#3- Is creationism science- what's creationism? Sounds like a worldview but avoiding the whole "Allowing a Divine foot in the door" argument we should consider whether creation helps our understanding of biology. Do certain biological structures look designed- Yes. Could this lead to interesting questions to consider and talk about-sure. Should we include it as a rival to Darwin- nope. It is a much more interesting topic when it is not a scientific theory wouldn't you agree?
#2cont. Getting to the heart of the matter however, there are several reasons that I am not fully convinced. Random variation and stochastic shuffle has proved inadequate in every domain in which it is applied, I cannot draw anything meaningful from the general principles, it certainly leaves us without a clue when it comes to the great questions of life (biological), and the fossil record on the whole* does not support the theory.
You answer question 1 well. So, I am confused by your answer to question 2. If you understand what evolution is, why would you need to see all life forms undergo this process in order to accept that it is real? Would you need to see all stones fall according to the theory of gravitation in order to accept them as well? Isn't it enough to measure evolution and gravity in a set number of studies in order to show their existence and workings?
@smaakjeks The theory of gravitation is adequate because it is grounded in mathematics and can be simulated in a computer which brings flawless results. If we took the theory of gravitation and applied it to computer programing and saw that the planets did not orbit the sun in well defined conic sections we would have a big problem with our understanding of gravity. Unfortunately we cannot do anything like that in biology. We can't even define a species.
We are talking about the quality of evidence here. Let's say, for sake of argument, that evolution is real. By your admission, you would never be able to accept it since the evidence required for you to accept it is beyond approach. You have in other words priced yourself out of the market.
With regard to the definition of species, that is actually a reflection of the continuous changes in populations that is a consequence of evolution.
I don't understand your assertion that "[r]andom variation and stochastic shuffle has proved inadequate in every domain in which it is applied". Which domains do you mean, and how was it inadequate? You make many more claims, but let's stick with the ones I question you on, so we can settle one matter at a time. Agreed?
@smaakjeks Perhaps one question from you if you don't mind. Give me a domain where random variation and stochastic shuffle has given anything meaningful. And this is outside of the domain in which we are considering it (Darwinian theory). If no domain exists this does not necessarily disprove the Darwinian position, however it leaves us in a position when we know even less than we though we knew to start with (which isn't much to begin with).
@smaakjeks Any area other than Darwinian theory in which random variation and stochastic shuffle has provided anything useful. A few domains you might consider might be linguistics, computer algorithms.... anything really
Evolution explains all of life, or at least all of its adaptations (in such fields as ethology, physiology, developmental biology, molecular biology, microbiology, medicine, population dynamics, neurology and ecology). I would think that'd be enough. Engineers have also been able to apply random variation and selection in simulations to create more efficient solutions to their problems.
@smaakjeks All your biological areas relate to evolution and what i was looking for was those things NOT related to evolution. Sorry if i was unclear. As for your statement about engineering, I have 2 brothers who are engineers one mechanical and one computer based. Implementing any random variation to a design project or any problem for that matter would certainly counterproductive. I can see however what you are saying.
You want examples of application of evolution not relating to evolution? Variation and selection (for a specific goal) has been tried and found useful. There are at least two examples I can think of in my state of Xmas related drunkenness. One involving the shape of a muzzle on a hose (for most effective spraying), and one relating to water transport through canals. When I sober up I might be able to find the specifics on those examples. Until then: happy holidays!
@smaakjeks When engineers are simulating different situations they do make stabs into the unknown with the hopes of finding more effective models HOWEVER these stabs have a great deal of intelligence and thought behind them. There is absolutely nothing that is completely random, and completely random is what we see in evolution. Also the changes that engineers make are linked together in which many of those links are deeply though out. Darwinian changes are not linked but totally independent.
#2- Hmm this is an interesting question. We have to consider our current understanding of biology at this point in time in order to better asses the situation. If you are thinking of one experiment or set of data that will inevitably prove to everyone (me included) that every living species came about by through a Darwinian process than that would be a set of data that would shock the entire scientific community because nothing of that magnitude has ever come from one biological discovery.
It's been a few years since i debated evolution and with a year and a half of university level biology hopefully i will be coming at this with a better understanding. So here it goes.
#1- I think this question is getting at "Do you understand evolution". Evolution- the theory is descent with modification which comes about through the process of random variation and stochastic shuffle. The mechanism is natural selection acting on genetic variation due to mutation and sexual reproduction.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weeb¬ly.com
@smaakjeks You are the stubborn moronic ignorant on! 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???
@smaakjeks "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!!
Question #1- Small genetic changes in populations of organisms over time passed down through generations and sifted through by natural selection. All these changes relate to the vast differences we see in nature and reflect a common ancestor.
Question #2- A fossil record that reflects evolution (NO big gaps). Proof that genetic information can be added due to advantageous mutations. The emergence of new species within observation.
Question #3- Creationism is an explanation for evidence.
2: how does your answer make sense, given your answer of question 1? Why does evolution require there to be no big gaps in a 3 billion year old fossil record? Fossilization is a rare occurrence.
Speciation has been observed many times. Do you accept evolution as real now?
3: Didn't answer my question. I asked if creationism is science. That is, does it adhere to the scientific methodology?
Ok fair enough..fossilization is a rare occurrence but look at the time line! What also astonishes me is that we have a great number of fossils of animals that are living today but a drastically low amount of fossilized transitional forms that supposedly existed in the past. If we take into consideration the millions of transitional forms from bacteria to humans we have to ask ourselves of all the "rare" fossilized creatures we find why are so many alive today and millions missing??
"low amount of fossilized transitional forms that supposedly existed in the past."
How do you know the correct number of transitions that "should" be there? Also, take into account that fossils do not necessarily show the difference between species. In fossils we can only see differences in bone structure. Now look at, say, modern cat species' skeletons and notice their similarities in bone structure. As fossils we might have chalked many of them up as one fossil form.
I felt the need to put this in a comment on its own. You ask for proof that genetic information can be added due to advantageous mutations. You first need to define genetic information. Do you mean genes? Do you mean alleles? Do you mean just any additional sequence of nitrogenous bases to the genome? Please specify. Though again, since speciation has been observed, maybe this is a moot point. You should be convinced by speciation alone, right?
Question #3 - No, creationism is not science. But this doesn't mean I don't accept it. Science, in my opinion, cannot answer the fundamental questions of life but that is an entirely different topic. It this sense I guess it is best to say that evolution is falsifiable and, if science cannot scientifically answer the question of origin (or diversification of life) than I will be forced to look for an alternative explination.
In other words, it's not falsifiable. So, if creationism is incorrect, you can never know.
"if science cannot scientifically answer the question of origin (or diversification of life) than I will be forced to look for an alternative explination."
Why is creationism the only non-falsifiable alternative you're willing to resort to? Maybe we're brains in jars. Maybe we're someone else's dream. Maybe life on Earth was seeded by aliens.
If Darwinian theory were correct there would be one transitional form for every morphological change an organism goes through. Dr Berlinski (a well-known skeptic of Darwinian theory) argues that there should be somewhere between 50,000-70,000 transitional forms from a land-going mammal to a whale. Evolution has 4 fossils. Now I am not going to put a number on how many fossils I think should exist between the two but there is a serious lack if we look at it mathematically.
How did he get at 50-70 thousand, and how does Berlinski define a transitional fossil (in order to distinguish the several thousand)? And, again, fossilization is rare. Does Berlinski take that into account? The 5 transitions we have from Sinonyx to modern whales are spaced out neatly and elegantly show a transitional process happening. Why would it matter to have several thousand in between the crucial developmental steps from land to sea creature that we do see in these fossils?
He got the number from counting the morphological changes that MUST occur for the evolution of the whale...but if fossilization is such a rare event then why yes why out of the thousands of intermediates that would be distinguishable within the fossil record have we found a fossil of the modern-day whale??? fossilization is a rare event but what prompted chance to fossilize so many now-living creatures and a drastically low number of the transitionals.
A definition of what constitutes 1 morphological change would be nice. Does he provide that?
"[why, if fossilization is so rare] have we found a fossil of the modern-day whale?"
To be fair, there are more fossils than the few major forms eluded to in my previous comment. Anyway, to answer your question, given geographical activity of the Earth it stands to reason that older fossils are rarer. The more time goes by, the more fossils end up destroyed.
so you are saying fossils in the Cambrian layer should be more spaced out than fossils in later strata???? than for recently evolved life there should be a plethora of transitional forms grading into each other...than there is fossilized proof of a deer with an arrow in it in pre-cambrian rock. How did that get there???
"there is fossilized proof of a deer with an arrow in it in pre-cambrian rock. How did that get there?"
It didn't. There is no such fossil. There are in fact no authentic, anachronistic fossils. They all are found in the pattern predicted by evolution. Heck, look into the Tiktaalik find for a perfect example of evolution predicting a fossil before it was found, in exactly the strata it was predicted.
Have you looked into the observed speciation events yet?
@tehonlyway You are looking at the fossils '' mathematically'' You are as screwed up as Mr. Butinski. It only took one dinosaur fossil with feathers to prove evolution, now they have over 20 of them. You don't need a fossil of every animal that ever lived to see a pattern.
Some good questions there (and a good tip). I actually believed in creationism until I was nineteen (a long time ago now). Then I read a bit about evolution. It didn't take long for me to realise I'd been believing in myths. I've read a lot more since. No creationist argument I've encountered has stood up to scrutiny.
Thanks! Yes, most people I've talked with who don't accept evolution really don't know what it's about. People are told by professional creationists what evolution is, and so they are given strawman versions of it. Once someone sits down and reads up on evolution, they discover that it's got nothing to do with dogs giving birth to cats etc. Then they find that it's a lot more reasonable than they were led to believe. I also have yet to see a valid creationist argument.
I think the funny thing is that neither evo nor creationist can be verified here and now. Evolution needs evidence of particle forming a cell by itslef and then that cell becoming multi cellular, but that solve this by eons of time. Creationist know they trust the bible and view the evidence through that interpretation. Both is completely measurable and be validated be complete observation. JUst argue that one obervation is what they expected from a component of their respective theory.
@1brandwag Sorry meant to say both cannot be validated or exclusively measured, but only asserted. From claiming that a certain observation somehow support there thoery. as in that a certain biological vairiation or adaptation support their view. But yet they hypothese itself cannot be observeted and validated by experiments here and now. So in the end people choose do they trust evo theory, which is assertions about the past thorugh looking at now or the bible, which the creator revealed.
You're incorrect on both counts. Creationism cannot be verified or falsified because it's a supernatural event. When something is supernatural it's non-falsifiable. This means that any and all evidence that could ever exist is compatible with it. This is not good. Evolution is verified to the uttermost degree. One does not need to recreate abiogenesis in order to see if evolution holds water, because there are implications of evolution that can be (and are being) tested today.
@smaakjeksWell I told you what evidence would convice me of evolution, it it is observed say abiogenesis of a full fucntioning cell and then a singel becoming multicell. The same evidence goes for ques 3.The so called predictions is many times just natural selection and mutation, which fits creation theories anyway. Both take a philosophical stand as one has to interpret evidence to mean natural processes giving life and the other special creation initially giving rise to the world today.
@1brandwag Thus both creationism and evo is equally falsifiable, by the predictions they make.however neither are practically falsifiable as they both deal with a past event and thus what they believe about the past event shape their perspective and the philosophical view they take on certain evidence. eg evolution predicts fossils while creationist predict fossil, but with gaps between species, genuses and families, showing special creation of different kinds.
@smaakjeks Well then evo: Process of change and divergence in populations and taxa, but really modern day evo mean is everthing decending from a singel cell or even worse from chemicals forming that cell. Creation does have it's prediction maybe look up creation dot com and send them your arguements sure you'll be surprised.
According to this troll, humans came from God blowing life into dust. Or at least Adam, anyway. Eve is rib material. Why? Because fuck dust, that's why.
@smaakjeks From TWO people?? Somehow then two people turned to many races and 6 billion people... Main question how did two whites create a whole range of different races?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You are so fucking stupid that it makes me ill. You actually think that Creationism vs Evodelusionism is a fucking argument. It is Evodelusionism against real science that is the issue. This shit is not science. You fucking Evotard, bullshit lay down fucking bitch. You are a weak minded fucking moron.
@GoodScienceForYou "You actually think that Creationism vs Evodelusionism is a fucking argument. " Nobody thinks that. The reason that Creationism is mentioned is that YOU are a Creationist. All of your arguments (except human/ape mating) are Creationist arguments, the videos you favorite are Creationist videos, you DO believe in God, you DID write that you were a Christian, etc.
Where is this absolute evidence that fish evolved into human? How can you be so fucking stupid as to allow this level of brainwashing to control your mind? Get free of this shit religion of Evodelusionism. Visit the fresh air of The Neutral Evolution Forum where all this shit belief is broken down into it's ultimate bullshit.
I've given you many chances to respond with actual arguments, but you cannot or will not get into ANY details. You instead reduce your responses to pure insult. I'm tired of having my comment section spammed by you. I've now blocked you. Somehow I think you will take that as a badge of honor. Well, congratulations.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Any parent who allows this shit to be indoctrinated into their precious children, should be punished. Just as any form of indoctrination needs to be removed from all societies. This need to destroy the intelligence and purity of children needs to stop. You are destroying your own children because you are too weak minded to stop this crap.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@smaakjeks You are a fucking Evotard, brainwashed moron. You are worthless to anyone, and especially to yourself. Your religious bull shit has destroyed all your credibility. Your are a fucking loser.
@GoodScienceForYou "Your religious bull shit has destroyed all your credibility" look in the mirror and repeat that 10,000 times; maybe it will sink in.
@GoodScienceForYou "Any parent who allows this shit to be indoctrinated into their precious children, should be punished." It is science, not indoctrination. You are not bright enough to understand what evidence is and you babble incessantly about absolute proof. You deny the evidence for your religious reasons and then project your failings onto others.
"1. What evidence would convince you it's right?" I don't know, but if you God exists then HE knows and has chosen to withhold it.
"2....atheists ALWAYS fail to realize is that God doesn't have to obey the laws of science"
I should accept the powers of a being in whose existence I do not believe? Do you accept the strength of the Incredible Hulk? "3. Evolution is only a theory" So is atomic theory. Theories exist to explain facts. The Theory of Evolution does that quite well
Oh crap! I accidentally deleted JMFSpike's comment! Sorry, JMFSpike. Your comment was retarded and didn't answer any of my questions posed in the video, but I don't remove comments just for that. Just look at how I let "GoodScienceForYou" embarrass himself, for example.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Since there is no evidence of any simple life form ever "evolving" into any other life form, this is a bullshit HEMG religion, because is has all the markings of a cult. If you only get your information from the people who brainwash you, and they make it hard for you to escape and seek the truth, then it is a cult. This Evodelusionism is a cult religion that has entered academia. Cult religious bullshit has dominated academia for thousands of years. Why do you think this is any different?
Last time we talked you couldn't define a transitional fossil, and you couldn't tell me why you require as many as you do. In other words, no evidence I can present you will convince you, because you don't even know what the hell evidence for evolution would look like.
With that, I'll quote myself from the end of a discussion we had 7 months ago: "Go away, please. You know what I request of you, and until you provide it I have nothing more to add."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@smaakjeks Why do you believe in religion? What makes you think this is science? Why do you argue the creationist crap and not just look at the evidence from any objective reasoning level? Where is your absolutely irrefutable evidence for evolution? It must by PHYSICAL, obvious to ALL (requires no cult indoctrination) and have no opinions nor religious slogans that have never passed a single scientific test. Evolution: this idea that simple life has become complex by some magical nonsense.
@GoodScienceForYou In the fossil record there exists only dead ends. There are no trails from one species to the next. No fish has ever evolved into a mammal. Do you realize how idiotic your premises really are? Why is this so important to you. Have you looked objectively at the fossil record without this belief driving you?
@GSFY " the fossil record there exists only dead ends. There are no trails from one species to the next" Au contraire. There are transitional fossils. But if you think they are not, then quit with the bullshit about "those are opinions from evotards" and give us YOUR definition of a transitional fossil. You will NOT do so because you are a coward.
"No fish has ever evolved into a mammal" You forgot to add "because the Bible says God created separate kindsa".
@GoodScienceForYou "Why do you believe in religion? What makes you think this is science? Why do you argue the creationist crap and not just look at the evidence " All of these questions could apply to you. You are arguing nothing but Creationism. Nearly every argument you make is a Creationist argument except for humans mating with apes - that piece of stupidity is yours alone.
@smaakjeks Last time we communicated, you shut down and stopped listening. That is typical of Evotards.
Could you please answer my question? Where is your absolutely irrefutable evidence that simple life forms have "evolved" into complex life forms? It must be physical, have no other plausibility, obvious and contain NO opinions from belief or faith.
@GoodScienceForYou "Where is your absolutely irrefutable evidence" NO theory in science is absolutely irrefutable. FACTS may be, but NOT theories. The TOE is a solid theory backed by lots of evidence, evidence which you reject for your own personal religious reasons.
@GoodScienceForYou "Since there is no evidence of any simple life form ever "evolving" into any other life form". Untrue, there is evidence, SCIENTIFIC evidence, but you deny it. You have NOT read 20,000 papers on the subject, do NOT have a photographic memory and therefore can NOT indicate any specific areas of disagreement with them. You are a creotard. Period. NOBODY believes your denials.
It's no use, Alan. This retard won't let you corner him. I did it 7 months ago and he simply left without another word. Now he's back, hoping I forgot all about how he got cornered into having to justify his demands and clearly define what he would consider evidence. He's a troll.
@smaakjeks "This retard won't let you corner him" True, but every now and then he stops repeating the same old nonsense and invents some new bit of stupidity that contradicts his earlier crap.
He may be a troll, but he's sincere. I have been arguing with him for 2 years now. I spent a few hours with his brother, John, who knows him quite well and is in full agreement that Jimmy is nuts.. Jimbo is delusional and dishonest. That is a bad combo. He's like NephilimFree, but without the charm.
@AlanCFA You are a fucking moron, believer in fantasy. You have nothing of value for anyone. You are worthless as a pile of shit. Anyone who believes that humans came from fish is a fucking moron Evotard.
Alright. But I think you mean to say you're against social darwinists. If you just add the "social" then I think more people will be on board with you. But you accuse Dawkins (and many biologists and people in general) of being social darwinists just for accepting that evolution happens. That's not only hasty, it's also idiotic.
@smaakjeks You haven´t read carefully my video, where I say clearly that the US citizens are SOCIAL DARWINISTS.
The problem is not that Dawkins and most of you darwinist biologists were Social Darwinists, the problem is that the people that read your books turn Social Darwinists after reading them !
"You haven´t read carefully my video, where I say clearly that the US citizens are SOCIAL DARWINISTS."
You also use just darwinist to describe Dawkins and you claim he's a nazi. Plus you just came here to my video, which concerns evolution (not social darwinism) and plugged your ridiculous video.
"The problem is not that Dawkins and most of you darwinist biologists were Social Darwinists(...)"
"I do advertisement of my video in your page as it is permitted by You Tube."
No, I let you plug your video out of my own sheer goodwill. It's my channel and I can remove anything I want. I'm just not a fan of censorship. Even if your video and comments are asinine and slanderous.
"My ridiculous video is the video of someone that is fed up with nazi biologists like you."
Is it because I'm a biologist or because I'm Norwegian? You claim that both are probable causes for being one.
@smaakjeks You are free to erase my comments, this is what You Tube allows.
You are not a nazi biologists because you are a Norge but because you have not answered not one of my argumentations on my video ( and books) and this is a tipical behaviour of a nazibiologist, i know the kind.
"You are free to erase my comments, this is what You Tube allows."
But I won't. Your comments show how bigoted and moronic you are. And your video shows that you don't grasp the first thing about evolution or indeed philosophy.
"You are not a nazi biologists because you are a Norge but because you have not answered not one of my argumentations on my video"
I have refuted your claims that Dawkins is a nazi, a taxonomist, and that he claims to know everything. Want more?
"(...)the problem is that the people that read your books turn Social Darwinists after reading them !"
That's THEIR problem, not mine. Shall we also burn all physiology books because people could read them and learn ways to inflict the most pain on people? How about burning all medical knowledge because drugs are bad? You can't blame knowledge itself for its most evil/misguided applications. When it comes to evolution, you're conflicting is with ought, Mr. Philosopher.
@smaakjeks it is your problem because you and all the biologists have an enourmous influence on the current people, this is the reason why Darwinism has been used pollitically since 1880.
The conflict is/ought is very important in Philosophy but in my argumentations it is well used.
"it is your problem because you and all the biologists have an enourmous influence on the current people"
You have failed to show that biologists are responsible for any kind of racist movement. What you posit (in your video comment section) is in fact much more racist than any modern textbook in biology. I'm Norwegian therefore probably a Nazi?? You just excuse yourself by going on about how it's not down to race but society. Whatever the cause, it is generalizing, and not valid.
@smaakjeks The issue is not if the biologists are responsible of some racist movement but if the biologists are responsible of the epoch we live in actually, and they are, because Social Darwinism is the ideology of our epoch since late XIX century.
"The issue is not if the biologists are responsible of some racist movement but if the biologists are responsible of the epoch we live in actually, and they are, because Social Darwinism is the ideology of our epoch since late XIX century."
Give me specific racist events or tendencies that are caused by modern biologists. I'm tired of you parroting the accusation in vagueness all the time. Put up or shut up.
"this is the reason why Darwinism has been used pollitically since 1880."
And physiology and medicine has also been used/misunderstood/misapplied to the detriment of people. I have already explained this and you have not refuted it.
"The conflict is/ought is very important in Philosophy but in my argumentations it is well used."
No, it isn't explained in your video at all. I’m the one to bring it up.
@smaakjeks By the way, Aristotle has been miused a lot too and Adam Smith, and Marx, and Alfred Marshall and almost all the important wise men but the difference is that we philosophers know it but you biologists love it.
The conflict is/ ought is present too in all the books of the darwinists, as they claim that Life MUST be a struggle for the survival of the fittests.
"The conflict is/ ought is present too in all the books of the darwinists, as they claim that Life MUST be a struggle for the survival of the fittests."
No. Dawkins has refuted this himself (google "Harris versus Dawkins, modern day Euthyphro dilemma "). So much for your nazi biologist.
I just found out that you have marked some of my comments as spam in your video comment section. You have done the same to other youtubers, too it seems. You're a fucking coward.
@smaakjeks I am a lover of no censorship as much as you are, not one of the comments has been erased by me.
The Euthyphro dylemma is in Ethics : we must say that if an event happens it must happen( is / ought) ? ALL the people incurs in this falacy, even Dawkins and other darwinists that, ashamed by the use of Darwin done by the Social Darwinists, try to wash their guiltiness by saying that "the survival of the fittest is not the rule in Neo-darwinism", when you have turned Life exactly that.
"I am a lover of no censorship as much as you are"
What?? I haven't censored anything.
"not one of the comments has been erased by me."
Did you mark them as spam? That's what I accused you of. Not deletion.
The rest of your comment makes no sense. I give you a clear reference to Dawkins denying the ought of natural selection and you in turn string together some words that are supposed to make a coherent sentence, like the ramblings of a crazy person. I think we're done here.
@smaakjeks Please say what do you understand by Darwinism.
The article on Dawkins and Harris and Euthryphro is a loss of time, nothing interesting in it.
We know since many decades ago that Neo-darwinists say the Selfish Gen is amoral without any caring on humans,and that Neo-darwinists are for philantropy among humans , the problem is that real life remains Social Darwinist !
Nobody listen to them, everybody believes he is stronger than the others and he must survive.
I mostly respond to people who use that label because they have a problem with evolution and try to equivocate evolution with a philosophy or world view. Also there are various historical meanings of the word, so I just avoid altogether.
The article shows that Dawkins refutes the notion that natural selection is an ought. He is no nazi.
"the problem is that real life remains Social Darwinist !"
@smaakjeks Do you love Life in our time be a fight where only the strongest survive?
This is what your countrymen of 3.000 years ago believed!
I will tell you what I understand by Darwinism: a theory of the materialistic Greek philosophers, rewritten again by Darwin in the XIX century because there was a demand in Victorian British Empire for such a theory, racist, imperialistic, militarist and deeply barbarian.
@smaakjeks I have demonstrated that you could be a nazi because you don´t listen
Scandinavians are related to the nazis because their old religion of war, Dawkins is a suspected nazi because he poses as the Perfect Darwinist of our time,he is a taxonomist because describes parts of the DNA and believes this explains what is Life, the biologists and the right party in Spain are still nazis as they were in Franco regime,
darwinists biologists are to blame of the use by nazism of Darwinism,
Concede that I am right about my points or refute them. Let's take one at a time. Either concede that Dawkins is not a taxonomist by any stretch of the imagination, or demonstrate that he is. So far you have not progressed beyond the argument you make in your video: that he "describes part of the DNA and believes this explains what is Life". I have responded to this claim. You have not responded to my refutation. You just blather on like I never wrote anything. Last chance now.
@smaakjeks I don' t mind if it is my last chance, the only reason I answer your posts is to avoid your strategy of leaving me as a stupid one, an usual strategy of the darwinist biologists, I have met this before.
Never waited something from you, you are a barbarian and a fanatical darwinist as many people are in your country but it is not your fault, you cannot be otherwise , it is in your genes !
"I answer your posts is to avoid your strategy of leaving me as a stupid one"
How ironic then that your posts is the very thing that leaves you looking stupid. You don't know squat about evolution or Dawkins, you have ZERO evidence to back up your wild claims, and you can barely string together words.
"it is in your genes !"
So you DO think that Scandinavians as a distinct genetic group is categorically racist? The irony is at this point palpable.
"I begin to suspect that you are not a scientist. Either way, so long."
You could not concede to the merest little mistake of getting wrong what a taxonomist is or does. Even that was too much for your ego to handle. I asked you 3 times to either concede or refute, and you failed to do either. And now you're running away with your tail between your legs. I pity your juvenile mind.
"A taxonomist enumerates and describes parts of the living beings, this is a taxonomist"
No. A taxonomist classifies species according to their evolutionary origins. I have already explained this in the comment section of your video. You have ignored it. But I'm the non-listening nazi?? Either concede or refute, damn it!
"A taxonomist is not only a biologist but everyone that classifies things."
While anyone can conduct research into different fields, the profession itself is reserved for those that are educated in the field. If I conduct research into geology I am not automatically a geologist. Same with taxonomy and taxonomist. And you STILL have not conceded or refuted my correction of your idea of taxonomy. Pathetic.
"Dawkins classifies the parts of the DNA and this is all he knows to do."
"Read better a mathematician called William Demsbki,"
Haha! Dembski fails miserably to apply the most basic rules for calculating probability. He even chickened out of giving "expert" testimony the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in 2005. He is a joke.
"he looks for a better theory than Darwinism I as do."
Um, you said you accept evolution. Were you just lying when you wrote that, or have you been convinced of creationism in the span of a few days? Lulz.
@metacosmos So basically you are saying truth is of no importance in this discussion and is superseded by the reaction humans will have to the information in question?
@KevinLounsberry Truth changes each decade and each century according to the interests of the ruling class and the philosophers that control de Departments of Philosophy at the Universities.
@metacosmos If it changes, it was never truth to begin with. An opinion cannot change reality. So what are we talking about here? Are we talking about what's actually real and truthful, or are we talking about whether or not what's real and truthful should be revealed as truth and reality?
well the same questions, ask evolutionist if they understand creation, what evidance would convince then that ID is true and/or that evolution is true, and is evolution science. there is ignorance in both sides, not just in the evolutionist side
@Answerquestions1 You would likely need to rephrase the questions, but you are correct, they really just ensure the debator(s) are not ignorant of the debate's topic and also establish terms of surrender and those are the foundation of any good debate.
This is very good: "You are a nut job as all Evodelusionists are. You surrendered up your logic and reason to be a member of the bulshit artists who are all dumb as can be. How the fuck did you allow this shit to control you? When you surrender to other people's bullshit, they own you and you gladly take this shit as if it elevates you. Dumb asses like you will be mocked and made fun of just like the fools who believed the world was flat." Answer this question.
All life evolved and continues to evolve. You MIGHT call our earlier ancestors monkeys if you go far enough back, but understand that MODERN monkeys were not our ancestors. Sort of how many Americans have ancestors that came from England, yet English people living today are not their ancestors. If your question is really "How did life start" then that's a different subject from evolution.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Evodelusionism is a slippery religion that you follow. It is hidden in a lot of pseudo science bullshit. If you can't see that, you are fucked. It is obvious to me as plain as can be. But because you are brainwashed and lost in human emotional bullshit, there is no hope for you to get free, because you actually think you know something. You don't know you.
Thus you are fucked in the head, full of pride. I have no religion, and I will not take on yours and become infected in shit beliefs.
Okay. There's no hope for me. You go on without me. Save yourself from the world conspiracy of biologists who wish to turn us all to the dark side with their mind control powers.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@smaakjeks It is not conspiracy. It is ignorance, mind fucked humans and their dumb ass religions they make up and call science. This shit has, historically, been going on for thousands of years. You are simply a product of brainwashing. I pity weak minded people like you, who are lost in ignorance. You IGNORE what is right in front of you and choose to project fantasy on life.
Yes, yes. I'm a brainwashed, fantasizing parrot with a weak penis. I have your pity and I will cherrish it always. Go away, please. You know what I request of you, and until you provide it I have nothing more to add. Neither do you it seems, apart from uninspired insults. You can keep posting them if it gives you the jollies, but I'll be ignoring them.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@smaakjeks Grab a hold of your balls and take them back from the fucking delusional assholes you surrendered to . You are a fucking closed minded fool.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@smaakjeks It is just one dumb ass religion calling itself science, vs another faith based region. That is your problem that you need to overcome. Arguing creationism vs evodelusionism is not an argument for anything. Don't you fucking know that? What a fucking moron. You do not have any answers any more than they do. Shit for brains.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Creation VS Evolution is NOT an argument FOR anything. It is a bullshit smoke screen to avoid looking at this pseudo science critically, and with objective awareness. When you are subjected to peer pressure, cultural pressure and brainwashed believers all around you, if you are weak minded, you will cave to dumb ass religious beliefs in Evodelusionism.
This is entirely biased. No underunhanded tech? First I am in science. 2nd I find your elaborations unsettling. 3. You cannot be a true scientists. We have to look at ALL the evidence. PERIOD. 4. You so discount God in the equation. Why is that? Because you are an atheist. 5 My studies show that there is no facts, no hard evidence to prove evolution. 6. Still just a theory.
Your studies? What does that mean? And what does "I am in science" mean? You're no scientist.
All of science discounts gods from the equation. If you disagree, then please provide me with a scientific explanatory model or hypothesis that includes gods. All credible scientists discount gods from their work because gods are unfalsifiable. If you were a scientist, you would know what that word means. You would also know why it's retarded to use the "just a theory" argument.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
First you do not know me. Your statement that I am not a scientist is a lie. Why? Because I don't agree with you? Perfect example of academic bias. You resent me calling you biased. You are the one who put this trash out there. You create a subversive argument than one on the facts. Evolution has not been a proven fact. PERIOD and if you are really into this, you should know that. You need to re-read the meaning of empirical evidence.
2) You think supernatural entities have a place in science
3) Your syntax does not suggest higher education
But okay, how about some references to studies you have done? That will sure show me, since I'm just a post grad working on my masters degree in behavioural biology.
You have not managed to point out any bias or subversive arguments in my video. You have merely asserted that there are. Lame.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I am not a scientist because I said evolution is a theory? Why? Is it because I disagree with your opinion? What is science? It's it exclusionary only to itself? Can someone not have a differing opinion? I was taught that all opinions are valid until disproven. This was the HALLMARK of true science. Think about that statement. It's BIASED. My point has been made. To your point in your video, you are not worth the time.
The theory of evolution is a theory, I don't disagree with that. What you're saying is that it's "JUST a theory", using the colloquial word meaning guesswork, instead of the scientific meaning of theory, which is an explanatory model. Like the theory of gravity or germ theory, or atomic theory. When you say that evolution is just a theory and is not fact yet, you're demonstrating your own scientific illiteracy.
Oh, and to remind you.... You have yet to point out any bias in my video (that I have not already conceded) and you have not pointed out how my video contains underhanded debating tactics. Also, you have not mentioned a single study you have published, nor have you mentioned any model or or hypothesis in science that implements gods. You're all bark and no bite, prof.
Sure, one can be dissenting from any and all ideas. The key is to be able to support them. Otherwise they're useless.
FYI - This is typical atheistic response. Attack the person. I do know what unfalsifiable means. Calling me names and not listening to the facts, shows that you have not done much research into this matter. Let me know when you are ready for your doctoral theisis and maybe I can help. I need to get back to class. BTW - My Prof during my masters said this, "science that discounts any theory, stops being science and becomes politics.' Great motto to live by.
I haven't called you names. Anything negative that I have said about you is demonstrable on account of your own comments. So, it's not really insult, is it. What facts have you put out? You have just made assertion after assertion without backing up anything. I've made several requests and you just ignored every single one.
So, I suppose your prof. wants to keep the doors open on the concept of a flat earth, and a geocentric universe? We should conduct research into those ideas?
#3- Is creationism science- what's creationism? Sounds like a worldview but avoiding the whole "Allowing a Divine foot in the door" argument we should consider whether creation helps our understanding of biology. Do certain biological structures look designed- Yes. Could this lead to interesting questions to consider and talk about-sure. Should we include it as a rival to Darwin- nope. It is a much more interesting topic when it is not a scientific theory wouldn't you agree?
118unashamed 1 month ago
#2cont. Getting to the heart of the matter however, there are several reasons that I am not fully convinced. Random variation and stochastic shuffle has proved inadequate in every domain in which it is applied, I cannot draw anything meaningful from the general principles, it certainly leaves us without a clue when it comes to the great questions of life (biological), and the fossil record on the whole* does not support the theory.
118unashamed 1 month ago
@118unashamed
You answer question 1 well. So, I am confused by your answer to question 2. If you understand what evolution is, why would you need to see all life forms undergo this process in order to accept that it is real? Would you need to see all stones fall according to the theory of gravitation in order to accept them as well? Isn't it enough to measure evolution and gravity in a set number of studies in order to show their existence and workings?
smaakjeks 1 month ago
@smaakjeks The theory of gravitation is adequate because it is grounded in mathematics and can be simulated in a computer which brings flawless results. If we took the theory of gravitation and applied it to computer programing and saw that the planets did not orbit the sun in well defined conic sections we would have a big problem with our understanding of gravity. Unfortunately we cannot do anything like that in biology. We can't even define a species.
118unashamed 1 month ago
@118unashamed
We are talking about the quality of evidence here. Let's say, for sake of argument, that evolution is real. By your admission, you would never be able to accept it since the evidence required for you to accept it is beyond approach. You have in other words priced yourself out of the market.
With regard to the definition of species, that is actually a reflection of the continuous changes in populations that is a consequence of evolution.
smaakjeks 1 month ago
@118unashamed
Also, yes, we can mimic evolutionary adaptation with computer simulations.
smaakjeks 1 month ago
@118unashamed
I don't understand your assertion that "[r]andom variation and stochastic shuffle has proved inadequate in every domain in which it is applied". Which domains do you mean, and how was it inadequate? You make many more claims, but let's stick with the ones I question you on, so we can settle one matter at a time. Agreed?
smaakjeks 1 month ago
@smaakjeks Perhaps one question from you if you don't mind. Give me a domain where random variation and stochastic shuffle has given anything meaningful. And this is outside of the domain in which we are considering it (Darwinian theory). If no domain exists this does not necessarily disprove the Darwinian position, however it leaves us in a position when we know even less than we though we knew to start with (which isn't much to begin with).
118unashamed 1 month ago
@118unashamed
Again, I don't know what you mean by domain, and I don't know what you mean by meaningful.
smaakjeks 1 month ago
@smaakjeks Any area other than Darwinian theory in which random variation and stochastic shuffle has provided anything useful. A few domains you might consider might be linguistics, computer algorithms.... anything really
118unashamed 1 month ago
@118unashamed
Evolution explains all of life, or at least all of its adaptations (in such fields as ethology, physiology, developmental biology, molecular biology, microbiology, medicine, population dynamics, neurology and ecology). I would think that'd be enough. Engineers have also been able to apply random variation and selection in simulations to create more efficient solutions to their problems.
smaakjeks 1 month ago
@smaakjeks All your biological areas relate to evolution and what i was looking for was those things NOT related to evolution. Sorry if i was unclear. As for your statement about engineering, I have 2 brothers who are engineers one mechanical and one computer based. Implementing any random variation to a design project or any problem for that matter would certainly counterproductive. I can see however what you are saying.
118unashamed 1 month ago
@118unashamed
You want examples of application of evolution not relating to evolution? Variation and selection (for a specific goal) has been tried and found useful. There are at least two examples I can think of in my state of Xmas related drunkenness. One involving the shape of a muzzle on a hose (for most effective spraying), and one relating to water transport through canals. When I sober up I might be able to find the specifics on those examples. Until then: happy holidays!
smaakjeks 1 month ago
@smaakjeks When engineers are simulating different situations they do make stabs into the unknown with the hopes of finding more effective models HOWEVER these stabs have a great deal of intelligence and thought behind them. There is absolutely nothing that is completely random, and completely random is what we see in evolution. Also the changes that engineers make are linked together in which many of those links are deeply though out. Darwinian changes are not linked but totally independent.
118unashamed 1 month ago
#2- Hmm this is an interesting question. We have to consider our current understanding of biology at this point in time in order to better asses the situation. If you are thinking of one experiment or set of data that will inevitably prove to everyone (me included) that every living species came about by through a Darwinian process than that would be a set of data that would shock the entire scientific community because nothing of that magnitude has ever come from one biological discovery.
118unashamed 1 month ago
It's been a few years since i debated evolution and with a year and a half of university level biology hopefully i will be coming at this with a better understanding. So here it goes.
#1- I think this question is getting at "Do you understand evolution". Evolution- the theory is descent with modification which comes about through the process of random variation and stochastic shuffle. The mechanism is natural selection acting on genetic variation due to mutation and sexual reproduction.
118unashamed 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weeb¬ly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
Creationists are experts on Geology, Biology, all dating methods and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Without ever reading a science book!
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz
I know, every creationist is the Renaissance personified.
smaakjeks 8 months ago
@smaakjeks You are the stubborn moronic ignorant on! 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 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv
Please answer the questions if you want any response from me. Going "LOL" and going on caps lock rants about abiogenesis gets you nowhere with me.
smaakjeks 8 months ago
@smaakjeks "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 8 months ago
Question #1- Small genetic changes in populations of organisms over time passed down through generations and sifted through by natural selection. All these changes relate to the vast differences we see in nature and reflect a common ancestor.
Question #2- A fossil record that reflects evolution (NO big gaps). Proof that genetic information can be added due to advantageous mutations. The emergence of new species within observation.
Question #3- Creationism is an explanation for evidence.
tehonlyway 9 months ago
@tehonlyway
1: correct! :-)
2: how does your answer make sense, given your answer of question 1? Why does evolution require there to be no big gaps in a 3 billion year old fossil record? Fossilization is a rare occurrence.
Speciation has been observed many times. Do you accept evolution as real now?
3: Didn't answer my question. I asked if creationism is science. That is, does it adhere to the scientific methodology?
smaakjeks 9 months ago
@smaakjeks
Ok fair enough..fossilization is a rare occurrence but look at the time line! What also astonishes me is that we have a great number of fossils of animals that are living today but a drastically low amount of fossilized transitional forms that supposedly existed in the past. If we take into consideration the millions of transitional forms from bacteria to humans we have to ask ourselves of all the "rare" fossilized creatures we find why are so many alive today and millions missing??
tehonlyway 9 months ago
@tehonlyway
"low amount of fossilized transitional forms that supposedly existed in the past."
How do you know the correct number of transitions that "should" be there? Also, take into account that fossils do not necessarily show the difference between species. In fossils we can only see differences in bone structure. Now look at, say, modern cat species' skeletons and notice their similarities in bone structure. As fossils we might have chalked many of them up as one fossil form.
smaakjeks 9 months ago
@tehonlyway
More on your answer to question 2:
I felt the need to put this in a comment on its own. You ask for proof that genetic information can be added due to advantageous mutations. You first need to define genetic information. Do you mean genes? Do you mean alleles? Do you mean just any additional sequence of nitrogenous bases to the genome? Please specify. Though again, since speciation has been observed, maybe this is a moot point. You should be convinced by speciation alone, right?
smaakjeks 9 months ago
@smaakjeks
Question #3 - No, creationism is not science. But this doesn't mean I don't accept it. Science, in my opinion, cannot answer the fundamental questions of life but that is an entirely different topic. It this sense I guess it is best to say that evolution is falsifiable and, if science cannot scientifically answer the question of origin (or diversification of life) than I will be forced to look for an alternative explination.
tehonlyway 9 months ago
@tehonlyway
"Question #3 - No, creationism is not science"
In other words, it's not falsifiable. So, if creationism is incorrect, you can never know.
"if science cannot scientifically answer the question of origin (or diversification of life) than I will be forced to look for an alternative explination."
Why is creationism the only non-falsifiable alternative you're willing to resort to? Maybe we're brains in jars. Maybe we're someone else's dream. Maybe life on Earth was seeded by aliens.
smaakjeks 9 months ago
@smaakjeks
What are some examples of observed speciation???
tehonlyway 9 months ago
@tehonlyway
"What are some examples of observed speciation???"
w w w (dot)talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/faq-speciation(dot)h t m l
smaakjeks 9 months ago
@smaakjeks
If Darwinian theory were correct there would be one transitional form for every morphological change an organism goes through. Dr Berlinski (a well-known skeptic of Darwinian theory) argues that there should be somewhere between 50,000-70,000 transitional forms from a land-going mammal to a whale. Evolution has 4 fossils. Now I am not going to put a number on how many fossils I think should exist between the two but there is a serious lack if we look at it mathematically.
tehonlyway 9 months ago
@tehonlyway
How did he get at 50-70 thousand, and how does Berlinski define a transitional fossil (in order to distinguish the several thousand)? And, again, fossilization is rare. Does Berlinski take that into account? The 5 transitions we have from Sinonyx to modern whales are spaced out neatly and elegantly show a transitional process happening. Why would it matter to have several thousand in between the crucial developmental steps from land to sea creature that we do see in these fossils?
smaakjeks 9 months ago
@smaakjeks
He got the number from counting the morphological changes that MUST occur for the evolution of the whale...but if fossilization is such a rare event then why yes why out of the thousands of intermediates that would be distinguishable within the fossil record have we found a fossil of the modern-day whale??? fossilization is a rare event but what prompted chance to fossilize so many now-living creatures and a drastically low number of the transitionals.
tehonlyway 9 months ago
@tehonlyway
A definition of what constitutes 1 morphological change would be nice. Does he provide that?
"[why, if fossilization is so rare] have we found a fossil of the modern-day whale?"
To be fair, there are more fossils than the few major forms eluded to in my previous comment. Anyway, to answer your question, given geographical activity of the Earth it stands to reason that older fossils are rarer. The more time goes by, the more fossils end up destroyed.
smaakjeks 9 months ago
@smaakjeks
so you are saying fossils in the Cambrian layer should be more spaced out than fossils in later strata???? than for recently evolved life there should be a plethora of transitional forms grading into each other...than there is fossilized proof of a deer with an arrow in it in pre-cambrian rock. How did that get there???
tehonlyway 9 months ago
@tehonlyway
"so you are saying fossils in the Cambrian layer should be more spaced out than fossils in later strata?"
I'm saying older fossils are rarer than newer fossils.
"than for recently evolved life there should be a plethora of transitional forms grading into each other"
Define recent. Define what constitutes a plethora. All you seem to be saying here is that you think there should be more fossils.
smaakjeks 9 months ago
@tehonlyway
"there is fossilized proof of a deer with an arrow in it in pre-cambrian rock. How did that get there?"
It didn't. There is no such fossil. There are in fact no authentic, anachronistic fossils. They all are found in the pattern predicted by evolution. Heck, look into the Tiktaalik find for a perfect example of evolution predicting a fossil before it was found, in exactly the strata it was predicted.
Have you looked into the observed speciation events yet?
smaakjeks 9 months ago 3
@tehonlyway You are looking at the fossils '' mathematically'' You are as screwed up as Mr. Butinski. It only took one dinosaur fossil with feathers to prove evolution, now they have over 20 of them. You don't need a fossil of every animal that ever lived to see a pattern.
gregrutz 8 months ago 2
"I also have yet to see a valid creationist argument."
Here's a valid argument:
You scientific people are all very intelligent.
You are intelligent because you have amazing brains.
Your brain is much more complex and much more sophisticated than any super computer.
A super computer with its complex network of integrated circuits is designed.
Your brain with its intricate network of neuro-transmitters well it just came about by chance.
balikwas24 9 months ago
@balikwas24
"Your brain with its intricate network of neuro-transmitters well it just came about by chance."
Evolution ≠ chance. You fail question 1 in my video.
smaakjeks 9 months ago
Some good questions there (and a good tip). I actually believed in creationism until I was nineteen (a long time ago now). Then I read a bit about evolution. It didn't take long for me to realise I'd been believing in myths. I've read a lot more since. No creationist argument I've encountered has stood up to scrutiny.
Ergonowt 11 months ago
@Ergonowt
Thanks! Yes, most people I've talked with who don't accept evolution really don't know what it's about. People are told by professional creationists what evolution is, and so they are given strawman versions of it. Once someone sits down and reads up on evolution, they discover that it's got nothing to do with dogs giving birth to cats etc. Then they find that it's a lot more reasonable than they were led to believe. I also have yet to see a valid creationist argument.
smaakjeks 11 months ago
I think the funny thing is that neither evo nor creationist can be verified here and now. Evolution needs evidence of particle forming a cell by itslef and then that cell becoming multi cellular, but that solve this by eons of time. Creationist know they trust the bible and view the evidence through that interpretation. Both is completely measurable and be validated be complete observation. JUst argue that one obervation is what they expected from a component of their respective theory.
1brandwag 1 year ago
@1brandwag Sorry meant to say both cannot be validated or exclusively measured, but only asserted. From claiming that a certain observation somehow support there thoery. as in that a certain biological vairiation or adaptation support their view. But yet they hypothese itself cannot be observeted and validated by experiments here and now. So in the end people choose do they trust evo theory, which is assertions about the past thorugh looking at now or the bible, which the creator revealed.
1brandwag 1 year ago
@1brandwag Evo vs Creation. Evo is more more believable so why believe in creationism?? Evo has so much evidence for it.
midgetwars1 1 year ago
@1brandwag
You're incorrect on both counts. Creationism cannot be verified or falsified because it's a supernatural event. When something is supernatural it's non-falsifiable. This means that any and all evidence that could ever exist is compatible with it. This is not good. Evolution is verified to the uttermost degree. One does not need to recreate abiogenesis in order to see if evolution holds water, because there are implications of evolution that can be (and are being) tested today.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeksWell I told you what evidence would convice me of evolution, it it is observed say abiogenesis of a full fucntioning cell and then a singel becoming multicell. The same evidence goes for ques 3.The so called predictions is many times just natural selection and mutation, which fits creation theories anyway. Both take a philosophical stand as one has to interpret evidence to mean natural processes giving life and the other special creation initially giving rise to the world today.
1brandwag 1 year ago
@1brandwag Thus both creationism and evo is equally falsifiable, by the predictions they make.however neither are practically falsifiable as they both deal with a past event and thus what they believe about the past event shape their perspective and the philosophical view they take on certain evidence. eg evolution predicts fossils while creationist predict fossil, but with gaps between species, genuses and families, showing special creation of different kinds.
1brandwag 1 year ago
@1brandwag
I dare say you don't understand what evolution is. Can you define it?
Again, creationism fits any and all evidence that could ever exist, because it's supernatural. Thus it is a useless hypothesis.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Well then evo: Process of change and divergence in populations and taxa, but really modern day evo mean is everthing decending from a singel cell or even worse from chemicals forming that cell. Creation does have it's prediction maybe look up creation dot com and send them your arguements sure you'll be surprised.
1brandwag 1 year ago
@1brandwag
Evo: Your definition is not specific enough. What is it that changes in populations?
Creationism:
Well, to save time, which of these following statements do you not agree with:
1) Creationism concerns supernatural events
2) The supernatural is non-falsifiable
3) A non-falsifiable hypothesis is useless as an explanation for anything
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou Fine, Evolution is fake. Where did Humans come from?? Answer that
midgetwars1 1 year ago
@midgetwars1
According to this troll, humans came from God blowing life into dust. Or at least Adam, anyway. Eve is rib material. Why? Because fuck dust, that's why.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks From TWO people?? Somehow then two people turned to many races and 6 billion people... Main question how did two whites create a whole range of different races?
midgetwars1 1 year ago
@midgetwars1
Um, magic?
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Lol, I'll like to see what @GoodScienceForYou says,,,
midgetwars1 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are so fucking stupid that it makes me ill. You actually think that Creationism vs Evodelusionism is a fucking argument. It is Evodelusionism against real science that is the issue. This shit is not science. You fucking Evotard, bullshit lay down fucking bitch. You are a weak minded fucking moron.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou
Say fuck some more, that will show me.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "You actually think that Creationism vs Evodelusionism is a fucking argument. " Nobody thinks that. The reason that Creationism is mentioned is that YOU are a Creationist. All of your arguments (except human/ape mating) are Creationist arguments, the videos you favorite are Creationist videos, you DO believe in God, you DID write that you were a Christian, etc.
AlanCFA 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Where is this absolute evidence that fish evolved into human? How can you be so fucking stupid as to allow this level of brainwashing to control your mind? Get free of this shit religion of Evodelusionism. Visit the fresh air of The Neutral Evolution Forum where all this shit belief is broken down into it's ultimate bullshit.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou
Please don't spam internet sites in my comment section.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@smaakjeks Fuck you! You dumb fucking asshole. You are so fucking ignorant.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou
I've given you many chances to respond with actual arguments, but you cannot or will not get into ANY details. You instead reduce your responses to pure insult. I'm tired of having my comment section spammed by you. I've now blocked you. Somehow I think you will take that as a badge of honor. Well, congratulations.
smaakjeks 1 year ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Any parent who allows this shit to be indoctrinated into their precious children, should be punished. Just as any form of indoctrination needs to be removed from all societies. This need to destroy the intelligence and purity of children needs to stop. You are destroying your own children because you are too weak minded to stop this crap.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou
Go away, please. You know what I request of you, and until you provide it I have nothing more to add.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@smaakjeks You are a fucking Evotard, brainwashed moron. You are worthless to anyone, and especially to yourself. Your religious bull shit has destroyed all your credibility. Your are a fucking loser.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "Your religious bull shit has destroyed all your credibility" look in the mirror and repeat that 10,000 times; maybe it will sink in.
AlanCFA 1 year ago 2
@GoodScienceForYou "Any parent who allows this shit to be indoctrinated into their precious children, should be punished." It is science, not indoctrination. You are not bright enough to understand what evidence is and you babble incessantly about absolute proof. You deny the evidence for your religious reasons and then project your failings onto others.
AlanCFA 1 year ago 3
@JMFSpike
"1. What evidence would convince you it's right?" I don't know, but if you God exists then HE knows and has chosen to withhold it.
"2....atheists ALWAYS fail to realize is that God doesn't have to obey the laws of science"
I should accept the powers of a being in whose existence I do not believe? Do you accept the strength of the Incredible Hulk? "3. Evolution is only a theory" So is atomic theory. Theories exist to explain facts. The Theory of Evolution does that quite well
AlanCFA 1 year ago 4
@AlanCFA
Oh crap! I accidentally deleted JMFSpike's comment! Sorry, JMFSpike. Your comment was retarded and didn't answer any of my questions posed in the video, but I don't remove comments just for that. Just look at how I let "GoodScienceForYou" embarrass himself, for example.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Since there is no evidence of any simple life form ever "evolving" into any other life form, this is a bullshit HEMG religion, because is has all the markings of a cult. If you only get your information from the people who brainwash you, and they make it hard for you to escape and seek the truth, then it is a cult. This Evodelusionism is a cult religion that has entered academia. Cult religious bullshit has dominated academia for thousands of years. Why do you think this is any different?
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou
Last time we talked you couldn't define a transitional fossil, and you couldn't tell me why you require as many as you do. In other words, no evidence I can present you will convince you, because you don't even know what the hell evidence for evolution would look like.
With that, I'll quote myself from the end of a discussion we had 7 months ago: "Go away, please. You know what I request of you, and until you provide it I have nothing more to add."
smaakjeks 1 year ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@smaakjeks Why do you believe in religion? What makes you think this is science? Why do you argue the creationist crap and not just look at the evidence from any objective reasoning level? Where is your absolutely irrefutable evidence for evolution? It must by PHYSICAL, obvious to ALL (requires no cult indoctrination) and have no opinions nor religious slogans that have never passed a single scientific test. Evolution: this idea that simple life has become complex by some magical nonsense.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GoodScienceForYou In the fossil record there exists only dead ends. There are no trails from one species to the next. No fish has ever evolved into a mammal. Do you realize how idiotic your premises really are? Why is this so important to you. Have you looked objectively at the fossil record without this belief driving you?
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GSFY " the fossil record there exists only dead ends. There are no trails from one species to the next" Au contraire. There are transitional fossils. But if you think they are not, then quit with the bullshit about "those are opinions from evotards" and give us YOUR definition of a transitional fossil. You will NOT do so because you are a coward.
"No fish has ever evolved into a mammal" You forgot to add "because the Bible says God created separate kindsa".
Do you belive in leprechauns?
AlanCFA 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "Why do you believe in religion? What makes you think this is science? Why do you argue the creationist crap and not just look at the evidence " All of these questions could apply to you. You are arguing nothing but Creationism. Nearly every argument you make is a Creationist argument except for humans mating with apes - that piece of stupidity is yours alone.
Do you believe in leprechauns?
AlanCFA 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@smaakjeks Last time we communicated, you shut down and stopped listening. That is typical of Evotards.
Could you please answer my question? Where is your absolutely irrefutable evidence that simple life forms have "evolved" into complex life forms? It must be physical, have no other plausibility, obvious and contain NO opinions from belief or faith.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou "Where is your absolutely irrefutable evidence" NO theory in science is absolutely irrefutable. FACTS may be, but NOT theories. The TOE is a solid theory backed by lots of evidence, evidence which you reject for your own personal religious reasons.
AlanCFA 1 year ago 2
@GoodScienceForYou "Since there is no evidence of any simple life form ever "evolving" into any other life form". Untrue, there is evidence, SCIENTIFIC evidence, but you deny it. You have NOT read 20,000 papers on the subject, do NOT have a photographic memory and therefore can NOT indicate any specific areas of disagreement with them. You are a creotard. Period. NOBODY believes your denials.
AlanCFA 1 year ago
@AlanCFA
It's no use, Alan. This retard won't let you corner him. I did it 7 months ago and he simply left without another word. Now he's back, hoping I forgot all about how he got cornered into having to justify his demands and clearly define what he would consider evidence. He's a troll.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks "This retard won't let you corner him" True, but every now and then he stops repeating the same old nonsense and invents some new bit of stupidity that contradicts his earlier crap.
He may be a troll, but he's sincere. I have been arguing with him for 2 years now. I spent a few hours with his brother, John, who knows him quite well and is in full agreement that Jimmy is nuts.. Jimbo is delusional and dishonest. That is a bad combo. He's like NephilimFree, but without the charm.
AlanCFA 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlanCFA You are a fucking moron, believer in fantasy. You have nothing of value for anyone. You are worthless as a pile of shit. Anyone who believes that humans came from fish is a fucking moron Evotard.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
Comment removed
asd59966 1 year ago
Comment removed
asd59966 1 year ago
Comment removed
asd59966 1 year ago
@asd59966
Why did you go to the trouble of writing all that (mostly nonsense) only to then delete it after? Did you realize the folly of your denials?
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks wow, what was that guy saying? it's like he was so wrong, he got splattered all over the thread.
KevinLounsberry 1 year ago
@KevinLounsberry
I forget what he wrote, but I doubt that it would justify pause for thought.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
Comment removed
asd59966 1 year ago
Comment removed
asd59966 1 year ago
Comment removed
asd59966 1 year ago
Comment removed
asd59966 1 year ago
See too the video:"Dawkins a fanatical darwinist"
metacosmos 1 year ago
@metacosmos
I just saw your nonsensical video. It doesn't answer a single question I posed in this video. I don't think you can either. Prove me wrong.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks FIRST : I don´t deny Evolution neither Natural Selection.
SECOND: I am not a Creationist but an anti-darwinist.
metacosmos 1 year ago
@metacosmos
Alright. But I think you mean to say you're against social darwinists. If you just add the "social" then I think more people will be on board with you. But you accuse Dawkins (and many biologists and people in general) of being social darwinists just for accepting that evolution happens. That's not only hasty, it's also idiotic.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks You haven´t read carefully my video, where I say clearly that the US citizens are SOCIAL DARWINISTS.
The problem is not that Dawkins and most of you darwinist biologists were Social Darwinists, the problem is that the people that read your books turn Social Darwinists after reading them !
metacosmos 1 year ago
@metacosmos
"You haven´t read carefully my video, where I say clearly that the US citizens are SOCIAL DARWINISTS."
You also use just darwinist to describe Dawkins and you claim he's a nazi. Plus you just came here to my video, which concerns evolution (not social darwinism) and plugged your ridiculous video.
"The problem is not that Dawkins and most of you darwinist biologists were Social Darwinists(...)"
I would say most of us aren't.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks I do advertisement of my video in your page as it is permitted by You Tube.
My ridiculous video is the video of someone that is fed up with nazi biologists like you.
metacosmos 1 year ago
@metacosmos
"I do advertisement of my video in your page as it is permitted by You Tube."
No, I let you plug your video out of my own sheer goodwill. It's my channel and I can remove anything I want. I'm just not a fan of censorship. Even if your video and comments are asinine and slanderous.
"My ridiculous video is the video of someone that is fed up with nazi biologists like you."
Is it because I'm a biologist or because I'm Norwegian? You claim that both are probable causes for being one.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks You are free to erase my comments, this is what You Tube allows.
You are not a nazi biologists because you are a Norge but because you have not answered not one of my argumentations on my video ( and books) and this is a tipical behaviour of a nazibiologist, i know the kind.
metacosmos 1 year ago
@metacosmos
"You are free to erase my comments, this is what You Tube allows."
But I won't. Your comments show how bigoted and moronic you are. And your video shows that you don't grasp the first thing about evolution or indeed philosophy.
"You are not a nazi biologists because you are a Norge but because you have not answered not one of my argumentations on my video"
I have refuted your claims that Dawkins is a nazi, a taxonomist, and that he claims to know everything. Want more?
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@metacosmos
"(...)the problem is that the people that read your books turn Social Darwinists after reading them !"
That's THEIR problem, not mine. Shall we also burn all physiology books because people could read them and learn ways to inflict the most pain on people? How about burning all medical knowledge because drugs are bad? You can't blame knowledge itself for its most evil/misguided applications. When it comes to evolution, you're conflicting is with ought, Mr. Philosopher.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks it is your problem because you and all the biologists have an enourmous influence on the current people, this is the reason why Darwinism has been used pollitically since 1880.
The conflict is/ought is very important in Philosophy but in my argumentations it is well used.
metacosmos 1 year ago
@metacosmos
"it is your problem because you and all the biologists have an enourmous influence on the current people"
You have failed to show that biologists are responsible for any kind of racist movement. What you posit (in your video comment section) is in fact much more racist than any modern textbook in biology. I'm Norwegian therefore probably a Nazi?? You just excuse yourself by going on about how it's not down to race but society. Whatever the cause, it is generalizing, and not valid.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks The issue is not if the biologists are responsible of some racist movement but if the biologists are responsible of the epoch we live in actually, and they are, because Social Darwinism is the ideology of our epoch since late XIX century.
metacosmos 1 year ago
@metacosmos
"The issue is not if the biologists are responsible of some racist movement but if the biologists are responsible of the epoch we live in actually, and they are, because Social Darwinism is the ideology of our epoch since late XIX century."
Give me specific racist events or tendencies that are caused by modern biologists. I'm tired of you parroting the accusation in vagueness all the time. Put up or shut up.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@metacosmos
"this is the reason why Darwinism has been used pollitically since 1880."
And physiology and medicine has also been used/misunderstood/misapplied to the detriment of people. I have already explained this and you have not refuted it.
"The conflict is/ought is very important in Philosophy but in my argumentations it is well used."
No, it isn't explained in your video at all. I’m the one to bring it up.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks By the way, Aristotle has been miused a lot too and Adam Smith, and Marx, and Alfred Marshall and almost all the important wise men but the difference is that we philosophers know it but you biologists love it.
The conflict is/ ought is present too in all the books of the darwinists, as they claim that Life MUST be a struggle for the survival of the fittests.
metacosmos 1 year ago
@metacosmos
"The conflict is/ ought is present too in all the books of the darwinists, as they claim that Life MUST be a struggle for the survival of the fittests."
No. Dawkins has refuted this himself (google "Harris versus Dawkins, modern day Euthyphro dilemma "). So much for your nazi biologist.
I just found out that you have marked some of my comments as spam in your video comment section. You have done the same to other youtubers, too it seems. You're a fucking coward.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks I am a lover of no censorship as much as you are, not one of the comments has been erased by me.
The Euthyphro dylemma is in Ethics : we must say that if an event happens it must happen( is / ought) ? ALL the people incurs in this falacy, even Dawkins and other darwinists that, ashamed by the use of Darwin done by the Social Darwinists, try to wash their guiltiness by saying that "the survival of the fittest is not the rule in Neo-darwinism", when you have turned Life exactly that.
metacosmos 1 year ago
@metacosmos
"I am a lover of no censorship as much as you are"
What?? I haven't censored anything.
"not one of the comments has been erased by me."
Did you mark them as spam? That's what I accused you of. Not deletion.
The rest of your comment makes no sense. I give you a clear reference to Dawkins denying the ought of natural selection and you in turn string together some words that are supposed to make a coherent sentence, like the ramblings of a crazy person. I think we're done here.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Yes, it is time to end this farce, you haven´t read "Euthyphro" book from Plato and neither my books
I haven´t marked as spam none of the comments on my page, I don´t know who did it.
Funny that Dawkins denies that Evolution ought to be a struggle for survival when Darwinism consists exactly on this.
You biologists love to accusse others of "crazy rumbling incoherent people" without knowing you a word on Philosophy!
metacosmos 1 year ago
@metacosmos
"you haven´t read "Euthyphro" book from Plato and neither my books"
Correct.
"I haven´t marked as spam"
Okay. My apologies, then.
"Dawkins denies that Evolution ought to be a struggle for survival when Darwinism consists exactly on this."
No, it doesn't. You continue to demonstrate that you don't have a clue about evolution. So why should I listen to your inane rants about it?
I accuse you of rambling because that sentence didn't make a lick of sense. Don't blame ME for that.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Please say what do you understand by Darwinism.
The article on Dawkins and Harris and Euthryphro is a loss of time, nothing interesting in it.
We know since many decades ago that Neo-darwinists say the Selfish Gen is amoral without any caring on humans,and that Neo-darwinists are for philantropy among humans , the problem is that real life remains Social Darwinist !
Nobody listen to them, everybody believes he is stronger than the others and he must survive.
metacosmos 1 year ago
@metacosmos
"what do you understand by Darwinism."
I mostly respond to people who use that label because they have a problem with evolution and try to equivocate evolution with a philosophy or world view. Also there are various historical meanings of the word, so I just avoid altogether.
The article shows that Dawkins refutes the notion that natural selection is an ought. He is no nazi.
"the problem is that real life remains Social Darwinist !"
You object to reality? Good luck with that.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Do you love Life in our time be a fight where only the strongest survive?
This is what your countrymen of 3.000 years ago believed!
I will tell you what I understand by Darwinism: a theory of the materialistic Greek philosophers, rewritten again by Darwin in the XIX century because there was a demand in Victorian British Empire for such a theory, racist, imperialistic, militarist and deeply barbarian.
metacosmos 1 year ago
@metacosmos
Things you have yet to demonstrate:
-That I am a nazi
-That Scandinavians are nazis
-That Dawkins is a nazi (or a taxonomist, or that he believes he knows all for that matter)
-That biologists in your country are nazis
-That you understand evolution (you clearly don't)
-That biologists are to blame for any nazi movement or tendency in society now or ever.
So what's left for me to say? All you do is throw vague claims without ANYTHING to back it up with, despite several requests.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks I have demonstrated that you could be a nazi because you don´t listen
Scandinavians are related to the nazis because their old religion of war, Dawkins is a suspected nazi because he poses as the Perfect Darwinist of our time,he is a taxonomist because describes parts of the DNA and believes this explains what is Life, the biologists and the right party in Spain are still nazis as they were in Franco regime,
darwinists biologists are to blame of the use by nazism of Darwinism,
metacosmos 1 year ago
@metacosmos
"you could be a nazi because you don´t listen"
Face/palm
"Scandinavians (...) because their old religion of war"
I have refuted this crap on several counts. Seems more like you're the non-listening nazi here.
"Dawkins (..) because he poses as the Perfect Darwinist"
Huh?? Writing "because" in the middle of a sentence does not mean you have demonstrated anything.
"taxonomist because describes parts of the DNA and believes this explains what is Life"
That does not a taxonomist make.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Nazis don't listen argumentations, they only repeat once and once again their creed : Darwinism.
Scandinavians turned Christians by the XI century, just a few minutes ago ...
Dawkins sells himself as the Only Real Darwinist of our time but he is only the most fanatical Darwinist ever.
A taxonomist enumerates and describes parts of the living beings, this is a taxonomist, a philosopher explains why there are Life and Man.
metacosmos 1 year ago
@metacosmos
Concede that I am right about my points or refute them. Let's take one at a time. Either concede that Dawkins is not a taxonomist by any stretch of the imagination, or demonstrate that he is. So far you have not progressed beyond the argument you make in your video: that he "describes part of the DNA and believes this explains what is Life". I have responded to this claim. You have not responded to my refutation. You just blather on like I never wrote anything. Last chance now.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks I don' t mind if it is my last chance, the only reason I answer your posts is to avoid your strategy of leaving me as a stupid one, an usual strategy of the darwinist biologists, I have met this before.
Never waited something from you, you are a barbarian and a fanatical darwinist as many people are in your country but it is not your fault, you cannot be otherwise , it is in your genes !
metacosmos 1 year ago
@metacosmos
"I answer your posts is to avoid your strategy of leaving me as a stupid one"
How ironic then that your posts is the very thing that leaves you looking stupid. You don't know squat about evolution or Dawkins, you have ZERO evidence to back up your wild claims, and you can barely string together words.
"it is in your genes !"
So you DO think that Scandinavians as a distinct genetic group is categorically racist? The irony is at this point palpable.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks I begin to suspect that you are not a scientist. Either way, so long.
Until never.
metacosmos 1 year ago
@metacosmos
"I begin to suspect that you are not a scientist. Either way, so long."
You could not concede to the merest little mistake of getting wrong what a taxonomist is or does. Even that was too much for your ego to handle. I asked you 3 times to either concede or refute, and you failed to do either. And now you're running away with your tail between your legs. I pity your juvenile mind.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@metacosmos
"A taxonomist enumerates and describes parts of the living beings, this is a taxonomist"
No. A taxonomist classifies species according to their evolutionary origins. I have already explained this in the comment section of your video. You have ignored it. But I'm the non-listening nazi?? Either concede or refute, damn it!
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks A taxonomist is not only a biologist but everyone that classifies things.
Dawkins classifies the parts of the DNA and this is all he knows to do.
metacosmos 1 year ago
@metacosmos
"A taxonomist is not only a biologist but everyone that classifies things."
While anyone can conduct research into different fields, the profession itself is reserved for those that are educated in the field. If I conduct research into geology I am not automatically a geologist. Same with taxonomy and taxonomist. And you STILL have not conceded or refuted my correction of your idea of taxonomy. Pathetic.
"Dawkins classifies the parts of the DNA and this is all he knows to do."
BS.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Read better a mathematician called William Demsbki, he looks for a better theory than Darwinism I as do.
metacosmos 1 year ago
@metacosmos
"Read better a mathematician called William Demsbki,"
Haha! Dembski fails miserably to apply the most basic rules for calculating probability. He even chickened out of giving "expert" testimony the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in 2005. He is a joke.
"he looks for a better theory than Darwinism I as do."
Um, you said you accept evolution. Were you just lying when you wrote that, or have you been convinced of creationism in the span of a few days? Lulz.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@metacosmos So basically you are saying truth is of no importance in this discussion and is superseded by the reaction humans will have to the information in question?
KevinLounsberry 1 year ago
@KevinLounsberry Truth changes each decade and each century according to the interests of the ruling class and the philosophers that control de Departments of Philosophy at the Universities.
metacosmos 1 year ago
@metacosmos If it changes, it was never truth to begin with. An opinion cannot change reality. So what are we talking about here? Are we talking about what's actually real and truthful, or are we talking about whether or not what's real and truthful should be revealed as truth and reality?
KevinLounsberry 1 year ago
Won't work. They don't understand Logic.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Love it Love it love it:-D genialt:-) Og elsker at du smiler rått mens du sier siste setningen:-)
meg2ri 1 year ago
@meg2ri
Hi hi. Takker. Kommer snart ut mer om dette; del 2 av "creationism and falsifiability".
smaakjeks 1 year ago
good video, the same question can apply for evolutionists.
Answerquestions1 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1
Thanks. What question do you mean applies to "evolutionists"?
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks
well the same questions, ask evolutionist if they understand creation, what evidance would convince then that ID is true and/or that evolution is true, and is evolution science. there is ignorance in both sides, not just in the evolutionist side
Answerquestions1 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1
Sure thing. Many say they believe evolution happens without knowing what it is. People can be right for the wrong reasons.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@Answerquestions1 You would likely need to rephrase the questions, but you are correct, they really just ensure the debator(s) are not ignorant of the debate's topic and also establish terms of surrender and those are the foundation of any good debate.
KevinLounsberry 1 year ago
Since you can't define evolution, then what the fuck is your problem?
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is very good: "You are a nut job as all Evodelusionists are. You surrendered up your logic and reason to be a member of the bulshit artists who are all dumb as can be. How the fuck did you allow this shit to control you? When you surrender to other people's bullshit, they own you and you gladly take this shit as if it elevates you. Dumb asses like you will be mocked and made fun of just like the fools who believed the world was flat." Answer this question.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
to be a creationist you have to have faith in God. but if you believe in evoloution, how did the monkeys get here for us to evolve?
WarriorsVolleyball 1 year ago
@WarriorsVolleyball
All life evolved and continues to evolve. You MIGHT call our earlier ancestors monkeys if you go far enough back, but understand that MODERN monkeys were not our ancestors. Sort of how many Americans have ancestors that came from England, yet English people living today are not their ancestors. If your question is really "How did life start" then that's a different subject from evolution.
smaakjeks 1 year ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evodelusionism is a slippery religion that you follow. It is hidden in a lot of pseudo science bullshit. If you can't see that, you are fucked. It is obvious to me as plain as can be. But because you are brainwashed and lost in human emotional bullshit, there is no hope for you to get free, because you actually think you know something. You don't know you.
Thus you are fucked in the head, full of pride. I have no religion, and I will not take on yours and become infected in shit beliefs.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou
Okay. There's no hope for me. You go on without me. Save yourself from the world conspiracy of biologists who wish to turn us all to the dark side with their mind control powers.
smaakjeks 1 year ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@smaakjeks It is not conspiracy. It is ignorance, mind fucked humans and their dumb ass religions they make up and call science. This shit has, historically, been going on for thousands of years. You are simply a product of brainwashing. I pity weak minded people like you, who are lost in ignorance. You IGNORE what is right in front of you and choose to project fantasy on life.
You are normal as dirt.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
@GoodScienceForYou
Yes, yes. I'm a brainwashed, fantasizing parrot with a weak penis. I have your pity and I will cherrish it always. Go away, please. You know what I request of you, and until you provide it I have nothing more to add. Neither do you it seems, apart from uninspired insults. You can keep posting them if it gives you the jollies, but I'll be ignoring them.
smaakjeks 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@smaakjeks Grab a hold of your balls and take them back from the fucking delusional assholes you surrendered to . You are a fucking closed minded fool.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@smaakjeks It is just one dumb ass religion calling itself science, vs another faith based region. That is your problem that you need to overcome. Arguing creationism vs evodelusionism is not an argument for anything. Don't you fucking know that? What a fucking moron. You do not have any answers any more than they do. Shit for brains.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Creation VS Evolution is NOT an argument FOR anything. It is a bullshit smoke screen to avoid looking at this pseudo science critically, and with objective awareness. When you are subjected to peer pressure, cultural pressure and brainwashed believers all around you, if you are weak minded, you will cave to dumb ass religious beliefs in Evodelusionism.
GoodScienceForYou 1 year ago
This is entirely biased. No underunhanded tech? First I am in science. 2nd I find your elaborations unsettling. 3. You cannot be a true scientists. We have to look at ALL the evidence. PERIOD. 4. You so discount God in the equation. Why is that? Because you are an atheist. 5 My studies show that there is no facts, no hard evidence to prove evolution. 6. Still just a theory.
Prof2You 1 year ago
@Prof2You
Your studies? What does that mean? And what does "I am in science" mean? You're no scientist.
All of science discounts gods from the equation. If you disagree, then please provide me with a scientific explanatory model or hypothesis that includes gods. All credible scientists discount gods from their work because gods are unfalsifiable. If you were a scientist, you would know what that word means. You would also know why it's retarded to use the "just a theory" argument.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
First you do not know me. Your statement that I am not a scientist is a lie. Why? Because I don't agree with you? Perfect example of academic bias. You resent me calling you biased. You are the one who put this trash out there. You create a subversive argument than one on the facts. Evolution has not been a proven fact. PERIOD and if you are really into this, you should know that. You need to re-read the meaning of empirical evidence.
Prof2You 1 year ago
@Prof2You
Reasons I suspect you're not a scientist:
1) You said evolution is "just a theory"
2) You think supernatural entities have a place in science
3) Your syntax does not suggest higher education
But okay, how about some references to studies you have done? That will sure show me, since I'm just a post grad working on my masters degree in behavioural biology.
You have not managed to point out any bias or subversive arguments in my video. You have merely asserted that there are. Lame.
smaakjeks 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I am not a scientist because I said evolution is a theory? Why? Is it because I disagree with your opinion? What is science? It's it exclusionary only to itself? Can someone not have a differing opinion? I was taught that all opinions are valid until disproven. This was the HALLMARK of true science. Think about that statement. It's BIASED. My point has been made. To your point in your video, you are not worth the time.
Prof2You 1 year ago
@Prof2You
Jesus weapt...
The theory of evolution is a theory, I don't disagree with that. What you're saying is that it's "JUST a theory", using the colloquial word meaning guesswork, instead of the scientific meaning of theory, which is an explanatory model. Like the theory of gravity or germ theory, or atomic theory. When you say that evolution is just a theory and is not fact yet, you're demonstrating your own scientific illiteracy.
smaakjeks 1 year ago 2
@Prof2You
Oh, and to remind you.... You have yet to point out any bias in my video (that I have not already conceded) and you have not pointed out how my video contains underhanded debating tactics. Also, you have not mentioned a single study you have published, nor have you mentioned any model or or hypothesis in science that implements gods. You're all bark and no bite, prof.
Sure, one can be dissenting from any and all ideas. The key is to be able to support them. Otherwise they're useless.
smaakjeks 1 year ago 2
@smaakjeks
FYI - This is typical atheistic response. Attack the person. I do know what unfalsifiable means. Calling me names and not listening to the facts, shows that you have not done much research into this matter. Let me know when you are ready for your doctoral theisis and maybe I can help. I need to get back to class. BTW - My Prof during my masters said this, "science that discounts any theory, stops being science and becomes politics.' Great motto to live by.
Prof2You 1 year ago
@Prof2You
I haven't called you names. Anything negative that I have said about you is demonstrable on account of your own comments. So, it's not really insult, is it. What facts have you put out? You have just made assertion after assertion without backing up anything. I've made several requests and you just ignored every single one.
So, I suppose your prof. wants to keep the doors open on the concept of a flat earth, and a geocentric universe? We should conduct research into those ideas?
smaakjeks 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show