I like the project, I mean that every kind of science, belief (or whatever you would call it) should be teached everywhere, and then everyone should decide what they believe in for the moment, and I want to support the theory that man and dinos have existed together, and that they still do, and also note that I dont believe in extinction. And I am not a creationist, niether an evolutionist, but I believe in parts of both creation and evolution.
I will mail you my source. And I agree 100% with the 2nd part of your comment. Stop being a sheep, stop following the leader. Learn some science, apply logic and reason, and set yourself free.
Fantastic!!! Way to get the truth out to the people that are being indoctrinated by evolution. The Bible say that there is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the ends thereof are the ways of death. Thank you Ian for your service to mankind and to the Lord.
@alexcowart Why would you want this prohibited? Are you afraid that truth will win out? If evolution is true, you have nothing to worry about, right! This should make you laugh and smirk, but have you asked yourself why it should scare you? I would venture to guess that down deep you know that your position is very weak and has no scientific basis. Otherwise, you would be strong in your beliefs and know that if you are on the side of truth, you have nothing to fear from this traveling exhibit
@AndyG792 And you are right, my stance has no scientific basis. That is why 95% of the scientific community takes my stance. Its a giant conspiracy right?! God invented the scientific method to tempt you to stray from the path...be scared!
@alexcowart Well, I was trying to get you to think, but I see that the indoctrination is too deep for that. Have you ever asked yourself why the evolutionary camp has been filled with so many frauds through the years? For instance, Ernest Haekel's drawings of embryos to resemble fish, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, the peppered moths on threes, and the list goes on. After years of student's learning that they were proof of evolution, they were proven as 'Frauds" and continued to be taught for yrs
@AndyG792 Have you ever asked yourself why creationists focus on frauds and mistakes which are not even used as any supposed evidence of evolution? They rarely ever seem to focus on the real evidence like ERV's and the actual photomicrographs of embryos such as the ones that show legs of whale embryos, the tails and pharyngeal pouches of human embryos. No, they only focus on things that were refuted by evolutionary scientists themselves.
@alexcowart Well, I was trying to get you to think, but I see that the indoctrination is too deep for that. Have you ever asked yourself why the evolutionary camp has been filled with so many frauds through the years? For instance, Ernest Haekel's drawings of embryos to resemble fish, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, the peppered moths on trees, and the list goes on. After years of student's learning that they were proof of evolution, they were proven as 'Frauds" and continued to be taught for yrs
@alexcowart BTW ... Where do you get yor figures of 95% of the scientific community? It is closer to 55 - 60% and the # of scientists believe something, is not how you determine what is truth or not. At one time the entire scientific community,except one, thought that heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects; making it 99.9% against one. That didn't make the 99% right, ... they were wrong. All the scientists at one time thought that the earth was flat. The Bible indicated it was round
@CreationistCrap I'm quite sure that the only time the bible mentions seeing the whole earth from a high mountain is when it was Jesus and Satan doing the seeing. Considering that they would be supernatural beings, I don't think that this implies a flat Earth, but moreso an all-seeing God. The high mountain is irrelevant, and wasn't necessary for the actual vision
@CreationistCrap Also, the bible refers to the Earth by a word that can be translated as either "circular" or "spherical". If you want, you can try to argue that it meant that Earth was a flat circle, but I think it was because God knew, and had created, a spherical Earth
Not really this guy clams to have an iq of 145, just because someone thinks differently then you doesn't means he's/she's stupid, maybe just misguided. BTW am an evolutionist.
@bcroger2 Well, there are lots of reasons. with the limited space here, I will put down one. Particles from an explosion are spread out fairly even. There is a lot of mass in a galaxy. Our own Milky Way galaxy is filled with mass. The next closest galaxy of any notable size is the Andromeda galaxy (M 31) Between the Milky Way and Andromeda is "about 2 million light-years of black space. Yet every galaxy is well-stocked with stars." This should not be if it all came from the 'Big Bang.'
@bcroger2 That' a very good question. I will ask you a question to get you thinking on your own. What evidence does anyone have stating creation is false, and evolution is right? All we have is data and evidence does not exist until someone places an interpretation on that data. If one person has a 'preconceived idea that the earth is old, then the interpretation will support evolution. If another person has a preconceived idea that it was created, that interpretation will fit creation.
@AndyG792 You have that backwards, all it takes to follow the biological/geological data is specifically *no* presupposition. The only explanation which uses any empirical mechanisms for the diversity of life on earth is evolution.
Just another Christ-o-holic too lazy to get off his fat ass to actually work. Just like every other small-time, scam church minister this guy seeks $100 donations in order to cruise around the country with his little troglodyte family in a cushy RV talking creationist bullshit to any retard that will listen.
I hope the first thinking man's town they pull in end up torching this little exercise in creationist stupidity and burning it to the ground.
Ahh, the Babbles story of Noah used as a basis for creationism.
Note: 18 inches = 1 cubit
A few of the Babbles facts:
Noahs Ark is said to be 300x40x50 cubits. That is 4 stories tall and half the size of the Titanic! The length of a soccer field! Noah was 600 years old when God told him to build the ark! (Must have worked out a lot)
Such a catastrophe would have left evidence all over the planet with uniform sediment all over the land and ocean floors.
A great flood would leave its signature. There is no such signature, only overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
To flood the planet to the top of the Himalaya's would take water 5 times the amount on the planet now. Even 40 days and nights of rain could not produce that amount of water.
Of course the Good Book offers another source: deep springs broke through the surface from the center of the earth. This would make the earth quicksand before the breakthrough.
Where else could you get such acceptance of a Book that only has a few minor mistakesand this is only one of many, except in the minds of the brain dead. I will let others expose more.
And of course the story of Noah shows, again, a genocidal God who kill all other humans on the planet because they were sinning. Everyone was sinning, EXCEPT Noah?!
Bob: "some of the shorter lived mammals like the shrew could be evolved very rapidly" You still argue based on ignorance. Rate of reproduction is only one of many factors affecting the rate of evolution of a species.
Evolution is the simplest explanation for the evidence.
This man is disgusting. His desire is to travel the country while preaching his terrorism. He will do so by attacking evolution then suggesting his invisible being created the universe, his not yours. Then he will tell you the only to avoid disfavor, torture, eternal or suffering is to praise, love, fear and beg to his god, not yours. If I lived in Canada I would make all present public inforation availble on this disgusting human available to the public. He openly desires to profit.
Bob: "...can't be proven one way or the other..." You are arguing a position based wholly on faith with no evidence, so you should be careful of how you complain about scientific ideas. Theories are a collection of explanations of a related phenomena. It is not a proof. Explanation of phenomena, not proof.
Scientists have been researching the origins of organelles in eukaryotic cells. Why don't you do some work and get educated rather than waiting for us to call you with every result?
you talk about reading the briefs and act like you know anything about law and the whole time you didn't even know what was the bases of the decision in the trial
your an ignorant hack who told off on himself as such fools often do
Amazing, After admitting that tonight was the first time you actually bothered to download the decision, you persist on this line of defense, This is quite entertaining.
Perhaps the man who says that viruses don't evolve, in the same thread where he admits that SIV became HIV? Perhaps the man who insists that fossils are frauds yet can't identify any frauds still used in texts? Or the man who says that scientists say one thing when they didn't? Or maybe the man who claims that experiments were fraudulent and were never repeated even though those statements were lies?
hahaha or maybe the guy who comes here thinking they can make dumb cracks and never offers a single thing credible and think they can just blast a few insults and seen intelligent to any but the other fools
Bob: "never offers a single thing credible" Besides the RNA World hypothesis, the different strains of HIV that exist, the proper definition of evolution, the endosymbiotic theory, the timespan of the geological record, etc.? I guess if you ignore reality, what people present to you to refute your inanity, real science, education, and so forth, you can pretty much lie and say that no one is producing anything credible.
it's not like there are different evolutions of viruses the same H1N1 and H5N12 and HIV or hepC is ever giong to turn into a new virus is not even discussed because it's impossible
Depends on what you mean by 'new virus' if you mean it's impossible for it to evolve into a virus that is only comparable to the parent strains through full genome mapping, then no, you'd be wrong
i mean it might mutate to attack other cells or be resistant to different things but it will ALWAYS be HIV or herpes it's cannot become another seperate species of anything
now if you find one that did call me
be sure to tell us who witnessed the evolving of a new species
of course man changed species several time in a week of germ time so keep looking
Bob: "none of that has anything to do with evolution" You're an idiot. RNAWH is the explanation for how replicating life can arise, and shows how even simple molecules can evolve. HIV strains are more evidence for evolution. Definition of evolution is about evolution. Endosymbiotic is about evolution. Geological record is evidence supporting evolution. So how do these have nothing to do with evolution? The only way they can is if you're a lying moron.
Bob: "which of course must find a working cell and use it's DNA to make copies" Not quite. RNA inserts itself into the DNA of an organism to make use of that cell's systems of replication. However, the new viruses that the cell produces are...
Bob: "the RNA world is also impossible because RNA doesn't have the protein structure to successfully replicate good copies"
Most viruses are RNA-based. Viroids are RNA-based. RNA has fewer protections against errors than DNA, but RNA is fully capable of serving the same function as DNA in organisms. You are truly too ignorant to be involved in such a discussion here.
in the short geological period of time it took to make some of the changes proposed by evolution we would have easily had time to seperate dogs enough to creat another species
as a matter of fact we could creat new species of bacteria in less than a year
but guess what we can't h1n1 will always be h1n1
they didn't invent HIV they went into the wild and looked for it till they found it and brought it out of the jungle were it had been since the dinosaurs
Bob: "in the short geological period of time it took to make some of the changes proposed by evolution we would have easily had time to seperate dogs enough to creat another species" Domestication of dogs has only occurred for 30,000 years, with a very large distribution of area for the population. There's no real isolation of the different breeds and thus tons of variation to benefit the species.
"but guess what we can't h1n1 will always be h1n1" H1N1 evolves very rapidly.
Bob: Do you understand what evolution is? "no it mutates which means it can change receptors
not evolve it will always be H1N1" If it mutates and changes even one aspect of its proteins it produces, then it has evolved. It doesn't need to become something other than H1N1 to have evolved. And you're calling others hacks and idiots?
Bob: "they didn't invent HIV they went into the wild and looked for it till they found it and brought it out of the jungle were it had been since the dinosaurs" There are three major types of HIV in the wild. They've all evolved from SIVs. We can trace back which strain of SIV and about when the HIV strain diverged. How can this be if evolution is a fraud?
Bob: "you fool it's the same virus it's called hiv because it jumped to guess who?" No, stupid, there are many different major strands of HIV. There's HIV-1 type M and type O, plus the newly discovered type P; then there's HIV-2. Each of these are different HIV strains.
Each major type of HIV evolved from different types of SIV.
So if HIV jumps from SIV, how is this not evolution? By your definition, it has changed from SIV, right?
Bob: "and they will all remain to be exactly what they are it's not like they are going to a new virus split off and be a new virus" So they can jump from SIV to HIV, but it's impossible for HIV to jump to anything else? And you didn't even bother to address the different strains of HIV I presented, which come from different strains of SIV.
So when will you get to facts rather than your ignorant rants?
Bob: Instead of hand-waving away facts that show you're a stupid creationist who knows nothing about science, when will you actually address what's been presented to you? What's the matter? When people show how little you really know, you cut and run?
Bob: "a cell is a tiny miracle machine there are more moving parts than you could reasonably count and were did you say it came from" Organelles that were absorbed long, long ago? Just maybe?
"how far down can you strip it and still work?" Simple RNA strands and a phospholipid capsule is all you need.
"because if it doesn't work it can't very well evolve could it?" Only needs variation and self-replication to start evolving.
they rearranged the fossils in a new order with a bunch of missing parts to show how if they were all on a different branch they still might fit somehow maybe
Ah, the joys of a text based system - it's so easy to misinterpret meaning, and people do seem to enjoy taking sleight at the merest perceived hint of an insult.
I said "I can't believe Canadians are that dumb", meaning I don't believe Canadians are dumb enough to believe the creation nonsense, and that the poll is skewed (I think the following sentence shows that pretty clearly).
If you're offended by that I suppose I'll have to concede that Canadians really are that dumb.
Apparently you misunderstood my comment, because I knew exactly who you were talking about, and responded accordingly. Who exactly did you think I was talking about, if not the ignorant jerk in the video?
If I'm mistaken, and you're not talking about the moron in the video, and that's only because I have no plans to sit and watch 6 minutes of this tard.
First off, Orca, you're getting your facts from an ignorant jerk. I wouldn't believe for a second that some joke museum converted 20% of logical thinking Albertans into moronic creationists.
Just more propaganda and lies to laugh at by the religitards. Keep it coming, morons, you're not gaining ground, but with the levels of stupidity you're reaching, you might land yourself a half hour show on the comedy network.
Another Ken Ham wannabe, spreading the mind-virus and harming our race.
BTW jagoff, no one is producing evidence that a creator doesn't exist. Only an imbecile creatard can't understand it is impossible to prove a negative. Rather, science attempts to provide natural explanations for all things, and none of them point to any creator. Your creator is completely made-up, and I'm sure you'll make lots of money spreading the lie.
I occasionally run into the people who claim that there's no evidence for evolution and it's all based on fraud. The only thing I can think of to explain this is that these people must be intentionally ignorant. Anyone of reasonable intelligence who honestly investigates the evidence for evolution can clearly see that not only is it very genuine, it is absolutely 100% conclusive. "God did it" is not a viable scientific theory.
Wow, I feel sorry for Alberta. There must be some pretty gullible people there. If I was a worse person I would go there so sell some magic beans. I would probably make a mint.
It makes me happy to know that ignorance like this is not exclusive to my own country of the USA. You guys beat us in Hockey and now it looks like at Alberta, at least, is trying to outdo us in stupid.
Oh really? Every piece of evidence? You mean the scientifically peer-reivewed papers on BDVs, ERVs, the fused chromosome #2 are all fakes? Comparative anatomy, homologous genes, and biogeographical distribution is all just a conspiracy?
Thank goodness this artist and robitcs engineer was here to put us straight about biology.
I doubt you understand evolution, how it works, how the evidence proves it is fact, and how nearly all of modern medical care relies on it, let alone being able to claim it's all a fraud.
I'll ignore the false dichotomy that if evolution is wrong, then it must be your religion that's right...
Bob: Please explain how "every piece of evidence that might support [evolution] has been found to be a fraud?" The fossil record is a fraud? Genetics is a fraud? Natural selection is a fraud? ERVs are fraud? Homology in genes? The E. coli experiment? Fruit fly experiments? Galapagos finches? And sooo many more pieces of evidence that can only be explained by evolution? Please show me the articles that conclude these are all fraudulent.
Could you please explain how genetic defects in the beta-globin pseudo-gene, rendering it non-functional, disprove evolution. Also, could you explain how identical errors appearing in the same pseudo-gene, in the same location, in the genomes of chimps and gorillas do not support common ancestry?
Bob: What "horse fossils everyone is so fond of" were proven fraudulent in the 20s? The spotted moth wasn't a lie (I think you mean that the photograph was staged, but the experiment's been done several times later and confirmed). Literally all the fossils are fraud? Citation, please. It's not just similarity but genetic, fossil, etc. There's so many different pieces of evidence that it can only point to evolution by natural selection.
Bob: Simpson said no such thing. He changed the idea that horses evolved in a single path, which is what is explained today about the evolution of the horse.
"Just by counting the ribs...?" What are you talking about? Make sense, would you?
The peppered moth experiment was not fraud, and has been repeated. Check Claim CB601 on Talk Origins for more on this.
Repeating lies doesn't make them any more true. And just because a creationist with a PhD says something doesn't make it true.
Bob: "the original premise that predation caused the change thus natural selection was in play which was never the case" This is simply not true. You offer nothing to support your case. "it's just another fraudulent claim covered by rearrangement of the facts to suit the expected result" Except you ignore that the experiment was repeated with similar results.
Did you even bother checking out the page I offered?
Again, 'magick' can be used as an 'explanation' for anything, but it is a non-answer and completely useless to science. They were sued by people doing real science, people not wanting to simply stick 'magic in space did it' in the gaps in our knowledge.
No, he was asked by Ben Stein as to what he would have to consider to give any credit to ID, he does not support exogenesis. Dawkins himself explains what was actually said here: /watch?v=6XpP5jsg5kM
'witch hunt at dover'
It was taken to trial by the ID proponents, they are the ones who have utterly failed to produce any legitimate peer review.
How is that evidence of a god? What would be different if only natural causes were at work?
I guess I am the only one that even can be a liar here, considering as an atheist you get to make up the rules as you go. BTW, what exactly did I lie about again?
"like all evo's evidence isn't what got you into it"
This was a lie, because evidence IS what got me into it.
Make up the rules as I go? Yes. Just like you do. You make no effort whatsoever to actually try to understand another person's viewpoint, and that makes you dangerous.
Really? I mean really? You are referring to me as dangerous? lol. BTW that was not a lie. Since I believe there is no real evidence to prove evolution, I believe that statement I made. I don't believe it was evidence that even got you into atheism, but rather your love for sin. People want excuses. You'll know this when you realize you need to constantly refresh a belief system that is going against what you otherwise know to be true, like the warm fuzzies from old lemer skeletons.
I love it when the jackels insist old Earth and evolution are backed by science. The definition of science is coming to a conclusion based on something that is observable, testable, and repeatable. The rest is assumption or theory. Could it be that powers of this world are suppressing evidence that supports the Bible? or fabricating evidence that works against the Bible? nah, not in this world........
the judge decided it was teaching religion so he ruled on that technicality not on the science
U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ultimately decided for the plaintiffs, writing in his decision that intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." NOVA
Intelligent design lost because it's not science, it's personal incredulity that had to resort to attempting to have itself wedged in science class politically and religiously.
The ID proponents are the ones who took it to court. They wasted peoples time and money when all they would have had to do is actually present empirical data for ID.
Pure guesses? I'm sure if you've only listened to people like Ian you will ahve been exposed to that misinformation. I'm talking real science here, ERV's, the human chimp genome project, the fact that whales have the genes for legs etc.
Yeah, they did. I realize you're just deflecting now because you can't answer.
All the parents wanted was the nonsensical sticker out of the biology books, it was the dover school district BOD that took it to court, instead of presenting evidence.
@Tenestra "parents opposed to intelligent design filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing the school board of violating the constitutional separation of church and state." NOVA
look it up please before you make a fool of yourself
This has been flagged as spam show
Why would anybody praise a man who is spreading misinformation?
The Earth isn't 6,000 years old.
odinata 4 months ago
God bless and good luck with your project!
Hidframe 7 months ago
I like the project, I mean that every kind of science, belief (or whatever you would call it) should be teached everywhere, and then everyone should decide what they believe in for the moment, and I want to support the theory that man and dinos have existed together, and that they still do, and also note that I dont believe in extinction. And I am not a creationist, niether an evolutionist, but I believe in parts of both creation and evolution.
TurokSwe 10 months ago
I will mail you my source. And I agree 100% with the 2nd part of your comment. Stop being a sheep, stop following the leader. Learn some science, apply logic and reason, and set yourself free.
alexcowart 1 year ago
Fantastic!!! Way to get the truth out to the people that are being indoctrinated by evolution. The Bible say that there is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the ends thereof are the ways of death. Thank you Ian for your service to mankind and to the Lord.
AndyG792 1 year ago
@AndyG792 Ian is a very elaborate troll/poe
CreationistCrap 1 year ago
OMG I usually find this guy funny but this video scared the shit out of me.
I didn't realize he was Canadian I thought he was from the southern states I can't believe we have shit like this up here.
Also anybody else ever wonder why when God performs miracle's every day he never once gave a amputee his arms or legs back?
Tyjohnable 1 year ago
HAHAHA that is a musem???? it looks like a house to me, must be some guys living room with a few posters and holy relics.
Sounds like a disaster to me, why cant the zoning laws prohibit shit like this
alexcowart 1 year ago
@alexcowart Why would you want this prohibited? Are you afraid that truth will win out? If evolution is true, you have nothing to worry about, right! This should make you laugh and smirk, but have you asked yourself why it should scare you? I would venture to guess that down deep you know that your position is very weak and has no scientific basis. Otherwise, you would be strong in your beliefs and know that if you are on the side of truth, you have nothing to fear from this traveling exhibit
AndyG792 1 year ago
@AndyG792 I do laugh and smirk. I am scared that you will con ignorant people to your side.......
alexcowart 1 year ago
@AndyG792 And you are right, my stance has no scientific basis. That is why 95% of the scientific community takes my stance. Its a giant conspiracy right?! God invented the scientific method to tempt you to stray from the path...be scared!
alexcowart 1 year ago
@alexcowart Well, I was trying to get you to think, but I see that the indoctrination is too deep for that. Have you ever asked yourself why the evolutionary camp has been filled with so many frauds through the years? For instance, Ernest Haekel's drawings of embryos to resemble fish, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, the peppered moths on threes, and the list goes on. After years of student's learning that they were proof of evolution, they were proven as 'Frauds" and continued to be taught for yrs
AndyG792 1 year ago
@AndyG792 Have you ever asked yourself why creationists focus on frauds and mistakes which are not even used as any supposed evidence of evolution? They rarely ever seem to focus on the real evidence like ERV's and the actual photomicrographs of embryos such as the ones that show legs of whale embryos, the tails and pharyngeal pouches of human embryos. No, they only focus on things that were refuted by evolutionary scientists themselves.
CreationistCrap 1 year ago
@alexcowart Well, I was trying to get you to think, but I see that the indoctrination is too deep for that. Have you ever asked yourself why the evolutionary camp has been filled with so many frauds through the years? For instance, Ernest Haekel's drawings of embryos to resemble fish, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, the peppered moths on trees, and the list goes on. After years of student's learning that they were proof of evolution, they were proven as 'Frauds" and continued to be taught for yrs
AndyG792 1 year ago
@alexcowart BTW ... Where do you get yor figures of 95% of the scientific community? It is closer to 55 - 60% and the # of scientists believe something, is not how you determine what is truth or not. At one time the entire scientific community,except one, thought that heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects; making it 99.9% against one. That didn't make the 99% right, ... they were wrong. All the scientists at one time thought that the earth was flat. The Bible indicated it was round
AndyG792 1 year ago
@AndyG792 ncse(.)com/taking-action/project-steve
The bible says you can see all of earth from a high mountain, IE, flat.
CreationistCrap 1 year ago
@CreationistCrap I'm quite sure that the only time the bible mentions seeing the whole earth from a high mountain is when it was Jesus and Satan doing the seeing. Considering that they would be supernatural beings, I don't think that this implies a flat Earth, but moreso an all-seeing God. The high mountain is irrelevant, and wasn't necessary for the actual vision
daviatu 8 months ago
@CreationistCrap Also, the bible refers to the Earth by a word that can be translated as either "circular" or "spherical". If you want, you can try to argue that it meant that Earth was a flat circle, but I think it was because God knew, and had created, a spherical Earth
daviatu 8 months ago
@AndrewWSUDE
Not really this guy clams to have an iq of 145, just because someone thinks differently then you doesn't means he's/she's stupid, maybe just misguided. BTW am an evolutionist.
bcroger2 1 year ago
Okay well what evidence do you have stating that evolution is false is creationism is real?
bcroger2 1 year ago
@bcroger2 Well, there are lots of reasons. with the limited space here, I will put down one. Particles from an explosion are spread out fairly even. There is a lot of mass in a galaxy. Our own Milky Way galaxy is filled with mass. The next closest galaxy of any notable size is the Andromeda galaxy (M 31) Between the Milky Way and Andromeda is "about 2 million light-years of black space. Yet every galaxy is well-stocked with stars." This should not be if it all came from the 'Big Bang.'
AndyG792 1 year ago
@AndyG792 The galaxies were not just spat out of the big bang as is, the big bang produced hydrogen which then clumped together gravitationally.
CreationistCrap 1 year ago
@bcroger2 That' a very good question. I will ask you a question to get you thinking on your own. What evidence does anyone have stating creation is false, and evolution is right? All we have is data and evidence does not exist until someone places an interpretation on that data. If one person has a 'preconceived idea that the earth is old, then the interpretation will support evolution. If another person has a preconceived idea that it was created, that interpretation will fit creation.
AndyG792 1 year ago
@AndyG792 You have that backwards, all it takes to follow the biological/geological data is specifically *no* presupposition. The only explanation which uses any empirical mechanisms for the diversity of life on earth is evolution.
CreationistCrap 1 year ago
Great Ian! May the Lord use your museum!!!
marcoecolo 1 year ago
Why on earth would the museum spurn these two polls?
It would make more sense if it would "spawn" them instead, but hey, it's their museum.
;-)
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
HOLY FUCK IAN JUBY YOU ARE A GENIUS
Norseman424 2 years ago
whoever sponsors or endorses this is one of the utmost ignoramouses
LeeL29 2 years ago
I smell a scam.
Just another Christ-o-holic too lazy to get off his fat ass to actually work. Just like every other small-time, scam church minister this guy seeks $100 donations in order to cruise around the country with his little troglodyte family in a cushy RV talking creationist bullshit to any retard that will listen.
I hope the first thinking man's town they pull in end up torching this little exercise in creationist stupidity and burning it to the ground.
Vulcanscienceacademy 2 years ago 2
speculation and conjecture is all evolution ever had anyway
any science that would declare a pigs tooth to be preman just because they had similarities is not science anyway
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
So they managed to make an entire province twice as stupid. They must be so proud.
JMSofSweden 2 years ago 2
Evidence for humans and dinosaurs living together.....this is just sad
mgt247 2 years ago
Ahh, the Babbles story of Noah used as a basis for creationism.
Note: 18 inches = 1 cubit
A few of the Babbles facts:
Noahs Ark is said to be 300x40x50 cubits. That is 4 stories tall and half the size of the Titanic! The length of a soccer field! Noah was 600 years old when God told him to build the ark! (Must have worked out a lot)
(cont. below)
ShrubTheWarCriminal 2 years ago
It rained until the world was covered in water.
Such a catastrophe would have left evidence all over the planet with uniform sediment all over the land and ocean floors.
A great flood would leave its signature. There is no such signature, only overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
To flood the planet to the top of the Himalaya's would take water 5 times the amount on the planet now. Even 40 days and nights of rain could not produce that amount of water.
(cont.)
ShrubTheWarCriminal 2 years ago
Also the amount of water vapor in the air necessary to provide such rainfall would be suffocating and produce a crushing atmospheric pressure.
(cont. below)
ShrubTheWarCriminal 2 years ago
Of course the Good Book offers another source: deep springs broke through the surface from the center of the earth. This would make the earth quicksand before the breakthrough.
Where else could you get such acceptance of a Book that only has a few minor mistakesand this is only one of many, except in the minds of the brain dead. I will let others expose more.
(cont. below)
ShrubTheWarCriminal 2 years ago
And of course the story of Noah shows, again, a genocidal God who kill all other humans on the planet because they were sinning. Everyone was sinning, EXCEPT Noah?!
ShrubTheWarCriminal 2 years ago
Wow, this is just a disgrace.
I can only hope that Ontario doesn't have any nutjobs like this guy.
Havokreator 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
SanJoseICA 2 years ago
I am almost embarrassed to be a Canadian. This guy is wasting his education and qualifications on pseudoscientific idiocy.
fundiebasher 2 years ago 4
So in essence, this video says that Albertans are getting dumber?
Orlor 2 years ago 6
Isn't Alberta sort of like the mid west in the States? Anyways thanks for making Canada stupid.
omegavalerius 2 years ago
Withholding my own opinions one way or the other on the whole creation deal, I DO have to say his idea for a portable museum is quite clever >_>
Now I shall flee before people begin accusing me of being atheist creationist or whatever else they assume XD.
Ferix 2 years ago
U r doing amazing work Ian :D
JMStuff99 2 years ago
some of the shorter lived mammals like the shrew could be evolved very rapidly
or maybe it's all a bunch of crap still hanging on because there is only one other possibility which of course was the simplest answer all along
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
Bob: "some of the shorter lived mammals like the shrew could be evolved very rapidly" You still argue based on ignorance. Rate of reproduction is only one of many factors affecting the rate of evolution of a species.
Evolution is the simplest explanation for the evidence.
csbair 2 years ago
This man is disgusting. His desire is to travel the country while preaching his terrorism. He will do so by attacking evolution then suggesting his invisible being created the universe, his not yours. Then he will tell you the only to avoid disfavor, torture, eternal or suffering is to praise, love, fear and beg to his god, not yours. If I lived in Canada I would make all present public inforation availble on this disgusting human available to the public. He openly desires to profit.
Downfurlife 2 years ago
terrorism gets used alot doesn't it?
if you think this is terrorism then you need a dictionary
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
Terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Creationism : If you believe in that evil evolution you're going to hell, because jeebus said so.
Tenestra 2 years ago
This video has made me even more ashamed to live in Alberta.
ifstatements 2 years ago 2
endosymbiotic theory can't be proven one way or the other
it's a prime example of speculation
just because a cell has funtionally useful chloroplasts doesn't automatically mean it evolved that way
it could more easily been built that way
if you can develope new kinds of cells with symbiotic relationships with other organisms that were not already made together then call me
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
Bob: "...can't be proven one way or the other..." You are arguing a position based wholly on faith with no evidence, so you should be careful of how you complain about scientific ideas. Theories are a collection of explanations of a related phenomena. It is not a proof. Explanation of phenomena, not proof.
Scientists have been researching the origins of organelles in eukaryotic cells. Why don't you do some work and get educated rather than waiting for us to call you with every result?
csbair 2 years ago
you talk about reading the briefs and act like you know anything about law and the whole time you didn't even know what was the bases of the decision in the trial
your an ignorant hack who told off on himself as such fools often do
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
I have read the decision. Have you?
I recognize you are attempting to regain face, but in your case, it's not going to happen.
lawilson200 2 years ago
"I have read the decision. Have you?"
your a compete fool i just posted it for you and proved you wrong and yet you continue this charade like you knew you were wrong the whole time
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
o01B0b0o-
Amazing, After admitting that tonight was the first time you actually bothered to download the decision, you persist on this line of defense, This is quite entertaining.
lawilson200 2 years ago
i never said it was the first time i ever downloaded the decision
you made that up in your own mind
tells me alot about why your acting so irrational
you must be delusional
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
o0lBob0o:
Amazing. Simply amazing.
lawilson200 2 years ago
if i said that why don't you post the quote?
we can all see who the fool is
just post where i said " tonight was the first time i actually bothered to download the decision"
and make a fool out of one of us
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
Bob: "we can all see who the fool is"
Perhaps the man who says that viruses don't evolve, in the same thread where he admits that SIV became HIV? Perhaps the man who insists that fossils are frauds yet can't identify any frauds still used in texts? Or the man who says that scientists say one thing when they didn't? Or maybe the man who claims that experiments were fraudulent and were never repeated even though those statements were lies?
I'd say such a man would be a fool.
csbair 2 years ago
hahaha or maybe the guy who comes here thinking they can make dumb cracks and never offers a single thing credible and think they can just blast a few insults and seen intelligent to any but the other fools
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
Bob: "never offers a single thing credible" Besides the RNA World hypothesis, the different strains of HIV that exist, the proper definition of evolution, the endosymbiotic theory, the timespan of the geological record, etc.? I guess if you ignore reality, what people present to you to refute your inanity, real science, education, and so forth, you can pretty much lie and say that no one is producing anything credible.
csbair 2 years ago
none of that has anything to do with evolution
it's not like there are different evolutions of viruses the same H1N1 and H5N12 and HIV or hepC is ever giong to turn into a new virus is not even discussed because it's impossible
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
Depends on what you mean by 'new virus' if you mean it's impossible for it to evolve into a virus that is only comparable to the parent strains through full genome mapping, then no, you'd be wrong
Tenestra 2 years ago
i mean it might mutate to attack other cells or be resistant to different things but it will ALWAYS be HIV or herpes it's cannot become another seperate species of anything
now if you find one that did call me
be sure to tell us who witnessed the evolving of a new species
of course man changed species several time in a week of germ time so keep looking
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
Bob: "none of that has anything to do with evolution" You're an idiot. RNAWH is the explanation for how replicating life can arise, and shows how even simple molecules can evolve. HIV strains are more evidence for evolution. Definition of evolution is about evolution. Endosymbiotic is about evolution. Geological record is evidence supporting evolution. So how do these have nothing to do with evolution? The only way they can is if you're a lying moron.
csbair 2 years ago
the RNA world is also impossible because RNA doesn't have the protein structure to successfully replicate good copies
thus the need for DNA
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
There are organisms comprised solely of RNA, IE viroids
Tenestra 2 years ago
which of course must find a working cell and use it's DNA to make copies
basic knowledge of viruses
that dear is what a virus is RNA and enough protein to lock with the right receptor to use the DNA of the host to make copies ie replicate
so sorry no cookie for you
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
Bob: "which of course must find a working cell and use it's DNA to make copies" Not quite. RNA inserts itself into the DNA of an organism to make use of that cell's systems of replication. However, the new viruses that the cell produces are...
RNA-based.
How'd that happen?
csbair 2 years ago
And now you're shifting the goalpost
Tenestra 2 years ago
Bob: "the RNA world is also impossible because RNA doesn't have the protein structure to successfully replicate good copies"
Most viruses are RNA-based. Viroids are RNA-based. RNA has fewer protections against errors than DNA, but RNA is fully capable of serving the same function as DNA in organisms. You are truly too ignorant to be involved in such a discussion here.
csbair 2 years ago
o0lBobl0o
Amazing. Simply Amazing.
lawilson200 2 years ago
you still looking for that quote?
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
o0lBobl0o
Amazing. Simply amazing.
lawilson200 2 years ago
in the short geological period of time it took to make some of the changes proposed by evolution we would have easily had time to seperate dogs enough to creat another species
as a matter of fact we could creat new species of bacteria in less than a year
but guess what we can't h1n1 will always be h1n1
they didn't invent HIV they went into the wild and looked for it till they found it and brought it out of the jungle were it had been since the dinosaurs
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
Bob: "in the short geological period of time it took to make some of the changes proposed by evolution we would have easily had time to seperate dogs enough to creat another species" Domestication of dogs has only occurred for 30,000 years, with a very large distribution of area for the population. There's no real isolation of the different breeds and thus tons of variation to benefit the species.
"but guess what we can't h1n1 will always be h1n1" H1N1 evolves very rapidly.
csbair 2 years ago
no it mutates which means it can change receptors
not evolve it will always be H1N1
sometimes i feel like i'm talking to children
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bob: Do you understand what evolution is? "no it mutates which means it can change receptors
not evolve it will always be H1N1" If it mutates and changes even one aspect of its proteins it produces, then it has evolved. It doesn't need to become something other than H1N1 to have evolved. And you're calling others hacks and idiots?
csbair 2 years ago
wrong, google 'observed instances of speciation'
You're the only one here who doesn't understand biology
Tenestra 2 years ago
Bob: "they didn't invent HIV they went into the wild and looked for it till they found it and brought it out of the jungle were it had been since the dinosaurs" There are three major types of HIV in the wild. They've all evolved from SIVs. We can trace back which strain of SIV and about when the HIV strain diverged. How can this be if evolution is a fraud?
csbair 2 years ago
you fool it's the same virus it's called hiv because it jumped to guess who?
thats right humans
Human Immunodeficiency Virus
they were in a mad rush to discover new cures and decided to collect wild virus for study
siv jumped over and now it's hiv
it was a monkey virus that also effected humans
s to h
they have admitted as much lately
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
Bob: "you fool it's the same virus it's called hiv because it jumped to guess who?" No, stupid, there are many different major strands of HIV. There's HIV-1 type M and type O, plus the newly discovered type P; then there's HIV-2. Each of these are different HIV strains.
Each major type of HIV evolved from different types of SIV.
So if HIV jumps from SIV, how is this not evolution? By your definition, it has changed from SIV, right?
Your logic makes your arguments worse.
csbair 2 years ago
and they will all remain to be exactly what they are
it's not like they are going to a new virus split off and be a new virus because their builtin ability to mutate only take them so far
just like with the moths not natural selection but preprogrammed adaptability
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
Bob: "and they will all remain to be exactly what they are it's not like they are going to a new virus split off and be a new virus" So they can jump from SIV to HIV, but it's impossible for HIV to jump to anything else? And you didn't even bother to address the different strains of HIV I presented, which come from different strains of SIV.
So when will you get to facts rather than your ignorant rants?
csbair 2 years ago
Bob: Instead of hand-waving away facts that show you're a stupid creationist who knows nothing about science, when will you actually address what's been presented to you? What's the matter? When people show how little you really know, you cut and run?
csbair 2 years ago
a cell is a tiny miracle machine there are more moving parts than you could reasonably count and were did you say it came from?
it just all came together one day?
how far down can you strip it and still work?
because if it doesn't work it can't very well evolve could it?
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bob: "a cell is a tiny miracle machine there are more moving parts than you could reasonably count and were did you say it came from" Organelles that were absorbed long, long ago? Just maybe?
"how far down can you strip it and still work?" Simple RNA strands and a phospholipid capsule is all you need.
"because if it doesn't work it can't very well evolve could it?" Only needs variation and self-replication to start evolving.
csbair 2 years ago
they rearranged the fossils in a new order with a bunch of missing parts to show how if they were all on a different branch they still might fit somehow maybe
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
As depressing as this is, at least Americans don't have a monopoly on stupid creationists.
tillnow67 2 years ago 3
So... Alberta is more religiously right than the rest of Canada.
What does that indicate, exactly? Other than the idiocy of rural Albertans, of course.
billygutter01 2 years ago
I can't believe Canadians are that dumb. 50% of statistics are rubbish, and the other 2 thirds are lies!
dave28lax 2 years ago 2
We'r not, are all British so dumb as to generalize an entire country based on a stupid poll?
ridgetownpimp 2 years ago
@ridgetownpimp
Ah, the joys of a text based system - it's so easy to misinterpret meaning, and people do seem to enjoy taking sleight at the merest perceived hint of an insult.
I said "I can't believe Canadians are that dumb", meaning I don't believe Canadians are dumb enough to believe the creation nonsense, and that the poll is skewed (I think the following sentence shows that pretty clearly).
If you're offended by that I suppose I'll have to concede that Canadians really are that dumb.
dave28lax 2 years ago
Well, at least you allow comments.
hyoidbone54 2 years ago
Do it! By making alberta dumber, the rest of us will feel more intelligent.
fsmdude 2 years ago
"dinosaurs capture the fancy of the youth"
They sure do Ian, but you know as well as I do that candy and a panel van work just as well.
nakedapedude 2 years ago
again you say alot of stuff but nothing that could be called intelligent
you repeat what i said then without offering one peace of evidence to refute my claim you launch into more name calling
surly you can't be that ignorant
to call that evidence of any but your own trollery
why would you embarrass like this if you had any sense at all?
so prove me wrong or spare me your trollish behavior.
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
"Will you join me in getting this project underway?" HELL NO!
manuel1471 2 years ago
Just.....don't.
You are an embarrassment to Canada.
Marcusisit 2 years ago
Ian.
Please take all of your "creation displays" and insert them deeply into your rectum.
On behalf of anyone with a functioning brain,
Thank you.
Marcusisit 2 years ago
you know what you can't think of? anything that might have somthing to do with this video
or actual evidence that might prove me wrong
all you could think to do is attack me while leaving my statement unchallenged
a sure sign of a troll
don't you just love evidence?
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
Great Idea!
Now all we have to do is fill the trailers with Science.
filorps 2 years ago
Apparently you misunderstood my comment, because I knew exactly who you were talking about, and responded accordingly. Who exactly did you think I was talking about, if not the ignorant jerk in the video?
If I'm mistaken, and you're not talking about the moron in the video, and that's only because I have no plans to sit and watch 6 minutes of this tard.
carbonatedturd 2 years ago
HOLY FUCK IAN JUBY YOU ARE A GENIUS
Norseman424 2 years ago
Ian Juby is a fucking moron. He also sounds like a frog.
aichpvee 2 years ago 2
Um. Yes it is.
madjik9 2 years ago
You just proved his point.
kingsdun 2 years ago
First off, Orca, you're getting your facts from an ignorant jerk. I wouldn't believe for a second that some joke museum converted 20% of logical thinking Albertans into moronic creationists.
Just more propaganda and lies to laugh at by the religitards. Keep it coming, morons, you're not gaining ground, but with the levels of stupidity you're reaching, you might land yourself a half hour show on the comedy network.
carbonatedturd 2 years ago
As with the Senate, 40% is a majority?
kingsdun 2 years ago
The Theory of Evolution would be pretty much out the window if someone found "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian", as Haldane put it.
Creatards/IDiots are not trying to produce evidence for their view anyway; they rather try to debunk evolution, failing every time.
So why aren't they out there, digging? Think of all the money from wealthy fundies; yet there are no creationist dig sites (I know of).
Seems very weird that they don't go after THE ONE super evidence that should be abundant.
khrismuc 2 years ago 2
Another Ken Ham wannabe, spreading the mind-virus and harming our race.
BTW jagoff, no one is producing evidence that a creator doesn't exist. Only an imbecile creatard can't understand it is impossible to prove a negative. Rather, science attempts to provide natural explanations for all things, and none of them point to any creator. Your creator is completely made-up, and I'm sure you'll make lots of money spreading the lie.
Fear of hell is for suckers.
madjik9 2 years ago
The stupid.. It hurts.
a300pilotster 2 years ago 2
gotta love lying to children
red2seata 2 years ago
I didn't know we had retards of this magnitude in Canada...
BottomFeeder10 2 years ago
I occasionally run into the people who claim that there's no evidence for evolution and it's all based on fraud. The only thing I can think of to explain this is that these people must be intentionally ignorant. Anyone of reasonable intelligence who honestly investigates the evidence for evolution can clearly see that not only is it very genuine, it is absolutely 100% conclusive. "God did it" is not a viable scientific theory.
compactdisk2 2 years ago
Apparently you can just take polls to prove evolution is wrong, now.
Oh wait, no you can't.
DanTheeMan 2 years ago
Note to self: If in need of gullible people, head to Alberta.
FairCogent 2 years ago 2
Albertans think Stephen Harper is the Creator!
mixupnow 2 years ago
Anyone else find it funny that Ian's method of spreading ignorance is a "museum"?
Warthaug 2 years ago 4
Wow, I feel sorry for Alberta. There must be some pretty gullible people there. If I was a worse person I would go there so sell some magic beans. I would probably make a mint.
deepraine 2 years ago 5
It makes me happy to know that ignorance like this is not exclusive to my own country of the USA. You guys beat us in Hockey and now it looks like at Alberta, at least, is trying to outdo us in stupid.
tiberius6923 2 years ago 5
This could only come from Alberta...where a "majority" of 40% apparently idolize the most ignorant aspects of American culture. ROTFLMAO!
ahermit 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
evolution is done
every piece of evidence that might support the theory has been found to be a fraud
anyone who thinks there is no God is hiding their eyes
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
Oh really? Every piece of evidence? You mean the scientifically peer-reivewed papers on BDVs, ERVs, the fused chromosome #2 are all fakes? Comparative anatomy, homologous genes, and biogeographical distribution is all just a conspiracy?
Thank goodness this artist and robitcs engineer was here to put us straight about biology.
ROFL.
KemaTheAtheist 2 years ago 9
I doubt you understand evolution, how it works, how the evidence proves it is fact, and how nearly all of modern medical care relies on it, let alone being able to claim it's all a fraud.
I'll ignore the false dichotomy that if evolution is wrong, then it must be your religion that's right...
KemaTheAtheist 2 years ago 8
Bob: Please explain how "every piece of evidence that might support [evolution] has been found to be a fraud?" The fossil record is a fraud? Genetics is a fraud? Natural selection is a fraud? ERVs are fraud? Homology in genes? The E. coli experiment? Fruit fly experiments? Galapagos finches? And sooo many more pieces of evidence that can only be explained by evolution? Please show me the articles that conclude these are all fraudulent.
csbair 2 years ago 7
all of it is built on fraud and speculation
those horse fossils everyone is so fond of were proven fraudulent in the 20s
the spotted moth was a lie
zapping fruit flies with radiation is stupid
literally all the preman fossils are fraudulent
seeing a similarity between species and declaring kinship isn't science it's speculation
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
Could you please explain how genetic defects in the beta-globin pseudo-gene, rendering it non-functional, disprove evolution. Also, could you explain how identical errors appearing in the same pseudo-gene, in the same location, in the genomes of chimps and gorillas do not support common ancestry?
Or is that discovery also a fraud?
kingsdun 2 years ago 2
Bob: What "horse fossils everyone is so fond of" were proven fraudulent in the 20s? The spotted moth wasn't a lie (I think you mean that the photograph was staged, but the experiment's been done several times later and confirmed). Literally all the fossils are fraud? Citation, please. It's not just similarity but genetic, fossil, etc. There's so many different pieces of evidence that it can only point to evolution by natural selection.
csbair 2 years ago
George Gaylord Simpson (16 June 1902 6 October 1984) was an American paleontologist.
proved the chain of fossils still used to show the evoution of horses is wrong
just by counting each ones ribs but that doesn't stop them from putting it in books and on the discovery channel to fool the stupid masses
the same goes for vertually every fossil representing preman
and no the moth experiment was a fraud and has never been duplicated with any success
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
Bob: Simpson said no such thing. He changed the idea that horses evolved in a single path, which is what is explained today about the evolution of the horse.
"Just by counting the ribs...?" What are you talking about? Make sense, would you?
The peppered moth experiment was not fraud, and has been repeated. Check Claim CB601 on Talk Origins for more on this.
Repeating lies doesn't make them any more true. And just because a creationist with a PhD says something doesn't make it true.
csbair 2 years ago
The increase in the proportions of light moths in many locations preceded significant changes in the colour of tree trunks.
the original premise that predation caused the change thus natural selection was in play which was never the case
it's just another fraudulent claim covered by rearrangement of the facts to suit the expected result
it's an illusion that is the natural performance of a really nice machine
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bob: "the original premise that predation caused the change thus natural selection was in play which was never the case" This is simply not true. You offer nothing to support your case. "it's just another fraudulent claim covered by rearrangement of the facts to suit the expected result" Except you ignore that the experiment was repeated with similar results.
Did you even bother checking out the page I offered?
csbair 2 years ago 2
then what would it prove about evolution?
have you asked yourself that
if they weren't making the claim that it was caused by natural selection then why would it be of any use at all to an evolutionist?
it wouldn't
think before you post save us all the trouble
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dover decided to teach the possibility of God because in the last few years it seems to be the best answer to life in general
They were sued by God haters not because it was bad science but because they didn't want it taught to their children
they won because it was found to be unconstitutional therefore law supersedes science
science lost that battle
i suppose now that atheism is found to be religion they can't teach at all lawfully
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
Again, 'magick' can be used as an 'explanation' for anything, but it is a non-answer and completely useless to science. They were sued by people doing real science, people not wanting to simply stick 'magic in space did it' in the gaps in our knowledge.
Tenestra 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Tenestra like magic mud that comes to life
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
"like magic mud that comes to life"
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life"
What you're doing there is known as projection.
Tenestra 2 years ago 6
Wow.....just....wow.....LOL
raptonx 2 years ago
It disgusts me that you're actually proud of making an entire province more scientifically ignorant.
Tenestra 2 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i think it's a great idea
science should not be afraid of another view aren't we all looking for the truth?
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
every single piece of evidence we have for evolution could be explained better by changing the word evolved with the word created
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
'Created' is like saying 'magicked' anything can be 'explained' by magic but it's a non answer and of no practical use.
Tenestra 2 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
even dawkins doesn't believe we just sprang out of the mud
he's quoted saying that we were most likely seeded from else where in the universe
the witch hunt at "the Dover trial" is what kills real science
the fact that we are here is very good evidence that there is a God
the fact that we are here is positive proof that life exists in the universe and greater omniverse
what are the chances a very much greater life exists than us?
beyond good
what about an older universes?
even better
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
Neither does anyone who understands abiogenesis.
No, he was asked by Ben Stein as to what he would have to consider to give any credit to ID, he does not support exogenesis. Dawkins himself explains what was actually said here: /watch?v=6XpP5jsg5kM
'witch hunt at dover'
It was taken to trial by the ID proponents, they are the ones who have utterly failed to produce any legitimate peer review.
How is that evidence of a god? What would be different if only natural causes were at work?
Tenestra 2 years ago 4
ah, traveling creationism bit like a Porto-loo I guess.
sausage4mash 2 years ago 5
@Iothartheterrible
keep telling yourself that. I'd say name one, but like all evo's evidence isn't what got you into it, so why would evidence get you out.
truthseeker1973 2 years ago
Evidence is what turned me from a YEC to an atheist, so yeah, you're a liar :)
BoredInfidel 2 years ago
I guess I am the only one that even can be a liar here, considering as an atheist you get to make up the rules as you go. BTW, what exactly did I lie about again?
truthseeker1973 2 years ago
"like all evo's evidence isn't what got you into it"
This was a lie, because evidence IS what got me into it.
Make up the rules as I go? Yes. Just like you do. You make no effort whatsoever to actually try to understand another person's viewpoint, and that makes you dangerous.
BoredInfidel 2 years ago
Really? I mean really? You are referring to me as dangerous? lol. BTW that was not a lie. Since I believe there is no real evidence to prove evolution, I believe that statement I made. I don't believe it was evidence that even got you into atheism, but rather your love for sin. People want excuses. You'll know this when you realize you need to constantly refresh a belief system that is going against what you otherwise know to be true, like the warm fuzzies from old lemer skeletons.
truthseeker1973 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"BTW that was not a lie. Since I believe there is no real evidence to prove evolution, I believe that statement I made."
You made a statement about OTHER PEOPLE'S MOTIVATIONS. It was WRONG.
That you don't believe the evidence means that you're ignorant, not that you're virtuous.
BoredInfidel 2 years ago
Great, now a perfect ignorance of science can be carried with you where ever you go.
It's also on wheels, so it can move about.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
I love it when the jackels insist old Earth and evolution are backed by science. The definition of science is coming to a conclusion based on something that is observable, testable, and repeatable. The rest is assumption or theory. Could it be that powers of this world are suppressing evidence that supports the Bible? or fabricating evidence that works against the Bible? nah, not in this world........
truthseeker1973 2 years ago
"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof." Ashley Montagu
arizonaviking 2 years ago
"The scientific argument advanced for intelligent design at the Dover trial, those arguments collapsed, scientifically and intellectually. "
Ken Miller
Tenestra 2 years ago
wrong intelligent design lost because
the judge decided it was teaching religion so he ruled on that technicality not on the science
U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ultimately decided for the plaintiffs, writing in his decision that intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." NOVA
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
Intelligent design lost because it's not science, it's personal incredulity that had to resort to attempting to have itself wedged in science class politically and religiously.
Tenestra 2 years ago
@Tenestra it lost because of a technicality is that what you call science?
the pure guesses that make up most of evolution evidence are not science
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
The ID proponents are the ones who took it to court. They wasted peoples time and money when all they would have had to do is actually present empirical data for ID.
Pure guesses? I'm sure if you've only listened to people like Ian you will ahve been exposed to that misinformation. I'm talking real science here, ERV's, the human chimp genome project, the fact that whales have the genes for legs etc.
Tenestra 2 years ago
@Tenestra they did not you need to tell the truth once in a while if you expect me to answer you
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
Yeah, they did. I realize you're just deflecting now because you can't answer.
All the parents wanted was the nonsensical sticker out of the biology books, it was the dover school district BOD that took it to court, instead of presenting evidence.
Tenestra 2 years ago
@Tenestra "parents opposed to intelligent design filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing the school board of violating the constitutional separation of church and state." NOVA
look it up please before you make a fool of yourself
o0lBobl0o 2 years ago
Again, it wouldn't have gone to court if the ID proponents had empirical data for appending the sticker to the biology books.
Tenestra 2 years ago 2