As if any serious biologist relies on fossil evidence, we have no right to expect any fossils at all. In fact the fossil record could be powerful evidence against evolution if only one single specimen could be found in the "wrong place". Eg. fossil rabbits in the cambrian.
@periechontology Why don't you enlighten us on what he is actually arguing here then, to me he is saying since the fossil record has gaps that automatically means that it doesn't support evolution wich is failed logic simply because there are transitional fossils wich support the theory, what you would want for his argument is some fossil evidence that directly disproves it not just the absense of proof for it.
@johaneriksandberg No. What he is arguing is that if Evolution is not merely a narrative but actually a SCIENTIFIC THEORY then it is defined by it's mechanism. To prove evolutionary theory BY THE FOSSIL RECORD is to demonstrate that it displays what we would expect as a consequence of speciation by means of the mechanism in question ( Natural Selection and Random Variation). He is asking what does mathematical probability tell us about what we should expect to see here.
@periechontology Or in short "it has gaps therefore it doesn't support evolution" wich is what I thought he meant and it is what he meant that he doesn't take the explanations for the gaps into account just proves he's meerly trying to twist it without looking at the whole picture, that is not a logical approach unless you're trying to reach a predetermined conclusion when examining something.
What kind of explanations are you talking about (by the way, i really don't think you understood what i said, and whether you did or not i'll be able to determine by your answer to this question).
@periechontology Berlinski is an idiot unable to alter his position even when presented with evidence against it, he should stick to some other subject and just shut up about this one.
He's being too focussed on the MECHANISM - to say natural selection does not occur because of a lack of continuous fossil data is daft IMO. The "Theory" will just have to remain a theory until every single fossil is found I guess, fine, but then to say it is therefore wrong?!? Take any pre-existing, working MECHANISM, remove a part - does that mean the MECHANISM didn't or doesn't exist? Darwins Theories are obviously outdated and open to refinement - this doesn't make the general idea bogus.
Berlinski never said that it was "wrong". His general position is simply that there is no existing SCIENTIFIC THEORY (or one that offers a plausible mechanism) that can account for speciation. Without the mechanism we aren't talking about a scientific theory, we are talking about a mere narrative. To state that the fossil record verifies a "theory" is to state that it displays what we should expect as a consequence of the operation of the mechanism in question.
berlinski's point is a good point ... perhaps too subtle... he is saying that if evolution were true.. then the vast majority of samples from the record would be very close in form/function to each other... the record does not support that...
@fitDavid123 Or if you actually consider how rare it is for bones to fossilize plus the fact we haven't actively searched for them for very long then it suddently becomes and very very weak point to argue.
I was just about to write that he was an idiot, but " utterly pointless" actually suits him better. Every stupid word out of his mouth is a total red herring, waste of time and ear work.
For the truth about religion & top Bible scholarship try Robert M. Price, ' The reason driven life '. Also Dan Barker, Valerie Tarico, John W. Loftus, Victor J. Stenger. For humanity's shared moral core & belief in Matt 7v12 The Golden Rule try wisdomcommons. Also try comparative religion- read the 1500BCE papyrus of Ani & the Koran & Book of Mormon on skepticsannotatedbible. No one would give credence to such writings except for peer pressure & threats of death & hell. See. RichardDawkinsnet
Berlinski is correct, as long as there are gaps, the fossil record does not support evolution. Unfortunately, for the diehard evolutionist, their imagination takes care of any gaps.
Bullshit. Berlinski is wrong. He has no idea what evolutionary theory requires. As an analogy, if you assemble a jigsaw puzzle that has 50% of the pieces missing, it is still possible to form an intelligent idea about what the pciture is.
Berlinski is arguing that one missing piece makes that impossible.
@kshackleton As long as we have an apriori idea of what the picture is in order to fill in the gaps, we can. So with evolution, as long as you already have set in your mind what goes in the gaps, then you can fill them in. This is precisely what evolutionists do; they inject their own ideas into science. If we are not familiar with the picture, we can only guess, and random guess at that. If you say evolutionists don't guess, then you admit that they already have made up their minds.
you are completely and utterly wrong. for the fossil record to be unsupportive of evolution there would have to be a fossil out of place in an evolutionary sequence. no such fossil has ever been found.
this has nothing to do with the imagination of any biologist or paleontologist- though I see you enjoy using yours.
@mcmanustony And who is it that decides what that sequence is? Fossils don't come with sequential numbers stamped on them. This again is an example of something that is determined apriori. When you find a fossilized animal, you don't know if it had any offspring at all, but for some incredible reason, you assume that it did, and then assign it a place in an already determined sequence. You claim there are no gaps? Can you choose any fossil, and determine that exact evolutionary process it took?
@odinata The stages of human development are already well known beforehand. It has been observed billions of times. Evolution of life has not. You fail.
@odinata This is a new one to me. So who is the person, or persons, that were able to create the original conditions on earth and observe the evolution from the simplest one-celled organism all the way up to man? So what if foxes are related to wolves. Are they related to fish? DNA is incapable of proving anything. In order to prove something, you start with reasonable assumptions that others are willing to accept, and then deduce (by way of logical) inferences based on these assumptions.
@YHWHisSovereign Completely incorrect. The fossil record most definetly supports evolution, it may not stand alone prove evolution but it certainly supports it.
@YHWHisSovereign They filled the gaps, now you say there are twice as many gaps. The fossils record has gaps but it does not follow that evolution is false. And They have many transitional fossils.
@YHWHisSovereign LOL, what? So you would need to have the remains of every living thing that has ever existed to have evidence for evolution? That's totally asinine. When there are gaps in the evidence, we have handy things like interpolation and basic reasoning skills.
Put Berlinksi on a school bus and take him on a field trip to a natural history museum where he can see some of the transitional fossils that he says don't exist.
"Berlinski's writings are not scientific, but popular, and Berlinski has no known record of his own contribution to the development of mathematics or of any other science." Mark Perakh, prof. of Mathematics at California State University
"his approach consists of constructing strawmen, then knocking them down with misinterpreted, faulty, or nonexistent data as well as carefully selected quotations from evolutionary scientists" E. Scott, exec director of the National Center for Science Education
When you replace reverence for life, the possibility of spirituality and doubt about our origins and replace it with technocratic arrogant "scientism", you end up with nightmarish dictatorships "for our own good" by people who think they are all-knowing Gods (democratic party hello).
The Creation Model of origins is more “scientific” and less “religious” that the Evolution Model, because its predictions are supported by scientific observation (without any reference to the Bible whatsoever), rather than assumed despite empirical evidence. Neither the Creation Model nor the Evolution Model can be scientifically proven to be true since both concepts R beyond the reach of the scientific method & both views deal w/ singularities (ult.origins) which must be
"The Creation Model of origins is more scientific"
Only if you disregard the total lack of evidence for any of the creationist claims. The few verifiable claims offered within creationism have already been debunked numerous times over as well. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, has massive amounts of evidence in its favor and is still standing strong after 150 years.
It was this guy Harold Camping an old geezer who predicted the rapture on May 21st from Biblical passages. It's true he was disowned by almost every Christian before it didn't happen.
I don't know why religion gets up my nose so much. Why should I care? Perhaps it's because the most violent countries in the world are usually also the most religious. And the countries with the lowest IQ's and education are also generally religious. Only 6 states have an average IQ over 100 (average intelligence).
@warren52nz ~ as long as Ur replies show sincere effort (no problem) ~ Incest (who did their children mate with?) other tribes (geneis 4:17) ~Guy lives in a fish for 3 days ~ more like buried ~ I've read it was either a whale shark R a sperm whale a talking snake.~ spirit I believe ~ Rev 20:2 ~ even then the form was temporal Mainly theological pnts ~ I'm not here 2 argue U in2 a jezuzfreek R a violetkitty cult or PTL type~ common here ~ God help Us ~ character limit ~2b contiund :)
@TJae1 Those "answers" are all dodges, sorry. Fish/whale, who cares? You can't live inside any living animal for 3 days. Snake was a spirit? Spirits are a delusional creation of the human mind.
I see the Rapture didn't occur on Saturday as predicted by some Christians..... AGAIN! Is there anything in this world that fails more consistently than religion? I know... "he wasn't a REAL Christian". It's amazing how quickly Christians will disown their members when they fail.
@warren52nz ~ LOL ~ not really ~ those R pnts of theology & story context ~ not discovered ~ scientific research ~ I know the likes of jezuzfreek & yokeup have paved a way 4 combat & subs ~ rather than discussion ~ &
thusly ~ have birthd a generation of either or Christianity wars ~ either shallow PTL crap or shallow atheists w/ a bone 2 pick ~
@TJae1 Can't remember where I posted this but I kept it because it took a bit of research:
There's an IQ gradient in the USA that generally rises as you go north and religiosity tracks it inversely. And out of all 50 states, there are only 6 that have an average IQ over 100 (which is defned as "average intelligence").
Minnesota, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York (highest at 109), California and Washington. Lowest is Alabama at 90. Is Alabama south and religious?
@warren52nz ~ I'm not certain w/ IQ statistics~ e.g. ~
between the La. Red neck yokeup & the New Jersian ~
inmendham ~ yokeup ~ probably has the edge ~ less 4 the honesty ~
Violetkitty is from La. ~ I believe ~ & kitty is pretty shrewd ~ just not that theologically challenge & spoild rotten by feminine charm ~ there's an atheist video about Yokeup ~ revealing that Yoke's is really pretty sharp ~ If I locate it ~ I'll mail it 2 ya ~
California was 101 just 1 point above average. Not that I think actors are an intelligent demographic but California is less religious than most states from what I've seen. I think Texas has the highest number of executions by a mile. What happened to "Thou shalt not kill"? It seems to me that wherever you find a lot of religion you find a lot of violence. Think about it. Look at Iran. I wonder about China. That might go on your side, not sure. Or Russia. Probably quite peaceful.
@warren52nz uh ?? ever heard of the 20th century - when so called enlightened "scientific" socialism killed millions of people in genocides and concentration camps ? communism killed 100 million people (Stalin, polpot etc) and then of course Nazism - which favored the superman and the culling of lesser races and the disabled, rather like Peter Singer does today.
@MrAussieJules Yeah I'll give you that. My comment kept the door open for it. But religion has a lot to answer to when it comes for motivation to war. Other motivations exist of course, power (religious motivation is a subset of this), land, defense. I can't think of a single conflict that was motivated by Atheism.
"socialism killed millions of people in genocides and concentration camps"
No, PEOPLE did that. The Russian communist regime also had all the hallmarks of religion, what with the person worship and all.
"Nazism "
Nazism was a hodgepodge of various political and religious notions, but the antisemitic part was clearly of Christian origin. The German army had "Gott Mit Uns" (God With Us) on their belt buckles. Hitler was also a devout Catholic
The Theory of Evolution doesn't need ANY fossils to prove it's how species diversified from a common ancestor into what we see today. But the fossil record FITS perfectly, just one piece of armor proving its validity along with DNA evidence, paleontological evidence, geological evidence and in fact EVERY time ANY field of Science crosses the path of Evolution it fits like a glove. Creationists are stuck in a losing battle on this one. Time to move on to more important things.
@Roj899 ~ ask biblicalexplorer ~ what they think of the evolutionary model ~ U mite find their response interesting ~ anyway ~ Can U satisfy Dr. Berlinsky's request or the burden of proof:
@TJae1 This video deals with Berlinski's "argument" very well.
watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU&feature=related
Do you have to see a continuous movie of someone's life to believe the adult is the same person depicted in the photo album when he was 10? How many photos taken over the years does it take before you can be certain enough to say it's true? Creationists will ALWAYS say there's a gap no matter how many fossils are produced.
@warren52nz ~ interesting ~ but fossils "missings links" R important 2 Darwin's evolution ~ Observation simply doesn't confirm the process of evolution ~ as promoted by Darwin's followers ~ If otherwise~ "go 4 it " ~ show Us & Me:
@TJae1 Fossils were important to Darwin because he didn't know about genetics and the tree of life was in its earliest stages. But we don't need them now to prove Evolution.
Some more examples in addition to what I already said below (damn the 600 word limit!)
Homology. If you look at the skeletons of mammals, you find amazing similarities. The lengths and shapes may be different but you find 4 fingers and a thumb. Some may be fused but in the embryonic stage you see the link to their ancestors
@warren52nz DNA. DNA is FULL of junk and remnants from our distant past. Humans have a turned off gene for a tail. Why would God give us that??
Look up "Graeme Finlay" and "Darwin's God" He's a Creationist and a Molecular Biologist. He's on YOUR SIDE and he shows how we KNOW Evolution is true. I went to one of his seminars. While I obviously don't agree with his conclusion, his evidence is pure Science. You'll enjoy it. When you're finished come back and tell me Evolution is wrong again. 8^)
@warren52nz ~ it's interestin' trek idea ~ however ~ having no basis in reality though ~ mayb via genetic engineering ~ I'll chck out Ur video ~ let's say ~there is a Judeo/Christian Origin ~ what would that "spell" for the human race & how would U "foul" Genesis Chapter 1 & 2 & why: Apart from the temporal & spiritual elements ~ it seems pretty well true 2 life
@TJae1 Your question is rather cryptic not sure what you mean but let me have a crack at it.
We definitely have heaps of genetic remnants of our past. All by itself that one fact makes the story of Creation extremely unlikely. I mean, why would God fill us full of turned off genes that are shared with other mammals? Evolution makes sense of it all. Why do we lose our wisdom teeth? Because our jaws are getting shorter and there's no room for them now. (cont)
@TJae1 Why do we get goosebumps? We used to have thicker hair and it helped keep us warm and make us look bigger (chills and fear bring them on). Why do we have an appendix? Our diet used to include vegetation that it helped with in digestion.
Why do Chimps share 98% of our genes? BECAUSE WE HAVE A RECENT COMMON ANCESTOR!
The truth unfolds in a beautifully elegant way once you accept it.
Why are some children born with fatal diseases? Bad luck, not "God wants them in Heaven now".
@TJae1 And finally, Why do so many Creationist videos have ratings and comments disabled?
Because their arguments are so easy to shoot down and they won't face scrutiny.
Why are Atheist videos' comments and ratings enabled? Because Science is BASED on scrutiny. That's why it works. Ideas are tested and efforts are made to disprove them. If someone manages it, the theory is scrapped or modified and the process starts again. That's why jets fly, medicine works and we all have computers and cars...
@TJae1 Sorry to take up so much space here but you asked about Genesis too. So many problems. Universe made from nothing in 6 days, a talking snake. Incest (who did their children mate with?) Guy lives in a fish for 3 days. Flood covers the whole world! Noah fits two (or more) OF EVERY ANIMAL ON EARTH INTO A BOAT & drops off the kangaroos in Australia???
Followed by all the evidence that humans evolved up the Primate chain and the story's simply impossible!
@warren52nz ~ chck this out ~ Sons of Noah ~ I find this lot 2 b more incest prone ~ Noah fits two (or more) OF EVERY ANIMAL ON EARTH INTO A BOAT & drops off the kangaroos in Australia ? (1 ? will suffice :) single location & the earth wasn't divided (Gen 10:25)
@warren52nz ~ I'm not familiar w/ this Rapture day Idea ~ snds like a sales gimmic ~ I do believe in second chances ~ (venomfang X) ~ chck it out ~ < (less than) ~ don't involve Me *
@lamuziq 1. It isn't ironic since David does defeat Goliath in the Biblical story. 2. The David in this video has accomplished nothing but display his ignorance.
@TJae1 Thumbs up on discovering a new type of encrypted text that appears exactly like English to the layman but cannot be read by evolutionists and in some cases causes them to writhe around on the ground screaming and frothing at the mouth like something out of the movie, "the exorcist".
So, that would be why it doesn't have the support of the scientific community then?
If you deduct theological dogma from the equation altogether, creation is merely a scientific hypothesis that can't gain any traction among the best minds in science.
Everything Berlinski says here, is highly disingenuous. That's what makes him far more loathesome than someone like Ray Comfort. Berlinski KNOWS that he's making inconsistent leaps of reason, and is doing it for rhetorical effect.
@TJae1 ..Homochirality proves evolution can never happen..but this is now separate from there lies..evolutionists would rather believe in some chemistry unknown to science than intelligence,,thats some faith..and nothing more than assumptions..but u cant talk about the first cell...just what came after..thers some logic
@ianman6 Atheists are so stubborn, they think this RNA research could happen on a primordial earth..HAHAHA
Synthesizing machines trained chemists controlling every step of the experiment, along with activated bases,which were not made from scratch.and controlled TEMPERATURES!!!! would all be found on a primordial earth???
@ianman6 "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.Intelligence created life not time and chance
@ianman6 You don't even know what Homochirality is you dummy, amino acids never organize them selves in perfect order, where is information and digital code evolving from?? You have been indoctrinated!!
@TJae1 Evolution has happened under real world and controlled conditions, and documented in both. Paleontological and genetic research point to evolution being the correct answer, while they contradict predictions made by creationism. Creationism states that the universe if constructed by a supernatural force which can't be seen, heard or detected. It cannot be run throught the scientific method, which means it's not science.
@TJae1 "The Creation Model of origins is more “scientific” and less “religious” that the Evolution Model, because its predictions are supported by scientific observation.
Oh really? How does the Creation Model explain why all great Apes have the same mutation in the gene that manufactures Vitamin C that stops it before it finishes the job?
How does it explain men's nipples? Or why we have goosebumps without the hair they're meant to fluff up?
Berlinski is an idiot. He is creating a strawman of what is required of Darwinian evolution.
Berlinski's argument would also hold that since a video clip contains gaps between frames that we cannot infer any events from that clip. That's ridiculous.
@kshackleton No a video clip has a tiny tiny tiny almost certainly negligible amount of space in between each frame and plenty of frames with which we can infer the event taking place. Evolution on the other hand gives you a single picture, then a million years later gives you a completely different picture and first of all these pictures are not even in the same photo album! Furthermore I would point out that these "pictures" are mostly incomplete pictures or "frames", YOU are ridiculous.
The gap between the frames may, or may not be negligible. That depends on what you are attempting to film. The fact of the matter is that there are gaps between frames, yet we can still tell what is going on in most situations.
The fossil record is something like that. It is full of gaps, and is expected to be so. Berlinski is a disingenuous asshole. The fossil record actually gives a pretty good picture of what has occurred, in spite of the gaps.
@kshackleton First of all get this straight and NEVER forget this, evolution is a theory (a bad one lacking evidence) and it can never be anything more than a theory. Everyone knows there is not enough fossil evidence to prove evolution and if you really want to be scientific and accurate you would admit that fossils can NEVER even prove evolution because for one thing you can't prove that fossil of a deceased animal ever procreated!
That's just one aspect, don't get me started on mutation.
Your name is a lie. Clearly, seeking the truth is not of any interest to you.
We would know evolution is true if there were no fossils at all. The evidence that we get from the genes of living animals is convincing enough on its own. The evidence from morphology, embryology, the geographic distribution of living animals, are all compelling enough.
Fossils are simply icing on the cake.
Get an education. I suspect that you know very little about mutation.
@kshackleton No sorry you don't understand what death is. We would know nothing died a long time ago if it wasn't for fossils and we wouldn't know what the creature looked like (IN MANY cases we still don't know exactly what the creatures looked like and they make much of it up to help their cause).
None of those things you mentioned have ever given any proof for macro-evolution, the things you might refer to are simply micro-evolution which I have no problem with. You believe in a religion.
We have known about death long before we started to find and understand fossils. That's just a completely ridiculous statement you made.
Genetics tells us in no uncertain terms that all life shares common ancestry. It tells us that chimps are more closely related to humans than gorillas. It tells us that trout are more closely related to humans than sharks, by a very wide margin.
@kshackleton No you took my words out of context, obviously we live with death and know it is a fact, FOSSILS show something died a long time ago, learn to read.
Genetics does not say humans and chimps are related in ANY way. We have similarities to that animal, and there is a big difference in the way you word it, so stop being ignorant. You know what that evidence tells me? It shows we have a common creator with the chimps, our creator made us similar, you take the same evidence and...
@kshackleton ..you take the same evidence and spin it in your own way to say that somehow we are "related" to them, do you not understand that there are multiple ways of interpreting the facts science brings us? Just because the most common interpretation says that we may have been related to this animal a million years ago does not make it correct! So you take one interpretation of a fact and PRETEND, as many others do, that it is a FACT that SUPPORTS your claims, which is a lie!
@kshackleton Then taking it further you idiots like to say things like "All scientists agree about evolution" and other stupid claims that I have refuted in comments on other videos. OBVIOUSLY you are watching at least this video here (if you even watched it) where a handful of scientists of different fields do not agree with the majority view, and there are thousands more who just get brushed under the carpet so to speak. Open your eyes and listen to someone other than dawkins and hitchens.
None of the ID proponents in this video are scientists. None of them conduct research and submit their findings for peer review, they do not support their claims with evidence. They simply are working a political game for their own benefit. They are trying to get around the system, they are not interested in working within it.
Their argument is this, "Evolution can't be true, so ID must be true by default."
@kshackleton No the argument is "Evolution can not be proven, so ID must be more plausable, or at the very least just as plausable" Which is an important argument considering evolution is taught in school and ID is NOT.
So forcing the evolution religion on children who don't know the other side of the discussion is ignorance and obviously you have fallen victim to this ignorance because you do not understand the ID arguments at all.
evolutionary theory has support of evidence.....ID has none. ID is a religious position, evolutionary theory is a scientific theory. It's the best explanation, it's the only explanation that actually explains anything....and it explains everything about how biological systems operate. It makes testable predictions, and it has always passed the test....always.
@kshackleton That is what makes you stupid, you live off of assumptions that what your saying really is true, you will never learn to think outside of the box that has been made for you by biased "science". Evolution Theory does not have support from evidence. ID can use the "evidence" of design from millions of observations in nature and elsewhere and claim that those FACTS point to a designer. You will try to discredit that line of thinking but unknowingly use it yourself.
@kshackleton I don't care who DI is they mean nothing to mean and have no influence over my views first of all, second of all if they have no evidence to support their claims then they are just the same as anyone who supports evolution so you shouldn't be too worried about that should you?
It seems your education has taught you to play the following game, great job you learned how to put blinders on and reject logic. Sign me up! (Not.)
@TruthSeekingOne You are using induction to prove god, unfortunately for you, you have no actual evidence to back that claim up...Just because i see complex things being designed, does not mean everything complex has to be designed...
@swisscheesepotatochi You see, the dating methods used to determine the ages of fossils are severely flawed and that is why you get wild dates on things when they can not possibly know when these creatures actually lived. Just do a tiny bit of research on the faulty dating systems that they use, or completely ignore it and only favor research that bought scientists do to support the evolution theory. You can find out the truth if you actually look for it, don't bury yourself in biased material
@TruthSeekingOne That depends...the only sites i have read that do in fact argue that these methods are flawed are creation sites, not a single peer reviewed journal, or wikipedia, or anything like that...if you could cite me a credible source id be grateful...
Here's an idea - Explain to me how you think the radiometric dating systems (yes, plural) actually work, so I can see if you even have the most meagre idea of what the hell you're spouting about. And then give me some examples of how these techniques are very effectively CAL-I-BRA-TED, so that by the time multiple platforms are engaged, they give a very accurate timeline.
The fact that certain species show little variation, does NOTHING to dispute evolution.
@Hzqi It is a very simple idea, they take decay rates and make a ton of unprovable assumptions (some of which have been proven wrong). One of these assumptions is that Carbon-14 has reached equilibrium. The amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere is increasing. There is no way to prove that any decay is a constant through our tiny window of observation.
And yes the fact that ALL species show little observable variation DOES dispute and disprove evolution in many scientific opinions.
So, what you're saying is, that you don't understand the ways that the myriad dating methods are calibrated. I said calibrated, not determined. Saying it's a fact doesn't make one. As, it's not one. Not only have variations been observed. Even things that wouldn't be presumably necessary to observe, have, been observed. Variation? No, SPECIATION has been observed. "Many scientific opinions"? Which ones? David Berlinski? Talking shit about a field he isn't qualified in?
@Hzqi Yea it is not important to me. 2,000 years ago the consensus was that the earth was flat, they did have some great science then too, and I bet it made their heads as bloated and blind as its affect seems to have on our modern scientists, which follow the evolution bandwagon cult. Evolution is mathematically impossible in a statistical view and flawed in many areas...but that's alright when you have scientists willing to do junk science or fake findings like they have done. Sheep...BAAAA
I actually wrote down on a pad, and sat it beside the computer the probability that TruthSeekingOne would make a conflation between the previous assertion of a flat-earth, and the modern concensus of evolution.
The fact alone that you'd contrast the scruples of the now, and the methods of rigour, and the art of prediction with the era, is dreary enough. But to follow it up with such a poorly reasoned derision is simply typical. "Mathematically impossible". Berlinski parrot.
Berlinski makes all these wild comparatives on a numeric basis, in a way designed to make them seem absurd. Yet, none of his rhetoric actually contains an argument that coutneracts the premise proposed by evolution. The closest he comes is a tally-up. [it would take lots and lots of changes for x thing to occur]. And your point is Berlinski? The guy is backed by the circus at the DISCOVERY INSTITUTE, and you're throwing around the "baaaa" word? Sheep is a religious COMPLIMENT.
Berlinski is one of the most self-important, smug tools I've ever seen squeeze manipulative prose the curled lips. And he says things as tremendously STUPID as "Follows as the night, the day". I.e. if the fossil record is not absolutely intact, it doesn't prove anything.
That's like to saying the if you have fossils for say, around 150 million years of intermediaries, and they're intact so fine as to cloud moments of speciation. That with ONE broad overlap, it means nothing.
@Hzqi "I.e. if the fossil record is not absolutely intact, it doesn't prove anything."
.
Good point. Or how about, 'unless scripture is 100% inerrant and contains no contradictions or ambiguities, it could not possibly be the word of a supreme being and thus said being cannot possibly exist.'
But we won't hold our breath waiting for Theists to meet their own standards of proof.
That would be like me counteracting their reasoning (dynamically) on Intelligent Design, by saying look, this canvas has about 70% of it's surface area covered to which I retort this painting can't possibly have been created by an intelligent entitiy. Sure, most of it is covered by signs of creative intent, but look at all the missing areas. Surely I need a 100% intact painting to prove it is truly an artifact.
@TruthSeekingOne "Evolution is mathematically impossible in a statistical view and flawed in many areas."
.
Well both of those statements are simply untrue. But then I see you have been consuming SteeveBee's "It's IMPOSSIBLE" series so your error is understandable but not excusable.
.
"2,000 years ago the consensus was that the earth was flat..."
.
Annnnnnd this is bullshit too. The Egyptians, Babylonians and Greeks certainly knew the earth was round and said as much.
@Noisegator Yes it is mathematically impossible, do some calculations on your own it is a very easy concept if you know anything about statistics. I hope you understand at least some basic math concepts if you want to talk about science at all.
Well I did say 2,000 years ago the consensus was that the earth was flat, and that is true to a degree, although there are some notable people who historically believed in a circular earth. I believe in the Bible, it makes claim on a circular earth...
@TruthSeekingOne "Yes it is mathematically impossible, do some calculations on your own it is a very easy concept if you know anything about statistics."
.
Well you'd be wrong, and better mathematicians than either you or I will ever be, agree. If you are referring to Hal Holbrook and his pulling dice out of a box demonstration ( watch?v=w7fmIXZCIW0 ), you have some catch up to do. Try this video watch?v=SeTssvexa9s for an explanation of why the creationist statistical argument is bogus.
@Noisegator ...over 2,000 years ago too. But that is not what my point was, MOST people through ancient history did not believe the earth was a sphere. We could argue about that all day long or you can take my point as it was intended, that just because popular science makes certain claims about something doesn't make it true. This is certainly the case with evolution, most believe in it, but MANY also believe against it. The minority have the stronger case in my opinion.
@TruthSeekingOne I took your point "as intended". You intended to impugn modern science by invoking ancient ignorance and by using the ad populum fallacy.
.
The science of evolution does not rely on popularity or making baseless claims. Every salient aspect of Darwin's theory has been repeatedly confirmed through 150 years of scrutiny, the emergence of new disciplines and mechanisms (genetics / DNA), and by every fossil and living thing there is.
@Noisegator Every aspect has been confirmed? Like Haeckel's fraudulent drawings of embryos that looked completely different from the actual thing so he could trick people into thinking that all embryos looked similar to prove we evolved? Yea evolutionists love those drawings, they still use them in college text books even though they were proven wrong over 100 years ago! Not to mention the faked "missing links" that have come out over the last 70 years. People will lie for evolution.
@TruthSeekingOne I said "Every salient aspect of Darwin's theory", not every illustration in every biology text. Please don't overstate my case for me.
.
Haeckle's drawings are exaggerated, not "fraudulent". Subsequent study has revealed the principles of developmental biology he pioneered are essentially sound, even if his data was skewed. The drawings have been subsequently corrected and reissued.
.
They are not "still used in college text books". That's common creationist fabrication.
@TruthSeekingOne "Not to mention the faked "missing links" that have come out over the last 70 years."
.
Still harping on Piltdown Man are you (at least learn the names of your strawmen) That hoax was unmasked by science, shortly after the bones were released for actual study. Before that, many paleontologists were deeply and publicly suspicious of the find. Piltdown was never considered a serious contender.
.
Many other hominid species have since been identified. Care to name a specific "hoax"?
@Noisegator Nebraska Man, one single tooth turned into an evolutionists imagination run wild.
Java Man, a skullcap, three teeth, and a femur no doubt it was human with other human skulls around that area.
Orce Man, not a human skull fragment..
Neanderthal, a brutish hunter but definitely a human, not at all an ape mixture.
You can believe in all the lies you want, sure some of these bones may look large or different maybe even some bone disease, certainly not proof for evolution though.
@TruthSeekingOne "Orce man" - Disputed and reclassified. Mistakes are made but in science they are publicly corrected. In creationism they are denied and become cannon.
.
Java Man - More complete, compelling and older finds have been made in Java. Get up to date with the science.
.
"Neanderthal, a brutish hunter but definitely a human, not at all an ape mixture." - No paleontologist says it's an "ape mixture". It's a cousin of modern humans. Get the facts straight before you criticise them.
Neanderthal isn't a cousin of "modern" humans, humans are humans now and always have been, there is NO evidence that humans were ever sub-human or transitional from another species whatsoever. All these remains that have been claimed to be missing links are not - they are Human OR monkey/ape animals. If you want to CHOOSE to interpret these as evidences for macro evolution, you are a fool and that is not science.
@TruthSeekingOne "there is NO evidence that humans were ever sub-human or transitional from another species "
.
Way to misrepresent the case.Sub-human? Who but a creationist would use such a quaint and dismissive term? There is tons of evidence that humans are just one more species in a lineage which includes the great apes. The DNA doesn't lie (unlike the Discovery Institute). Google Chromosome 2.
.
Your post demonstrates you are way behind on your science.
@Noisegator Actually some other evolutionist already tried that old Chromosome 2 scam on me a few months ago, so I already have looked it up. It sure doesn't support the idea that we evolved from apes if that is what you are getting at.
I agree humans and all kinds of other animals have some or many similarities, this does not prove evolution any more than the fact that all cars have tires made up of the same materials - rubber. Pointing out similarities is not proof of ancestry.
@TruthSeekingOne "Actually some other evolutionist already tried that old Chromosome 2 scam on me a few months ago, so I already have looked it up. It sure doesn't support the idea that we evolved from apes if that is what you are getting at."
.
Scam? Did you just call DNA a scam? Chromosome 2 does not establishes that our linneage is firectly descended from the same common ancestor as chimps and all other great apes. That's not a scam, that's a fact, pure and simple.
@Noisegator Just take for instance the fact that we are all made up of similar types of elements, no one takes that as proof of any kind. How about the fact that we have the SAME amount of chromosomes as tobacco? Nope that doesn't prove we are related to those either hmm..
Do you even know what DNA is? It is information (you are trying to use this information against me, but the fact that you even consider DNA a source of biological information should suggest a few things to you..)...
@TruthSeekingOne "How about the fact that we have the SAME amount of chromosomes as tobacco? Nope that doesn't prove we are related to those either hmm.."
.
Who ever said this, other that obfuscating creationists. Strawmanning is the only thing your guys do with any proficiency.
.
But since you mention it, the presence of the mitochondria in the cell proves that we do indeed share a common ancestor with tobacco and with all green plants. We are all eucaryotes. Look it up.
@Noisegator@MomoTheBellyDancer Yes and also the fact that we all share a similar carbon molecule make up in our bodies also means that we are related to everything too...you guys are such idiots it really blows me away.
"...the presence of the mitochondria in the cell proves that we do indeed share a common ancestor with tobacco.." The interpretation of the evidence you just gave is so religious, I am happy to see you have some type of faith, even as misguided as it is. This is fruitless.
@TruthSeekingOne ".you guys are such idiots it really blows me away."
.
For someone without the first clue about biology, that's quite the statement.
.
There's nothing religious about facts, in fact facts are obviously a problem for believes like you because - you have none to back up your crazy claims and the ones that prove you wrong either confuse of downright scare you.
@Noisegator I have an education, you are just blind.
Biology is great, but you obviously don't understand biology if you think that similarity in life forms makes them related to one another.
You can deny your evolutionary religion all you want but guess what the facts are the facts, and the only evidence you have to support that stupid theory are blind leaps of faith and assumption that you *consider* to be evidence. If that makes you feel really really smart, well I guess I am happy for you
You know, it doesn't matter how many times you say that you are educated, admire science and understand biology, it is clear from what you say and how you say it that you have no clear, honest understanding of biology, evolutionary theory, earth sciences and the scientific method in general. You misstate facts and their interpretation, ignore evidence and fail to understand rudimentary principles of logic. It's that simple.
@TruthSeekingOne "but you obviously don't understand biology if you think that similarity in life forms makes them related to one another"
The entire biological, zoological and paleontological community considers morphological similarity as strong evidence of relatedness. In fact, the latter two fields are predicated upon it. So biologists, zoologists and paleontologists clearly don't understand biology? You fail hard buddy.
@ianman6 Evolutionists confuse KINDS with something that is changing into something completely new!.. Thats what is a lie!! There are LIMITS!!!.and abiogenesis is ALL ASSUMPTIONS!!!!
@TruthSeekingOne "Yes and also the fact that we all share a similar carbon molecule make up in our bodies also means that we are related to everything too."
.
Oh come on! You don't even know the difference between a molecule and an atom, and you call other people idiots? You are in way worse shape than even I thought possible.
@Noisegator This information dictates things like our body's structure, and does it surprise you that we have a more similar DNA to a monkey than to a cow? Do we look more like monkeys or cows? Do some real research into the differences of our DNA and a chimps and you will see that we are WORLDS apart from being related.
I agree, DNA doesn't lie, it is the scientists interpretation of what the DNA MEANS that causes a lie to be told and repeated by the pseudo scientists of youtube (trolls).
@TruthSeekingOne "Actually some other evolutionist already tried that old Chromosome 2 scam on me a few months ago, so I already have looked it up. It sure doesn't support the idea that we evolved from apes if that is what you are getting at."
.
Why didn't you just say that don't have the first clue what DNA is or how it works! You could have saved me a whole lot of time reading your blathering. Learn about the real science. Stop reading Creationist sites, they are lying to you.
@Noisegator You have to remember that as far as a large skull or bold brow ridge this goes hand in hand with what the bible says, they lived sometimes hundreds of years and as far as we can tell facial features after living 200+ years may very well take on those exact characteristics. It is simply not "scientific" to rule out biblical hypothesis and state how sound the evolution theory is just because of these very debatable facts/evidences. Don't be ignorant, consider ideas outside of evo..
@TruthSeekingOne "You have to remember that as far as a large skull or bold brow ridge this goes hand in hand with what the bible says..."
.
Does the bible say they first appeared several hundred thousand years ago? Pretty tough when it says the earth is only 6,000 years old.
.
Evolutionary theory is sound because it has verifiable evidence to back it up. The homonid fossil record is exhaustive. Biblical creation has ZERO evidence. The ignorance is not happening on this side of the equation.
@kshackleton Your logic is like saying "birds have two eyes and humans have two eyes so we must be cousins!"
You do not understand that creatures having similar physical appearance or similar DNA or ANYTHING is not proof for evolution, it can be considered proof JUST AS WELL for a common designer.
At least you understand that we are cousins, that's progress.
Patterns and distributions of traits, not simple similarity, is the key.
We have eyes that share a pattern of traits that indicates common ancestry. All vertebrates share the same pattern of traits wrt to the eye. The eyes of cephalopoda are quite different....evidence of their lineage separating from vertebrates prior to the evolution of the eye in their respective lineages.
@kshackleton "We have eyes that share a pattern of traits that indicates common ancestry." No that is your interpretation of the evidence, once again you try to pretend as if it is a fact supporting the evolution theory, this is ignorance at work once again, I see this case after case after case.
Any similarity we have with any other creature can be attributed to our creator as well as this theory of evolution, there is no proof of either, that is why they are both religions, you have faith.
@TruthSeekingOne Yes, because our interpretation is currently the best interpretation...Things fall from the sky, that concludes that there is a force at work known as gravity, thats an interpretation, what makes it valid is that the evidence supports it. Sure it can, but only that the creator does not use any logic or sense in his creation, not even competent to ensure their survival (99% of all species that ever lived are extinct)...
@TruthSeekingOne I don't have to use faith to believe that atoms exists...I can empirically test that statement...Same with evolution by natural selection, the very fact that there is a successive modification of species throughout the fossil record that corresponds to the time line required for it to actually be true, that says tons about valid it has to be.
@swisscheesepotatochi I completely agree with you, we don't have to use faith to believe that atoms exist. That is real science! I am sorry that you can not distinguish between real science and belief in a theory that can not ever be proven and makes no logical sense. Please explain why supposedly ancient fossils of fish and turtles and sharks are still alive today with absolutely no visible changes? If you would like specifics please let me know, or are you unaware of these "fossils"?
@TruthSeekingOne I do not quite understand what you mean, how can these fossils still be alive? I understand if you mean that the fossils then compared today's living animals are similar and has not diverged much, which will be a case in a sense and if that is what you actually mean, please cite the source of those fossils found and which species they are supposed to resemble...thank you
@TruthSeekingOne Also, one must check the evolutionary pressure exerted on the species, the theory of evolution does not state that all species must evolve, the shark, to my knowledge are extremely adapted to what they do and therefore had no need to change over time, in this sense their evolutionary pressure is very low, it has no predator and therefore there is no selection process...
@TruthSeekingOne and yes, i understand if we had no evidence it would be illogical to induce evolution from what we observe now, but the problem is that we do have evidence that does support the theory of evolution and its important that there is no evidence against the theory...
@swisscheesepotatochi Actually there is plenty of evidence against evolution, it just usually gets buried and no one talks about it. The crocodile family is thought to have lived 230 million years ago and remains virtually unchanged since that time. The Coelacanth fossil pre-dates the dinosaurs by millions of years, and was once thought to have gone extinct with them 65 million years ago until it was discovered alive and well in 1938. Dragonfly dates back 230 million years...just 3 examples.
@TruthSeekingOne Its buried because it does not contradict evolution? Crocodiles have not changed, cockroaches and snakes have not changed much either...Natural selection works by selecting out the best...if these creatures are already the best, why select?
"you can't prove that fossil of a deceased animal ever procreated!"
I'll give you one better than this, we cannot even be sure that the species of that fossil ever left any descendants either. Even with this level of uncertainty, we can still be as sure that evolution is true as we can be about anything else that we know to be true.
It is the collective weight of all the evidence that is compelling, it's no single piece.
Is Lynn being purposely obtuse? Dr. Berlinski is making a very simple point. The fossil record shows virtually no conclusive transitional life forms and yet Darwinists are acting as if they know what is missing from the evidence. Should we be calling this new faith in what we don't know "Darwinism of the gaps"?
As if any serious biologist relies on fossil evidence, we have no right to expect any fossils at all. In fact the fossil record could be powerful evidence against evolution if only one single specimen could be found in the "wrong place". Eg. fossil rabbits in the cambrian.
mehico33 2 weeks ago
The fossil record has some gaps, that does not mean Evolution didn't happen.
gregrutz 3 months ago
Barry Lynn is a moron.
periechontology 3 months ago
@periechontology Perhaps but that doesn't change that he's right here and Berlinski wrong.
johaneriksandberg 3 months ago
@johaneriksandberg
Assuming Lynn is right, it's no virtue to be right by accident (I doubt he actually knows much about the fossil record) .
Furthermore I seriously doubt that you even get what Berlinski is arguing here, most of the opposition that day did not..
periechontology 3 months ago
@periechontology Why don't you enlighten us on what he is actually arguing here then, to me he is saying since the fossil record has gaps that automatically means that it doesn't support evolution wich is failed logic simply because there are transitional fossils wich support the theory, what you would want for his argument is some fossil evidence that directly disproves it not just the absense of proof for it.
johaneriksandberg 3 months ago
@johaneriksandberg No. What he is arguing is that if Evolution is not merely a narrative but actually a SCIENTIFIC THEORY then it is defined by it's mechanism. To prove evolutionary theory BY THE FOSSIL RECORD is to demonstrate that it displays what we would expect as a consequence of speciation by means of the mechanism in question ( Natural Selection and Random Variation). He is asking what does mathematical probability tell us about what we should expect to see here.
periechontology 3 months ago
@periechontology We see the process of evolution in the fossil record. Scientists try to explain what we find and call it The Theory of Evolution.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@periechontology Or in short "it has gaps therefore it doesn't support evolution" wich is what I thought he meant and it is what he meant that he doesn't take the explanations for the gaps into account just proves he's meerly trying to twist it without looking at the whole picture, that is not a logical approach unless you're trying to reach a predetermined conclusion when examining something.
johaneriksandberg 3 months ago
@johaneriksandberg
What kind of explanations are you talking about (by the way, i really don't think you understood what i said, and whether you did or not i'll be able to determine by your answer to this question).
periechontology 3 months ago
@periechontology I don't think you know what you mean, could be that you are only trolling too...
johaneriksandberg 3 months ago
@periechontology Berlinski is an idiot unable to alter his position even when presented with evidence against it, he should stick to some other subject and just shut up about this one.
johaneriksandberg 3 months ago
He's being too focussed on the MECHANISM - to say natural selection does not occur because of a lack of continuous fossil data is daft IMO. The "Theory" will just have to remain a theory until every single fossil is found I guess, fine, but then to say it is therefore wrong?!? Take any pre-existing, working MECHANISM, remove a part - does that mean the MECHANISM didn't or doesn't exist? Darwins Theories are obviously outdated and open to refinement - this doesn't make the general idea bogus.
andy7666 3 months ago
@andy7666
Berlinski never said that it was "wrong". His general position is simply that there is no existing SCIENTIFIC THEORY (or one that offers a plausible mechanism) that can account for speciation. Without the mechanism we aren't talking about a scientific theory, we are talking about a mere narrative. To state that the fossil record verifies a "theory" is to state that it displays what we should expect as a consequence of the operation of the mechanism in question.
periechontology 3 months ago
berlinski's point is a good point ... perhaps too subtle... he is saying that if evolution were true.. then the vast majority of samples from the record would be very close in form/function to each other... the record does not support that...
fitDavid123 3 months ago
@fitDavid123 Or if you actually consider how rare it is for bones to fossilize plus the fact we haven't actively searched for them for very long then it suddently becomes and very very weak point to argue.
johaneriksandberg 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@realveive "Berlinski is utterly pointless"
I was just about to write that he was an idiot, but " utterly pointless" actually suits him better. Every stupid word out of his mouth is a total red herring, waste of time and ear work.
Tobytrim 4 months ago
For the truth about religion & top Bible scholarship try Robert M. Price, ' The reason driven life '. Also Dan Barker, Valerie Tarico, John W. Loftus, Victor J. Stenger. For humanity's shared moral core & belief in Matt 7v12 The Golden Rule try wisdomcommons. Also try comparative religion- read the 1500BCE papyrus of Ani & the Koran & Book of Mormon on skepticsannotatedbible. No one would give credence to such writings except for peer pressure & threats of death & hell. See. RichardDawkinsnet
zytigon 4 months ago
can i also mention that carbon-14 isotope dating methods are very inaccurate and are based on many assumptions which people simply do not know
hk78901 4 months ago
Berlinski is correct, as long as there are gaps, the fossil record does not support evolution. Unfortunately, for the diehard evolutionist, their imagination takes care of any gaps.
YHWHisSovereign 5 months ago
@YHWHisSovereign ~ :)
TJae1 5 months ago
@YHWHisSovereign
Bullshit. Berlinski is wrong. He has no idea what evolutionary theory requires. As an analogy, if you assemble a jigsaw puzzle that has 50% of the pieces missing, it is still possible to form an intelligent idea about what the pciture is.
Berlinski is arguing that one missing piece makes that impossible.
kshackleton 5 months ago
@kshackleton As long as we have an apriori idea of what the picture is in order to fill in the gaps, we can. So with evolution, as long as you already have set in your mind what goes in the gaps, then you can fill them in. This is precisely what evolutionists do; they inject their own ideas into science. If we are not familiar with the picture, we can only guess, and random guess at that. If you say evolutionists don't guess, then you admit that they already have made up their minds.
YHWHisSovereign 5 months ago
@YHWHisSovereign
you are completely and utterly wrong. for the fossil record to be unsupportive of evolution there would have to be a fossil out of place in an evolutionary sequence. no such fossil has ever been found.
this has nothing to do with the imagination of any biologist or paleontologist- though I see you enjoy using yours.
mcmanustony 4 months ago
@mcmanustony And who is it that decides what that sequence is? Fossils don't come with sequential numbers stamped on them. This again is an example of something that is determined apriori. When you find a fossilized animal, you don't know if it had any offspring at all, but for some incredible reason, you assume that it did, and then assign it a place in an already determined sequence. You claim there are no gaps? Can you choose any fossil, and determine that exact evolutionary process it took?
YHWHisSovereign 4 months ago
@YHWHisSovereign You're right. God obviously did it.
ilovenarwhales 4 months ago
@ilovenarwhales Well time and chance sure did not.
85Aheadstix 4 months ago
@YHWHisSovereign
That's like saying if you only have a picture of yourself as a baby, and then again as an adult, on can never prove you were a teenager.
You fail.
odinata 3 months ago
@odinata The stages of human development are already well known beforehand. It has been observed billions of times. Evolution of life has not. You fail.
YHWHisSovereign 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YHWHisSovereign
Yet we have the DNA affirm it.
Why do you feel the need to lie?
odinata 3 months ago
@YHWHisSovereign
Evolution has not only been observed, but it is testable, and the DNA proves it.
We KNOW that foxes are related to wolves.
You FAIL.
odinata 3 months ago
@odinata This is a new one to me. So who is the person, or persons, that were able to create the original conditions on earth and observe the evolution from the simplest one-celled organism all the way up to man? So what if foxes are related to wolves. Are they related to fish? DNA is incapable of proving anything. In order to prove something, you start with reasonable assumptions that others are willing to accept, and then deduce (by way of logical) inferences based on these assumptions.
YHWHisSovereign 3 months ago
@YHWHisSovereign
You aren't familiar with science, are you?
How do you hope to replace it with your religious opinions if you don't even know how it works?
Should we make a Sun in the lab before we claim to understand that nuclear fusion powers it?
odinata 3 months ago
@YHWHisSovereign Completely incorrect. The fossil record most definetly supports evolution, it may not stand alone prove evolution but it certainly supports it.
johaneriksandberg 3 months ago
@YHWHisSovereign They filled the gaps, now you say there are twice as many gaps. The fossils record has gaps but it does not follow that evolution is false. And They have many transitional fossils.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@YHWHisSovereign LOL, what? So you would need to have the remains of every living thing that has ever existed to have evidence for evolution? That's totally asinine. When there are gaps in the evidence, we have handy things like interpolation and basic reasoning skills.
dsaxton1 1 month ago
@YHWHisSovereign And until god appears in front of every human and they accept that he is real, then he does not exist either. thanx for playing. ^_^
l337pwnage 3 weeks ago
@warren52nz ~ How could Jonah survive three days in the belly of a “whale”? Via: 1.Natural process 2.Miracelous 3. Resurrection ~ Matt 12:40
TJae1 7 months ago
Put Berlinksi on a school bus and take him on a field trip to a natural history museum where he can see some of the transitional fossils that he says don't exist.
ctchampagne 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Berlinski's writings are not scientific, but popular, and Berlinski has no known record of his own contribution to the development of mathematics or of any other science." Mark Perakh, prof. of Mathematics at California State University
"his approach consists of constructing strawmen, then knocking them down with misinterpreted, faulty, or nonexistent data as well as carefully selected quotations from evolutionary scientists" E. Scott, exec director of the National Center for Science Education
ZZzzzzzWhat 7 months ago
When you replace reverence for life, the possibility of spirituality and doubt about our origins and replace it with technocratic arrogant "scientism", you end up with nightmarish dictatorships "for our own good" by people who think they are all-knowing Gods (democratic party hello).
MrAussieJules 8 months ago
The Creation Model of origins is more “scientific” and less “religious” that the Evolution Model, because its predictions are supported by scientific observation (without any reference to the Bible whatsoever), rather than assumed despite empirical evidence. Neither the Creation Model nor the Evolution Model can be scientifically proven to be true since both concepts R beyond the reach of the scientific method & both views deal w/ singularities (ult.origins) which must be
accepted by faith.
TJae1 8 months ago
@TJae1
"The Creation Model of origins is more scientific"
Only if you disregard the total lack of evidence for any of the creationist claims. The few verifiable claims offered within creationism have already been debunked numerous times over as well. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, has massive amounts of evidence in its favor and is still standing strong after 150 years.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@TJae1 Such nonsense it's comical.
johaneriksandberg 3 months ago
all of my hate. this fucker needs to calm down on his lawyer jew shit and take a molecular biology class.
younglink1213 8 months ago
It was this guy Harold Camping an old geezer who predicted the rapture on May 21st from Biblical passages. It's true he was disowned by almost every Christian before it didn't happen.
I don't know why religion gets up my nose so much. Why should I care? Perhaps it's because the most violent countries in the world are usually also the most religious. And the countries with the lowest IQ's and education are also generally religious. Only 6 states have an average IQ over 100 (average intelligence).
warren52nz 8 months ago
@warren52nz ~ as long as Ur replies show sincere effort (no problem) ~ Incest (who did their children mate with?) other tribes (geneis 4:17) ~Guy lives in a fish for 3 days ~ more like buried ~ I've read it was either a whale shark R a sperm whale a talking snake.~ spirit I believe ~ Rev 20:2 ~ even then the form was temporal Mainly theological pnts ~ I'm not here 2 argue U in2 a jezuzfreek R a violetkitty cult or PTL type~ common here ~ God help Us ~ character limit ~2b contiund :)
TJae1 8 months ago
@TJae1 Those "answers" are all dodges, sorry. Fish/whale, who cares? You can't live inside any living animal for 3 days. Snake was a spirit? Spirits are a delusional creation of the human mind.
I see the Rapture didn't occur on Saturday as predicted by some Christians..... AGAIN! Is there anything in this world that fails more consistently than religion? I know... "he wasn't a REAL Christian". It's amazing how quickly Christians will disown their members when they fail.
warren52nz 8 months ago
@warren52nz ~ LOL ~ not really ~ those R pnts of theology & story context ~ not discovered ~ scientific research ~ I know the likes of jezuzfreek & yokeup have paved a way 4 combat & subs ~ rather than discussion ~ &
thusly ~ have birthd a generation of either or Christianity wars ~ either shallow PTL crap or shallow atheists w/ a bone 2 pick ~
TJae1 8 months ago
@TJae1 Can't remember where I posted this but I kept it because it took a bit of research:
There's an IQ gradient in the USA that generally rises as you go north and religiosity tracks it inversely. And out of all 50 states, there are only 6 that have an average IQ over 100 (which is defned as "average intelligence").
Minnesota, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York (highest at 109), California and Washington. Lowest is Alabama at 90. Is Alabama south and religious?
warren52nz 8 months ago
@warren52nz ~ I'm not certain w/ IQ statistics~ e.g. ~
between the La. Red neck yokeup & the New Jersian ~
inmendham ~ yokeup ~ probably has the edge ~ less 4 the honesty ~
Violetkitty is from La. ~ I believe ~ & kitty is pretty shrewd ~ just not that theologically challenge & spoild rotten by feminine charm ~ there's an atheist video about Yokeup ~ revealing that Yoke's is really pretty sharp ~ If I locate it ~ I'll mail it 2 ya ~
TJae1 8 months ago
@TJae1 OK.
California was 101 just 1 point above average. Not that I think actors are an intelligent demographic but California is less religious than most states from what I've seen. I think Texas has the highest number of executions by a mile. What happened to "Thou shalt not kill"? It seems to me that wherever you find a lot of religion you find a lot of violence. Think about it. Look at Iran. I wonder about China. That might go on your side, not sure. Or Russia. Probably quite peaceful.
warren52nz 8 months ago
@warren52nz uh ?? ever heard of the 20th century - when so called enlightened "scientific" socialism killed millions of people in genocides and concentration camps ? communism killed 100 million people (Stalin, polpot etc) and then of course Nazism - which favored the superman and the culling of lesser races and the disabled, rather like Peter Singer does today.
MrAussieJules 8 months ago
@MrAussieJules Yeah I'll give you that. My comment kept the door open for it. But religion has a lot to answer to when it comes for motivation to war. Other motivations exist of course, power (religious motivation is a subset of this), land, defense. I can't think of a single conflict that was motivated by Atheism.
warren52nz 8 months ago
@MrAussieJules
"socialism killed millions of people in genocides and concentration camps"
No, PEOPLE did that. The Russian communist regime also had all the hallmarks of religion, what with the person worship and all.
"Nazism "
Nazism was a hodgepodge of various political and religious notions, but the antisemitic part was clearly of Christian origin. The German army had "Gott Mit Uns" (God With Us) on their belt buckles. Hitler was also a devout Catholic
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
The Theory of Evolution doesn't need ANY fossils to prove it's how species diversified from a common ancestor into what we see today. But the fossil record FITS perfectly, just one piece of armor proving its validity along with DNA evidence, paleontological evidence, geological evidence and in fact EVERY time ANY field of Science crosses the path of Evolution it fits like a glove. Creationists are stuck in a losing battle on this one. Time to move on to more important things.
warren52nz 8 months ago
@Roj899 ~ ask biblicalexplorer ~ what they think of the evolutionary model ~ U mite find their response interesting ~ anyway ~ Can U satisfy Dr. Berlinsky's request or the burden of proof:
TJae1 9 months ago
@TJae1 This video deals with Berlinski's "argument" very well.
watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU&feature=related
Do you have to see a continuous movie of someone's life to believe the adult is the same person depicted in the photo album when he was 10? How many photos taken over the years does it take before you can be certain enough to say it's true? Creationists will ALWAYS say there's a gap no matter how many fossils are produced.
It's dishonest! And laughable actually.
warren52nz 8 months ago
@warren52nz ~ interesting ~ but fossils "missings links" R important 2 Darwin's evolution ~ Observation simply doesn't confirm the process of evolution ~ as promoted by Darwin's followers ~ If otherwise~ "go 4 it " ~ show Us & Me:
TJae1 8 months ago
@TJae1 Fossils were important to Darwin because he didn't know about genetics and the tree of life was in its earliest stages. But we don't need them now to prove Evolution.
Some more examples in addition to what I already said below (damn the 600 word limit!)
Homology. If you look at the skeletons of mammals, you find amazing similarities. The lengths and shapes may be different but you find 4 fingers and a thumb. Some may be fused but in the embryonic stage you see the link to their ancestors
warren52nz 8 months ago
@warren52nz DNA. DNA is FULL of junk and remnants from our distant past. Humans have a turned off gene for a tail. Why would God give us that??
Look up "Graeme Finlay" and "Darwin's God" He's a Creationist and a Molecular Biologist. He's on YOUR SIDE and he shows how we KNOW Evolution is true. I went to one of his seminars. While I obviously don't agree with his conclusion, his evidence is pure Science. You'll enjoy it. When you're finished come back and tell me Evolution is wrong again. 8^)
warren52nz 8 months ago
@warren52nz Wrong link. Look for Lecture: Human Genetics and the Image of God - Graeme Finlay
warren52nz 8 months ago
@warren52nz ~ it's interestin' trek idea ~ however ~ having no basis in reality though ~ mayb via genetic engineering ~ I'll chck out Ur video ~ let's say ~there is a Judeo/Christian Origin ~ what would that "spell" for the human race & how would U "foul" Genesis Chapter 1 & 2 & why: Apart from the temporal & spiritual elements ~ it seems pretty well true 2 life
TJae1 8 months ago
@TJae1 Your question is rather cryptic not sure what you mean but let me have a crack at it.
We definitely have heaps of genetic remnants of our past. All by itself that one fact makes the story of Creation extremely unlikely. I mean, why would God fill us full of turned off genes that are shared with other mammals? Evolution makes sense of it all. Why do we lose our wisdom teeth? Because our jaws are getting shorter and there's no room for them now. (cont)
warren52nz 8 months ago
@TJae1 Why do we get goosebumps? We used to have thicker hair and it helped keep us warm and make us look bigger (chills and fear bring them on). Why do we have an appendix? Our diet used to include vegetation that it helped with in digestion.
Why do Chimps share 98% of our genes? BECAUSE WE HAVE A RECENT COMMON ANCESTOR!
The truth unfolds in a beautifully elegant way once you accept it.
Why are some children born with fatal diseases? Bad luck, not "God wants them in Heaven now".
*Sheesh*
warren52nz 8 months ago
@TJae1 And finally, Why do so many Creationist videos have ratings and comments disabled?
Because their arguments are so easy to shoot down and they won't face scrutiny.
Why are Atheist videos' comments and ratings enabled? Because Science is BASED on scrutiny. That's why it works. Ideas are tested and efforts are made to disprove them. If someone manages it, the theory is scrapped or modified and the process starts again. That's why jets fly, medicine works and we all have computers and cars...
warren52nz 8 months ago
@TJae1 Sorry to take up so much space here but you asked about Genesis too. So many problems. Universe made from nothing in 6 days, a talking snake. Incest (who did their children mate with?) Guy lives in a fish for 3 days. Flood covers the whole world! Noah fits two (or more) OF EVERY ANIMAL ON EARTH INTO A BOAT & drops off the kangaroos in Australia???
Followed by all the evidence that humans evolved up the Primate chain and the story's simply impossible!
How's that? 8^)
warren52nz 8 months ago
@warren52nz ~ chck this out ~ Sons of Noah ~ I find this lot 2 b more incest prone ~ Noah fits two (or more) OF EVERY ANIMAL ON EARTH INTO A BOAT & drops off the kangaroos in Australia ? (1 ? will suffice :) single location & the earth wasn't divided (Gen 10:25)
TJae1 8 months ago
@TJae1 "& the earth wasn't divided" Hey Einstein! The continents started drifting apart 150 MILLION years ago!
warren52nz 8 months ago
@warren52nz ~ I'm not familiar w/ this Rapture day Idea ~ snds like a sales gimmic ~ I do believe in second chances ~ (venomfang X) ~ chck it out ~ < (less than) ~ don't involve Me *
TJae1 8 months ago
@Roj899 ~ I'm not on trial ~ or ~ what where U tryin' 2 ask ~ 2 models ~ If U can offer an improved version ~ feel free to share :
TJae1 9 months ago
Darwinists sit in a deep crap
VladislavGomulka 9 months ago
This is ironic because....David beat Goliath.
^_^
lamuziq 11 months ago
@lamuziq 1. It isn't ironic since David does defeat Goliath in the Biblical story. 2. The David in this video has accomplished nothing but display his ignorance.
ianman6 9 months ago
The current fossil record FALSIFIES a static fossil record, even with its 'gaps' and therefore special creation is ruled out.
The corrent fossil record DOES NOT FALSIFY a transitional fossil record, even with its gaps, and does not rule out Darwinian Evolution.
f0xfree 1 year ago
Geez, in this one, Berlinski sounds like Kent Hovind.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
Berlinsky is ABSOLUTELY right. Darinians are swindlers and crooks.
VladislavGomulka 1 year ago
@VladislavGomulka "Berlinsky is ABSOLUTELY right. Darinians are swindlers and crooks."
.
Except he doesn't say that. How pathetic that creationists have to straw man other creationists to make a point. Pathetic but hilarious.
Noisegator 1 year ago
The Creation Model of origins is more “scientific” and less “religious” that the Evolution Model, because its
predictions are supported by scientific observation (without any reference to the Bible whatsoever), rather than assumed
despite empirical evidence.
Neither the Creation Model nor the Evolution Model can be scientifically proven to be true since both concepts
R beyond the reach of the scientific method & both views deal w/ singularities (ult.origins) which must be
accepted by faith.
TJae1 1 year ago 2
@TJae1 Thumbs up on discovering a new type of encrypted text that appears exactly like English to the layman but cannot be read by evolutionists and in some cases causes them to writhe around on the ground screaming and frothing at the mouth like something out of the movie, "the exorcist".
promossage 1 year ago
@TJae1
So, that would be why it doesn't have the support of the scientific community then?
If you deduct theological dogma from the equation altogether, creation is merely a scientific hypothesis that can't gain any traction among the best minds in science.
Everything Berlinski says here, is highly disingenuous. That's what makes him far more loathesome than someone like Ray Comfort. Berlinski KNOWS that he's making inconsistent leaps of reason, and is doing it for rhetorical effect.
Hzqi 1 year ago
@TJae1 ..Homochirality proves evolution can never happen..but this is now separate from there lies..evolutionists would rather believe in some chemistry unknown to science than intelligence,,thats some faith..and nothing more than assumptions..but u cant talk about the first cell...just what came after..thers some logic
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Homochirality disproves evolution? Why? Because it shows evidence of design? Give me a break and go back to chemistry class. You flunked.
ianman6 9 months ago
@ianman6 Atheists are so stubborn, they think this RNA research could happen on a primordial earth..HAHAHA
Synthesizing machines trained chemists controlling every step of the experiment, along with activated bases,which were not made from scratch.and controlled TEMPERATURES!!!! would all be found on a primordial earth???
Yeah this is undirected natural processes..LOL
5tonyvvvv 9 months ago
@ianman6 "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction.Intelligence created life not time and chance
5tonyvvvv 9 months ago
@ianman6 You don't even know what Homochirality is you dummy, amino acids never organize them selves in perfect order, where is information and digital code evolving from?? You have been indoctrinated!!
5tonyvvvv 9 months ago
@TJae1 Evolution has happened under real world and controlled conditions, and documented in both. Paleontological and genetic research point to evolution being the correct answer, while they contradict predictions made by creationism. Creationism states that the universe if constructed by a supernatural force which can't be seen, heard or detected. It cannot be run throught the scientific method, which means it's not science.
Muscari 1 year ago
@TJae1 "The Creation Model of origins is more “scientific” and less “religious” that the Evolution Model, because its predictions are supported by scientific observation.
Oh really? How does the Creation Model explain why all great Apes have the same mutation in the gene that manufactures Vitamin C that stops it before it finishes the job?
How does it explain men's nipples? Or why we have goosebumps without the hair they're meant to fluff up?
These are all evident from Evolutionary theory.
warren52nz 8 months ago
Berlinski is an idiot. He is creating a strawman of what is required of Darwinian evolution.
Berlinski's argument would also hold that since a video clip contains gaps between frames that we cannot infer any events from that clip. That's ridiculous.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton No a video clip has a tiny tiny tiny almost certainly negligible amount of space in between each frame and plenty of frames with which we can infer the event taking place. Evolution on the other hand gives you a single picture, then a million years later gives you a completely different picture and first of all these pictures are not even in the same photo album! Furthermore I would point out that these "pictures" are mostly incomplete pictures or "frames", YOU are ridiculous.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne
The gap between the frames may, or may not be negligible. That depends on what you are attempting to film. The fact of the matter is that there are gaps between frames, yet we can still tell what is going on in most situations.
The fossil record is something like that. It is full of gaps, and is expected to be so. Berlinski is a disingenuous asshole. The fossil record actually gives a pretty good picture of what has occurred, in spite of the gaps.
Get an education.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton First of all get this straight and NEVER forget this, evolution is a theory (a bad one lacking evidence) and it can never be anything more than a theory. Everyone knows there is not enough fossil evidence to prove evolution and if you really want to be scientific and accurate you would admit that fossils can NEVER even prove evolution because for one thing you can't prove that fossil of a deceased animal ever procreated!
That's just one aspect, don't get me started on mutation.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne
Your name is a lie. Clearly, seeking the truth is not of any interest to you.
We would know evolution is true if there were no fossils at all. The evidence that we get from the genes of living animals is convincing enough on its own. The evidence from morphology, embryology, the geographic distribution of living animals, are all compelling enough.
Fossils are simply icing on the cake.
Get an education. I suspect that you know very little about mutation.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton No sorry you don't understand what death is. We would know nothing died a long time ago if it wasn't for fossils and we wouldn't know what the creature looked like (IN MANY cases we still don't know exactly what the creatures looked like and they make much of it up to help their cause).
None of those things you mentioned have ever given any proof for macro-evolution, the things you might refer to are simply micro-evolution which I have no problem with. You believe in a religion.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne
We have known about death long before we started to find and understand fossils. That's just a completely ridiculous statement you made.
Genetics tells us in no uncertain terms that all life shares common ancestry. It tells us that chimps are more closely related to humans than gorillas. It tells us that trout are more closely related to humans than sharks, by a very wide margin.
Get....an....education.
Common ancestry is a fact.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton No you took my words out of context, obviously we live with death and know it is a fact, FOSSILS show something died a long time ago, learn to read.
Genetics does not say humans and chimps are related in ANY way. We have similarities to that animal, and there is a big difference in the way you word it, so stop being ignorant. You know what that evidence tells me? It shows we have a common creator with the chimps, our creator made us similar, you take the same evidence and...
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne
"Genetics does not say humans and chimps are related in ANY way."
Human chromosome #2. Look it up.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton ..you take the same evidence and spin it in your own way to say that somehow we are "related" to them, do you not understand that there are multiple ways of interpreting the facts science brings us? Just because the most common interpretation says that we may have been related to this animal a million years ago does not make it correct! So you take one interpretation of a fact and PRETEND, as many others do, that it is a FACT that SUPPORTS your claims, which is a lie!
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne
All the facts support descent with modification and common ancestry. None support ID.....none.
Get an education. It will bring you to what is actually true about nature and how it operates....but you really don't care about that, do you?
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton Then taking it further you idiots like to say things like "All scientists agree about evolution" and other stupid claims that I have refuted in comments on other videos. OBVIOUSLY you are watching at least this video here (if you even watched it) where a handful of scientists of different fields do not agree with the majority view, and there are thousands more who just get brushed under the carpet so to speak. Open your eyes and listen to someone other than dawkins and hitchens.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne
Nested hierarchies. Look it up. Design does not get you a nested hierarchy, descent does. It is the only mechanism that does.
Those proposing that ID is science are not conducting any research at all, they are not scientists in any sense of the word. Berlinski simply lies.
Get an education and stop looking like an ignoramus.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne
None of the ID proponents in this video are scientists. None of them conduct research and submit their findings for peer review, they do not support their claims with evidence. They simply are working a political game for their own benefit. They are trying to get around the system, they are not interested in working within it.
Their argument is this, "Evolution can't be true, so ID must be true by default."
That's not even an argument.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton No the argument is "Evolution can not be proven, so ID must be more plausable, or at the very least just as plausable" Which is an important argument considering evolution is taught in school and ID is NOT.
So forcing the evolution religion on children who don't know the other side of the discussion is ignorance and obviously you have fallen victim to this ignorance because you do not understand the ID arguments at all.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne
Here's the difference......
evolutionary theory has support of evidence.....ID has none. ID is a religious position, evolutionary theory is a scientific theory. It's the best explanation, it's the only explanation that actually explains anything....and it explains everything about how biological systems operate. It makes testable predictions, and it has always passed the test....always.
Get an education.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton That is what makes you stupid, you live off of assumptions that what your saying really is true, you will never learn to think outside of the box that has been made for you by biased "science". Evolution Theory does not have support from evidence. ID can use the "evidence" of design from millions of observations in nature and elsewhere and claim that those FACTS point to a designer. You will try to discredit that line of thinking but unknowingly use it yourself.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne
The Discovery Institute has never provided evidence for any of their claims, in fact, their specific claims have all been refuted.
get an education
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton Did I mention anything about the discovery institute? No.
It is funny for someone like you to mention evidence for a claim though, where is my evidence for your claim of evolution? I still haven't had any!
Nothing you mentioned thus far is evidence for evolution.
Fossils - Nope
Embryology - Nope
Micro Evolution - Nope
Genetics - Nope
NOTHING important about human chromosome 2, I stated already our SIMILARITIES with any other creature does NOT prove evolution.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne
ID is the brainchild of the Discovery Institute. The panelists, some of them at least, are from the DI.
Get an education
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton I don't care who DI is they mean nothing to mean and have no influence over my views first of all, second of all if they have no evidence to support their claims then they are just the same as anyone who supports evolution so you shouldn't be too worried about that should you?
It seems your education has taught you to play the following game, great job you learned how to put blinders on and reject logic. Sign me up! (Not.)
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne
get an education
kshackleton 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne You are using induction to prove god, unfortunately for you, you have no actual evidence to back that claim up...Just because i see complex things being designed, does not mean everything complex has to be designed...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi You see, the dating methods used to determine the ages of fossils are severely flawed and that is why you get wild dates on things when they can not possibly know when these creatures actually lived. Just do a tiny bit of research on the faulty dating systems that they use, or completely ignore it and only favor research that bought scientists do to support the evolution theory. You can find out the truth if you actually look for it, don't bury yourself in biased material
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne That depends...the only sites i have read that do in fact argue that these methods are flawed are creation sites, not a single peer reviewed journal, or wikipedia, or anything like that...if you could cite me a credible source id be grateful...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne
Here's an idea - Explain to me how you think the radiometric dating systems (yes, plural) actually work, so I can see if you even have the most meagre idea of what the hell you're spouting about. And then give me some examples of how these techniques are very effectively CAL-I-BRA-TED, so that by the time multiple platforms are engaged, they give a very accurate timeline.
The fact that certain species show little variation, does NOTHING to dispute evolution.
Hzqi 1 year ago
@Hzqi It is a very simple idea, they take decay rates and make a ton of unprovable assumptions (some of which have been proven wrong). One of these assumptions is that Carbon-14 has reached equilibrium. The amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere is increasing. There is no way to prove that any decay is a constant through our tiny window of observation.
And yes the fact that ALL species show little observable variation DOES dispute and disprove evolution in many scientific opinions.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne
So, what you're saying is, that you don't understand the ways that the myriad dating methods are calibrated. I said calibrated, not determined. Saying it's a fact doesn't make one. As, it's not one. Not only have variations been observed. Even things that wouldn't be presumably necessary to observe, have, been observed. Variation? No, SPECIATION has been observed. "Many scientific opinions"? Which ones? David Berlinski? Talking shit about a field he isn't qualified in?
Hzqi 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne
The scientific concensus (if that's important to you) is overwhelmingly behind evolution.
Hzqi 1 year ago
@Hzqi Yea it is not important to me. 2,000 years ago the consensus was that the earth was flat, they did have some great science then too, and I bet it made their heads as bloated and blind as its affect seems to have on our modern scientists, which follow the evolution bandwagon cult. Evolution is mathematically impossible in a statistical view and flawed in many areas...but that's alright when you have scientists willing to do junk science or fake findings like they have done. Sheep...BAAAA
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne
I actually wrote down on a pad, and sat it beside the computer the probability that TruthSeekingOne would make a conflation between the previous assertion of a flat-earth, and the modern concensus of evolution.
The fact alone that you'd contrast the scruples of the now, and the methods of rigour, and the art of prediction with the era, is dreary enough. But to follow it up with such a poorly reasoned derision is simply typical. "Mathematically impossible". Berlinski parrot.
Hzqi 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne
Berlinski makes all these wild comparatives on a numeric basis, in a way designed to make them seem absurd. Yet, none of his rhetoric actually contains an argument that coutneracts the premise proposed by evolution. The closest he comes is a tally-up. [it would take lots and lots of changes for x thing to occur]. And your point is Berlinski? The guy is backed by the circus at the DISCOVERY INSTITUTE, and you're throwing around the "baaaa" word? Sheep is a religious COMPLIMENT.
Hzqi 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne
Berlinski is one of the most self-important, smug tools I've ever seen squeeze manipulative prose the curled lips. And he says things as tremendously STUPID as "Follows as the night, the day". I.e. if the fossil record is not absolutely intact, it doesn't prove anything.
That's like to saying the if you have fossils for say, around 150 million years of intermediaries, and they're intact so fine as to cloud moments of speciation. That with ONE broad overlap, it means nothing.
Hzqi 1 year ago
@Hzqi "I.e. if the fossil record is not absolutely intact, it doesn't prove anything."
.
Good point. Or how about, 'unless scripture is 100% inerrant and contains no contradictions or ambiguities, it could not possibly be the word of a supreme being and thus said being cannot possibly exist.'
But we won't hold our breath waiting for Theists to meet their own standards of proof.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne
That would be like me counteracting their reasoning (dynamically) on Intelligent Design, by saying look, this canvas has about 70% of it's surface area covered to which I retort this painting can't possibly have been created by an intelligent entitiy. Sure, most of it is covered by signs of creative intent, but look at all the missing areas. Surely I need a 100% intact painting to prove it is truly an artifact.
Berlinski's statements are utterly moronic.
Hzqi 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne "Evolution is mathematically impossible in a statistical view and flawed in many areas."
.
Well both of those statements are simply untrue. But then I see you have been consuming SteeveBee's "It's IMPOSSIBLE" series so your error is understandable but not excusable.
.
"2,000 years ago the consensus was that the earth was flat..."
.
Annnnnnd this is bullshit too. The Egyptians, Babylonians and Greeks certainly knew the earth was round and said as much.
.
Got any real arguments?
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator Yes it is mathematically impossible, do some calculations on your own it is a very easy concept if you know anything about statistics. I hope you understand at least some basic math concepts if you want to talk about science at all.
Well I did say 2,000 years ago the consensus was that the earth was flat, and that is true to a degree, although there are some notable people who historically believed in a circular earth. I believe in the Bible, it makes claim on a circular earth...
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne "Yes it is mathematically impossible, do some calculations on your own it is a very easy concept if you know anything about statistics."
.
Well you'd be wrong, and better mathematicians than either you or I will ever be, agree. If you are referring to Hal Holbrook and his pulling dice out of a box demonstration ( watch?v=w7fmIXZCIW0 ), you have some catch up to do. Try this video watch?v=SeTssvexa9s for an explanation of why the creationist statistical argument is bogus.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator ...over 2,000 years ago too. But that is not what my point was, MOST people through ancient history did not believe the earth was a sphere. We could argue about that all day long or you can take my point as it was intended, that just because popular science makes certain claims about something doesn't make it true. This is certainly the case with evolution, most believe in it, but MANY also believe against it. The minority have the stronger case in my opinion.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne I took your point "as intended". You intended to impugn modern science by invoking ancient ignorance and by using the ad populum fallacy.
.
The science of evolution does not rely on popularity or making baseless claims. Every salient aspect of Darwin's theory has been repeatedly confirmed through 150 years of scrutiny, the emergence of new disciplines and mechanisms (genetics / DNA), and by every fossil and living thing there is.
.
The creationist minority have NO case. None.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator Every aspect has been confirmed? Like Haeckel's fraudulent drawings of embryos that looked completely different from the actual thing so he could trick people into thinking that all embryos looked similar to prove we evolved? Yea evolutionists love those drawings, they still use them in college text books even though they were proven wrong over 100 years ago! Not to mention the faked "missing links" that have come out over the last 70 years. People will lie for evolution.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne I said "Every salient aspect of Darwin's theory", not every illustration in every biology text. Please don't overstate my case for me.
.
Haeckle's drawings are exaggerated, not "fraudulent". Subsequent study has revealed the principles of developmental biology he pioneered are essentially sound, even if his data was skewed. The drawings have been subsequently corrected and reissued.
.
They are not "still used in college text books". That's common creationist fabrication.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne "Not to mention the faked "missing links" that have come out over the last 70 years."
.
Still harping on Piltdown Man are you (at least learn the names of your strawmen) That hoax was unmasked by science, shortly after the bones were released for actual study. Before that, many paleontologists were deeply and publicly suspicious of the find. Piltdown was never considered a serious contender.
.
Many other hominid species have since been identified. Care to name a specific "hoax"?
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator Nebraska Man, one single tooth turned into an evolutionists imagination run wild.
Java Man, a skullcap, three teeth, and a femur no doubt it was human with other human skulls around that area.
Orce Man, not a human skull fragment..
Neanderthal, a brutish hunter but definitely a human, not at all an ape mixture.
You can believe in all the lies you want, sure some of these bones may look large or different maybe even some bone disease, certainly not proof for evolution though.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne "Orce man" - Disputed and reclassified. Mistakes are made but in science they are publicly corrected. In creationism they are denied and become cannon.
.
Java Man - More complete, compelling and older finds have been made in Java. Get up to date with the science.
.
"Neanderthal, a brutish hunter but definitely a human, not at all an ape mixture." - No paleontologist says it's an "ape mixture". It's a cousin of modern humans. Get the facts straight before you criticise them.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator That is your retort?
Neanderthal isn't a cousin of "modern" humans, humans are humans now and always have been, there is NO evidence that humans were ever sub-human or transitional from another species whatsoever. All these remains that have been claimed to be missing links are not - they are Human OR monkey/ape animals. If you want to CHOOSE to interpret these as evidences for macro evolution, you are a fool and that is not science.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne "there is NO evidence that humans were ever sub-human or transitional from another species "
.
Way to misrepresent the case.Sub-human? Who but a creationist would use such a quaint and dismissive term? There is tons of evidence that humans are just one more species in a lineage which includes the great apes. The DNA doesn't lie (unlike the Discovery Institute). Google Chromosome 2.
.
Your post demonstrates you are way behind on your science.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator Actually some other evolutionist already tried that old Chromosome 2 scam on me a few months ago, so I already have looked it up. It sure doesn't support the idea that we evolved from apes if that is what you are getting at.
I agree humans and all kinds of other animals have some or many similarities, this does not prove evolution any more than the fact that all cars have tires made up of the same materials - rubber. Pointing out similarities is not proof of ancestry.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne "Actually some other evolutionist already tried that old Chromosome 2 scam on me a few months ago, so I already have looked it up. It sure doesn't support the idea that we evolved from apes if that is what you are getting at."
.
Scam? Did you just call DNA a scam? Chromosome 2 does not establishes that our linneage is firectly descended from the same common ancestor as chimps and all other great apes. That's not a scam, that's a fact, pure and simple.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator Just take for instance the fact that we are all made up of similar types of elements, no one takes that as proof of any kind. How about the fact that we have the SAME amount of chromosomes as tobacco? Nope that doesn't prove we are related to those either hmm..
Do you even know what DNA is? It is information (you are trying to use this information against me, but the fact that you even consider DNA a source of biological information should suggest a few things to you..)...
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne "How about the fact that we have the SAME amount of chromosomes as tobacco? Nope that doesn't prove we are related to those either hmm.."
.
Who ever said this, other that obfuscating creationists. Strawmanning is the only thing your guys do with any proficiency.
.
But since you mention it, the presence of the mitochondria in the cell proves that we do indeed share a common ancestor with tobacco and with all green plants. We are all eucaryotes. Look it up.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator @MomoTheBellyDancer Yes and also the fact that we all share a similar carbon molecule make up in our bodies also means that we are related to everything too...you guys are such idiots it really blows me away.
"...the presence of the mitochondria in the cell proves that we do indeed share a common ancestor with tobacco.." The interpretation of the evidence you just gave is so religious, I am happy to see you have some type of faith, even as misguided as it is. This is fruitless.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne ".you guys are such idiots it really blows me away."
.
For someone without the first clue about biology, that's quite the statement.
.
There's nothing religious about facts, in fact facts are obviously a problem for believes like you because - you have none to back up your crazy claims and the ones that prove you wrong either confuse of downright scare you.
.
Get some education, then come back and try again.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator I have an education, you are just blind.
Biology is great, but you obviously don't understand biology if you think that similarity in life forms makes them related to one another.
You can deny your evolutionary religion all you want but guess what the facts are the facts, and the only evidence you have to support that stupid theory are blind leaps of faith and assumption that you *consider* to be evidence. If that makes you feel really really smart, well I guess I am happy for you
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne "I have an education, you are just blind."
.
You know, it doesn't matter how many times you say that you are educated, admire science and understand biology, it is clear from what you say and how you say it that you have no clear, honest understanding of biology, evolutionary theory, earth sciences and the scientific method in general. You misstate facts and their interpretation, ignore evidence and fail to understand rudimentary principles of logic. It's that simple.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne "but you obviously don't understand biology if you think that similarity in life forms makes them related to one another"
The entire biological, zoological and paleontological community considers morphological similarity as strong evidence of relatedness. In fact, the latter two fields are predicated upon it. So biologists, zoologists and paleontologists clearly don't understand biology? You fail hard buddy.
ianman6 9 months ago
@ianman6 Evolutionists confuse KINDS with something that is changing into something completely new!.. Thats what is a lie!! There are LIMITS!!!.and abiogenesis is ALL ASSUMPTIONS!!!!
5tonyvvvv 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne "Yes and also the fact that we all share a similar carbon molecule make up in our bodies also means that we are related to everything too."
.
Oh come on! You don't even know the difference between a molecule and an atom, and you call other people idiots? You are in way worse shape than even I thought possible.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne
"How about the fact that we have the SAME amount of chromosomes as tobacco? Nope that doesn't prove we are related to those either "
Yes, we are related to tobacco plants. In the end of the line, all life shares a common ancestor.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@Noisegator This information dictates things like our body's structure, and does it surprise you that we have a more similar DNA to a monkey than to a cow? Do we look more like monkeys or cows? Do some real research into the differences of our DNA and a chimps and you will see that we are WORLDS apart from being related.
I agree, DNA doesn't lie, it is the scientists interpretation of what the DNA MEANS that causes a lie to be told and repeated by the pseudo scientists of youtube (trolls).
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne "Actually some other evolutionist already tried that old Chromosome 2 scam on me a few months ago, so I already have looked it up. It sure doesn't support the idea that we evolved from apes if that is what you are getting at."
.
Why didn't you just say that don't have the first clue what DNA is or how it works! You could have saved me a whole lot of time reading your blathering. Learn about the real science. Stop reading Creationist sites, they are lying to you.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator You have to remember that as far as a large skull or bold brow ridge this goes hand in hand with what the bible says, they lived sometimes hundreds of years and as far as we can tell facial features after living 200+ years may very well take on those exact characteristics. It is simply not "scientific" to rule out biblical hypothesis and state how sound the evolution theory is just because of these very debatable facts/evidences. Don't be ignorant, consider ideas outside of evo..
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TruthSeekingOne "You have to remember that as far as a large skull or bold brow ridge this goes hand in hand with what the bible says..."
.
Does the bible say they first appeared several hundred thousand years ago? Pretty tough when it says the earth is only 6,000 years old.
.
Evolutionary theory is sound because it has verifiable evidence to back it up. The homonid fossil record is exhaustive. Biblical creation has ZERO evidence. The ignorance is not happening on this side of the equation.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@kshackleton Your logic is like saying "birds have two eyes and humans have two eyes so we must be cousins!"
You do not understand that creatures having similar physical appearance or similar DNA or ANYTHING is not proof for evolution, it can be considered proof JUST AS WELL for a common designer.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne
At least you understand that we are cousins, that's progress.
Patterns and distributions of traits, not simple similarity, is the key.
We have eyes that share a pattern of traits that indicates common ancestry. All vertebrates share the same pattern of traits wrt to the eye. The eyes of cephalopoda are quite different....evidence of their lineage separating from vertebrates prior to the evolution of the eye in their respective lineages.
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton "We have eyes that share a pattern of traits that indicates common ancestry." No that is your interpretation of the evidence, once again you try to pretend as if it is a fact supporting the evolution theory, this is ignorance at work once again, I see this case after case after case.
Any similarity we have with any other creature can be attributed to our creator as well as this theory of evolution, there is no proof of either, that is why they are both religions, you have faith.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne Yes, because our interpretation is currently the best interpretation...Things fall from the sky, that concludes that there is a force at work known as gravity, thats an interpretation, what makes it valid is that the evidence supports it. Sure it can, but only that the creator does not use any logic or sense in his creation, not even competent to ensure their survival (99% of all species that ever lived are extinct)...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne I don't have to use faith to believe that atoms exists...I can empirically test that statement...Same with evolution by natural selection, the very fact that there is a successive modification of species throughout the fossil record that corresponds to the time line required for it to actually be true, that says tons about valid it has to be.
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi I completely agree with you, we don't have to use faith to believe that atoms exist. That is real science! I am sorry that you can not distinguish between real science and belief in a theory that can not ever be proven and makes no logical sense. Please explain why supposedly ancient fossils of fish and turtles and sharks are still alive today with absolutely no visible changes? If you would like specifics please let me know, or are you unaware of these "fossils"?
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne I do not quite understand what you mean, how can these fossils still be alive? I understand if you mean that the fossils then compared today's living animals are similar and has not diverged much, which will be a case in a sense and if that is what you actually mean, please cite the source of those fossils found and which species they are supposed to resemble...thank you
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne Also, one must check the evolutionary pressure exerted on the species, the theory of evolution does not state that all species must evolve, the shark, to my knowledge are extremely adapted to what they do and therefore had no need to change over time, in this sense their evolutionary pressure is very low, it has no predator and therefore there is no selection process...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne and yes, i understand if we had no evidence it would be illogical to induce evolution from what we observe now, but the problem is that we do have evidence that does support the theory of evolution and its important that there is no evidence against the theory...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi Actually there is plenty of evidence against evolution, it just usually gets buried and no one talks about it. The crocodile family is thought to have lived 230 million years ago and remains virtually unchanged since that time. The Coelacanth fossil pre-dates the dinosaurs by millions of years, and was once thought to have gone extinct with them 65 million years ago until it was discovered alive and well in 1938. Dragonfly dates back 230 million years...just 3 examples.
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne Its buried because it does not contradict evolution? Crocodiles have not changed, cockroaches and snakes have not changed much either...Natural selection works by selecting out the best...if these creatures are already the best, why select?
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne
"you can't prove that fossil of a deceased animal ever procreated!"
I'll give you one better than this, we cannot even be sure that the species of that fossil ever left any descendants either. Even with this level of uncertainty, we can still be as sure that evolution is true as we can be about anything else that we know to be true.
It is the collective weight of all the evidence that is compelling, it's no single piece.
Get an education.
kshackleton 1 year ago
Is Lynn being purposely obtuse? Dr. Berlinski is making a very simple point. The fossil record shows virtually no conclusive transitional life forms and yet Darwinists are acting as if they know what is missing from the evidence. Should we be calling this new faith in what we don't know "Darwinism of the gaps"?
HammerofHeretics 1 year ago