Scientists will not debate with a creationist because the mind of a creationist has no reason. The only retort back is "well in the bible it says". A book written in barbaric middle east to terrify and control the illiterate and un-educated masses 2000 years ago! In the 21st century and people believe this fairy tale. Science has never tried to disprove the existence of a God it just that all that is discovered about our real origins contradict the Bible. The truth is so much more satisfying.
@currie1967 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. Proverbs 26:4,5
@warneveryonedotcom I'm smiling now ...A few lines from the bible will suffice....Fantastic. I'll grant that from a literature stand point it has some credibility. But to absorb all the folly within its pages as true is mere folly, especially in the 21st century when we know so much more about the origins of life and the universe. History and Literature class is where the bible belongs. To believe the nonsense makes you an idiot in modern day !
evolutionists dont wanne debate cause they know that they wil be beaten cause they have a religion too.. and they dont wanne admit. They say we have proof.. they dont have a shit to proof there evolutiontheorie.. U all have to believe those things they say in evolution.
@macro343: "evolutionists dont wanne debate cause they know that they wil be beaten cause they have a religion too" Wow, really?
I guess then when the IDists/Creationist got their chance to argue their case in front of a Conservative, religious judge they should have wiped the floor in Dover with "Evilutionist Butts" but it was the IDists/Creationists that left and lost so badly as to destroy ID
@macro343 Scientists will not debate with a creationist because their mind has no reason. The only retort is "well in the bible it says". A book written in barbaric middle east 2000 years ago!
@safffff There used to be a group of creationists that said just that, but the idea petered out when the founder died.
The Dead Sea area has been the site of a massive disaster, but it's not well understood. Possible a massive earthquake cracked open a natural gas field, which combined with rich sulfur deposits causing an inferno of epic proportions.
Po halos are ultimately formed by the decay chain of Uranium 238, the most common isotope of U, which has a half-life of 4.468 billion years.
I've never heard a single creationist say the earth was flat. My how the righteous evolutionist are so afraid of debate. Many events in Genesis records of the middle east have shown to happened. Google Sodom and gamora and see that sulpher balls of brimstone have been found. Why are their bubbles of polonium found in granite rock, they are produced only for minutes since polonium have a half life of 3 min. meaning granite froze up almost instantly not over million of years
"the top most intelligent men of evolution can't put together a debate and make some money.LOL" It is worse than that. More than 374,000 evolutionists worldwide have admitted by their defaults that they have no scientific evidence to support evolution. Evolution prevails by censorship and persecution. See life science prize dot org and originality throughout the universe dot com.
While I'm not a creationist, what I love about them is the many flaws of evolution they point out which doesn't prove creationism but proves that since no one will debate them and show them their errors, proves to me that evolution theory is full of it. You mean to tell me the top most intelligent men of evolution can't put together a debate and make some money.LOL
@SeedlingNL Duhhh!!! So one courageous evolutionist can make an easy $10,000. Or can't these great learned men with their army of debunking data are too shy to speak in a debate in front of people. Pretty pathetic.
@safffff Few scientists have the speaking skills to stand up to the nonsense retoric of a professional creationist speaker. And those that do, know it's pointless to debate with a religious zealot who refuses to listen to reason.
@SeedlingNL Duh, have a formal debate with a narrator to monitor and let each side presents their proofs. Sounds like the evolutionist are like the flat earthers of long ago that refused to lower themselves to except those proposing the round earth. This just proves to me a non scientist that even a so apparent truth supposedly easy to prove won't debate the ones so easily to show how flawed they are. Put your mouth where the money is or go and cower with your friends.
@safffff A debate has nothing to do with the subject and everything with the debating skills of the debaters.
Creationists share a common trait. If you push them long enough, their own reasoning will come back to bite them. And it just did in your reply. Are you aware that it was creationists that adhered to the flat earth theory, and it was scientists that dared to suggest a round earth (risking death for it, to boot)? How can you be so ignorant of human history?
@theinsectmanofwv "Evolution is more impossible than the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Headless Horseman."
Evolution is the inevitable (and observable) consequence of biological processes that we can measure and observe.
So your theory is that a magic man in the sky created everything from nothing by magic? And created a woman from a man's rib by magic? Where is your evidence for that? Do you have any evidence at all?
If you have some evidence for creationism, publish a paper. that's how science works. Science it not decided by debate.
What actually happens in such debates is that creationists make up their own facts, misquote scientists and use lots of simplistic flawed arguments. You can't debate people like that, and to do so gives these people credibility that they don't deserve.
But no amount of creationist arguments can change the real facts. If you want to understand science, study science.
Do you know why scientists should avoid debating creationists? It's very dishonest of you to quote Eugenie Scott out of context.
Creationists lie and present simplistic and plausible sounding answers that rely on the audience having very little understanding of science. It wastes lots of time to explain why the creationists are wrong.
Debating with creationists is like playing chess with a pigeon.
@AThagoras View, EUGENIE C. SCOTT: Debate and Lose Critique, video. You have the same old excuses from The Lame Excuse Handbook. If you people would stay with real science instead of science fiction, then the audience would understand very well and you would lose. Cluck, cluck.
An open minded person would look at the letter in its entirety and see that she is not afraid that 'evolutionists' would lose debates but rather that they will be made to attract a creationist audience and so preach to the converted. She thinks that it isn't possible to condense the massive evidence and science behind evolution, which would take "a semester-long course", in the permitted time and also debunk the "superficially attractive anti-evolutionary arguments" offered.
@steviemcsteve All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK, CLUCK.
@BereanBeacon1 $10,000? Are you serious? You might be able to hire a grad student for half a year with that or get two REU students for the summer, but that's no way to fund a real research group.
Actually, biologists have peer reviewed papers based on evidence discovered by actually doing real research. The best creationists can to is to say "CLUCK, CLUCK, CLUCK".
I have come to understand the evolutionists just absolutely HATE the internet. They cannot control it with their bullying tactics. They can keep the truth about evolution out of the classrooms with threats and lawsuits but they cannot stop the internet. That is why the evolutards work overtime with their asinine childish comments. Evolution is going down!! Oh, yeah, check out some "Ron Wyatt" videos. He discovered Noah's Ark, Mount Sinai, The Red Sea Crossing Site, Sodom and Gomorrah and more!
@thechessstick The truth about evolution is already in the classrooms, because it's a fact explained by the most well supported theory in the history of science.
We love the internet, it allows refutations of fundamentalist drivel to be exposed all over the world.
@TheScienceFoundation It seems that this "theory" of yours takes precedent even over laws. .... Hey, wait, isn't that one of the things that evolutionists say makes creation science not science? I mean that God works outside the laws of nature? Well, there you go, evolution works outside the laws of nature, too. It usurps the laws of thermodynamics, causality, etc, etc...
@thechessstick No, it doesn't and laws in science are descriptive not prescriptive. Even so, the idea that evolution violates scientific laws is born from ignorance on the part of creationists of what the actual laws they're trying to employ as invalidation entail.
>usurps the laws of thermodynamics
No, it doesn't I've already explained to you that evolution says nothing about mass/energy being created and entropy is actually decreasing locally due to the sun.
@TheScienceFoundation You have a misunderstanding of thermodynamics. For work to be done there must be a "machine". Simple reactions happen and "unhappen". They do not build upon themselves to create greater order. Even the sun's energy must be harnessed otherwise it is harmful. Look to the roofs of buildings and you can see this. For a machine to come into existence it must be created. They do not come about by mere random chance. And the single cell is an incredibly complex machine.
@thechessstick We're talking about work as it pertains to physics.
'the transference of energy that is produced by the motion of the point of application of a force and is measured by multiplying the force and the displacement of its point of application in the line of action '
@thechessstick As I pointed out before, in the SLoT 'work' refers to the physical definition of work; the transference of energy that is produced by the motion of a point of application of a force.
What entropy means is that less energy is available to apply force to parts in the system.
@TheScienceFoundation This by the way is why dolt such as Dawkins say that early life "piggy-backed" on crystals. (See Ben Stein's interview with Dawkins) You see crystal do grow with order. But they do not go any farther than that. Never do they become a machine. Dawkins then added another possibility. "Aliens seeded life on Earth" LOL LOL. Stein sure had fun with him. I am afraid you are wrong my friend evolution indeed violates the laws of thermodynamics.
@TheScienceFoundation Of course I am not talking about micro-evolution (variation) like you are. I am talking about macro-evolution( one kind changing to another kind). I am also talking about biogenesis (organic evolution), and cosmic evolution (something from nothing) and chemical evolution and also stellar and planetary evolution. Only micro-evolution operates within the laws of of the universe. The rest are religious. Evolution is your religion TSF. Get over it. The Creator is my God.
@thechessstick 'I am talking about macro-evolution( one kind changing to another kind'
1: Kind is not a useful classification because it's never defined
2: Evolution says nothing about a member of one species (or whatever kind may be) giving birth to a fundamentally different organism
The 'evolution' of the rest of the 'evolution's you're referring to simply means change over time, only in biology is it specifically a change in allele frequencies.
@TheScienceFoundation That is what you evolutionists always do. You run to your little black box.... TIME. As though if you ad enough years TIME will take care of all of the problems. Sorry, even the general public is becoming aware of this. Billions and billions of years do not cause the laws of thermodynamics to "go away".
@TheScienceFoundation Small changes to occur. This is what causes variation within a kind. But no matter how many times "science" has caused the fruit fly to mutate they have always ended up with fruit flies.
Probably because tests done on fruit flies aren't done to test boundaries on mutation, but for medical testing. For this reason they actually try to keep the genomes as conserved as possible.
@TheScienceFoundation The tests have been done TSF. On the fruit fly with tens of thousands of forced mutations. Also, with breeding programs of several animals, pigeons, dogs, horses, pigs, cows, goats and cats to name a few. With dogs you can get a Chihuahua at on end and an Irish Wolf Hound at the other, but they are still dogs. Likewise with plants, say the plum for instance.
@thechessstick 'On the fruit fly with tens of thousands of forced mutations. Also, with breeding programs of several animals, pigeons, dogs, horses, pigs, cows, goats and cats to name a few'
Yes, in a few human lifetimes we've stressed mutations in artificial selection (that's not even in the case in fruit flies) and in a handful of generations we've gone from a general wolf-like form to a teacup chihuahua a Great Dane and everything in between.
@thechessstick People aren't great at comprehending deep time because we are only able to directly observe such a relatively finite period. Consider what we can do with artificial selection in a few human lifetimes, then try to consider what nature could do in hundreds of millions of years.
@TheScienceFoundation Again the evolutionist runs to the black box of billions of years. It is thought that every possible type of pigeon has been uncovered. the boundaries have been uncovered, at least for the pigeon and the fruit fly. fruit flies always beget fruit flies, pigeons pigeons and apes apes. Variation is the malleability that God has built into His creatures that allows them to adapt to different environments. Look to the bear and an example.
@thechessstick It's not a black box, it's a fact. That's like saying 'the geologist wants to run the black box of time to say that continental drift will accumulate into large distances over longer periods of time' or 'You can drive 60 MPH for 2 hours and go 120 MPH but driving 60MPH for 10 hours and saying you'd go 600 miles is a black box"
'the boundaries have been uncovered'
Yes and the only boundary is time, because we know that all genes in every genome we've sequenced can mutate.
@TheScienceFoundation TSF look to my earlier posts. We have found the limits of variation in several animals and plants. Plus, there is no evidence of evolution by small changes over long time in the fossil record. There would be proof in the fossil record if it occurred. PLUS, where are all of the human remains if humans have been around for hundreds or even tens of thousands of years. They aren't there because the earth is young just like Genesis says.
@JAMRAND No, I said the only boundary is time, if you want to assert there is a genetic boundary, that's the positive claim that would require evidencing.
The simplest of life forms evolved into building the hubble .
extraordinary claim now show this extraordinary empirical evidence .that this happened . ERV INsertion position and stories from bones is not quiet enough unless you really really want to believe it anyway .
@JAMRAND If you're not claiming there is a boundary what's the problem?
Every part of every genome we've mapped is equally susceptible to mutation, I don't have to show there isn't a boundary when no one has even proposed there is.
ERV insertion points are far more than enough unless you just particularly don't want to understand it.
@JAMRAND No, it's a completely specious analogy, the trip to Hawaii can't practically be made in small increments, the "trip" from 125 mutations in one isolated line to 10,000 can.
I have no interest in there not being a god, it's just that if there is any evidence for god they seem to be keeping it in the same place as the identity of the second gunman and the location of Jimmy Hoffa.
Where is the evidence of evolution ? Grand scheme.
If you were educated you would know not to say there is no evidence for God .
If you were educated and you still believe there is no evidence for God then you have sunk a lot of money for nothing . I have continually explained this to you and your indoctrination inhibits your logic and reason .
name 1 evidence for evolution I will in turn give you one for God . Lets see who runs out of argument first
@JAMRAND 'Where is the evidence of evolution' genetics; /watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk /watch?v=fvF4q88YODU /watch?v=I8kDzftu2w4 embryology ; /watch?v=LnTGYdasDu0
I know I gave three, you can still just give one for god, I mean that is if you can.
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU It shows that the only empirical explanation for the diversity of life and arrangement of attributes is common descent.
I've emailed Tour at his rice.edu email on his contact page asking him what he thinks evolution is and what he thinks science uses it to explain. I await his reply.
It's not just a matter of extrapolation, it's the matter that observed mechanisms leading to descent with modification are the only thing that explain the twin nested hierarchy we observe in ilfe.
You have defined the confines of the word (realistic) and then stubbornly propose all there is must fall within your definitions boundaries .
Thats circular logic. Cynicism is not skepticism .
Your materialistic conclusion is not a scientific conclusion it was only meant to be a tool not an end all . Claiming it is an end all. then subjecting all thought to its confines is circular logic .
@JAMRAND It's not confinement and I never said it was an end all, it's testing what is testable which is a logically true tautology. If you have a manner in which the supernatural can be objectively tested, held to constant certain variables and falsified I'd be glad to hear it.
It is unique to you but is similar to the experiences of billions of people who have become firmly persuaded that Jesus was indeed the son of God . God would have to be perfect to be God and he would posess the greatest of all treasures which is love .
For an imperfect being to have a relationship with a perfect God would be impossible but his love allowed it ,
Love is stronger than your reason, logic and universe.
@JAMRAND I asked for non-subjective, you can start with the presupposition of *any* deity and end with the conclusion that they exist based on how begging the question about their existence makes you feel..
Finding God is personal therfore will be unique for you .
I guess atheist when proven science is helpless to find God their next rule is it cannot be personal . The christian proposal states it is personal so you can either address the proposal on its terms or leave it alone for lack of knowledge .
But to make a career of saying it aint so when you have done no research is sort of imbecilic
'How do you think evolution operates and what is it you personally think we should find in regards to biodiversity (in genetics, paleontology, anatomy etc.) in general if it were true as opposed to what we *do* find?'
Are you wiling to to share your credentials with us because unless you have advanced your field as Dr. Tour has his That may be the worst approach I have ever seen.
You sound like a snooty youtuber with your finger up your nose
I am not Dr Tour but if I were and I received such a condescending e mail from a nobody i would not bother a reply . I hope he does but after countless discussions and you losing everyone of them I dont really see any real reason to waste time on a cynic .
How does me backpedaling have anything to do with Dr. Tour . Can I backpedal for Dr. Tour . If not why do you say such stupid things .
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU You have a really funny definition of 'losing' considering that I've logically dominated every discussion on.
You're backpedaling for you, you wanted me to email him, you didn't think I would and I did. It's also telling that you think I used a 'bad approach' since all I did was ask a straightforward question. You consider being straightforward a 'the worst approach you have ever seen'
"You wanted me to e-mail himm and you didnt think I would and I did ."
Why did you think I thought that ? evidence plz
.
I doubted your credentials since you have failed to post any novel idea . You parrot anti theist propaganda then arrogantly assume we dont know that you just stretched the truth to further your position .
Your arrogance was never in question , Dr. Tours willingness to respond to a arrogant nobody was and is .
"Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so I would like to sit with that person and be taught" concluded by "Untill then I will maintain that no chemist understands"
Either you didnt read the website we sourced or you preferred staying away from the actual point of our discussion .
By asking Dr. Tour a question that has nothing to do with his position is an insult to him in my opinion as well.
What I am asserting is that it does not matter what we find in bio diversity . If chemistry says it aint so then you must accept that . You are welcome to show Dr. Tour how it is chemically possible .
I know you will find this hard but plz stay on point and try your best not to create more muddy water and strawmen .
Can you explain through chemistry that your assertion is indeed plausible?
@JAMRAND Chemistry doesn't say it isn't so, especially considering that evolution is biology. Exactly how do you think chemistry affects the validity of evolution?
I asked for you to quit creating word salads . Can you explain to Dr. Tour how it is chemically possible .
Thats a YES / NO Question .
That is also what Dr. Tour has asked for . If you approach him in the light of his question I am sure you may be taken a little more seriously . Just because you dont know why it isnt possible doesnt mean he does not .
@JAMRAND It would be easier if I knew what part you/he thought was impossible, just asserting that 'chemistry means it's impossible' doesn't make it so.
That is the question you should have addressed to Dr. Tour . Tell him it is you who can explain the chemistry behind macroevolution. Then ask how you may be of assistance to him . I am sure you would have gotten a response . I am also sure one of you will learn something of value.
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU It's apparently just your question, and kept as vague as possible because in his email reply to me he said 'Dear John, all that I have to share with you is on my website' and on his website nowhere is anything found regarding any chemistry based objection to evolution. In fact on his creation-evolution reflection the only time the word 'chemistry' appears is to say that he *can't* use it to support creationism.
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU "As I wrote, I am not a proponent of Intelligent Design for the reasons I state above: I can not prove it using my tools of chemistry to which I am bound in the chemistry classroom"
In a population, do you recognize that generations 1 and 2 are more genetically similar than 1 and 3 and that 1 and 3 are more so than 1 and 4 and so on?
It's a yes or no question, if there is any part of it you don't understand I can clarify.
So if you care about actual meaning in context (that means creationists will probably stop reading here) what she said was that creationists will fling so much fallacy that it can't all be corrected in an hour long debate and will only end in the illusion of them having vindicated their position when all they really did was throw up a Gish gallup.
@TheScienceFoundation, oh cmon dude. i debate atheists and evolutionists all the time here on youtube and i have brought up hundreds of points that they cant answer over ant length of time. i have debated for 6-8 hours at a time and still i win. the time involved means nothing. it's just a fact that life IS the definition of design according to all we know about the word design and evo cant explain a tenth of what goes into a biological system as far as how it could have evolved naturally.
@godrulztheearth You're confusing 'asserting fallacy for 6-8 hours' for 'winning'
You prove my point with the irreducible complexity claim of the eye, even if individual single changes couldn't explain it (which it can mind you) that's still not evidence *for* design. I have to point this out 20 times a day, science is INductive, not DEductive.
No, life is not the definition of design, though ID IS the definition of bare assertion fallacy.
@TheScienceFoundation LOL, the students that come are mostly evolutionists and are greatly disappointed by the poor presentation by the evolutionists. One such debate had two on two and the all the evolutionists did was to insult the creationists The creationist apologized to the audience and then proceeded with his side of the debate. Evolutionists are only secure in an educational enviroment or surrounded by their peers. No debates with an adult.
@TheScienceFoundation Teachers' greatest problem is not being able to overcome their secular evolutionary worldview. And even the ACLU is warring against them hearing the truth. Remember the teachers in our public schools have been brainwashed, too.
@TheScienceFoundation You cling to and protect your religion with ardor and vigor. You had just better hope that the Christian worldview is wrong. It is of course not wrong. We have too much legal/historical and scientific proof to show it to be correct. So, I think that you are in big trouble if you die in your current state of unbelief TSF
@thechessstick No, I reject the demonstrably wrong pseudo-science of creationists due to the fact that it's based on nothing but a fallacious understanding of real biology/geology/cosmology.
'We have too much legal/historical and scientific proof to show it to be correct.'
@TheScienceFoundation If you have seen no evidence to support the Genesis account then you have purposely not looked for it. The Bible calls this willful ignorance. You TSF will not be able to make that plea when you stand before God. The evidence is there. Just check out my favorited videos.
@thechessstick Instead of wading through 70 videos, why don't you just present what you think are two or three acceptable and empirically supported arguments from them.
@FillTheirVoid Yes, the quote mine employed by BereanBeacon IS quite pathetic. She was saying biologists shouldn't debate creationists for the same reason that geologists shouldn't debate flat earthers, the latter in either case has nothing to lose by simply arguing with mountains of demonstrably wrong fallacy.
@TheScienceFoundation, flat earthers? there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is round but no hard evidence that the human eye could have evolved nor is it likely that such an intricate system could have evolved. biological systems point to design 100% and it would take massive evidence to presume otherwise and evo has not the evidence to prove otherwise.
@godrulztheearth No, there is evidence that the earth is an oblate spheroid.
You can assert design all you want, the fact is biological systems can't support it empirically unless and until an actual hypothesis is put forward, until then it's just a bare assertion.
As far as irreducible complexity, /watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU
@TheScienceFoundation, i didnt say anything about I.C at all although that is a good theory. i see complex machins all working together to create a productive and practical organ called the eye. it is the fact that the eye makes sence from a design stance that i believe it was designed. mutations would never make these amazing designs in nature out of a random causation. its all the other organs, appendages, and abilities that creatures have as well that add up to design.
@godrulztheearth You referred to the eye being too complex to evolve, that is a concept known as IC and it's not a scientific theory, it's not even a hypothesis in a scientific context.
'it is the fact that the eye makes sence from a design stance that i believe it was designed.'
'sense' in science is not a reliable guide, evidence takes precedence over gut feeling.
'mutations would never make these amazing designs in nature'
Design is what you're trying to argue, circular logic.
@FillTheirVoid Now you're confusing 'excuse' and 'clarifying what she actually said'
No wonder you're a creationist.
It's not my problem that you don't understand science is done through legitimate methodology and peer review, not public debate that can be stifled with whatever inanity creationists aren't ashamed to spout.
Either way your position is invalidated. If the bible is authoritative, then it says there is no god, if it isn't then there's no reason to believe any of it.
Scientists will not debate with a creationist because the mind of a creationist has no reason. The only retort back is "well in the bible it says". A book written in barbaric middle east to terrify and control the illiterate and un-educated masses 2000 years ago! In the 21st century and people believe this fairy tale. Science has never tried to disprove the existence of a God it just that all that is discovered about our real origins contradict the Bible. The truth is so much more satisfying.
currie1967 5 days ago
@currie1967 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. Proverbs 26:4,5
warneveryonedotcom 5 days ago
@warneveryonedotcom I'm smiling now ...A few lines from the bible will suffice....Fantastic. I'll grant that from a literature stand point it has some credibility. But to absorb all the folly within its pages as true is mere folly, especially in the 21st century when we know so much more about the origins of life and the universe. History and Literature class is where the bible belongs. To believe the nonsense makes you an idiot in modern day !
currie1967 4 days ago
evolutionists dont wanne debate cause they know that they wil be beaten cause they have a religion too.. and they dont wanne admit. They say we have proof.. they dont have a shit to proof there evolutiontheorie.. U all have to believe those things they say in evolution.
macro343 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@macro343: "evolutionists dont wanne debate cause they know that they wil be beaten cause they have a religion too" Wow, really?
I guess then when the IDists/Creationist got their chance to argue their case in front of a Conservative, religious judge they should have wiped the floor in Dover with "Evilutionist Butts" but it was the IDists/Creationists that left and lost so badly as to destroy ID
What twaddle
sol3a1 3 months ago
@macro343 Scientists will not debate with a creationist because their mind has no reason. The only retort is "well in the bible it says". A book written in barbaric middle east 2000 years ago!
currie1967 5 days ago
@safffff There used to be a group of creationists that said just that, but the idea petered out when the founder died.
The Dead Sea area has been the site of a massive disaster, but it's not well understood. Possible a massive earthquake cracked open a natural gas field, which combined with rich sulfur deposits causing an inferno of epic proportions.
Po halos are ultimately formed by the decay chain of Uranium 238, the most common isotope of U, which has a half-life of 4.468 billion years.
SeedlingNL 10 months ago
I've never heard a single creationist say the earth was flat. My how the righteous evolutionist are so afraid of debate. Many events in Genesis records of the middle east have shown to happened. Google Sodom and gamora and see that sulpher balls of brimstone have been found. Why are their bubbles of polonium found in granite rock, they are produced only for minutes since polonium have a half life of 3 min. meaning granite froze up almost instantly not over million of years
safffff 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"the top most intelligent men of evolution can't put together a debate and make some money.LOL" It is worse than that. More than 374,000 evolutionists worldwide have admitted by their defaults that they have no scientific evidence to support evolution. Evolution prevails by censorship and persecution. See life science prize dot org and originality throughout the universe dot com.
josephmastropaolo 10 months ago
While I'm not a creationist, what I love about them is the many flaws of evolution they point out which doesn't prove creationism but proves that since no one will debate them and show them their errors, proves to me that evolution theory is full of it. You mean to tell me the top most intelligent men of evolution can't put together a debate and make some money.LOL
safffff 10 months ago
@safffff Debate what? Creationist arguments against evolution have been debunked so thoroughly, there's nothing left to discuss.
SeedlingNL 10 months ago
@SeedlingNL Duhhh!!! So one courageous evolutionist can make an easy $10,000. Or can't these great learned men with their army of debunking data are too shy to speak in a debate in front of people. Pretty pathetic.
safffff 10 months ago
@safffff Few scientists have the speaking skills to stand up to the nonsense retoric of a professional creationist speaker. And those that do, know it's pointless to debate with a religious zealot who refuses to listen to reason.
SeedlingNL 10 months ago
@SeedlingNL Duh, have a formal debate with a narrator to monitor and let each side presents their proofs. Sounds like the evolutionist are like the flat earthers of long ago that refused to lower themselves to except those proposing the round earth. This just proves to me a non scientist that even a so apparent truth supposedly easy to prove won't debate the ones so easily to show how flawed they are. Put your mouth where the money is or go and cower with your friends.
safffff 10 months ago
@safffff A debate has nothing to do with the subject and everything with the debating skills of the debaters.
Creationists share a common trait. If you push them long enough, their own reasoning will come back to bite them. And it just did in your reply. Are you aware that it was creationists that adhered to the flat earth theory, and it was scientists that dared to suggest a round earth (risking death for it, to boot)? How can you be so ignorant of human history?
SeedlingNL 10 months ago
@SeedlingNL How do you know that it was Creationists that adhered to the flat earth theory? Where did you read that or who taught you that?
JamesRideout123 2 months ago
Creationism doesn't have proofs. None. So what can a creationist possible bring to the table?
Look up some of this 'proof', research it and then watch it desintegrate with a simple google or youtube search.
SeedlingNL 10 months ago
Yay for quote mining!
DragonMagi 11 months ago
All you have is hot air. If you had scienceyou would grap the $10K.
You are chicken.
theinsectmanofwv 1 year ago
The TRUTH is that evolutionists LOSE the debates.
There are plenty of videos that record that FACT.
Evolution is more impossible than the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Headless Horseman.
theinsectmanofwv 1 year ago
@theinsectmanofwv "Evolution is more impossible than the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Headless Horseman."
Evolution is the inevitable (and observable) consequence of biological processes that we can measure and observe.
So your theory is that a magic man in the sky created everything from nothing by magic? And created a woman from a man's rib by magic? Where is your evidence for that? Do you have any evidence at all?
AThagoras 1 year ago
If you have some evidence for creationism, publish a paper. that's how science works. Science it not decided by debate.
What actually happens in such debates is that creationists make up their own facts, misquote scientists and use lots of simplistic flawed arguments. You can't debate people like that, and to do so gives these people credibility that they don't deserve.
But no amount of creationist arguments can change the real facts. If you want to understand science, study science.
AThagoras 1 year ago
Do you know why scientists should avoid debating creationists? It's very dishonest of you to quote Eugenie Scott out of context.
Creationists lie and present simplistic and plausible sounding answers that rely on the audience having very little understanding of science. It wastes lots of time to explain why the creationists are wrong.
Debating with creationists is like playing chess with a pigeon.
AThagoras 1 year ago
@AThagoras View, EUGENIE C. SCOTT: Debate and Lose Critique, video. You have the same old excuses from The Lame Excuse Handbook. If you people would stay with real science instead of science fiction, then the audience would understand very well and you would lose. Cluck, cluck.
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 Actually what she says is creationists consider it 'winning' to spout whatever garbage they need to to win the audiences favor
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
An open minded person would look at the letter in its entirety and see that she is not afraid that 'evolutionists' would lose debates but rather that they will be made to attract a creationist audience and so preach to the converted. She thinks that it isn't possible to condense the massive evidence and science behind evolution, which would take "a semester-long course", in the permitted time and also debunk the "superficially attractive anti-evolutionary arguments" offered.
steviemcsteve 1 year ago 2
@steviemcsteve All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK, CLUCK.
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 $10,000? Are you serious? You might be able to hire a grad student for half a year with that or get two REU students for the summer, but that's no way to fund a real research group.
NoOne3234 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 "All evolutionists have is hot air ..."
Actually, biologists have peer reviewed papers based on evidence discovered by actually doing real research. The best creationists can to is to say "CLUCK, CLUCK, CLUCK".
AThagoras 1 year ago
creationist think they have a better explanation than evolution? LOL
random35246 1 year ago
cute
Gentilejedi 1 year ago 2
I have come to understand the evolutionists just absolutely HATE the internet. They cannot control it with their bullying tactics. They can keep the truth about evolution out of the classrooms with threats and lawsuits but they cannot stop the internet. That is why the evolutards work overtime with their asinine childish comments. Evolution is going down!! Oh, yeah, check out some "Ron Wyatt" videos. He discovered Noah's Ark, Mount Sinai, The Red Sea Crossing Site, Sodom and Gomorrah and more!
thechessstick 1 year ago
@thechessstick The truth about evolution is already in the classrooms, because it's a fact explained by the most well supported theory in the history of science.
We love the internet, it allows refutations of fundamentalist drivel to be exposed all over the world.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago 2
@TheScienceFoundation It seems that this "theory" of yours takes precedent even over laws. .... Hey, wait, isn't that one of the things that evolutionists say makes creation science not science? I mean that God works outside the laws of nature? Well, there you go, evolution works outside the laws of nature, too. It usurps the laws of thermodynamics, causality, etc, etc...
thechessstick 1 year ago
@thechessstick No, it doesn't and laws in science are descriptive not prescriptive. Even so, the idea that evolution violates scientific laws is born from ignorance on the part of creationists of what the actual laws they're trying to employ as invalidation entail.
>usurps the laws of thermodynamics
No, it doesn't I've already explained to you that evolution says nothing about mass/energy being created and entropy is actually decreasing locally due to the sun.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago 2
@TheScienceFoundation You have a misunderstanding of thermodynamics. For work to be done there must be a "machine". Simple reactions happen and "unhappen". They do not build upon themselves to create greater order. Even the sun's energy must be harnessed otherwise it is harmful. Look to the roofs of buildings and you can see this. For a machine to come into existence it must be created. They do not come about by mere random chance. And the single cell is an incredibly complex machine.
thechessstick 1 year ago
@thechessstick We're talking about work as it pertains to physics.
'the transference of energy that is produced by the motion of the point of application of a force and is measured by multiplying the force and the displacement of its point of application in the line of action '
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago 2
@TheScienceFoundation The transference of energy is not work. For instance an ember can cool and no work has been done.
thechessstick 1 year ago
@thechessstick As I pointed out before, in the SLoT 'work' refers to the physical definition of work; the transference of energy that is produced by the motion of a point of application of a force.
What entropy means is that less energy is available to apply force to parts in the system.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago 2
@TheScienceFoundation This by the way is why dolt such as Dawkins say that early life "piggy-backed" on crystals. (See Ben Stein's interview with Dawkins) You see crystal do grow with order. But they do not go any farther than that. Never do they become a machine. Dawkins then added another possibility. "Aliens seeded life on Earth" LOL LOL. Stein sure had fun with him. I am afraid you are wrong my friend evolution indeed violates the laws of thermodynamics.
thechessstick 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thechessstick 'I am afraid you are wrong my friend evolution indeed violates the laws of thermodynamics. '
Actually its that other thing, they don't violate any of them.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago 2
@thechessstick
>causality
Not sure why you think evolution violates causality, everything in evolution is explained through causes in nature.
Now that it's been explained thoroughly there is no excuse to use it again, unless you're just trolling.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation Of course I am not talking about micro-evolution (variation) like you are. I am talking about macro-evolution( one kind changing to another kind). I am also talking about biogenesis (organic evolution), and cosmic evolution (something from nothing) and chemical evolution and also stellar and planetary evolution. Only micro-evolution operates within the laws of of the universe. The rest are religious. Evolution is your religion TSF. Get over it. The Creator is my God.
thechessstick 1 year ago
@thechessstick 'I am talking about macro-evolution( one kind changing to another kind'
1: Kind is not a useful classification because it's never defined
2: Evolution says nothing about a member of one species (or whatever kind may be) giving birth to a fundamentally different organism
The 'evolution' of the rest of the 'evolution's you're referring to simply means change over time, only in biology is it specifically a change in allele frequencies.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago 2
@TheScienceFoundation That is what you evolutionists always do. You run to your little black box.... TIME. As though if you ad enough years TIME will take care of all of the problems. Sorry, even the general public is becoming aware of this. Billions and billions of years do not cause the laws of thermodynamics to "go away".
thechessstick 1 year ago
@thechessstick It's not really a box, it's the fact that small changes of short time accrue over long periods of time.
And they don't really have to go away, evolution violates none of them.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation Small changes to occur. This is what causes variation within a kind. But no matter how many times "science" has caused the fruit fly to mutate they have always ended up with fruit flies.
thechessstick 1 year ago
@thechessstick 'have always ended up with fruit flies.'
Probably because tests done on fruit flies aren't done to test boundaries on mutation, but for medical testing. For this reason they actually try to keep the genomes as conserved as possible.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
What test have shown that the boundaries and funding of mutations to be limitless .
Without this data how can you extrapolate an unknown ?
Scientifically speaking
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND The fact that every part of every genome we've sequenced is equally susceptible to mutation.
Though if you're asserting there IS a genetic boundary, that's a positive claim which requires its own evidence.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation The tests have been done TSF. On the fruit fly with tens of thousands of forced mutations. Also, with breeding programs of several animals, pigeons, dogs, horses, pigs, cows, goats and cats to name a few. With dogs you can get a Chihuahua at on end and an Irish Wolf Hound at the other, but they are still dogs. Likewise with plants, say the plum for instance.
thechessstick 1 year ago
@thechessstick 'On the fruit fly with tens of thousands of forced mutations. Also, with breeding programs of several animals, pigeons, dogs, horses, pigs, cows, goats and cats to name a few'
Yes, in a few human lifetimes we've stressed mutations in artificial selection (that's not even in the case in fruit flies) and in a handful of generations we've gone from a general wolf-like form to a teacup chihuahua a Great Dane and everything in between.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@thechessstick People aren't great at comprehending deep time because we are only able to directly observe such a relatively finite period. Consider what we can do with artificial selection in a few human lifetimes, then try to consider what nature could do in hundreds of millions of years.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation Again the evolutionist runs to the black box of billions of years. It is thought that every possible type of pigeon has been uncovered. the boundaries have been uncovered, at least for the pigeon and the fruit fly. fruit flies always beget fruit flies, pigeons pigeons and apes apes. Variation is the malleability that God has built into His creatures that allows them to adapt to different environments. Look to the bear and an example.
thechessstick 1 year ago
@thechessstick It's not a black box, it's a fact. That's like saying 'the geologist wants to run the black box of time to say that continental drift will accumulate into large distances over longer periods of time' or 'You can drive 60 MPH for 2 hours and go 120 MPH but driving 60MPH for 10 hours and saying you'd go 600 miles is a black box"
'the boundaries have been uncovered'
Yes and the only boundary is time, because we know that all genes in every genome we've sequenced can mutate.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@thechessstick 'Variation is the malleability that God has built into His creatures that allows them to adapt to different environments'
That's not an argument that's just an assertion, one that keeps being made but is never supported.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation TSF look to my earlier posts. We have found the limits of variation in several animals and plants. Plus, there is no evidence of evolution by small changes over long time in the fossil record. There would be proof in the fossil record if it occurred. PLUS, where are all of the human remains if humans have been around for hundreds or even tens of thousands of years. They aren't there because the earth is young just like Genesis says.
thechessstick 1 year ago
@thechessstick 'We have found the limits of variation in several animals and plants'
The only limitation is time.
'there is no evidence of evolution by small changes over long time in the fossil record. '
What transition do you want fossils for?
'where are all of the human remains if humans have been around for hundreds or even tens of thousands of years'
talkorigins(.)org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Wrong, It is your claim that there are no boundaries . Show me, is my position .
You really do have a wierd science foundation .
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND No, I said the only boundary is time, if you want to assert there is a genetic boundary, that's the positive claim that would require evidencing.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"The only boundary is time "
Yes that is what you said . Now show me this evidence that proves it .
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND You're positively asserting a genetic boundary, the onus is on you to show it.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
I have no claim of anything .
You claim that the only boundary is time .
Show me this empirical evidence .
You cannot change the methodology.
The simplest of life forms evolved into building the hubble .
extraordinary claim now show this extraordinary empirical evidence .that this happened . ERV INsertion position and stories from bones is not quiet enough unless you really really want to believe it anyway .
and you do
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND If you're not claiming there is a boundary what's the problem?
Every part of every genome we've mapped is equally susceptible to mutation, I don't have to show there isn't a boundary when no one has even proposed there is.
ERV insertion points are far more than enough unless you just particularly don't want to understand it.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Onceforgivennowfree has a new video that will help you understand much better .
Somehow you believe you get a pass . NO you dont .
It is your claim . Provide the evidence or quit pretending the science community is somehow on your side .
You cannot bully your argument on the world . SHOW ME .
OR shut up .
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND You've already said you're not claiming there is a boundary, thus there's nothing to demonstrate.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
The method is stronger than the scientist
I dont care if every scientist in the world believed your fairy tale and they dont .
The methiod demands the evidence which you do not have . Quit being a little spoiled brat.
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND What evidence do you want? Genetics? Comparative anatomy?
More importantly, what evidence would you not reject out of hand?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
I want to see that the boundaries you claim are not there are not .
If time can do it ,a lab should be able to as well . We have gone through millions of generations in labs with no signicant changes .
I am not pretending I know for certain what I dont .
You are
Thats the only difference between you and I
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND You want to see something that doesn't exist which you also claim doesn't exist?
The lab has already done it, there is no DNA immutable to change.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
But the extent of that change is?
You dont know and then you hijack science and pretend they are making a statement when they are not.
Science does not say that , You do .
A chicken can fly but he cannot fly very far . Your methodology would conclude that it can migrate .
Not a very scientific approach .
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND Dependent entirely on timescale.
Not that I'm defending or claiming it, but are you saying chickens can't migrate?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
You're claiming they did.
The chickens in rural areas cannot migrate to Hawaii for the winter.
You claim because you saw one fly on to the hen house that they can.
The analogy is a valid one.
Maybe they can but you havent enough evidence to convince anyone other than those who have an interest in chickens being able to fly to Hawaii .
Similarly to those who have an interest in there not being a God .
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND No, it's a completely specious analogy, the trip to Hawaii can't practically be made in small increments, the "trip" from 125 mutations in one isolated line to 10,000 can.
I have no interest in there not being a god, it's just that if there is any evidence for god they seem to be keeping it in the same place as the identity of the second gunman and the location of Jimmy Hoffa.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Where is the evidence of evolution ? Grand scheme.
If you were educated you would know not to say there is no evidence for God .
If you were educated and you still believe there is no evidence for God then you have sunk a lot of money for nothing . I have continually explained this to you and your indoctrination inhibits your logic and reason .
name 1 evidence for evolution I will in turn give you one for God . Lets see who runs out of argument first
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND 'Where is the evidence of evolution' genetics; /watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk /watch?v=fvF4q88YODU /watch?v=I8kDzftu2w4 embryology ; /watch?v=LnTGYdasDu0
I know I gave three, you can still just give one for god, I mean that is if you can.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
so because of the evidence in these videos we know for a certain that men evolved from the simplest of life forms to his present state.
Are you putting all your credibility in that statement ?
Go to James M Tour Group
Read his creation / evolution article .
Get in touch with him and lets see how it goes .
Plz update me with your correspondence
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU It shows that the only empirical explanation for the diversity of life and arrangement of attributes is common descent.
I've emailed Tour at his rice.edu email on his contact page asking him what he thinks evolution is and what he thinks science uses it to explain. I await his reply.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
An empirical explanation ? LOL
I know you didnt just say that .
I hope you are credentialed enough to get a response from Dr. Tour .
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND Yes, I just said that, instead of being shocked you could try to explain why you think it isn't.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Empirical evidence needs no explanation .
When you want to extrapolate that empirical data is when you leave empiriciity and only hope you can get crediibility with the word empirical .
Thats why I am shocked .
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
It's not just a matter of extrapolation, it's the matter that observed mechanisms leading to descent with modification are the only thing that explain the twin nested hierarchy we observe in ilfe.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Exactly , Militants are continually trying to trick the masses and when they get caught they ask why dont you just believe us .
The empirical evidence never concludes that we originate from the simplest of life forms . YOU DO THAT .
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND The empirical evidence concludes that we share a common ancestor with all life.
You can invoke magic but that is a non-answer, the only thing that does it with realistic mechanisms is descent with modification.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
the only thing that does it with realistic ( Circular reasoning ) mechanisms is descent with modifications .
A methodology confined cannot logically derive all truth . sorry try again
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND You need to brush up on your definition of circular reasoning if you think I've employed one.
No need to try again, methodological naturalism isn't bound by the ability to invoke magic.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
You have defined the confines of the word (realistic) and then stubbornly propose all there is must fall within your definitions boundaries .
Thats circular logic. Cynicism is not skepticism .
Your materialistic conclusion is not a scientific conclusion it was only meant to be a tool not an end all . Claiming it is an end all. then subjecting all thought to its confines is circular logic .
Where did I go wrtong ?
Science doesnt claim what you do .
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND It's not confinement and I never said it was an end all, it's testing what is testable which is a logically true tautology. If you have a manner in which the supernatural can be objectively tested, held to constant certain variables and falsified I'd be glad to hear it.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
The supernatural by definition cannot be objectively tested .
To then use science as a reason to not believe in something which has always been proposed as supernatural is moving the goal post off the field .
God can be discovered but the methods of science are useless which has been my point since the beginning of our discourse.
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND Science is methodological naturalism, it can't be used to say one thing or another regarding the existence of the supernatural.
'God can be discovered'
In what way that isn't entirely subjective?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
It is unique to you but is similar to the experiences of billions of people who have become firmly persuaded that Jesus was indeed the son of God . God would have to be perfect to be God and he would posess the greatest of all treasures which is love .
For an imperfect being to have a relationship with a perfect God would be impossible but his love allowed it ,
Love is stronger than your reason, logic and universe.
begin there
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND I asked for non-subjective, you can start with the presupposition of *any* deity and end with the conclusion that they exist based on how begging the question about their existence makes you feel..
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Finding God is personal therfore will be unique for you .
I guess atheist when proven science is helpless to find God their next rule is it cannot be personal . The christian proposal states it is personal so you can either address the proposal on its terms or leave it alone for lack of knowledge .
But to make a career of saying it aint so when you have done no research is sort of imbecilic
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU I never said 'it ain't so' I said it can't be empirically commented on.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
I agree
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Good
JAMRAND 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation
Good
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
any word yet ?????
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND Nope, I think I'll email again.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@JAMRAND Just emailed again asking this
'How do you think evolution operates and what is it you personally think we should find in regards to biodiversity (in genetics, paleontology, anatomy etc.) in general if it were true as opposed to what we *do* find?'
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Are you wiling to to share your credentials with us because unless you have advanced your field as Dr. Tour has his That may be the worst approach I have ever seen.
You sound like a snooty youtuber with your finger up your nose
Thanks alot for the trust we laid at your feet .
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU Heh, now that I've actually done what you thought I wouldn't do, you're trying to backpedal with personal attacks.
Kind of sad.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
I am not Dr Tour but if I were and I received such a condescending e mail from a nobody i would not bother a reply . I hope he does but after countless discussions and you losing everyone of them I dont really see any real reason to waste time on a cynic .
How does me backpedaling have anything to do with Dr. Tour . Can I backpedal for Dr. Tour . If not why do you say such stupid things .
Wll you share your credentials was the question
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU You have a really funny definition of 'losing' considering that I've logically dominated every discussion on.
You're backpedaling for you, you wanted me to email him, you didn't think I would and I did. It's also telling that you think I used a 'bad approach' since all I did was ask a straightforward question. You consider being straightforward a 'the worst approach you have ever seen'
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"You wanted me to e-mail himm and you didnt think I would and I did ."
Why did you think I thought that ? evidence plz
.
I doubted your credentials since you have failed to post any novel idea . You parrot anti theist propaganda then arrogantly assume we dont know that you just stretched the truth to further your position .
Your arrogance was never in question , Dr. Tours willingness to respond to a arrogant nobody was and is .
credentials plz.
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU Arrogance? What was arrogant or otherwise unclear about the question I more recently asked?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU I tried and was willing to have a discourse, Tour obviously wasn't, I got this last night;
'Dear John, all that I have to share with you is on my website.
JT'
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Dr. Tour posted on his website
"Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so I would like to sit with that person and be taught" concluded by "Untill then I will maintain that no chemist understands"
Either you didnt read the website we sourced or you preferred staying away from the actual point of our discussion .
By asking Dr. Tour a question that has nothing to do with his position is an insult to him in my opinion as well.
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND So it is your assertion that what we should find in biodiversity has nothing to do with evolution?
Now you're just reaching, you've been beaten. I tried to talk to your 'expert' and he didn't want anything resembling a discussion
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
What I am asserting is that it does not matter what we find in bio diversity . If chemistry says it aint so then you must accept that . You are welcome to show Dr. Tour how it is chemically possible .
I know you will find this hard but plz stay on point and try your best not to create more muddy water and strawmen .
Can you explain through chemistry that your assertion is indeed plausible?
Not cute stories but actual science plz
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND Chemistry doesn't say it isn't so, especially considering that evolution is biology. Exactly how do you think chemistry affects the validity of evolution?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
I asked for you to quit creating word salads . Can you explain to Dr. Tour how it is chemically possible .
Thats a YES / NO Question .
That is also what Dr. Tour has asked for . If you approach him in the light of his question I am sure you may be taken a little more seriously . Just because you dont know why it isnt possible doesnt mean he does not .
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND It would be easier if I knew what part you/he thought was impossible, just asserting that 'chemistry means it's impossible' doesn't make it so.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
That is the question you should have addressed to Dr. Tour . Tell him it is you who can explain the chemistry behind macroevolution. Then ask how you may be of assistance to him . I am sure you would have gotten a response . I am also sure one of you will learn something of value.
Keep me posted
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU I already asked him what didn't he understand, he didn't seem anxious to have an actual discussion.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
What you presumably asked isnt what you should have. You should have told him you knew the answer to his chemistry questions .
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU It's apparently just your question, and kept as vague as possible because in his email reply to me he said 'Dear John, all that I have to share with you is on my website' and on his website nowhere is anything found regarding any chemistry based objection to evolution. In fact on his creation-evolution reflection the only time the word 'chemistry' appears is to say that he *can't* use it to support creationism.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU "As I wrote, I am not a proponent of Intelligent Design for the reasons I state above: I can not prove it using my tools of chemistry to which I am bound in the chemistry classroom"
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
Comment removed
4Chanonymous 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Plz give a Dr. Tour update .
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND No word yet.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@JAMRAND Also, you keep changing the subject about your professor/PhD that doesn't understand evolution.
What is it he doesn't understand?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@thechessstick As far as 'Only micro-evolution operates within the laws of of the universe.'
I've already corrected your misunderstanding there, twice now.
'Evolution is your religion'
Projection is your error
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FillTheirVoid You're dodging.
In a population, do you recognize that generations 1 and 2 are more genetically similar than 1 and 3 and that 1 and 3 are more so than 1 and 4 and so on?
It's a yes or no question, if there is any part of it you don't understand I can clarify.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
So if you care about actual meaning in context (that means creationists will probably stop reading here) what she said was that creationists will fling so much fallacy that it can't all be corrected in an hour long debate and will only end in the illusion of them having vindicated their position when all they really did was throw up a Gish gallup.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, oh cmon dude. i debate atheists and evolutionists all the time here on youtube and i have brought up hundreds of points that they cant answer over ant length of time. i have debated for 6-8 hours at a time and still i win. the time involved means nothing. it's just a fact that life IS the definition of design according to all we know about the word design and evo cant explain a tenth of what goes into a biological system as far as how it could have evolved naturally.
godrulztheearth 1 year ago
@godrulztheearth You're confusing 'asserting fallacy for 6-8 hours' for 'winning'
You prove my point with the irreducible complexity claim of the eye, even if individual single changes couldn't explain it (which it can mind you) that's still not evidence *for* design. I have to point this out 20 times a day, science is INductive, not DEductive.
No, life is not the definition of design, though ID IS the definition of bare assertion fallacy.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
And now for the real quote, in context
If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to
"defend evolution," please decline. Public debates rarely change many
minds; creationists stage them mainly in the hope of drawing large
sympathetic audiences. Have you ever watched the Harlem Globetrotters
play the Washington Federals? The Federals get off some good shots, but
who remembers them? The purpose of the game is to see the Globetrotters
beat the other team.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation LOL, the students that come are mostly evolutionists and are greatly disappointed by the poor presentation by the evolutionists. One such debate had two on two and the all the evolutionists did was to insult the creationists The creationist apologized to the audience and then proceeded with his side of the debate. Evolutionists are only secure in an educational enviroment or surrounded by their peers. No debates with an adult.
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 'The creationist apologized to the audience and then proceeded with his side of the debate'
What was the first valid point she brought up for creationism or against evolution?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
And you probably will get beaten. In such a forum, scientific experts often
try to pack a semester-long course into an hour, hoping to convey the huge
sweep of evolution, the towering importance of its ideas, the masses of
evidence in its favor. Creationist debaters know better. They come well
prepared with an arsenal of crisp, clear, superficially attractive
antievolutionary arguments--fallacious ones, yes, but far too many for you
to answer in the time provided.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Even if you win the debate in some
technical sense, most of the audience will still walk away from it
convinced that your opponent has a great new science that the schools
should hear about. Teachers have enough problems.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation Teachers' greatest problem is not being able to overcome their secular evolutionary worldview. And even the ACLU is warring against them hearing the truth. Remember the teachers in our public schools have been brainwashed, too.
thechessstick 1 year ago
@thechessstick That's not really a problem considering evolution is the truth.
'Remember the teachers in our public schools have been brainwashed, too. '
No, they've been unbrainwashed, religion was taken out of public schools.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation You cling to and protect your religion with ardor and vigor. You had just better hope that the Christian worldview is wrong. It is of course not wrong. We have too much legal/historical and scientific proof to show it to be correct. So, I think that you are in big trouble if you die in your current state of unbelief TSF
thechessstick 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thechessstick No, I reject the demonstrably wrong pseudo-science of creationists due to the fact that it's based on nothing but a fallacious understanding of real biology/geology/cosmology.
'We have too much legal/historical and scientific proof to show it to be correct.'
Such as? I haven't seen the first piece.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation If you have seen no evidence to support the Genesis account then you have purposely not looked for it. The Bible calls this willful ignorance. You TSF will not be able to make that plea when you stand before God. The evidence is there. Just check out my favorited videos.
thechessstick 1 year ago
@thechessstick Instead of wading through 70 videos, why don't you just present what you think are two or three acceptable and empirically supported arguments from them.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
Evolutionists aren't chickens, they're Ostriches.
seekerofgod7777777 1 year ago
@seekerofgod7777777 ROFL!!!
diverse04 1 year ago
Quotemine much?
wimscheers 1 year ago
How utterly pathetic.
FillTheirVoid 1 year ago
@FillTheirVoid Yes, the quote mine employed by BereanBeacon IS quite pathetic. She was saying biologists shouldn't debate creationists for the same reason that geologists shouldn't debate flat earthers, the latter in either case has nothing to lose by simply arguing with mountains of demonstrably wrong fallacy.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, flat earthers? there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is round but no hard evidence that the human eye could have evolved nor is it likely that such an intricate system could have evolved. biological systems point to design 100% and it would take massive evidence to presume otherwise and evo has not the evidence to prove otherwise.
godrulztheearth 1 year ago
@godrulztheearth No, there is evidence that the earth is an oblate spheroid.
You can assert design all you want, the fact is biological systems can't support it empirically unless and until an actual hypothesis is put forward, until then it's just a bare assertion.
As far as irreducible complexity, /watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation, i didnt say anything about I.C at all although that is a good theory. i see complex machins all working together to create a productive and practical organ called the eye. it is the fact that the eye makes sence from a design stance that i believe it was designed. mutations would never make these amazing designs in nature out of a random causation. its all the other organs, appendages, and abilities that creatures have as well that add up to design.
godrulztheearth 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@godrulztheearth You referred to the eye being too complex to evolve, that is a concept known as IC and it's not a scientific theory, it's not even a hypothesis in a scientific context.
'it is the fact that the eye makes sence from a design stance that i believe it was designed.'
'sense' in science is not a reliable guide, evidence takes precedence over gut feeling.
'mutations would never make these amazing designs in nature'
Design is what you're trying to argue, circular logic.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Actually she said that they shouldn't debate because they will probably lose ...
All of your excuses are what is pathetic.
FillTheirVoid 1 year ago
@FillTheirVoid And you prove my point about not caring about the actual meaning in the actual context.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"don't debate because you will probably lose" seems pretty straight forward to me.
*waits for another pitiful excuse*
FillTheirVoid 1 year ago
@FillTheirVoid "And you probably will get beaten. In such a forum, scientific experts often
try to pack a semester-long course into an hour, hoping to convey the huge
sweep of evolution, the towering importance of its ideas, the masses of
evidence in its favor. Creationist debaters know better. They come well
prepared with an arsenal of crisp, clear, superficially attractive
antievolutionary arguments--fallacious ones, yes, but far too many for you
to answer in the time provided."
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Another excuse, thanks.
It's not our problem that your theory consists of unintelligible conjecture which may only be "understood" after decades of vigorous brainwashing.
FillTheirVoid 1 year ago
@FillTheirVoid Now you're confusing 'excuse' and 'clarifying what she actually said'
No wonder you're a creationist.
It's not my problem that you don't understand science is done through legitimate methodology and peer review, not public debate that can be stifled with whatever inanity creationists aren't ashamed to spout.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
More excuses, how sad.
Now run on back to your little hovel with your tail between your legs.
FillTheirVoid 1 year ago
@FillTheirVoid "More excuses, how sad.'
Psalm 14:1 clearly says "There is no god"
I bet you're going to come up with some pitiful excuse regarding that passage.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
So now you're taking the scripture as being authoritative?
Please ... you're just embarrassing your uneducated self.
FillTheirVoid 1 year ago
@FillTheirVoid Now *you* aren't?
Either way your position is invalidated. If the bible is authoritative, then it says there is no god, if it isn't then there's no reason to believe any of it.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago