btw, this video is absolutely hilarious! Evolution is proven without a doubt. To the poster of this video, the debate as to whether evolution occurred or not ended over a decade ago, actually for most of the last century we've known it has. We have now moved on to HOW evolution works. But thanks for coming out, I love to see you guys post stuff like this! It's most entertaining!
This is silly. As a native american I know without a doubt that christians are wrong about pretty much everything. Their treatment and complicity in the destruction of native american culture is complete proof they are not divine nor are their beliefs reality. just a bunch of fools.
"Organisms are directed and limited by their past. They must remain imperfect in their form and function, and to that extent unpredictable since they are not optimal machines. We cannot know their future with certainty, if only because a myriad of quirky functional shifts lie within the capacity of any feature, however well adapted to a present role." Stephen J Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes
this is complete nonsense. your entire argument rests on the idea that one species becomes another species and NONE of the old species ever survives. if that was implied by evolution, you wouldn't need to point out specific species, because there would be only one species of life on earth. obviously nobody believes that there's only one species of life, so whatever you think evolution is about, you're wrong.
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy." Phillip Johnson, author of the 'Wedge Strategy' for the Discovery Institute----admitting himself that ID is completely false, not science, and a sham intended to circumvent the consitution.
"Poor max---you really are a piece of pathetic work--I made no effort to claim being anything I am not, and never claimed to be a psychiatrist...anyone with a modicum of patience can go back through the posts and see for themselves."
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
PottyAnus is BUSTED!! Here are HIS exact words, and I quote:
"Max~with a 36 year career in Psychiatry, I don't have to think about it..."
@MaximusArurealius way to rip of a pharyngula article (which you obviously didn't understand) and switch it around to try to give yourself the authority of his argument. what you obviously don't realize is that the argument doesn't work when reversed.
@JackOffMate you fucking dunce. Have you been out dancing naked around the campfire again? You idiot. You have already been exposed, but if you're wanting to give us some more laughter feel free. ROFL
Nice collection of fallacies and distortions--as usual you demonstrate your knowledge of science is close to nonexistent and your understanding of logical argument is entirely nonesistent...I see that pathetic phony Max has added his 1.25 cents worth as well...the blind leading the halt in a quest for the invisible!
@MaximusArurealius "......Ph.D. in Religious Studies from Calamus international University."...yes we are an authority on the fraudulent and asinine, aren't we max? So sorry...it was admitted in the Wedge document, as you well know...ID is as bogus as your credentials.
@pontecanis HEY!!! Quit horning in! Not only can't max see the clothes, he can't see the emperor either-->what with the bullshit degrees and crass ignorance, he can't reason much of anything, much less coherently express any logical thoughts. Now butt out and let me answer my own shit here, bro. Besides, a turd like max isn't worth the effort of both of us pointing out he stinks. HAR HAR HAR
@MaximusArurealius ~~Dream on posterboy for Dunning-Kruger...you THOUGHT I was a shrink, and I hoist you on yer own petard asshole--you can't even own your own incompetence and stupidity much less anything else...you're still pissed cause you had yer ass handed to you in spades using your own twisted logic. Piss off nitwit!
@pontecanis I see you are in Dreamland lost somewhere. I guess I have to pull out the proof again don't I asshole? Are you getting so old you keep forgetting where your ass is? HAR HAR HAR
@MaximusArurealius You really are stupid, aren't you...I said career in Psychiatry, not career AS a psychiatrist---a psychologist, fool, working in a Department of Psychiatry...not my fault you are a literalist who jumps to conclusions, as your stupid faith in the preposterous ID shows...you made the assumption, and I let you do it...you got played like a fish using your own tactics...YOU got owned asshole. HAR HARE HAR!!!
Yeah its very confronting when you fathom the impossibility of what you believe!
i like the way you say Laughing Out Loud ! exclamation mark.
I think there is a seinfeld episode about that one.
just throw in tens of millions of years & gradual change....although we know it happened rapidly because of punctuated equilibrium but its much more believable if u insist it happened slowly.
Whilst that change went on crocodiles found no benefit in change.
If you really wanted to understand what evolution proposes and the actual evidence that led to its creation, you would be reading a book about it, not using flawed logic and exposing your lack of knowledge on the subject on YouTube videos.
Reading something OTHER than your religious material of choice might lead you to actually learn something other than what your church tells you.
OK, you said that a repitile pluse a whale equals a man. That is pretty idiotic. The whale is a mammal. A dynosaur is more closely related to the birds. How does mixing them make something? It is pure nonsense, and doesn't even relate to science in the slightest. It's such a daft presentation, I can't even begin to respond to it above the 3rd grade level.
@arsjth Why would I spend my time running through spell checkers when my point is clear. Your knowledge regarding evolution is abysmal. I'm living in a house that sits on 150 million year old fossils made by coral creatures in a seabed, resulting in limestone. How does a person get so stupid as to imagine they can convince the intelligent that none of what exists exists? Oh, I hope I misspelled something, so you can respond with another diversion.
sorry gary misspelling dinosaurs as dynosaurs is not about spell checkers so much as lack of intelligence. adding an e to the end of plus is like misspelling and as 'ande'.
The point is that none of what you said was in the video to start with.
regarding your house position, how do you know its on a bed of fossils made by coral creatures?
@arsjth Once again, the argument is spell checkers equate to intelligence. Evolution can't possibly be true because of typos from those who believe in the facts. You are a moron, and now we know why. Your lack of reasoning skills is born out of a propensity to endlessly divert attention away from the issue at hand. Mankind is the product of 4 billion years of evolution. PERIOD. Spell checked or not.
@garywetpants said, "A dynosaur is more closely related to birds." HAR HAR HAR HAR your credibility? GONE sap-head. Learn to spell dinosaur idiot boy. Anybody who thinks dinos and birds are related is a complete fucking idiot. Now tell us what you believe about the wolf-like creature who became a whale. HAR HAR HAR HAR
@JonnyPxN Well no shit. You must be a fucking genius. Try this dummass, from Wiki: A special case of natural selection is sexual selection, which is selection for any trait that increases mating success by increasing the attractiveness of an organism to potential mates.
Did Fido ever consider whether Lady was good looking? No, Fido screws anything he can find even RinTinTin. Do you think one spider is more attractive than another spider? sheer idiocy. Proof that scientists are idiots.
@JonnyPINHEAD, And guess what else 100% of evolutionists are liars. They deny design. Any moron on the street can see design, but an evolutionist? He can only see evolution which no one has ever seen.
@MaximusArurealius Lol wut. You didn't "PWN" me, because you didn't actually try and rebutt the arguement I was talking about, you blather on about morons on the street being better at science than scientists. I mean rly? LOL. The statement from you was: Birds did not come from dino's. I said "Well then I guess 99 percent of scientists are idiots... ". Didn't reply to me on that, instead talking about sexual selection. **facepalm**
I will reiterate one more time. Arguing with people on youtube is sad. I will stop because I just wanted to say how crap this video is, not talk about any thing else, because to be frank i don't care if you say science is wrong. Just look at that statement and think.
abiogenesis is central to claims of universal common ancestory, there is no reason to believe uca without a specific conception of abiogenesis and yet evolutionists run like scaredy cats from abiogenesis, it is funny.
the origin of life is certainly an interesting topic, but it is not a part of evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis is.While scientists have not developed a clear explanation of how life might have developed from nonliving material, that has no impact on evolution. Even if life did not begin naturally but was started due to the intervention of some divine power, evolution would still stand on the evidence as our best explanation so far for how that life has developed.
The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed — this means that it begins with the premise that life already exists. It makes no claims as to how that life got here. It could have developed naturally through abiogenesis. It could have been started by a divine power. It could have been started by aliens. Whatever the explanation, evolutionary explanations begin to apply once life appears and begins to reproduce.
"The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed"
i am sorry but you are slightly lacking in understanding. Common ancestry is a central part of the theory of evolution. It claims all creatures came from one common ancestor & clearly extension that came about from the result of an explosion of chemicals.
@arsjth No unfortunately you don't understand. Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life, not it's beginning. You can't just say "extrapolate that backwards" because you are then no longer talking about the diversity of life, just its origin. And evolution does not talk about origin, only diversity. That's like saying netwon's f=ma talks about a, gravity, but were did that come from? They're two seperate scientific theories. Hope this helps.
dividing the general theory of evolution up into abiogenesis & evolution & saying they are separate is like saying the combustion engine is a separate issue to the automobile.
technically yes but obviously no.
They are inextricably linked to each other if you deny God created any life at all.
Is there another theory that i dont know of that explains origins?
is there a different belief that evolutionary theory proposes for origins other than abiogenesis?
The study of the naturalistic origins of life is called abiogenesis, and while scientists have not developed a clear explanation of how life might have developed from nonliving material, that has no impact on evolution. Even if life did not begin naturally but was started due to the intervention of some divine power, evolution would still stand on the evidence as our best explanation so far for how that life has developed.
"Even if life did not begin naturally but was started due to the intervention of some divine power, evolution would still stand on the evidence as our best explanation so far for how that life has developed."
evolution explains diveristy and very little else. Its observable and testable. The imaginary parts that creatures melded from one type to another is an attempt to explain the unexplainable.
Once u accept a divine origin then u must question to what complexity did he create?
@arsjth ok im finished facepalming so here goes an analogy that may help you to undersand what Evolution aka change over time is. scientist A comes to a basket ball court and ther are dots going from one side to the other and a basketball on one side he looks at the ball and there is a little bit of paint on it so he thinks ok ths ball must have gottne paint on it somehow (abiogenesis) and then bounced from one side to the other (evolution) leaving basketball sized dots across the court
Thanks4your attempt at explaining evolution using easily verifiable facts& intelligent sources.Trying to use them to explain something that is not verifiable but is subjective and unrepeatable is useless.
Scientist A is a person whom we can see. A basketball court is a man made structure, paint dots on it are easily testable to verify that its paint, the imprint of the basketball would be matched to the paint pattern. Saying abiogenesis must have happened becos we are here is unscientific.
@arsjth the evidince of the basket ball bouncing on the court is the paint dots and the paint on the ball just like the fossils of species tell a path that life has traveled. how abiogenesis works is less supported by scientific data than evolution is and yes abiogenisis could be totally wrong but evolution is not it has been proven that life changes over time and even tested in labs with bacteria the farther you go back in the fossil record the more simplistic life becomes
@arsjth the "theory of evolution has more scientific study backing it up than just about any other theory including gravity i would suggest you take a biology class or talk to a biology proffesor about your doubts just because you dont understand how evolution works doesnt make it untrue. i dont know how to send an astronaut to the moon but im not gonna armchair quarterback nasa they know better than i do because they study tese things for a living much like biologist study evolution
many creationists complicate matters even further by promulgating the mistaken idea that evolution is the same as abiogenesis. One common way this is done is to argue that evolution cannot explain how life began while creationism can and, therefore, creationism is superior to evolution.
Now, the origin of life is certainly an interesting topic, but it is not a part of evolutionary theory.
@arsjth ...."atheists say they believe in God"....The Very def of atheism is : the lack of believe of "god(s)"..which therefore would not make them atheist anymore...now would it? 2ndly...You pick parts of evolution to make fun of it...First, Read a book about it...next...find out what a "theory" is. 3rdly...no matter how much we debate this, you will think your right, i will think im right...So whats the point? i have my facts, you have your believes...
yep its typical of the crazy things that atheists say. just letting u know who u r associating with here.
here is an excerpt
We can't even count on self-described atheists to be strict rationalists. According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life's monumental "U.S. Religious Landscape Survey" that was issued in June, 21% of self-proclaimed atheists believe in either a personal God or an impersonal force. Ten percent of atheists pray at least weekly and 12% believe in heaven.
@arsjth I don't mind people believeing in God, but when you utright LIE its just ridiculous. Atheists don't believe in God, that is the ENTIRE point of that stance, that they do not believe in a supernatural being. Dawkins has a PHD from OXFORD in biology, so i think its safe to say anything he says will be fully verifiable and not quoted form journalists. LOL
who r u accusing of an outright lie? The people who responded to the survey?
Atheists want2 believe that its an educated&reasoned position&that christianity is based on ancient superstition.But the reality is that many people who identify themselves as atheists are in fact whackos who dont even believe what they profess to believe.
Some people believe that christianity induces one to murder when its against everything that the teachings stand for.
@arsjth Because dawkins is the most well known atheist? Also, i dont know what planet you are on with your fake survey (link me to it, and even if it exists, which i doubt, it will probs be a load of fake BS), but from the ditionary- atheism-Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. I dont know where ur "whackos" are, but the average iq of an atheist is higher than a christian...look it up!
"Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities."
sure.
i agree thats the definition.
However there are a bunch of whacko's out there who consider themselves atheists yet believe in supernatural forces, talking to the dead, tarot cards etc.
Being an Atheist means u r more likely to believe in the supernatural.
You guys who think u r the rational atheists dont realize that ur beliefs lead others to be total doofies.
@arsjth No its the opposite in fact. You say there was a HUGE flood 5000 years ago. Has been proved wrong. You say evolution is false. BS, so you are right with your 2000 year old book and HUNDRDS of THOUSANDS of scientists are wrong?
Also atheists are a large group. Rational ones like myself do not believe in any supernatural mumbo jumbo, but the definition of an atheist id someone who rejects the idea of a god, NOT rejects the supernatural. pwned.
"Also, i dont know what planet you are on with your fake survey "
its interesting that atheism not only leads to irrationality but also to false accusations. Strange that you would call it fake without having seen it or verifying it.
I sent it to u on PM but no doubt u will discredit it because u dont like what it says.
Do u think all atheists are like u? convinced by the evidence of evolution etc?
Most of them r wandering nomads who wil believe anything.
@arsjth I have decided that is rational for me to stop arguing. You are obviously deluded to the truth. I personally dont understand why you believe you are right, with your yoiutube video that evolution is wrong, compared with hundreds of thousands of proprly qualified scientists who know evolution is true. If you cannot see how deluded you llok, you really are in trouble...
@arsjth@arsjth I have decided that is rational for me to stop arguing. You are obviously deluded to the truth. I personally dont understand why you believe you are right, with your yoiutube video that evolution is wrong, compared with hundreds of thousands of proprly qualified scientists who know evolution is true. If you cannot see how deluded you llok, you really are in trouble...
of course its rational to stop arguing when you are defeated.
When your arguing a point that you dont understand and when u dont understand your opponents position then you have zero chance of applying rationale of any kind.
"evolution is wrong"
who says that change in gene frequency is wrong?
No creationists do.
U dont even know the arguments creationists are making....u watch too much you tube videos on creationism.
@arsjth You are so stupid. There may be a debate amongst creationists and evolutionists (which isnt really a word btw), but in the SCIENTIFIC world. where people base theories on fact, evolution is unquestionably correct. A theory stops becoming a theory when it can be dissproved. Evoltuion is still there, it has not been disproven. Transitional fossils, our OWN dna and empirical observations all prove evolution is correct. The reason i dont want to debate anymore is because evolution is true.
"A theory stops becoming a theory when it can be dissproved."
yes thats y its losing traction as a theory....it simply cant be disproven...its unfalsifiable...its so flexible & rubbery that it can b stretched to fit any circumstance & therefore has no predictive power & no scientific value.
Its a just so attempt to explain what may be unexplainable...ie how we got here.
Transitional fossils are a joke. Stasis is the overwhelming characteristic of the fossil record...see gould et al
@arsjth Be a good old man and stop replying. Evolution is NEVER going to be dissproven. Scientists have too much evidence on the contrary. They may be wrangling out the smaller details e.g. how much of a part natural selection has to do with evolution, but evolution is provable science. This is what i dont get, you try and cuss me, but in the end, if evolution is obviously a religion and not true, as you keep on saying, how come no SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTE as ever said its wrong?
@arsjth You are a 43 year old man. You are the child here. Do you know why? Because you make facts up. DNA proves without a doubt we are related to these organisms. It doesnt mean we are descended from that exact species, more like a line of species. E.g. we are about 60 percent similiar to rats, as they as well as us have been descended from mammals. We are 95 % similar to apes because our lineage as only in the last few million years become seperate (short time geologically speaking).
@arsjth You liie because u say it is an assumption. It is not. I dont understand how you dont get this. You are one, clearly uneducated evangelical, spouting crap that evolution is not true. THOUSANDS of scientists, many from christian countires likes US,UK have proven with transitional fossils, dna and RADIO CARBON DATING (which proves that there is evolution of time duh, as over thousands of years new traits arise). this time im not going to answer your silly, childish comebacks.
@arsjth You dont seem to understand that once again you have provided me with no factual alternative. The fact thousands of scientists hav proven evolution is correct is demonstrable proof that evolution is correct. The fact that our dna is similiar to a bananas, although you are lying when you say 50 percent, its closer to 30 percent, is proof that hundreds of millions of years ago, we share a common ancestory with single celled organisms. Creationism cant be proved, evolution can, end of.
"is proof that hundreds of millions of years ago, we share a common ancestory with single celled organisms."
no its not. Similar design explains similarities adequately. Basic building blocks of life containing similar material with different switches for turning on & off genes to create different creatures is hardly proof that all those switches & dna came from no dna.
Can something come from nothing & life come from no life?
"Creationism cant be proved, evolution can, end of."
Intelligent design has been proved by Venter & his team.With intelligence u can create.He has only synthesized life not created from scratch but it still proves that intelligence is required.
Common ancestry can only ever b inferred becos it always happened elsewhere & cannot b observed or reproduced.
Intelligent design = the stronger science.
y did evolution not result in myriads of different types of life starting at different times.
@arsjth Creation can't can't be proved? Look out your window dunce boy and see the evidence. You're claim that all you see in creation is evolving. Has nothing proving it. Don't be comparing Creation and evolution. Compare Creation and Abiogenesis. OK moron? BIG FAIL no proof at all and complete admission by evolutionists that there is no such thing. It failed right along with all the other Frankenstein Experiments. WE know that we don't know how God did it. You refuse to admit you don't know.
@JonnyPxN "you have provided my with no factual alternative" HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HOO HOO HOO HEE HEE HEEEeeee! So what you're telling us is that we should accept the snake oil because there is no alternative? HAR HAR HAR great logic. OH I forgot. Atheists don't believe in logic. Sorry.
@JonnyPxN 1000s of scientists? HAR HAR HAR HAR you moron. No all you have is a consensus of the "scientific" community who excludes any scientist who doesn't agree and labels him as a creationist. Besides consensus is not evidence of anything accept more peer pressure. BIG FAIL MORON
@JonnyPxN STOP!!! Don't even be talking about DNA as if you are some kind of an expert. You've already proven yourself to be a complete idiot. BTW "common ancestor" is merely a weak excuse with NO proof whatsoever. The fossil record destroys "common ancestor." They just made it up as an explanation as to why they can't find any transitionals. Birds evolving from dinos has be disproven so the first thing they did was yell "common ancestor." HAR HAR HAR HAR
@MaximusArurealius Lol I said I wasnt going to reply to these idiotic creationists, but since you are so stupid, I'll make an exception. Get this into your tiny, tiny mind. Evolution is a FACT. If it wasn't a solid scientific theory, you would have thought there would be thousands of scientists with logical counterexamples. But there is not. EVERY SINGLE credible scientific institution on the planet verifies that evolution is correct. K thx bye
@JonnyPxN For you to say it's a fact proves you to have NO credibility. They don't verify it because they can't. There is NO proof and the fossil record proves that. YOU and they are simply liars and that is easy to prove.
@MaximusArurealius LOL you are so funny. You take for granted EVERYTHING that science has given us like the motor engine, the theories of thermodynamics. You don't question them because of the overwhelming proof for them. There is so much proff for evolution its unbelievable you can still support creationism. Oh and heres one for you, what happens if youre not a christian, say, youre a buddhist. They dont believe in God, so why should they believe in creationism as its based on a christian god?
No that would be engineering, science is about discovering the world that is, engineering is about creating the things that never were.
The first primitive computer was produced by charles babbage a christian, if max is not able to critizise a scientific theory, you would do well to realise science is a process not an ideology but if you think he cannot doubt a theory and should just uncritically accept it like you do, cont:
Then you best not use products created by religious folk or benefit from scientific discoveries that were made by religious folk, you can start by not using a computer seeing as charles babbage was a christian.
@WildCatsKitten1 Lol you funny. Babbage was a christian, so? That's like saying, adolf hitler was a catholic (he was raised as a catholic btw). Its's a terrible analogy. Babbage didnt invent the computer because of his faith, he invented it by using mechanical engineering along with basic calculus etc. Logical, scientific ideas :)
The wright brothers were laughed and scoffed at by the scientific community, they did not wait for peer reviewed papers on aerodynamics before they got flight up and running.
You do not know the difference between engineering and science, don't worry, it is the kind of a problem a sophomore would make, about the level of your thinking.
@WildCatsKitten1 Right, right. So they used their faith did they? Coz you said that babage was a chistian and thats why he invented the computer... I don;t really understand what you are arguing for in all honesty. I have nothing against normal christians. Yes many people who invented good inventions were christians, why does that matter? The only thing that I feel is stupid, is those believing in creationism.
"The only thing that I feel is stupid, is those believing in creationism."
that would just be your ignorance and lack of willingness to understand the arguments made. Also your willingness to accept as gospel the arguments made against it.
Science is inexact in historical areas?
do you accept plate tectonics?
it was only recent...up until discovered it was not accepted.
Neanderthals were thought to be sub human prehistoric cavemen...but they arent.
putting lol like a girly man is not going to save you, it just makes you look wimpy.
Who said charles babbage created something because of his faith? attacking strawmen only makes you look bad along with your girly abbreviation.
You do not even know the underlying pressupositions of science are there because of a theological worldview not because of atheism you have no grounding to even appeal to science none of them have grounding on the position of the atheist :)
@WildCatsKitten1 Also Lol isnt girlyish, its a shortened form of laugh out loud, e.g. your comments are hilarious.... And science is not religion, science deals with real, physical facts, so religion cannot play a role in the theories of science.
@WildCatsKitten1 Um Science is based on facts. Theology is based on belief. lol can be used for anyone, you insulting me is funny because you obviously have an inferiorty compe about something. Small penis? Its alright, i dont know what youre going through :)
Go ahead and provide an argument for why it is immoral for scientists to report there results dishonestly from the perespective of an atheist, provide an argument why it makes sense to presume the mind is rational from an unintended and non rational non intelligent process, explain why it makes sense to look for meaning in a meaningless universe, explain why on atheism you would expect to find an underlying order and a uniformity of nature, take your best shot.
@WildCatsKitten1 Let's see now 1) You are assuming just because some scientists are atheists, they will have no morals. Don't 2) You are assuming that just because some scientists are religous that they would never report their results dishonestly because they believe in god. Don't. 3) Scientists don't look for meaning in the universe creation on a religous level, they ask "when" and "how", could the universe be created, not "why", thats a belief. lastly, I don't really understand
@WildCatsKitten1 1)"why it is immoral on an atheistic worldview for scientists to report their results inaccurately". You are saying that just because they are atheists, they wont think its immoral. Please don't say you didnt read that lol. And the same for the second one too. 3)"explain why it makes sense to look for meaning in a meaningless universe". Meaning? Scientists dont ask the question "why?" was the universe created, they ask how and when and using what method...
Either you are attacking strawmen or you are not understanding the questions I asked you, read them again or if you cannot justify them from the position of the atheist then be honest about it, I promise I am not going to tear you down for not being able to justify them from the position of an atheist
@WildCatsKitten1 Why you are having these random arguements with me and jonnypxn... I saw this video, knew it was BS, said so and left. Why are you talking about scientists and vester interests and that? Evolution is what this video is trying to dissprove. it can't. I can't. You can't. No scientist has ever given evidence that stacks up. Scientists cant disprove it. Therefore it is a scientific theory.
Its not random, it is in response to jonnys post to max about science.
The fact that you responded when I posted to him and are defending him here, are you his sock? If you are then be honest with me now, if you are not then do not worry.
Where have I argued about scientists and vested interests here?
@WildCatsKitten1 It's simple really. You are ranting on and on about why "t is immoral on an atheistic worldview for scientists to report their results inaccurately, show how any of these things which are essentail to science have any grounding from the position of the atheist." blah blah. I don't care. why are you asking me or him? I said creationism was bull, i dont care if you want to rant on about something unrelated.
How can you disprove a theory that keeps changing to fit the facts, now of course theories can evolve but when a theory is so plastic and maleable and can incorporate any finding into it then it becomes impossible to disprove, and as we have a lot of untestable, unrepeatable and unobservable just so stories then it becomes very hard to disprove, in fact t It is not even a theory of evolution, there are just loads of different evolutionary just so stories flying around.
Now the fact you could not justify the pressupositions of science from the position of the atheist is ok, I am not going to beat you up because you didn't meet the challenge
@WildCatsKitten1 what?! You must be joking! I never took on your "challenge", your "facts" were rubbish. Science is not religion. Science is based on tangible facts, therefore it has to take a world view, an atheist one. What dont you understand about that?
No but scientism is treating science like a religion.
"Science is based on tangible facts"
Science is a process that is undertaken by pressuposing certain things that have no grounding from the position of an atheist, I won't ask you what you understand about that, you are displaying your ignorance for all to see and that is why you had to attack strawmen instead of answer my questions because your position is unjustificable.
@WildCatsKitten1 You are actually hilarious. I'm almost rofl here. Science does not "presuppose" anything. It finds the facts, then thinks "hmm what conclusion can i get from those facts?" religion has the conclusions (it thinks) and then tries to find "Facts" to justify it. wrong way round you see? and stop talking to me about ignorance, I obviously no more than you do, in fact next week I have my A2 level physics exams, so im pretty sure I know about the scientific method etc. Stop embaressing
@WildCatsKitten1 yourself and get on with your sad little life. I know you will keep on talking to me about atheism and science, but you are so close minded you won't admit that SCIENCE IS NOT RELIGION. science is not based on religion or directed by it. What dont you understand about that? youre obviously going to reply bs to me literally 1 min after i post this (do you have nothing better to do?) so im going to stop talking as i know science and myself are above people like you k thx bye :)
"but you are so close minded you won't admit that SCIENCE IS NOT RELIGION"
I never said science is a religion, I said treating science like a religion would be scientism that is not the same thing as saying science is a religion.
"youre obviously going to reply bs to me literally 1 min after i post this (do you have nothing better to do"
Many men of god who brought the modern scientific method into being did so because they believed that god had endowed them with a rational mind that was logical and could discover the underlying laws in the universe that the universe is meaningful and understandable, that there is an order and uniformity of nature, that they should report their results honestly(morality) None of these underlying pressupositions have any grounding for an atheist, cont:
You clearly no jack about the early men of modern science and how their theistic worldview influenced the scientific process, so it is best for you to defend the lame lol, because that is the best a clown like you is good for.
@WildCatsKitten1 Not really. Jonnypxn asked you what you were actually arguing for. You didnt say anyhing, instead saying he was girly for using the world lol. I mean come on, wtf is that about? its an abbreviation of "laughing out loud" how can it be girly. Ill ask the same question. What are you actually arguing about? I understand that people can be of any religion and make scientific discoveries... that is not in question, christians, muslims anyone, so i dont understand why ur arguing.
Also explain why it is immoral on an atheistic worldview for scientists to report their results inaccurately, show how any of these things which are essentail to science have any grounding from the position of the atheist.
I won't mock or ridicule you, if you are polite to me then i will be polite to you, if you cannot justify any of these things of science from the position of atheism then I promise that if you act respectuflly then I will not tear you down, cont:
"They dont believe in God, so why should they believe in creationism as its based on a christian god?"
jonny your ignorance shouldnt be boasted about. The jewish God is the same as the muslim God & the christian God. However Christ is the revelation of God to man.
Buddhists dont have a God as such....but you miss the entire point.
Creation or intelligent design is about the intelligence that appears in the design of life & not about whether the bible is true or not.
@JonnyPxN BTW you're still going on consensus (i.e., ad populum). FAIL consensus is not scientific evidence. If you actually KNEW anything about science you'd know it has not been proven. You're dunce and science doesn't matter as long as your stupid world view isn't disturbed.
@JonnyPxN BTW you're still going on consensus (i.e., ad populum). FAIL consensus is not scientific evidence. If you actually KNEW anything about science you'd know it has not been proven. You're dunce and science doesn't matter as long as your stupid world view isn't disturbed.
Also you "FAIL", because you obviously know jack shit. Yes the massive majority of scientists believe in evolution. in the 14th century the majority believed in the earth as flat, but they had no evidence to back up their claim. Evolution has Fossil record, dna, anatomical differences etc. You are obviously going to keep on spoutin shit, so im going to do the mature thing and walk away. Departing thought- so you think you know better than all those scientists? See how stupid that sounds :)
@JonnyPxN Yeah, I know better than those scientists. They are a bunch of liars. They deny design which any moron can see. It's intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. Only atheists can't see it. Strange how "science" bends to the will of atheism. Any YES do the mature thing and just shut up. All you spout is ignorance. You don't even have a high school diploma and here you are telling the world that you know everything. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
@MaximusArurealius -->Funny, even the Disco Institute (do the hustle) admits that ID is a fraud intended to bypass the 1st amendment and get fundamentalist apologetics religion into schools and the legal system where ever possible---to bad the courts are on to them...they are as much a fraud as you are.
@JackOffMate har har har you fucking dunce. Have you been out dancing naked around the campfire again? HAR HAR HAR You idiot. You have already been exposed, but if you're wanting to give us some more laughter feel free.
@MaximusArurealius Also you "FAIL", because you obviously know nothing. Yes the huge majority of scientists believe in evolution. in the 14th century the majority believed in a flat earth but they had no evidence to back up their claim. Evolution has fossil recrddna, anatomical differences etc. You are obviously going to keep on spoutin shit, so im going to do the mature thing and walk away. Departing thought- so you think you know better than all those scientists? See how stupid that sounds :)
Do you see that from jonny, not only does he not know the difference between engineering and science but he appeals to authority and the majority, i wouldnt be suprised if he is a sophomore when he commits such blatant fallacies.
" If it wasn't a solid scientific theory, you would have thought there would be thousands of scientists with logical counterexamples."
jonny Geocentricity was a solid scientific theory. It was endorsed by 99.98% of scientists. The guys who tried to disprove it actually provided flawed evidence...despite them actually being right.
Lyn Margulis has pronounced neo-Darwinism "dead", since there's no adequate evidence in the literature that random mutations result in new species.
i dont know which side your on. i assume creation or ID. but on this thread i would prefer that you didnt become verbally abusive of people who disagree with you.
Leave that to the domain of atheists & angry evolutionists for whom it is their normal way of communicating.
@arsjth The fact is when i mention stuff like DNA proves we are related to chimpanzees etc, transtitional fossils, anatomical similiarities, radio carbon dating etc etc you have no come back. These methods have been studied THOUSANDS OF times and if they were to be proven false, they would have been known by now. Your hero, such as "hovind", is in jail right now for fraud and doesnt even have a scientific degree, heck its from an unaccredited university!
"The fact is when i mention stuff like DNA proves we are related to chimpanzees"
similarity of dna doesnt prove we are related. If u dismiss any intelligence or design then u might argue that. But a designer would be expected to us a common design.
lets face it if you create one earth that supports life....there would be a lot of similarities required across creatures to survive wouldnt there?
It would make no sense to have 1000 diff life forms or structures to fit 1 environment.
btw, this video is absolutely hilarious! Evolution is proven without a doubt. To the poster of this video, the debate as to whether evolution occurred or not ended over a decade ago, actually for most of the last century we've known it has. We have now moved on to HOW evolution works. But thanks for coming out, I love to see you guys post stuff like this! It's most entertaining!
pachydermpower 1 month ago
This is silly. As a native american I know without a doubt that christians are wrong about pretty much everything. Their treatment and complicity in the destruction of native american culture is complete proof they are not divine nor are their beliefs reality. just a bunch of fools.
pachydermpower 1 month ago
"Organisms are directed and limited by their past. They must remain imperfect in their form and function, and to that extent unpredictable since they are not optimal machines. We cannot know their future with certainty, if only because a myriad of quirky functional shifts lie within the capacity of any feature, however well adapted to a present role." Stephen J Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes
foxlake02 3 months ago
this is complete nonsense. your entire argument rests on the idea that one species becomes another species and NONE of the old species ever survives. if that was implied by evolution, you wouldn't need to point out specific species, because there would be only one species of life on earth. obviously nobody believes that there's only one species of life, so whatever you think evolution is about, you're wrong.
wilsaljo 1 year ago
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy." Phillip Johnson, author of the 'Wedge Strategy' for the Discovery Institute----admitting himself that ID is completely false, not science, and a sham intended to circumvent the consitution.
pontecanis 1 year ago
"Poor max---you really are a piece of pathetic work--I made no effort to claim being anything I am not, and never claimed to be a psychiatrist...anyone with a modicum of patience can go back through the posts and see for themselves."
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
PottyAnus is BUSTED!! Here are HIS exact words, and I quote:
"Max~with a 36 year career in Psychiatry, I don't have to think about it..."
You're a FRAUD AND A LIAR.
POWNED
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
Little Johnny: Mommy, the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes!
1st Evo scientist: Dam he doesn't know a thing about tailoring.
2nd Evo scientist: Tell that retard to shut up. 99.99% of evo scientists see the Emperor's new clothes.
1st Evo scientist: Yeah, somebody has been letting that kid read bronze age books.
2nd Evo scientist: They just need to keep that kid's religion out of tailoring. Don't they know it's a specialized science and few can understand it?
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius way to rip of a pharyngula article (which you obviously didn't understand) and switch it around to try to give yourself the authority of his argument. what you obviously don't realize is that the argument doesn't work when reversed.
wilsaljo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JackOffMate you fucking dunce. Have you been out dancing naked around the campfire again? You idiot. You have already been exposed, but if you're wanting to give us some more laughter feel free. ROFL
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
Comment removed
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
Nice collection of fallacies and distortions--as usual you demonstrate your knowledge of science is close to nonexistent and your understanding of logical argument is entirely nonesistent...I see that pathetic phony Max has added his 1.25 cents worth as well...the blind leading the halt in a quest for the invisible!
jackalmate 1 year ago
@jackOFF, so are you saying that you can see the Emperor's New Clothes? ROFL
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius "......Ph.D. in Religious Studies from Calamus international University."...yes we are an authority on the fraudulent and asinine, aren't we max? So sorry...it was admitted in the Wedge document, as you well know...ID is as bogus as your credentials.
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pontecanis HEY!!! Quit horning in! Not only can't max see the clothes, he can't see the emperor either-->what with the bullshit degrees and crass ignorance, he can't reason much of anything, much less coherently express any logical thoughts. Now butt out and let me answer my own shit here, bro. Besides, a turd like max isn't worth the effort of both of us pointing out he stinks. HAR HAR HAR
jackalmate 1 year ago
@jackOff! har har har Thanks for admitting that YOU can see the Emperor's New Clothes.
You are Self-PWNED
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@pontecanis, you're a liar, I have never claimed PhD, but you have pretended to be a psychiatrist.
I OWN YOU
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius ~~Dream on posterboy for Dunning-Kruger...you THOUGHT I was a shrink, and I hoist you on yer own petard asshole--you can't even own your own incompetence and stupidity much less anything else...you're still pissed cause you had yer ass handed to you in spades using your own twisted logic. Piss off nitwit!
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pontecanis I see you are in Dreamland lost somewhere. I guess I have to pull out the proof again don't I asshole? Are you getting so old you keep forgetting where your ass is? HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@pontecanis Gotcha! Dummass!
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius You really are stupid, aren't you...I said career in Psychiatry, not career AS a psychiatrist---a psychologist, fool, working in a Department of Psychiatry...not my fault you are a literalist who jumps to conclusions, as your stupid faith in the preposterous ID shows...you made the assumption, and I let you do it...you got played like a fish using your own tactics...YOU got owned asshole. HAR HARE HAR!!!
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pontecanis you fucking liar. You have been EXPOSED!!! now stop the whining and bawling ya big crybaby.
I OWN YOU
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaximusArurealius HAR HAR HAR!!!
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pontecanis, you stupid asshole, Wedge document? So you don't see Design, but you're able to see the Emperor's New Clothes? HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
LOL! I like how you must believe that adding question marks to the end of your sentence makes your points valid.
This... became... THIS???????????
Argument from incredulity: You are doing it right.
mfunke 1 year ago
@mfunke
Yeah its very confronting when you fathom the impossibility of what you believe!
i like the way you say Laughing Out Loud ! exclamation mark.
I think there is a seinfeld episode about that one.
just throw in tens of millions of years & gradual change....although we know it happened rapidly because of punctuated equilibrium but its much more believable if u insist it happened slowly.
Whilst that change went on crocodiles found no benefit in change.
as they say....what a croc !
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth
If you really wanted to understand what evolution proposes and the actual evidence that led to its creation, you would be reading a book about it, not using flawed logic and exposing your lack of knowledge on the subject on YouTube videos.
Reading something OTHER than your religious material of choice might lead you to actually learn something other than what your church tells you.
mfunke 1 year ago
OK, you said that a repitile pluse a whale equals a man. That is pretty idiotic. The whale is a mammal. A dynosaur is more closely related to the birds. How does mixing them make something? It is pure nonsense, and doesn't even relate to science in the slightest. It's such a daft presentation, I can't even begin to respond to it above the 3rd grade level.
garywedlund 1 year ago
@garywedlund
no i didnt.
not sure what video you watched.
perhaps english isnt your first language based on your spelling.
i recommend running spell check before accusing others of acting at a 3rd grade level.
have a good day.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth Why would I spend my time running through spell checkers when my point is clear. Your knowledge regarding evolution is abysmal. I'm living in a house that sits on 150 million year old fossils made by coral creatures in a seabed, resulting in limestone. How does a person get so stupid as to imagine they can convince the intelligent that none of what exists exists? Oh, I hope I misspelled something, so you can respond with another diversion.
garywedlund 1 year ago
@garywedlund
sorry gary misspelling dinosaurs as dynosaurs is not about spell checkers so much as lack of intelligence. adding an e to the end of plus is like misspelling and as 'ande'.
The point is that none of what you said was in the video to start with.
regarding your house position, how do you know its on a bed of fossils made by coral creatures?
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth Once again, the argument is spell checkers equate to intelligence. Evolution can't possibly be true because of typos from those who believe in the facts. You are a moron, and now we know why. Your lack of reasoning skills is born out of a propensity to endlessly divert attention away from the issue at hand. Mankind is the product of 4 billion years of evolution. PERIOD. Spell checked or not.
garywedlund 1 year ago
@garywetpants said, "A dynosaur is more closely related to birds." HAR HAR HAR HAR your credibility? GONE sap-head. Learn to spell dinosaur idiot boy. Anybody who thinks dinos and birds are related is a complete fucking idiot. Now tell us what you believe about the wolf-like creature who became a whale. HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius Well then I guess 99 percent of scientists are idiots...
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN Well no shit. You must be a fucking genius. Try this dummass, from Wiki: A special case of natural selection is sexual selection, which is selection for any trait that increases mating success by increasing the attractiveness of an organism to potential mates.
Did Fido ever consider whether Lady was good looking? No, Fido screws anything he can find even RinTinTin. Do you think one spider is more attractive than another spider? sheer idiocy. Proof that scientists are idiots.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@JonnyPINHEAD, tell me something asshole. Are zebras white with black stripes or black with white stripes?
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@JonnyPINHEAD, And guess what else 100% of evolutionists are liars. They deny design. Any moron on the street can see design, but an evolutionist? He can only see evolution which no one has ever seen.
PWNED
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaximusArurealius Lol wut. You didn't "PWN" me, because you didn't actually try and rebutt the arguement I was talking about, you blather on about morons on the street being better at science than scientists. I mean rly? LOL. The statement from you was: Birds did not come from dino's. I said "Well then I guess 99 percent of scientists are idiots... ". Didn't reply to me on that, instead talking about sexual selection. **facepalm**
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
I will reiterate one more time. Arguing with people on youtube is sad. I will stop because I just wanted to say how crap this video is, not talk about any thing else, because to be frank i don't care if you say science is wrong. Just look at that statement and think.
redgrayz 1 year ago
@redgrayz
"frank i don't care if you say science "
science is a process not an ideology
"Just look at that statement and think"
And yet you cannot justify that the mind is logical or rational from the position of atheism.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
abiogenesis is central to claims of universal common ancestory, there is no reason to believe uca without a specific conception of abiogenesis and yet evolutionists run like scaredy cats from abiogenesis, it is funny.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1
agreed. The hiding from abiogenesis as the only option is obvious.
if you want a real laugh ask those who claim to only believe in what they can prove & see...."what about aliens?"
U will get a barage of statistical probability despite the lack of evidence?
Do 99% of scientists believe in aliens despite the lack of evidence?
hmmm???
Perhaps common ancestry is easy for them to believe in if they can believe something they cant see & have no proof of.
arsjth 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
DOH! it has everything to do with evolution.
otherwise you must believe in intelligent design.
the process is either directed or its not.
if its not then thats abiogenesis & evolution.
The philosophies are inseparable.
arsjth 1 year ago
the origin of life is certainly an interesting topic, but it is not a part of evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis is.While scientists have not developed a clear explanation of how life might have developed from nonliving material, that has no impact on evolution. Even if life did not begin naturally but was started due to the intervention of some divine power, evolution would still stand on the evidence as our best explanation so far for how that life has developed.
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed — this means that it begins with the premise that life already exists. It makes no claims as to how that life got here. It could have developed naturally through abiogenesis. It could have been started by a divine power. It could have been started by aliens. Whatever the explanation, evolutionary explanations begin to apply once life appears and begins to reproduce.
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@Jonny
"The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed"
i am sorry but you are slightly lacking in understanding. Common ancestry is a central part of the theory of evolution. It claims all creatures came from one common ancestor & clearly extension that came about from the result of an explosion of chemicals.
Its no good hiding from the full theory.
Evolution is a good explanation of diversity.
When it tries to be a ToE it fails
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth No unfortunately you don't understand. Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life, not it's beginning. You can't just say "extrapolate that backwards" because you are then no longer talking about the diversity of life, just its origin. And evolution does not talk about origin, only diversity. That's like saying netwon's f=ma talks about a, gravity, but were did that come from? They're two seperate scientific theories. Hope this helps.
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
dividing the general theory of evolution up into abiogenesis & evolution & saying they are separate is like saying the combustion engine is a separate issue to the automobile.
technically yes but obviously no.
They are inextricably linked to each other if you deny God created any life at all.
Is there another theory that i dont know of that explains origins?
is there a different belief that evolutionary theory proposes for origins other than abiogenesis?
if not then they are linked
arsjth 1 year ago
The study of the naturalistic origins of life is called abiogenesis, and while scientists have not developed a clear explanation of how life might have developed from nonliving material, that has no impact on evolution. Even if life did not begin naturally but was started due to the intervention of some divine power, evolution would still stand on the evidence as our best explanation so far for how that life has developed.
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
"Even if life did not begin naturally but was started due to the intervention of some divine power, evolution would still stand on the evidence as our best explanation so far for how that life has developed."
evolution explains diveristy and very little else. Its observable and testable. The imaginary parts that creatures melded from one type to another is an attempt to explain the unexplainable.
Once u accept a divine origin then u must question to what complexity did he create?
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth ok im finished facepalming so here goes an analogy that may help you to undersand what Evolution aka change over time is. scientist A comes to a basket ball court and ther are dots going from one side to the other and a basketball on one side he looks at the ball and there is a little bit of paint on it so he thinks ok ths ball must have gottne paint on it somehow (abiogenesis) and then bounced from one side to the other (evolution) leaving basketball sized dots across the court
acewizhyde 11 months ago
@ace
Thanks4your attempt at explaining evolution using easily verifiable facts& intelligent sources.Trying to use them to explain something that is not verifiable but is subjective and unrepeatable is useless.
Scientist A is a person whom we can see. A basketball court is a man made structure, paint dots on it are easily testable to verify that its paint, the imprint of the basketball would be matched to the paint pattern. Saying abiogenesis must have happened becos we are here is unscientific.
arsjth 11 months ago
@arsjth the evidince of the basket ball bouncing on the court is the paint dots and the paint on the ball just like the fossils of species tell a path that life has traveled. how abiogenesis works is less supported by scientific data than evolution is and yes abiogenisis could be totally wrong but evolution is not it has been proven that life changes over time and even tested in labs with bacteria the farther you go back in the fossil record the more simplistic life becomes
acewizhyde 11 months ago
@arsjth the "theory of evolution has more scientific study backing it up than just about any other theory including gravity i would suggest you take a biology class or talk to a biology proffesor about your doubts just because you dont understand how evolution works doesnt make it untrue. i dont know how to send an astronaut to the moon but im not gonna armchair quarterback nasa they know better than i do because they study tese things for a living much like biologist study evolution
acewizhyde 11 months ago
many creationists complicate matters even further by promulgating the mistaken idea that evolution is the same as abiogenesis. One common way this is done is to argue that evolution cannot explain how life began while creationism can and, therefore, creationism is superior to evolution.
Now, the origin of life is certainly an interesting topic, but it is not a part of evolutionary theory.
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
"many creationists complicate matters even further by promulgating the mistaken idea that evolution is the same as abiogenesis."
no they dont. this is nonsense.
They argue that they are inextricably linked if you eliminate God as a possibility.
Solve this now simply by telling me....do you believe in God?
If not then how do you believe life came into being?
once you acknowledge that you believe it was due to abiogenesis then you see why they are linked. all natural solutions.
arsjth 1 year ago
Comment removed
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
I have actually heard creationists insist with a straight face
that men have one rib less than women.
Delusion has no bounds.
Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has"
- Martin Luther
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69
it just shows that u will listen to anyone that suits you.
i actually heard atheists say they believe in God.
u r right delusion knows no bounds.
go to the scientists for information on creation science.
u r like dawkins quoting journalists rather than scientists.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth Youb are truly being delusional.
First you accuse me of listening to lies,
then you expect me to accept your absurd claim with round-eyed belief.
Atheists do not believe in god.
If you have the wit to click on an online dictionary
you will see that the two things are mutually exclusive
(that means they cannot both be true).
You simply demonstrate once again
that only ignorant people oppose evolution.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@arsjth ...."atheists say they believe in God"....The Very def of atheism is : the lack of believe of "god(s)"..which therefore would not make them atheist anymore...now would it? 2ndly...You pick parts of evolution to make fun of it...First, Read a book about it...next...find out what a "theory" is. 3rdly...no matter how much we debate this, you will think your right, i will think im right...So whats the point? i have my facts, you have your believes...
TheFightingRebel 1 year ago
@TheFighting
yep its typical of the crazy things that atheists say. just letting u know who u r associating with here.
here is an excerpt
We can't even count on self-described atheists to be strict rationalists. According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life's monumental "U.S. Religious Landscape Survey" that was issued in June, 21% of self-proclaimed atheists believe in either a personal God or an impersonal force. Ten percent of atheists pray at least weekly and 12% believe in heaven.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth I don't mind people believeing in God, but when you utright LIE its just ridiculous. Atheists don't believe in God, that is the ENTIRE point of that stance, that they do not believe in a supernatural being. Dawkins has a PHD from OXFORD in biology, so i think its safe to say anything he says will be fully verifiable and not quoted form journalists. LOL
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@Jonny
who r u accusing of an outright lie? The people who responded to the survey?
Atheists want2 believe that its an educated&reasoned position&that christianity is based on ancient superstition.But the reality is that many people who identify themselves as atheists are in fact whackos who dont even believe what they profess to believe.
Some people believe that christianity induces one to murder when its against everything that the teachings stand for.
Not sure what dawkins has to do with it?
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth Because dawkins is the most well known atheist? Also, i dont know what planet you are on with your fake survey (link me to it, and even if it exists, which i doubt, it will probs be a load of fake BS), but from the ditionary- atheism-Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. I dont know where ur "whackos" are, but the average iq of an atheist is higher than a christian...look it up!
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@Jonny
"Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities."
sure.
i agree thats the definition.
However there are a bunch of whacko's out there who consider themselves atheists yet believe in supernatural forces, talking to the dead, tarot cards etc.
Being an Atheist means u r more likely to believe in the supernatural.
You guys who think u r the rational atheists dont realize that ur beliefs lead others to be total doofies.
A lack of belief in Christ leads to irrationality
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth No its the opposite in fact. You say there was a HUGE flood 5000 years ago. Has been proved wrong. You say evolution is false. BS, so you are right with your 2000 year old book and HUNDRDS of THOUSANDS of scientists are wrong?
Also atheists are a large group. Rational ones like myself do not believe in any supernatural mumbo jumbo, but the definition of an atheist id someone who rejects the idea of a god, NOT rejects the supernatural. pwned.
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
"Also, i dont know what planet you are on with your fake survey "
its interesting that atheism not only leads to irrationality but also to false accusations. Strange that you would call it fake without having seen it or verifying it.
I sent it to u on PM but no doubt u will discredit it because u dont like what it says.
Do u think all atheists are like u? convinced by the evidence of evolution etc?
Most of them r wandering nomads who wil believe anything.
talking2 the dead...rofl
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth I have decided that is rational for me to stop arguing. You are obviously deluded to the truth. I personally dont understand why you believe you are right, with your yoiutube video that evolution is wrong, compared with hundreds of thousands of proprly qualified scientists who know evolution is true. If you cannot see how deluded you llok, you really are in trouble...
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@arsjth @arsjth I have decided that is rational for me to stop arguing. You are obviously deluded to the truth. I personally dont understand why you believe you are right, with your yoiutube video that evolution is wrong, compared with hundreds of thousands of proprly qualified scientists who know evolution is true. If you cannot see how deluded you llok, you really are in trouble...
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
of course its rational to stop arguing when you are defeated.
When your arguing a point that you dont understand and when u dont understand your opponents position then you have zero chance of applying rationale of any kind.
"evolution is wrong"
who says that change in gene frequency is wrong?
No creationists do.
U dont even know the arguments creationists are making....u watch too much you tube videos on creationism.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth You are so stupid. There may be a debate amongst creationists and evolutionists (which isnt really a word btw), but in the SCIENTIFIC world. where people base theories on fact, evolution is unquestionably correct. A theory stops becoming a theory when it can be dissproved. Evoltuion is still there, it has not been disproven. Transitional fossils, our OWN dna and empirical observations all prove evolution is correct. The reason i dont want to debate anymore is because evolution is true.
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
"There may be a debate amongst creationists and evolutionists "
yes there is, and ID scientists as well.
"but in the SCIENTIFIC world. where people base theories on fact"
is that the one where there are maybe 5 different theories on abiogenesis?
Is that the one that claimed the big bang was fact despite evidence against it?
is that the one where gravity is still poorly understood?
but its the one where they know everything about the history of life over 4 bill yrs!
lol
arsjth 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
"A theory stops becoming a theory when it can be dissproved."
yes thats y its losing traction as a theory....it simply cant be disproven...its unfalsifiable...its so flexible & rubbery that it can b stretched to fit any circumstance & therefore has no predictive power & no scientific value.
Its a just so attempt to explain what may be unexplainable...ie how we got here.
Transitional fossils are a joke. Stasis is the overwhelming characteristic of the fossil record...see gould et al
arsjth 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
be a good lad and have a read up on the Altenberg 16 and see why they are looking to create a new synthesis regarding evolution.
if your current theory is working successfully you dont create a new one.
try and read without your raging bias for a period of time.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth Be a good old man and stop replying. Evolution is NEVER going to be dissproven. Scientists have too much evidence on the contrary. They may be wrangling out the smaller details e.g. how much of a part natural selection has to do with evolution, but evolution is provable science. This is what i dont get, you try and cuss me, but in the end, if evolution is obviously a religion and not true, as you keep on saying, how come no SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTE as ever said its wrong?
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
You are jibbering like a petulant child.
I never try & 'cuss' you.
Everytime u say DNA proves we are related to chimpanzees i say 'nonsense'.
Its just genetic homology. Similarity doesnt mean descended from. U can assume that it does but it doesnt.
Are you 50% banana because u have 50% DNA in common. yet u dont look 50% like a banana (i hope).
The nematode is 75% human. Can u see the relationship?
radio carbon dating is not a proof of common origins....shame on u for thinking it is.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth You are a 43 year old man. You are the child here. Do you know why? Because you make facts up. DNA proves without a doubt we are related to these organisms. It doesnt mean we are descended from that exact species, more like a line of species. E.g. we are about 60 percent similiar to rats, as they as well as us have been descended from mammals. We are 95 % similar to apes because our lineage as only in the last few million years become seperate (short time geologically speaking).
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
"DNA proves without a doubt we are related to these organisms."
only if you accept the pretext of evolution as being true first.
If u say a banana is related to a human because they share DNA then i say u r wrong.
besides the assumption that the only way dna can be similar across creatures is due to common ancestry.....what proves their common ancestry?
after discussing with u for a while i feel u may be related to a banana but i cant prove it.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth You liie because u say it is an assumption. It is not. I dont understand how you dont get this. You are one, clearly uneducated evangelical, spouting crap that evolution is not true. THOUSANDS of scientists, many from christian countires likes US,UK have proven with transitional fossils, dna and RADIO CARBON DATING (which proves that there is evolution of time duh, as over thousands of years new traits arise). this time im not going to answer your silly, childish comebacks.
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
"RADIO CARBON DATING (which proves that there is evolution of time duh)"
so time is evolving as well?
tell me what time used to be before it became time?
Try not to be so arrogant because u say too many stupid things & then u just look silly.
Thousands of scientists accept the general theory of evolution and others do not.
does a majority make you correct?
be careful how u answer because u may need to change your belief back to the sun going around the earth. lol.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth You dont seem to understand that once again you have provided me with no factual alternative. The fact thousands of scientists hav proven evolution is correct is demonstrable proof that evolution is correct. The fact that our dna is similiar to a bananas, although you are lying when you say 50 percent, its closer to 30 percent, is proof that hundreds of millions of years ago, we share a common ancestory with single celled organisms. Creationism cant be proved, evolution can, end of.
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
"you have provided me with no factual alternative."
it is not necessary to provide u with a factual alternative. I can dispute theories without providing alternatives...that is the process of science.
The Big bang is disputed, abiogenesis is disputed & gravity at some levels...many things are.
" The fact thousands of scientists hav proven evolution"
dont u realize you only need 1?
Just show me the one that proved it...100% no alternatives..empirically tested & repeated.
arsjth 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
"Plant DNA:Even the DNA of plants is similar to that of humans. We share 60% of our DNA with a banana."
naturally u would say i am lying rather than point out there are many different opinions as to the similarity. Havent seen 30% mentioned anywhere.
I bet u believe we are 98% similar to chimps?
of course those figures vary as low as 85% but ...dam it we just must be similar to chimps.
arsjth 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
"is proof that hundreds of millions of years ago, we share a common ancestory with single celled organisms."
no its not. Similar design explains similarities adequately. Basic building blocks of life containing similar material with different switches for turning on & off genes to create different creatures is hardly proof that all those switches & dna came from no dna.
Can something come from nothing & life come from no life?
only if u r an evolutionist.
arsjth 1 year ago
@Jonny
"Creationism cant be proved, evolution can, end of."
Intelligent design has been proved by Venter & his team.With intelligence u can create.He has only synthesized life not created from scratch but it still proves that intelligence is required.
Common ancestry can only ever b inferred becos it always happened elsewhere & cannot b observed or reproduced.
Intelligent design = the stronger science.
y did evolution not result in myriads of different types of life starting at different times.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth Creation can't can't be proved? Look out your window dunce boy and see the evidence. You're claim that all you see in creation is evolving. Has nothing proving it. Don't be comparing Creation and evolution. Compare Creation and Abiogenesis. OK moron? BIG FAIL no proof at all and complete admission by evolutionists that there is no such thing. It failed right along with all the other Frankenstein Experiments. WE know that we don't know how God did it. You refuse to admit you don't know.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN "you have provided my with no factual alternative" HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HOO HOO HOO HEE HEE HEEEeeee! So what you're telling us is that we should accept the snake oil because there is no alternative? HAR HAR HAR great logic. OH I forgot. Atheists don't believe in logic. Sorry.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN 1000s of scientists? HAR HAR HAR HAR you moron. No all you have is a consensus of the "scientific" community who excludes any scientist who doesn't agree and labels him as a creationist. Besides consensus is not evidence of anything accept more peer pressure. BIG FAIL MORON
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN STOP!!! Don't even be talking about DNA as if you are some kind of an expert. You've already proven yourself to be a complete idiot. BTW "common ancestor" is merely a weak excuse with NO proof whatsoever. The fossil record destroys "common ancestor." They just made it up as an explanation as to why they can't find any transitionals. Birds evolving from dinos has be disproven so the first thing they did was yell "common ancestor." HAR HAR HAR HAR
BIG HOAX
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius Lol I said I wasnt going to reply to these idiotic creationists, but since you are so stupid, I'll make an exception. Get this into your tiny, tiny mind. Evolution is a FACT. If it wasn't a solid scientific theory, you would have thought there would be thousands of scientists with logical counterexamples. But there is not. EVERY SINGLE credible scientific institution on the planet verifies that evolution is correct. K thx bye
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN For you to say it's a fact proves you to have NO credibility. They don't verify it because they can't. There is NO proof and the fossil record proves that. YOU and they are simply liars and that is easy to prove.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius LOL you are so funny. You take for granted EVERYTHING that science has given us like the motor engine, the theories of thermodynamics. You don't question them because of the overwhelming proof for them. There is so much proff for evolution its unbelievable you can still support creationism. Oh and heres one for you, what happens if youre not a christian, say, youre a buddhist. They dont believe in God, so why should they believe in creationism as its based on a christian god?
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
No that would be engineering, science is about discovering the world that is, engineering is about creating the things that never were.
The first primitive computer was produced by charles babbage a christian, if max is not able to critizise a scientific theory, you would do well to realise science is a process not an ideology but if you think he cannot doubt a theory and should just uncritically accept it like you do, cont:
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
Then you best not use products created by religious folk or benefit from scientific discoveries that were made by religious folk, you can start by not using a computer seeing as charles babbage was a christian.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Lol you funny. Babbage was a christian, so? That's like saying, adolf hitler was a catholic (he was raised as a catholic btw). Its's a terrible analogy. Babbage didnt invent the computer because of his faith, he invented it by using mechanical engineering along with basic calculus etc. Logical, scientific ideas :)
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
Jonny
The wright brothers were laughed and scoffed at by the scientific community, they did not wait for peer reviewed papers on aerodynamics before they got flight up and running.
You do not know the difference between engineering and science, don't worry, it is the kind of a problem a sophomore would make, about the level of your thinking.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Right, right. So they used their faith did they? Coz you said that babage was a chistian and thats why he invented the computer... I don;t really understand what you are arguing for in all honesty. I have nothing against normal christians. Yes many people who invented good inventions were christians, why does that matter? The only thing that I feel is stupid, is those believing in creationism.
redgrayz 1 year ago
@redgrayz
"The only thing that I feel is stupid, is those believing in creationism."
that would just be your ignorance and lack of willingness to understand the arguments made. Also your willingness to accept as gospel the arguments made against it.
Science is inexact in historical areas?
do you accept plate tectonics?
it was only recent...up until discovered it was not accepted.
Neanderthals were thought to be sub human prehistoric cavemen...but they arent.
Try to relax & learn not judge!
arsjth 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
putting lol like a girly man is not going to save you, it just makes you look wimpy.
Who said charles babbage created something because of his faith? attacking strawmen only makes you look bad along with your girly abbreviation.
You do not even know the underlying pressupositions of science are there because of a theological worldview not because of atheism you have no grounding to even appeal to science none of them have grounding on the position of the atheist :)
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Also Lol isnt girlyish, its a shortened form of laugh out loud, e.g. your comments are hilarious.... And science is not religion, science deals with real, physical facts, so religion cannot play a role in the theories of science.
redgrayz 1 year ago
@redgrayz
I know what lol means, the fact you find it ok shows me you are probably girly too.
I find you hilarious, you do not even know how the modern scientific method came into being and the theological assumptions that underpin it.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Um Science is based on facts. Theology is based on belief. lol can be used for anyone, you insulting me is funny because you obviously have an inferiorty compe about something. Small penis? Its alright, i dont know what youre going through :)
redgrayz 1 year ago
@redgrayz
Science is based on underlying pressupositions and those pressupositions have no grounding on an atheistic worldview.
"obviously have an inferiorty compe about something"
Projection
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@redgrayz
Go ahead and provide an argument for why it is immoral for scientists to report there results dishonestly from the perespective of an atheist, provide an argument why it makes sense to presume the mind is rational from an unintended and non rational non intelligent process, explain why it makes sense to look for meaning in a meaningless universe, explain why on atheism you would expect to find an underlying order and a uniformity of nature, take your best shot.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Let's see now 1) You are assuming just because some scientists are atheists, they will have no morals. Don't 2) You are assuming that just because some scientists are religous that they would never report their results dishonestly because they believe in god. Don't. 3) Scientists don't look for meaning in the universe creation on a religous level, they ask "when" and "how", could the universe be created, not "why", thats a belief. lastly, I don't really understand
redgrayz 1 year ago
@redgrayz
1. where did I assume that because some scientists are atheists that they will have no morals?
2. Where did I assume that because some scientists are religious that they never would be dishonest?
3. where did I say they look for meaning on a religious level?
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 1)"why it is immoral on an atheistic worldview for scientists to report their results inaccurately". You are saying that just because they are atheists, they wont think its immoral. Please don't say you didnt read that lol. And the same for the second one too. 3)"explain why it makes sense to look for meaning in a meaningless universe". Meaning? Scientists dont ask the question "why?" was the universe created, they ask how and when and using what method...
redgrayz 1 year ago
@redgrayz
Either you are attacking strawmen or you are not understanding the questions I asked you, read them again or if you cannot justify them from the position of the atheist then be honest about it, I promise I am not going to tear you down for not being able to justify them from the position of an atheist
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Why you are having these random arguements with me and jonnypxn... I saw this video, knew it was BS, said so and left. Why are you talking about scientists and vester interests and that? Evolution is what this video is trying to dissprove. it can't. I can't. You can't. No scientist has ever given evidence that stacks up. Scientists cant disprove it. Therefore it is a scientific theory.
redgrayz 1 year ago
@redgrayz
Its not random, it is in response to jonnys post to max about science.
The fact that you responded when I posted to him and are defending him here, are you his sock? If you are then be honest with me now, if you are not then do not worry.
Where have I argued about scientists and vested interests here?
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 It's simple really. You are ranting on and on about why "t is immoral on an atheistic worldview for scientists to report their results inaccurately, show how any of these things which are essentail to science have any grounding from the position of the atheist." blah blah. I don't care. why are you asking me or him? I said creationism was bull, i dont care if you want to rant on about something unrelated.
redgrayz 1 year ago
@redgrayz
Where does this video mention creationism?
you are easily upset it seems. Weak arguments always lead to abusive language.
Sure you want to run & hide.
get your head out of your evolutionary promoting text book, do some thinking for yourself.
Point to the examples in nature you see where anything is in transition?
If this process has been happening for 4 billion years you would think it would be the most obvious principle in life.
Unfortunately things stay the same.fossils prove it
arsjth 1 year ago
@redgrayz
How can you disprove a theory that keeps changing to fit the facts, now of course theories can evolve but when a theory is so plastic and maleable and can incorporate any finding into it then it becomes impossible to disprove, and as we have a lot of untestable, unrepeatable and unobservable just so stories then it becomes very hard to disprove, in fact t It is not even a theory of evolution, there are just loads of different evolutionary just so stories flying around.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@redgrayz
Now the fact you could not justify the pressupositions of science from the position of the atheist is ok, I am not going to beat you up because you didn't meet the challenge
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 what?! You must be joking! I never took on your "challenge", your "facts" were rubbish. Science is not religion. Science is based on tangible facts, therefore it has to take a world view, an atheist one. What dont you understand about that?
redgrayz 1 year ago
@redgrayz
"your "facts" were rubbish. "
Really, so you do not understand the pressupositions of science, that shows you know very little about science.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 No lol. You were making statements, I proved them to be false. You picked me up on that. I replied. You did not. I wonder why?
redgrayz 1 year ago
@redgrayz
"Science is not religion"
No but scientism is treating science like a religion.
"Science is based on tangible facts"
Science is a process that is undertaken by pressuposing certain things that have no grounding from the position of an atheist, I won't ask you what you understand about that, you are displaying your ignorance for all to see and that is why you had to attack strawmen instead of answer my questions because your position is unjustificable.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 You are actually hilarious. I'm almost rofl here. Science does not "presuppose" anything. It finds the facts, then thinks "hmm what conclusion can i get from those facts?" religion has the conclusions (it thinks) and then tries to find "Facts" to justify it. wrong way round you see? and stop talking to me about ignorance, I obviously no more than you do, in fact next week I have my A2 level physics exams, so im pretty sure I know about the scientific method etc. Stop embaressing
redgrayz 1 year ago
@redgrayz
"You are actually hilarious"
projection
Sorry but science does pressupose many things that have to be pressuposed because scientists can even coduct scientific enquiry.
"I obviously no more than you do"
calling for yourself show a lot of insecurity, you need self validation that shows me that you are not secure in your arguments.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1
*conduct scientific enquiry
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1
*have to be pressuposed before scientists can even conduct scientific enquiry.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@redgrayz
"Stop embaressing"
Read that back to yourself it does not make any sense.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 yourself and get on with your sad little life. I know you will keep on talking to me about atheism and science, but you are so close minded you won't admit that SCIENCE IS NOT RELIGION. science is not based on religion or directed by it. What dont you understand about that? youre obviously going to reply bs to me literally 1 min after i post this (do you have nothing better to do?) so im going to stop talking as i know science and myself are above people like you k thx bye :)
redgrayz 1 year ago
@redgrayz
"yourself and get on with your sad little life"
More projection
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@redgrayz
"but you are so close minded you won't admit that SCIENCE IS NOT RELIGION"
I never said science is a religion, I said treating science like a religion would be scientism that is not the same thing as saying science is a religion.
"youre obviously going to reply bs to me literally 1 min after i post this (do you have nothing better to do"
Oh the irony.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@redgrayz
"so im going to stop talking as i know science and myself are above people like you k thx bye :) "
and yet you are ignorant of the underlying assumptions of science that have no grounding from the position of an atheist.
bye bye :)
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@redgrayz
You are actually hilarious"
projection
Sorry but science does pressupose many things that have to be pressuposed before scientists can even conduct scientific enquiry.
"I obviously no more than you do"
calling for yourself show a lot of insecurity, you need self validation that shows me that you are not secure in your arguments.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@redgrayz
"i saw this video, knew it was BS & said so'
really?
what exactly in this video is BS?
The video is not trying to disprove evolution but questioning some of the beliefs that evolutionists have entirely on faith.
If evolutionists question that which you claim is a proven fact then how is it that its proven?
arsjth 1 year ago
@redgrayz
"Science is based on facts. heology is based on belief"
whats th relevance of this2 a discussion on science anyway?Theology has many facts both physical& historically documented.
does science hav some historical documents detailing th change of a mesonychid2 a whale?
or dinosaurs2 birds?
seriously u dont hav anything in this field yet u say theology is based on faith.
the real faith is that these fossils all came from the 1 ancestor when physical facts suggest stasis overwhelmingly
arsjth 1 year ago
@redgrayz
Many men of god who brought the modern scientific method into being did so because they believed that god had endowed them with a rational mind that was logical and could discover the underlying laws in the universe that the universe is meaningful and understandable, that there is an order and uniformity of nature, that they should report their results honestly(morality) None of these underlying pressupositions have any grounding for an atheist, cont:
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@redgrayz
You clearly no jack about the early men of modern science and how their theistic worldview influenced the scientific process, so it is best for you to defend the lame lol, because that is the best a clown like you is good for.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Not really. Jonnypxn asked you what you were actually arguing for. You didnt say anyhing, instead saying he was girly for using the world lol. I mean come on, wtf is that about? its an abbreviation of "laughing out loud" how can it be girly. Ill ask the same question. What are you actually arguing about? I understand that people can be of any religion and make scientific discoveries... that is not in question, christians, muslims anyone, so i dont understand why ur arguing.
redgrayz 1 year ago
@redgrayz
Also explain why it is immoral on an atheistic worldview for scientists to report their results inaccurately, show how any of these things which are essentail to science have any grounding from the position of the atheist.
I won't mock or ridicule you, if you are polite to me then i will be polite to you, if you cannot justify any of these things of science from the position of atheism then I promise that if you act respectuflly then I will not tear you down, cont:
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@redgrayz
cont:
if you cannot meet this challenge.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@redgrayz YES moron "lol" is for girls and faggots. Men don't say "lol" so don't be defending your sissy behavior.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@redgrayz
"science deals with real, physical facts"
this is quite amusing.
could you explain to me the real physical facts of the 'multiverse theory'?
you havent even thought out the bias of what you say?
when u have finished could u explain the physical fact of the evolution of wings. There should be some really great physical facts to show us all.
arsjth 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
"You take for granted EVERYTHING that science has given us like the motor engine, the theories of thermodynamics."
as always u make logical fallacies. Science has created many wonderful things for us & many awful things too.
How is that relevant to challenging the assumptions behind the philosophy of evolution?
Evolution is a world view with little supporting evidence but loads of inference & acceptance by default.
If u eliminate the alternatives what else is there as a theory?
arsjth 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
"They dont believe in God, so why should they believe in creationism as its based on a christian god?"
jonny your ignorance shouldnt be boasted about. The jewish God is the same as the muslim God & the christian God. However Christ is the revelation of God to man.
Buddhists dont have a God as such....but you miss the entire point.
Creation or intelligent design is about the intelligence that appears in the design of life & not about whether the bible is true or not.
arsjth 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN BTW you're still going on consensus (i.e., ad populum). FAIL consensus is not scientific evidence. If you actually KNEW anything about science you'd know it has not been proven. You're dunce and science doesn't matter as long as your stupid world view isn't disturbed.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN BTW you're still going on consensus (i.e., ad populum). FAIL consensus is not scientific evidence. If you actually KNEW anything about science you'd know it has not been proven. You're dunce and science doesn't matter as long as your stupid world view isn't disturbed.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
Also you "FAIL", because you obviously know jack shit. Yes the massive majority of scientists believe in evolution. in the 14th century the majority believed in the earth as flat, but they had no evidence to back up their claim. Evolution has Fossil record, dna, anatomical differences etc. You are obviously going to keep on spoutin shit, so im going to do the mature thing and walk away. Departing thought- so you think you know better than all those scientists? See how stupid that sounds :)
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
Still waiting.....
in the 14th century the majority believed in a flat earth but they had no evidence to back up their claim."
jonny you have been exposed here as less than honest. u r repeating old wives tales probably invented by evolutionists to discredit their opponents.
now please reference me this statement by a credible historian or retract it with an apology.
arsjth 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN Yeah, I know better than those scientists. They are a bunch of liars. They deny design which any moron can see. It's intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. Only atheists can't see it. Strange how "science" bends to the will of atheism. Any YES do the mature thing and just shut up. All you spout is ignorance. You don't even have a high school diploma and here you are telling the world that you know everything. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius
"They deny design which any moron can see."
Dawkins acknowledges the design and calls it 'the appearance of design' but denies that it is design.
yet when we see the appearance of evolution he knows for a fact that its because it evolved.
this is evidence of a blind dogma that doesnt allow for scientific observation anymore.
Creation and ID all allow and need natural selection for their models.
Apparently evolution just cant allow for intelligence....
arsjth 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius -->Funny, even the Disco Institute (do the hustle) admits that ID is a fraud intended to bypass the 1st amendment and get fundamentalist apologetics religion into schools and the legal system where ever possible---to bad the courts are on to them...they are as much a fraud as you are.
jackalmate 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JackOffMate har har har you fucking dunce. Have you been out dancing naked around the campfire again? HAR HAR HAR You idiot. You have already been exposed, but if you're wanting to give us some more laughter feel free.
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius Also you "FAIL", because you obviously know nothing. Yes the huge majority of scientists believe in evolution. in the 14th century the majority believed in a flat earth but they had no evidence to back up their claim. Evolution has fossil recrddna, anatomical differences etc. You are obviously going to keep on spoutin shit, so im going to do the mature thing and walk away. Departing thought- so you think you know better than all those scientists? See how stupid that sounds :)
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
"in the 14th century the majority believed in a flat earth but they had no evidence to back up their claim."
jonny you have been exposed here as less than honest. u r repeating old wives tales probably invented by evolutionists to discredit their opponents.
now please reference me this statement by a credible historian or retract it with an apology.
your abusive tone reveals the weakness of you arguments and u have resorted to elephant hurling instead of specifics.
arsjth 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius
Do you see that from jonny, not only does he not know the difference between engineering and science but he appeals to authority and the majority, i wouldnt be suprised if he is a sophomore when he commits such blatant fallacies.
WildCatsKitten1 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
" If it wasn't a solid scientific theory, you would have thought there would be thousands of scientists with logical counterexamples."
jonny Geocentricity was a solid scientific theory. It was endorsed by 99.98% of scientists. The guys who tried to disprove it actually provided flawed evidence...despite them actually being right.
Lyn Margulis has pronounced neo-Darwinism "dead", since there's no adequate evidence in the literature that random mutations result in new species.
arsjth 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
"EVERY SINGLE credible scientific institution on the planet verifies that evolution is correct."
of course the usual disclaimer applies....."this time we are right".
this is to help explain all the previous scientific consensus theories that were thrown out ie geocentricity.
Geneticist John Mattick, although an evolutionist, said:
‘ … the failure to recognise the implications of the non-coding DNA will go down as the biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology.’
arsjth 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius
i dont know which side your on. i assume creation or ID. but on this thread i would prefer that you didnt become verbally abusive of people who disagree with you.
Leave that to the domain of atheists & angry evolutionists for whom it is their normal way of communicating.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth You can't figure out what side I am on? Did you read my whole post or did you kneejerk like the evolutionaries?
MaximusArurealius 1 year ago
@MaximusArurealius
number 1 i read your whole post.
number 2 i dont want to assume anything
number 3 your attitude is not reflecting christ.
u dont have to be a christian to be against the illogical theory of evolution.
however if u r not christian please state it & swear away.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth The fact is when i mention stuff like DNA proves we are related to chimpanzees etc, transtitional fossils, anatomical similiarities, radio carbon dating etc etc you have no come back. These methods have been studied THOUSANDS OF times and if they were to be proven false, they would have been known by now. Your hero, such as "hovind", is in jail right now for fraud and doesnt even have a scientific degree, heck its from an unaccredited university!
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
@JonnyPxN
"The fact is when i mention stuff like DNA proves we are related to chimpanzees"
similarity of dna doesnt prove we are related. If u dismiss any intelligence or design then u might argue that. But a designer would be expected to us a common design.
lets face it if you create one earth that supports life....there would be a lot of similarities required across creatures to survive wouldnt there?
It would make no sense to have 1000 diff life forms or structures to fit 1 environment.
arsjth 1 year ago