OKOK, we all been through CTW, Critical THinking and Writing and they give us the tree root website if we want to complain. FINE! But this is the Survival Game. this is the elimination process! First, people do not trust religion anymore! But then, they still keep the church going isnt it? So, the moron does not trust the Bible, but says Science is everything. But the intelligent ones go to the church and get baptised, and goes back to work as a scientist and become rich. End of division.
Should we teach controversy? Absolutely. I would still be a Christian and a Creationist if I had never studied the bible. The reason Christians are Christian is because they have no knowledge of what their religion teaches. Everyone should know what ID and Creationism are and how it comes to its conclusions.
@vottoduder he is talking about "in science class", outside of that environment you SHOULD teach kids why religion is wrong and the many ways it is wrong, but the classroom isn't really the best place for it, as it takes time away from the actual science, and most students have a hard enough time dealing with that.
@kotoroshinoto Precisely! SO there are basically 4 types of humans here, like how the Astrology has 12 different kinds of human predictions for your future if you care. And 4 types. The person who agrees with GOD, the person who disagrees with GOD, the person who agrees with Science, and the person who disagrees with Science. FOUR? it is just two! Now that is evil! Good luck you win 1 million US dollar in Survivor Series.
@bsabruzzo And I hope YOU don't lie on YOUR death bed wishing you'd been more honest when dealing with people who don't agree with you and who know more than you do.
@shanedk@johnrainrules@rkyeun@MystryBox@2Jax I must ask you, unless you wish to merely say good-bye, please stop messaging. There is no reason any of you can't take your empty victory and be done with it.
I'm certain beating a person you feel is inferior makes you have a sense of accomplishment. Most people would have preferred and actual victory.
As I said, I learned a lot, have a number of new sources of material to read and digest (though many concepts are retreads).
@shanedk@johnrainrules@rkyeun@MystryBox@2Jax I have, in the past, spoken with other "atheists" who were more polite and while we never end up agreeing on everything, we have have found common ground. It all come via discussion rather than riticule, which can be frustrating when people with firmly heald beliefs are confronted with differing views.
Maybe you'll learn to recognize this and maybe you won't. But if you are happy, and you do no harm, then all is good and I wish you the best
@bsabruzzo You forgot to add me in there. Speaking for myself now:
I give you credit for using the quotation marks on the word atheist. I can assure you no atheist finds common ground on science with a believer, because science doesn't work both ways. Those "atheists" were theists or incredibly stupid and had no knowledge of the actual scientific method.
Finally, nice how you choose to just give up and remain ignorant instead of reading science books and articles about REAL science.
@shanedk@johnrainrules@rkyeun@MystryBox@2Jax I have certainally had my deficiencies (spelling, grammar, lack of knowledge of jargon) and most of you have yours (twisting the topic from a generic being as a possibility back into the myth of a christian god is a big one) and there is where it shows your closed minds and lack if actual exploration. I am glad most in the scientific community don't have these restrictions and allow for the impossible to become reality.
@shanedk@johnrainrules@rkyeun@MystryBox@2Jax I'd like to thank you all for your lackluster debate where you all, in your own way, rather stick to the dogma of your own ideas and dress down anybody, sometimes resorting to profanity and name calling.
Shanedk, your video provides you with a great way to silence debate with a backpeddling argument that halts any possibility of the scientific methad "If you find out 'god' exists, you didn't know, so you are wrong anyway and we begin NOW".
@bsabruzzo "I'd like to thank you all for your lackluster debate where you all, in your own way, rather stick to the dogma of your own ideas and dress down anybody, sometimes resorting to profanity and name calling."
You didn't debate, you asserted nonsense without evidence and then tried to lie your way through. You've also admitted you don't know what you are talking about and refuse to learn anything new.
So.... which theory of gravity do we teach: Newtonian, Einsteinian or String Theory?
See, even science can be wrong.
And what about science being correct, but the origins of life also being correct. God can't actually be disproven by science. Nothing in science actually precludes God's existance, merely the prevailing theories of God.
But, as we see from the laws of gravity, a universal force can still exist even when the theory used to explain it is discarded for a new theory.
Um, no. NONE of those is a case of science being wrong. In each case, the existing theory of gravity was refined to make it more complete and cover areas the previous theory didn't.
This argument is like saying that, because Wal-Mart went from only having stores in Arkansas to having them nation-wide, that they never sold anything in Arkansas!
Not true. The theory that the world was created by the Heaven and Earth mating or by the river of blood from a giant have given way to the current science theory.
RE: Walmart... In the set of nationwide includes AR, then it is possible for Walmart to be in AR before and after.
Set of science being in God's power, science still exists. But is science able to support evolution to it's final end?
@bsabruzzo "Are we not God-like to that bactiria?"
No, because we're not supernatural.
"What is that being?"
A product of natural forces--still not a god of any kind.
Even if we don't evolve any further, with the right technology we might gain the ability to use energy so efficiently our only limitations would be the laws of physics. And we STILL wouldn't be gods!
@shanedk "A product of natural forces--still not a god of any kind" So, you deny that the natural laws lf evolution can create a being that is, in fact, highly evolved?
Sounds like the religion of "atheism" to me.
"we STILL wouldn't be gods [supernatural]" But that's what gods are, based on those "stories" and ALL the evidence around us. You may not believe that people can evolve past where we are now or that another race of beings have already done so... but that's your "religion".
@shanedk "I never said anything of the kind. You're just LYING now" Not lying. I maybe misunderstanding your position to my suggestion that is included in the above statement. I did use the word "may" as I am not certain of your position... though it does seem inflexible on what I did say: "people can evolve past where we are now or that another race of beings have already done so"
@bsabruzzo Bacteria CAN kill us, we know bacteria exists and it can physically interact with us or other organic lifeforms, so we're hardly gods to it. I hope you see where your argument fails and if not, here it is: Your analogy refers to physical, real organisms and their interactions; nothing supernatural (godlike) there.
Also, the "powers and abilities" of humans in the future will be granted by technology, not bronze-age beliefs.
@TheKainMan "Bacteria CAN kill us, we know bacteria exists and it can physically interact with us or other organic lifeforms" But before people believed in bacteria, we interacted with them and didn't know it.
In the past (and currently) we interacted with people and things we know nothing of. We have yet to travel doen the scientific inquery because "bronze-age" (or maybe we'll call it "info age") thinking has frozen out thoughts to this current set of beliefs.
@bsabruzzo So let me get this straight... When we saw bacteria for the first time they were like "Oh, shit! They're on to us!" and stopped infecting our bodies? Did they suddenly decide they should spare us the pain and tortures of septicemia?
Or was it the antibiotics that ultimately crippled the outbreaks of microbes in times after modern medicine?
I'll say it again: You are a piss-poor debater if you slap the "God did/gave it!" stamp of shit to everything scientific.
@TheKainMan "So let me get this straight... When we saw bacteria for the first time they were like "Oh, shit! They're on to us!" and stopped infecting our bodies? Did they suddenly decide they should spare us the pain and tortures of septicemia?"
Wow, whos the piss poor debator now.
I was talking about evolving above humans and used the bacteria as orders of magnatude. You assigned bacteria human characteristcs.
@bsabruzzo BTW, you don't understand evolution AT ALL if you use phrases like evolving "beyond humans" or "above humans." Evolution doesn't work that way. Whatever we may evolve into in the future, they will STILL be humans--just like we're still primates, still mammals, still vertebrates, still eukaryotes.
We could evolve into Star Trek energy beings and those beings would still be humans. We'd just create new subcategories to describe them.
@shanedk "Evolution doesn't work that way. Whatever we may evolve into in the future, they will STILL be humans--just like we're still primates, still mammals, still vertebrates, still eukaryotes."
Pardon (politely), I never was good at jargon. I always believed that each stahe of evolution was it's own species (can't create viable offspring). Thus, I don't think of them as still humans.
That's not lack of understanding of evolution, but merely a poor grasp of the exact wording.
@bsabruzzo "(can't create viable offspring). Thus, I don't think of them as still humans."
They still will be humans, regardless of what you want to call them. 3:08 , how science works the same for everyone, but not everyone understands it.
Secondly, you're referring to speciation, the differentiation between 2 organisms with a common ancestor to the point that they cannot produce viable offspring with each other. That's when they become 2 separate species.
@TheKainMan "They still will be humans, regardless of what you want to call them" Okay. I'll go with that. a god can be a human and a human can be a god. This doesn't contradict the "created in his image" story or the Mormon belief that we eventually become gods ourself.
"you're referring to speciation, the differentiation between 2 organisms with a common ancestor to the point that they cannot produce viable offspring with each other" Yes, that's it.
@johnrainrules "Meaning you don't even know the proper terms, but have an opinion on a scientific theory you don't understand" There is a difference in understanding the concept vs using another persons termenology. When I go to a TV news studio, I know what's going on and what they are doing, even though I haven't learned the jargon beyond "b-roll" and so on. Attacking another person for not speaking the same "language" is as bad as calling a person's opinions lies.
@shanedk "And you clearly didn't understand the concept. You might as well have asked why there are still monkeys!" Nodding again... this time a sarcastic nod, as you are now attempting hyperbole at my expense. The connection is a bit exagerated, so I will remain quiet and let you ramble on about your belived observance.
@bsabruzzo "There is a difference in understanding the concept vs using another persons termenology. "
It's not another persons terminology, it is the entire fields. And I have to disagree. When someone uses the wrong words it is rare that they understand the concept. In fact you can learn very fast if your first step is to learn the words in a lesson.
And when it comes to Evolution your ideas are Lamarckian, a theory Darwin disproved.
@johnrainrules "And when it comes to Evolution your ideas are Lamarckian, a theory Darwin disproved"
I want to make certain I understand your comment, so bare with me. Lamarckian is the theory that characteristics acquired during a being's lifetime can be passed on to its offspring. Did I get that correct?
I never said that. I went out of my way to point out that the more complex a being (population) is, the greater the length of time for evolution to occur. And...
@johnrainrules the more complex a being (population) is, the greater the length of time for evolution to occur. And, if I didn't make it clear, while a mutation can happen between a single generation in one or two (or a small dozen, if by chance) individuals, the passing on of the genetic traits require many generations and many pairings to spread it out.
If I was correct about the definition of Lamarckian, it would seem I am the opposite of such.
@bsabruzzo "the more complex a being (population) is, the greater the length of time for evolution to occur."
a being is an individual, a population is an entire group. This is not just semantic. This is crucial to the concept.
"while a mutation can happen between a single generation in one or two (or a small dozen, if by chance) individuals, the passing on of the genetic traits require many generations and many pairings to spread it out."
@johnrainrules "a being is an individual, a population is an entire group. This is not just semantic. This is crucial to the concept"
I will endeavor to not refer to the mythical being of god as an individual nor a group of individuals (though they are perceived as both by differing theories). What would you suggest as a good term that means both an individual AND a population of individuals?
@johnrainrules "If true, so what?" I must have missed what you were trying to say. Please explain your insult, as you have pointed out, I don't know the terminology and thus the subject.
Trying to explain something to a person you say doesn't know the subject requires you be a bit more clear.
Or are you just going to insult me rather than try to make a point?
@johnrainrules "In what way can saying if true, so what be construed as an insult?"
I may be just getting a bit oversensetive and misunderstood. You called what I said Lamarckian and I must have mistaken that as a prelude to an attack (have been hit by so many "you're lying" and "you're stupid (paraphrased)" comments with none even trying to share their "knowledge of the topic" as I seem to be obviously not able to understand them (according to their responses).
@bsabruzzo "If I was correct about the definition of Lamarckian, it would seem I am the opposite of such."
Then obviously you are not. What you are not describing is a system of descent with modification to explain the diversity of life. And your ideas of men evolving from gods is both silly and ill defined.
@johnrainrules "What's a "stahe of evolution"?" A typo.
"If by stahe you meant stage, what's a stage of evolution?" Let me see if I can put it into words we both share: I always believed that each stage of evolution was it's own species. I know I repeated myself, but you got distracted by a typo.
To be more specific. I was taught (oh those public schools) that as an animal evolves it eventually becomes a distinct species via branches or even linearly along an evolutionary path.
@shanedk "See my video, "Fuzzy Logic and the Definition of Species."" I shall. Always up for a good video.
Hey, I say that debate on Futurama... Funny as hell.
It took nearly 3 minutes to get to a point of something new. Okay, and back to an old concept at 4 minutes (well, somewhere in the 3.5 minutes with the ring species, but it's a but "fuzzy").
So, 10% or less is new info to me... and you use the parts I agree with to define why we disagree?
@bsabruzzo No, it goes to the core concept of what it means to evolve. Read anything by the cladists explaining how it works--or look at AronRa's videos. It is IN NO WAY presented as a semantic issue, or just a question of jargon. It is a FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT of how evolution works.
@shanedk AronRa's videos are interesting. He says a lot of things I agree with, though I only watched 3 videos and missed why you wanted me to see them.
And cladistics will take some reading, but at first glance it looks to be straightforward and not cotradict anything I said. But I'd have to read more to see where I might have differed.
But calling a rose a "harpoidical marnut" (made up words) doesn't change what it is. Thus jargon and concept can exist seperately.
@bsabruzzo AronRa is a cladist and has done a very good job explaining the concept. I don't remember specific videos off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure the Foundational Falsehood series goes into it.
Evolution is not something that happens to individuals, it is something that happens to populations. At no time does a chimpanzee give birth to a human, but rather a population of apes has descendants which on one side are more chimp-like and on the other side more human-like, in the same population, until the two extreme sides are different enough that they can't breed together. Gene flow is then restricted, and differences continue to accumulate.
@rkyeun "Evolution is not something that happens to individuals....."
I'm nodding my head, as I do when somebody says something I already understand and agree with... do go on and say things I agree with, then we can get back to our specific discussion when you are ready to teach me rather than insult me or convince me of your position.
Only humans are still humans. All apes, including humans, are still apes. All monkeys, including apes, are still monkeys. All mammals, including monkeys, are still mammals.
> Thus, I don't think of them as still humans.
You're still doing this whole thing backwards. You haven't understood the way in which you are wrong.
@vspqbd "Him (and many others) seem to be under the misapprehension " Who is this "him" of which you speak. Not me, as I also believe this: "It's more like a tree branching out creating the diversity of life"
In fact it was Shanedk that place a "X is 'better' than Y" concept to the whole, while I just proposed the possibility of an evolved being that some believe to be greater than them.
In fact, if this being exists, modern man is evolved from it (if you believe the Bible).
@TheKainMan "nothing supernatural (godlike) there." Supernatural is a word you placed on it, not me. I put it in the natural column. After all, once "humans" couldn't make tools or speak. Once animals couldn't live outside of water (or live only under water).
I would think what the homo erectus called a supernatural ability (to what extent he could conceive it) is just a natural ability.
@shanedk "That would mean that the homo erectus was mistaken, not that homo habilis was a god." I love it when the opposing person get's my jist, but can't admit to seeing it.
Pastor Holierthanthou and Rabbi Whatever and High Priestess Sunisagodtoo are just as mistaken. I said this from the beginning that God and all gods might be just a step in evolution and natural.
You added the "super" to the word and denied the possibility on many occassions.
@bsabruzzo "God can't actually be disproven by science."
Irrelevant burden-shifting. NO hypothesis gets to worm its way in just because it hasn't yet been DISproven; they ALL have to prove themselves. See my video on the Null Hypothesis.
@shanedk "NO hypothesis gets to worm its way in just because it hasn't yet been DISproven; they ALL have to prove themselves"
Fine. I call on evolution theory as proof of the possibility of God. It is supported in science, and in religion. Evolution to God is supported in the Mormon theory and the Buddhist theory of conservation of energy shares the same line of thinking.
See, I include science in my examples. But can you exclude for a fact God and the many varied theories?
@shanedk "I can show that God is UNNECESSARY to explain the phenomena."
And people can show that science is unnecessary as well. The fact that science exists and humans are figuring it out is "100% IRRELEVANT" if you are closed minded.
You can't argue against something by saying "I don't agree, so you are wrong". That makes you as dogmatic as any bible-thimping zealot.
And being unnecessary doesn't negate the existance or even the possibility of God. It just sooths your mind.
@bsabruzzo "And people can show that science is unnecessary as well. "
No one says science is a cause! Science is how we KNOW what is necessary and what isn't. It is NOT closed-minded to say there's no reason to presuppose a god BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH REASON!
"You can't argue against something by saying "I don't agree, so you are wrong"."
No one's saying that! You're just being dishonest now. And this conversation started out so well...
@shanedk "And this conversation started out so well..." Sarcasm... funny.
"No one says science is a cause" Not true. Things fall down because of a scienctific theory (gravity, space/time, etc). The science is describing the cause. But what creates the scientific laws we discover? Are we saying they just exist? Then they are caused by themselves?
But this is off track.
Just because Pastor Holierthanthou thinks a superevolved being created everything doesn't mean that being exists. But
@bsabruzzo ""And this conversation started out so well..." Sarcasm... funny."
No, I MEANT it. You started out here as a very reasonable poster, but then you moved on through misquoting me to DELIBERATELY misrepresenting what I said.
""No one says science is a cause" Not true."
Yes, true! Science DESCRIBES the causes, it is not the cause itself. Apples still fell from trees before Newton invented the science to explain why.
@shanedk Just because Pastor Holierthanthou thinks a superevolved being created everything doesn't mean that being exists. But because Doctor Iknowmorethanyou can explain things with science doesn't mean god doesn't exist.
If you get stuck on the impossible to know or prove "first uncaused first cause" you'll end up arguing in circles.
And if you look for evidence that a being so highly evolved that he can observe you without being detected exists, you are staring into an abyss.
@bsabruzzo But the burden of proof is on Pastor Holierthanthou, and until he meets that burden Doctor Iknowmorethanyou is perfectly justified in his position.
"If you get stuck on the impossible to know or prove "first uncaused first cause" you'll end up arguing in circles."
How is it that one can actually prove that, based on spacial relationships, it can be shown the Sun IS circling the Earth. It is as simple as choosing which point is stationary. After all, if the Sun is also moving and the Milky Way is moving and the cluster of galaxies are moving, what point are they moving to/from/around?
I'm not stating that Earth is the stationary point, but if I can prove heliocenticity is an illusion, why can't God exist?
@shanedk "You CAN'T, because it's contradicted by NUMEROUS observations" Except if you stand on the other side of the universe, where the Earth and Sun stay in reletive position while orbiting another galaxy.
The Moon, for example, rotates at the same speed as it orbits the Earth. To us, it stays the same. To the sun it wobbles back and fother as it spins around it.
Based on relative positioning, it differs.
Because of your position, gods can't exist. To others, they do.
@bsabruzzo Your subjective view on science makes you a piss-poor debater. Until you learn to view science in an objective way, it's no wonder people are overwhelmed by your ignorance and blatant misunderstanding of the scientific method and its results that in the end, they stop debating you and occasionally throw in a nice derogatory term.
Then you do what all creationists do, bask in that ignorance and claim a pseudovictory.
You can't debate without evidence or an objective view. Period.
@TheKainMan "Your subjective view on science " I'm not being subjective. I am open to ALL possibilities and looking at this from 10 to the 10000 power away (an analogy, not real distance, Mr. piss-poor-literal-take-things-out-of-context amd no that's not ad hominem, it's acurately describing what you did, with your own words).
"you do what all creationists do" I hope you didn't call me a creationist.
"You can't debate without evidence or an objective view" I've been objective.
@bsabruzzo "Except if you stand on the other side of the universe, where the Earth and Sun stay in reletive position while orbiting another galaxy."
You would STILL have the gravitational waves that show that the Earth is spinning and moving around the sun. There is NO WAY to explain that if it's the other way around.
God speaking the Sun into existence after speaking the Earth and plants into existence is disproven. Humankind being descended from a single pair of human individuals, one made from dust and the other from a rib, is disproven. The Noachian Flood is disproven. That those who believe in Jesus shall drink all manner of deadly poison with no ill effect is disproven.
@rkyeun "The Noachian Flood is disproven" Actually, archeologist have traced the flood to a specific valley. I'd have to look it up, but the myth is an exageration or the event.
"Humankind being descended from a single pair of human individuals, one made from dust and the other from a rib" Primordial soup and stardust.
"those who believe in Jesus shall drink all manner of deadly poison with no ill effect" How do you disprove a metaphor?
So you intend to selectively ignore parts of sentences that are inconvenient for you, like Noachian, a global event not taking place in a specific valley, or a pair of individuals...
@rkyeun "you intend to selectively ignore parts of sentences that are inconvenient for you, like Noachian" I didn't ignore it, I included it. But whent he entire world of anceient biblical times spans a small portion of the Earth and, as johnrainrules has pointed out that these are stories (I say exagerated over time and for effect of teaching), it brings me back to a point where I said perspective is in play.
@rkyeun "You ignored it" I looked at it scientifically... well, more logically. I didn't look at the literal word of the book, but at the understanding the people of the time had of what story they told.
"Thank you for disproving it a second time on a second basis." You are welcome. And thank you for pointing out the tecnical term for exploring where Zeus came from via logic and science. Apologetics. Unfortunate that modern linguistics makes that word sound negative.
> And thank you for pointing out the tecnical term for exploring where Zeus came from via logic and science.
Zeus doesn't exist, and didn't come from anywhere. There is a myth of Zeus, and you can examine the origin of the myth. Just like you have examined the myth of the Noachian flood, and perhaps found a valley it originates from.
You have confused the map with the territory. The Noachian flood is disproven. The myth exists.
@rkyeun "That perspective is called "apologetics". "
Maybe that's what I get from "atheists" and the people on this comment section. Rather than answering and enlightening, maybe they are "apologetics" for the dogma of the non-belief.
Don't answer that. Not certain you'll revert to "Fuck off" or not.
@rkyeun "Fuck off, troll" Yup, that's how the others tried to discuss my question. One's got to wonder how you can enlighten people with question by saying "fuck off" rather than actually explaining why evolution can't create a human (or other being) that control lightning (electric eel), can never die (jellyfish) or anything else.
I'm not advocating any god, just the possibility of an evolution. And all I get is "fuck off".
> One's got to wonder how you can enlighten people with question by saying "fuck off"
You didn't come here to learn. You came here to spread misinformation. You have ignored all corrections to your misunderstanding of the basic principles of science and come back with rhetoric. You are a troll. Fuck off, troll.
@bsabruzzo "Actually, archeologist have traced the flood to a specific valley."
That's a lie, The Noachian flood actually rips off a Sumerian myth that comes from periodic floodings of marshlands, none of which would have ever required a boat to get all of the livestock out.
"How do you disprove a metaphor?"
Learn what a metaphor is before using it in a sentence.
Indeed it can. Those who first suggested the Earth was flat were only wrong by 8 inches per mile. Those who later suggested the Earth was spherical were wrong by less than that. Now we have full satellite imagery, and you'd be hard-pressed to find any error at all.
Science can indeed be wrong. And when it is, it fixes itself. But we are never going to wake up one morning and discover the Earth was actually cubic this whole time.
@rkyeun Cubic? What an odd thing to say. How is the progression of flat to curved to sphere lead to cubic?
My line of logic (pointed out to be flawed, but now shown how, just asserted) is that if bacteria can eventually become human, human can become super-human, demi-gods and eventually gods. Now I don't propose a straight line or one being an improvement, just that evolution can continue and a hypothetical "god" is a possibility both past and future.
They cannot. That train has already left the station and won't be returning. Ceullular life developed into archea, eukarya, and bacteria. No members of bacteria will ever be members of eukarya, and no members of eukarya will ever be members of bacteria.
> human can become super-human
No they can't. Humans will always be human, just as they will always also be apes, monkeys, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, animals, and eukaryotes.
@rkyeun "I'm going to have to get you to define those terms before I try to argue against them" The vernacular, sir. The terms are pretty much the layman's terms minus the religion. Check out shanedk's video on fuzzy logic (he pointed me to it) and see the discussing we had about Jack Lalane and Heracles.
"You just did, from bacteria to human to Superman to Hercules to Thor" As you know and was pointed out to me (though I knew it, too) evolution isn't a straight line.
@rkyeun "The miraculous is never a possibility, by definition, past or future" Again, perspective. A stick that catches fire is science to us. To other's a miricle.
A fish that walks on land is a miricle to some.
Frogs that freeze "to death" and come back to life is a miricle to some.
Today science can explain these. In 1000 years, what will science explain? 100,000 years?
> Frogs that freeze "to death" and come back to life is a miricle to some.
That "some" would be "people who are using the wrong definition of miracle" to support your fallacious arguments and attempt at twisting the meanings of words. This is why I won't let you use the vernacular about gods or demigods. The vernacular is 7 billion different meanings.
Science works entirely through explicable means, never impossible ones.
@rkyeun "Science works entirely through explicable means, never impossible ones" Is there a scientific term for god? Or is "miricle" the definition?
"That "some" would be "people who are using the wrong definition of miracle" to support your fallacious arguments" Maybe, but, again, in 6000 BCE would they not look at oir 6 feet tall men as abnormally large? At the 110 year life spand as very old?
Wouldn't the very point of persective make the explination of miricle standard science?
> Wouldn't the very point of persective make the explination of miricle standard science?
Perspective. Explanation. Miracle.
And no. Science does not depend on you or anyone else's perspective. The facts and evidence stand on their own merit. The universe does not care what you think or do different things based on your misunderstandings of it.
@rkyeun "No, because there is no evidence of god" So asking "define those terms before I try to argue against them" not only preassumes you will argue against them rather than prove them right or wrong, it says you never expected a definition, as you didn't allow for one.
I even asked you to define it so you can argue against it and you backed away. If you can't define it, you can't prove it or disprove it... is what I seem to be told.
That is correct. Things which are not defined cannot be either true or false. They are undefined. When you say God is a being who sent the Noarcian flood, and the Noarchian flood is disproved, God is also disproved. When you define your god strongly enough that it MIGHT exist, science can start checking to see if it DOES. But no, we cannot disprove all amorphous ill-defined abstract concepts without any idea of what the hell you're talking about.
@rkyeun "Science does not depend on you or anyone else's perspective" But the description by a society that has no lnoledge of the science does depend on perspective.
If I showed you a person who could be cut into little peices and days later they were alive again, you would search for a scientific explination... probably not finding one for centuries.
But Joe Public would think "miracle", right or wrong. And that's perspective.
@rkyeun "Yes, being wrong is certainly one perspective"
Then it is time to leave this here. I say it's possibe that people like you and shanedk and others are wrong and evolution (and, okay even technology) in the future can lead to a being that, by the average person's definition, could be a god and that even scientifically (where are those people who look at science and see down the road? ) a being at "god level" could have existed in the past or, more likely, exist in the future.
@bsabruzzo "Wouldn't the very point of persective make the explination of miricle standard science?"
Besides the fact that you can't spell miracle or perspective, you also don't use the words correctly. Miracles are scientifically impossible by definition and require an outside supernatural agent.
"Maybe, but, again, in 6000 BCE would they not look at oir 6 feet tall men as abnormally large? "
> Cubic? What an odd thing to say. How is the progression of flat to curved to sphere lead to cubic?
It doesn't. That's an analogy for why your claim about the progression of gravity is nonsensical. Science is corrective. General relativity doesn't make Newtonian gravity nonsense. It modifies it like the satellite imagery of every mountain, bulge, and measurement of curvature modifies the spherical Earth into an oblate pear-inclined spheroid.
@bsabruzzo "My line of logic (pointed out to be flawed, but now shown how, just asserted) is that if bacteria can eventually become human, human can become super-human, demi-gods and eventually gods."
Pseudo Lamarckian nonsense from someone with no science education that masturbates to Nietzsche. Especially since a demi-god by definition has a human and a god parent.
I like the universe and how fascinating it is. But i don't bother debating creationists or religion. You cannot change someones elses view by force. It has to be voluntary for them to change. The main worry is what happens after death and most religions give people comfort with the idea of an afterlife. Who knows maybe you are reincarnated as something else. Or maybe there is just nothing, you no longer exist. who knows? that's what faith is for right?
@tehatemachine nobody knows for certain, but Christians claim not only do they know for certain, and know the mind of their invisable god, they demand everyone else convert upon a threat that they are certain about as well....how arrogant is that?
Thats funny Dawkins told me he doesn't eat breakfast so did you dream you had breakfast with him. Lets go to the video. O look there he is saying that intelligent aliens seeded life on earth.. Funny when we spoke he was very forthcoming about Ben Stein and the whole Expelled controversy. He was much more interested in the ostensible openness of the the debate. Maybe james randi the psychic teleprojected the memory on you.
@philackey Or we could actually quote Dawkins "even in the highly unlikely event that some such ‘Directed Panspermia’ was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved,"
There you go, highly unlikely aliens (meaning it almost certainly didn't happen) that would have to evolve from somewhere else.
Also Richard Dawkins actually goes to events titled Breakfast with Dawkin's so your little anecdote sounds like a bald faced lie.
@philackey It was on the morning of 13 January 2005 at the Stardust in Las Vegas.
Yet again, THE MOVIE LIED. He was ASKED to come up with a scenario where life COULD have evolved--and he made the point that this was HIGHLY UNLIKELY.
Yes, there are some commandments in Exodus 20, and there happen to be ten of them, but despite the apologist chapter heading most Bibles have for Exodus 20, those are not the Ten Commandments. Exodus 34 clearly states which ten commandments are The Ten Commandments, by name, in the verse itself. The ones from Exodus 20 are not them.
Not one of your examples has ever been cited in any peer-reviewed journal as an example of species changing due to mutation. Genetic recombination has never been cited as an example for evolution. Richard Dawkins most assuredly did say life was seeded by intelligent aliens and has consistently maintained that there is no scientific explanation for the origin of life. I have spoken with him personally so I see truth doesn't matter to you. Do you also deny that the holocaust happened?
@philackey "Richard Dawkins most assuredly did say life was seeded by intelligent aliens"
He ABSOLUTELY DID NOT and he's on record MANY times as to what he REALLY said. SECOND warning, LIAR.
"I have spoken with him personally"
I ate breakfast with him one morning--along with James Randi and Phil Plait. I've PERSONALLY heard what he has to say on SEVERAL occasions--and YOU ARE A LIAR.
@philackey "as an example of species changing due to mutation." What about the fused chromosome we have our #2 Chromosome which is actually what separates us from the other apes? Is that not a sufficient mutation for you. How did life get here? Well Dawkins said life could have been alien to this planet. That is not entirely impossible. Consider the Murchison meteorite which had more than 60 different amino acids in it. There is only 20 acids known to compose life on earth.
@philackey Amino acids are the building blocks of life. Have you ever heard of the Miller-Urey experiments in which they were able to be produced via natural causes in a lab? All you need is a the chemicals found on earth.... and electricity.
@CtheWolfe Actually, turns out you don't even need electricity (although it does help). All you need is enough cycles of evaporation and condensation, and you get these building blocks, including RNA nucleotides!
@shanedk Oh wow. I mean I guess its possible right. We know so little about what life can be. There is no reason to assume it is uncommon. Even that NASA discovery of that bacteria that could substitute arsenic instead of phosphorus, completely redefines what can be life. If the Murchison Meteorite... I mean it had different amino acids than life on earth. So who knows how life started here. We know it could have, or it was potentially seeded.
The phosphorous-arsenic thing turned out to be an error, mostly blown out of proportion by the media. Their growth medium was contaminated by phosphorous and the bacteria used that to grow.
@rkyeun I thought with that bacteria from the arsenic rich basin in California it had actually placed arsenic within its DNA coding. I mean that is what the articles I read about the subject had said. Whether it used phosphorus as a source for growth was not the thing I saw, it was that it had placed arsenic within its DNA instead of phosphorus.
Yeah, that was wrong. They thought that because there was no phosphorous, that meant it had used arsenic instead when building the DNA backbone. But there was phosphorous contamination and the bacteria ate it and used it in its DNA.
@rkyeun Yeah I read a follow up article from a few months ago saying the sequenced the genome and they are having trouble distinguishing arsenic markers because well they have not really searched for them before lol. I also read that arsenic isn't as stable as phosphorus that the strands break easier or something to that effect, which is why it would not be ideal in creating life. But hey again thanks for the heads up I was not aware of the newer info!
@rkyeun Ah it appears you might be right there. Just read a couple articles on the controversy of the subject. Thanks for the heads up. Seems they are having trouble with the genome sequencing telling whether or not arsenic is actually in it or not lol.
And yet ironically you fail to list one unambiguous example of a new species from natural selection. That is Lynn Margolis challenge and it has gone unanswered. Typical evolutionist huff and puff and no proof. Richard Dawkins your Crown Prince has gone on record as no only suggesting intelligent aliens seeded life on this planet. He has also stated there is a very good case for belief in a Creator. Perhaps you should stay a little more current. Evolution is a religious belief deal with it.
@philackey I can name you lots: Rhagoletis pomonella, Eurosta solidaginis, Tribolium castaneum, Nereis acuminata, Epilobium angustifolium, Mus domesticus, Lake Nagubago cichlids, Lake Victoria cichlids, Stephanomeria malheurensis, Rhagoletis pomonella, Podarcis sicula, and many, MANY others.
@shanedk I wouldn't bother with philackey. Like a lot of creationists, he's in total denial. He's just parroting what he's pick up from creastionist videos.
He knows nothing about Evolution or Natural Selection.
You can tell that by the way he clings desperately to his fantasies, even though you've warned him of the consequences.
Unless they can prove to me that they have actually taken the trouble to learn something about Evolution, I just ignore them. They're not worth the effort.
@philackey So you haven't read Origin of species. At least you admit that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. When you do, maybe we'll have something to discuss.
As for your comments on richard Dawkins. I'm not surprised you're hanging on to those supreme examples of quote mining. I've seen "Expelled" as well. I couldn't stop laughing.
As for Lynn Margulis. Is that all you've got? I suggest you do some reading. check out ring species.
I've made the following statement to a number of creationists and, so far, none have come back with a answer:
"there've been over 240,000 peer reviewed publications confirming the accuracy of Evolution.
There's not even been one publication trying to prove creationism that has even been submitted for peer-review. Why?
Could it be that, in reality, Creationists know that if subjected to the rigours of peer review, their arguments collapse in a heap and they want to avoid that embarrassment."
@shanedk I doubt whether anyone with just a cursory knowledge of any branch of science would take Answers in Genesis as even a half serious scientific Journal.
It still amazes me that the only way christians can have their bible make any sense at all, is by indulging in fantastical mental gymnastics of wild interpretation and re-interpretation until it sort of fits what they want to believe.
They don't seem to get it, but if you start from the premise that god doesn't exist. Everything in the bible makes sense. It's just a story book of myths and legends. No more historically accurate than Homer's Odyssey
@HonestMan395 Its easy to list 240,000 examples of articles of micro evolution. Yet not one example of a new species has ever been documented through darwinism. Not one. For a fact rivers deposit sediment yet no one would conclude the hoover dam was created through natural processes. Micro evolution is a fact yet no peer reviewed publication has demonstrated a mechanism let alone fossil evidence to the huge leaps evolution predicts. No evolutionist has ever answered Lynn Margolis challenge.
@philackey Oh, and you do know that Lynn Margulis came up with endosymbiotic theory, capable of the greatest evolutionary leap ever--bacteria forming the first eukaryotic cells?
@philackey Spoken like a man who knows absolutely nothing about evolution by natural selection or how it actually works and whats more, doesn't even want to know.
Have you ever read and understood Darwin's "Origin of Species", Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" or "the Greatest Show on Earth", or in fact any book which explains Evolution?
I just don't understand why people cant separate science from faith. No one is asking any religious person to give up their beliefs or force them to value one thing over another. Only to separate faith from science and teach science in the science classroom and learn about religion in any number of other places, churches, seminars, revivals etc. Creationism and evolution are 2 very different subjects. One is science and one is a personal belief or belief system. Why is this so difficult ???
@orangemod because unless they mold there beliefs to fit around science then science contradicts there beliefs and they cant have that. the two just cant co exist.
I'm sorry, but there's absolutely no evidence that the stork brings babies. However, there is evidence that sometimes eagles carry babies away, this could be worth looking into.
OKOK, we all been through CTW, Critical THinking and Writing and they give us the tree root website if we want to complain. FINE! But this is the Survival Game. this is the elimination process! First, people do not trust religion anymore! But then, they still keep the church going isnt it? So, the moron does not trust the Bible, but says Science is everything. But the intelligent ones go to the church and get baptised, and goes back to work as a scientist and become rich. End of division.
icemindreallife 1 month ago
@icemindreallife "But the intelligent ones go to the church and get baptised, and goes back to work as a scientist and become rich."
Then how come scientists are far LESS likely to believe in God?
shanedk 1 month ago
Should we teach controversy? Absolutely. I would still be a Christian and a Creationist if I had never studied the bible. The reason Christians are Christian is because they have no knowledge of what their religion teaches. Everyone should know what ID and Creationism are and how it comes to its conclusions.
vottoduder 1 month ago
@vottoduder he is talking about "in science class", outside of that environment you SHOULD teach kids why religion is wrong and the many ways it is wrong, but the classroom isn't really the best place for it, as it takes time away from the actual science, and most students have a hard enough time dealing with that.
kotoroshinoto 1 month ago
@kotoroshinoto Precisely! SO there are basically 4 types of humans here, like how the Astrology has 12 different kinds of human predictions for your future if you care. And 4 types. The person who agrees with GOD, the person who disagrees with GOD, the person who agrees with Science, and the person who disagrees with Science. FOUR? it is just two! Now that is evil! Good luck you win 1 million US dollar in Survivor Series.
icemindreallife 1 month ago
You forgot about the 5th type. The crazy guy ranting about nonsense on the internet because he hasn't gotten his Haloperadol today.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo And I hope YOU don't lie on YOUR death bed wishing you'd been more honest when dealing with people who don't agree with you and who know more than you do.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk @johnrainrules @rkyeun @MystryBox @2Jax I must ask you, unless you wish to merely say good-bye, please stop messaging. There is no reason any of you can't take your empty victory and be done with it.
I'm certain beating a person you feel is inferior makes you have a sense of accomplishment. Most people would have preferred and actual victory.
As I said, I learned a lot, have a number of new sources of material to read and digest (though many concepts are retreads).
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo You're going to tell ME to stop commenting on MY OWN CHANNEL???
Man, I've seen desperate, but...
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk You think this is desperate? You havent seen my love life yet then.
GumbaMasta 1 month ago
@shanedk @johnrainrules @rkyeun @MystryBox @2Jax I have, in the past, spoken with other "atheists" who were more polite and while we never end up agreeing on everything, we have have found common ground. It all come via discussion rather than riticule, which can be frustrating when people with firmly heald beliefs are confronted with differing views.
Maybe you'll learn to recognize this and maybe you won't. But if you are happy, and you do no harm, then all is good and I wish you the best
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo You forgot to add me in there. Speaking for myself now:
I give you credit for using the quotation marks on the word atheist. I can assure you no atheist finds common ground on science with a believer, because science doesn't work both ways. Those "atheists" were theists or incredibly stupid and had no knowledge of the actual scientific method.
Finally, nice how you choose to just give up and remain ignorant instead of reading science books and articles about REAL science.
TheKainMan 1 month ago
@shanedk @johnrainrules @rkyeun @MystryBox @2Jax I have certainally had my deficiencies (spelling, grammar, lack of knowledge of jargon) and most of you have yours (twisting the topic from a generic being as a possibility back into the myth of a christian god is a big one) and there is where it shows your closed minds and lack if actual exploration. I am glad most in the scientific community don't have these restrictions and allow for the impossible to become reality.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "I have certainally had my deficiencies (spelling, grammar, lack of knowledge of jargon)"
Don't forget to add deliberate dishonesty and illogic. Your lack of knowledge is also complicated by a lack of willingness to learn.
"and there is where it shows your closed minds and lack if actual exploration. "
Projection since this is actually what you are doing.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "I am glad most in the scientific community don't have these restrictions and allow for the impossible to become reality."
Since we've already covered the fact that you know nothing about science, how would you know.
"backpeddling argument that halts any possibility of the scientific methad "
Yet you do apologetics, the exact opposite of the scientific method.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo None of that is what we have a problem with. It's your DELIBERATE DISHONESTY.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk @johnrainrules @rkyeun @MystryBox @2Jax I'd like to thank you all for your lackluster debate where you all, in your own way, rather stick to the dogma of your own ideas and dress down anybody, sometimes resorting to profanity and name calling.
Shanedk, your video provides you with a great way to silence debate with a backpeddling argument that halts any possibility of the scientific methad "If you find out 'god' exists, you didn't know, so you are wrong anyway and we begin NOW".
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "I'd like to thank you all for your lackluster debate where you all, in your own way, rather stick to the dogma of your own ideas and dress down anybody, sometimes resorting to profanity and name calling."
You didn't debate, you asserted nonsense without evidence and then tried to lie your way through. You've also admitted you don't know what you are talking about and refuse to learn anything new.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
So.... which theory of gravity do we teach: Newtonian, Einsteinian or String Theory?
See, even science can be wrong.
And what about science being correct, but the origins of life also being correct. God can't actually be disproven by science. Nothing in science actually precludes God's existance, merely the prevailing theories of God.
But, as we see from the laws of gravity, a universal force can still exist even when the theory used to explain it is discarded for a new theory.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "See, even science can be wrong."
Um, no. NONE of those is a case of science being wrong. In each case, the existing theory of gravity was refined to make it more complete and cover areas the previous theory didn't.
This argument is like saying that, because Wal-Mart went from only having stores in Arkansas to having them nation-wide, that they never sold anything in Arkansas!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "This argument is like saying that"
Not true. The theory that the world was created by the Heaven and Earth mating or by the river of blood from a giant have given way to the current science theory.
RE: Walmart... In the set of nationwide includes AR, then it is possible for Walmart to be in AR before and after.
Set of science being in God's power, science still exists. But is science able to support evolution to it's final end?
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "In the set of nationwide includes AR, then it is possible for Walmart to be in AR before and after."
Exactly my point! Newton's laws still completely hold up in inertial reference frames. Intertial reference frames are a part of the Universe.
"But is science able to support evolution to it's final end?"
What do you mean, its final end?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "What do you mean, its final end?"
Let's assume for the sake of argument that a bactiria evolved into a human (probably did). Are we not God-like to that bactiria?
Now evolve humans the same amout further. Now evolve humans to the age of the universe.
What is that being? What natural powers and abilities would that being have? Is that the end of evolution or could one evolve more?
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "Are we not God-like to that bactiria?"
No, because we're not supernatural.
"What is that being?"
A product of natural forces--still not a god of any kind.
Even if we don't evolve any further, with the right technology we might gain the ability to use energy so efficiently our only limitations would be the laws of physics. And we STILL wouldn't be gods!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "A product of natural forces--still not a god of any kind" So, you deny that the natural laws lf evolution can create a being that is, in fact, highly evolved?
Sounds like the religion of "atheism" to me.
"we STILL wouldn't be gods [supernatural]" But that's what gods are, based on those "stories" and ALL the evidence around us. You may not believe that people can evolve past where we are now or that another race of beings have already done so... but that's your "religion".
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo Primitive cultures might MISTAKE us for gods, but that's a different thing entirely.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "Primitive cultures might MISTAKE us for gods, but that's a different thing entirely" Now you're catching on...
"bronze age" and even "info age" are "primitive cultures" in relative terms. Again, it depends on "where you are standing".
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "ou may not believe that people can evolve past where we are now or that another race of beings have already done so."
I never said anything of the kind. You're just LYING now!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "I never said anything of the kind. You're just LYING now" Not lying. I maybe misunderstanding your position to my suggestion that is included in the above statement. I did use the word "may" as I am not certain of your position... though it does seem inflexible on what I did say: "people can evolve past where we are now or that another race of beings have already done so"
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo Bacteria CAN kill us, we know bacteria exists and it can physically interact with us or other organic lifeforms, so we're hardly gods to it. I hope you see where your argument fails and if not, here it is: Your analogy refers to physical, real organisms and their interactions; nothing supernatural (godlike) there.
Also, the "powers and abilities" of humans in the future will be granted by technology, not bronze-age beliefs.
TheKainMan 1 month ago
@TheKainMan "Bacteria CAN kill us, we know bacteria exists and it can physically interact with us or other organic lifeforms" But before people believed in bacteria, we interacted with them and didn't know it.
In the past (and currently) we interacted with people and things we know nothing of. We have yet to travel doen the scientific inquery because "bronze-age" (or maybe we'll call it "info age") thinking has frozen out thoughts to this current set of beliefs.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo So let me get this straight... When we saw bacteria for the first time they were like "Oh, shit! They're on to us!" and stopped infecting our bodies? Did they suddenly decide they should spare us the pain and tortures of septicemia?
Or was it the antibiotics that ultimately crippled the outbreaks of microbes in times after modern medicine?
I'll say it again: You are a piss-poor debater if you slap the "God did/gave it!" stamp of shit to everything scientific.
TheKainMan 1 month ago
@TheKainMan "So let me get this straight... When we saw bacteria for the first time they were like "Oh, shit! They're on to us!" and stopped infecting our bodies? Did they suddenly decide they should spare us the pain and tortures of septicemia?"
Wow, whos the piss poor debator now.
I was talking about evolving above humans and used the bacteria as orders of magnatude. You assigned bacteria human characteristcs.
I call that a "fail".
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo BTW, you don't understand evolution AT ALL if you use phrases like evolving "beyond humans" or "above humans." Evolution doesn't work that way. Whatever we may evolve into in the future, they will STILL be humans--just like we're still primates, still mammals, still vertebrates, still eukaryotes.
We could evolve into Star Trek energy beings and those beings would still be humans. We'd just create new subcategories to describe them.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "Evolution doesn't work that way. Whatever we may evolve into in the future, they will STILL be humans--just like we're still primates, still mammals, still vertebrates, still eukaryotes."
Pardon (politely), I never was good at jargon. I always believed that each stahe of evolution was it's own species (can't create viable offspring). Thus, I don't think of them as still humans.
That's not lack of understanding of evolution, but merely a poor grasp of the exact wording.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "(can't create viable offspring). Thus, I don't think of them as still humans."
They still will be humans, regardless of what you want to call them. 3:08 , how science works the same for everyone, but not everyone understands it.
Secondly, you're referring to speciation, the differentiation between 2 organisms with a common ancestor to the point that they cannot produce viable offspring with each other. That's when they become 2 separate species.
TheKainMan 1 month ago
@TheKainMan "They still will be humans, regardless of what you want to call them" Okay. I'll go with that. a god can be a human and a human can be a god. This doesn't contradict the "created in his image" story or the Mormon belief that we eventually become gods ourself.
"you're referring to speciation, the differentiation between 2 organisms with a common ancestor to the point that they cannot produce viable offspring with each other" Yes, that's it.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "Pardon (politely), I never was good at jargon"
Meaning you don't even know the proper terms, but have an opinion on a scientific theory you don't understand.
"I always believed that each stahe of evolution was it's own species "
What's a "stahe of evolution"? If by stahe you meant stage, what's a stage of evolution?
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules "Meaning you don't even know the proper terms, but have an opinion on a scientific theory you don't understand" There is a difference in understanding the concept vs using another persons termenology. When I go to a TV news studio, I know what's going on and what they are doing, even though I haven't learned the jargon beyond "b-roll" and so on. Attacking another person for not speaking the same "language" is as bad as calling a person's opinions lies.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "There is a difference in understanding the concept vs using another persons termenology."
And you clearly didn't understand the concept. You might as well have asked why there are still monkeys!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "And you clearly didn't understand the concept. You might as well have asked why there are still monkeys!" Nodding again... this time a sarcastic nod, as you are now attempting hyperbole at my expense. The connection is a bit exagerated, so I will remain quiet and let you ramble on about your belived observance.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "There is a difference in understanding the concept vs using another persons termenology. "
It's not another persons terminology, it is the entire fields. And I have to disagree. When someone uses the wrong words it is rare that they understand the concept. In fact you can learn very fast if your first step is to learn the words in a lesson.
And when it comes to Evolution your ideas are Lamarckian, a theory Darwin disproved.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules "And when it comes to Evolution your ideas are Lamarckian, a theory Darwin disproved"
I want to make certain I understand your comment, so bare with me. Lamarckian is the theory that characteristics acquired during a being's lifetime can be passed on to its offspring. Did I get that correct?
I never said that. I went out of my way to point out that the more complex a being (population) is, the greater the length of time for evolution to occur. And...
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@johnrainrules the more complex a being (population) is, the greater the length of time for evolution to occur. And, if I didn't make it clear, while a mutation can happen between a single generation in one or two (or a small dozen, if by chance) individuals, the passing on of the genetic traits require many generations and many pairings to spread it out.
If I was correct about the definition of Lamarckian, it would seem I am the opposite of such.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "the more complex a being (population) is, the greater the length of time for evolution to occur."
a being is an individual, a population is an entire group. This is not just semantic. This is crucial to the concept.
"while a mutation can happen between a single generation in one or two (or a small dozen, if by chance) individuals, the passing on of the genetic traits require many generations and many pairings to spread it out."
If true, so what?
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules "a being is an individual, a population is an entire group. This is not just semantic. This is crucial to the concept"
I will endeavor to not refer to the mythical being of god as an individual nor a group of individuals (though they are perceived as both by differing theories). What would you suggest as a good term that means both an individual AND a population of individuals?
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@johnrainrules "If true, so what?" I must have missed what you were trying to say. Please explain your insult, as you have pointed out, I don't know the terminology and thus the subject.
Trying to explain something to a person you say doesn't know the subject requires you be a bit more clear.
Or are you just going to insult me rather than try to make a point?
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo In what way can saying if true, so what be construed as an insult?
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules "In what way can saying if true, so what be construed as an insult?"
I may be just getting a bit oversensetive and misunderstood. You called what I said Lamarckian and I must have mistaken that as a prelude to an attack (have been hit by so many "you're lying" and "you're stupid (paraphrased)" comments with none even trying to share their "knowledge of the topic" as I seem to be obviously not able to understand them (according to their responses).
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "If I was correct about the definition of Lamarckian, it would seem I am the opposite of such."
Then obviously you are not. What you are not describing is a system of descent with modification to explain the diversity of life. And your ideas of men evolving from gods is both silly and ill defined.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "Attacking another person for not speaking the same "language" is as bad as calling a person's opinions lies."
Since every single one of your statements showed you don't understand Evolution in any sense your claim of semantics fails.
Also if you can show someone said something untrue and that they knew it was untrue calling their statement a lie is fair.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules "What's a "stahe of evolution"?" A typo.
"If by stahe you meant stage, what's a stage of evolution?" Let me see if I can put it into words we both share: I always believed that each stage of evolution was it's own species. I know I repeated myself, but you got distracted by a typo.
To be more specific. I was taught (oh those public schools) that as an animal evolves it eventually becomes a distinct species via branches or even linearly along an evolutionary path.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "I always believed that each stage of evolution was it's own species."
See my video, "Fuzzy Logic and the Definition of Species."
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "See my video, "Fuzzy Logic and the Definition of Species."" I shall. Always up for a good video.
Hey, I say that debate on Futurama... Funny as hell.
It took nearly 3 minutes to get to a point of something new. Okay, and back to an old concept at 4 minutes (well, somewhere in the 3.5 minutes with the ring species, but it's a but "fuzzy").
So, 10% or less is new info to me... and you use the parts I agree with to define why we disagree?
No wonder we are having trouble.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo No, it goes to the core concept of what it means to evolve. Read anything by the cladists explaining how it works--or look at AronRa's videos. It is IN NO WAY presented as a semantic issue, or just a question of jargon. It is a FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT of how evolution works.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk AronRa's videos are interesting. He says a lot of things I agree with, though I only watched 3 videos and missed why you wanted me to see them.
And cladistics will take some reading, but at first glance it looks to be straightforward and not cotradict anything I said. But I'd have to read more to see where I might have differed.
But calling a rose a "harpoidical marnut" (made up words) doesn't change what it is. Thus jargon and concept can exist seperately.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo AronRa is a cladist and has done a very good job explaining the concept. I don't remember specific videos off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure the Foundational Falsehood series goes into it.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk The one that goes into a detailed explanation on Phylogenetics is the 10th Foundational Falsehood. That is my favorite of his series.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@johnrainrules Thanks!
shanedk 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo
Evolution is not something that happens to individuals, it is something that happens to populations. At no time does a chimpanzee give birth to a human, but rather a population of apes has descendants which on one side are more chimp-like and on the other side more human-like, in the same population, until the two extreme sides are different enough that they can't breed together. Gene flow is then restricted, and differences continue to accumulate.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun "Evolution is not something that happens to individuals....."
I'm nodding my head, as I do when somebody says something I already understand and agree with... do go on and say things I agree with, then we can get back to our specific discussion when you are ready to teach me rather than insult me or convince me of your position.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@rkyeun ""Evolution is not something that happens to individuals....." "I'm nodding my head..."
Sorry, I didn't notice the different name. I'm still nodding and aiming the part about insulting me at a different person.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo
Only humans are still humans. All apes, including humans, are still apes. All monkeys, including apes, are still monkeys. All mammals, including monkeys, are still mammals.
> Thus, I don't think of them as still humans.
You're still doing this whole thing backwards. You haven't understood the way in which you are wrong.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@shanedk
Him (and many others) seem to be under the misapprehension that evolution is a ladder with humans at the top and other creatures below.
It isn't though. It's more like a tree branching out creating the diversity of life. It doesn't say "X is 'better' than Y".
vspqbd 1 month ago
@vspqbd "Him (and many others) seem to be under the misapprehension " Who is this "him" of which you speak. Not me, as I also believe this: "It's more like a tree branching out creating the diversity of life"
In fact it was Shanedk that place a "X is 'better' than Y" concept to the whole, while I just proposed the possibility of an evolved being that some believe to be greater than them.
In fact, if this being exists, modern man is evolved from it (if you believe the Bible).
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@TheKainMan "nothing supernatural (godlike) there." Supernatural is a word you placed on it, not me. I put it in the natural column. After all, once "humans" couldn't make tools or speak. Once animals couldn't live outside of water (or live only under water).
I would think what the homo erectus called a supernatural ability (to what extent he could conceive it) is just a natural ability.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo That would mean that the homo erectus was mistaken, not that homo habilis was a god.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "That would mean that the homo erectus was mistaken, not that homo habilis was a god." I love it when the opposing person get's my jist, but can't admit to seeing it.
Pastor Holierthanthou and Rabbi Whatever and High Priestess Sunisagodtoo are just as mistaken. I said this from the beginning that God and all gods might be just a step in evolution and natural.
You added the "super" to the word and denied the possibility on many occassions.
Hobgoblin I maybe, but consistant.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "God can't actually be disproven by science."
Irrelevant burden-shifting. NO hypothesis gets to worm its way in just because it hasn't yet been DISproven; they ALL have to prove themselves. See my video on the Null Hypothesis.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "NO hypothesis gets to worm its way in just because it hasn't yet been DISproven; they ALL have to prove themselves"
Fine. I call on evolution theory as proof of the possibility of God. It is supported in science, and in religion. Evolution to God is supported in the Mormon theory and the Buddhist theory of conservation of energy shares the same line of thinking.
See, I include science in my examples. But can you exclude for a fact God and the many varied theories?
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo I can show that God is UNNECESSARY to explain the phenomena. Just because you found a way to worm God in is completely 100% IRRELEVANT.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "I can show that God is UNNECESSARY to explain the phenomena."
And people can show that science is unnecessary as well. The fact that science exists and humans are figuring it out is "100% IRRELEVANT" if you are closed minded.
You can't argue against something by saying "I don't agree, so you are wrong". That makes you as dogmatic as any bible-thimping zealot.
And being unnecessary doesn't negate the existance or even the possibility of God. It just sooths your mind.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "And people can show that science is unnecessary as well. "
No one says science is a cause! Science is how we KNOW what is necessary and what isn't. It is NOT closed-minded to say there's no reason to presuppose a god BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH REASON!
"You can't argue against something by saying "I don't agree, so you are wrong"."
No one's saying that! You're just being dishonest now. And this conversation started out so well...
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "And this conversation started out so well..." Sarcasm... funny.
"No one says science is a cause" Not true. Things fall down because of a scienctific theory (gravity, space/time, etc). The science is describing the cause. But what creates the scientific laws we discover? Are we saying they just exist? Then they are caused by themselves?
But this is off track.
Just because Pastor Holierthanthou thinks a superevolved being created everything doesn't mean that being exists. But
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo ""And this conversation started out so well..." Sarcasm... funny."
No, I MEANT it. You started out here as a very reasonable poster, but then you moved on through misquoting me to DELIBERATELY misrepresenting what I said.
""No one says science is a cause" Not true."
Yes, true! Science DESCRIBES the causes, it is not the cause itself. Apples still fell from trees before Newton invented the science to explain why.
Scientific laws exist because WE MADE THEM UP.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Just because Pastor Holierthanthou thinks a superevolved being created everything doesn't mean that being exists. But because Doctor Iknowmorethanyou can explain things with science doesn't mean god doesn't exist.
If you get stuck on the impossible to know or prove "first uncaused first cause" you'll end up arguing in circles.
And if you look for evidence that a being so highly evolved that he can observe you without being detected exists, you are staring into an abyss.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo But the burden of proof is on Pastor Holierthanthou, and until he meets that burden Doctor Iknowmorethanyou is perfectly justified in his position.
"If you get stuck on the impossible to know or prove "first uncaused first cause" you'll end up arguing in circles."
I have a video on that, too.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "ALL have to prove themselves"
How is it that one can actually prove that, based on spacial relationships, it can be shown the Sun IS circling the Earth. It is as simple as choosing which point is stationary. After all, if the Sun is also moving and the Milky Way is moving and the cluster of galaxies are moving, what point are they moving to/from/around?
I'm not stating that Earth is the stationary point, but if I can prove heliocenticity is an illusion, why can't God exist?
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "How is it that one can actually prove that, based on spacial relationships, it can be shown the Sun IS circling the Earth."
You CAN'T, because it's contradicted by NUMEROUS observations.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "You CAN'T, because it's contradicted by NUMEROUS observations" Except if you stand on the other side of the universe, where the Earth and Sun stay in reletive position while orbiting another galaxy.
The Moon, for example, rotates at the same speed as it orbits the Earth. To us, it stays the same. To the sun it wobbles back and fother as it spins around it.
Based on relative positioning, it differs.
Because of your position, gods can't exist. To others, they do.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo Your subjective view on science makes you a piss-poor debater. Until you learn to view science in an objective way, it's no wonder people are overwhelmed by your ignorance and blatant misunderstanding of the scientific method and its results that in the end, they stop debating you and occasionally throw in a nice derogatory term.
Then you do what all creationists do, bask in that ignorance and claim a pseudovictory.
You can't debate without evidence or an objective view. Period.
TheKainMan 1 month ago
@TheKainMan "Your subjective view on science " I'm not being subjective. I am open to ALL possibilities and looking at this from 10 to the 10000 power away (an analogy, not real distance, Mr. piss-poor-literal-take-things-out-of-context amd no that's not ad hominem, it's acurately describing what you did, with your own words).
"you do what all creationists do" I hope you didn't call me a creationist.
"You can't debate without evidence or an objective view" I've been objective.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "Except if you stand on the other side of the universe, where the Earth and Sun stay in reletive position while orbiting another galaxy."
You would STILL have the gravitational waves that show that the Earth is spinning and moving around the sun. There is NO WAY to explain that if it's the other way around.
shanedk 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo
> God can't actually be disproven by science.
God speaking the Sun into existence after speaking the Earth and plants into existence is disproven. Humankind being descended from a single pair of human individuals, one made from dust and the other from a rib, is disproven. The Noachian Flood is disproven. That those who believe in Jesus shall drink all manner of deadly poison with no ill effect is disproven.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun "The Noachian Flood is disproven" Actually, archeologist have traced the flood to a specific valley. I'd have to look it up, but the myth is an exageration or the event.
"Humankind being descended from a single pair of human individuals, one made from dust and the other from a rib" Primordial soup and stardust.
"those who believe in Jesus shall drink all manner of deadly poison with no ill effect" How do you disprove a metaphor?
And that's the Bible, not god(s).
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo
So you intend to selectively ignore parts of sentences that are inconvenient for you, like Noachian, a global event not taking place in a specific valley, or a pair of individuals...
Fuck off, troll.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun "you intend to selectively ignore parts of sentences that are inconvenient for you, like Noachian" I didn't ignore it, I included it. But whent he entire world of anceient biblical times spans a small portion of the Earth and, as johnrainrules has pointed out that these are stories (I say exagerated over time and for effect of teaching), it brings me back to a point where I said perspective is in play.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo
> I didn't ignore it, I included it.
You ignored it. It was supposedly worldwide and you claimed a specific valley. You've disproved it.
> t he entire world of anceient biblical times spans a small portion of the Earth
And is therefor wrong. Thank you for disproving it a second time on a second basis.
> it brings me back to a point where I said perspective is in play.
That perspective is called "apologetics". It is a way to make yourself wronger without admitting wrongness.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun "You ignored it" I looked at it scientifically... well, more logically. I didn't look at the literal word of the book, but at the understanding the people of the time had of what story they told.
"Thank you for disproving it a second time on a second basis." You are welcome. And thank you for pointing out the tecnical term for exploring where Zeus came from via logic and science. Apologetics. Unfortunate that modern linguistics makes that word sound negative.
But "wronger"?
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo
> And thank you for pointing out the tecnical term for exploring where Zeus came from via logic and science.
Zeus doesn't exist, and didn't come from anywhere. There is a myth of Zeus, and you can examine the origin of the myth. Just like you have examined the myth of the Noachian flood, and perhaps found a valley it originates from.
You have confused the map with the territory. The Noachian flood is disproven. The myth exists.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun "That perspective is called "apologetics". "
Maybe that's what I get from "atheists" and the people on this comment section. Rather than answering and enlightening, maybe they are "apologetics" for the dogma of the non-belief.
Don't answer that. Not certain you'll revert to "Fuck off" or not.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@rkyeun "Fuck off, troll" Yup, that's how the others tried to discuss my question. One's got to wonder how you can enlighten people with question by saying "fuck off" rather than actually explaining why evolution can't create a human (or other being) that control lightning (electric eel), can never die (jellyfish) or anything else.
I'm not advocating any god, just the possibility of an evolution. And all I get is "fuck off".
Sad.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo
> One's got to wonder how you can enlighten people with question by saying "fuck off"
You didn't come here to learn. You came here to spread misinformation. You have ignored all corrections to your misunderstanding of the basic principles of science and come back with rhetoric. You are a troll. Fuck off, troll.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "Actually, archeologist have traced the flood to a specific valley."
That's a lie, The Noachian flood actually rips off a Sumerian myth that comes from periodic floodings of marshlands, none of which would have ever required a boat to get all of the livestock out.
"How do you disprove a metaphor?"
Learn what a metaphor is before using it in a sentence.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo
> See, even science can be wrong.
Indeed it can. Those who first suggested the Earth was flat were only wrong by 8 inches per mile. Those who later suggested the Earth was spherical were wrong by less than that. Now we have full satellite imagery, and you'd be hard-pressed to find any error at all.
Science can indeed be wrong. And when it is, it fixes itself. But we are never going to wake up one morning and discover the Earth was actually cubic this whole time.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun Cubic? What an odd thing to say. How is the progression of flat to curved to sphere lead to cubic?
My line of logic (pointed out to be flawed, but now shown how, just asserted) is that if bacteria can eventually become human, human can become super-human, demi-gods and eventually gods. Now I don't propose a straight line or one being an improvement, just that evolution can continue and a hypothetical "god" is a possibility both past and future.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo
> if bacteria can eventually become human
They cannot. That train has already left the station and won't be returning. Ceullular life developed into archea, eukarya, and bacteria. No members of bacteria will ever be members of eukarya, and no members of eukarya will ever be members of bacteria.
> human can become super-human
No they can't. Humans will always be human, just as they will always also be apes, monkeys, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, animals, and eukaryotes.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo
> demi-gods and eventually gods.
As an ignostic, I'm going to have to get you to define those terms before I try to argue against them.
> Now I don't propose a straight line or one being an improvement
You just did, from bacteria to human to Superman to Hercules to Thor.
> just that evolution can continue
It can.
> and a hypothetical "god" is a possibility
The miraculous is never a possibility, by definition, past or future.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun "I'm going to have to get you to define those terms before I try to argue against them" The vernacular, sir. The terms are pretty much the layman's terms minus the religion. Check out shanedk's video on fuzzy logic (he pointed me to it) and see the discussing we had about Jack Lalane and Heracles.
"You just did, from bacteria to human to Superman to Hercules to Thor" As you know and was pointed out to me (though I knew it, too) evolution isn't a straight line.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@rkyeun "The miraculous is never a possibility, by definition, past or future" Again, perspective. A stick that catches fire is science to us. To other's a miricle.
A fish that walks on land is a miricle to some.
Frogs that freeze "to death" and come back to life is a miricle to some.
Today science can explain these. In 1000 years, what will science explain? 100,000 years?
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo
> A fish that walks on land is a miricle to some.
> Frogs that freeze "to death" and come back to life is a miricle to some.
That "some" would be "people who are using the wrong definition of miracle" to support your fallacious arguments and attempt at twisting the meanings of words. This is why I won't let you use the vernacular about gods or demigods. The vernacular is 7 billion different meanings.
Science works entirely through explicable means, never impossible ones.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun "Science works entirely through explicable means, never impossible ones" Is there a scientific term for god? Or is "miricle" the definition?
"That "some" would be "people who are using the wrong definition of miracle" to support your fallacious arguments" Maybe, but, again, in 6000 BCE would they not look at oir 6 feet tall men as abnormally large? At the 110 year life spand as very old?
Wouldn't the very point of persective make the explination of miricle standard science?
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo
> Is there a scientific term for god?
No, because there is no evidence of god.
> Wouldn't the very point of persective make the explination of miricle standard science?
Perspective. Explanation. Miracle.
And no. Science does not depend on you or anyone else's perspective. The facts and evidence stand on their own merit. The universe does not care what you think or do different things based on your misunderstandings of it.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun "No, because there is no evidence of god" So asking "define those terms before I try to argue against them" not only preassumes you will argue against them rather than prove them right or wrong, it says you never expected a definition, as you didn't allow for one.
I even asked you to define it so you can argue against it and you backed away. If you can't define it, you can't prove it or disprove it... is what I seem to be told.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo
That is correct. Things which are not defined cannot be either true or false. They are undefined. When you say God is a being who sent the Noarcian flood, and the Noarchian flood is disproved, God is also disproved. When you define your god strongly enough that it MIGHT exist, science can start checking to see if it DOES. But no, we cannot disprove all amorphous ill-defined abstract concepts without any idea of what the hell you're talking about.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun "Science does not depend on you or anyone else's perspective" But the description by a society that has no lnoledge of the science does depend on perspective.
If I showed you a person who could be cut into little peices and days later they were alive again, you would search for a scientific explination... probably not finding one for centuries.
But Joe Public would think "miracle", right or wrong. And that's perspective.
And gods were defined by the people.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo
Yes, being wrong is certainly one perspective.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun "Yes, being wrong is certainly one perspective"
Then it is time to leave this here. I say it's possibe that people like you and shanedk and others are wrong and evolution (and, okay even technology) in the future can lead to a being that, by the average person's definition, could be a god and that even scientifically (where are those people who look at science and see down the road? ) a being at "god level" could have existed in the past or, more likely, exist in the future.
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo
Yes, that perspective you have is certainly one way to be wrong.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "Wouldn't the very point of persective make the explination of miricle standard science?"
Besides the fact that you can't spell miracle or perspective, you also don't use the words correctly. Miracles are scientifically impossible by definition and require an outside supernatural agent.
"Maybe, but, again, in 6000 BCE would they not look at oir 6 feet tall men as abnormally large? "
Hunter gatherers were that large.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "Wouldn't the very point of persective make the explination of miricle standard science?"
No, actually science proves that their "perspective" was limited and its conclusions wrong.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo
> Cubic? What an odd thing to say. How is the progression of flat to curved to sphere lead to cubic?
It doesn't. That's an analogy for why your claim about the progression of gravity is nonsensical. Science is corrective. General relativity doesn't make Newtonian gravity nonsense. It modifies it like the satellite imagery of every mountain, bulge, and measurement of curvature modifies the spherical Earth into an oblate pear-inclined spheroid.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@bsabruzzo "My line of logic (pointed out to be flawed, but now shown how, just asserted) is that if bacteria can eventually become human, human can become super-human, demi-gods and eventually gods."
Pseudo Lamarckian nonsense from someone with no science education that masturbates to Nietzsche. Especially since a demi-god by definition has a human and a god parent.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
I like the universe and how fascinating it is. But i don't bother debating creationists or religion. You cannot change someones elses view by force. It has to be voluntary for them to change. The main worry is what happens after death and most religions give people comfort with the idea of an afterlife. Who knows maybe you are reincarnated as something else. Or maybe there is just nothing, you no longer exist. who knows? that's what faith is for right?
tehatemachine 2 months ago
@tehatemachine nobody knows for certain, but Christians claim not only do they know for certain, and know the mind of their invisable god, they demand everyone else convert upon a threat that they are certain about as well....how arrogant is that?
pillowbugg 1 month ago
HOW DARE YOU DESECRTE THE NAME OF IT'S NOODLY HIGNESS!
hanyuo 3 months ago
Thats funny Dawkins told me he doesn't eat breakfast so did you dream you had breakfast with him. Lets go to the video. O look there he is saying that intelligent aliens seeded life on earth.. Funny when we spoke he was very forthcoming about Ben Stein and the whole Expelled controversy. He was much more interested in the ostensible openness of the the debate. Maybe james randi the psychic teleprojected the memory on you.
philackey 3 months ago
@philackey Or we could actually quote Dawkins "even in the highly unlikely event that some such ‘Directed Panspermia’ was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved,"
There you go, highly unlikely aliens (meaning it almost certainly didn't happen) that would have to evolve from somewhere else.
Also Richard Dawkins actually goes to events titled Breakfast with Dawkin's so your little anecdote sounds like a bald faced lie.
johnrainrules 3 months ago
@philackey It was on the morning of 13 January 2005 at the Stardust in Las Vegas.
Yet again, THE MOVIE LIED. He was ASKED to come up with a scenario where life COULD have evolved--and he made the point that this was HIGHLY UNLIKELY.
YOU ARE A LIAR. Third and FINAL warning.
shanedk 3 months ago 2
@philackey Will your church teach evolution in its Sunday school classes if I finance the books and any other costs?
You know, to teach he controversy....:-)
pillowbugg 1 month ago
@philackey
Let me guess...it is OK for you to break the 9th commandment if you are defending God?
You are misrepresenting what was said in that conversation. That is breaking the 9th commandment.
ThieleM 1 month ago
@ThieleM
The 9th commandment is (in the NIV):
“Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God.” Exodus 34.26
:)
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun
I always forget that the Bible constantly contradicts itself
Exodus 20: 1-17
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Regardless of the order the bible may toss about the Commandment is there
ThieleM 1 month ago
@ThieleM
Yes, there are some commandments in Exodus 20, and there happen to be ten of them, but despite the apologist chapter heading most Bibles have for Exodus 20, those are not the Ten Commandments. Exodus 34 clearly states which ten commandments are The Ten Commandments, by name, in the verse itself. The ones from Exodus 20 are not them.
:)
rkyeun 1 month ago
Not one of your examples has ever been cited in any peer-reviewed journal as an example of species changing due to mutation. Genetic recombination has never been cited as an example for evolution. Richard Dawkins most assuredly did say life was seeded by intelligent aliens and has consistently maintained that there is no scientific explanation for the origin of life. I have spoken with him personally so I see truth doesn't matter to you. Do you also deny that the holocaust happened?
philackey 3 months ago
@philackey "Not one of your examples has ever been cited in any peer-reviewed journal as an example of species changing due to mutation."
BULLSHIT. They ALL have.
Evolution is an OBSERVED FACT. DEAL with it.
shanedk 3 months ago
@philackey "Richard Dawkins most assuredly did say life was seeded by intelligent aliens"
He ABSOLUTELY DID NOT and he's on record MANY times as to what he REALLY said. SECOND warning, LIAR.
"I have spoken with him personally"
I ate breakfast with him one morning--along with James Randi and Phil Plait. I've PERSONALLY heard what he has to say on SEVERAL occasions--and YOU ARE A LIAR.
shanedk 3 months ago 6
@philackey "as an example of species changing due to mutation." What about the fused chromosome we have our #2 Chromosome which is actually what separates us from the other apes? Is that not a sufficient mutation for you. How did life get here? Well Dawkins said life could have been alien to this planet. That is not entirely impossible. Consider the Murchison meteorite which had more than 60 different amino acids in it. There is only 20 acids known to compose life on earth.
CtheWolfe 2 months ago
@philackey Amino acids are the building blocks of life. Have you ever heard of the Miller-Urey experiments in which they were able to be produced via natural causes in a lab? All you need is a the chemicals found on earth.... and electricity.
CtheWolfe 2 months ago
@CtheWolfe Actually, turns out you don't even need electricity (although it does help). All you need is enough cycles of evaporation and condensation, and you get these building blocks, including RNA nucleotides!
shanedk 2 months ago
@shanedk Oh wow. I mean I guess its possible right. We know so little about what life can be. There is no reason to assume it is uncommon. Even that NASA discovery of that bacteria that could substitute arsenic instead of phosphorus, completely redefines what can be life. If the Murchison Meteorite... I mean it had different amino acids than life on earth. So who knows how life started here. We know it could have, or it was potentially seeded.
CtheWolfe 2 months ago
@CtheWolfe
The phosphorous-arsenic thing turned out to be an error, mostly blown out of proportion by the media. Their growth medium was contaminated by phosphorous and the bacteria used that to grow.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun I thought with that bacteria from the arsenic rich basin in California it had actually placed arsenic within its DNA coding. I mean that is what the articles I read about the subject had said. Whether it used phosphorus as a source for growth was not the thing I saw, it was that it had placed arsenic within its DNA instead of phosphorus.
CtheWolfe 1 month ago
@CtheWolfe
Yeah, that was wrong. They thought that because there was no phosphorous, that meant it had used arsenic instead when building the DNA backbone. But there was phosphorous contamination and the bacteria ate it and used it in its DNA.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun Yeah I read a follow up article from a few months ago saying the sequenced the genome and they are having trouble distinguishing arsenic markers because well they have not really searched for them before lol. I also read that arsenic isn't as stable as phosphorus that the strands break easier or something to that effect, which is why it would not be ideal in creating life. But hey again thanks for the heads up I was not aware of the newer info!
CtheWolfe 1 month ago
@rkyeun Ah it appears you might be right there. Just read a couple articles on the controversy of the subject. Thanks for the heads up. Seems they are having trouble with the genome sequencing telling whether or not arsenic is actually in it or not lol.
CtheWolfe 1 month ago
And yet ironically you fail to list one unambiguous example of a new species from natural selection. That is Lynn Margolis challenge and it has gone unanswered. Typical evolutionist huff and puff and no proof. Richard Dawkins your Crown Prince has gone on record as no only suggesting intelligent aliens seeded life on this planet. He has also stated there is a very good case for belief in a Creator. Perhaps you should stay a little more current. Evolution is a religious belief deal with it.
philackey 3 months ago
@philackey I can name you lots: Rhagoletis pomonella, Eurosta solidaginis, Tribolium castaneum, Nereis acuminata, Epilobium angustifolium, Mus domesticus, Lake Nagubago cichlids, Lake Victoria cichlids, Stephanomeria malheurensis, Rhagoletis pomonella, Podarcis sicula, and many, MANY others.
shanedk 3 months ago
@philackey "Richard Dawkins your Crown Prince has gone on record as no only suggesting intelligent aliens seeded life on this planet."
This is a documented LIE by the makers of the film Expelled, and you are in violation of Rule #5 of this channel by repeating it. First warning.
"He has also stated there is a very good case for belief in a Creator. "
Another LIE.
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk I wouldn't bother with philackey. Like a lot of creationists, he's in total denial. He's just parroting what he's pick up from creastionist videos.
He knows nothing about Evolution or Natural Selection.
You can tell that by the way he clings desperately to his fantasies, even though you've warned him of the consequences.
Unless they can prove to me that they have actually taken the trouble to learn something about Evolution, I just ignore them. They're not worth the effort.
HonestMan395 3 months ago
@philackey So you haven't read Origin of species. At least you admit that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. When you do, maybe we'll have something to discuss.
As for your comments on richard Dawkins. I'm not surprised you're hanging on to those supreme examples of quote mining. I've seen "Expelled" as well. I couldn't stop laughing.
As for Lynn Margulis. Is that all you've got? I suggest you do some reading. check out ring species.
HonestMan395 3 months ago
I've made the following statement to a number of creationists and, so far, none have come back with a answer:
"there've been over 240,000 peer reviewed publications confirming the accuracy of Evolution.
There's not even been one publication trying to prove creationism that has even been submitted for peer-review. Why?
Could it be that, in reality, Creationists know that if subjected to the rigours of peer review, their arguments collapse in a heap and they want to avoid that embarrassment."
HonestMan395 4 months ago
@HonestMan395 Unless, of course, it's a journal THEY created where THEY do the so-called "peer review," like Answers In Genesis does.
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk I doubt whether anyone with just a cursory knowledge of any branch of science would take Answers in Genesis as even a half serious scientific Journal.
HonestMan395 4 months ago
@HonestMan395 Yeah, but that rules out the creationists.
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk I know, but it doesn't stop them.
It still amazes me that the only way christians can have their bible make any sense at all, is by indulging in fantastical mental gymnastics of wild interpretation and re-interpretation until it sort of fits what they want to believe.
They don't seem to get it, but if you start from the premise that god doesn't exist. Everything in the bible makes sense. It's just a story book of myths and legends. No more historically accurate than Homer's Odyssey
HonestMan395 4 months ago
@HonestMan395 Its easy to list 240,000 examples of articles of micro evolution. Yet not one example of a new species has ever been documented through darwinism. Not one. For a fact rivers deposit sediment yet no one would conclude the hoover dam was created through natural processes. Micro evolution is a fact yet no peer reviewed publication has demonstrated a mechanism let alone fossil evidence to the huge leaps evolution predicts. No evolutionist has ever answered Lynn Margolis challenge.
philackey 3 months ago
@philackey "Yet not one example of a new species has ever been documented through darwinism. Not one."
BULLSHIT. It's been documented HUNDREDS of times--both in the wild and in the lab.
Evolution is a FACT. DEAL with it.
shanedk 3 months ago
@philackey Oh, and you do know that Lynn Margulis came up with endosymbiotic theory, capable of the greatest evolutionary leap ever--bacteria forming the first eukaryotic cells?
shanedk 3 months ago
@philackey Spoken like a man who knows absolutely nothing about evolution by natural selection or how it actually works and whats more, doesn't even want to know.
Have you ever read and understood Darwin's "Origin of Species", Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" or "the Greatest Show on Earth", or in fact any book which explains Evolution?
HonestMan395 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO NOT TEACH LIES!
PrincessTS01 4 months ago
there is no controversy
kris6682 4 months ago
I just don't understand why people cant separate science from faith. No one is asking any religious person to give up their beliefs or force them to value one thing over another. Only to separate faith from science and teach science in the science classroom and learn about religion in any number of other places, churches, seminars, revivals etc. Creationism and evolution are 2 very different subjects. One is science and one is a personal belief or belief system. Why is this so difficult ???
orangemod 4 months ago
@orangemod because unless they mold there beliefs to fit around science then science contradicts there beliefs and they cant have that. the two just cant co exist.
kris6682 4 months ago
@kris6682 Kris: I see what you are saying.... must be very conflicting for them.
orangemod 4 months ago
The Earth is filled with chocolate. Let's teach that.
Lemt 5 months ago
So sad that this is even a debate. A mindless society of zombies, willfully ignoring the beauty of the universe in hopes for eternal life.
cvanunen 6 months ago
@alanhill1
I'm sorry, but there's absolutely no evidence that the stork brings babies. However, there is evidence that sometimes eagles carry babies away, this could be worth looking into.
daverigby23 6 months ago