis may have occurred is not the same thing as providing positive evidence that evolution does not occur.
You cannot pre-suppose creation to defeat a theory that disproves it, and if you want to, you cannot accuse others of employing logical fallacies.
Are you saying Kent Hovind's degrees are valid? Some of the scientists do have degrees from recognised institutions, i concur.. but then they are in unrelated fields.
@lo2enge You are doing a red herring with Kent Hovind. He isn't even on Ken Ham's website. No the scientists on Ken Ham's sites are not "in unrellated fields." There are more than I would want to have to count who have the degrees for exactly what they are writingabout. You keep asking me to give evidence. I have already begun by discussing natural selection. What have you said of a scientific nature? Nothing.Go thru your posts & count how many faith based statements you have made so far.
@lo2enge You asked for links? That wasn't clear. I mentioned there on some favorited on my website. Just 20 min. of watching the one on Thermodynamics makes it very clear how often evolutionists demonstrate they don't believe in their own theory. If you want info, if you really want to check out the other side, then honestly study Ken Ham's site.
@lo2enge Of course I mentioned abiogenesis, M & U, & the phony, UNscientific, primal pond theory to refute your great faith in peer reviews as the fountain of all scientific truth. I will be back tomorrow, as I said.
@LoricaLady It's not relevant. Refuting something is NOT the same as providing the correct alternative.. if you think it is, you cannot accuse others of making logical fallacies.
@lo2enge Instead of complaining about what some creationists happen to do about avoiding trolls, instead of getting off onto the red herring of the Bible, instead of never actually saying anything of a scientific nature, friend, why not actually address the plethora of scientific facts that have been presented to you. If you want to take exception with what I said on the other K. Miller vid, by all means please go there and do so. Use YOUR mind.
@LoricaLady Which scientific facts have you presented? I am still waiting for a link to the papers which outline these facts. You have presented your own opinion of how you think evidence should be interpretated, and there is a reason why the opinions you have stated haven't appeared in any peer-reviewed papers - they are bogus. I do not have to talk science, as the scientists already do that. You are claiming what is known is wrong, so it is you who must explain why.
@lo2enge Think about this statement that you have made: "I do not have to talk science..." Then what are you doing here? Just saying over & over that if it's peer reviewed it's true and if not then not? You have a mind. You are not using it. The truth is if you can't defend things with your own mind and your own words then you don't really understand, yet, what the heck you are talking about. Don't hide behind "Peer reviews are the epitome of truth! Case (& mind) closed." Wake up.
@LoricaLady "Think about this statement that you have made: "I do not have to talk science..." Then what are you doing here?"
i am explaining why your interpretation of the evidence is faulty. You are looking at the evidence, i do not need to point it out again.. i just have to try and remove the blinkrs and shades from your eyes, so you can actually see it for what it is, and not what you wish to believe it is.
@lo2enge "I just have to remove the blinders from your eyes." Lol. Izzat right? Tell you what why don't you give me just one example of how mutations and/or natural selection have led to something other than just another species of the same kind of animal. Sorry, but you are not allowed to use the usal evo buzz words which evoutionary literature is replete with: could have, might, probably, we propose a model. Give me data. Ev-i-dence. Those kinds of words are not evidence but...faith.
@LoricaLady Ahhh, back to hyphenating in a feeble attempt to goad me into anger. Sorry, condescension does wind me up, but not when i recognise it as a dishonest debate tactic.
I repeat, inductive reasoning is good science. You are asking for an observation of a phenomenon that takes hundreds of thousands of years, and occurs at such a gradual rate as it would not be directly observable anyway. I presume you didn't watch the philhellenes vid i linked explaining this in a thorough and comical way
@LoricaLady "The truth is if you can't defend things with your own mind and your own words then you don't really understand, yet, what the heck you are talking about."
where have i not been doing that? I am doing the same as you, the thing is, i'm not making the arrogant conceit that what i am doing is science, unlike yourself. I am defending science.
By the way, i am glad you've stopped hyphenating words in a patronising attempt to goad me into losing my temper so you can claim victory. Ta.
@lo2enge Refutings somethning is NOT the same as providng the correct alternative. Learn your logical fallacies. It will help you come out of the mind trap of evo. I used no fallacy. Let's say you are a Judge. Miller says, Your honor I would like to prove that Mr. Evo is the father of Little Baby Organic Life. I then say Your honor I can show that all of Mr. Miller's arguments are based on assumptions presented as evidence, which have no evidence. Should you then turn to me & say, Cont.
@LoricaLady "Refutings somethning is NOT the same as providng the correct alternative." yes, i already said that to you. Refuting a faulty refutation when the explanation is in fact already known is perfectly valid, however.
I have a mind, yes.. and i use it.. especially to disregard nonsense analogies such as the ones you present.
@lo2enge "It's not relevant. Even if you can show me that his arguments are fallacious, unless you can prove who the father is, Mr. Miller gets to take Little Baby home with him." Would that be sensible, fair? Whether you believe the Bible or not, whether you believe in a Creator or not - even the flying spaghetti monster - evolution is not based on realityand science. You need to see that.
@lo2enge "Disgreeing with experimental conclusions..." RU not listening or choosing to ignore? You, like all evo buffs, keep thinking you can trust peer reviews. I gave you just 1 example of how a highly favorably peer reviewed experiment - Miller & Urey's - was touted as showing proof for evo. It actually only created amino acids where life could never exist. Yet little children were led by these peer reviewers to believe in abiogenesis tho it is COUNTER to scientific laws & all observation.
@LoricaLady "You, like all evo buffs, keep thinking you can trust peer reviews."
Yes, and you, like all conspiracy theorists, think a huge lie is being perpetrated by the "establishment" (maaan), for no apparently good reason. Ben Stein, i fully believe, knows evolution to be true. I also believe he is also a money-grubbing shyster, who is perfectly willing to deceive himself and a gullible audience with stuff they want to believe in order to line his own pockets.
@TheScienceFoundation Nothing has vindicated the M-U experiments. That is nonsense. Tell me,with your own words now, one time that life has ever been observed to come from inorganic matter. You have been taught to believe that wild assumptions and theories can replace actual data, that an unsupported hypothesis can actually belie a LAW of scienice, i.e. that life can only come from non life. Use your common sense. Get the wool off of your eyes and you will see the wolves' big smiles.
@LoricaLady You mean except the article I just posted about vindicating the Miller-Urey experiments?
'that an unsupported hypothesis can actually belie a LAW of scienice'
Second time, biogenesis and Pasteur's, Redi's et. al. work only dealt with modern life not spontaneously generating, such as rats not arising out of trash and maggots not coming from rotten meat etc. Nothing to do with the biochemical origin of life.
@TheScienceFoundation I went to your referrenced website. The usual b.s., no real data only a bunch of hypotheticals presented as if they are evidence. The usual - words like "estimating...(!) based upon relative probability (!)...simulations (!) are used to model...the method was used to infer (!)." You accept that as science? It's pure b.s., pseudo science. Oops! & oh yeal, I see you are one of the verbal abusers on my long ignore list. Hope you learn what science really is anway. Bye!
@TheScienceFoundation I went to your referrenced website. The usual b.s., no real data only a bunch of hypotheticals presented as if they are evidence. The usual - words like "estimating...(!) based upon relative probability (!)...simulations (!) are used to model...the method was used to infer (!)." You accept that as science? It's pure b.s., pseudo science. Oops! & oh yeal, I see you are one of the verbal abusers on my long ignore list. Hope you learn what science really is anway. Bye!
@LoricaLady Yes, that's how science is done, probabilities and statistics, if science were done by 'that was definitely untestable bronze age magic' nothing would ever get done.
@lo2enge ...litle children were taught in science classes that M & U's experiments gave evidence for the primal pond - that life came from inorganic mater. Wow. Peer reviews. The ultimate in truth. Not. The primal pond theory hasn't got a shred of evidence to back it up and flies in the face of true science which includes the LAW of biogenesis. I notice you have still not said anything scientific, just cast aspersions, with no evidence, on creation scientists & shown...faith in yours.
@LoricaLady They were, and that is is an hypothesis. Now other hypotheses are taught as well, because it is an area poorly understood, and not really anything to do with the origin of species. Evolution =/= abiogenesis.
Why are you expecting me to say something scientific, there are hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed papers on evolution, you sound like you consider yourself an expert, so i don't have to explain them to you, surely?
@LoricaLady I am asking you to point me to positive evidence. Not weak rebuttals of current thought. Actual, hard, scientific, experimental or even properly inductive evidence. Should be easy, seeing as you are so sure about creation.
@lo2enge Cont. Natural selection can reshuffle genes or cause genes to be lost as the result of outside environmental processes. Genes that are ALREADY in the organism. If enough genes get lost or reshuffled then only two animals with the same loss and/or reshuffled genes can mate. When this happens you get new species. There are over 200 species of bees. Every last one of them is still a bee. Evolutionists want you to believe that in the conveniently long ago and far away lala land...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@lo2enge Oh, before I wander off to bed for tonight, sorry but you are up to Presuming Omniscience again. If people want to leave a vid and allow or disallow comments that is up to them. If some don't want to allow comments perhaps they do not want to leave a place for people to make obscene, verbally abusive remarks - as I have frequently gotten for over 2 years from evo fans. That does not show they are unscientific. Maybe they just want to make their points, not leave a nest for trolls.
@LoricaLady Still no links. And if they don't want to provide a platform for trolls, they could at least moderate comments and weed out the offensive ones, although i doubt that would actually happen and not be abused.. i have left many a non-abusive message on videos that do that that were not published.
I find it ironic for a theist to accuse me of "presuming omniscience"!
@lo2enge We're dealing with a dishonest evolution denier. Even if current evolutionary theory was shown to be false (and no evidence ever has) that would not mean the defacto answer is creation.
Until a person is actually willing to put down in paper and complete and reasoned explanation for the alternative to evolutionary theory then they should never ever be entertained as anything but kooks.
Lorica is a specialist in seizing the "moral high ground" in discussions built on her deceptions.
@koncorde Ohhh, i know debunking evolution would no more prove the biblical genesis story than any other mythological explanation. My next question after Lorica provides me with the myriad links to the mountain of evidence she has disproving speciation through natural selection will be to ask for the scientific papers proving creation could only have been performed by the abrahamic god, as i am aware this is the explanation she accepts, and it MUST be backed up by significant evidence for that!
@lo2enge Due to limited time, if you want to see what I have to say about how mutations & natural selection do not, & cannot, lead to so called evolution, plz see posts I just left today on YT: Kenneth Miller - Evoution vs. Intelligent Design 1-8. As you can see it was a lot of writing & of course I'd rather not type all that over. You request "scientific papers". By your definition that means only one side of the issue, the evoution side. Yet I've given some of the evidence for design.
@LoricaLady You specifically have not given any evidence for the non-evolution side, and particularly nothing relating to science or even scriptural in reference that isn't refuted by equally valid non-literal interpretations of the Bible.
First before you attempt to argue against the scientific consensus evolution perhaps you should achieve some kind of creation consensus? Maybe even postulate a secondary explanation for the fossil record? How about scientific refutation of dating methods?
@koncorde I have given evidence for the non evoution side. In spades. On the other video. I am not going to retype if here. You can read it there and address what I have said or not. 'Sup to you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@koncorde There is plenty of scientific refutation of dating methods. People have sent recently dead sea shells to labs and been told the samples were ancient. If samples from the same fossil are sent to two different dating labs,count on it there will be vastly different ages given for them. All such dating methods assuuume uniformity of decay rate & no contamination of the item being dated. That's just for starters. Research it. Look at dissenting SCIENTISTS who refute it. If you dare.
@LoricaLady I asked for scientific refutation, not examples where carbon dating can be inconsistent based on whatever calibration is utilised. You are specifically avoiding providing any examples, studies, or references to any such scientists or papers that refute those dating methods, or their suggested accurate dating processes based upon their investigations.
Gentry for instance specifically abuses his own scientific findings in order fit his model, refuting his own argument in the process.
@koncorde I do not jave time to debate every point in evolution. I gave you some problems that are known with carbon dating. I told you to check out some dissenting scientists - gee that's a novel, not to mention open minded idea. If you don't want to do that, that's up to you. What I am asking for again, & all I have time for really, is for you to use your mind, your words, to demonstrate ev-i-dence that natural selection or mutations ever caused any climb up the "Tree of Life." Waiting...
@LoricaLady I didn't ask you to debate every point. You were never required or requested to debate every point. The point was a distinctly small request for studies that specifically refute the carbon dating process. Not highlight the occasional mistake, or what happens when limestone and carbon come into contact etc.
You have not provided even a single scientist by name, nor study by name, nor even a single fundamental piece of evidence that overturns the carbon dating method.
@koncorde dear koncorde, as someone who has debated with the repugnant, ignorant and arrogant loricalady, i can tell you that it is completely useless. every time you'll win a debate and prove the emptiness of her pseudo-scientific arguments, she'll make up some idiotic excuse to discredit you and will most probably block your comments on her channel (as all fascistoids do).
@koncorde I noticed in some of your earlier posts that you were getting into the name calling & personal insult realm, but kind of let it slide. At the same time I knew it would continue. It always does and then always, always escalates. Sorry, I only have so much time. I prefer to spend it debating with those who are civil & objective.
@LoricaLady You are a sham. You run from any form of confrontation, you purposely do not provide any evidence, statements, or supporting data for any of your claims and instead hide behind your mantra of "civility" despite your blatant and intentionally hypocritical attempts to play the "high horse" card. You fail.
You are completely incapable of entering into an honest debate, you are similarly incapable of providing any refutation for a single scientific premise.
@koncorde Actually no citation is required for common knowledge. any basic post high school education in chemistry will inform of current common problems with the inaccuracies and repeated falliability of any type of radio-isotopic dating system. Also before you ask to have citations and be so sure the Earth is so old explain the common occurance with which we see helium present (an alpha particle) within dacaying U-238 rock which at this point in it's dated "age" should all be gone. Just sayin,
@BackwoodsBoy30 Helium is entirely expected to be in greater quantities in decaying rock (the ones that are able to retain it anyway) which makes everything else you say somewhat confusing. Have you actually had any post-highschool education on chemistry, or more importantly even high school education on chemistry?
Citation or reference to anything even remotely venturing near your claims would be a very interesting read.
@BackwoodsBoy30 Yes, you are 'just sayin,' and I'm sure it makes your friends laugh in the bar when you 'chill' with them and 'just say' garbage like that.
Here it won't stick. Take fifteen minutes and find us a goddamn link, then post it.
Of course people like Gentry argue that Atomic Theory was suspended for a few thousand years in order to account for all the anomalous dating records we have.
@LoricaLady You chose to post your arguments on a different video, when there was an ongoing conversation already on this one? I presume you must have had a good reason for wanting to converse with yourself rather than continuing an existing discussion... i must be really dim not to be able to work out why... hmmm, although i do have some inkling...
@lo2enge I posted the arguments on the other vid because I had gotten started there before you posted me and wanted to complete what turned out to be information relevant to your comments. What you call conversing with myself is of course standard practice on YT, i.e. making comments below vids. If you don't want to go there & debate, fine. It seems to me you don't want to actually address actual scientific topics & use your own words, just express your ongoing faith in the evolutionists.
@LoricaLady There is evidence of design by a blind watchmaker only. Are you seriously saying a flawless creator would give us backwards retinas; a spine unsuited to erect walking; an oesophagus and a trachea that cross, making choking a danger; an immune system that malfunctions and attacks our own bodies... the list goes on and on. If we are designed by the abrahamic god, he really ought to have given up the day job and found something more suited to his skills.
@lo2enge Instead of telling me what you in your great wisdom feels is the way a Creator would design things, why don't you try to explain away the perfectly good examples of intelligent design and irreducible complexity I gave you? But it doesn't look like you will do that. Too bad. The truth is, fella, you haven't really learned to think for yourself, analytically and critically and I think you at least suspect that. Don't feel discouraged. I used to be just the same, but learned better.
@lo2enge In the same posts for that video I described irreducible complexity when talking abouit the statistically ridiculous probability of fins turning to legs - w their accompanying muscles, bones, ligaments, cranial & spinal nerves etc.) developing synchronously, bilaterally, & complimentary, all while the parts are initially totally useless due to being unconnected and incomplete. You want to believe accidental processe of nature can do that? Brother if you do, you have great...faith!
@LoricaLady I've heard lots of statisical probablility arguments, and found them all wanting, yours is no better. If this was good science, there would be peer-reviewed papers on it, rather than a vast consensus amongst the community that it is an irrelevant distraction caused by incomplete understanding of the process. Legs are not irreducibly complex. By the way, if you wish to cite Behe, you also have to consider he accepts common descent and speciation through mutation.
@lo2enge "If this was good science there would be peer-reviewed papers on it." Sigh. When, when are you going to learn to think outside the box, to use YOUR OWN mind? We don't get scientific truth through the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. We don't just assume that orthodox, self protective politically correct peer review boards are the fountain of integrity and truth. We use our own minds and look at both sides, even (gasp!) dissenting scientists. Or we just stay in the matrix.
@LoricaLady "Sigh. When, when are you going to learn to think outside the box, to use YOUR OWN mind?" Spoken like a twoo twoofer. Do you also have an "Obama -is a Muslim" t-shirt and a tin-foil hat you like to wear when out and about? I am utterly sceptical in all matters.
"Research it. Look at dissenting SCIENTISTS who refute it."
I did. If you want to talk about pseudo-science, they have it in spades! (by the way, Behe does NOT deny common descent, nor evolution through mutation)
@lo2enge ""Research it. Look at dissenting SCIENTISTS who refute it."
also, despite my multiple requests to provide links to peer-reviewed papers (in fact, if you had links to any good evidence, peer-review or not, you would have provided them by now) you have singularly failed to produce a single one. That to me is extremely telling.
@lo2enge I gave you an ex. of peer reveiwed papers with Miller & Urey's failed experiment, which was treated as it was a big success. How many times do you need to be told about that, fella? Check out Dr. Robert Gentry, for just one of many creationist scientist who have been favorably peer reviewed - up to a point.
Dr. Gentry, a nuclear physicist got good peer reviews on his work regarding polonium halos until - oops! someone noticed his research pointed to a young earth. He got Expelled.
@LoricaLady With regards to Miller-Urey, that was about abiogenesis, NOT common descent or speciation through mutation and natural selection, nor is it positive evidence refuting ANYTHING! I ask yet again... a link to a POSITIVE refutation of existing knowledge, not a link to a paper which may or may not be right or relevant to a demonstration of abiogenesis.
@LoricaLady Tell me, was Dr Gentry a yec before he was a nuclear scientist? Did he convert as a result of his interpretation of his findings? Also, though his paper got some good reviews, it also received bad ones ones.. and seeing as he is a nuclear physicist, and his paper is on a geological phenomenon, and it was geologists disputing his claims, i wouldn't put too much faith in it; not to mention that it is a grain of sand compared with the mountain of evidence for an old earth
@lo2enge I have just spent about two hours responding to your posts & others. Again, I don't have time to debate everything in evolution. This is a scatter gun approach that will get nowhere. Again, please give data, scientific evidence, to support that any life form climbed up the so called Tree of Life through the processes that evolution claims, natural selection or random mutation. That gets to the ground floor of the matter. Please use your own words & mind. I'll be back in 2-3 days.
@LoricaLady "scientific evidence, to support that any life form climbed up the so called Tree of Life"
Again, i contend that it is a dishonest tactic to ask for such evidence, and i have explained why it is, and also provided a link to a video which explains why it is. If you couldn't understand the explanation, i pity you. If you did understand the explanation, you are npow simply being dishonest.
Logical inductive reasoning states why evolution is the only explanation for the diversity of life
@LoricaLady "Again, I don't have time to debate everything in evolution."
This is the prime issue. Every point backs up every other point, not just in evolutionary biology, but in all other sciences too. If you cannot refute every point in evolutionary theory, you are making a tacit admission of defeat, because the whole structure is self-supporting, and you'll need to kick out every single block to bring it down, not feebly pick away at a few minor points.
@LoricaLady "This is a scatter gun approach that will get nowhere"
I was content to debate you on a single video.. it is you who is employing the scatter-gun by attempting to flood all of the Miller videos with your own empty efforts to bring down a mountain by removing pebbles from its slopes. As we sow, so shall we reap, i believe it is written somewhere.
You want data, or my own words? Make your mind up. If i believed you wanted either i'd be less belligerant.
@LoricaLady Also, i don't see why i cannot employ the use of other peoples' words if they outline a point thoroughly and eloquently.
Surmising you are a YEC bible literalist, i also submit this for your perusal, although i'd also bet a pound to a penny that you treat it with the same disdain and ignorance you apparently treated the other video links i have provided:
watch?v=5mPPnN1c0jk
if you believe in Noah's flood, you don't just believe in evolution, you believe in super-evolution!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@lo2enge Get down to business. Get to fundamentals and be scientific. Is there evidence that mutations lead to that "climb" or not. Miller thinks so. If you keep meandering all over the place with vague statements and no actual data - really there is none but many evolutionsits use many logical fallacies to convince the public that there is - I will assume you really don't understand the issues or else have not yet mastered the skills to put them into your own words. I'm still waitnig...
@LoricaLady Yes, everything in biology is evidence. Occam's razor is the lens. Without evolution you are faced with a separate entity needed to explain each individual phenomenon - the similarity in genes between every living creature, the shape and placement of the fossil record, the individuality of long-separated ecosystems like the antipodes or madagascar, the fundamental difference in structure between the major groups and kingdoms, yet the similarity within them.
"the world is thinking" and i see thie abnormal here, The world is already crazy
xchris1800 2 weeks ago
ANYONE: If you see no reply to any poster below, they know they are on ignore for things like name calling, personal insults and false accusations of lying. Some of them follow me & others around YT with such tactics. If you would care to make their same "points" I will be happy to reply with what I feel is "the rest of the story." However, I only debate with those who are civil & objective.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
the Law of Conservation of Matter: During an ordinary chemical change, there is no detectable increase or decrease in the quantity of matter.
The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.
This are both laws not theories. So let's say that evolution is true, everything has to come from something but something can't come from nothing. Where did everything truly originate? It's all from God. We did not come from an animal. Animals
celena028 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@celena028 you don't know the difference between laws and theories? look for the definitions before i start making fun of you . "everything has to come from something but something can't come from nothing. Where did everything truly originate? It's all from God" i personally don't know the answer for that question neither do you , if you do i just need some proof.
"We did not come from an animal. " wishful thinking but all the evidence point that you and i are both animals.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
haha interesting.. this was done in a church.. you can see some good organ pipes in the back ground
MaestroAssistant 1 month ago
ANYONE: If you see no response to some posters they know they're on ignore for things like name calilng, personal insults and gross obscenities. I limit my time by debating with those who can be civil & objective. If I kept posting to all who called me names, cussed at me and sometimes far worse, I'd need 10 lifetimes. I will be more than happy to respond to their same "points", and tell what I feel is "the rest of the story" if anyone cares to make them in a way which leaves out verbal abuse.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
Creationists use lies to promote their bullshit. I thought that was a sin.
scientific1982 7 months ago
I simply love the inane comments by creationists. It's as though their life depended on discrediting evolution. Just so they get to keep their imaginary friend.
And so what? If the evolution theory were wrong, would that in any way validate their particular flavour of a religious book?
StopSpamming1 7 months ago
@StopSpamming1 I just don't love the way YT evo-ites are always attacking religion & the Bible so often instead of getting down to business & actually defending evolution with science & logic. Evo stands or falls on those 2 pillars regardless of what you or I think about the Bible. I just don't love the way evo-ites get into name calling like "inane" and make vague comments w/o really demonstrating why their believe what they do Can you debate w/o the strawman logical fallacy of religioin? Cont
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady
} "evo-ites"
Wow! 1st prize for word creation.
} "always attacking"
Are we a bit absolutish here?
} "defending evolution"
What on earth makes you think evolution requires defending? Does gravity? Music?
If someone makes comments on how s/he does not understand how evolution actually works and then mentions "Ida & Lucy & other apes" I call those inane.
And no, there is nothing to debate.
StopSpamming1 1 month ago
@StopSpamming1 You mention gravity & music. Those things are testable, observable and repeatable. Evolution is not. "And no there is nothing to debate." I.E. you're coppin' out.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady
} "Those things are testable, observable and repeatable"
Well, so is evolution. Otherwise it would not be called a scientific theory - just as are gravity and music. With the difference that evolution is better substantiated than gravity.
Do you also debate gravity as passionately as evolution?
} "I.E. you're coppin' out"
If that's what you want to call it to satisfy your little ego, yes.
Because it is futile. You see only what you allow yourself to believe.
StopSpamming1 1 month ago
@StopSpamming1 If you can do it w/o resorting to personal insults, name calling & gross obscenities,& w/o the irrelevant strawman of religion, tell just 1 thing that is testable, repeatable and observable that demonstrates you are a modified ape. Don't just say it's so, demonstrate that you can defend your statement with actual data, not faith based statements. If you aren't up to that, just insult me, name call me etc.,I'll get the point and put you on ignore as you will evidently.wish.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady
I am not a "modified ape". We are ALL a kind of ape.
And if you want to know why, don't ask me, just enter proof humans are apes into a search engine and you will get religious and factual suggestions. That enables you to form an informed opinion.
And that was my last suggestion and reaction to your belief.
StopSpamming1 1 month ago
@StopSpamming1 I''m not the one that needs to do the research, friend, you are. Like others before you, you could have cited "evidence" like the chromsome 2 fusion, "transitional fossils" & "similar homology." But you didn't. Probably because you are just accepting....on faith...that evolution is true since you've been inundated with it all your life and were (like most people in school) never really taught critical thinking much less logical fallacies.You are the one with the religion. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@StopSpamming1 Cont.You have faith when they tell you that Fossil A led to B & C & to you based on magical thinking about "missing links" (can you tell them from never existed links?) & their invisible descendants' invisible descendants' progeny leading to you (or any oher life form) with invisible dots. You probably believe there is a Geologic Column somewhere on the earth with everything arranged neatly from Cambrian to now.
You may believe in the evidenceless anti science primal pond. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@StopSpamming1 Cont.You probably believe that Darwin showed at least 1 ex. of how any species originated in his book - which he certainly never did. You believe on faith when they tell you that viruses that lead to different kinds of colds are "evolving" though they are still all...viruses! You believe a lot of stuff fella. But you can't articulate it. If/when you can articulate it you might have learned the difference between actual evidence & faith based belief systems.& use YOUR mind.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@StopSpamming1 Cont. I most certainly am not any kind of ape whatsoever. However, if you want to go on believing that, hey, who am I to burst your bubble. But if you ever start to wonder if just maybe it ain't true - you are the one who needs to start searching Google. Practice what you preach. I've read both sides intensely for years.
Have your? Rhetorical Q. (But I'm positive the answer is no on both subjects.)
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady you don't agree with the theory then bring a better one but please don't mention ID or creationism because scientically speaking they don't even make a good hypothesis. I'm waiting.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger I do not have to bring a better theory. (Tho I happen to have one.) By the laws of logic if you can demonstrate that one postulate is false, that does not mean you have to present a true one. The 1st one is true or not. Period. Also, it is not for you to tell me or anyone, "Don't mention" this or that. In addition saying "They don't make a good hypothesis" with no rationale given for your position.does not really contribute anything in the way of science or logic. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady sorry mam your laws of logic are irrelevant in science especially when it comes to theories , in science we hold into truth a theory that explains better the observable data that we have until a better theory is presented, evolution could be proven wrong in the future but since there is no challenging scientific theory and the fact that we can still make a lot of predictions with our current one, it's normal to say that evolution by natural selection is a fact!
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger "In science we hold onto truth a theory that explains better the observable data...." Hang onto those words. Now pick one thing that is observable, testable and repeatable to show that evoution ever happened. Then be prepared to defend it. Saying "Read this site...all scientitst believe...what about talking snakes..." will not be valid. Use your own mind & your own words and give DATA to support your contention. We'll get to the other areas you think support evo later.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady this a 500 words comment space so I'll try to be straight .this an experiment every student in medical college does to explain how how bacteria develop drug resistance . if you take for example, colony of staphylococcus Aureus(SA) , we know that they can be killed by penicillin or it's derivative drugs( methiciilin). you take that colony and administrate them with enough dose of penicillin , what you will realize is that not all of them were killed....con't
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Drug resistance to in bacteria is called an example of evo. It's not. It's an ex. of how all living things have the ability to adapt within LIMITS and to pass onto their descendants certain helpful traits within LIMITS. Note that the bacteria stay bacteria. Counless billions are multiplying & dying at astronomical rates. Why don't we see even 1 turning into something other than a bacteria - ditto algae & other micro organisms all steadfastly staying within their genus? Cnt
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady "It's an ex. of how all living things have the ability to adapt within LIMITS and to pass onto their descendants certain helpful traits within LIMITS" you just failed in your own trap , you just define evolution ; what you are doing is like saying you can have words but you can not make a sentence and that's a fallacy , by the way can you tell me what's the name of that phenomena that stops micro evolution to become macro? how does it work?
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger I don't believe in any kind of evolution, micro or macro. I have to go for now. Please just as 1 Q at a time. PLEASE. That's just all I have time for.
:What you are doing is saying you can have word but not make a sentence." There is ev-i-dence for words making sentences. Where is the ev-i-dence that Tiktaalik ever had any progeny signicantly different from itself, ditto ape fossils. Where is the ev-i-dence
that our human Chrom. 2 came from chimps or apes? Cont.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady "I don't believe in any kind of evolution, micro or macro. I have to go for now" but you just admitted that beneficial traits were past from parents to offsprings and that's my friend is what evolution is all about. if you look at a sentence you can recognize and know that it was formed by words right? the same if you look at the fossil record you can see how species are gradually changing over time by accumulation of new traits.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@LoricaLady " that our human Chrom. 2 came from chimps or apes?chimps are apes , other apes have 48 chromosomes but we have 46 because of the chromosome 2 fusion.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. Where is the ev-i-dence for how DNA can come about or ever did come about? Where is the ev-i-dence for fins to feet, scales to feathers, fish to tetrapods, tetrapods to birds? There are countless billions of fossils,, billions of just 1 kind of nautiloid alone in the Grand Canyon. They told you those changes occured. Where is the ev-i-dence? As usual, the answer is - in the opposite direction as there are no inbetweeners found in those countless billions of fossils.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady "Where is the ev-i-dence for how DNA can come about or ever did come about" that topic is being studied by abiogenesis not evolution. "Where is the ev-i-dence for fins to feet, scales to feathers, fish to tetrapods, tetrapods to birds?" why do chickens have a gene for teeth?."There are countless billions of fossils,, billions of just1 kindof nautiloid alone in the Grand Canyon.They told you those changes occured.Where is the ev-i-dence?read about the fossilization.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. It's your turn to answer some Qs. Give the evidence showing a fusion of 2 human chromosomes, making a superficial match with a chimp's different kind of chromosomes, means that we evolved from nonchimps. Explain why bacteria, algae & all organisms stay in their same genus. Expain how DNA could get the new info it must have in order to turn a species into a new genus. Ev-i-dence now, not the usual evo "might have...we infer...milllions of years ago...probably."
LoricaLady 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady "Give the evidence showing a fusion of 2 human chromosomes, making a superficial match with a chimp's different kind of chromosomes, means that we evolved from nonchimps. " the chromosome 2 has 3 telomeres how is that possible if it's not a fusion? you will see that in chimps and orangutans the genes contains in the human chromosome 2 are contained by to separate chromosomes that fit in shapes with the fused chromosome 2. how is that . lol
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@LoricaLady con't ... now take those who were not killed and and put them in perfect condition of reproduction then administrate penicillin again what you will see is that instead of killing them you will make them reproduce faster . and there you have your drug resistant SA. but that still just and observation that the SA have the property to become resistant to penicillin if you are using methicillin you can call it MRSA. but how do we know that this cause by evolution? ....
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@LoricaLady con't 2 ... because we know how penicillin works in a molecular level to have antibiotic properties , so we can trace back the genetic making of the MRSA and a SA in fact some SA had a mutation that made them become resistant to β-lactam antibiotics ( penicillin and methicillin) , and when you put them to the environmental pressure( natural selection) those who had that mutation survived to become MRSA. We just proved that the observation we made earlier... con't 3.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. "We just proved that the observation we made earlier..." No, you just proved that evolution is NOT happening, because every last bacteria stayed a bacteria and there is 0 evidence whatsoever that any of them ever have been, or ever will be, anything but a bacteria or that any of them will ever start climbing up Darwin's Tree. What you see is basically stasis with small changes within a steadfastly fixed genus. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady "you just proved that evolution is NOT happening, because every last bacteria stayed a bacteria " you are not following i was talking about drug resistance happen because of mutation. i was not talking about changing them into frogs lol! if that's the idea you have of evolution then i understand your confusion . it takes a lot of time to have formation of new species. to become a new genus it takes a lot of mutations a natural selection to rule the game.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@LoricaLady ....was in fact the result of evolution by natural selection. and to confirm this we now take one single SA and make it reproduce for many generations ,we go through the same process and what we have is the same result. we can repeat this over and over again. from this experiment we can predict that if you only use penicillin like drugs to treat SA infection there is a good chance that the patient will develop drug resistance , so it's better to use a couple of AB.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@LoricaLady why did say that creationism and ID don't make a good scientific hypothesis? science by definition explains the natural world within the natural world. another thing is for and hypothesis to consider as scientific , it need to be testable and falsifiable ; how do you do this with a supernatural creator or designer? how do you make predictions with that ? maybe you can see some sort of design in evolution but that's an illusion caused by natural selection.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger "Maybe you can see some sort of design in evolution but that's an illusion caused by natural selection. Maybe as one of your proofs for evolution you can tell me when, where & how N.S. is ever seen to lead from a new species to a new genus. We knew about speciation long before Darwinism. According to his "Tree" things go from a species to a genus. Where is the ev-i-dence for that? Or you could give data on how mutations lead to a new genus. Take your pick & defend it.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady "According to his "Tree" things go from a species to a genus. " from species to genus or from genus to species they can go both ways but do you understand that in taxonomy there are intermediary phases(domain kingdom family etc...) that the offsprings of a species have to go to be consider as a new genus? we can trace back this changes in the fossil record by monophyly , morphology ,biogeography etc...then look at their DNA sequence which perfectly match up .
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger "From species to genus or from genus to species they can go both ways." Where is any evidence whatever that anything ever has gone, or currently is going, from genus to species? Unless you mean that new species of life forms are occuring. Yes, there are 200 species of bees. They are all bees. Leo & Kitty are both cats. We knew about speciation before Darwinism. Where is any change from species to genus ever seen? W/O data to support its existence the "Tree" is bogus.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady "Where is any evidence whatever that anything ever has gone, or currently is going, from genus to species" just go and look at the fossil record: the beginning of every branch of the tree is a genus that's how it works . evolution is a random process so we don't predict the future with it.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Your "evidence" is look at a Tree? That's not evidence. That's faith. Look at the fossil record? I did. It shows stasis and abrupt appearance. You cited the fossil record. Defend 1, just 1, example of how it shows evolution. Miller said Titktaalik is "as good as it gets". Show me, with evidence, how you KNOW its descendants turned into tetrapods. Give 1 shred of evidence. Don't just keeping SAYING things happened based on evo dogma. SHOW your EVIDENCE it happened..
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady it's not only about the fossil record it's also about their age and how thy appear over time for example you won't find dinosaurs fossils in the Precambrian or human fossils in the Paleozoic if you could then you will completely destroy evolution theory. that's one of the prediction made by evolution theory , not you wining lottery , or the frog giving birth to an elephant. it does no happen like that
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger I manage my time on YT by only debating with folks as long as they are civil & objective (which for YT evo fans is usually, not very long if at all, sadly). If I kept on respondiong to posts with everyone who falsely accused me of lying, personally insulted me, cussed me, called me names (& said worse things) I'd need several lifetimes to keep responding to them all. I wish you well and hope something has sunk in on you, but that's up to. You're on ignore for good.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady I'm glad we had this discussion and i believe you learned something from it i did too. i enjoyed it . i believe you to be very intelligent but misguided , please read less from creationist websites it will help you. I'm a neurologist , for me it's perfectly normal for people to disagree on topics . good luck!
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger You have the usual stereotype of creationists - people who only read one side. How can you still think that when I have given ample evidence I know exactly what Miller & others have been saying? I have read and analyzed, right here on YT in these little boxes, quite a few articles from evolutionary literature & Miller's entire presentations, but my fave to debunk is Talk Spin, er Talk Origins. I suggest you follow your own advice and learn to carefully study BOTH sides.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady You are asking people to study astrology along side astronomy. You are asking people to study the stork theory along side biology. You are asking people to study that God did it along side evolution. What is wrong with you? You got a screw lose or something? What is it that you do't "get" about Intelligent Design as the Trojan Horse of bull shit, that has absolutely no supporting evidence other than a magical claim that cannot possibly compete with science, which is true?
truvelocity 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. Taxonomy is a system of using words to label characteristics of animals. It is not evidence for anything. How it is interpreted by evolutionists is based on magical thinking and logical fallacies. As always. (But I wish you had taken a break at the so called evolving bacteria & just stuck to 1 topic for time's sake. But I will address this too.) Let's look at what Miller calls "as good as it gets for a transitional form." Tiktaalik. He uses taxonomy. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady "Taxonomy is a system of using words to label characteristics of animals. " so according to you they just randomly name those species ? yeah you are just proving my point that you know little about evolution so why are you lying about something you don't understand?
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger You are now on ignore. You have followed the usual pattern of YT evo fans. Evade Qs for actual evidence, but show lots of faith that you are, just as they told you, only the great great etc. grandbabby of Ma & Pa Ape. Use personal insults instead of data & accuse the other person of lying to avoid data.
When people get really unpleasant with me I tell them this thing that sounds unpleasant but has good intentions: Learn to use YOUR mind & come out of the matrix. BYE!
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady " . grandbabby of Ma & Pa Ape." we are still apes , still primates and still cordae. i never insulted you ,.about the lying part yes you are or you are just ignorant about the fact that you were lying and i can understand that,you've just been misinformed what i will remember from the conversation is that you didn't know that things you thought to be proof of designer could be explained by natural selection,which is the real real reason things are the way they are.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. He can't use the DNA (again you are really adding in too many "proofs", please stick to one at a time for time's sake) because DNA doesn't hold up for the aeons that they claim fossils have existed. He uses things like "similar homology" and "characteristics of" like all evolutionists making transitional fossil claims.
We are told that Tiktaalik turned into a tetrapod based on such things. This is magical thinking, faith, not science. There is 0 evidence...
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady "We are told that Tiktaalik turned into a tetrapod based on such things" it easy to say that when you don't study these things . so now tell us what tiktaalik is a fish with legs? why would a fish have tetrapods features? the evidence comes from comparative anatomy , biogeography and by dating the fossil. is that rocket science to you?
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger ...that Tik's descendants were ever anything but 100% fish like him, or that he wasn't just 1 of innumerable extinct life forms that never had any progeny significantly different from itself in any way. Yet we are told, based on its invisible descendants' invisible descendants to draw lines to the invisible dots that connect them to tetrapods! And they call that science. Google Melbourne Museum Tiktaalic replica to see a great example of visual deception that evo uses. Cnt
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. Compare it to the real fossil. Notice the conveniently missing back end for this "best example" of a transition. The artist has put in back legs/fins such as are never seen in nature and certainly never on a 100% fish. Then it has made the tiny frontal fins about 5X bigger than the fossil's & given them musculature nowhere found on it. Why? For its magical climb up onto dry land. Evo lit has been replete with fraudulent art from the start & this continues. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. They tell you you are a modified ape with the same techniques. You know that drawing that shows a line of apes leading to man? Totally w/o evidence. They find (few, paltry & often fragmented) some bones of some primates and use the same magical thinking, the same evidenceless, invisible, descendants' descendants to connect imaginary dots from them to you. Sometime Google quotes from world famous paleontologist Colin Patterson about transitions & evo in general. Cont
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Why don't you explain to me why irreducible complexiity (which is at the foundation of i.d. & creationism) "doesn't even make a good hypothesis." Use data, not just your unspecified & humble opinion. See if you can avoid name calling, cursing, personal insults and the Bible Bash Dance (i.e. switching the topic to religion, away from scientific data & logic, and flailing away at the Bible.) Are you up to the challenge?
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady about irreducible complexity just type here one youtube " kenneth miller on irreducible complexity" you will see how he debunked that idea during the DOVER's TRIAL. if you don't start using the bible or personal attack i won't do that neither this is a debate not a fight.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Miller didn't debunk anything in the Dover Trial. That's his spin on what happened. What he did was hand over to the state, to a politically appointed judge with no science training, and non science trained lawyers, the "right" to decide what is science & what is not. His big point of "proof" there was the Chromsome Fusion #2. Would you like to make that be your 1st "proof" for evolution, which you will have to defend with data. Pick 1 thing & support it with data.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady really?did you watch the whole thing ?what about this :watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU? Behe was clearly shown to be incompetent and a lazy scientists , he said evolution by natural selection could not explain the body immune system and was handled a tone of books that were proving him wrong( that was my favorite part) .the judge was a conservative btw . he mentioned the chromosome 2 because at the time it was the last discovery that confirm that we and other apes are related.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger "Biogeography". Do you mean the so called Geologic Column? It is nowhere to be found on earth, though it is commonly presented in textbooks as an actual reality. You can find "Cambrian" fossils dotting the mountain ranges around the world. Fossils are no way in neat little niches. As usual the evidence goes in the opposite direction. And then they use magical thinking to explain the lack of any Column by telling us they know what happened millions of years ago. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. "Millions of years ago" is so conveniently unobservable, untestable and unrepeatable for both fossils and the evolution that was supposedly occuring in those magical times.
Onto Chrom. 2. I believe Behe had not yet heard this argument as it was a new one.
Let's look at it. The usual dataless speculation piled ontop of logical fallacies. 1) Fallacy of the single cause, i.e. "We see something and only evo can explain it!" Uh, about 1 in 1000 people have...
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger ...an aditional fused chromosome. In fact lots of animals have fused chromosomes. How come they aren't saying that additional fused chromosome that some people have isn't the result of evo too - ditto those other animals? Because they can't come up with some superficial match to evo theory. Now you tell me. How do they know that one fusion came from apes & that the other one didn't? There is no way to observe, test or repeat that the Chrom. 2 fusion came from apes...
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger ...Yet they tell you they KNOW where the fusion came from and they call that "science." 2) Fallacy of Incomplete Comparison. The fusion involves human chromosomes, not ape chromosomes. Ape chromosomes are not the same size and have a different frequency and other differences not seen in human chromosomes. Oh, but don't forgot those invisible lines in the invisible millioins of years ago that we can believe somehow, w/0 evidence, changed ape chromosomes into ours. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger ...3) Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy. This is the favorite. If there's any similarity, no matter how small, it's called evidence! If Tik had some "characteristic" of a Tetrapod, even tho it's 100% fish, well obviously it turned into a Tetrapod! If DNA has some similarities to other DNA, well obviously 1 turned into the other. Of course they have no evidence that new DNA, as is needed for anything above speciation, can be created by known processes.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger .. But they have faith....lots of....faith, that it happened anyway. Snakes look lots like worms. Bees, birds & moths fly. Chimps & tobacco have 48 chromosomes. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. Oh, and see if you can figure out why they compare out chromosomes to chimps when no one is even saying we are evolved from chimps! Oh, yeal, I forgot, somewhere millioins of years ago invsiible imaginary lines (somehow) can explain for us how there is a connection. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. Behe is the 1 who is a true scientist. I think it is disgraceful & unprofessional the way Miller attacks him. I've seen him in a presentation on Dover trial putting up a court drawing of himself where he looks scholarly and scientific. But the picture he puts up of Behe demonizes him. It is a caricature from the New Yorker made to make the man look like a stupid fish.
Let's analyze some of Miller's so called debunks of Behe's irreducible copmplexity examples. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. He takes a mousetrap, mangles it and tells us that he has just demonstrated that the mousetrap id not irreducibly complex since it can still catch "really stupid mice." True to evo style we get a statement of "fact" with 0 evidence, i.e. we never see any flattened, dead rodents. He even showed just the coil & the cheese at 1 point & told us it could catch mice too? So they're gonna impale themselves on the pointy part of the coil to get the cheese? Lol. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady you are just proving evolution without knowing it , the mouse trap thing really got you . he proved that if you remove different part of the seemingly "irreducible complex" bacteria flagellum you still have some very functional structures proving that they evolved to make a flagellum . that was how you shut a creationist; did you hear Behe say something? he knew Dr Miller got him with that one.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Ok I will leave you this one last refutation for your benefit and for the benefit of any others, then I'm finished.
The usual evo "debunk" re the bacterial flagellum is based, as always, on logical fallacies & speculation presented as factual evidence. 1) Strawman logical fallacy. Behe said the bug will not work if all its parts are not in place. So they do a bait & switch. They talk about "co option" & "dual purpose" of the parts,not the total bug.Cont.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. 2) Inicomplete Comparison. They point to some simpler cells and say - w/0 evidence as always of course - that well, the flagellum must have been simpler in the past too. Just ignore that the simpler bug has a different purpose and is not observed to be evolving into anything (like 100% of life on the planet).
Magical thinking as usual. Somehow in ways we can't see things happened "millioins of years ago" and presto, that's how you got the flagellum. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady "that well, the flagellum must have been simpler in the past too. Just ignore that the simpler bug has a different purpose and is not observed to be evolving into anything (like 100% of life on the planet)." i believe with that statement if you read unbiased sources you could become a genius in evolution biology , you are answering your own question.
MrTheblackmessenger 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. Now here is something for you to think about. You think you know evo. You say accurately that it cannot predict the future. So look at the flagellar whip on a sperm cell and tell me how & why evo is going to be able to do these things: Drive the "emerging" "evolving" whip to completion, ditto the rotary motor that turns it, while both are initially useless for aeons? Ask what "dual purpose" or "co option" 1 can have w/o the other totally in place and fully formed.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. Now imagine the egg in a totally other body. How & why is unthinking evo going to be able to drive it to completion (in any life form anywhere that has 2 genders) before the reproductive system of the other gender is complete? You make this argument sound like a wrestling match with words like "got him with that one." In a way it is. It is a wrestling match for your mind. And the one who is being "gotten" so far, friend, is YOU. Get free of b.s. Finis
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Cont. Then he uses the tie clip for a paper clip, showing "dual purpose" which supposedly somehow is to make us think that means the mousetrap is not i.c. Of course the mousetrap was designed to catch mice, but nevermind that. The clip on it, holding his tie in place, was made by hi tech machinery, i.e. intelligent design, and intelligent design via a mind & a hand put it on his tie. Then there is the so called debunk of Behe's i.c. example in human blood clotting. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@MrTheblackmessenger Are we ever shown how humans are faring just as well with some of their blood clotting mechanism impaired and/or missing? Of course not. Suddenly we're shown a screen image of a puffer fish and a dolphin! They don't need all the parts that humans need, so there ya go, that refutes Behe's example of i.c. Of course we aren't marine animals & no one is saying we evolved from puffer fish or dolphins, but hey, don't forget about those imaginary lines from millions of years ago.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@StopSpamming1 Cont. Can you give me some evidence from the fossil record or biology that shows you really are the offspring of Ida & Lucy & other apes? Can you do it w/o resorting to name calling, personal insults & gross obscenities and really....debaaate? If so you will be one of the very, very few YT evo fans who could. (Less than 1% in about 200 instances.) Show you understand biology & paleontology & defend your belief system that you are just a modified ape. If you can.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
What I can't stand is these stupid gravitationalists. Gravity is only a theory and its absurd. If gravity is a fact, then how come the moon goes around the earth? According to gravity theory the suns gravity is greater, so the moon should go around the sun.
Gravity theory fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. Whats more they are teaching this totally unproven junk to our kids in schools.
They should at least teach the other side of the argument, angel string theory!
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We have absolutely irrefutable physical evidence all about evolution over on the GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum.
GoodScienceForYou 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ANYONE: If you see no reply to some posters, they know they're on ignore for: name calling, personal insults, gross obscenities, false accusations of lying, campaiging to hide my posts, & in the case of Foxlake & Brospec, sexual harrassment. Those Expelled tactics used by Miller vid guarddogs - who trail & attack not just me but others on YT -are of course antithetical to true science. Tho I like to counter disinformation, I only have time for those who are science based, civil & objective.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady i have proved that your argumentations on the idea that god's commandments concerning kosher and non-kosher food are determined by health do not hold water. instead of addressing the clear contradictions in your lame arguments, you gave me a sexist didactical sneer and had blocked me (allegedly because you cannot bear using the word SHIT -ooooh, big deal...)
zaybis 10 months ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ANYONE: If you see no reply to some posters, they know they're on ignore for: name calling, personal insults, gross obscenities, false accusations of lying, campaigning to hide my posts &, in the case of Foxlake & Brospec, sexual harrassment. These Expelled tactics used by evo watchdogs - who trail & attack not just me but others on YT - are of course counterproductive to true science. Tho I like to address disinformation, I only debate with those who are science based, objective & civil.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady Do you have anything other than woeful Ken Ham propaganda to bring to the conversation? Like some form of actual evidence that refutes evolution? If you intend to provide links to videos which have their comments and ratings disabled, they'll be ignored, because those actions are tacit admissions of the weakness of their arguments.
lo2enge 10 months ago
@lo2enge "Ken Ham propaganda" falls into the category of Presuming Omniscience Logical Fallacy. I don't intend to provide any links whatsoever. If you want to see some vids though I have favorited them on my home page. While you are asking me, indirectly, for evidence that evo is not true, I notice you provided nothing of a scientific comment yourself. However, I will mention the 2 major props (other than lots of logical fallacies) so called evolution is built upon. #1. Natural selection.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady "Presuming Omniscience Logical Fallacy" what's that? My statement was an ad hominem, but you can't just invent terms and expect people to understand them.. what omniscience am i presuming? I looked through your favourites page, but any videos with actual content seem to be from comment blockers, or lengthy rambling presentations with no evidence whatsoever. I would prefer links to peer-reviewed scientific papers if there is a single one out there.
lo2enge 10 months ago
@lo2enge If you don't know what presuming omniscience is, look it up on Google. I never mentioned Ken Ham, nor is he faovrited on my home page. (As a matter of fact I have learned tons, though, from the highly degreed and even peer reviewed sci-en-tists he features on his web page - just by no means not only him.) You want peer reviewed papers that agree with your point of view. You do want to look outside the box. Expelled explains about the politization of the peer review process. Cont.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady If you truly believe peer-review to be biased, you have a weak understanding of how science works. I would like to see actual evidence, not empty assertions.
I googled the phrase and found no clear reference, maybe i should look at AiG for this info?
Degrees like the ones WildwoodClaire's cat has? (the cat even has a PhD, letters mean nothing without coming from a respectable institution)
lo2enge 10 months ago
@lo2enge Don't be so...unenergetic. It is obvious you have not even bothered to check out the credentials for scientists on Ken Ham's website. If you are going to present yourself as science based, please be so kind as to actually do some minimal research.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@lo2enge Some examples of peer reviews include the raves Miller & Urey's experiments got when they managed to get some amino acids from some test tubes. (As usual, using, ahem! intelligently designed labs with intelligent (?) design while saying they are recreating the accidental processes of nature. Rollling eyes.) They got the wrong kind of amino acids, the wrong handed kind. They basically produced a tar which is hostile to life. Yet little children were taught this was evidence...
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady Disagreeing with experimental conclusions of how abiogenesis may have occurred is not the same thing as providing positive evidence that evolution does not occur.
You cannot pre-suppose creation to defeat a theory that disproves it, and if you want to, you cannot accuse others of employing logical fallacies.
Are you saying Kent Hovind's degrees are valid? Some of the scientists do have degrees from recognised institutions, i concur.. but then they are in unrelated fields.
lo2enge 10 months ago
@lo2enge You are doing a red herring with Kent Hovind. He isn't even on Ken Ham's website. No the scientists on Ken Ham's sites are not "in unrellated fields." There are more than I would want to have to count who have the degrees for exactly what they are writingabout. You keep asking me to give evidence. I have already begun by discussing natural selection. What have you said of a scientific nature? Nothing.Go thru your posts & count how many faith based statements you have made so far.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady Very few, i have mainly just been asking for links. You still haven't provided a single one.
lo2enge 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lo2enge You asked for links? That wasn't clear. I mentioned there on some favorited on my website. Just 20 min. of watching the one on Thermodynamics makes it very clear how often evolutionists demonstrate they don't believe in their own theory. If you want info, if you really want to check out the other side, then honestly study Ken Ham's site.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@lo2enge Of course I mentioned abiogenesis, M & U, & the phony, UNscientific, primal pond theory to refute your great faith in peer reviews as the fountain of all scientific truth. I will be back tomorrow, as I said.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady It's not relevant. Refuting something is NOT the same as providing the correct alternative.. if you think it is, you cannot accuse others of making logical fallacies.
lo2enge 10 months ago
@lo2enge Instead of complaining about what some creationists happen to do about avoiding trolls, instead of getting off onto the red herring of the Bible, instead of never actually saying anything of a scientific nature, friend, why not actually address the plethora of scientific facts that have been presented to you. If you want to take exception with what I said on the other K. Miller vid, by all means please go there and do so. Use YOUR mind.
Use YOUR words, And talk science.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady Which scientific facts have you presented? I am still waiting for a link to the papers which outline these facts. You have presented your own opinion of how you think evidence should be interpretated, and there is a reason why the opinions you have stated haven't appeared in any peer-reviewed papers - they are bogus. I do not have to talk science, as the scientists already do that. You are claiming what is known is wrong, so it is you who must explain why.
lo2enge 10 months ago
@lo2enge Think about this statement that you have made: "I do not have to talk science..." Then what are you doing here? Just saying over & over that if it's peer reviewed it's true and if not then not? You have a mind. You are not using it. The truth is if you can't defend things with your own mind and your own words then you don't really understand, yet, what the heck you are talking about. Don't hide behind "Peer reviews are the epitome of truth! Case (& mind) closed." Wake up.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady "Think about this statement that you have made: "I do not have to talk science..." Then what are you doing here?"
i am explaining why your interpretation of the evidence is faulty. You are looking at the evidence, i do not need to point it out again.. i just have to try and remove the blinkrs and shades from your eyes, so you can actually see it for what it is, and not what you wish to believe it is.
lo2enge 10 months ago
@lo2enge "I just have to remove the blinders from your eyes." Lol. Izzat right? Tell you what why don't you give me just one example of how mutations and/or natural selection have led to something other than just another species of the same kind of animal. Sorry, but you are not allowed to use the usal evo buzz words which evoutionary literature is replete with: could have, might, probably, we propose a model. Give me data. Ev-i-dence. Those kinds of words are not evidence but...faith.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady Ahhh, back to hyphenating in a feeble attempt to goad me into anger. Sorry, condescension does wind me up, but not when i recognise it as a dishonest debate tactic.
I repeat, inductive reasoning is good science. You are asking for an observation of a phenomenon that takes hundreds of thousands of years, and occurs at such a gradual rate as it would not be directly observable anyway. I presume you didn't watch the philhellenes vid i linked explaining this in a thorough and comical way
lo2enge 10 months ago
@LoricaLady "The truth is if you can't defend things with your own mind and your own words then you don't really understand, yet, what the heck you are talking about."
where have i not been doing that? I am doing the same as you, the thing is, i'm not making the arrogant conceit that what i am doing is science, unlike yourself. I am defending science.
By the way, i am glad you've stopped hyphenating words in a patronising attempt to goad me into losing my temper so you can claim victory. Ta.
lo2enge 10 months ago
@lo2enge Refutings somethning is NOT the same as providng the correct alternative. Learn your logical fallacies. It will help you come out of the mind trap of evo. I used no fallacy. Let's say you are a Judge. Miller says, Your honor I would like to prove that Mr. Evo is the father of Little Baby Organic Life. I then say Your honor I can show that all of Mr. Miller's arguments are based on assumptions presented as evidence, which have no evidence. Should you then turn to me & say, Cont.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady "Refutings somethning is NOT the same as providng the correct alternative." yes, i already said that to you. Refuting a faulty refutation when the explanation is in fact already known is perfectly valid, however.
I have a mind, yes.. and i use it.. especially to disregard nonsense analogies such as the ones you present.
lo2enge 10 months ago
@lo2enge "It's not relevant. Even if you can show me that his arguments are fallacious, unless you can prove who the father is, Mr. Miller gets to take Little Baby home with him." Would that be sensible, fair? Whether you believe the Bible or not, whether you believe in a Creator or not - even the flying spaghetti monster - evolution is not based on realityand science. You need to see that.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@lo2enge "Disgreeing with experimental conclusions..." RU not listening or choosing to ignore? You, like all evo buffs, keep thinking you can trust peer reviews. I gave you just 1 example of how a highly favorably peer reviewed experiment - Miller & Urey's - was touted as showing proof for evo. It actually only created amino acids where life could never exist. Yet little children were led by these peer reviewers to believe in abiogenesis tho it is COUNTER to scientific laws & all observation.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady "You, like all evo buffs, keep thinking you can trust peer reviews."
Yes, and you, like all conspiracy theorists, think a huge lie is being perpetrated by the "establishment" (maaan), for no apparently good reason. Ben Stein, i fully believe, knows evolution to be true. I also believe he is also a money-grubbing shyster, who is perfectly willing to deceive himself and a gullible audience with stuff they want to believe in order to line his own pockets.
lo2enge 10 months ago
@LoricaLady Actually there have been new more recent experiments that have vindicated the Miller-Urey experiments environment.
For instance; mbe.oupjournals(.)org/cgi/content/full/19/10/1645
I can post/PM more links if you'd like
'Yet little children were led by these peer reviewers to believe in abiogenesis tho it is COUNTER to scientific laws & all observation.'
Actually, Pasteur's work and biogenesis only refuted the emergence of modern life spontaneously, nothing to do with abiogenesis.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Nothing has vindicated the M-U experiments. That is nonsense. Tell me,with your own words now, one time that life has ever been observed to come from inorganic matter. You have been taught to believe that wild assumptions and theories can replace actual data, that an unsupported hypothesis can actually belie a LAW of scienice, i.e. that life can only come from non life. Use your common sense. Get the wool off of your eyes and you will see the wolves' big smiles.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady You mean except the article I just posted about vindicating the Miller-Urey experiments?
'that an unsupported hypothesis can actually belie a LAW of scienice'
Second time, biogenesis and Pasteur's, Redi's et. al. work only dealt with modern life not spontaneously generating, such as rats not arising out of trash and maggots not coming from rotten meat etc. Nothing to do with the biochemical origin of life.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I went to your referrenced website. The usual b.s., no real data only a bunch of hypotheticals presented as if they are evidence. The usual - words like "estimating...(!) based upon relative probability (!)...simulations (!) are used to model...the method was used to infer (!)." You accept that as science? It's pure b.s., pseudo science. Oops! & oh yeal, I see you are one of the verbal abusers on my long ignore list. Hope you learn what science really is anway. Bye!
LoricaLady 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation I went to your referrenced website. The usual b.s., no real data only a bunch of hypotheticals presented as if they are evidence. The usual - words like "estimating...(!) based upon relative probability (!)...simulations (!) are used to model...the method was used to infer (!)." You accept that as science? It's pure b.s., pseudo science. Oops! & oh yeal, I see you are one of the verbal abusers on my long ignore list. Hope you learn what science really is anway. Bye!
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady Yes, that's how science is done, probabilities and statistics, if science were done by 'that was definitely untestable bronze age magic' nothing would ever get done.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
@lo2enge ...litle children were taught in science classes that M & U's experiments gave evidence for the primal pond - that life came from inorganic mater. Wow. Peer reviews. The ultimate in truth. Not. The primal pond theory hasn't got a shred of evidence to back it up and flies in the face of true science which includes the LAW of biogenesis. I notice you have still not said anything scientific, just cast aspersions, with no evidence, on creation scientists & shown...faith in yours.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady They were, and that is is an hypothesis. Now other hypotheses are taught as well, because it is an area poorly understood, and not really anything to do with the origin of species. Evolution =/= abiogenesis.
Why are you expecting me to say something scientific, there are hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed papers on evolution, you sound like you consider yourself an expert, so i don't have to explain them to you, surely?
lo2enge 10 months ago
@LoricaLady I am asking you to point me to positive evidence. Not weak rebuttals of current thought. Actual, hard, scientific, experimental or even properly inductive evidence. Should be easy, seeing as you are so sure about creation.
lo2enge 10 months ago
@lo2enge Cont. Natural selection can reshuffle genes or cause genes to be lost as the result of outside environmental processes. Genes that are ALREADY in the organism. If enough genes get lost or reshuffled then only two animals with the same loss and/or reshuffled genes can mate. When this happens you get new species. There are over 200 species of bees. Every last one of them is still a bee. Evolutionists want you to believe that in the conveniently long ago and far away lala land...
LoricaLady 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@lo2enge Oh, before I wander off to bed for tonight, sorry but you are up to Presuming Omniscience again. If people want to leave a vid and allow or disallow comments that is up to them. If some don't want to allow comments perhaps they do not want to leave a place for people to make obscene, verbally abusive remarks - as I have frequently gotten for over 2 years from evo fans. That does not show they are unscientific. Maybe they just want to make their points, not leave a nest for trolls.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady Still no links. And if they don't want to provide a platform for trolls, they could at least moderate comments and weed out the offensive ones, although i doubt that would actually happen and not be abused.. i have left many a non-abusive message on videos that do that that were not published.
I find it ironic for a theist to accuse me of "presuming omniscience"!
lo2enge 10 months ago
@lo2enge We're dealing with a dishonest evolution denier. Even if current evolutionary theory was shown to be false (and no evidence ever has) that would not mean the defacto answer is creation.
Until a person is actually willing to put down in paper and complete and reasoned explanation for the alternative to evolutionary theory then they should never ever be entertained as anything but kooks.
Lorica is a specialist in seizing the "moral high ground" in discussions built on her deceptions.
koncorde 10 months ago 2
@koncorde Ohhh, i know debunking evolution would no more prove the biblical genesis story than any other mythological explanation. My next question after Lorica provides me with the myriad links to the mountain of evidence she has disproving speciation through natural selection will be to ask for the scientific papers proving creation could only have been performed by the abrahamic god, as i am aware this is the explanation she accepts, and it MUST be backed up by significant evidence for that!
lo2enge 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lo2enge Due to limited time, if you want to see what I have to say about how mutations & natural selection do not, & cannot, lead to so called evolution, plz see posts I just left today on YT: Kenneth Miller - Evoution vs. Intelligent Design 1-8. As you can see it was a lot of writing & of course I'd rather not type all that over. You request "scientific papers". By your definition that means only one side of the issue, the evoution side. Yet I've given some of the evidence for design.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady You specifically have not given any evidence for the non-evolution side, and particularly nothing relating to science or even scriptural in reference that isn't refuted by equally valid non-literal interpretations of the Bible.
First before you attempt to argue against the scientific consensus evolution perhaps you should achieve some kind of creation consensus? Maybe even postulate a secondary explanation for the fossil record? How about scientific refutation of dating methods?
koncorde 10 months ago
@koncorde I have given evidence for the non evoution side. In spades. On the other video. I am not going to retype if here. You can read it there and address what I have said or not. 'Sup to you.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@koncorde There is plenty of scientific refutation of dating methods. People have sent recently dead sea shells to labs and been told the samples were ancient. If samples from the same fossil are sent to two different dating labs,count on it there will be vastly different ages given for them. All such dating methods assuuume uniformity of decay rate & no contamination of the item being dated. That's just for starters. Research it. Look at dissenting SCIENTISTS who refute it. If you dare.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady I asked for scientific refutation, not examples where carbon dating can be inconsistent based on whatever calibration is utilised. You are specifically avoiding providing any examples, studies, or references to any such scientists or papers that refute those dating methods, or their suggested accurate dating processes based upon their investigations.
Gentry for instance specifically abuses his own scientific findings in order fit his model, refuting his own argument in the process.
koncorde 10 months ago
@koncorde I do not jave time to debate every point in evolution. I gave you some problems that are known with carbon dating. I told you to check out some dissenting scientists - gee that's a novel, not to mention open minded idea. If you don't want to do that, that's up to you. What I am asking for again, & all I have time for really, is for you to use your mind, your words, to demonstrate ev-i-dence that natural selection or mutations ever caused any climb up the "Tree of Life." Waiting...
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady I didn't ask you to debate every point. You were never required or requested to debate every point. The point was a distinctly small request for studies that specifically refute the carbon dating process. Not highlight the occasional mistake, or what happens when limestone and carbon come into contact etc.
You have not provided even a single scientist by name, nor study by name, nor even a single fundamental piece of evidence that overturns the carbon dating method.
You are a sham.
koncorde 10 months ago 26
@koncorde dear koncorde, as someone who has debated with the repugnant, ignorant and arrogant loricalady, i can tell you that it is completely useless. every time you'll win a debate and prove the emptiness of her pseudo-scientific arguments, she'll make up some idiotic excuse to discredit you and will most probably block your comments on her channel (as all fascistoids do).
zaybis 10 months ago 2
@zaybis I look forward to it.
koncorde 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@koncorde I noticed in some of your earlier posts that you were getting into the name calling & personal insult realm, but kind of let it slide. At the same time I knew it would continue. It always does and then always, always escalates. Sorry, I only have so much time. I prefer to spend it debating with those who are civil & objective.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady You are a sham. You run from any form of confrontation, you purposely do not provide any evidence, statements, or supporting data for any of your claims and instead hide behind your mantra of "civility" despite your blatant and intentionally hypocritical attempts to play the "high horse" card. You fail.
You are completely incapable of entering into an honest debate, you are similarly incapable of providing any refutation for a single scientific premise.
You are a sham.
koncorde 10 months ago 3
@koncorde Actually no citation is required for common knowledge. any basic post high school education in chemistry will inform of current common problems with the inaccuracies and repeated falliability of any type of radio-isotopic dating system. Also before you ask to have citations and be so sure the Earth is so old explain the common occurance with which we see helium present (an alpha particle) within dacaying U-238 rock which at this point in it's dated "age" should all be gone. Just sayin,
BackwoodsBoy30 7 months ago
@BackwoodsBoy30 Helium is entirely expected to be in greater quantities in decaying rock (the ones that are able to retain it anyway) which makes everything else you say somewhat confusing. Have you actually had any post-highschool education on chemistry, or more importantly even high school education on chemistry?
Citation or reference to anything even remotely venturing near your claims would be a very interesting read.
koncorde 7 months ago
@BackwoodsBoy30 Yes, you are 'just sayin,' and I'm sure it makes your friends laugh in the bar when you 'chill' with them and 'just say' garbage like that.
Here it won't stick. Take fifteen minutes and find us a goddamn link, then post it.
Otherwise, you're just not persuasive, broski.
falstocat 6 months ago
@LoricaLady "If samples from the same fossil are sent to two different dating labs,count on it there will be vastly different ages given for them"
More of your pathetic lies. Fossils are never directly dated the way you claim.
Give us one example where a fossil has been attempted to be directly dated
wildcrazygoats 10 months ago 12
@wildcrazygoats Bingo.
Of course people like Gentry argue that Atomic Theory was suspended for a few thousand years in order to account for all the anomalous dating records we have.
koncorde 10 months ago
@LoricaLady You chose to post your arguments on a different video, when there was an ongoing conversation already on this one? I presume you must have had a good reason for wanting to converse with yourself rather than continuing an existing discussion... i must be really dim not to be able to work out why... hmmm, although i do have some inkling...
lo2enge 10 months ago
@lo2enge I posted the arguments on the other vid because I had gotten started there before you posted me and wanted to complete what turned out to be information relevant to your comments. What you call conversing with myself is of course standard practice on YT, i.e. making comments below vids. If you don't want to go there & debate, fine. It seems to me you don't want to actually address actual scientific topics & use your own words, just express your ongoing faith in the evolutionists.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady There is evidence of design by a blind watchmaker only. Are you seriously saying a flawless creator would give us backwards retinas; a spine unsuited to erect walking; an oesophagus and a trachea that cross, making choking a danger; an immune system that malfunctions and attacks our own bodies... the list goes on and on. If we are designed by the abrahamic god, he really ought to have given up the day job and found something more suited to his skills.
lo2enge 10 months ago
@lo2enge Instead of telling me what you in your great wisdom feels is the way a Creator would design things, why don't you try to explain away the perfectly good examples of intelligent design and irreducible complexity I gave you? But it doesn't look like you will do that. Too bad. The truth is, fella, you haven't really learned to think for yourself, analytically and critically and I think you at least suspect that. Don't feel discouraged. I used to be just the same, but learned better.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@lo2enge In the same posts for that video I described irreducible complexity when talking abouit the statistically ridiculous probability of fins turning to legs - w their accompanying muscles, bones, ligaments, cranial & spinal nerves etc.) developing synchronously, bilaterally, & complimentary, all while the parts are initially totally useless due to being unconnected and incomplete. You want to believe accidental processe of nature can do that? Brother if you do, you have great...faith!
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady I've heard lots of statisical probablility arguments, and found them all wanting, yours is no better. If this was good science, there would be peer-reviewed papers on it, rather than a vast consensus amongst the community that it is an irrelevant distraction caused by incomplete understanding of the process. Legs are not irreducibly complex. By the way, if you wish to cite Behe, you also have to consider he accepts common descent and speciation through mutation.
lo2enge 10 months ago
@lo2enge "If this was good science there would be peer-reviewed papers on it." Sigh. When, when are you going to learn to think outside the box, to use YOUR OWN mind? We don't get scientific truth through the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. We don't just assume that orthodox, self protective politically correct peer review boards are the fountain of integrity and truth. We use our own minds and look at both sides, even (gasp!) dissenting scientists. Or we just stay in the matrix.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady "Sigh. When, when are you going to learn to think outside the box, to use YOUR OWN mind?" Spoken like a twoo twoofer. Do you also have an "Obama -is a Muslim" t-shirt and a tin-foil hat you like to wear when out and about? I am utterly sceptical in all matters.
"Research it. Look at dissenting SCIENTISTS who refute it."
I did. If you want to talk about pseudo-science, they have it in spades! (by the way, Behe does NOT deny common descent, nor evolution through mutation)
lo2enge 10 months ago
@lo2enge ""Research it. Look at dissenting SCIENTISTS who refute it."
also, despite my multiple requests to provide links to peer-reviewed papers (in fact, if you had links to any good evidence, peer-review or not, you would have provided them by now) you have singularly failed to produce a single one. That to me is extremely telling.
lo2enge 10 months ago
@lo2enge I gave you an ex. of peer reveiwed papers with Miller & Urey's failed experiment, which was treated as it was a big success. How many times do you need to be told about that, fella? Check out Dr. Robert Gentry, for just one of many creationist scientist who have been favorably peer reviewed - up to a point.
Dr. Gentry, a nuclear physicist got good peer reviews on his work regarding polonium halos until - oops! someone noticed his research pointed to a young earth. He got Expelled.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady With regards to Miller-Urey, that was about abiogenesis, NOT common descent or speciation through mutation and natural selection, nor is it positive evidence refuting ANYTHING! I ask yet again... a link to a POSITIVE refutation of existing knowledge, not a link to a paper which may or may not be right or relevant to a demonstration of abiogenesis.
lo2enge 10 months ago
@LoricaLady Tell me, was Dr Gentry a yec before he was a nuclear scientist? Did he convert as a result of his interpretation of his findings? Also, though his paper got some good reviews, it also received bad ones ones.. and seeing as he is a nuclear physicist, and his paper is on a geological phenomenon, and it was geologists disputing his claims, i wouldn't put too much faith in it; not to mention that it is a grain of sand compared with the mountain of evidence for an old earth
lo2enge 10 months ago
@lo2enge I have just spent about two hours responding to your posts & others. Again, I don't have time to debate everything in evolution. This is a scatter gun approach that will get nowhere. Again, please give data, scientific evidence, to support that any life form climbed up the so called Tree of Life through the processes that evolution claims, natural selection or random mutation. That gets to the ground floor of the matter. Please use your own words & mind. I'll be back in 2-3 days.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady "scientific evidence, to support that any life form climbed up the so called Tree of Life"
Again, i contend that it is a dishonest tactic to ask for such evidence, and i have explained why it is, and also provided a link to a video which explains why it is. If you couldn't understand the explanation, i pity you. If you did understand the explanation, you are npow simply being dishonest.
Logical inductive reasoning states why evolution is the only explanation for the diversity of life
lo2enge 10 months ago
@LoricaLady "Again, I don't have time to debate everything in evolution."
This is the prime issue. Every point backs up every other point, not just in evolutionary biology, but in all other sciences too. If you cannot refute every point in evolutionary theory, you are making a tacit admission of defeat, because the whole structure is self-supporting, and you'll need to kick out every single block to bring it down, not feebly pick away at a few minor points.
lo2enge 10 months ago
@LoricaLady "This is a scatter gun approach that will get nowhere"
I was content to debate you on a single video.. it is you who is employing the scatter-gun by attempting to flood all of the Miller videos with your own empty efforts to bring down a mountain by removing pebbles from its slopes. As we sow, so shall we reap, i believe it is written somewhere.
You want data, or my own words? Make your mind up. If i believed you wanted either i'd be less belligerant.
lo2enge 10 months ago
Comment removed
lo2enge 10 months ago
@LoricaLady Also, i don't see why i cannot employ the use of other peoples' words if they outline a point thoroughly and eloquently.
Surmising you are a YEC bible literalist, i also submit this for your perusal, although i'd also bet a pound to a penny that you treat it with the same disdain and ignorance you apparently treated the other video links i have provided:
watch?v=5mPPnN1c0jk
if you believe in Noah's flood, you don't just believe in evolution, you believe in super-evolution!
lo2enge 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@lo2enge Get down to business. Get to fundamentals and be scientific. Is there evidence that mutations lead to that "climb" or not. Miller thinks so. If you keep meandering all over the place with vague statements and no actual data - really there is none but many evolutionsits use many logical fallacies to convince the public that there is - I will assume you really don't understand the issues or else have not yet mastered the skills to put them into your own words. I'm still waitnig...
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady Yes, everything in biology is evidence. Occam's razor is the lens. Without evolution you are faced with a separate entity needed to explain each individual phenomenon - the similarity in genes between every living creature, the shape and placement of the fossil record, the individuality of long-separated ecosystems like the antipodes or madagascar, the fundamental difference in structure between the major groups and kingdoms, yet the similarity within them.
lo2enge 10 months ago