Added: 5 years ago
From: Ruminator
Views: 32,527
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (1,300)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • this is the lengths these turds will go to belive that the bible is real even though tantamount evidence shows its false, or just a bunch of ramblings that had no clue as to the nature of reality, because the people that wrote it couldnt have had.

  • We know evolution is a fact right? We know we evolved gradually to what we are now right? So why is it hard to believe that the flagellum couldn't have done the same over time? After all humans are 100x more complex than the flagellum, yet people accept that we evolved.

  • @MW2Addiction I completely agree with you, only my question is "What gives cells a reason to evolve?"

    If everything is so random, then how can something without a purpose, without a reasoning brain, develop the capacity to strive to survive?

    Personally, I believe in evolution, I just don't believe that something so extraordinary could come about on its own.

  • @gksnead77 Thousands of years ago people didn't know how lightning was formed. Lightning its self perplexed them. They had no way to explain it, so they made up a God called Zeus. People now a days cant explain evolution, universe, etc. so what do they do? The same thing. Make up a god because of their lack of intelligence about the natural world.

    When you look at everything, it always has a natural explanation. We now know why volcanoes explode, we know how islands form, etc. So when I...

  • @gksnead77 ...think about evolution and the first cells and such, It also DOES have a natural explanation. You have to understand that cells, bacteria, etc. are not stupid. They move around and do things that we now have complete natural explanations for. Now if you think about the IMMENSE amount of planets in the whole universe it really starts to become more likely that life would exist. Theres like 1,000,000,000 planets that are habitable for life and over 100+ BILLION galaxies. It would...

  • @gksnead77 ...weird and not natural if there wasn't life at all. Matter fact, the chances of life occurring are so high that humans cant even FATHOM the chances in their puny brains. Things like that is what drives me to believe in the natural explanations for life and everything in it. I also think about the Unintelligent design there is in the universe. There's a lot of unintelligent things in the human body, Earth, Space, etc.

  • Only religion can make smart people so stupid.

  • Evillusion and creation both have a common ancestor which is not mentioned for some reason,That is "DESTINY".that our existance is a result of purpose is assumed by both sides.Darwin saw natural selection as a subset of and method to the destiny of man decreed thru natural processes as opposed to some sort of special creation I dont think that Darwin was trying to kill GOD so much as he was trying to explain his methodsWhat started out to be an attempt to make sense of the world was hijacked.

  • I don't understand ID arguments.

    Complex things are made up of simpler units that work in tandem together. Without simple things, you won't have the complex. It makes perfect sense for things to have evolved to be more complex.

  • @LiveTheWild well put. 

  • Behe admits the bible is wrong, man was not created 6000 years he ago he accepts the truth man evolved!

  • was this man born without a brain,or has it not developed yet.give him another 100 million years

  • Behe has totally backed off this as an example, since the evolution of the bacteria has been fully explained.

  • @fatmeteor

    Has an actual observation been conducted though, meaning...have they seen the T3SS in action, then evolving to alternative functions in a different system, because honestly...I haven't heard of this being done.

  • @DandBMonk in a sense an organism doesn't evolve "function", it is the environment that provides the circumstances for the organism to interact with it in a particular way, depending on its genetic code and manifestation. The evolution of the bacteria has been explained, if you want to observe it then get a coffee and some sandwiches and watch it for a few million generations. If no observation is a weakness then stellar nucleosynthesis is as frail, isn't it?

  • @fatmeteor

    I'm completely with you...100%, but then you have to ask...how many mutations before you get to the functional parts? If one, then that's fine, but if you have two or more...it becomes very problematic and unlikely, because the part wouldn't be functional, and in the bacterial stage...it would most likely result in death for the organism, and evolution would select reciprocally. Wouldn't you agree?

  • @DandBMonk Yep, I agree. This is where the character of the function is important, and sometimes an assumption of the function obscures why things occurred. The assumption in this bacteria was that all the pieces necessary for motility must be there, so the chances of it evolving all those parts before competition selected for it is very unlikely. But all those pieces related to secretion- that was the function. It was a mutation on top of those secretion structures that allowed motility.

  • @fatmeteor

    Secrection to mobility is quite a jump though. Beneficial? Absolutely! Puzzling? COMPLETELY!!!

  • @DandBMonk It's a matter of the physical laws relating to propulsion, but what I find interesting is that for one beneficial mutation there must be many, many mutations that either have no effect or are detrimental. You can see why those mutations are not apparent, right?

  • @fatmeteor

    No, I can't, because if they occurred many times, I don't understand how natural selection wouldn't select against it, because natural selection has no knowledge of what it's trying to do. If you grant that it took numerous mutations, then you seem to invoke knowledge into natural selection, which is impossible, without Intelligence, with a capital I...that's just logic.

  • @DandBMonk I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, the mutations which were not beneficial or were detrimental most likely ended that strain's life due to competition, so those mutations are not often observed if at all. Again, the organism underwent multiple mutations on the system of secretion, making it more efficient. Then a mutation occurred which resulted in motility. Those previous mutations weren't 'headed towards' motility, each step only built upon the previous structure.

  • Funny, I thought this 'irreducible complexity' had been reduced to a bacteria that has a very similar structure, except it is simpler and used for a different purpose...

    Basically a reduced complexity version of this 'irreducible complexity' has been known for a long time.

  • @CesarPhilosophe  you win. I don't have the stomach to read the article.

  • one word ....  WRONG

  • Michael Behe accepts the earth is 4.5 billion years old and evolution happened, he just thinks God took part in it.

  • Lord God you are so brilliant!

    I don't see how anyone can look at the biochemistry of life and think it came to be without a brilliant God!

  • @noahdekkers It happens when people do more than just looking.. like thinking, calculating, experimenting, and sharing with others ;)

  • @noahdekkers if you knew more about physics and biology you probably would understand.

  • This got shot down in the Dover Case.

  • @pchtermino Hardly, the argument against the flagellum is as thin as the one for evolution, and full of holes. It was more like "well you can't prove what you say".

  • to all you arguing with the christians out there i only leave you with this. when i was in my third year of school, a friend of mine walked into the dorm. she talked with us for about thirty minutes and seemed completely normal. until she mentioned the giant crocodile in the room. crocodile? that far north? turns out she was on LSD. say what you want, but if someone is on acid, you're never going to convince them there isn't a crocodile or a creator.

  • @judderwocky it was a really interesting conversation looking back. she just knew it was there! she could see the diamond shape pattern of the scales (the tile), the green coloring...all the evidence for here was there. except an actual crocodile. acid makes you see whatever you are thinking about. religion does this as well. science is not supposed to start with a premise like "irreducible complexity" ... otherwise your chasing your own (crocodile) tail. you find the presupposition you started.

  • @judderwocky

    Same thing to you guys, but in reverse.

    You're on the NATURE drug. Unlike the student on LSD who saw a crocodile that wasn't there, when you're on NATURE, you can't see design even if it's quite clearly present. You can't see it because it doesn't fit your paradigm. That's not science. It's scientism. A dogmatic belief that only natural causes can be even allowed into the discussion on origins.

    Fortunately, science does tend to self correct given long enough.

  • @tubewatch59 ...

    How doth the little crocodile

    Improve his shining tail,

    And pour the waters of the Nile

    On every golden scale!

    How cheerfully he seems to grin

    How neatly spreads his claws,

    And welcomes little fishes in,

    With gently smiling jaws!

    Honestly i can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not... if so nice parody. Otherwise... reality check. ~ FLASH ~ you are a panda.

  • @tubewatch59 ... but how do i know you aren't actually a crocadile yourself? or even the one that was messing with my friend? natural laws would suggest that crocodiles don't talk and presumably can't type as well... but i mustn't let my dogmatism in science dissuade my fear! i must assume in fact that you are trolling me all these years later to exact revenge on the fact that I have maligned your existential existence.

    now where is my hook?

  • @judderwocky

    Now after having read "The wonderful crocodile" - you'll have had a good laugh. The Paulette sisters are great too aren't they!

    Anyhow, back to IC.  It's just as much a presupposition to assume that IC isn't a problem for science to explain the natural origin of molecular machines (or anything else that's IC) as it is to assume that because something is IC, it's impossible to have evolved it. Impossible is usually always too strong a word. Infeasible is more accurate.

  • @judderwocky

    Naturalism starts with it's own presupposition, that living creatures evolved without the input of intelligent design. Far from being a presupposition, the observation of IC indicates that there are serious roadblocks to the naturalist paradigm. One has to at least admit (though they may not agree personally) that IC is evidence that ID of some sort may well have had a role in putting together much of what we observe in life. Obviously, further research will clarify this.

  • @tubewatch59 ... that is humorous...unfortunately i believe the crocodiles in my area are threatened :(

    also... i believe you are confusing the conclusion with the premise. the premise is not that living organisms developed without input... that is the conclusion after failing to prove any plausible alternative explanation. the machines you speak of have definitively changed over many millennia. it turns out these "machines" developed from lesser ones.

  • @judderwocky half of an eye is apparently useful... we actually see many different evolutionary paths of various organs... its called convergent and divergent evolution. this is proved even at the genetic level. we can see the genes coding for all sorts of chemicals and proteins consistently undergoing change in the genetic records. slowly. surely. without any thought.

  • @judderwocky

    I know that convergent evolution is basically similar function (and often form) but known to be from a different source. Though that is rather better evidence for design than it is for common descent. Because it kind of needs there to be a mechanism in nature that causes form and function to converge to similar endpoints. It's hard to see what would drive such similarities (without a common descent basis to explain it) from the environment alone. It looks like common design.

  • @judderwocky

    Do you mean that oil slick? (That's if you're in America down south I guess).

    As to molecular machines changing a lot over time.  I'm not sure there's a lot of evidence for that. What are you referring to?

  • "irreducible complexity"... now there's something that hasn't been proven. the burden of proof is on them to prove such a ridiculous idea....

  • sperm lol

  • Division is far more evil than than any ideology.  People use their dogma, including Evodelusionism, to cause hate on earth. All ideology is not good. Anyone who comes on Youtube and promotes hate like AlanCFA and others, like him, who blame other religions besides their's (Evodelusionism) as the cause of problems are insane. All differences are the cause of hate and war. All beliefs are bad for humanity. If you are not seeking the truth, then you promote hate and evil.

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    Just to show there are no hard feelings, once again I've nominated you for a Golden Crocoduck. Last year you came in 5th which was great for a first appearance, especially with whack job heavyweights like NephilimFree in the running. (you finished well ahead of him - a tribute to your reasoning skills, no doubt).

    I think this year you have a shot at winning. Nobody else is likely to claim that humans mated with gorillas to produce chimps or w/chimps to get Neanderthals.

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    Gosh, I nominated you for an award and this is the thanks that I get?

    Let's get something clear - it is you who are the liar. All you do is insult people, spew nonsense, and demand that they answer loaded questions. Yet you never give straightforward answers to any questions.

    You could not solve an elementary ODE - something they teach in the first week of class because you don't know how despite your claim at a high IQ, knowledge of math and radiometric dating.

  • You are the one who wrote that you believe in God. When I pointed it out, you claimed that I was stupid for listening to a delusional person (meaning your brother). When I cited that it was your post in ripoff report, you could no longer deny it, so you redefine God as the universe (heck, a week earlier, God was truth)

    You also wrote: "...we are honest Christians who believe in God and believe in what is taught..." yet you deny having religion.

    Go practice some mediation from your yoga cult.

  • @AlanCFA Lets, get this clear. You are a fucking lying piece of shit. That is exactly what you are.

    I do not practice any religion. I don't have any religion because religions are full of nonsense, just like this bullshit religion of Evodelusionism.

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    Get this clear, YOU are the liar, not me. I'm telling the truth.

    I'm not a liar when I quote what YOU wrote

    YOUR writing:

    "...we are honest Christians who believe in God and believe in what is taught..."

    "...we are honest Christians who believe in God and believe in what is taught..."

    That's not from John, it's from you

    Something else YOU wrote:

    "John thinks that because I believe in God that I am insane"

    You lie about having no beliefs - you believe in God. Period

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    Christianity is a religion. YOU wrote "...we are honest Christians who believe in God and believe in what is taught..."

    Honest what? CHRISTIANS!!! If YOU write that YOU are a Christian, then you DO have a religion.

    If YOU write that you BELIEVE in God, then you DO have beliefs.

    You keep coming back with the God=Truth crap. You have also said God is all that exists. You also implied strongly that God was a Higher Power that set the laws of the universe in motion.

  • @AlanCFA Here is your fucking problem. I accept no dogma from any religion including your Evotard's religion. I have studied science since I was very young.

    My parents hated God, and religions. I don't. I only seek to help you to get free of your delusional bullshit, by pointing out the extremely obvious flaws in your religion. When I tell others to find the Truth in their way, I mean it. You are on the path of delusion and ignorance and think you are smart.

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    Here is YOUR problem - you've written many comments on your own videos, others videos, and many different web forums but you can't keep track of them. I keep track of your comments better than you!

    You contradict yourself. You claim to have no beliefs and then state that you believe in God. You claim to have no religion but then state that you're a Christian. You claim not to be a JW, but suggest to John that he achieve peace through a Jehovah's Witness Bible study.

  • You claim to have read 200,000 papers on evolution with 20,000 of them studied "in-depth", yet you know nothing about the subject and your Neutral Evolution Forum shows this clearly. You did not know how fossils were dated and, when you found out that you were wrong, claimed that you never said fossils were dated directly even though in your video you clearly made that statement.

  • You produced a video claiming that a fused chromosome was a total guess then, when people showed you evidence that it was fused, you added annotations to pretend that you always agreed that it was fused but disagreed about the timing. You claim to know all about radiometric dating yet could not solve an ODE that they teach in the first week of an intro class

    You're a fraud and a liar who denies his religion. You may belong to a yoga cult, but your anti-evolution diatribes are pure creationism.

  • @GoodScienceForYou 1/2

    You posted the following to my channel. I wanted it left up, but accidentally hit the "remove" link.

    

    help center | e-mail options | report spam

    GoodScienceForYou has posted a comment on your profile:

    I pray that you die! And soon! You will die soon as all of those like you full of delusions, hate and anger. Your death will come soon.

    You can reply to this comment by visiting your comments page.

    © 2010 YouTube, LLC

    901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066

  • @GoodScienceForYou 2/2

    Question: if you are praying that I die, to whom are you praying? You claim that God=Truth and Truth doesn't answers prayers, so I am guessing that you pray to the God of Christianity.

    On October 8th of last year, you posted this comment on the Golden Crocoduck video:

    ... "I don't get angry at all. I am very patient with people who really want to learn how to be free"...

    So you "don't get angry at all"? Then what's with the "I pray that you die!" comment?

  • @AlanCFA When you die the world will be free of simply one more delusional asshole, like the millions of assholes that have lived before. Why is that so unusual to you. Fucking scum bags come and go.

  • @AlanCFA Soon you will be dead. So what. The cause of death is evil. As soon as you accept evil as your worship you chose death.

  • @invict2007

    We secretly believe that a supernatural ghost spoke it into existence, designing the flagellum so that the bacteria could burrow into tissue and help evade the T-cell and antibody responses of the immune system that He also designed. This is so that we will grow sick, linger in agony, die and meet Him more quickly. His love for us is infinite.

  • google Doe's Account.

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    You write: "Whither or not the offspring is fertile depends on the meiosis in the paired offspring".

    Your statement implies that meiosis is a condition or a trait; it's not. It is a process. How can you claim to have such a high level of understanding of genetics and not understand what is taught in the first weeks of an intro biology course?

    (the answer is that it's because you are a delusional fool, but I await your answer)

  • @AlanCFA

    Nitpicking!  I sell hot tubs - that makes me an expert. Who are you to contradict me?

  • I can't get any of the equations to show.

    T^{\frac{1}{2}} = \frac{ln(2)}{\lambda}

    Testing the forum

  • Everytime you see or hear the word "theory" in front of "evolution", just replace the word "theory" with "religion" and you will start to get free of this bullshit religion. The "religion of evolution". Just repeat that instead of the slogans and bullshit used to brainwash and victimize people.  If you can do that, then you will see how it really is a fucking religion based on beliefs and no science at all.

  • @GoodScienceForYou What the fuck do you believe in beside fantasy creatures that never existed? You seem to be such a weak fucker that you have to believe in something. I don't. I just wait to see what is true and what is not. You are fucked in that your belief is the foundation of your fucking life.

  • The only thing in this that you can call science is crude attempts at it. The belief is the foundation, but there is no foundation that preceeds that. When you are surrounded with believers, you tend to believe. When you avoid belief like it is the plague of humanity that it is and causes all the wars, hate, ignorance, and shit like that, then you require a foundation of evidence to form the belief. You don't go to school and get fed only that which feeds the belief.

  • If you are in the driver's seat of your life, and have no emotional need to conform to some bullshit then you can learn all that humans have to offer, and not believe anything until it is proven to you absolutely. You need to be honest with yourself to get free of other people's controls over you. They can convince you that you are smart and good when you are just a dumb conformist who has no balls to seek what is true.( Read this several times.)

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    You are a delusional, lying, idiot. You have never read 20,000 papers on any subject. There is not a single theory in science that is "...physical, irrefutable, having no other possibilities...". If you think there is, name one.

  • I love how this Flagellum whips the asses of the retarded zombie atheists every time it's brought up.

    Just give it enough time! they say. Poor things, they are so lost.

    It's more likely that I throw up a hand full of coins and they all fall on their edge than what these snake oil salesmen are selling.

    Get over it atheists, your pipe dream ends up to be a world full of zombies.

    Stop lying about yourself.

  • Could a cat write War and Peace just randomly walking on a keyboard? Well if you believe that I guess you believe that DNA just came to be, and life evolved from a rock... or soup or whatever... I believe it was Tolstoy... You got yours I got mine, we could still drink a cup of coffee together, I'm sure there are other things we agree on. so peace guys, live and let live, don't let disagreeing turn to hatred.

  • @IvanAgram. "You got yours I got mine" Totally agree, as long as both sides are moving forward, why does it matter?

    PS if a cat walked across the keys (forgetting the punctuation, to make the maths easier), its got a 1 in 26 chance of hitting "w", 1 in 676 if "we", 1 in 17576 of "wel" and 1 in 456976 of "well" (first word in war and peace) granted its an incredibly slim chance.... but on the other hand, if that cat walked across the board 456976 times..... see what I mean? :)

  • Michael Behe's irreducible complexity is an assumption for intelligent design, not an argument for intelligent design. Living organisms can evolve to a point of irreducible complexity, therefor it is not exclusive to intelligent design.

  • "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

    "But," says Man, "The Bacterial Flagellum is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't"

    "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

  • A few pieces of protien look complex and I've closed my mind to any possible explanation except the one I want! All of science must be wrong now! D:

  • @Houshalter

    wow...u just explained evolutionists perfectly!!!

    eveything I do, research, conclude... screams design..but God is repugnant to me, so ill just keep evolution as a religion

  • @infinitemika, what looks designed to you?

  • The flagellum is not literally an outboard motor. One may say that it is figuratively an outboard motor but presenting this in an argument is at best disingenuous.

    Has not irreducible complexity been discredited now for many years? There has never been a documented instance for irreducible complexity and as a theory it utterly fails.

  • @mastersausagemaker

    One may say that it is figuratively an outboard motor but presenting this in an argument is at best disingenuous.

    &this takes away from the immense obvious design argument of the flagellum,how?

    disingenuous??

    evos will have a skull& make an entire documentary on discovery channel complete w/how it sounded, ate, hunted, color, speed at which it ran, color of its poop,how it died & more w/ONLY assumption & claim it all as fact..without apologies..disingenuous?

  • FAIL!

  • @baldurus1

    how so? im sure uve studied this issue in great detail.....waiting....

  • Sorry, but irreducible complexity has been disproven thus far. Creationist need to try, try again...and again...and again. Science has knocked down everything you have...

  • @naja002

    Thats the problem. Now they are only left with the gaps.

  • ID is just a hoax to divert tax money to rich people who a tired of serious work, and enjoy driving fancy cars. FU homos. You fucking faggots

  • Bacterial flagellum - 40 parts = type III secretory system. (No irreducible complexity here. Move along.)

  • ken miller's mouse trap. nuff said

  • Certainly if you were observing molecules on a single planet waiting for something so complex to evolve, you would be waiting for a long time. The universe is infinite in both time and space, so with enough random chance combinations happening over an infinite amount of time the right combination of elements is bound to occur at some point. We simply find ourselves now at the tiny little pinpoint in space where these random combinations have aligned properly to produce what seems like a miracle.

  • The jury is still out on whether the universe is infinite. It is effectively infinite from our perspective. GOPers cannot begin to comprehend the concept of "billions" of years, let alone billions of years of selective mutation. If they had the intellect to comprehend large numbers they would not be idiots, but they are.

  • here's the response as well as the debunking of this ridiculous as well as the obviously intended deception..

    watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU

  • After prodding, as hard as is possible to get any evidence for evolution that is not simply an opinion by some believer, and thousands of readers on youtube have not been able to answer my question, it is clear that Evodelusoinism is a mythological religoin and nothing more.

    I am here to tell you, that just like Santa Claus, at some point you have to give up the fantasy and face reality.

    Google "Neutral Evolution Forum Index" and post if you actually have any real evidence.

  • LOL how bout you just go read a book?

    There are countles pages of Info out there giving proof for evolution, yet there is not a single one for ID.

  • @chrisdef15

    Go and read Stephen Meyer's "Signature in the cell" (2009). Over 600 pages to make a comprehensive case for intelligent design based upon DNA.

  • First evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

    Second while i havent read the book myself a quick google search shows its reviews are a joke and that it basically has nothing that hasnt been said before and that there isnt any new evidence in it its just the same old guesses and maybe's.

  • @chrisdef15

    Did you read the readers reviews on Amazone ?

  • Yeah all they do is complain about people complaining about the book they dont give any actual evidence either.

    Looks like ille have to have a go at reading it myself. Though im pretty sure only to laugh at it by the look sof things.

  • @chrisdef15

    "LOL how bout you just go read a book?

    There are countless pages of Info out there giving proof for evolution, yet there is not a single one for ID."

    LOL!!!!!! the ingorance of this new religion evo, is overwhelming!

    Keep listening to your gods.....dont think for urselves. Cant wait to see the look on Gods face when many say 'u just didnt give me enough proof" lol....good luck with that...fortunatley, like 99% of world, u will confess on ur deathbed

  • @infinitemika, evolution isn't a relegion. Its a fact.

  • LOL your calling me ignorant yet you just wrote that huge babble fille reply without offering up a single fact.

    And its not just "not enough proof" there is NO proof for ID.

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    You are a liar. You have been provided with evidence and you simply discard it. You are the imbecile who claimed that chimps came about from the breeding of humans and gorillas and said that it was obvious.

    Tell you what - go test your theory. Have sex with a gorilla and we will see if a chimp results. I'll pay $1,000 to see that video...

  • @AlanCFA You are the fucking moron who believes in some mystical causes and magical processes and I use well known genetics to form hypotheisezes? What the fuck is the matter with your fucking brain. You believe in mystical bull shit.

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    Humans mating with gorillas produced chimps - that is "well known genetics"? You said it was OBVIOUS and that means you BELIEVE it, no matter that you claim to have no beliefs.

    You believe in the God that made the universe, not simply your claim that God=Truth. Talk about magic

    You cannot answer my question on radiocarbon dating that I have posted on several videos despite your claim to know "all about" the method.

    Again, go have sex with a gorilla see if you get a chimp.

  • @GoodScienceForYou part 2

    Do you understand speciation? Gorillas and humans are different species - they could not produce fertile offspring. Chimps are fertile. Any kid who has taken high school science knows this, but you claim to use "well known genetics". Well known to whom, delusional Creationists like you?

    How is it you don't understand the most basic idea of speciation yet claim to be an expert in evolutionary science having read over 200,000 papers? Are you a slow learner?

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    It's not only implausible, it's impossible. Once again, gorillas and humans are different species - they CANNOT produce fertile offspring. Chimps are fertile. Therefore they could NOT have come from humans mating with gorillas. You said that they DID and that it was OBVIOUS. Ergo, you DO believe it!

    You do NOT have a real hypothesis that follows evidence EXACTLY because what you state is IMPOSSIBLE.

    Go screw a gorilla and produce a chimp. Your Nobel Prize awaits you.

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    I know that the definition of species is that they cannot produce fertile offspring. You are a liar and you simply make shit up. You have NOT read 20,000 scientific papers on anything.

    You've avoided answering my question on radiocarbon dating that I have posted on several channels so that you could not miss it. You do NOT understand and can NOT answer it because you are ignorant of the principles involved.

    You are a fundy Christian who lies and pretends to be a scientist

  • @AlanCFA What does your question have to do with the subject of evolution? We know that all of the radiometric dating methods are totally based on assumptions.

    The mechanics of this dating has nothing to do with the effectiveness or accuracy, because there is no bone to date. There is no matter in replacement fossils to use.

    You are just a fucking moron, who follows any shit belief that comes along.

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    You made the claim to know "all about" radiometric dating. You wrote: " I have no fucking religion and I am a scientist. I understand all the 'science' in radiometric dating"

    Since you made the claim, I chose a simple test of radiocarbon dating. You failed the test. You cannot answer the question because you do not know "all about" radiometric dating. Would you prefer a question about potassium-argon dating instead?

  • @AlanCFA Where is this question?

  • @AlanCFA Answer my question, moron: Where is your absolute evidence that creatures have ever morphed into a new species with new genetics and become a new genus? It must be physical, irrefutable, with no other possibilities, and not bullshit opinions from dick heads like you.

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    Where is your absolute evidence that chimpanzees were the result of humans breeding with gorillas? You said that it was OBVIOUS.

    Can you show any branch of scientific theory where the evidence is "irrefutable, with no other possibilities"? No, you cannot. Not atomic theory, germ theory, the theory of gravity, etc. If you can, let's here it. You have made a mockery of science with your obvious religious objections.

  • @AlanCFA What a fucking moron you are. You use straw man. Fuck you!! Lying fucking asshole. You can't argue out in the open, so you tell lies about me. You are scum, and you know it. You live in a world of hate and fear. You are totally controlled by your fears. If I come up with a far more plausible and scientific reason for the Chimp/Human phenomenon, it negates your fucking religious, Evotard, bullshit. That is what you can't stand. You cannot stand that you are a moron, and weak.

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    First of all, it is YOU who are the liar. You know nothing about science and you LIE and claim to have read 20,000 papers. You cannot answer a simple question about radiometric dating because you do not understand it. Your chimp/human crap is not plausible - it is impossible. Gorillas and humans are different species and could NEVER produce a chimp. You are insane and a fool. You do not even understand the concept of a half-life after studying atomic theory since 1962.

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    I have argued in the open. I asked if you could show ANY branch of scientific theory where the evidence is "irrefutable, with no other possibilities"?

    I further stated that you could not. Not atomic theory, germ theory, the theory of gravity, etc. I then asked if you could, provide the theory. You could not so you call me names and claim that I use straw man arguments. Apparently, you don't know what a straw man is, though you constantly use them yourself

    Pot, meet kettle

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    Ok, then name me a theory that is irrefutable with no other possibilities. You CANNOT DO IT!

    You claim that I make up lies about you. That is not true; YOU make up lies about you. You lie about your IQ, you lie about having read 20,000 papers, you lie about understanding radiometric dating.

    The only claim that you have ever made on YouTube that *might* be true is your claim to have read over 200 astrology books. You are enough of a weak-minded fool to have done that.

  • @AlanCFA You moron. Straw Man bullshit artist. I asked for irrefutable evidence, shit head! You can't read, because you are so fucking delusional you see things in my statements. It is mental retardation that is caused by sucking up to bullshit artists. When you are fucked in the head, like you you see shit that is not there.

    Have you ever read any books on anything? Have you ever studied anything or is brainwashing all you like?

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    You don't have a brain to wash. You also cannot read. Yes, I know that you asked for irrefutable evidence. I asked you to name ONE scientific theory that is irrefutable with no other possibilities. You claim that is how real science works, but you are unable to name a single theory that meets that criteria.

    You also could not answer my question on radiometric dating because you do not understand it. You simply screech insults when it is YOU who are stupid and dishonest.

  • @AlanCFA Here is a test for you. Go to your breaker panel, hook on wire to the "A" buss and one wire to the "B" buss in your panel. Go wet your hands and grab a hold of both wires at the same time. If that isn't irrefutable evidence then I don't know what to tell you. You are so fucked in the head that you cannot see what is obvious.

    How can anyone be as stupid as you? It amazes me how fucking tiny your brain is.

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    That would only be a successful prediction from an experiment. It would not prove the underlying theory of electricity was correct with NO other possibilities.

    There are several theories of the structure of an atom. Since you claim that we can only have a theory if there are NO other possibilities, tell us which one is correct so that we may eliminate all of the others.

  • @AlanCFA You fucking backpedaling moron. Who the fuck do you think you are? That is absolute testable evidence that is repeatable, and will normally kill people or at least stop their hearts. I did not ask to prove the whole of electron theory, just that part. Just like I ask you to produce absolute evidence for any part of this bullshit Evodelusion theory? Don't you have any fucking intelligence left that isn't controlled by your fucking emotions.

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    You are the one backpeddling. You said that nobody should believe any theory unless it were supported by evidence that was irrefutable with no other possibilities.

    Yet your electrical experiment is something that CAN be predicted from several theories of electricity and would not prove any one of them. It would not be "irrefutable with no other possibilities". It would simply be one piece of evidence consistent with multiple theories. That is how ALL science works.

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    Speaking of backpeddling, you claim to know all about radiometric dating and are still acting like a coward, dodging this simple question...

    Given t(BP) = -1/\lambda*ln (N/N_0) where the ratio of N to N_0 is .783 and the half life is 50,000 years gives what result? If you can't give the answer, you don't understand

    I'm not a scientist, but I can solve this. Why can't you with your 180 IQ, your 20,000 papers read, your mathematical expertise, and your photographic memory?

  • @AlanCFA This is a decreasing function (as indicated by the (-) sign), of the radioactive nuclei. They measure the ratio of the Nuclie and determine the amount of decay. the .783 is the decimal number to multiply the full life by as I recall. I can go look it up if you want. It is based on the assumption that decay rates never change. So, what? Do you know that the expansion of the universe is accelerating? What does that do to the concept of time?

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    Gosh, it takes you several days to find a simple explanation on the Internet. You still have it wrong, but I didn't expect anything differnt.

    Yes, I know that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. That's doing nothing to the concept of time. Some time back you wrote "Did you know that they now see universes traveling faster than the speed of light?" That is false. You are ignorant.

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    You keep using the phrase "straw man" without understanding it. Try looking it up.

    BTW, in your reply "...the .783 is the decimal number to multiply the full life by as I recall..." is laughably wrong. But then, your claim to understand all about radiometric dating is crap.

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    It's not important because you cannot come close to calculating the answer.

    You understand the process completely. Bwahahaha!

    You don't remember the details of the math? There are two problems with your statement.

    First, you have claimed to have a photographic memory.

    Second, I GAVE YOU THE FORMULA!!! It's a simple ODE.

  • @AlanCFA It is not the same formula I was given in class. Fuck head. Why don't you eat shit and die, so the world will be a better place?

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    I doubt that you ever took a class that included radiometric dating formulae. I think that is another lie.

    But let's pretend that you are telling the truth (ha ha ha). You've boasted of you knowledge of science and math and yet you can't solve a simple ODE? It's one of the first examples in standard textbooks on ODEs.

    You demonstrate, once again, that all you know how to do is produce empty boasts.

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    You like to make up definitions. You change what the word "belief" means and now you change what "straw man" means.

    A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

    You spout gibberish.

  • @AlanCFA You will die soon enough and you will never be allowed to live again in any form. You will never breath the air of the Earth, nor will you enjoy love of a woman or any life and any joy that comes from life.....all because you hate God so much. When are you going to wake up. On your death bed is far too late.

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    I don't believe in God, so it'd be impossible to hate Him. Your comment "...you will never be allowed to live again in any form..." implies that you think others will be allowed to live again (reincarnation) - is this another one of your beliefs?

    You claim that my inability to come back in any form is because I hate God. So God controls who comes back to life in another form and only grants new life to those who love Him? If that's true, then God must be a deity.

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    Again I ask the question: if you are praying that I die, to whom are you praying?

    As to the fact that I will die some day, I do not find that unusual. I accept it. But your statement that "...the cause of death is evil..." is a bit odd. Do you think that you will never die since you are not evil?

  • @AlanCFA You will die soon. It is a foregone conclusion. God does not allow evil to live very long. I have seen many who oppose me die in my lifetime. You are just another fucking evil person who hates the truth. You  will die soon and you will die in intense fear.

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    Again I ask the question: if you are praying that I die, to whom are you praying?

    You say that God does not allow evil to live very long. Is God a deity? Or do you still want to say that God=Truth and that is all? If so, how does Truth keep eveil from not living very long?

    What do you consider to be "very long"? Stalin lived to be 74 years old - don't you think that he was evil? It seems to me that if God exists, He let evil live a long time.

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    You ask who am I to decide what evil is but you decided that I was evil.  Who are you to decide that?

    So Stalin may have not been evil, eh? He might have been a "worker of God's destiny"???

    So who is this God to whom you are referring?

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    As Barbara Graham once asked, "how in the hell would you know?"

  • @AlanCFA I am glad you finally used the word "know". I only teach what I actually know. Belief means implications have been used on you and you want to believe, so that screws your objectivity.

  • @GoodScienceForYou

    You wrote: "I only teach what I actually know"

    But the question "how in the hell would you know?" was in reply to your earlier statement: "When you know that your death is imminent, you will pray to god for forgiveness, but it is too late. You will be in a car, crushed..."

    How could you possibly know that when I die I will be crushed in a car?

    Oh, that's right - you can't. It's just more of your wishful thinking that you have some power over others. Try living in reality.