Just the fact that they called it ''Darwinism'' is a sure sign this is bull shit.
''Darwinism'' is a theory that is 150 years out of date. We know Darwin was wrong about some things, like gradualism, he did not know about the 6 great mass extinctions that happened on the earth.
@gregrutz tell that to Gould and others who have used the word "Darwinist" in a neutral or positive sense, in recent decades, not just "150 years ago". But recently too. Check also Wikipedia too etc etc etc. It's also called "NEO-Darwinism". But it's the overall theory of "descent with modification causing bigger changes over time", blah blah. Yeah, Darwin has been a bit of embarrassment to more honest NEO-Darwinists, but Darwin is like an old silly uncle that they can't get rid of.
@sweetmikser Wikipedia ''While the term has remained in use amongst scientific authors, it has increasingly been argued that it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory''
''In the United States, the term "Darwinism" is often used by creationists as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as atheistic naturalism''
Proving Darwin wrong will not prove evoltuion does not happen.
@gregrutz uh, yes, I already read that in the past, but try reading other parts of the article. The point is that "Darwinism" or "Darwinist" was NEVER originally a Creationist term or slur or invention, but a term coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1860, in a POSITIVE sense. By a Darwinist himself. And has been used throughout the decades in either a positive or neutral sense, by people such as Gould and others. (And "NEO-Darwinist") It's whatever. Get over it, and stop whining about it.
@DieFatorLiveThin nothing substantive or meaningful to say or to refute or challenge the actual specific points and issues in the video....but just juvenile jerkiness and childish barf.... Showing that the "perfect troll" is the silly brat goofball who wrote that comment in the first place. Anyway, I don't have time now...as I'm busy with other things (for real...) and I've been on the merry-go-round with you Darwinist ding-bats quite a bit already. Though some are not as stupid as others...
@Evid3nc3 you're funny...Darwinist drones ALWAYS "appeal to authority", as a neurotic habit and pastime. As well as argumentum ad populum. With their "errgh, peer-reviewed", and their "erggh, over 95% of scientists accept evolution." Then when a video comes out (a little thing like this) simply mentioning that THERE ARE SOME DISSENTERS...who are degreed biologists, chemists, paleontologists, etc...who don't buy Darwinian speculation and myth, you hypocritically barf "errgh appeal to authority."
@sweetmikser Because it is an appeal to authority. It's already been demonstrated that the amount of scientists that do not believe in evolution are in such a minority they are almost negligible, so when you point out, "There are scientists who disagree!" in reality...that means absolutely nothing. The Dissent from Darwinism list includes a bunch of biologists who DO actually believe in evolution, and have tried to get their names off of the list. It's all one big fallacy.
@BigLundi thanks for hypocritically appealing to authority yourself while somehow denouncing "appeal to authority." lol. Darwinist drone-tards (such as yourself) are NOTORIOUS appealers to authority, to the point of insufferable nausea and dementia. You commit TWO fallacies at once...appeal to authority AND appeal to majority. Pathetically. As if that somehow settles the matter. Appealing to biased group think. Also, yes amino acids...RNA. BUT NO CODE. I said to check out the Abiogenesis video.
@BigLundi you're ridiculous. You don't even SEE that you're doing it. (sighs...and double facepalm). You were NOT just stating that "scientists that disagree means nothing." You ALSO said "the amount of scientists that do not believe in evolution are in such a minority they are almost negligible"...you appealed at the very least TO MAJORITY... The old "errghh, 95% of scientists accept evolution" arf arf. Or "99%" or whatever you think it is. But here's the problem...see my next comment...
@BigLundi (2) again THE ACTUAL MERITS AND SPECIFIC DETAILS of ANYONE'S presentation, argument, analysis, and deduction are the MAIN things that should be considered...otherwise you fall too into the trap of "argumentum ad verecundiam..." Appeal to authority type nonsense. (Very DRONE-ISH) But EVEN SO, they have played the game to a large extent IN EVEN GETTING DEGREES IN THEIR FIELDS. Not everyone can do that. But regardless...the SPECIFIC MERITS of their arguments are to be considered...
@BigLundi (3rd) inconsistently DEMANDING AND ASKING for "sources" and "who are your references and biologists?" who think or say such and such, THEN WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO? A lot of times you guys are ASKING for quotes and references and back-ups etc. Then when quotes or references are provided, by either degreed biologists or scientists who doubt Darwinian "super-macro"myths, or even struggling Darwinists, I get this crap of "quote mine!" or "he's not published" or "argument from authority."
@BigLundi (4th) also...man...again...I said twice now, please click the "Abiogenesis" video that is posted right on this page....and see a thing on "Miller-Urey" as well as the other failed and pathetic experiments...by desperate fanatics over the decades. If "Miller-Urey" is the best people like you can drum up to somehow (uh) "prove" life from dead chemicals and soup, then you're in trouble. Click the link, and see the video points. Good stuff... And leave your thoughts if you want.
@sweetmikser Miller Urey didn't fail. The fact that you seem to be passing yourself off as some sort of expert on the field(in that your commentary on these experiments should be considered an actual argument against them) leads me to ask you what your credentials are. I've looked at a few of your videos, and all I see are commentary on how you think evolution is wrong, but no actual evidence. In fact, I've seen you be BLATANTLY incorrect about things, like ERV's.
@BigLundi bring your comment to the actual ABIOGENESIS video...sir. And I'll address you there on that topic. please...thanks. click the link. It's right here.
And I "looked 'em up, kiddies." Guess what? Almost all of the names and quotes you mention, when googled, only bring up one site: yours on MySpace. Not just quote mining - you're making it up from whole cloth. Don't like being called a liar? Then stop lying.
@Xenophile665 none of this was "made up." Like those book titles in the video. Just cuz some of the names are obscure (you notice that Gish and Behe aren't here), some of them, does not mean they do not exist or I "made them up." You're cute though for finding my MySpace blog from the past. By the way, if you wanna see other quotes, REAL INTERESTING DISTURBING STUFF, see my other video "Surprising Quotes About Darwinian Evolution." It's on the video response section on this page.
At 4:04 "Rudolf Otto said, 'Darwinian evolution is theoretically worthless.'" Of course, he did, what do you expect from a someone who got his PhD in Christian theology in the 19th century?
And at 4:22 STRAWMAN alert: Abiogenesis is NOT evolution through natural selection, Einstein.
@Xenophile665 it's NOT a "strawman" in that whether you idiotically deny that "Abiognesis" has at least something to do with "Evolution", IT'S WHAT YOU BELIEVE AND HOLD FAITH TO MORONICALLY AND UN-SCIENTIFICALLY. Also, Einstein, you think I never heard of the old stupid gas and cop-out of "errghh, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution" arf arf? lol... But it IS at least RELATED, biologically, presumably, in that something "dead" would have to "evolve" into something living. CHEMICALLY.
@sweetmikser Abiogensis actually is scientific. It's been demonstrated to be a statistical possibility as to the explanation of how life arose on earth. Deny it all you want, Miller Urey is but one of many many experiments that has demonstrated this.
@BigLundi OMG, you're even worse of a drone than I thought. You actually (pathetically and in dumb lock-step) barfed up (lol) uh "Miller-Urey"? You need to see my two "Abiogenesis" videos. Especially the "Abiogenesis - see the failed experiments." Miller-Urey is NONSENSE. Only three amino acids (under CONTROLLED CONDITIONS). They can't even produce a virus. No DNA, no MANTLE...NO CODE...no life. FAIL. But keep touting that desperate example. See the video..it's posted on this page...
"Religious discrimination" is why creationism isn't taught in schools? Sorry, you're wrong.
First of all, creationism IS taught in schools. Genesis, the Norse creation story, the Greek, the Hindu - I was taught about all of these, and more, in school. In Humanities courses.
However, you won't find it in Science classes in school. Why? "I'll tell you why:" because it is not science.
@Xenophile665 the problem, kiddo, is that you can't grasp the fact that Darwinian "macro" myths are not true "science" either, if that's the case. But rather just neurotic myth and SPECULATION.....masquerading as "science." And straw-men like urrghh "bacterial resistance" (pathetic laughable junk) and "E.Coli" or "variations" or "adaptations" and "finch beaks" are STRAW-MEN and EVASIONS. Anyway, I don't have time for you right now..... As I'm busy. Check my other video...if you want.
@Philosophier121 yeah, most are the same.......but if you hear all the videos, some are a bit different. Like if you go to "Atheist and Darwinist Logical Fails - Part One" as an example. Also, go to "Ape-Man Lineages", the music in that one is TOTALLY different.
How about a list of prominent theists and christian scientists who support speciation through evolution? Let's start with your old chum Michael Behe, we also have Francis Collins, Theodore Dobzhansky, Joan Roughgarden (worthy of a mention for her name alone!), Francisco Ayala, Asa Grey (i'm claiming him for my list, as far as i am aware he never outright rejected, but embraced darwinian evolution).. we also have the archbishops of york and canterbury, and the pope (not familiar with US clergy)
@lo2enge ok, bro, listen........let's be cool. I'll say it again.......to avoid all confusion. I BELIEVE AND ACCEPT A LOT OF THE STUFF YOU ACCEPT AND BELIEVE, actually.......BUT I JUST DON'T CALL IT "DARWINIAN EVOLUTION", GET IT? Meaning, modifications, variations, adaptations, alleles, natural selection, etc.....are all proven science and empirical.....with me so far? BUT BUT BUT....I cannot and will not accept this "SUPER MACRO" EVOLUTION THEORY...cuz that's NOT real "science" anymore.
@sweetmikser Yes, fair enough... and the only theists i have a with problem with are YECs. However you seem like a sound enough chap, and i am explaining this from a genuine desire to get you see that rejection of (supermacro-) speciation isn't a strict adherence to the scientific method, it is in fact merely you clinging to the last vestiges of an argument from incredulity. The evidence of common descent is plain - you're sitting in it. Our own bodies can only be explain this way.
@lo2enge no, actually rejected mainly for SCIENTIFIC REASONS. Yes, there are "modifications" and "variations" and "adaptations" and even "natural selection"...all that is basically empirical. But that's all WITHIN basic animal kinds and species. Bacteria remain bacteria, and moths remain moths, etc.... I accept observable and testable facts. But I cannot and will not accept mythical "ape-men" or "super macro" scenarios. Because that's NOT real "science" anymore. But just myth and speculation.
In fact, in trying to verify the veracity of many of these quotes, the only corroborating source i could find was this: myspace[dot]com/thegabbypost/blog
Look familiar?
Might i point out, if that is your blog, you posted an hideously simplified definition of "Ochman's" (sic) razor.
I worship nothing and no-one, if convincing scientific evidence and sound inductive reasoning is put forward to actually support an assertion, hypothesis or theory i will consider it, naturally - it is exciting to discover what we knew was wrong and the truth far more wild and wonderful. The thing is, i have never once seen a creationist theory that fulfils that simple criterion, but darwinian evolution does it in spades.
(also, including rudolf otto as a scientist is obviously disingenuous)
To teach the scientifically supported secular story of speciation is religious discrimination (despite saying NOTHING about religion at all) but to teach christian creationism to all children in america would be the opposite? Oh dear. I'm afraid, if you want to be inclusionist about teaching unsubstantiated philosophical leanings in science, you'd have to include the entire gamut of creation myths, which would leave no room for practical, useful science at all.
@lo2enge it teaches WAY MORE than just "speciation"...(bait and switch) but unverified and unverifiable (in and out of fossils and even in or out of blood, DNA is incredibly complicated, and even with reshuffling is still fixed, even with variations and adaptations, finches remain finches, cats remain cats, frogs remain frogs, at a certain point, empirically, the DNA code and barrier does not get breached...families remain constant) "SUPER MACRO" MYTHS and SPECULATIONS...passed off as "science."
The first selection of names (plus Vogt, Wasmann, Kellogg and Seward) are mostly much too old to take into consideration the enormous weight of genetic evidence.
What the hell is Wallace doing in this list?
As far as i can tell, Weisz and Eimer support the theory of speciation throughevolution.
Recapitulation has been debunked, however to claim embryos are never anthropoid is bizarre. We ARE anthropoids.. are you sure you read that correctly?
@sweetmikser I know that some people think the universe is infinite, but that is not what I claimed. I have watched it, but discrediting evolution does not by default make creationism true, as other possibilities do exist some that no one has ever thought of before. It would be impossible to disprove every variation of every possibility (existent or not) leaving only creationism to be true. If your goal is to disprove evolution this is fine, but to prove creationism your argument does nothing.
@johnspikeblood bro....if you saw it again, COMMENT THERE ON THAT....I'd like an answer (or some comment) on how bird bones are hollow and thin (with special "stiffeners" for flight) whereas reptile bones are sold and thick with no stiffeners, and why no fossil evidence indicates how that happened. (As one example). Please don't answer here...but comment there. "Problematic Differences". The vid is in the video response section on this page. Leave your thoughts on that video page. Thanks.
@sweetmikser No, what you're referring to is the change observed, you're then trying to extrapolate that the change observed must be the only change that can occur.
1: Random mutations occur continuously
2: These mutations occur genome wide
3: These mutations accumulate over time
Which of those is inaccurate? Because everything in genetics so far indicates they're entirely accurate.
@NephelimFree it's inaccurate and just SPECULATION that these minor changes and reshufflings, that are ALLOWED within fixed DNA code, would ever produce these so-called "macro" or "super macro" scenarios of major groups ever arising from other major groups. DID YOU EVEN SEE THIS WHOLE VIDEO HERE? Some of the quotes (by PhDs and biologists who are "dissenters" against this entrenched myth) show that. There is no real proof in or out of fossils or blood to show true "major evolutionary" anything.
@NephelimFree hence why I say you're a drone...(a cute drone, for sure..) "ERVs" huh? never mind the evidence that viruses are known to work in targeting the same location in different species IN SEPARATE INFECTIONS. (One proven explanation, dismissed by Darwinist fanatics, who go by their own biases in interpreting the data, cuz of WANTING this junk to be true)...or the other explanation that viruses are known to move around, and not everything is fully known about the mysterious genome.
@NephelimFree listen bro....I have TWO "ERV" videos....that go into the "proof".... Like in lemur genomes... and also in humans a virus called "Murine Leukemia virus"... Check em out. One of them is posted on my video response section on this page...."ERVs - Highly Specific in SEPARATE INFECTIONS."
@sweetmikser By source I mean an actual peer reviewed article pertaining to the claim made, not just referring to the same claim made by the same person.
@sweetmikser You can't just give the links to the relevant articles here? Even if there are a handful that have particular insertion points, we know many don't so this would be confirmation bias even if true
@NephelimFree Faith leads to good works. In the end you'll be judged on how you treat other people. If an Atheist follows Christ's will, they will find themselves in Paradise compared to a hypocritical Christian who does not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
That has absolutely NOTHING to do with science. It has to do with the Golden Rule.
The mountains of factual evidence supporting evolution negates the assertions of this video. Quotations (most likely out of context) do not constitute evidence against any particular theory, including the theory of evolution.
@DialecticKaos there's no "mountain" or even a hill of actual empirical "evidence" for what I'M REFERRING TO by the term "evolution." Citing pathetic junk like "E.Coli" is just desperate STRAW-MAN and evasions. Adaptations are NOT what's argued against. Also, the fossils do NOT support this "macro" myth AT ALL...(crucial in-between developments of this supposed evolutionary "chain" are missing ALL THE TIME....every where) DNA does NOT "prove" common "ape-men" either. Families still stay fixed.
@sweetmikser You're the one that sounds "desperate". I'll go with science, the same science that allows you to make your ignorant rants on the internet via your pc. You can stick with your bible stories, if that's what works for you.
@DialecticKaos you say and bring nothing specific here, but just make general (typical) arrogant and deluded statements, about what you THINK is "science". The problem is that Darwinian "macro" (or what's been called "super macro") evolution is NOT "science." Nor "ape-men". SPECULATION is NOT "science". And neither is force-fitting vague scattered and meager fossils, for neurotic agendas. Neither is ignoring problematic data. Nor is EXAGGERATING the "evidence." Bacteria remain bacteria..etc.
@NephelimFree and your point is? that proves mine.....no matter how many adaptations, variations, modifications, or "mutations", or generations.....DOMAINS STILL REMAIN FIXED....The DNA barrier at a certain point does not get breached. Families remain constant. So those "variations" WITHIN groups is just a Darwinist dumbbell pathetic STRAW-MAN...and EVASION. Mythical "ape-men" are not proven simply cuz E.Coli can adapt to citrate. (...yawn) SPECULATION is NOT "science." Wake up.
@sweetmikser You had no point, your argument was "Since we don't see bacteria becoming eukarya in a human lifetime, then evolutionary theory is wrong"
That would actually disprove evolution immediately.
'The DNA barrier'
What barrier? What is the genetic structure which prevents mutations from continually occurring and accumulating?
Yes, we understand by now, you have to attempt to dismiss out of hand the real science while touting your willful ignorance.
@NephelimFree are all Darwinist drones cut from the same assembly line of stupidity? "What barrier?" you ask? The barrier that is proven over and over again, empirically, logically, and observationally....in and OUT of labs ALL THE TIME....and what I just described many times. NO MATTER HOW MANY "VARIATIONS" within families, or "adaptations", or even freak mutations, cats remain cats, birds remain birds, fish remain fish, and the same for polar bears and fruit flies. Families remain CONSTANT.
@sweetmikser Yes, I understand that that's you're assertion but do you have an actual mechanism that prevents continuous change or do you only have your misunderstanding that the change we see is all that occurs?
Because thus far your argument has been 'since we don't see infinite change in a short time frame, then change must be limited' when the only effective limit observed thus far is timescale.
@sweetmikser Disproving (attempting to) another theory does not prove your own theory, Creationism has the burden of proof. Science is an on going process, based on the empirical evidence which has been studied, predictions are made then as more evidence arrives the theory changes in accordance with the new empirical evidence.
@johnspikeblood there's enough evidence to show that there's intelligent DIRECTION. From the solar systems in space to the eco-systems on earth...to the correct gases, proportions, ratios, distances.....and impossibly complicated DNA...IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE HAPPENED ALL BY ITSELF WITH NO GUIDING INTELLIGENCE OR DIRECTION....utterly mathematically scientifically impossible. Hence the point of "Creationism" is the broader INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Not necessarily espousing any one theology either.
@sweetmikser None of that is impossible, just improbable or maybe that shows that life is intelligent and managed to make do with the circumstances it was given, then evolved. Maybe life was floating around space and collected material to make an ideal world for itself to live on. It could be however that all that exist is an infinite mass of energy that is dreaming and dreamed up this entire universe and that mass of energy is god. Science is not capable of dealing with things like this.
@johnspikeblood the universe is NOT "infinite" per se, but had a start...as even many Atheists admit. Number two...there are NOT "infinite possibilities" if it's scientifically impossible. Something that is scientifically impossible today will still be scientifically impossible a billion years from now, no matter how much "time" or "space" is given. So that argument is desperate, weak, and fails quickly. Cuz we're not just talking about the moon either...but MANY OTHER JUST SO THINGS AT ONCE.
@sweetmikser I did not say the universe was infinite, i said the universe was imagined by an infinite mass of energy, I never claimed there to be infinite possibilities that was a conclusion you can to based on a misinterpretation of what I said. I simply said nothing is impossible, not that everything exist. It is very improbable that everything exist in the way it does, but improbability does not mean scientific impossibility or intelligent design.
@johnspikeblood some Atheists have and DO say that....that the universe is "infinite" and with "infinite possibilities." Which is actually not really true. But anyway, my cute adorable friend......I asked you a number of times already to check out that other video again "list of problematic differences." And I don't know if you have already....I revamped it a bit....added TWO MORE differences, important ones, about bird bones and bird hearts....Check it out...and tell me what you think...
@sweetmikser To clarify what I meant by the statements in my post, science is a limited field and when concepts such as creationism to to fit into that field they fail. Do not blindly believe that science is an absolute truth or even deals with the truth. It could be true that you were born into a coma and your life has been a dream, you may not even be human, while this is unlikely it could very easily be true, but no amount of science could prove or disprove this.
@sweetmikser I think you misunderstand what i am trying to explain, not that creationism is wrong and science is right, but that science is too limited in what it is capable of studying. All I am trying to explain is that creationism cannot be taught, or mentioned in a science class because it is not science. It is not a bad thing that it isn't science, in fact it is a good thing.
@sweetmikser The intelligent designer would have to be able to be seen, heard, smelt, tasted, or touched, and must be able to be disproved in some way, you claim evolution does not adhere to these guidelines yet you offer a lot of empirical evidence against it, so it is able to be accepted by science because of it's falsifiability. If creationism were to adhere to this guideline, that would destroy faith in god (the designer) and replace it with facts and reasons. God could be dis-proven.
@sweetmikser To strengthen your argument I recommend that you avoid arguments which give false dilemmas where you show weaknesses in evolution theory and claim that if evolution is wrong, creationism must be right. There could be other possibilities. I would also recommend that you avoid any pseudoscience or attempting to use science at all because creationism is incompatible. Stick to using reason and sound inductive logic to support creationism not to disprove evolution.
@johnspikeblood God can't be "tested" in some box, tube, or lab, therefore it has to be dismissed, as even a possibility? Or just the general notion at least of INTELLIGENT DIRECTION even? But that's inconsistent in a way, because neither can lots of the junk that Darwinists espouse and hold to dogmatically. There's NO REAL SOLID UNAMBIGUOUS "PROOF" for "ape-man ancestors", not in the bones, nor in the blood... Nor in the womb...etc (Never mind "abiogenesis") Read quotes in video again.
@123columbo123 holy crap, you must be another childish Darwinist punk and drone-tard...if you have something specific and substantive to say to any points or statements in the video, then say it...but all you did was barf your typical Darwinist juvenile sarcasm and arrogant nonsense.... LOL. I KNOW what the arguments are, and also the BAIT-AND-SWITCH... and STRAW-MEN. No one argues against "modifications" or "adaptations." But "super macro" is NON-EMPIRICAL MYTH. Did you see the whole video?
@123columbo123 no, bro...I'm an OLD EARTH Creationist...NOT a Young Earth fundie. If you saw my other videos and many other comments, you would know that. I've debated Young Earth fanatics and protestants, and their sloppy misunderstanding and mis-reading of Genesis and not understanding original Hebrew. (another topic). I embrace REAL science. The earth is around 2-4 billion years old. And the Universe is between 10-15 billion years old. Something like that. MAN though is something else....
@sweetmikser Keep in mind I am not claiming that because god can not be tested means god should be dismissed. I am just claiming that science does not deal with things that can not be tested, so as a science it must be dismissed, but not whether it is true or not. It is possible to find an ape-man if one existed, it is not possible to find god if god does exist. There may not be any solid unambiguous proof of an ape man, but there is at least unsound ambiguous evidence, that is the difference.
@sweetmikser you say that you embrace real science, yet you fail to understand much of it. I don't want to get into an argument over but I would be happy to explain why you are wrong if needs be
@sweetmikser an ape-man could be proved or disproved, god by definition cannot that is what the empirical aspect of science means, the whole falsifiable aspect.
' NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism." '
Evolutionism is not science nor scientific. It's a fairytale for adults designed to trick the world into believing that man has no supernatural creator. Modern science has disproven everything about the horse-and-buggy days concept of evolution.
@NephilimFree Modern science has done no such thing you evrytime abuse the science to make it say something it does not, de docs you used as evidence for your case on further examination, always show the opposite of what you are claiming, real scientist have told you that but you just stick your fingers in your ears and keep chanting your mantra.
you keep using the horse and buggy statement as if it has any bearing on the idea, newton lived some 150 years earlier
@NephilimFree You can't stop lying can you? No wonder you don't believe in eternal hell, you must be secretly worried that Jesus might get mad at you for all your lying and hypocrisy, but no problem either way eh?
@NephilimFree Disregard that bit of retardation on my part, I actually understand that evolutionary theory is the only empirically supported explanation for the diversity of life on earth and that I'm only projecting the weakness of creation onto evolution.
@NephilimFree Modern evolutionary synthesis was born out of the time of nuclear weapons and the early days of the internet. Whereas your Bible comes from a time when sanitation was just beginning. Stop using this stupid-assed argument about when evolution first arose, because it's meaningless and petty. Evolution is science. It's demonstrated. Nothing contradicts it. Get a clue that no one cares about your message, since no one's seeking out your "knowledge."
@Toudiyamamamapapahumahama.............AHAHHHAAHHAA....whaaaaaaat a funny dumb name! evolution is just a speculation ya dumbo! Why can't your brain comprehend this? Was your brain manufactured in China? YES!!!
@ThickShades0 leviathon a transliterated hebrew word(levyathon) meaning twisted
I don't know why you took a picture of a dino to make your case you just could have show a picture of a Rhinoceros unicornis or indian rhino
the apolagetics do not agree upon what it really was, and old biblical depiction of it have an horselike animal with a horn on his head, where did the christians that made these get the idea from? not from atheists
@Toudiyama do you even know how the word "dino" came about? do you even know when the word is invented and what for? btw, stop your crapping and present your "case" other than your dumbass opinion.
@Toudiyama do you even know how to answer the questions? btw, do you know the difference between two, three horns and ONE HORN? do you know what UNI-CORN means? it's certainly not a type of corns. you see... because you couldn't replace your brain with silence, you were asked more questions. the questions that you should've known and had answers to. now, stop wasting my time and answer my questions or start elaborating your expertise of unicorn in the Bible pretty please with a cherry on top. ;)
@thickshadesSUB uhh, not sure what's up with this "unicorn" talk...but I gotta say that the Bible does NOT say "unicorn". The King James Bible has MIS-TRANSLATED the Hebrew word "re-em". "Re-em" does NOT mean "unicorn", but simply means "wild ox." You don't find the word "unicorn" in other English Bible translations (even older ones like the American Standard Version of 1901). There are NO mythical animals or "unicorns" in the Bible. According to the original Hebrew. The KJV is NOT infallible.
Darwinism is just a scientific theory, everything in science is just a theory and is never assumed true. The goal of science is to disprove old theories and replace them with a better supported one or to find more support for the existing theory. People often forget this about science, including some scientist.
Some of the quotes provided were very short leading me to believe that the individual's words may have been taken out of context. To my knowledge creationism is not taught in public schools because it would discriminate against other religions as well as separation of church and state. Imagine if your child came home from school believing Hinduism (or some other religion other than your own) because that is what his/her science class taught. It would be upsetting.
@johnspikeblood no, bro, I think you miss the point a little bit about "Creationism" and "public schools." I'm not advocating (and neither do most IDers) it being "taught" in schools as a "fact". But simply BROUGHT UP as a theory or view that simply EXISTS. NOT as a dogmatic fact, per se... Also, as far as "discriminating against other religions", most people don't advocate teaching Genesis Creation (either Young Earth or Old Earth views) necessarily. But ID in general, as A VIEW THAT EXISTS.
@sweetmikser Science classes teach the prevailing theory at the time, assuming the text books are not too outdated. Science is not either or in terms of theories, creationism is no longer a scientific theory but a theological theory. Science classes do not mention theories that are not relevant for example when learning about human anatomy they do not mention their is no way of knowing if all our senses actually exist thus the world is imaginary (Descartes). It is an existing theory as well.
@sweetmikser a theology or philosophy class would be the only appropriate place for this to be mentioned or taught regardless of whether or not Darwinism is true unless creationism becomes the widely accepted theory in the scientific community. The problem is science only cares about empirically provable theories. If something can not be dis-proven empirically means nothing to scientist. In addition to being empirical it must be systematic, causal, and tentative.
@johnspikeblood I agree that creationism shouldn't be taught. But saying that it shouldn't at least be discussed is a different issue. Most of the professors, if they were required to teach creationism, would most likely do nothing but scoff at it, so that would be completely pointless. But if we aren't allowed to teach creationism because it would discriminate then that means that we also shouldn't teach evolution, because that would be discriminating to every other religion too.
@SonnyDelight55 It could absolutely be taught as well as mentioned, just not in a science class teach it in a theology class. The creationist theory can not be made into a scientific theory, so there is no reason to teach it in a science class, but should defiantly be taught in theology.
@johnspikeblood you should see the book (either Kindle or hard-copy) "Signature in the Cell"...by Stephen C. Meyer...and the point too about how ID is misrepresented and misunderstood in the media, politicians, local school boards, and by knee-jerk Darwinist fanatics and Atheist drone-cattle. Not understanding or wanting to grasp that "Intelligent Design" can be aptly defended ON PURELY SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS. I know some Bible-bashing Agnostics who find Darwinism a CROCK...for scientific reasons.
@johnspikeblood you should see the book (either Kindle or hard-copy) "Signature in the Cell"...by Stephen C. Meyer...and the point too about how ID is misrepresented and misunderstood by the media, politicians, local school boards, and by knee-jerk Darwinist fanatics and Atheist drone-cattle. Not understanding or wanting to grasp that "Intelligent Design" can be aptly defended ON PURELY SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS. I know some Bible-bashing Agnostics who find Darwinism a CROCK...for scientific reasons.
@sweetmikser The term science is often throw around too loosely, creationism can not be classified as a scientific theory, however that does not make it an invalid theory. Science must be empirical (directly observable), be systematic (choose topic, identify a problem, research the problem, develop a hypothesis, design a research method, test the hypothesis, analyze the results, draw conclusions, repeat), find causal relationships, and be tentative.
@sweetmikser Stephen C. Meyer is not a scientist, but is a philosopher/historian, he has a PhD in history and philosophy of science (he also has a degree in geology, irrelevant to evolution). The creationism he is in support of is considered a pseudoscience because it does not meet the criteria i mentioned earlier required for being considered science. This doesn't mean it is wrong, just different subjects.
@johnspikeblood Science is very limited in what it can deal with creationism is better off not being able to be studied scientifically as theology and philosophy are better suited to deal with this theory. I would avoid any pseudoscience or folk science and stick to theologists.
@johnspikeblood but that's the problem....you wrongly think it's "pseudoscience" simply because you're stuck on the issue that you can't put this presumed Intelligent Creator or God in a box, tube, or lab, to be "tested" or "studied" in that sense. Doesn't mean that the IMPLICATIONS aren't there.... For intelligent DIRECTION. Just cuz you can't fully understand something does not mean A) that something doesn't exist, nor B) that something could have logically been behind it all...
@johnspikeblood that may be true...but people such as Wells, Behe, Tish, etc etc etc...(though I don't agree with them on everything)...ARE degreed "scientists" and biologists...as well as thousands of others...who don't think that Creationism or just even broader "Intelligent Design" is psuedo-science any more than non-empirical mythical "ape-men" or "reptile-birds" are. By the way, see my "Problematic Differences" video again. I added two more and revised it recently. In vid response section.
It is not a matter of who thinks what or disproving/ slandering the opposing side to prove one's own side. The claims the theory itself make force it to be non scientific. If creationism were able to be classified as science that would require it to no longer being an act of god but of nature. Understand what science is capable of studying and that it is limited. They are just different areas of study. A big problem is that god would have to be falsifiable. This is just having bad/no faith.
@johnspikeblood by the way (and please read my other comments to you just before this one)....I disagree that "geology" is totally "irrelevant to evolution" theory. Hello? THE STUDY OF THE EARTH ITSELF....has some relevance. So don't even think of trying to cop out of that. Remember? THE ROCKS....the STRATA? The history and nature of this planet itself, has to do with NATURAL HISTORY of life forms. IT'S RELATED at least to some extent. The point is Meyer is a PhD and knows the theory well.
@sweetmikser he has not Phd in any science though, his book contains factually incorrect information. I see no real significant relevance that would make me consider him an authority on evolution, he may as well be a dentist.
@johnspikeblood "geology" is a science. But regardless of that...you say there's "factually incorrect information" in the book. Such as? Even if not everything is totally accurate (which coming from you saying it, I will tend to doubt) that doesn't mean that most of his information there is "factually incorrect" and that the general drift is incorrect. The "cell" cannot be duplicated in any lab on this planet, even in controlled situations. And we're expected to believe it got here accidentally.
@sweetmikser yes, but he does not have a PhD in geology, he has a PhD in the history and philosophy of science. I did not read the book, nor am I an expert. Darrel Falk's (a biologist) claims their are false statements in his book, and just the general reaction the scientific community had as well as how he is classified and what he has a degree in. Amino acids (the building blocks of life) can be made naturally in a lab.
@johnspikeblood amino acids are NOT life....and are NOT a "code" of any kind. NO CODE, NO LIFE. Listen, bro.....I asked you to check out the video again "list of problematic differences"....(and please do so soon), but also check out my video "Abiogenesis - See the Failed Experiments"....and see how those laughable lab experiments actually support the Theistic and Creationist view. Miller-Urey is also mentioned in the vid. It's on this page, in the vid response section too....check it
@sweetmikser The lab experiments do not support the Theistic and Creationist view. If an experiment does not support evolution it does not by default support creationism there are other possibilities. Many people get stuck in a false dilemma mindset and that is alright it happens to the best of us. Also keep in mind that earth in it's early stages was much different than it is today and some of those conditions are unknown and could be impossible to recreate in a lab.
I am not familiar with all of the people mentioned you list some as being professors at some particular university but not what they teach or what they are experts on. Some of the individuals quoted could have a PhD in theology, psychology, or philosophy when quoting people who should be seen as authority figures you must demonstrate that they are in fact authorities on the matter and relevant.
You know what you should do, is put a DETAILED reference list of the quotes and EXACTLY where you got them from (media, date, page, etc) so people don't just think you're quoting out of context or something like that.
@Atriviality well some of the quotes do have that....book and page numbers. Others more general. But other than that, what did you think of the points and quotes and issues raised in the video?
Evolutionism (as science) brought nothing to the progress of science ,in fact it is just an old recycled pagan myth disguised as science.
SonofJaphet 2 months ago
Just the fact that they called it ''Darwinism'' is a sure sign this is bull shit.
''Darwinism'' is a theory that is 150 years out of date. We know Darwin was wrong about some things, like gradualism, he did not know about the 6 great mass extinctions that happened on the earth.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz tell that to Gould and others who have used the word "Darwinist" in a neutral or positive sense, in recent decades, not just "150 years ago". But recently too. Check also Wikipedia too etc etc etc. It's also called "NEO-Darwinism". But it's the overall theory of "descent with modification causing bigger changes over time", blah blah. Yeah, Darwin has been a bit of embarrassment to more honest NEO-Darwinists, but Darwin is like an old silly uncle that they can't get rid of.
sweetmikser 2 months ago
@sweetmikser Wikipedia ''While the term has remained in use amongst scientific authors, it has increasingly been argued that it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory''
''In the United States, the term "Darwinism" is often used by creationists as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as atheistic naturalism''
Proving Darwin wrong will not prove evoltuion does not happen.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz uh, yes, I already read that in the past, but try reading other parts of the article. The point is that "Darwinism" or "Darwinist" was NEVER originally a Creationist term or slur or invention, but a term coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1860, in a POSITIVE sense. By a Darwinist himself. And has been used throughout the decades in either a positive or neutral sense, by people such as Gould and others. (And "NEO-Darwinist") It's whatever. Get over it, and stop whining about it.
sweetmikser 2 months ago
10/10 perfect troll vid
DieFatorLiveThin 10 months ago
@DieFatorLiveThin nothing substantive or meaningful to say or to refute or challenge the actual specific points and issues in the video....but just juvenile jerkiness and childish barf.... Showing that the "perfect troll" is the silly brat goofball who wrote that comment in the first place. Anyway, I don't have time now...as I'm busy with other things (for real...) and I've been on the merry-go-round with you Darwinist ding-bats quite a bit already. Though some are not as stupid as others...
sweetmikser 10 months ago
Great Appeal to Authority and Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacies.
Evid3nc3 10 months ago
@Evid3nc3 you're funny...Darwinist drones ALWAYS "appeal to authority", as a neurotic habit and pastime. As well as argumentum ad populum. With their "errgh, peer-reviewed", and their "erggh, over 95% of scientists accept evolution." Then when a video comes out (a little thing like this) simply mentioning that THERE ARE SOME DISSENTERS...who are degreed biologists, chemists, paleontologists, etc...who don't buy Darwinian speculation and myth, you hypocritically barf "errgh appeal to authority."
sweetmikser 10 months ago
@sweetmikser Because it is an appeal to authority. It's already been demonstrated that the amount of scientists that do not believe in evolution are in such a minority they are almost negligible, so when you point out, "There are scientists who disagree!" in reality...that means absolutely nothing. The Dissent from Darwinism list includes a bunch of biologists who DO actually believe in evolution, and have tried to get their names off of the list. It's all one big fallacy.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi thanks for hypocritically appealing to authority yourself while somehow denouncing "appeal to authority." lol. Darwinist drone-tards (such as yourself) are NOTORIOUS appealers to authority, to the point of insufferable nausea and dementia. You commit TWO fallacies at once...appeal to authority AND appeal to majority. Pathetically. As if that somehow settles the matter. Appealing to biased group think. Also, yes amino acids...RNA. BUT NO CODE. I said to check out the Abiogenesis video.
sweetmikser 9 months ago
@sweetmikser Nothing in my comment was an appeal to authority or majority. :).
I was simpyl stating that scientists disagreeing with darwinian evolution means absolutely nothing. And this is a fact.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi you're ridiculous. You don't even SEE that you're doing it. (sighs...and double facepalm). You were NOT just stating that "scientists that disagree means nothing." You ALSO said "the amount of scientists that do not believe in evolution are in such a minority they are almost negligible"...you appealed at the very least TO MAJORITY... The old "errghh, 95% of scientists accept evolution" arf arf. Or "99%" or whatever you think it is. But here's the problem...see my next comment...
sweetmikser 9 months ago
@BigLundi (2) again THE ACTUAL MERITS AND SPECIFIC DETAILS of ANYONE'S presentation, argument, analysis, and deduction are the MAIN things that should be considered...otherwise you fall too into the trap of "argumentum ad verecundiam..." Appeal to authority type nonsense. (Very DRONE-ISH) But EVEN SO, they have played the game to a large extent IN EVEN GETTING DEGREES IN THEIR FIELDS. Not everyone can do that. But regardless...the SPECIFIC MERITS of their arguments are to be considered...
sweetmikser 9 months ago
@BigLundi (3rd) inconsistently DEMANDING AND ASKING for "sources" and "who are your references and biologists?" who think or say such and such, THEN WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO? A lot of times you guys are ASKING for quotes and references and back-ups etc. Then when quotes or references are provided, by either degreed biologists or scientists who doubt Darwinian "super-macro"myths, or even struggling Darwinists, I get this crap of "quote mine!" or "he's not published" or "argument from authority."
sweetmikser 9 months ago
@BigLundi (4th) also...man...again...I said twice now, please click the "Abiogenesis" video that is posted right on this page....and see a thing on "Miller-Urey" as well as the other failed and pathetic experiments...by desperate fanatics over the decades. If "Miller-Urey" is the best people like you can drum up to somehow (uh) "prove" life from dead chemicals and soup, then you're in trouble. Click the link, and see the video points. Good stuff... And leave your thoughts if you want.
sweetmikser 9 months ago
@sweetmikser Miller Urey didn't fail. The fact that you seem to be passing yourself off as some sort of expert on the field(in that your commentary on these experiments should be considered an actual argument against them) leads me to ask you what your credentials are. I've looked at a few of your videos, and all I see are commentary on how you think evolution is wrong, but no actual evidence. In fact, I've seen you be BLATANTLY incorrect about things, like ERV's.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi bring your comment to the actual ABIOGENESIS video...sir. And I'll address you there on that topic. please...thanks. click the link. It's right here.
sweetmikser 9 months ago
And I "looked 'em up, kiddies." Guess what? Almost all of the names and quotes you mention, when googled, only bring up one site: yours on MySpace. Not just quote mining - you're making it up from whole cloth. Don't like being called a liar? Then stop lying.
Get over it.
Xenophile665 1 year ago 3
@Xenophile665 none of this was "made up." Like those book titles in the video. Just cuz some of the names are obscure (you notice that Gish and Behe aren't here), some of them, does not mean they do not exist or I "made them up." You're cute though for finding my MySpace blog from the past. By the way, if you wanna see other quotes, REAL INTERESTING DISTURBING STUFF, see my other video "Surprising Quotes About Darwinian Evolution." It's on the video response section on this page.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
At 4:04 "Rudolf Otto said, 'Darwinian evolution is theoretically worthless.'" Of course, he did, what do you expect from a someone who got his PhD in Christian theology in the 19th century?
And at 4:22 STRAWMAN alert: Abiogenesis is NOT evolution through natural selection, Einstein.
Xenophile665 1 year ago 2
@Xenophile665 it's NOT a "strawman" in that whether you idiotically deny that "Abiognesis" has at least something to do with "Evolution", IT'S WHAT YOU BELIEVE AND HOLD FAITH TO MORONICALLY AND UN-SCIENTIFICALLY. Also, Einstein, you think I never heard of the old stupid gas and cop-out of "errghh, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution" arf arf? lol... But it IS at least RELATED, biologically, presumably, in that something "dead" would have to "evolve" into something living. CHEMICALLY.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser Abiogensis actually is scientific. It's been demonstrated to be a statistical possibility as to the explanation of how life arose on earth. Deny it all you want, Miller Urey is but one of many many experiments that has demonstrated this.
BigLundi 9 months ago
@BigLundi OMG, you're even worse of a drone than I thought. You actually (pathetically and in dumb lock-step) barfed up (lol) uh "Miller-Urey"? You need to see my two "Abiogenesis" videos. Especially the "Abiogenesis - see the failed experiments." Miller-Urey is NONSENSE. Only three amino acids (under CONTROLLED CONDITIONS). They can't even produce a virus. No DNA, no MANTLE...NO CODE...no life. FAIL. But keep touting that desperate example. See the video..it's posted on this page...
sweetmikser 9 months ago
@sweetmikser "Only three amino acids" Nope. Wrong. Blatantly wrong.
BigLundi 9 months ago
"Religious discrimination" is why creationism isn't taught in schools? Sorry, you're wrong.
First of all, creationism IS taught in schools. Genesis, the Norse creation story, the Greek, the Hindu - I was taught about all of these, and more, in school. In Humanities courses.
However, you won't find it in Science classes in school. Why? "I'll tell you why:" because it is not science.
Xenophile665 1 year ago
@Xenophile665 the problem, kiddo, is that you can't grasp the fact that Darwinian "macro" myths are not true "science" either, if that's the case. But rather just neurotic myth and SPECULATION.....masquerading as "science." And straw-men like urrghh "bacterial resistance" (pathetic laughable junk) and "E.Coli" or "variations" or "adaptations" and "finch beaks" are STRAW-MEN and EVASIONS. Anyway, I don't have time for you right now..... As I'm busy. Check my other video...if you want.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@Philosophier121 yeah, most are the same.......but if you hear all the videos, some are a bit different. Like if you go to "Atheist and Darwinist Logical Fails - Part One" as an example. Also, go to "Ape-Man Lineages", the music in that one is TOTALLY different.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
How about a list of prominent theists and christian scientists who support speciation through evolution? Let's start with your old chum Michael Behe, we also have Francis Collins, Theodore Dobzhansky, Joan Roughgarden (worthy of a mention for her name alone!), Francisco Ayala, Asa Grey (i'm claiming him for my list, as far as i am aware he never outright rejected, but embraced darwinian evolution).. we also have the archbishops of york and canterbury, and the pope (not familiar with US clergy)
lo2enge 1 year ago
@lo2enge ok, bro, listen........let's be cool. I'll say it again.......to avoid all confusion. I BELIEVE AND ACCEPT A LOT OF THE STUFF YOU ACCEPT AND BELIEVE, actually.......BUT I JUST DON'T CALL IT "DARWINIAN EVOLUTION", GET IT? Meaning, modifications, variations, adaptations, alleles, natural selection, etc.....are all proven science and empirical.....with me so far? BUT BUT BUT....I cannot and will not accept this "SUPER MACRO" EVOLUTION THEORY...cuz that's NOT real "science" anymore.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser Yes, fair enough... and the only theists i have a with problem with are YECs. However you seem like a sound enough chap, and i am explaining this from a genuine desire to get you see that rejection of (supermacro-) speciation isn't a strict adherence to the scientific method, it is in fact merely you clinging to the last vestiges of an argument from incredulity. The evidence of common descent is plain - you're sitting in it. Our own bodies can only be explain this way.
lo2enge 1 year ago
@lo2enge no, actually rejected mainly for SCIENTIFIC REASONS. Yes, there are "modifications" and "variations" and "adaptations" and even "natural selection"...all that is basically empirical. But that's all WITHIN basic animal kinds and species. Bacteria remain bacteria, and moths remain moths, etc.... I accept observable and testable facts. But I cannot and will not accept mythical "ape-men" or "super macro" scenarios. Because that's NOT real "science" anymore. But just myth and speculation.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
In fact, in trying to verify the veracity of many of these quotes, the only corroborating source i could find was this: myspace[dot]com/thegabbypost/blog
Look familiar?
Might i point out, if that is your blog, you posted an hideously simplified definition of "Ochman's" (sic) razor.
lo2enge 1 year ago
I worship nothing and no-one, if convincing scientific evidence and sound inductive reasoning is put forward to actually support an assertion, hypothesis or theory i will consider it, naturally - it is exciting to discover what we knew was wrong and the truth far more wild and wonderful. The thing is, i have never once seen a creationist theory that fulfils that simple criterion, but darwinian evolution does it in spades.
(also, including rudolf otto as a scientist is obviously disingenuous)
lo2enge 1 year ago
To teach the scientifically supported secular story of speciation is religious discrimination (despite saying NOTHING about religion at all) but to teach christian creationism to all children in america would be the opposite? Oh dear. I'm afraid, if you want to be inclusionist about teaching unsubstantiated philosophical leanings in science, you'd have to include the entire gamut of creation myths, which would leave no room for practical, useful science at all.
lo2enge 1 year ago
@lo2enge it teaches WAY MORE than just "speciation"...(bait and switch) but unverified and unverifiable (in and out of fossils and even in or out of blood, DNA is incredibly complicated, and even with reshuffling is still fixed, even with variations and adaptations, finches remain finches, cats remain cats, frogs remain frogs, at a certain point, empirically, the DNA code and barrier does not get breached...families remain constant) "SUPER MACRO" MYTHS and SPECULATIONS...passed off as "science."
sweetmikser 1 year ago
The first selection of names (plus Vogt, Wasmann, Kellogg and Seward) are mostly much too old to take into consideration the enormous weight of genetic evidence.
What the hell is Wallace doing in this list?
As far as i can tell, Weisz and Eimer support the theory of speciation throughevolution.
Recapitulation has been debunked, however to claim embryos are never anthropoid is bizarre. We ARE anthropoids.. are you sure you read that correctly?
lo2enge 1 year ago
@sweetmikser I know that some people think the universe is infinite, but that is not what I claimed. I have watched it, but discrediting evolution does not by default make creationism true, as other possibilities do exist some that no one has ever thought of before. It would be impossible to disprove every variation of every possibility (existent or not) leaving only creationism to be true. If your goal is to disprove evolution this is fine, but to prove creationism your argument does nothing.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
@johnspikeblood bro....if you saw it again, COMMENT THERE ON THAT....I'd like an answer (or some comment) on how bird bones are hollow and thin (with special "stiffeners" for flight) whereas reptile bones are sold and thick with no stiffeners, and why no fossil evidence indicates how that happened. (As one example). Please don't answer here...but comment there. "Problematic Differences". The vid is in the video response section on this page. Leave your thoughts on that video page. Thanks.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser No, what you're referring to is the change observed, you're then trying to extrapolate that the change observed must be the only change that can occur.
1: Random mutations occur continuously
2: These mutations occur genome wide
3: These mutations accumulate over time
Which of those is inaccurate? Because everything in genetics so far indicates they're entirely accurate.
NephelimFree 1 year ago
@NephelimFree it's inaccurate and just SPECULATION that these minor changes and reshufflings, that are ALLOWED within fixed DNA code, would ever produce these so-called "macro" or "super macro" scenarios of major groups ever arising from other major groups. DID YOU EVEN SEE THIS WHOLE VIDEO HERE? Some of the quotes (by PhDs and biologists who are "dissenters" against this entrenched myth) show that. There is no real proof in or out of fossils or blood to show true "major evolutionary" anything.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser 'that are ALLOWED within fixed DNA code'
See, there's the assertion you keep making without supporting at all. What fixed DNA? What DNA in any genome is not subject to mutation?
I watched the video, then I watched the dismantling of the 'dissent from darwin' list by DonExodus2
There is *only* proof for evolution, ERV's put it beyond any reasonable doubt, don't confuse your willful ignorance for reasonable doubt.
NephelimFree 1 year ago
@NephelimFree hence why I say you're a drone...(a cute drone, for sure..) "ERVs" huh? never mind the evidence that viruses are known to work in targeting the same location in different species IN SEPARATE INFECTIONS. (One proven explanation, dismissed by Darwinist fanatics, who go by their own biases in interpreting the data, cuz of WANTING this junk to be true)...or the other explanation that viruses are known to move around, and not everything is fully known about the mysterious genome.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser 'targeting the same location in different species IN SEPARATE INFECTIONS'
source?
'viruses are known to move around'
That would actually have the opposite affect, that would cause FEWER to share insertion points across genomes.
NephelimFree 1 year ago
@NephelimFree listen bro....I have TWO "ERV" videos....that go into the "proof".... Like in lemur genomes... and also in humans a virus called "Murine Leukemia virus"... Check em out. One of them is posted on my video response section on this page...."ERVs - Highly Specific in SEPARATE INFECTIONS."
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser By source I mean an actual peer reviewed article pertaining to the claim made, not just referring to the same claim made by the same person.
NephelimFree 1 year ago
@NephelimFree like I said, cutie....check out the ERV video and see the studies. Interesting stuff. Right here on the video response section.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser You can't just give the links to the relevant articles here? Even if there are a handful that have particular insertion points, we know many don't so this would be confirmation bias even if true
NephelimFree 1 year ago
@NephelimFree What do scientific articles have to do with your faith in loving Jesus Christ?
Water4Jeremiah 1 year ago
@Water4Jeremiah There's room for faith, but if there's a claim of science being made it needs to be supported.
NephelimFree 1 year ago
@NephelimFree Faith leads to good works. In the end you'll be judged on how you treat other people. If an Atheist follows Christ's will, they will find themselves in Paradise compared to a hypocritical Christian who does not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
That has absolutely NOTHING to do with science. It has to do with the Golden Rule.
Water4Jeremiah 1 year ago
As far as this video goes, I can't believe anyone uses this 'argument' anymore
/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM
NephelimFree 1 year ago
The mountains of factual evidence supporting evolution negates the assertions of this video. Quotations (most likely out of context) do not constitute evidence against any particular theory, including the theory of evolution.
DialecticKaos 1 year ago
@DialecticKaos there's no "mountain" or even a hill of actual empirical "evidence" for what I'M REFERRING TO by the term "evolution." Citing pathetic junk like "E.Coli" is just desperate STRAW-MAN and evasions. Adaptations are NOT what's argued against. Also, the fossils do NOT support this "macro" myth AT ALL...(crucial in-between developments of this supposed evolutionary "chain" are missing ALL THE TIME....every where) DNA does NOT "prove" common "ape-men" either. Families still stay fixed.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser You're the one that sounds "desperate". I'll go with science, the same science that allows you to make your ignorant rants on the internet via your pc. You can stick with your bible stories, if that's what works for you.
DialecticKaos 1 year ago
@DialecticKaos you say and bring nothing specific here, but just make general (typical) arrogant and deluded statements, about what you THINK is "science". The problem is that Darwinian "macro" (or what's been called "super macro") evolution is NOT "science." Nor "ape-men". SPECULATION is NOT "science". And neither is force-fitting vague scattered and meager fossils, for neurotic agendas. Neither is ignoring problematic data. Nor is EXAGGERATING the "evidence." Bacteria remain bacteria..etc.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser Of course bacteria remain bacteria, bacteria is a domain, that's like saying 'eukaryotes remain eukaryotes'
The fact remains that evolution is the only explanation which employs testable mechanisms to explain things like this
/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
and this
/watch?v=fvF4q88YODU
and this
/watch?v=I8kDzftu2w4
and it explains it all.
NephelimFree 1 year ago
@NephelimFree and your point is? that proves mine.....no matter how many adaptations, variations, modifications, or "mutations", or generations.....DOMAINS STILL REMAIN FIXED....The DNA barrier at a certain point does not get breached. Families remain constant. So those "variations" WITHIN groups is just a Darwinist dumbbell pathetic STRAW-MAN...and EVASION. Mythical "ape-men" are not proven simply cuz E.Coli can adapt to citrate. (...yawn) SPECULATION is NOT "science." Wake up.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser You had no point, your argument was "Since we don't see bacteria becoming eukarya in a human lifetime, then evolutionary theory is wrong"
That would actually disprove evolution immediately.
'The DNA barrier'
What barrier? What is the genetic structure which prevents mutations from continually occurring and accumulating?
Yes, we understand by now, you have to attempt to dismiss out of hand the real science while touting your willful ignorance.
NephelimFree 1 year ago
@NephelimFree are all Darwinist drones cut from the same assembly line of stupidity? "What barrier?" you ask? The barrier that is proven over and over again, empirically, logically, and observationally....in and OUT of labs ALL THE TIME....and what I just described many times. NO MATTER HOW MANY "VARIATIONS" within families, or "adaptations", or even freak mutations, cats remain cats, birds remain birds, fish remain fish, and the same for polar bears and fruit flies. Families remain CONSTANT.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser Yes, I understand that that's you're assertion but do you have an actual mechanism that prevents continuous change or do you only have your misunderstanding that the change we see is all that occurs?
Because thus far your argument has been 'since we don't see infinite change in a short time frame, then change must be limited' when the only effective limit observed thus far is timescale.
NephelimFree 1 year ago
@sweetmikser Disproving (attempting to) another theory does not prove your own theory, Creationism has the burden of proof. Science is an on going process, based on the empirical evidence which has been studied, predictions are made then as more evidence arrives the theory changes in accordance with the new empirical evidence.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
@johnspikeblood there's enough evidence to show that there's intelligent DIRECTION. From the solar systems in space to the eco-systems on earth...to the correct gases, proportions, ratios, distances.....and impossibly complicated DNA...IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE HAPPENED ALL BY ITSELF WITH NO GUIDING INTELLIGENCE OR DIRECTION....utterly mathematically scientifically impossible. Hence the point of "Creationism" is the broader INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Not necessarily espousing any one theology either.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser None of that is impossible, just improbable or maybe that shows that life is intelligent and managed to make do with the circumstances it was given, then evolved. Maybe life was floating around space and collected material to make an ideal world for itself to live on. It could be however that all that exist is an infinite mass of energy that is dreaming and dreamed up this entire universe and that mass of energy is god. Science is not capable of dealing with things like this.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
@johnspikeblood the universe is NOT "infinite" per se, but had a start...as even many Atheists admit. Number two...there are NOT "infinite possibilities" if it's scientifically impossible. Something that is scientifically impossible today will still be scientifically impossible a billion years from now, no matter how much "time" or "space" is given. So that argument is desperate, weak, and fails quickly. Cuz we're not just talking about the moon either...but MANY OTHER JUST SO THINGS AT ONCE.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser I did not say the universe was infinite, i said the universe was imagined by an infinite mass of energy, I never claimed there to be infinite possibilities that was a conclusion you can to based on a misinterpretation of what I said. I simply said nothing is impossible, not that everything exist. It is very improbable that everything exist in the way it does, but improbability does not mean scientific impossibility or intelligent design.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
@johnspikeblood some Atheists have and DO say that....that the universe is "infinite" and with "infinite possibilities." Which is actually not really true. But anyway, my cute adorable friend......I asked you a number of times already to check out that other video again "list of problematic differences." And I don't know if you have already....I revamped it a bit....added TWO MORE differences, important ones, about bird bones and bird hearts....Check it out...and tell me what you think...
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser To clarify what I meant by the statements in my post, science is a limited field and when concepts such as creationism to to fit into that field they fail. Do not blindly believe that science is an absolute truth or even deals with the truth. It could be true that you were born into a coma and your life has been a dream, you may not even be human, while this is unlikely it could very easily be true, but no amount of science could prove or disprove this.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
@sweetmikser I think you misunderstand what i am trying to explain, not that creationism is wrong and science is right, but that science is too limited in what it is capable of studying. All I am trying to explain is that creationism cannot be taught, or mentioned in a science class because it is not science. It is not a bad thing that it isn't science, in fact it is a good thing.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
@sweetmikser The intelligent designer would have to be able to be seen, heard, smelt, tasted, or touched, and must be able to be disproved in some way, you claim evolution does not adhere to these guidelines yet you offer a lot of empirical evidence against it, so it is able to be accepted by science because of it's falsifiability. If creationism were to adhere to this guideline, that would destroy faith in god (the designer) and replace it with facts and reasons. God could be dis-proven.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
@sweetmikser To strengthen your argument I recommend that you avoid arguments which give false dilemmas where you show weaknesses in evolution theory and claim that if evolution is wrong, creationism must be right. There could be other possibilities. I would also recommend that you avoid any pseudoscience or attempting to use science at all because creationism is incompatible. Stick to using reason and sound inductive logic to support creationism not to disprove evolution.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
@johnspikeblood God can't be "tested" in some box, tube, or lab, therefore it has to be dismissed, as even a possibility? Or just the general notion at least of INTELLIGENT DIRECTION even? But that's inconsistent in a way, because neither can lots of the junk that Darwinists espouse and hold to dogmatically. There's NO REAL SOLID UNAMBIGUOUS "PROOF" for "ape-man ancestors", not in the bones, nor in the blood... Nor in the womb...etc (Never mind "abiogenesis") Read quotes in video again.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser holy crap you must be stupid
123columbo123 1 year ago
@123columbo123 holy crap, you must be another childish Darwinist punk and drone-tard...if you have something specific and substantive to say to any points or statements in the video, then say it...but all you did was barf your typical Darwinist juvenile sarcasm and arrogant nonsense.... LOL. I KNOW what the arguments are, and also the BAIT-AND-SWITCH... and STRAW-MEN. No one argues against "modifications" or "adaptations." But "super macro" is NON-EMPIRICAL MYTH. Did you see the whole video?
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser SO VERY VERY STUPID. IS THE UNIVERSE 6000 YEARS OLD AS WELL ???????????/
123columbo123 1 year ago
@123columbo123 no, bro...I'm an OLD EARTH Creationist...NOT a Young Earth fundie. If you saw my other videos and many other comments, you would know that. I've debated Young Earth fanatics and protestants, and their sloppy misunderstanding and mis-reading of Genesis and not understanding original Hebrew. (another topic). I embrace REAL science. The earth is around 2-4 billion years old. And the Universe is between 10-15 billion years old. Something like that. MAN though is something else....
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser Keep in mind I am not claiming that because god can not be tested means god should be dismissed. I am just claiming that science does not deal with things that can not be tested, so as a science it must be dismissed, but not whether it is true or not. It is possible to find an ape-man if one existed, it is not possible to find god if god does exist. There may not be any solid unambiguous proof of an ape man, but there is at least unsound ambiguous evidence, that is the difference.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
@sweetmikser you say that you embrace real science, yet you fail to understand much of it. I don't want to get into an argument over but I would be happy to explain why you are wrong if needs be
123columbo123 1 year ago
@sweetmikser an ape-man could be proved or disproved, god by definition cannot that is what the empirical aspect of science means, the whole falsifiable aspect.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
Have you heard of project Steve?
' NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism." '
Just google "Project Steve"
jsmith224455 1 year ago
Evolutionism is not science nor scientific. It's a fairytale for adults designed to trick the world into believing that man has no supernatural creator. Modern science has disproven everything about the horse-and-buggy days concept of evolution.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree Modern science has done no such thing you evrytime abuse the science to make it say something it does not, de docs you used as evidence for your case on further examination, always show the opposite of what you are claiming, real scientist have told you that but you just stick your fingers in your ears and keep chanting your mantra.
you keep using the horse and buggy statement as if it has any bearing on the idea, newton lived some 150 years earlier
Toudiyama 1 year ago
@NephilimFree You can't stop lying can you? No wonder you don't believe in eternal hell, you must be secretly worried that Jesus might get mad at you for all your lying and hypocrisy, but no problem either way eh?
DialecticKaos 1 year ago
@NephilimFree
Hey there Spanks-at-Stockings! Your who's-gonna-pay-my rent-now cry-baby mooching video is almost at 10,000 views. Congratulations on your infamy!
v=R9WGOOkE7nY
And the series depicting your endangerment of your stroke-victim roommate has over 18,000 views.
Well done, Spankster!
v=e6809DptfRE!
themsfightinwoids 1 year ago
@NephilimFree Disregard that bit of retardation on my part, I actually understand that evolutionary theory is the only empirically supported explanation for the diversity of life on earth and that I'm only projecting the weakness of creation onto evolution.
NephelimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree Modern evolutionary synthesis was born out of the time of nuclear weapons and the early days of the internet. Whereas your Bible comes from a time when sanitation was just beginning. Stop using this stupid-assed argument about when evolution first arose, because it's meaningless and petty. Evolution is science. It's demonstrated. Nothing contradicts it. Get a clue that no one cares about your message, since no one's seeking out your "knowledge."
csbair 1 year ago
...and i say evo is a freaking theory at best.
ThickShades0 1 year ago
@ThickShades0 that is all anything is in science, theories.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
@ThickShades0 whereas vreation is not even that
Toudiyama 1 year ago
@Toudiyama as if you really know what it is.
ThickShades0 1 year ago
@ThickShades0 Yeah sure, as if you know what evolution is
Toudiyama 1 year ago
@Toudiyama read my prior post that your made your reply to. evo is a freaking theory at best.
ThickShades0 1 year ago
@ThickShades0 yeah and seeing that a theory is the highest attainable in science what do you want to tell us?
Toudiyama 1 year ago
@Toudiyama define "us."
ThickShades0 1 year ago
@ThickShades0 everyone reading these comments
Toudiyama 1 year ago
@Toudiyama prove it.
ThickShades0 1 year ago
@ThickShades0 Prove What?
Toudiyama 1 year ago
@Toudiyama d'oh~
ThickShades0 1 year ago
@Toudiyamamamapapahumahama.............AHAHHHAAHHAA....whaaaaaaat a funny dumb name! evolution is just a speculation ya dumbo! Why can't your brain comprehend this? Was your brain manufactured in China? YES!!!
hahaahahahaahahahhahaahahahahahahahahahahaha
MeinKleinerTiger 1 year ago
@MeinKleinerTiger sez the person who has almost the same name as a gay karate club in amsterdam
Evolution is just a speculation, care to elaborate ot are you just parrotting people like Kent hovind and his son?
why can't your brain comprihend that creation is just fiction?
Toudiyama 1 year ago
@Toudiyama lolz... tell me about your favorite unicorn.
ThickShades0 1 year ago
@ThickShades0 unicorns, that more your nick of the woods, I don't believe in fairytales
Toudiyama 1 year ago
@Toudiyama that's how much you know about everything in "general." /watch?v=BhUyTza0TjM
ThickShades0 1 year ago
@ThickShades0 leviathon a transliterated hebrew word(levyathon) meaning twisted
I don't know why you took a picture of a dino to make your case you just could have show a picture of a Rhinoceros unicornis or indian rhino
the apolagetics do not agree upon what it really was, and old biblical depiction of it have an horselike animal with a horn on his head, where did the christians that made these get the idea from? not from atheists
Toudiyama 1 year ago
@Toudiyama do you even know how the word "dino" came about? do you even know when the word is invented and what for? btw, stop your crapping and present your "case" other than your dumbass opinion.
ThickShades0 1 year ago
@Toudiyama "old biblical depiction of it have an horselike animal with a horn on his head"
puhahaha. thanks for you "opinion" you've picked up from the internet. where in the Bible?
"Rhinoceros unicornis or indian rhino"
Rhinoceros ain't Elasmotherium nor do they "evolved" from one to another. LoLz.. what a dumbass.
ThickShades0 1 year ago
@ThickShades0 biblical as in depicting scenes from the bible not as in pictures taken from the bible
If you call me dumbass do it for something I did, where did I say that a rhino evoled from that particular animal
however Elasmotherium belongs to the family of Rhinocerotidae and is catagorized as a Prehistoric rhinoceros
Toudiyama 1 year ago
@Toudiyama do you even know how to answer the questions? btw, do you know the difference between two, three horns and ONE HORN? do you know what UNI-CORN means? it's certainly not a type of corns. you see... because you couldn't replace your brain with silence, you were asked more questions. the questions that you should've known and had answers to. now, stop wasting my time and answer my questions or start elaborating your expertise of unicorn in the Bible pretty please with a cherry on top. ;)
thickshadesSUB 1 year ago
@thickshadesSUB uhh, not sure what's up with this "unicorn" talk...but I gotta say that the Bible does NOT say "unicorn". The King James Bible has MIS-TRANSLATED the Hebrew word "re-em". "Re-em" does NOT mean "unicorn", but simply means "wild ox." You don't find the word "unicorn" in other English Bible translations (even older ones like the American Standard Version of 1901). There are NO mythical animals or "unicorns" in the Bible. According to the original Hebrew. The KJV is NOT infallible.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
Darwinism is just a scientific theory, everything in science is just a theory and is never assumed true. The goal of science is to disprove old theories and replace them with a better supported one or to find more support for the existing theory. People often forget this about science, including some scientist.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
Some of the quotes provided were very short leading me to believe that the individual's words may have been taken out of context. To my knowledge creationism is not taught in public schools because it would discriminate against other religions as well as separation of church and state. Imagine if your child came home from school believing Hinduism (or some other religion other than your own) because that is what his/her science class taught. It would be upsetting.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
@johnspikeblood no, bro, I think you miss the point a little bit about "Creationism" and "public schools." I'm not advocating (and neither do most IDers) it being "taught" in schools as a "fact". But simply BROUGHT UP as a theory or view that simply EXISTS. NOT as a dogmatic fact, per se... Also, as far as "discriminating against other religions", most people don't advocate teaching Genesis Creation (either Young Earth or Old Earth views) necessarily. But ID in general, as A VIEW THAT EXISTS.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser Science classes teach the prevailing theory at the time, assuming the text books are not too outdated. Science is not either or in terms of theories, creationism is no longer a scientific theory but a theological theory. Science classes do not mention theories that are not relevant for example when learning about human anatomy they do not mention their is no way of knowing if all our senses actually exist thus the world is imaginary (Descartes). It is an existing theory as well.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
@sweetmikser a theology or philosophy class would be the only appropriate place for this to be mentioned or taught regardless of whether or not Darwinism is true unless creationism becomes the widely accepted theory in the scientific community. The problem is science only cares about empirically provable theories. If something can not be dis-proven empirically means nothing to scientist. In addition to being empirical it must be systematic, causal, and tentative.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
@johnspikeblood I agree that creationism shouldn't be taught. But saying that it shouldn't at least be discussed is a different issue. Most of the professors, if they were required to teach creationism, would most likely do nothing but scoff at it, so that would be completely pointless. But if we aren't allowed to teach creationism because it would discriminate then that means that we also shouldn't teach evolution, because that would be discriminating to every other religion too.
SonnyDelight55 1 year ago
@SonnyDelight55 It could absolutely be taught as well as mentioned, just not in a science class teach it in a theology class. The creationist theory can not be made into a scientific theory, so there is no reason to teach it in a science class, but should defiantly be taught in theology.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
@johnspikeblood you should see the book (either Kindle or hard-copy) "Signature in the Cell"...by Stephen C. Meyer...and the point too about how ID is misrepresented and misunderstood in the media, politicians, local school boards, and by knee-jerk Darwinist fanatics and Atheist drone-cattle. Not understanding or wanting to grasp that "Intelligent Design" can be aptly defended ON PURELY SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS. I know some Bible-bashing Agnostics who find Darwinism a CROCK...for scientific reasons.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@johnspikeblood you should see the book (either Kindle or hard-copy) "Signature in the Cell"...by Stephen C. Meyer...and the point too about how ID is misrepresented and misunderstood by the media, politicians, local school boards, and by knee-jerk Darwinist fanatics and Atheist drone-cattle. Not understanding or wanting to grasp that "Intelligent Design" can be aptly defended ON PURELY SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS. I know some Bible-bashing Agnostics who find Darwinism a CROCK...for scientific reasons.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser The term science is often throw around too loosely, creationism can not be classified as a scientific theory, however that does not make it an invalid theory. Science must be empirical (directly observable), be systematic (choose topic, identify a problem, research the problem, develop a hypothesis, design a research method, test the hypothesis, analyze the results, draw conclusions, repeat), find causal relationships, and be tentative.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
@sweetmikser Stephen C. Meyer is not a scientist, but is a philosopher/historian, he has a PhD in history and philosophy of science (he also has a degree in geology, irrelevant to evolution). The creationism he is in support of is considered a pseudoscience because it does not meet the criteria i mentioned earlier required for being considered science. This doesn't mean it is wrong, just different subjects.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
@johnspikeblood Science is very limited in what it can deal with creationism is better off not being able to be studied scientifically as theology and philosophy are better suited to deal with this theory. I would avoid any pseudoscience or folk science and stick to theologists.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
@johnspikeblood but that's the problem....you wrongly think it's "pseudoscience" simply because you're stuck on the issue that you can't put this presumed Intelligent Creator or God in a box, tube, or lab, to be "tested" or "studied" in that sense. Doesn't mean that the IMPLICATIONS aren't there.... For intelligent DIRECTION. Just cuz you can't fully understand something does not mean A) that something doesn't exist, nor B) that something could have logically been behind it all...
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser That is exactly what pseudoscience is.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
@johnspikeblood that may be true...but people such as Wells, Behe, Tish, etc etc etc...(though I don't agree with them on everything)...ARE degreed "scientists" and biologists...as well as thousands of others...who don't think that Creationism or just even broader "Intelligent Design" is psuedo-science any more than non-empirical mythical "ape-men" or "reptile-birds" are. By the way, see my "Problematic Differences" video again. I added two more and revised it recently. In vid response section.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
It is not a matter of who thinks what or disproving/ slandering the opposing side to prove one's own side. The claims the theory itself make force it to be non scientific. If creationism were able to be classified as science that would require it to no longer being an act of god but of nature. Understand what science is capable of studying and that it is limited. They are just different areas of study. A big problem is that god would have to be falsifiable. This is just having bad/no faith.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
@johnspikeblood by the way (and please read my other comments to you just before this one)....I disagree that "geology" is totally "irrelevant to evolution" theory. Hello? THE STUDY OF THE EARTH ITSELF....has some relevance. So don't even think of trying to cop out of that. Remember? THE ROCKS....the STRATA? The history and nature of this planet itself, has to do with NATURAL HISTORY of life forms. IT'S RELATED at least to some extent. The point is Meyer is a PhD and knows the theory well.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser he has not Phd in any science though, his book contains factually incorrect information. I see no real significant relevance that would make me consider him an authority on evolution, he may as well be a dentist.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
@johnspikeblood *he has no
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
@johnspikeblood "geology" is a science. But regardless of that...you say there's "factually incorrect information" in the book. Such as? Even if not everything is totally accurate (which coming from you saying it, I will tend to doubt) that doesn't mean that most of his information there is "factually incorrect" and that the general drift is incorrect. The "cell" cannot be duplicated in any lab on this planet, even in controlled situations. And we're expected to believe it got here accidentally.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser yes, but he does not have a PhD in geology, he has a PhD in the history and philosophy of science. I did not read the book, nor am I an expert. Darrel Falk's (a biologist) claims their are false statements in his book, and just the general reaction the scientific community had as well as how he is classified and what he has a degree in. Amino acids (the building blocks of life) can be made naturally in a lab.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
@johnspikeblood amino acids are NOT life....and are NOT a "code" of any kind. NO CODE, NO LIFE. Listen, bro.....I asked you to check out the video again "list of problematic differences"....(and please do so soon), but also check out my video "Abiogenesis - See the Failed Experiments"....and see how those laughable lab experiments actually support the Theistic and Creationist view. Miller-Urey is also mentioned in the vid. It's on this page, in the vid response section too....check it
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser The lab experiments do not support the Theistic and Creationist view. If an experiment does not support evolution it does not by default support creationism there are other possibilities. Many people get stuck in a false dilemma mindset and that is alright it happens to the best of us. Also keep in mind that earth in it's early stages was much different than it is today and some of those conditions are unknown and could be impossible to recreate in a lab.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
I am not familiar with all of the people mentioned you list some as being professors at some particular university but not what they teach or what they are experts on. Some of the individuals quoted could have a PhD in theology, psychology, or philosophy when quoting people who should be seen as authority figures you must demonstrate that they are in fact authorities on the matter and relevant.
johnspikeblood 1 year ago
Atriviality said:
You know what you should do, is put a DETAILED reference list of the quotes and EXACTLY where you got them from (media, date, page, etc) so people don't just think you're quoting out of context or something like that.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@Atriviality well some of the quotes do have that....book and page numbers. Others more general. But other than that, what did you think of the points and quotes and issues raised in the video?
sweetmikser 1 year ago