any luck finding the integrity to admit you've not actually read the papers you quote?
any luck identifying the sneering man of mystery lecturing on the eye? the instutution creationists claim he's from seems not to have him listed anywhere.
just wondering- is there any level of creationist dishonesty that's beyond the pale for you or does anything go in the war against science?
> any luck finding the integrity to admit you've not actually read the papers you quote?
I have no problem admitting that like you I have not read the papers. I did however get the information that I was looking for from the papers. That is all that matters.
"I have no problem admitting"- don't lie. your admission was like pulling teeth.
what matters is your dishonesty. what matterst is that you were not looking for the conclusions of the papers but selectively looking for fragments to distort the conclusions of the authors.
quote mining is a nauseating form of lying- and you, sunshine, are a liar.
I've read more of the doolitle paper than the quote your source lifted.
'The information from the papers speaks for itself."- how do you know what the papers speak since you eventually admited you'd not actually read them.
this would be basic to anyone other than a creationist liar.
> you were not looking for the conclusions of the papers but selectively looking for fragments to distort the conclusions of the authors.
The statements speak for themselves. If the scientists were writing coherently, there is no reason to assume that somewhere later in the paper they totaly contradict their previous assertion. Of course since you haven´t read the papers yourself, you don´t kow either way. You´re only left with the bizarre hope that such was the case.
"As well as your ignronance."- really sparky? you know enough about me to make that comment? no, of course you dont. lies and smears seem to be the best you can do.
"you are unaware of the conflict between molecular trees vs those base on morphology."- and you are because you've read a quote by lawyer casey luskin. very good son, have a lie down
I'll read the science and you go play with your bricks
"@owensphil Third, you didn´t know that organic and chemical evolution include abiogenesis as part of evolution"- wrong, your grasp of logic is as poor as your grasp of science. I correctly pointed out that a commenter was clueless.
@mcmanustony Your comment is indicative of the typical depth most atheists here on You Tube possess. I believe Darwin (father of evolution) wrote a book called "The Origin of Species" Please try harder, my humility is at stake.
@mcmanustony Your comment is indicative of the typical depth most atheists here on You Tube possess. I believe Darwin (father of evolution) wrote a book called "The Origin of Species" Please try harder, my humility is at stake.
"my humility is at stake"- so it should be sparky, you've much to be humble about. Sorry my comment wasn't deep enough for you but tell me, precisely how deep do you have to go to correctly point out a stupid error such as yours- and delivered with such haughty arrogance too. well done!
"On the Origin of Species" has, as I pointed out, almost nothing to say about the origin of life. it is about the process by which one population of orgnanisms becomes distinct species over time.
1. Professor Klaus Dose, president of the Institute of Biochemistry at the University of Johannes Gutenberg, states: "More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."
2. Evolutionists confronted the question of the origin of life in the second quarter of the 20th century. One of the leading authorities of the theory of molecular evolution, the Russian evolutionist Alexander I. Oparin, said this in his book The Origin of Life: "Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question which is actually the darkest point of the complete evolution theory."
3. The following statement by the geochemist Jeffrey Bada from San Diego Scripps Institute makes clear the helplessness of evolutionists concerning this impasse: "Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth?" - Jeffrey Bada, Earth, February 1998, p. 40
4. "There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "general theory of evolution," and the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis." -- Dr. G. A. Kerkut evolutionist
mcmanustony, Just who is involved with proving Abiogenesis? Evolutionists or Creationists?
@mcmanustony AND btw Evotardism in trying to prove Abiogenesis are actually trying to disprove the Law of Biogenesis. They can't do it can they? It's so embarrassing for them they now try, like you're doing, to distance themselves from Abiogenesis. They know that when people realize that there is NO Abiogenesis there is NO evolution. You can't separate the two.
@owensphil ; There is no "controversy" among scientists when it comes to evolution. Evolution is observed to happen no less than sunlight and gravity; do try to keep up.
" There is no "controversy" among scientists when it comes to evolution"
Of course there is. You obviously don't have a clue. Maybe you should watch the video again.
" Evolution is observed to happen"
over the course of millions and millions of years? Who has observed evolution taking place over millions and millions of years. We aren't discussing small scale changes observed in the lab. Again please get a clue.
Actually, although massive evolution does take millions of years, speciation (the point when evolution manipulates a species to the extent it can no longer naturally breed with the original species it evolved from) can take far less time, google "observed instances of speciation", you will find that several different species have developed, while being observed over time by scientists. Although these changes are small, they prove the evolutionary process in nature.
> Although these changes are small, they prove the evolutionary process in nature.
Again, such small scale changes aren't even part of the debate. The extrapolation of these small scale changes in the face of bounded variations, living fossils, regressions is where the problem lies.
Also contrast the strong definition of 'species' proposed by geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky, and the weak definition proposed by Zoologist Ernst Mayr.
Actually, although massive evolution does take millions of years, speciation (the point when evolution manipulates a species to the extent it can no longer naturally breed with the original species it evolved from) can take far less time, google "observed instances of speciation", you will find that several different species have developed, while being observed over time by scientists. Although these changes are small, they prove the evolutionary process in nature.
>Actually, although massive evolution does take millions of years, speciation
That's obviously an assumption and not an observable fact.
> "observed instances of speciation"
All small scale changes. Such small scale changes fit both competeing models. No evidence that such small scale changes can be extrapolated into large scale changes.
@owensphil 1.It is an observed fact, when I refer to massive evolution, I mean the transitions of humans since genetic separation from chimps circa 6 million years ago,
2. If by "no evidence" you are referring to thousands of transitional fossils tracing the evolution of countless animals, as for "small scale" a transition into a new species is objectively very large.
@owensphil non observable? i can name three ways how you had to evolve from earlier life forms. also dna shows us that yeah we are apes and have a lot in common with the great apes like chimps both of us tribal and very xenophobic.
@owensphil Your video plays up the controversy way more than it exists. It's like the climate debate, it's a controversy all right, but not a scientific one. You keep telling people to get a clue, go find some yourself by actually trying to understand scientific papers. Evolution is much more observable than gravity, but you're not arguing against it (oh, by the way, Einstine didn't believe in quantum mechanics, go play with that controversy). Clue: We can date earth strata millions of years.
@ChildrenOfOrwell I realise I made the mistake of being too simplified. We understand the system by which evolution works and can demonstrate its effectiveness in modelling the correlations between older species (dated by earth strata testing, not just carbon dating) and modern ones. The system by which gravity works is much less understood. We cannot manipulate it, we cannot affect it or store it, but we can manipulate evolution by selective breeding, thereby using the system to our advantage.
Evolution, as the origin of life, is a product of the religion known as, atheism.
piusvapor 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@piusvapor
evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life- it's a well tested, well developed theory of the diverity of species.
your comment is a product of the stupidity known as religion.
mcmanustony 1 month ago
@mcmanustony
> evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life-
Biological evolution may not but organic and chemical evolution certainly do.
owensphil 1 month ago
@owensphil
the commenter is clueless. my comment stands.
any luck finding the integrity to admit you've not actually read the papers you quote?
any luck identifying the sneering man of mystery lecturing on the eye? the instutution creationists claim he's from seems not to have him listed anywhere.
just wondering- is there any level of creationist dishonesty that's beyond the pale for you or does anything go in the war against science?
mcmanustony 1 month ago
@mcmanustony
> the commenter is clueless. my comment stands.
As well as your ignronance.
> any luck finding the integrity to admit you've not actually read the papers you quote?
I have no problem admitting that like you I have not read the papers. I did however get the information that I was looking for from the papers. That is all that matters.
owensphil 1 month ago
@owensphil
"I have no problem admitting"- don't lie. your admission was like pulling teeth.
what matters is your dishonesty. what matterst is that you were not looking for the conclusions of the papers but selectively looking for fragments to distort the conclusions of the authors.
quote mining is a nauseating form of lying- and you, sunshine, are a liar.
I've read more of the doolitle paper than the quote your source lifted.
mcmanustony 1 month ago
@mcmanustony
> I have no problem admitting"- don't lie. your admission was like pulling teeth.
No, as I indicated each time, whether or not I read the paper is irrelevant. The information from the papers speaks for itself.
owensphil 1 month ago
@owensphil
'The information from the papers speaks for itself."- how do you know what the papers speak since you eventually admited you'd not actually read them.
this would be basic to anyone other than a creationist liar.
mcmanustony 1 month ago
@mcmanustony
> you were not looking for the conclusions of the papers but selectively looking for fragments to distort the conclusions of the authors.
The statements speak for themselves. If the scientists were writing coherently, there is no reason to assume that somewhere later in the paper they totaly contradict their previous assertion. Of course since you haven´t read the papers yourself, you don´t kow either way. You´re only left with the bizarre hope that such was the case.
owensphil 1 month ago
@owensphil
"Of course since you haven´t read the papers yourself"- I'd read more of the doolittle paper than the quote you dishonestly lifted.
mcmanustony 1 month ago
@owensphil
any more information about the international man of mystery you posted banging on about the eye after sneering about dawkins chair.
perhaps you could inform glasgow university about him since they dont seem to know he works there.
still wondering- is there ANY level of creationist dishonesty that's too much for you? is there any level to which you'd not stoop?
mcmanustony 1 month ago
@mcmanustony
> any more information about the international man of mystery you posted banging on about the eye after sneering about dawkins chair.
perhaps you could inform glasgow university about him since they dont seem to know he works there.
Don´t know who you are talking about
owensphil 1 month ago
@owensphil
"As well as your ignronance."- really sparky? you know enough about me to make that comment? no, of course you dont. lies and smears seem to be the best you can do.
mcmanustony 1 month ago
@mcmanustony
you know enough about me to make that comment?
> With regards to the topic of evolution? Absolutely
First, you are unaware of the conflict between molecular trees vs those base on morphology.
Second, unable to show me that my information is incorrect, you´re merely left with repeatedly asking me if I read the entire paper.
Third, you didn´t know that organic and chemical evolution include abiogenesis as part of evolution.
owensphil 1 month ago
@owensphil
"you are unaware of the conflict between molecular trees vs those base on morphology."- and you are because you've read a quote by lawyer casey luskin. very good son, have a lie down
I'll read the science and you go play with your bricks
mcmanustony 1 month ago
@mcmanustony
>nd you are because you've read a quote
I gave you several quots which were all referenced to in a paper that I read.
owensphil 1 month ago
"@owensphil Third, you didn´t know that organic and chemical evolution include abiogenesis as part of evolution"- wrong, your grasp of logic is as poor as your grasp of science. I correctly pointed out that a commenter was clueless.
mcmanustony 1 month ago
@mcmanustony
You stated that abiogenesis was seperate from evolution which is incorrect.
owensphil 1 month ago
Comment removed
piusvapor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mcmanustony Your comment is indicative of the typical depth most atheists here on You Tube possess. I believe Darwin (father of evolution) wrote a book called "The Origin of Species" Please try harder, my humility is at stake.
piusvapor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mcmanustony Your comment is indicative of the typical depth most atheists here on You Tube possess. I believe Darwin (father of evolution) wrote a book called "The Origin of Species" Please try harder, my humility is at stake.
piusvapor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@piusvapor
"my humility is at stake"- so it should be sparky, you've much to be humble about. Sorry my comment wasn't deep enough for you but tell me, precisely how deep do you have to go to correctly point out a stupid error such as yours- and delivered with such haughty arrogance too. well done!
"On the Origin of Species" has, as I pointed out, almost nothing to say about the origin of life. it is about the process by which one population of orgnanisms becomes distinct species over time.
mcmanustony 1 month ago
@piusvapor
please.....one dose of your arrogance was enough.
mcmanustony 1 month ago
1. Professor Klaus Dose, president of the Institute of Biochemistry at the University of Johannes Gutenberg, states: "More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."
MaximusArurealius 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
2. Evolutionists confronted the question of the origin of life in the second quarter of the 20th century. One of the leading authorities of the theory of molecular evolution, the Russian evolutionist Alexander I. Oparin, said this in his book The Origin of Life: "Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question which is actually the darkest point of the complete evolution theory."
MaximusArurealius 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
3. The following statement by the geochemist Jeffrey Bada from San Diego Scripps Institute makes clear the helplessness of evolutionists concerning this impasse: "Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth?" - Jeffrey Bada, Earth, February 1998, p. 40
MaximusArurealius 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
4. "There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "general theory of evolution," and the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis." -- Dr. G. A. Kerkut evolutionist
mcmanustony, Just who is involved with proving Abiogenesis? Evolutionists or Creationists?
MaximusArurealius 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@mcmanustony AND btw Evotardism in trying to prove Abiogenesis are actually trying to disprove the Law of Biogenesis. They can't do it can they? It's so embarrassing for them they now try, like you're doing, to distance themselves from Abiogenesis. They know that when people realize that there is NO Abiogenesis there is NO evolution. You can't separate the two.
You are hereby
PWNED
MaximusArurealius 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
"Should Evolution be Taught Critically?"
Of course the question does not make any sense. Should sunlight be taught critically? Should gravity be taught critically?
Desertphile 9 months ago
@Desertphile this comment is the thing that makes no sense whatsoever!
allan3141 9 months ago
@Desertphile
¨Should sunlight be taught critically? Should gravity be taught critically?¨
neither sunlight nor gravity fall under historical science. The controversy only deals with non-observable changes. Get a clue.
owensphil 9 months ago
@owensphil ; There is no "controversy" among scientists when it comes to evolution. Evolution is observed to happen no less than sunlight and gravity; do try to keep up.
Desertphile 9 months ago
@Desertphile
" There is no "controversy" among scientists when it comes to evolution"
Of course there is. You obviously don't have a clue. Maybe you should watch the video again.
" Evolution is observed to happen"
over the course of millions and millions of years? Who has observed evolution taking place over millions and millions of years. We aren't discussing small scale changes observed in the lab. Again please get a clue.
owensphil 9 months ago
@owensphil ; No, there is no controversy about the subject among scientists. You will just have to adjust.
Desertphile 9 months ago
@owensphil
Actually, although massive evolution does take millions of years, speciation (the point when evolution manipulates a species to the extent it can no longer naturally breed with the original species it evolved from) can take far less time, google "observed instances of speciation", you will find that several different species have developed, while being observed over time by scientists. Although these changes are small, they prove the evolutionary process in nature.
ShouldersofGiants100 4 months ago
@ShouldersofGiants100
> Although these changes are small, they prove the evolutionary process in nature.
Again, such small scale changes aren't even part of the debate. The extrapolation of these small scale changes in the face of bounded variations, living fossils, regressions is where the problem lies.
Also contrast the strong definition of 'species' proposed by geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky, and the weak definition proposed by Zoologist Ernst Mayr.
owensphil 4 months ago
@owensphil
Actually, although massive evolution does take millions of years, speciation (the point when evolution manipulates a species to the extent it can no longer naturally breed with the original species it evolved from) can take far less time, google "observed instances of speciation", you will find that several different species have developed, while being observed over time by scientists. Although these changes are small, they prove the evolutionary process in nature.
ShouldersofGiants100 4 months ago
@ShouldersofGiants100
>Actually, although massive evolution does take millions of years, speciation
That's obviously an assumption and not an observable fact.
> "observed instances of speciation"
All small scale changes. Such small scale changes fit both competeing models. No evidence that such small scale changes can be extrapolated into large scale changes.
owensphil 4 months ago
@owensphil 1.It is an observed fact, when I refer to massive evolution, I mean the transitions of humans since genetic separation from chimps circa 6 million years ago,
2. If by "no evidence" you are referring to thousands of transitional fossils tracing the evolution of countless animals, as for "small scale" a transition into a new species is objectively very large.
ShouldersofGiants100 4 months ago
@ShouldersofGiants100
> when I refer to massive evolution, I mean the transitions of humans since genetic separation from chimps circa 6 million years ago,
Where is your observation?
>If by "no evidence" you are referring to thousands of transitional fossils tracing the evolution of countless animals
Thousands? I challenge you to give me two or three unequivocal transitions.
>as for "small scale" a transition into a new species is objectively very large.
You avoid exmples like the plague
owensphil 4 months ago
@owensphil non observable? i can name three ways how you had to evolve from earlier life forms. also dna shows us that yeah we are apes and have a lot in common with the great apes like chimps both of us tribal and very xenophobic.
SuperSkepticism 6 months ago
@owensphil Your video plays up the controversy way more than it exists. It's like the climate debate, it's a controversy all right, but not a scientific one. You keep telling people to get a clue, go find some yourself by actually trying to understand scientific papers. Evolution is much more observable than gravity, but you're not arguing against it (oh, by the way, Einstine didn't believe in quantum mechanics, go play with that controversy). Clue: We can date earth strata millions of years.
ChildrenOfOrwell 6 months ago
@ChildrenOfOrwell I realise I made the mistake of being too simplified. We understand the system by which evolution works and can demonstrate its effectiveness in modelling the correlations between older species (dated by earth strata testing, not just carbon dating) and modern ones. The system by which gravity works is much less understood. We cannot manipulate it, we cannot affect it or store it, but we can manipulate evolution by selective breeding, thereby using the system to our advantage.
ChildrenOfOrwell 6 months ago