@Znybar I wasn't trying to prove that a God exists. I was merely trying to state the fact that Darwin's Theory of Evolution cannot be true applying his rules to the evidence provided in these videos. There must be some other explanation!!
And yet its central hypotheses are completely consistent with all observational data so far, and every hypothetical observation ever predicted on the basis of these central hypotheses has been made in actuality.
During his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize in Physics, Salam quoted the following verse: “You do not see in the creation of the Most Merciful any inconsistency. So return [your] vision [to the sky]; do you see any breaks? Then return [your] vision twice again. your vision will return to you humbled while it is fatigued” he then went on to say:
"This in effect is, the faith of all physicists; the deeper we seek, the more is our wonder excited, the more is the dazzlement for our gaze"
@kkkaldav Prof.V.Balakrishnan has a good style of teaching explains things very simply. He said nature works at a mind-blowing scale and that we only have 5% knowledge of it. He said the distances of the microscopic length are too great and so is distance and size of the universe.
VipChannel, its Scientists present not scientists presents. If you post fallacies at least try to seem intelligent to attract smart people to this channel to debate about your point. Also, 1spiders1. Your posts are so idiotic, that its not even breath taking. Its absolutely mind numbingly dumb.
. .Last pst was from the new scientist. nxt wz in relation to the multiverse theory and some facts about sharks, and the other was in relation to a particle experiment that was published in one of the most prestigious journals in the world. These are just fallacies by dumb people you right you too smart to be here bye bye. .
@JaytheOstrich It's not like that at all. You could tweek the eys of shars a hundred diffrent ways and still the worm would be jim dandy. The laws of physics though are tuned to an unfathomable degree (so say the scientists) or no life at all could have formed. This is why multiverses are invoked for the fine tuning we see in this universe and multisharks are not needed to explain the cosy habitat of the worms.
@kkkaldav The multiverse has given them a breather for now while they work something else out. To stop science from going in what they perceive to be the wrong direction towards design/ creator. calculater etc. But if you think about it luck, chance, coincidence are big players in today’s science.
@kkkaldav Why physicists can't avoid a creation event "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God," Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech. "This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe," Vilenkin concludes. "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning." watch harsh jump lol
HAHA! Laughable! They say the complexity of the bacteria is so unexplainable, that they must of been "created". HAHA! That is just an easy way out and a quick answer to something that cannot be explained by ignorant creationists (all of them ignorant). Life didn't need intelligence behind it to begin. Just because we use our intelligence to create things, doesn't give anyone the right to assume that therefore an intelligence must of created life. Get over it and move on, God does not exist FACT
@JaytheOstrich It's a philosopher who specialises in the philosophy of biology - a well established field of philosophy with roots going back at least as far as aristotle That's what it fucking is.
Stop using this theory as a proof that Intelligent Design must be god - it can be an alien civilization - GOD IS SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE - if god created this or that - who created god dumbass? - Dont tell me God is the uncreated creator - thats an excuse for not having an explanation! -
@Spandex08 Hi there. For one, God is not impossible, hence the name GOD. Two, the theory of intelligent design totally out weighs the theory of evolution in the way described in the video. Therefore, just by looking at the facts, the thoery of evolution is untrue and believing in it is just as much, or even worse than believing in a God. You cannot disprove God, but you can disprove evolution.
@sm0ville "the theory of intelligent design totally out weighs the theory of evolution in the way described in the video" Not even close to being true. Not only is ID itself little more than an argument from incredulity/ignorance and god-of-the-gaps argument, but the arguments used to support it are fallacious, cherry-picked, and just plain wrong. It makes no testable predictions, its unfalsifiable, and it fails pretty much every other metric used to qualify something as a theory.
@sm0ville You're ignorant and clearly do not know anything about scientific circles. I have NEVER met a scientist who supported intelligent design and didnt agree with evolution, and I myself am one. There is no support for intelligent design, just look at the human eye. Most flawed piece of hardware ever created. If it is intelligent design, your god is a retard.
@Znybar You said that the human eye is the "Most flawed piece of hardware ever created. If it is intelligent design, your god is a retard."
And yet millions or perhaps even billions of people around the world have 20/20 vision. Your dislike for Intelligent design and God is making you blind to reality.
@villontre You're an idiot? 20/20 vision? 90 percent of animals have much better vision than we do. Your god must love us indeed if he gave us a shitty pair of eyes compared to, say, a cuttlefish. When I said flawed, I meant in design. Look at a bit of anatomy, the eye is built backwards and upside-down. I was simply stating it because its an example often used by intelligent design for people to say 'look! that couldn't have evolved its too perfect!'.
@Znybar And yes, I am an American idol. Most people with 20/20 and normal eye vision are completely satisfied with the way their eyes are built, backwards and upside-down. Humans do have better eye vision than millions of species of insects, microbial life forms, deep water fish, etc. The reason that some people are born blind is usually due to problems during different stages of human eye development, it has nothing to do with the design of the eye itself.
@villontre So what is your point exactly? You admit that the design of the human eye is flawed and inferior? How does this in any way support intelligent design? I would say it's unfair to include 'millions of species of microbes' that don't actually have nor need eyes, and I contest your comment on insects, which can see in the ultraviolet/infared spectrum (which humans don't btw). And he also designed an eye that is prone to developmental issues as well as environmental impacts?
@Znybar Au contraire, I never said that the eye is flawed and inferior. You began this whole thing by saying that the human eye was the: " Most flawed piece of hardware ever created." And I am telling you that this sort of mentality only comes from someone like Dawkins and others that are constantly trying to find flaws in a perfect design such as the human eye (O).
@villontre Ok, if you were to design a camera, would you put a hole in the lens, put a few layers of opaque tissue in front of it? No, unless you had a strange desire to have a bad picture. The fact we see 'well' is not related to the efficacy of its design, because we have nothing to compare our vision to (classic anthropomorphising). Basically, yes, the eye works for our purposes. But if god is all-knowing, surely he wouldnt include all these evident engineering flaws?
@villontre And what about all the people born blind? Or the children in africa who get simple eye infections curable by one drop of antibiotic who never get it and go blind? What a loving god...
Darwin took an inch and stretched it a mile. It would have been fair for him to say that evolution exists, but to say they evolved from nothing, that is ridiculous.
Oh look, that cowboy at 2:26 ! I'm just wondering... if cowboys have evolved into agronomists - why are there still cowboys? That must be the ultimate proof that evolution is wrong!
@drijfkip1 This part of the video might focus mainly on the problems with evolution, but in other segements they deal with the argument to the best explanation. That's where they argue for design.
Ive only got one problem about this. Ive watched 2 minutes, but this "research" is not objective since it is probably christians that wrote the paper. Objectiveness is the core of science, and any paper that isnt is not valid scientificaly. Neither does it fill one important criteria of a scientific theory which is that it should be falsifiable. The road ends at, God did it, and makes the paper void of any signifigance.
@sm0ville So your asking what caused the big bang, or what was before the big bang?
What was "before" the big bang is useless since time didnt exist "then".
The cause is still unkown, though there are hypotheses, but not knowing does not prove God, not intelligent design.
I can example give the prime mover any kind of traits I want, without naming it god, and it would fit just as fine into the picture as ID have. ID is a belief based on a belief, What a great idea isnt it?...
"In the history of the primates, we must be careful not to take at face value the reconstitutions of our ancestors based on on a few scanty vestiges (some teeth, a fragment of jawbone, the top of a skull) which were put forward in all seriousness by highly imaginative palaeontologists" grasse
"The story of evolution reads just like “The Story of the Three Bears,” In the nursery tale, a little girl named Goldilocks enters a home occupied by three bears and tries different bowls of porridge; some are too hot, some are too cold. She also tries different chairs and beds, and every time, the third is “just right.” For 13.7 billion years we, too, have had chronic good luck. Virtually everything has been “just right.”It’s a fascinating story to tell children" lanza
"This good fortune started from the moment of creation; if the Big Bang had been one-part-in-a-million more powerful, the cosmos would have rushed out too fast for the galaxies and stars to have developed. If the gravitational force were decreased by a hair, stars (including the Sun) wouldn’t have ignited. There are over 200 physical parameters like this that could have any value but happen to be exactly right for us to be here. Tweak any of them and you never existed" lanza
@1spiders1 Yes, and the universe would be different. So what? It wouldn't matter if we didn't exist, We. Don't. Matter. On a universal scale, we are like a bit of lichen on a rock.
@JaytheOstrich Yes that’s right; the universe is greater than the creation of man. It is also precisely and exactly tuned for the existence of life and man. Our existence and observation of it makes a difference to it. That is why now scientists are exploring different realms like consciousness, design for answers
@JaytheOstrich On the other hand instead of evoking a multishark theory. it is said the parasite might help lure potential prey to the sharks mouth. Plus even if they are blinded by the parasite the sharks hunt in near darkness anyway and use their keen sense of smell to find food. But the shark itself is an engineering marvel. A great white shark could detect a single drop of blood in an Olympic-size swimming pool. A different discussion but.
The probability of random physical laws and events leading to this point is less than 1 out of 100,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, equivalent to winning every lottery there ever was. lanza
@tdjdk That'll be why there are two parts to the argument then. Then negative part which highllights the difficulties for current evolutionary theory, and the positive part that argues to the best explanation via known adequate causation.
Scientists continue to dismiss the observer as an inconvenience to their theories. Real experiments show that the properties of matter itself are observer-determined. A particle can go through one hole if you look at it, but if you don't look at it, it can actually go through more than one hole at the same time. Science has no explanation for how the world can be like that.
Lanza: For the first time outside of complex mathematics, this theory explains the provocative new experiment that was just published in Science last month. This landmark experiment showed that a choice you make now can actually influence an event that has already occurred in the past.
"scientists are studying how animals respond to being tickled in a bid to shed light on how laughter evolved"
Scientists are tickling rats and chimps to find out why human beings laugh. This is the kind of stuff the evolutionary basket of evidence is mostly filled with.
@1spiders1 Do you belive that diino is now preteding he never said anything different fro de Waal. Go back and look at all the times he said things like "NEVER" and "NOT" etc. re our direct quotes. How do you suppose someone get's into the frame of mind where they can simply lie about the most basic facts of hat was said onyly a few posts ago. These people have some kind of strange psychologial issue that means normal human integrity simply ceases. It's astonishing.
@kkkaldav dino the dinosaur is a lying piece of shit. He argued and argued about it with his eyes closed and then pissed off. Then he came back pretending he never said ought about it. lol!
Its amazing how harsh, dino and that other prick quietly tiptoed away from the subject when we presented to them evidence upon evidence.especially when I contacted franc de waal himself ! lol
@1spiders1 This what I find really fascinating. And when you see that what goes on here is not dissimilar to the way some in the scientific community carried on when ID came on the scene you really get a different picture of science from the one that scientists popularly present. This type of thing is, IMO, astonishingly bad for science because it means, effectively, that when controversial topics are raised we can't believe a word any of them say.
@DoraTheDino Google these words "Evolution is very possibly not, in actual fact, always gradual" and you'l see that the last point that ypou said was rubbish is exactly Dawkins' own words from River out of Eden (p.83). Oh how we laughed.
@kkkaldav Mr. derp you have to be precise than just "the last point..was rubbish" and that still isn't proof to Dawkins regarding probability as a valid tool in science. Oh how you laughed. And laugh indeed, considering your questionable sense of "humour". herp derp durr durr derp.
@DoraTheDino How precise would you like me to be. I have been quoting Dawkins almost word for word but since you didn't know it you've been saying it's rubbish. These are Dawkins' points, not mine. You don't even know what you're saying anymore.
That's three times now the quote trick has been sprung on you. De Waal, and Dawkins twice. You simply haven't a clue what the theory of evolution is. Nothing can faslify your article of faith because it's faith not science.
@DoraTheDino The uestio is: why does Dawkins say evolution has to be gradual? What does he mena when says i it's not gradual it loses explanatory powere and bbecomes just like a series of miracles? You don't know. And before I told you they were Dawkins' words you didn't think it had to be. You probably still don't.
@DoraTheDino Thw whole point of Dawkins' quote, the one you didn't know was Dawkins and said was rubbish, is that eolution has to be gradula because otherwise it relies on things that are astronomically unlikely (Dawkins calls these miracles) and thus it loses it's explantory power. What do you think Dawkins' quote is about?
@DoraTheDino So to conclude: the reason the theory of evolution is devoid of conmtent is because it equates to "whatever happened". That is, 'whatever it was that took place shall be called evolution' is the first commandment of your religion. Who cares what it was that actually happened, it's still going to be called evoilution come what may. Thus the theory is as empty as the inside of your head.
@kkkaldav Mr. derp that's some excellent deduction skills you have there. Never did I thought that's what Dawkin's words meant, or how it had anything to do with him thinking probability is a valid tool in science. Oh wait it doesn't. Mr. derp, the quote simply means that evolution has to occur in stages, step-by-step, instead of transforming overnight, which is true in any sense and has literally been the core of evolution.
@kkkaldav Mr. derp I have no idea why you are stating or question the quote, it simply means that evolution has to be gradual, which it is. I do not believe I've said anything close to evolution not being gradual, mr.derp. How did you come up with the conclusion that I thought it was "rubbish" then? Mr. derp, you should probably get your facts right, the things I've called rubbish is you claiming Dawkins' think probability is a valid tool in science.
@kkkaldav And mr. derp, how can anyone be so thick like you? How does evolution equate to "whatever happened"? If a magical figure came down and craft humans as they are now from the beginning would that be evolution? So please enlighten me on how your excellent deduction skills allowed you to make such a crappy conclusion? Honestly it is just amazing you coutinue coming up with such crappy conclusions when we've already been through this before. Please please enlighten me.
@DoraTheDino According to your defintion of evolution a few days ago a magical figure crafting humans would fit right in. But even if that wasn't true, that would appear to be about the only thing evolution rules out (and even that would need to be qualified). And, for you, that is exaclty what evolution means - not God. And that is why it is devoid of meaningful scientific content.
@kkkaldav Fucksake, mr. derp, it is ridiculous trying to have a conversation with you. First you making a sweeping claim, then you backtrack a little, saying shit like "that would appear to be about the only thing". What are you expecting? That I spoon feed you like a little child and supply each and every info? FUCK YOU I've had enough of your bullshitting and I am not going to waste my time on you since all you wish to do is live in self-denial.
@DoraTheDino Don't waste you time. Move along. Move along to a library or something ( I take it they have such things where you live), and read a book (I take it you've heard of them). Then, in about three years (when you know a little bit about the stuff), come back and you'll maybe not embarrass yourself so badly.
@kkkaldav Yea keep living in self-denial you fucktard. Read a book? Coming from someone who knows nothing about evolution? I mean, shaving disproves evolution? And talking snakes? Fuck you you lying, bullshitting creationist fuck. Question your own fucking motives, having to resort to lying and misrepresentation for your creationist bullshit.
@ArcanaKnight I'm sure it suits your child-like mind to imagine that that's what IC is, but all that shows is how frightened you must be by the real thing to have to take refuge in such a silly mischaracterisation. As I said below, IC may be rubbish, but it's not rubbish because of any flaw any scientist has found in it, and certainly not because some clown can draw a cartoon that has nothing to do with it. Your lack of intellectual rigour is staggering.
@kkkaldav IC failed from its inception because it was essentially nothing but an argument from ignorance/incredulity. Even if we don't know exactly which evolutionary steps were involved in the creation of certain structures doesn't mean that we'll never know, let alone that they couldn't have evolved (though plausible evolutionary paths for every single supposedly IC structure have been presented).
BTW, that cartoon was meant to be a laugh, nothing more.
@ArcanaKnight IC is not an argument from ignorance at all - it's an argument from total theoretical failure and an argument about adequate causation. You claim the cartoon was only meant to be a joke but that statement suggests it is your view. You appear to know nothing about IC, and your claim that plausible evolutionary paths have been shown is pure fantasy.
@ArcanaKnight When you say "supposedly" IC structures, it shows your ignorance clearly. These structures are IC, because all IC means is that the way the system works relies on a number of parts acting in unison and if any of these parts were missing the system could not perform that function. There are countless examples of such things. Thus you are in the ludicrous position of both claiming to know how such systems came to be and denying their existence at the same time.
@kkkaldav "because what IC means..." That's actually just one of the definitions its gone through, and something considered to be an IC structure under watered-down definition doesn't even rule out the possibility of it evolving via relatively common processes like exaptation or the Mullarian two-step, thereby making that definition of IC a pointless concept.
@ArcanaKnight The defintion was always essentially the same. The idea it has substantially changed is just made up. Unsure how you can claim to know anything about the subject when you don't even know that.
@ArcanaKnight What, eg, do you say the roiginal defintion was, and how long was that on the go before it got changed? Put your money where your mouth is.
@kkkaIdav The original definition: "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." Notice how it says "cease functioning", and not "cease to perform that specific function"? That's an important distinction.
@kkkaIdav Also, IC is absolutely an argument from ignorance; it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: Lacking a natural explanation, we assume intelligent cause (tinyurlDOTcom/d8fes28). Behe himself has admitted that a failure of current science to explain how an "irreducibly complex" organism did or could evolve does not automatically prove the impossibility of such an evolution.
@ArcanaKnight It doesn't rely on lack of knoweldge for it's conclusion. It relies on an appeal to known adequate causes as the best explanation. But I'm more ineteested in the claim that the defintion changes. Come on, let's hear it.
@kkkaIdav "It relies on an appeal to known adequate causes as the best explanation" And yet it completely ignores ridiculously common processes which can bring about such structures such as exaptation and the Mullerian two-step.
"Come on, let's hear it. " I already provided it below.
CONT BTW, why is it you think that "(my) claim that plausible evolutionary paths have been shown is pure fantasy"? You can easily find these pathways even here on youtube. Have you really not come across a single one? And you have the chutzpah insult others' knowledge of this subject?
@ArcanaKnight I've read the so-called pathways. They're pur fantasy. No real details. No real testing. No real idea if such things are possibe. No numbers, no calculations, nothing except a just so story which takes for granted virtually all of what is trying to be explained. But that's not my interest here. My interest here is in your false claim that the defintion changed. Let's deal with tht first.
@ArcanaKnight I don't need chutzpah to know your a complete lying prick. I only needed to read your first few posts and understand English. Defend your claim the defintion has changed or fuck off.
@kkkaIdav "Defend your claim the defintion has changed or fuck off" I already did. I've already provided the original definition, and even highlighted the key difference between it and the watered-down one you're using. Are you unable to read now? Or is it just scrolling down you have a problem with?
@ArcanaKnight Your comment was spammed so it didn't show up until it was on the second page. See my answer below about your dishonest mischaracterisation of that defintion.
@ArcanaKnight HGow do you account, eg, for the stuff behe says throughout DBB about the functions of parts of IC systems if he claims they can't have any? It is clear you are just butchering the definition to give yourself an easy target by definig IC systems in such a way that their mere existence is physically impossible. Have some integrity ffs.
@ArcanaKnight I see you copied part of what Behe said in Darwin's Black Box but missed of the rest. This is called quote mining. You also missed out the word "system" when you talked about ceasing to function. This is a vital distinction because it is the system's function that ceases. Not any pssible fundction of any of the parts. How dishonest can you get.
@kkkaIdav "This is a vital distinction because it is the system's function that ceases" Its a fallacious distinction. You're just using a vague definition of the term "system" to try to claim that any part of it being removed makes it not the same "system". Its quite common in biochemistry for systems to have multiple functions, in different places or at different times, making the distinction you're trying to make of it ceasing a specific, intended function pointless.
"have some integrity" Why not have some yourself and stop ignoring the fact that your definition of IC doesn't rule out the systems arising naturally through common processes like exaptation and the Mullerian two-step?
@ArcanaKnight I'm not interested in the moment for what Behe's defintion (not mine) rules out, I'm interested for the moment about why you are lying about what he says. I'm interested in why you claim Behe's original defintion is not about the system when that is exactly what he says it is about. This is, at worst, a touch ambiguous, but any ambiguity is completely removed by all the other stuff Behe says about the parts of IC systems and their various functions.
@ArcanaKnight That is, how, if your silly reading is correct, do you account for the clear stateents Behe makes about the parts of IC systems if his idea is that the parts can have no function. Why does he discuss co-option of functional parts, for example, if it is central (or even peripheral) to his theory that these parts can have no function whatsoever. You are simply trying to maintain your misreading by quote-ming and then butchery of the quote thus mined. So, yes, show some integrity.
@ArcanaKnight And Behe doesn't try to rule out exaptation in principle. On the contrary, he says that is the only way they could evolve, but the probabilities, he says, are prohibitively high. So even on that simple point, then, it is clear you haven't a clue what Behe said.
@ArcanaKnight Please accept my apologies for the way I spoke to you earlier. I was being abused by Dino and shouldn't have taken it out on you. I will retract all claims of lying and lack of integrity and some of the stronnger claims about you being ignorant. I still think you're wrong on Behe, but I should not have said what I did in the manner I said it.
@ArcanaKnight And to claim that the idea the system ceases function is not a pointless istinction. Far from it. It is what turns your physically impssible mischaracterisation into an accurate characterisation of Behe's whole argument. It's not good enough to just make stuff up and then stick to it in the face of overwheleming evidence that your reading is wrong. Take a telling.
@kkkaldav "the idea the system ceases function is not a pointless distinction" It absolutely is a pointless distinction because this distinction Behe tries to make about it ceasing the system's "intended function" ignores the fact that there are none because there's no intent involved. The fact is that IC systems absolutely can evolve naturally, and Behe's followup argument about probabilities is flawed because his calculations are ludicrous: tinyurlDOTcom/6m9gc2l
@ArcanaKnight I'm not interested in your appraisal of IC, I'm interested in this nonsense about the defintition change. I'm interested in you explaining how Behe can possibly be saying what you say he does when he says the opposite at various places in his book. Once we deal with that misrepresentation then we can look at the other supposed flaws in what he didn't say either.
@kkkaldav I've already shown this. You tried to dismiss it earlier because I accidentally ommitted the word "system" from Behe's definition in DBB, but that doesn't change the fact that his original definition talked about the system ceasing to function, not that the system's "intended function" ceased, whereas his later definitions did make that distinction.
I find it curious that you'd rather talk about this relatively unimportant subject than whether IC is even a valid argument.
@ArcanaKnight Where does the word "intended" come from. You seem to have just made that up. The fact is that it is unclear now what you are claiming Behe's original defintion was. Do you accept, eg, that in the original defintion Behe accepted fully that the parts and subsystems within IC could have their won seperate functions and yet the overall system still be IC?
@kkkaldav "You seem to have just made that up" No, he actually talks about it for a bit, later in DBB (pg 196), though he apparently ignores the fact that there is no such thing in nature; any "intended" function is just the result of humans anthropomorphizing nature and incorrectly imposing intent on what we see in biology. Regardless, the distinction that you (and Behe) make about the system ceasing some specific, intended function isn't part of the original definition on pg39 of DBB
@ArcanaKnight I know intended function isn't part of the original defintion but since you just made it up it hard to see why anybody would think it was. The distinction I am making has nothing to do with. I am interested in what you think the IC argument was before it was "watered down". I have asked you two specific questions about this which the answer to either would clarify.
@ArcanaKnight Watch: according to the modern evolutionary synthesis (MES) all swans must be bright blue with yellow spots. Many swans are white, therefore the MES is false. Not hard is it, to destroy a theory when one simply butchers it and attribbutes all sorts of fantastic claims to it. This is what you're doing with Behe, and this is why we need to get at the actual claims he makes rather than som invented ones.
@ArcanaKnight The simplest way to think of this is: do you accpet Ken Miller's claim that IC, in Behe's sense, implies a total lack of all function for all individual parts and subsystems of an IC system?
@ArcanaKnight The simplest way to think of this is, do you accpet Ken Miller's claim that IC, in Behe's sense, implies a total lack of all function for all individual parts and subsystems of an IC system?
@ArcanaKnight And I don't see how getting clear about what an argument is before apprasing it is relatively unimprtant. On the contrary, it is essential.
@kkkaldav The discussion of whether the definition has changed is absolutely relatively unimportant, especially when compared to the discussion about whether the argument (under its current definition) is even valid in the first place, and the latter discussion would in no way be affected by the results of the former one way or the other.
@ArcanaKnight What I am trying to get at is why you say the defintion I am offering is a new watered down version rather than simply what was the argument all along. This is important because if we can't get clear on that then there is no possibility of going anywhere with the discussion. This is bceuase if you're going to just make stuff up thenn what's the point.
@ArcanaKnight What I am trying to get at is why you say the defintion I am offering is a new watered down version rather than simply what was the argument all along. This is important because if we can't get clear on that then there is no possibility of going anywhere with the discussion. This is bceuase if you're going to just make stuff up thenn what's the point.
@ArcanaKnight It amazing that in order to argue against Behe you have to twist his words into ridiculous claims that can be dispatched in a second and then, after patting yourselves on the back, you trot off to butcher something else. It's clear you simply don't know what Behe's argument is. It hasn't changed at all.
By starting your video with biblical passages and you want non believers to watch your video to prove a statement? The first thing people with think is that your just a religous nut and wont bother watching. First you state the facts, and then you show how it links to the Lord, not the other way around.
@kkkaldav "ID might be garbage of the highest order" then you've wasted your time for many days now defending dr. behe.
BTW: the video you're commenting on and defending is titled "scientists present proof of intelligent design." that was the "actual topic of discussion" the arse you've kicked was your own. :D
@castelgandalf Nobody marked your post as spam. You got your own post autospammed because you reposted a significant part of another post. That tends to get autospammed. So, not only are your points irrelevant, you also seem to be suffering from paranoid delusions.
@kkkaldav thou dost protest too much. was my comment directed at you? interesting.
my points are so irrelevant that you responded to the behe interview and the lehigh university quote. you only dismissed the journal of molecular ecology because it was over your head. if you had understood any of it you would surely have pointed out the gaping hole in the quote that i chose to test you. you are best left to your comfort zone, discussing blushing. and new scientist mag.
@castelgandalf 1. Of course it was directed at me. Who else would you be talking to. If it wasn't then my apologies. But it was so no need for them.
2. What quote did you use to test me? If it was the one from Behe, I already pointed out that you missed off some vital stuff. If it wasn't when I don't know which quote you mean.
3. What you have said is irrelevant because it completely miisses the point I am making about evolution.
you people who believe in evolution are all foolish. Evolution is the universal term for adaptation by all species to 'better be acquainted' with their environment. In no case whatsoever, will an animal evolve into a human. In no cause will a fast animal stand on two legs and slow his chances of escape by a mere 20mph, in no case will an animal shed it's fur, nor loose it's canines, nor weaken it's bones. likewise, gain intelligence, develop the ability to 'think', develop into a human.
@HarshColby Tell us why de Waal has it wrong, and you, without a qualification to your name, have it right. Tell us why the scientits (all of them) who rgard laughing an crying as things needing an evolutionary explanation are wrong, and you, without any academic credentials at all, have iit right.
@kkkaldav de Waal has not got it wrong. It is just that you are putting words in de Waal's mouth. In fact, de Waal is on the same side as HarshColby and I. What we say correlates with de Waal's theories, not against it. Stop bullshitting about how "de Waal has it wrong and we have it right". I honestly hate you. Not only for your lack of understanding of evolution, but to claim there are gaps in evolution and WRONGLY attribute them to certain scientists.
@HarshColby Why do i have it all figured out, because no man can deny god. no man can create a workaround outside of creationism, just a pro-longed verbal abuse of what is actually true. I have proven this on the other channel, and since you sad I"ve been corrected by all, i take it you've come across it. It is the biologists's duty to prove such things. this video is full of so many gaps, mysteries, and assertions, that it is as valuable as a Geico commercial (just another biologist babble).
@chromeninjar3d It's easy to deny the truth of silly stories. Biologists have hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers. Creationists have an old book. The old book has been shown to be wrong. The 100's of 1000s of scientific papers have not been shown to be wrong. On that basis, I have no reason to accept your claims that God represents any reality whatsoever. It's the same kind of silly stories you reject when the god is called Zeus, or any other name you haven't been indoctrinated with.
@HarshColby denying them you say? that would work. deny all you want, but do not dare to say these things are inexistent, because you cannot carry your side coherently enough to disprove anything outside of your scientific best-fit line. You are only a mere excuse of ''i don't know, but it can' be god, so i'll make up another theory or create some assumption based on educated guess, because it just can't be god''
@HarshColby glad to see you're still one of the reasoning ones. but be careful. when i cited a peer-reviewed source, he-who-must-not-be-named called it "completely irrelevant" and my reply to him was marked as spam. on the plus side, he did say: that intelligent design "might be garbage of the highest order" so he may be seeint the light...unless he's too dense to know when he's contradicted himself.
@kkkaldav Why some (not most) men have lesser hair ( I highly doubt they don't have ANY facial hair at all, is because of lesser testoterone. Evolution accounts for testoterone, thus, accounting for facial hair. The amount of hair is deteremined by amount of testoterone, different people = different amount, as I have said. Quit repeating how facial hair is not accounted for. Just because you do not understand it, doesn't mean it is not accounted for by evolution.
@kkkaldav WTF? What are you expecting out of this conversation then? That I am to explain how "shaving" evolutionised? For fuck sake, "shaving" or "haircuts" are external factors that are not part of the evolutionary process. I honestly do not get what you are trying to accomplish here, I thought you were saying how some men don't GROW facial hair thus disproving evolution, but now you are saying shaving disproves evolution? WTF? And facial hair has EVERYTHING to do with testoterone.
@DoraTheDino I know they're not part of the evolutionary process. That's why I said evolution can't accout for them. But since they are indeed features of the diversity of life, it means evolution does not, as evolutionists claim, account for all the diversity of life.The fact is evolution has almost nothing to say about any of the most interesting things about humans. And since one of the biggest claims evolutionists make is that it explains us fully, that shows how wrong they are.
@kkkaldav ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME. So evolution is disproved because shaving or removal of hair, is not part of evolution. That was why I said you have no bloody clue what evolution is. Not part of evolutionary process = evolution does not have to account for them. If you really wish to get to why we shave, I suppose it is part of the evolutionary process where we judge our own appearances (to attract the opposite sex etc.)
@kkkaldav Is your intelligence sub-par or something? How can you think "shaving", an external factor, or choice, disproves evolution? Diversity of life is having limbs in humans, or fins in fishes, or poisonous venom in snakes. NOT shaving, not the removal of hair, not actions taken by choice, but rather, actions that are predetermined (eg. shedding of skin by snakes.) You are so misinformed and clueless about evolution, yet you are so persistent.
@DoraTheDino I didn't say it disproves evolution. I said it disproves one of the grand claims made by evolutionists for the all-encopmpassing explanatory power of their theory. Of course evolution happens to some extent. It's just not that important for knowing about people.
@kkkaldav The thing is, It DOES NOT disprove "one of the grand claims made my evolutionists". Diversity of life ≠ removal of hair/shaving. Diversity of life = having testoterone that grows hair, limbs/eyes/skin/natural parts. NOT creating something such as a shaver to remove hair. You get it all wrong and you attribute the missing gaps to evolution? How ignorant can you get?
@DoraTheDino I know you hate me. Because yiour so fanaticaly devoted to ToE that you can't stand criticism of it. let's be clear, only a few hours agao you were proclaiming (in huge upper case laetters) that de Waal did not think blushing was a puzzle. He "NEVER" thought that, you said. But he did. Additionally, clean shaven chins does indeed = (one small part of) the diversity of life. Thus the rest of your claim falls due to that error. Consider yoursef spanked on both counts.
@DoraTheDino Did you not read the quot by de Waal - he thinks it's one of the great mysteries - you you say he never thought that. He did, there's the quote (below), check itout and stop lying about what he said. And, fwiw, we havn't yet got on to thereal bad problems for evolutioin because you're too dumb to even see the points being made so far and so progress is painfully slow. The clai there were gaps in ToE, btw, was New Scientist, not me. I think the theory is one big gap.
@kkkaldav Apparently you only read titles of articles instead of the article itself. If you had read the article, you would have realised that de Waal argues how blushing "makes it harder for people to lie. Given that our biology is determined by the forces of natural selection, it suggests the ability to express genuine honesty gave our ancestors an evolutionary advantage over their more devious contemporaries" See that? EVOLUTIONARY.
@kkkaldav I was wondering why one of the proponents of this theory would be against it. Turns out you were lying/stupid enough to think reading titles were enough. Regarding what New Scientist said, or in one of their articlues about ToE, they said they DON'T THINK there are basic "gaps" in the theory of evolution, which has proven to be a remarkably flexible scientific framework, brilliantly accommodating new data and even new fields of science, like molecular genetics. Lying again?
@DoraTheDino 1. The quote you attribute to New Scientist is from a particular scientist (Ken MIller), and ot NS itself. You therefore misrepresented it (you lied). 2. I am not basing what I say about de Waal on the title of an article (although the tile accurately reflects de Waal's position. I am basing it on the direct quote where he said blushing was a great mystery for evolution. 3. You miss the point about shaving. Let's leave that for the time being and focus on de Waal.
@kkkaldav Oh, so me quoting something that NS actually said or at least, published, is lying. And you, claiming NS were the ones who made the claim there were gaps in ToE, where they didn't, is fine? How ironic. de Waal did mention blushing as one the mystery, except that was 3 years ago. And I believe we have gotten much further than 3 years ago such that blushing is no longer a "mystery", as you claim, most likely due to you being no way up-to-date with evolution.
@DoraTheDino There are gaps in evolution. NS asked many scioentists what they thought the biggest gap was. De Waal said blushing. Ken Miller, on the other hand, said what you quoted as being the view of NS. It wasn't. It was Miller's view. THus you are lying about it. And don't get all upset at me calling you a liar when you called me one. I've had enough of you thin-skinned dickheads who think you can abuse people all day long and then cry like babies when you get it back.
Im not going to watch this because wht most Christians call proof is the bible or the cross
zoroisabeast 1 hour ago
@Znybar I wasn't trying to prove that a God exists. I was merely trying to state the fact that Darwin's Theory of Evolution cannot be true applying his rules to the evidence provided in these videos. There must be some other explanation!!
sm0ville 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sm0ville
"cannot be true"
And yet its central hypotheses are completely consistent with all observational data so far, and every hypothetical observation ever predicted on the basis of these central hypotheses has been made in actuality.
Strange for a theory that "cannot be true", no?
XGralgrathor 2 days ago
/watch?v=X4z0IVivslc&feature=BFa&list=PL4FF96BAA826872B6&lf=results_main
sm0ville 6 days ago in playlist Scientists Present Proof of Intelligent Design
@sm0ville Why do you give only the part after "youtube.com" when you give a link?
chris241289 6 days ago
@chris241289 Because YT doesn't allow posting of links.
HarshColby 5 days ago
@HarshColby thank you.
sm0ville 3 days ago
During his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize in Physics, Salam quoted the following verse: “You do not see in the creation of the Most Merciful any inconsistency. So return [your] vision [to the sky]; do you see any breaks? Then return [your] vision twice again. your vision will return to you humbled while it is fatigued” he then went on to say:
"This in effect is, the faith of all physicists; the deeper we seek, the more is our wonder excited, the more is the dazzlement for our gaze"
1spiders1 1 week ago
@1spiders1 You should come and join the party here - watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&feature=related
The gang's all there and it's such fun.
kkkaldav 1 week ago
@kkkaldav there are some interesting lectures on youtube :
Lecture - 1 Introduction to Quantum Physics;Heisenberg''s uncertainty principle by Prof.V.Balakrishnan and this one two..
Lecture - 1 Classical Physics by the same Physicist
1spiders1 1 week ago
@kkkaldav Prof.V.Balakrishnan has a good style of teaching explains things very simply. He said nature works at a mind-blowing scale and that we only have 5% knowledge of it. He said the distances of the microscopic length are too great and so is distance and size of the universe.
1spiders1 1 week ago
VipChannel, its Scientists present not scientists presents. If you post fallacies at least try to seem intelligent to attract smart people to this channel to debate about your point. Also, 1spiders1. Your posts are so idiotic, that its not even breath taking. Its absolutely mind numbingly dumb.
truvelocity 1 week ago
@truvelocity
. .Last pst was from the new scientist. nxt wz in relation to the multiverse theory and some facts about sharks, and the other was in relation to a particle experiment that was published in one of the most prestigious journals in the world. These are just fallacies by dumb people you right you too smart to be here bye bye. .
1spiders1 1 week ago
Comment removed
1spiders1 2 weeks ago
Excellent presentation - so far so good, part 1.
oopscanada 2 weeks ago
I guess you have no idea what constitutes as evidence or proof.
alianchild 2 weeks ago
@JaytheOstrich It's not like that at all. You could tweek the eys of shars a hundred diffrent ways and still the worm would be jim dandy. The laws of physics though are tuned to an unfathomable degree (so say the scientists) or no life at all could have formed. This is why multiverses are invoked for the fine tuning we see in this universe and multisharks are not needed to explain the cosy habitat of the worms.
kkkaldav 2 weeks ago
@kkkaldav The multiverse has given them a breather for now while they work something else out. To stop science from going in what they perceive to be the wrong direction towards design/ creator. calculater etc. But if you think about it luck, chance, coincidence are big players in today’s science.
1spiders1 2 weeks ago
@kkkaldav Why physicists can't avoid a creation event "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God," Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech. "This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe," Vilenkin concludes. "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning." watch harsh jump lol
1spiders1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HAHA! Laughable! They say the complexity of the bacteria is so unexplainable, that they must of been "created". HAHA! That is just an easy way out and a quick answer to something that cannot be explained by ignorant creationists (all of them ignorant). Life didn't need intelligence behind it to begin. Just because we use our intelligence to create things, doesn't give anyone the right to assume that therefore an intelligence must of created life. Get over it and move on, God does not exist FACT
pompeycharlie 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
pompeycharlie 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
pompeycharlie 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
outOFthePITT 2 weeks ago
were all these animal on the boat, noah's?
FUwogs 2 weeks ago
WTF is a 'Philosopher of Biology"???
JaytheOstrich 2 weeks ago
@JaytheOstrich It's a philosopher who specialises in the philosophy of biology - a well established field of philosophy with roots going back at least as far as aristotle That's what it fucking is.
kkkaldav 2 weeks ago
@kkkaldav Okay, relax, it's a term I hadn't seen before. And I had a misconception of what Philosophy was that made that term not make any sense.
JaytheOstrich 2 weeks ago
@JaytheOstrich It was only because you said WTF and I didn't think that 'that's WIF is' would have made much sense.
kkkaldav 2 weeks ago
@JaytheOstrich a bullshitest with a bible
FUwogs 2 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Unclear what that has to do with anything I wrote. In fact it is clear, it has nothing to do with it.
kkkaldav 2 weeks ago
Stop using this theory as a proof that Intelligent Design must be god - it can be an alien civilization - GOD IS SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE - if god created this or that - who created god dumbass? - Dont tell me God is the uncreated creator - thats an excuse for not having an explanation! -
BTW this theory is good i like it.
Spandex08 2 weeks ago
@Spandex08 Hi there. For one, God is not impossible, hence the name GOD. Two, the theory of intelligent design totally out weighs the theory of evolution in the way described in the video. Therefore, just by looking at the facts, the thoery of evolution is untrue and believing in it is just as much, or even worse than believing in a God. You cannot disprove God, but you can disprove evolution.
sm0ville 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sm0ville "the theory of intelligent design totally out weighs the theory of evolution in the way described in the video" Not even close to being true. Not only is ID itself little more than an argument from incredulity/ignorance and god-of-the-gaps argument, but the arguments used to support it are fallacious, cherry-picked, and just plain wrong. It makes no testable predictions, its unfalsifiable, and it fails pretty much every other metric used to qualify something as a theory.
ArcanaKnight 3 days ago
@sm0ville You're ignorant and clearly do not know anything about scientific circles. I have NEVER met a scientist who supported intelligent design and didnt agree with evolution, and I myself am one. There is no support for intelligent design, just look at the human eye. Most flawed piece of hardware ever created. If it is intelligent design, your god is a retard.
Znybar 2 days ago
@Znybar You said that the human eye is the "Most flawed piece of hardware ever created. If it is intelligent design, your god is a retard."
And yet millions or perhaps even billions of people around the world have 20/20 vision. Your dislike for Intelligent design and God is making you blind to reality.
villontre 1 day ago
@villontre You're an idiot? 20/20 vision? 90 percent of animals have much better vision than we do. Your god must love us indeed if he gave us a shitty pair of eyes compared to, say, a cuttlefish. When I said flawed, I meant in design. Look at a bit of anatomy, the eye is built backwards and upside-down. I was simply stating it because its an example often used by intelligent design for people to say 'look! that couldn't have evolved its too perfect!'.
Znybar 1 day ago
@Znybar And yes, I am an American idol. Most people with 20/20 and normal eye vision are completely satisfied with the way their eyes are built, backwards and upside-down. Humans do have better eye vision than millions of species of insects, microbial life forms, deep water fish, etc. The reason that some people are born blind is usually due to problems during different stages of human eye development, it has nothing to do with the design of the eye itself.
villontre 1 day ago
@villontre So what is your point exactly? You admit that the design of the human eye is flawed and inferior? How does this in any way support intelligent design? I would say it's unfair to include 'millions of species of microbes' that don't actually have nor need eyes, and I contest your comment on insects, which can see in the ultraviolet/infared spectrum (which humans don't btw). And he also designed an eye that is prone to developmental issues as well as environmental impacts?
Znybar 1 day ago
@Znybar Au contraire, I never said that the eye is flawed and inferior. You began this whole thing by saying that the human eye was the: " Most flawed piece of hardware ever created." And I am telling you that this sort of mentality only comes from someone like Dawkins and others that are constantly trying to find flaws in a perfect design such as the human eye (O).
villontre 1 day ago
@villontre Ok, if you were to design a camera, would you put a hole in the lens, put a few layers of opaque tissue in front of it? No, unless you had a strange desire to have a bad picture. The fact we see 'well' is not related to the efficacy of its design, because we have nothing to compare our vision to (classic anthropomorphising). Basically, yes, the eye works for our purposes. But if god is all-knowing, surely he wouldnt include all these evident engineering flaws?
Znybar 1 day ago
@villontre And what about all the people born blind? Or the children in africa who get simple eye infections curable by one drop of antibiotic who never get it and go blind? What a loving god...
Znybar 1 day ago
@sm0ville and until YOU can prove there is a god, don't hold an argument. Religious people have the burden of proof, not the secular among us.
Znybar 2 days ago
I laugh at ToE's inability to explain my laughing at it. Ha ha ha <-- see
kkkaldav 2 weeks ago
Darwin took an inch and stretched it a mile. It would have been fair for him to say that evolution exists, but to say they evolved from nothing, that is ridiculous.
byteusa 2 weeks ago
@byteusa
"but to say they evolved from nothing"
Nobody is saying that, though.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
Oh look, that cowboy at 2:26 ! I'm just wondering... if cowboys have evolved into agronomists - why are there still cowboys? That must be the ultimate proof that evolution is wrong!
MaluronLurette 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
kkkaldav 3 weeks ago
If creationist don't like evolution than stop talking about it, and start proving intelligent design.
drijfkip1 3 weeks ago
@drijfkip1 They say thehave, weren't you listening. Argument to the best explanation and all that. What do you think that's about?
kkkaldav 3 weeks ago
@kkkaldav The whole video is about evolution ! And that they don't like it.
That's all that it is....
drijfkip1 3 weeks ago
@drijfkip1 This part of the video might focus mainly on the problems with evolution, but in other segements they deal with the argument to the best explanation. That's where they argue for design.
kkkaldav 3 weeks ago
@drijfkip1 Do not bother arguing with kkk. He's one of those creationist idiots that lie and bullshit their way in order to "prove evolution wrong".
DoraTheDino 3 weeks ago
@kkkaldav
"Argument to the best explanation and all that"
Arguments are not evidence.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
Ive only got one problem about this. Ive watched 2 minutes, but this "research" is not objective since it is probably christians that wrote the paper. Objectiveness is the core of science, and any paper that isnt is not valid scientificaly. Neither does it fill one important criteria of a scientific theory which is that it should be falsifiable. The road ends at, God did it, and makes the paper void of any signifigance.
RawSwedishMeatball 4 weeks ago
@RawSwedishMeatball How did the things that made the big bang come about??
sm0ville 3 days ago
@sm0ville So your asking what caused the big bang, or what was before the big bang?
What was "before" the big bang is useless since time didnt exist "then".
The cause is still unkown, though there are hypotheses, but not knowing does not prove God, not intelligent design.
I can example give the prime mover any kind of traits I want, without naming it god, and it would fit just as fine into the picture as ID have. ID is a belief based on a belief, What a great idea isnt it?...
RawSwedishMeatball 2 days ago
this is classic rubbish.
itchygonads 4 weeks ago
"In the history of the primates, we must be careful not to take at face value the reconstitutions of our ancestors based on on a few scanty vestiges (some teeth, a fragment of jawbone, the top of a skull) which were put forward in all seriousness by highly imaginative palaeontologists" grasse
1spiders1 4 weeks ago
"The story of evolution reads just like “The Story of the Three Bears,” In the nursery tale, a little girl named Goldilocks enters a home occupied by three bears and tries different bowls of porridge; some are too hot, some are too cold. She also tries different chairs and beds, and every time, the third is “just right.” For 13.7 billion years we, too, have had chronic good luck. Virtually everything has been “just right.”It’s a fascinating story to tell children" lanza
1spiders1 4 weeks ago
"This good fortune started from the moment of creation; if the Big Bang had been one-part-in-a-million more powerful, the cosmos would have rushed out too fast for the galaxies and stars to have developed. If the gravitational force were decreased by a hair, stars (including the Sun) wouldn’t have ignited. There are over 200 physical parameters like this that could have any value but happen to be exactly right for us to be here. Tweak any of them and you never existed" lanza
1spiders1 4 weeks ago
@1spiders1 Yes, and the universe would be different. So what? It wouldn't matter if we didn't exist, We. Don't. Matter. On a universal scale, we are like a bit of lichen on a rock.
JaytheOstrich 2 weeks ago
@JaytheOstrich Yes that’s right; the universe is greater than the creation of man. It is also precisely and exactly tuned for the existence of life and man. Our existence and observation of it makes a difference to it. That is why now scientists are exploring different realms like consciousness, design for answers
1spiders1 2 weeks ago
@JaytheOstrich On the other hand instead of evoking a multishark theory. it is said the parasite might help lure potential prey to the sharks mouth. Plus even if they are blinded by the parasite the sharks hunt in near darkness anyway and use their keen sense of smell to find food. But the shark itself is an engineering marvel. A great white shark could detect a single drop of blood in an Olympic-size swimming pool. A different discussion but.
1spiders1 2 weeks ago
The probability of random physical laws and events leading to this point is less than 1 out of 100,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, equivalent to winning every lottery there ever was. lanza
1spiders1 4 weeks ago
Zero evidence in these videos. Breaching the 9th commandment is a sin.
And you still fail to understand that disproving 1 thing does NOT constitue proving another thing. That's a separate endeavour
tdjdk 4 weeks ago
@tdjdk That'll be why there are two parts to the argument then. Then negative part which highllights the difficulties for current evolutionary theory, and the positive part that argues to the best explanation via known adequate causation.
kkkaldav 4 weeks ago
Scientists continue to dismiss the observer as an inconvenience to their theories. Real experiments show that the properties of matter itself are observer-determined. A particle can go through one hole if you look at it, but if you don't look at it, it can actually go through more than one hole at the same time. Science has no explanation for how the world can be like that.
1spiders1 1 month ago
Lanza: For the first time outside of complex mathematics, this theory explains the provocative new experiment that was just published in Science last month. This landmark experiment showed that a choice you make now can actually influence an event that has already occurred in the past.
1spiders1 1 month ago
"scientists are studying how animals respond to being tickled in a bid to shed light on how laughter evolved"
Scientists are tickling rats and chimps to find out why human beings laugh. This is the kind of stuff the evolutionary basket of evidence is mostly filled with.
1spiders1 1 month ago
@1spiders1 Do you belive that diino is now preteding he never said anything different fro de Waal. Go back and look at all the times he said things like "NEVER" and "NOT" etc. re our direct quotes. How do you suppose someone get's into the frame of mind where they can simply lie about the most basic facts of hat was said onyly a few posts ago. These people have some kind of strange psychologial issue that means normal human integrity simply ceases. It's astonishing.
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@kkkaldav dino the dinosaur is a lying piece of shit. He argued and argued about it with his eyes closed and then pissed off. Then he came back pretending he never said ought about it. lol!
Its amazing how harsh, dino and that other prick quietly tiptoed away from the subject when we presented to them evidence upon evidence.especially when I contacted franc de waal himself ! lol
1spiders1 4 weeks ago
@1spiders1 This what I find really fascinating. And when you see that what goes on here is not dissimilar to the way some in the scientific community carried on when ID came on the scene you really get a different picture of science from the one that scientists popularly present. This type of thing is, IMO, astonishingly bad for science because it means, effectively, that when controversial topics are raised we can't believe a word any of them say.
kkkaldav 4 weeks ago
@kkkaldav Yes it’s sad that some extremist fanatics have hijacked science. Now mainstream science has complete herd mentality.
1spiders1 4 weeks ago
@1spiders1 You and kkaldav are like 2 retarded kids making themselves happy by ignoring everyone else while praising each other. Oh well.
DoraTheDino 3 weeks ago
@DoraTheDino Google these words "Evolution is very possibly not, in actual fact, always gradual" and you'l see that the last point that ypou said was rubbish is exactly Dawkins' own words from River out of Eden (p.83). Oh how we laughed.
kkkaldav 3 weeks ago
@kkkaldav Mr. derp you have to be precise than just "the last point..was rubbish" and that still isn't proof to Dawkins regarding probability as a valid tool in science. Oh how you laughed. And laugh indeed, considering your questionable sense of "humour". herp derp durr durr derp.
DoraTheDino 3 weeks ago
@DoraTheDino How precise would you like me to be. I have been quoting Dawkins almost word for word but since you didn't know it you've been saying it's rubbish. These are Dawkins' points, not mine. You don't even know what you're saying anymore.
That's three times now the quote trick has been sprung on you. De Waal, and Dawkins twice. You simply haven't a clue what the theory of evolution is. Nothing can faslify your article of faith because it's faith not science.
kkkaldav 3 weeks ago
@DoraTheDino The uestio is: why does Dawkins say evolution has to be gradual? What does he mena when says i it's not gradual it loses explanatory powere and bbecomes just like a series of miracles? You don't know. And before I told you they were Dawkins' words you didn't think it had to be. You probably still don't.
kkkaldav 3 weeks ago
@DoraTheDino Thw whole point of Dawkins' quote, the one you didn't know was Dawkins and said was rubbish, is that eolution has to be gradula because otherwise it relies on things that are astronomically unlikely (Dawkins calls these miracles) and thus it loses it's explantory power. What do you think Dawkins' quote is about?
kkkaldav 3 weeks ago
@DoraTheDino So to conclude: the reason the theory of evolution is devoid of conmtent is because it equates to "whatever happened". That is, 'whatever it was that took place shall be called evolution' is the first commandment of your religion. Who cares what it was that actually happened, it's still going to be called evoilution come what may. Thus the theory is as empty as the inside of your head.
kkkaldav 3 weeks ago
@kkkaldav Mr. derp that's some excellent deduction skills you have there. Never did I thought that's what Dawkin's words meant, or how it had anything to do with him thinking probability is a valid tool in science. Oh wait it doesn't. Mr. derp, the quote simply means that evolution has to occur in stages, step-by-step, instead of transforming overnight, which is true in any sense and has literally been the core of evolution.
DoraTheDino 3 weeks ago
@kkkaldav Mr. derp I have no idea why you are stating or question the quote, it simply means that evolution has to be gradual, which it is. I do not believe I've said anything close to evolution not being gradual, mr.derp. How did you come up with the conclusion that I thought it was "rubbish" then? Mr. derp, you should probably get your facts right, the things I've called rubbish is you claiming Dawkins' think probability is a valid tool in science.
DoraTheDino 3 weeks ago
@kkkaldav And mr. derp, how can anyone be so thick like you? How does evolution equate to "whatever happened"? If a magical figure came down and craft humans as they are now from the beginning would that be evolution? So please enlighten me on how your excellent deduction skills allowed you to make such a crappy conclusion? Honestly it is just amazing you coutinue coming up with such crappy conclusions when we've already been through this before. Please please enlighten me.
DoraTheDino 3 weeks ago
@DoraTheDino According to your defintion of evolution a few days ago a magical figure crafting humans would fit right in. But even if that wasn't true, that would appear to be about the only thing evolution rules out (and even that would need to be qualified). And, for you, that is exaclty what evolution means - not God. And that is why it is devoid of meaningful scientific content.
kkkaldav 3 weeks ago
@kkkaldav Fucksake, mr. derp, it is ridiculous trying to have a conversation with you. First you making a sweeping claim, then you backtrack a little, saying shit like "that would appear to be about the only thing". What are you expecting? That I spoon feed you like a little child and supply each and every info? FUCK YOU I've had enough of your bullshitting and I am not going to waste my time on you since all you wish to do is live in self-denial.
DoraTheDino 3 weeks ago
@DoraTheDino Don't waste you time. Move along. Move along to a library or something ( I take it they have such things where you live), and read a book (I take it you've heard of them). Then, in about three years (when you know a little bit about the stuff), come back and you'll maybe not embarrass yourself so badly.
kkkaldav 3 weeks ago
@kkkaldav Yea keep living in self-denial you fucktard. Read a book? Coming from someone who knows nothing about evolution? I mean, shaving disproves evolution? And talking snakes? Fuck you you lying, bullshitting creationist fuck. Question your own fucking motives, having to resort to lying and misrepresentation for your creationist bullshit.
DoraTheDino 3 weeks ago
Irreducible complexity explained simply: tinyurlDOTcom/d4udcr5
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight I'm sure it suits your child-like mind to imagine that that's what IC is, but all that shows is how frightened you must be by the real thing to have to take refuge in such a silly mischaracterisation. As I said below, IC may be rubbish, but it's not rubbish because of any flaw any scientist has found in it, and certainly not because some clown can draw a cartoon that has nothing to do with it. Your lack of intellectual rigour is staggering.
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@kkkaldav IC failed from its inception because it was essentially nothing but an argument from ignorance/incredulity. Even if we don't know exactly which evolutionary steps were involved in the creation of certain structures doesn't mean that we'll never know, let alone that they couldn't have evolved (though plausible evolutionary paths for every single supposedly IC structure have been presented).
BTW, that cartoon was meant to be a laugh, nothing more.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight IC is not an argument from ignorance at all - it's an argument from total theoretical failure and an argument about adequate causation. You claim the cartoon was only meant to be a joke but that statement suggests it is your view. You appear to know nothing about IC, and your claim that plausible evolutionary paths have been shown is pure fantasy.
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight When you say "supposedly" IC structures, it shows your ignorance clearly. These structures are IC, because all IC means is that the way the system works relies on a number of parts acting in unison and if any of these parts were missing the system could not perform that function. There are countless examples of such things. Thus you are in the ludicrous position of both claiming to know how such systems came to be and denying their existence at the same time.
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@kkkaldav "because what IC means..." That's actually just one of the definitions its gone through, and something considered to be an IC structure under watered-down definition doesn't even rule out the possibility of it evolving via relatively common processes like exaptation or the Mullarian two-step, thereby making that definition of IC a pointless concept.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight The defintion was always essentially the same. The idea it has substantially changed is just made up. Unsure how you can claim to know anything about the subject when you don't even know that.
kkkaIdav 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight What, eg, do you say the roiginal defintion was, and how long was that on the go before it got changed? Put your money where your mouth is.
kkkaIdav 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kkkaIdav The original definition: "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." Notice how it says "cease functioning", and not "cease to perform that specific function"? That's an important distinction.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@kkkaIdav Also, IC is absolutely an argument from ignorance; it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: Lacking a natural explanation, we assume intelligent cause (tinyurlDOTcom/d8fes28). Behe himself has admitted that a failure of current science to explain how an "irreducibly complex" organism did or could evolve does not automatically prove the impossibility of such an evolution.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight It doesn't rely on lack of knoweldge for it's conclusion. It relies on an appeal to known adequate causes as the best explanation. But I'm more ineteested in the claim that the defintion changes. Come on, let's hear it.
kkkaIdav 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kkkaIdav "It relies on an appeal to known adequate causes as the best explanation" And yet it completely ignores ridiculously common processes which can bring about such structures such as exaptation and the Mullerian two-step.
"Come on, let's hear it. " I already provided it below.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
CONT BTW, why is it you think that "(my) claim that plausible evolutionary paths have been shown is pure fantasy"? You can easily find these pathways even here on youtube. Have you really not come across a single one? And you have the chutzpah insult others' knowledge of this subject?
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight I've read the so-called pathways. They're pur fantasy. No real details. No real testing. No real idea if such things are possibe. No numbers, no calculations, nothing except a just so story which takes for granted virtually all of what is trying to be explained. But that's not my interest here. My interest here is in your false claim that the defintion changed. Let's deal with tht first.
kkkaIdav 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight I don't need chutzpah to know your a complete lying prick. I only needed to read your first few posts and understand English. Defend your claim the defintion has changed or fuck off.
kkkaIdav 1 month ago
@kkkaIdav "Defend your claim the defintion has changed or fuck off" I already did. I've already provided the original definition, and even highlighted the key difference between it and the watered-down one you're using. Are you unable to read now? Or is it just scrolling down you have a problem with?
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight Your comment was spammed so it didn't show up until it was on the second page. See my answer below about your dishonest mischaracterisation of that defintion.
kkkaIdav 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight HGow do you account, eg, for the stuff behe says throughout DBB about the functions of parts of IC systems if he claims they can't have any? It is clear you are just butchering the definition to give yourself an easy target by definig IC systems in such a way that their mere existence is physically impossible. Have some integrity ffs.
kkkaIdav 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight I see you copied part of what Behe said in Darwin's Black Box but missed of the rest. This is called quote mining. You also missed out the word "system" when you talked about ceasing to function. This is a vital distinction because it is the system's function that ceases. Not any pssible fundction of any of the parts. How dishonest can you get.
kkkaIdav 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kkkaIdav "This is a vital distinction because it is the system's function that ceases" Its a fallacious distinction. You're just using a vague definition of the term "system" to try to claim that any part of it being removed makes it not the same "system". Its quite common in biochemistry for systems to have multiple functions, in different places or at different times, making the distinction you're trying to make of it ceasing a specific, intended function pointless.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
"have some integrity" Why not have some yourself and stop ignoring the fact that your definition of IC doesn't rule out the systems arising naturally through common processes like exaptation and the Mullerian two-step?
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight I'm not interested in the moment for what Behe's defintion (not mine) rules out, I'm interested for the moment about why you are lying about what he says. I'm interested in why you claim Behe's original defintion is not about the system when that is exactly what he says it is about. This is, at worst, a touch ambiguous, but any ambiguity is completely removed by all the other stuff Behe says about the parts of IC systems and their various functions.
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight That is, how, if your silly reading is correct, do you account for the clear stateents Behe makes about the parts of IC systems if his idea is that the parts can have no function. Why does he discuss co-option of functional parts, for example, if it is central (or even peripheral) to his theory that these parts can have no function whatsoever. You are simply trying to maintain your misreading by quote-ming and then butchery of the quote thus mined. So, yes, show some integrity.
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight And Behe doesn't try to rule out exaptation in principle. On the contrary, he says that is the only way they could evolve, but the probabilities, he says, are prohibitively high. So even on that simple point, then, it is clear you haven't a clue what Behe said.
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight Please accept my apologies for the way I spoke to you earlier. I was being abused by Dino and shouldn't have taken it out on you. I will retract all claims of lying and lack of integrity and some of the stronnger claims about you being ignorant. I still think you're wrong on Behe, but I should not have said what I did in the manner I said it.
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight And to claim that the idea the system ceases function is not a pointless istinction. Far from it. It is what turns your physically impssible mischaracterisation into an accurate characterisation of Behe's whole argument. It's not good enough to just make stuff up and then stick to it in the face of overwheleming evidence that your reading is wrong. Take a telling.
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@kkkaldav "the idea the system ceases function is not a pointless distinction" It absolutely is a pointless distinction because this distinction Behe tries to make about it ceasing the system's "intended function" ignores the fact that there are none because there's no intent involved. The fact is that IC systems absolutely can evolve naturally, and Behe's followup argument about probabilities is flawed because his calculations are ludicrous: tinyurlDOTcom/6m9gc2l
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight I'm not interested in your appraisal of IC, I'm interested in this nonsense about the defintition change. I'm interested in you explaining how Behe can possibly be saying what you say he does when he says the opposite at various places in his book. Once we deal with that misrepresentation then we can look at the other supposed flaws in what he didn't say either.
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@kkkaldav I've already shown this. You tried to dismiss it earlier because I accidentally ommitted the word "system" from Behe's definition in DBB, but that doesn't change the fact that his original definition talked about the system ceasing to function, not that the system's "intended function" ceased, whereas his later definitions did make that distinction.
I find it curious that you'd rather talk about this relatively unimportant subject than whether IC is even a valid argument.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight Where does the word "intended" come from. You seem to have just made that up. The fact is that it is unclear now what you are claiming Behe's original defintion was. Do you accept, eg, that in the original defintion Behe accepted fully that the parts and subsystems within IC could have their won seperate functions and yet the overall system still be IC?
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@kkkaldav "You seem to have just made that up" No, he actually talks about it for a bit, later in DBB (pg 196), though he apparently ignores the fact that there is no such thing in nature; any "intended" function is just the result of humans anthropomorphizing nature and incorrectly imposing intent on what we see in biology. Regardless, the distinction that you (and Behe) make about the system ceasing some specific, intended function isn't part of the original definition on pg39 of DBB
ArcanaKnight 4 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight I know intended function isn't part of the original defintion but since you just made it up it hard to see why anybody would think it was. The distinction I am making has nothing to do with. I am interested in what you think the IC argument was before it was "watered down". I have asked you two specific questions about this which the answer to either would clarify.
kkkaldav 4 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight Watch: according to the modern evolutionary synthesis (MES) all swans must be bright blue with yellow spots. Many swans are white, therefore the MES is false. Not hard is it, to destroy a theory when one simply butchers it and attribbutes all sorts of fantastic claims to it. This is what you're doing with Behe, and this is why we need to get at the actual claims he makes rather than som invented ones.
kkkaldav 4 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight The simplest way to think of this is: do you accpet Ken Miller's claim that IC, in Behe's sense, implies a total lack of all function for all individual parts and subsystems of an IC system?
kkkaldav 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArcanaKnight The simplest way to think of this is, do you accpet Ken Miller's claim that IC, in Behe's sense, implies a total lack of all function for all individual parts and subsystems of an IC system?
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight And I don't see how getting clear about what an argument is before apprasing it is relatively unimprtant. On the contrary, it is essential.
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@kkkaldav The discussion of whether the definition has changed is absolutely relatively unimportant, especially when compared to the discussion about whether the argument (under its current definition) is even valid in the first place, and the latter discussion would in no way be affected by the results of the former one way or the other.
ArcanaKnight 4 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight What I am trying to get at is why you say the defintion I am offering is a new watered down version rather than simply what was the argument all along. This is important because if we can't get clear on that then there is no possibility of going anywhere with the discussion. This is bceuase if you're going to just make stuff up thenn what's the point.
kkkaldav 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArcanaKnight What I am trying to get at is why you say the defintion I am offering is a new watered down version rather than simply what was the argument all along. This is important because if we can't get clear on that then there is no possibility of going anywhere with the discussion. This is bceuase if you're going to just make stuff up thenn what's the point.
kkkaldav 4 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight It amazing that in order to argue against Behe you have to twist his words into ridiculous claims that can be dispatched in a second and then, after patting yourselves on the back, you trot off to butcher something else. It's clear you simply don't know what Behe's argument is. It hasn't changed at all.
kkkaldav 4 weeks ago
that should be "note" rather than "not" the T
kkkaldav 1 month ago
That's one of the things about characters like you. Always talking out of your arse to back up your fundamentalist views.
kkkaldav 1 month ago
interesting argument.
eysofastrnjr 1 month ago
By starting your video with biblical passages and you want non believers to watch your video to prove a statement? The first thing people with think is that your just a religous nut and wont bother watching. First you state the facts, and then you show how it links to the Lord, not the other way around.
eysofastrnjr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kkkaldav "ID might be garbage of the highest order" then you've wasted your time for many days now defending dr. behe.
BTW: the video you're commenting on and defending is titled "scientists present proof of intelligent design." that was the "actual topic of discussion" the arse you've kicked was your own. :D
castelgandalf 1 month ago
you poor fool! you mark one comment as spam because the truth hurts, yet you leave the rest of the thread for everyone to read!
castelgandalf 1 month ago
@castelgandalf Nobody marked your post as spam. You got your own post autospammed because you reposted a significant part of another post. That tends to get autospammed. So, not only are your points irrelevant, you also seem to be suffering from paranoid delusions.
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@kkkaldav thou dost protest too much. was my comment directed at you? interesting.
my points are so irrelevant that you responded to the behe interview and the lehigh university quote. you only dismissed the journal of molecular ecology because it was over your head. if you had understood any of it you would surely have pointed out the gaping hole in the quote that i chose to test you. you are best left to your comfort zone, discussing blushing. and new scientist mag.
castelgandalf 1 month ago
@castelgandalf 1. Of course it was directed at me. Who else would you be talking to. If it wasn't then my apologies. But it was so no need for them.
2. What quote did you use to test me? If it was the one from Behe, I already pointed out that you missed off some vital stuff. If it wasn't when I don't know which quote you mean.
3. What you have said is irrelevant because it completely miisses the point I am making about evolution.
kkkaldav 1 month ago
Comment removed
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@kkkaldav miisses the point. we all make a typo once in a while don't we?
castelgandalf 1 month ago
@castelgandalf What? You posted all the stuff here as a typo? LOL.
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@kkkaldav apology accepted :)
castelgandalf 1 month ago
@castelgandalf I didn't apologise. Your English really is bad, isn't it?
kkkaldav 1 month ago
you people who believe in evolution are all foolish. Evolution is the universal term for adaptation by all species to 'better be acquainted' with their environment. In no case whatsoever, will an animal evolve into a human. In no cause will a fast animal stand on two legs and slow his chances of escape by a mere 20mph, in no case will an animal shed it's fur, nor loose it's canines, nor weaken it's bones. likewise, gain intelligence, develop the ability to 'think', develop into a human.
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@chromeninjar3d Is your ignorance of evolution a great as your ignorance of physics?
Tell us why all biologists have it wrong, and you, with no qualifications have it all figured out.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby Tell us why de Waal has it wrong, and you, without a qualification to your name, have it right. Tell us why the scientits (all of them) who rgard laughing an crying as things needing an evolutionary explanation are wrong, and you, without any academic credentials at all, have iit right.
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@kkkaldav de Waal has not got it wrong. It is just that you are putting words in de Waal's mouth. In fact, de Waal is on the same side as HarshColby and I. What we say correlates with de Waal's theories, not against it. Stop bullshitting about how "de Waal has it wrong and we have it right". I honestly hate you. Not only for your lack of understanding of evolution, but to claim there are gaps in evolution and WRONGLY attribute them to certain scientists.
DoraTheDino 1 month ago
@HarshColby Why do i have it all figured out, because no man can deny god. no man can create a workaround outside of creationism, just a pro-longed verbal abuse of what is actually true. I have proven this on the other channel, and since you sad I"ve been corrected by all, i take it you've come across it. It is the biologists's duty to prove such things. this video is full of so many gaps, mysteries, and assertions, that it is as valuable as a Geico commercial (just another biologist babble).
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
@chromeninjar3d It's easy to deny the truth of silly stories. Biologists have hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers. Creationists have an old book. The old book has been shown to be wrong. The 100's of 1000s of scientific papers have not been shown to be wrong. On that basis, I have no reason to accept your claims that God represents any reality whatsoever. It's the same kind of silly stories you reject when the god is called Zeus, or any other name you haven't been indoctrinated with.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby denying them you say? that would work. deny all you want, but do not dare to say these things are inexistent, because you cannot carry your side coherently enough to disprove anything outside of your scientific best-fit line. You are only a mere excuse of ''i don't know, but it can' be god, so i'll make up another theory or create some assumption based on educated guess, because it just can't be god''
chromeninjar3d 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HarshColby glad to see you're still one of the reasoning ones. but be careful. when i cited a peer-reviewed source, he-who-must-not-be-named called it "completely irrelevant" and my reply to him was marked as spam. on the plus side, he did say: that intelligent design "might be garbage of the highest order" so he may be seeint the light...unless he's too dense to know when he's contradicted himself.
castelgandalf 1 month ago
@1spiders1 Merry Xmas. Enjoy the day and enjoy the stuff that's just gone on here.
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@kkkaldav And you, clown, you should look at the quote from mde Waal I just cited as well. Consider yourself spanked along with Colby.
kkkaldav 1 month ago
Joy unconfined!
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@kkkaldav Why some (not most) men have lesser hair ( I highly doubt they don't have ANY facial hair at all, is because of lesser testoterone. Evolution accounts for testoterone, thus, accounting for facial hair. The amount of hair is deteremined by amount of testoterone, different people = different amount, as I have said. Quit repeating how facial hair is not accounted for. Just because you do not understand it, doesn't mean it is not accounted for by evolution.
DoraTheDino 1 month ago
@DoraTheDino But he wants so badly to believe it. :)
HarshColby 1 month ago
@DoraTheDino Men have almost no facial hair because they shave it you clown. It has nothig to do with testosterone.
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@kkkaldav WTF? What are you expecting out of this conversation then? That I am to explain how "shaving" evolutionised? For fuck sake, "shaving" or "haircuts" are external factors that are not part of the evolutionary process. I honestly do not get what you are trying to accomplish here, I thought you were saying how some men don't GROW facial hair thus disproving evolution, but now you are saying shaving disproves evolution? WTF? And facial hair has EVERYTHING to do with testoterone.
DoraTheDino 1 month ago
@DoraTheDino I know they're not part of the evolutionary process. That's why I said evolution can't accout for them. But since they are indeed features of the diversity of life, it means evolution does not, as evolutionists claim, account for all the diversity of life.The fact is evolution has almost nothing to say about any of the most interesting things about humans. And since one of the biggest claims evolutionists make is that it explains us fully, that shows how wrong they are.
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@kkkaldav ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME. So evolution is disproved because shaving or removal of hair, is not part of evolution. That was why I said you have no bloody clue what evolution is. Not part of evolutionary process = evolution does not have to account for them. If you really wish to get to why we shave, I suppose it is part of the evolutionary process where we judge our own appearances (to attract the opposite sex etc.)
DoraTheDino 1 month ago
@kkkaldav Is your intelligence sub-par or something? How can you think "shaving", an external factor, or choice, disproves evolution? Diversity of life is having limbs in humans, or fins in fishes, or poisonous venom in snakes. NOT shaving, not the removal of hair, not actions taken by choice, but rather, actions that are predetermined (eg. shedding of skin by snakes.) You are so misinformed and clueless about evolution, yet you are so persistent.
DoraTheDino 1 month ago
@DoraTheDino I didn't say it disproves evolution. I said it disproves one of the grand claims made by evolutionists for the all-encopmpassing explanatory power of their theory. Of course evolution happens to some extent. It's just not that important for knowing about people.
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@kkkaldav The thing is, It DOES NOT disprove "one of the grand claims made my evolutionists". Diversity of life ≠ removal of hair/shaving. Diversity of life = having testoterone that grows hair, limbs/eyes/skin/natural parts. NOT creating something such as a shaver to remove hair. You get it all wrong and you attribute the missing gaps to evolution? How ignorant can you get?
DoraTheDino 1 month ago
@DoraTheDino I know you hate me. Because yiour so fanaticaly devoted to ToE that you can't stand criticism of it. let's be clear, only a few hours agao you were proclaiming (in huge upper case laetters) that de Waal did not think blushing was a puzzle. He "NEVER" thought that, you said. But he did. Additionally, clean shaven chins does indeed = (one small part of) the diversity of life. Thus the rest of your claim falls due to that error. Consider yoursef spanked on both counts.
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@DoraTheDino Did you not read the quot by de Waal - he thinks it's one of the great mysteries - you you say he never thought that. He did, there's the quote (below), check itout and stop lying about what he said. And, fwiw, we havn't yet got on to thereal bad problems for evolutioin because you're too dumb to even see the points being made so far and so progress is painfully slow. The clai there were gaps in ToE, btw, was New Scientist, not me. I think the theory is one big gap.
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@kkkaldav Apparently you only read titles of articles instead of the article itself. If you had read the article, you would have realised that de Waal argues how blushing "makes it harder for people to lie. Given that our biology is determined by the forces of natural selection, it suggests the ability to express genuine honesty gave our ancestors an evolutionary advantage over their more devious contemporaries" See that? EVOLUTIONARY.
DoraTheDino 1 month ago
@kkkaldav I was wondering why one of the proponents of this theory would be against it. Turns out you were lying/stupid enough to think reading titles were enough. Regarding what New Scientist said, or in one of their articlues about ToE, they said they DON'T THINK there are basic "gaps" in the theory of evolution, which has proven to be a remarkably flexible scientific framework, brilliantly accommodating new data and even new fields of science, like molecular genetics. Lying again?
DoraTheDino 1 month ago
@DoraTheDino 1. The quote you attribute to New Scientist is from a particular scientist (Ken MIller), and ot NS itself. You therefore misrepresented it (you lied). 2. I am not basing what I say about de Waal on the title of an article (although the tile accurately reflects de Waal's position. I am basing it on the direct quote where he said blushing was a great mystery for evolution. 3. You miss the point about shaving. Let's leave that for the time being and focus on de Waal.
kkkaldav 1 month ago
@kkkaldav Oh, so me quoting something that NS actually said or at least, published, is lying. And you, claiming NS were the ones who made the claim there were gaps in ToE, where they didn't, is fine? How ironic. de Waal did mention blushing as one the mystery, except that was 3 years ago. And I believe we have gotten much further than 3 years ago such that blushing is no longer a "mystery", as you claim, most likely due to you being no way up-to-date with evolution.
DoraTheDino 1 month ago
@DoraTheDino There are gaps in evolution. NS asked many scioentists what they thought the biggest gap was. De Waal said blushing. Ken Miller, on the other hand, said what you quoted as being the view of NS. It wasn't. It was Miller's view. THus you are lying about it. And don't get all upset at me calling you a liar when you called me one. I've had enough of you thin-skinned dickheads who think you can abuse people all day long and then cry like babies when you get it back.
kkkaldav 1 month ago