David Attenborough's Life Stories. Faking Fossils

[Samael994]

Well according to your definition, evolution is a scientific fact. Would you like links to the experiments and studies where evolution has been directly observed?

And once again I will point out, you still aren't producing evidence, you're just making claims.

Who cares what Darwin would doubt. Evolution is accepted due to vast amounts of evidence and over a century of rigorous scientific study, not because Darwin said it. That kind of argument from authority only really works on the religious.

[jiminiflix]

Evolution is the foundational belief of humanism, that man IS his god and does not need to believe in a creator. SCIENCE is the rule setter yet God wants us to trust His word over everything. Science is important ofcourse and it strongly backs intelligent life and creation according to Genesis. Many of the world biologists argree life need life to exist which backs creation , not billions of years of slow evolution. Based on todays evidence Darwin would doubt evolution as well.

[Samael994]

@jiminiflix

Humanism: An ethical system that centres on and their values. Originating in ancient Greek philosophy but developed in its modern form in the 16th century.

Evolution via Natural Selection: A scientific theory concerning the diversity of species proposed in the 19th century, and now accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community.

How then can evolution be a foundational belief in humanism, when humanism came many hundreds of years before the theory was proposed?

[jiminiflix]

@Samael994 I meant "A" foundational belief (sorry) but ofcourse the text book definition is never forward in saying how humanism and evolution inter-marry. Humanism for many is a mindset, a belief that all man needs is man (ie: man is without need of theism ) and inherently good. It can be interpreted as man earning his right as worthy of affirmation and 'praise' - for his/ her goodness to others etc.Tied with evolution , man is now justified in their mind to not NEED God- life is but chance.

[Samael994]

@jiminiflix

Whether you meant "A" or "The" is irrelevant. Evolution is not a foundational of humanism. Humanism existed for many hundreds of years before evolution was proposed, and it has not been influenced by the scientific theory one iota. Evolution explains why we have different species, nothing more and nothing less. It makes no claims to morality, philosophy, theology, ethics or anything like that. The fact that you think it does, once again demonstrates your lack of knowledge.

[jiminiflix]

@Samael994 well you are wrong and absolutely wrong.

[Samael994]

@jiminiflix

Wow, such a compelling argument.

[jiminiflix]

@Samael994 Humanism is much older , you are right. As man has progressed , so has science right? High societies are mainly humanist. Humanism ties in beautifully with capitalism. For the rich who wanted more control, science has had much investment from the rich if they can use it in their favor. Evolution turned the tide on Christian teaching, lies were made up in the science arena to PROVE it true. IF evolution is proven true, the BIBLE and so the credability of Gods Word is laughed at.

[Samael994]

@jiminiflix

The Bible is laughed at regardless of the veracity of evolution. One does not need to be well versed in biology to find flat earths, zombies, men living inside fish, global floods, talking snakes and cud chewing rabbits absurd. That only takes common sense.

[jiminiflix]

@Samael994 The Bible is Gods Word and the most scrutinized set of books in history. Your oppinion of it shows you don't read. Disprove it- 1st Geographically- allplaces exist. 25000 biblical sites unearthed . incl sodom and gomorah covered in sulphur and brimstone as .the Bible says. 2.Historically-the history of nations prove true 3.Chronologically4.Accuracy of text (original still in existance)5.Prophetically- the accuracy of prophecy beyond any other prophecies.(daniel,Revelation) fullfilled.

[Samael994]

You are either lying or stupid, and potentially both.

1. Neither Sodom or Gomorrah have been found nor is there even an academic consensus about whether or not they even existed. Its a moot point anyway. Their existence only proves the Bible is true if the existence of New York proves Spiderman is true.

2. & 3. The Bible's historical account and chronology differs wildly with other accounts of the period.

4. We do not have the original Bible, nor is it likely there ever was a single 'original'.

[Samael994]

5. Name one prophecy that meets these criteria:

- It must actually be a prophecy. Not a documentation of events that is misinterpreted as a prophecy after a similar event occurs later.

- It must be written before the events that it predicts.

- The predicted events must actually occur.

- The prediction must be both falsifiable and verifiable.

- It must not be overly vague.

- It must not predict a likely event.

- It must not be self-fulfilling.

[jiminiflix]

@Samael994 To this day the evidence for evolution is mainly heresay. Infact for evolutionists the progression of science and technology has only resulted in more unanswered questions. Such as our increased knowledge of the cosmos- it doesn't line up with any bang theory at all. Though thats not Darwins evolution ,abio-genesis theories are unproven. The origins of man are explained as fact, yet these theories have changed. I hope we all question this "science" with a good deal of scepticism.

[Samael994]

@jiminiflix

I've already pointed out that the evidence for evolution is vast, it is not hearsay in any way shape or form. The fact that you do not understand it, or dismiss it because it contradicts your bronze age mythology is no concern of mine.

[jiminiflix]

The dates you profess are unfounded David. You teach a belief system not science.

Your videos state an idea ,but you show no evidence. You stae thins like, " creatures soon advanced to fly " showing reptiles turning to bird and from birds comin mammals.... I watch and laugh. You captivate the people , but you've fooled only the dumb, not me.

[Samael994]

@jiminiflix

You are either trolling or a supremely ignorant creationist. Either way you should grow up.

[jiminiflix]

@Samael994 Its not ignorance to expect actual scientific evidence. Don't you understand, he is a great story teller. Media love him because he captivates us all with his accent and his great story tellin ability. ACTUAL science does not back his stories. Evolution is a dieing beief sytem. ACTUAL science does not back it anymore because our knowledge IS increasing. To say animals came from other animals is unfounded and biologically impossible.

[Samael994]

@jiminiflix

But it is ignorance to purposefully ignore scientific evidence which, if you are candid in your previous statement, you must be doing.

If evolution is a "dieing beief sytem" [sic], then why is is accepted by the majority of scientists, particularly those with expertise in biology?

[jiminiflix]

@Samael994  Evolution is all they have because there is no other option in their eyes. Either God made everything as the Bible says or it all evolved from nothing for no purpose whatsoever. One was created with intelligence , the other by none. Science does not prove evolution at all. The 'evidence' is no doubt based on a lot of study and archeaology but there is no true proof that evolution occurs. The fossils themselves are NOT evidence anyway as we cannot prove their ofspring survived.

[Samael994]

@jiminiflix

Or Mbombo created the world when he vomited out the sun, moon and stars. Or Gaia gave birth to the sky and time and the stars. Or the sons of Burr lifted the Earth out of the sea. Or Pangu separating the primordial chaos into heaven and earth. Or Xenu seeded the Earth with life.

There are thousands of creation myths, all of which enjoy just as much evidence as yours, i.e. none. So it is not "Either God made everything as the Bible says or it all evolved" as you suggest.

[Samael994]

@jiminiflix

The fact that you think that the sum total of evolutionary evidence is found in fossils and archeology (which has nothing to do with biology), demonstrates very clearly your ignorance of the subject. Evolution can be demonstrated by comparative anatomy, DNA, geographical distribution, as well as just paleontology. Evolution via natural selection has also been directly observed, both in controlled laboratory conditions and in the field. You'd know this if you read more than one book.

[jiminiflix]

@Samael994 Well lets discuss biology, do you believe biology in any way has proven life evolves in ways evolutionists believe? Do birds look similar to reptiles? Do they have comparative anatomy? Can a cold blooded creature with scales, different respiriatory system, different bones comes from the bird family? Do you really believe that? We are told not to believe myths ( which you denounce God as) yet this is not science (as defined by scientific method) but mythological and unprovable heresay.

[Samael994]

@jiminiflix

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Yes

4. Wrong way round. Birds evolved from reptiles, not reptiles from birds.

5. Its supported by all available objective and verifiable evidence, and contradicted by none. So yes I accept it as the best explanation we have.

And unless you can provide objective and verifiable evidence to contradict it, you'd be a fool not to accept it too.

[jiminiflix]

@Samael994 Birds have hollow bones, a different respiratory system, they are warm blooded they don't have scales- they migrate, they fly, they have feathers....they have nothing in common with reptiles. I can't believe how we are so easily decieved to believe this is science at all. There is no evidence for evolution. The time periods are made up and unfounded. Beliefs of evolutionists are outdated and proven to be imaginary. To say eyes evolved from calcite is ludacrous, unfounded lies.

[Samael994]

1. Hollow bones can also be found in mammals and reptiles including crocodilians and dinosaurs.

2. Recent studies have shown evidence of very bird like respiratory systems in some predatory dinosaurs.

3. Dinosaurs may have been warm blooded, particularly ones that lived near the poles.

4. Birds do have scales.

5. Many species of reptile migrate.

6. Many birds do not fly, some reptiles do/have.

7. Fossil evidence shows reptiles with feathers

So actually, birds have lots in common with reptiles.

[Samael994]

@jiminiflix

Your post is a massive argument from ignorance. You might as well be saying that the fact you can't understand how 170,00 kg of metal can fly, proves there is no such thing as a Boeing 747.

You keep claiming there is no evidence for evolution and that the theory has been proved wrong. Well stop claiming and start demonstrating. Name the scientific, peer reviewed study where evolution was proven to be false.

[jiminiflix]

@Samael994 I only accept changes in animals within their kind or species. There is evidence of that everywhere but to believe all life came from abiogenesis lifeforms is ludacrous and a science for the mentally deranged. I will question as that is what we should all do. To swallow this as factual is for fools.

[Samael994]

@jiminiflix

Evolution and abiogenesis are ludicrous? This coming from an proponent of creationism.....

[jiminiflix]

@Samael994 " Evolution via natural selection has also been directly observed" Observed to happen or observed as a 'type' of evolution? I read, and I will say it again, there is no true proof that evolution occurs. There is no majority of scientists that actually believe science proves evolution, only many scientists that lean towards it becuase of bias or "peer review pressure". Science if that is what you debate as the MOST important issue, does not PROVE the other theory..evolution, as FACT.

[Samael994]

@jiminiflix

'Observed' as in it has literally been seen with the human eye, and recorded and studied accordingly, both in the laboratory and in the field.

You keep claiming that the majority of scientists do not accept evolution, and that it has been proven false. I have yet to see any evidence of your asinine claims. Provide some, or stop wasting my time.

[jiminiflix]

@Samael994 Comparitive anatomy..Evolutionists notice that if things are similar, it is evidence of evolution. It shows they have a common origin. But, if things are different, it is evidence of evolution. It shows that they have changed over time. Since similarity is evidence of evolution, and difference is evidence of evolution, everything is evidence of evolution! Howcome evolutionists excuse the lack of evolution to creatures being ideally suited to the environment?

[Samael994]

@jiminiflix

"Evolutionists notice that if things are similar, it is evidence of evolution."

No they don't, for example dolphin fins look very similar to shark fins but the two species are not closely related.

"if things are different, it is evidence of evolution. It shows that they have changed over time"

Only if you can demonstrate intermediate stages between those 'things', i.e. what are often dubbed transitional forms, of which thousands have been discovered.

[Samael994]

@jiminiflix

Also, stop using the term evolutionist. Its a dead give away that you know nothing about science and get all your information from creationist propaganda sources. I am no more (nor less) an evolutionist than I am a 'frictionalist' or 'gravitationalist'.

The same goes for the phrase Darwinist (a misnomer you have thankfully thus far avoided), which is about as accurate as labeling someone an 'Newtonist' or a 'Einsteinist'.

[jiminiflix]

@Samael994 Well I will just you all a bunch of clowns then. If science is for the people, not an elite class of old gnostics, then I will call them what most people call them. If you talk of evolution , then lets be simple and call them an evolutionist. As I believe in creation, you can do as you hypocritically have done, call me a creationist. Evolution by the way is not like friction or gravity. Darwinian evolution is not a scientific fact.

[Samael994]

@jiminiflix

Science is neither 'for the people' nor for 'an elite'. It is a tool that can be used by anyone willing to learn, understand, be open minded and think rationally. It is, therefore,not for you.

It is not hypocritical to call you a creationist when I myself object to the misnomer 'evolutionist', as the former is a faith based position whereas the latter is an evidence based one. They are thus not remotely comparable or of equal merit.

[Samael994]

@jiminiflix

I'm still hearing wild claims of the fictitiousness nature of evolution without any evidence to back them up. I know objective and verifiable evidence doesn't mean much to the religious community but to us rationalists it certainly does. So unless you can provide some evidence for your asinine assertions, theres no real point in us conversing further.

[jiminiflix]

@Samael994 Well do you know what scientific method is? To varify anything scientifically it must be testable, reproducable and objectively observable either in a laboratory or some form of testing environment and then scrutinised and able to be done over and over. There is no observable evidence and observable testing of evolution in relation to trans speciation of any creature, in fossil (that prove nothing anyway) or alive (which should be consistantly seen). Darwin himself would doubt.

[altosax1st]

I love to listen to Attenborough speak about such matters.

[ste309w]

thats actually a pretty funny story. He may have been duped in a moment of weakness but he realised it quickly with rational thinking.

I'd still like to see that fossil, I'd show it off if I had one.