2 Peter 3:5, 6 "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."
and he is messing up with the logic of science... and he mocks that logic... and by doing so, he makes the science discovery and logic look ridiculous...
but if you try to look at it very closely, the things that he is mocking are actually the one he fabricated...
I think this is really really bad and dangerous person!
It is so refreshing to see a scientifst who actually takes a look at the fossil record and follows the scientific evidence wherever it may lead. No biases based on the religion of God and no biases based on the religion of Evolution. Just the facts, please : ) simple honesty, ..dealing with the realities of what we can know, and what we cannot know, .. and having the guts to follow this evidence to the truth .. whatever that may be .. even if it is *gasp* an uncomfortable truth to swallow
People who BELIVE in a THEORY, are FAR more fanatical than those who look around them, and believe that there MAT be something more than that which is obvious.
and those who's INSTINCT tells them there MAY be somehting amazing behind the scenes, are FAR more intelligent than those who accept the words of a THEORY !
I can make a THEORY, saying that day is night, and night is day - and YOU cant prove it wrong !
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome You're an idiot. Look up the definition of a scientific theory, you fool. There's also a theory of gravity you freaking unevolved monkey. Go preach on about how there's no gravity now since it's "just a theory". Yeah instinct is much better than 150 years of education and scientific knowledge from tens of thousands of highly educated people.
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Ah yes, the ol' "I'll ignore all of his points since I have no rebuttal and just imply that he's dumb even though I am" routine. Yeah, that seems to be working out great for you.
Out science doubled the average human lifespan in the last 100 years you tool. That's a pretty nice achievement, wouldn't you say? But yes, let's ignore proven facts and assume things just happen magically in the world even though over tens of thousands of years there has been 0 proof of that.
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Oh I get it, so you chose the ol' "I'll use logic to attack someone else but then throw logic out the window when it comes to defending my claims" trick. Alright. Charles Darwin was by no means 100% right, no one ever was. He was dead on about evolution though. People added to it but all in all, every living thing evolves, everyone knows that, including most Christians. That has nothing to do with god though. Not having any proof of god means there most likely isn't one.
No, no, you are getting mixed up - NATURAL SELECTION says that abig lion will always make more big lions, because to fight (as lions need to), ther bigger you are, the beter.
But SMALL mice would survive better, because they can hide in little spaces - big mice can't, so they get caught and eaten. No one has a problem with that.
But EVOLUTION, as they call it, means one animal turning into another, and that doesnt happen - EVER !
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome The proof of any god starts with proof. There is none for any god of any religion that exists or ever has existed. Get a hint. Also, evolution does not claim an animal will turn into another. Only idiot creationists think that because they've never spent a minute actually looking up the definition of evolution or any information related to it.
If an animal magically turns into another, you'll not only disprove evolution but also have something to back up your god claim.
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Your problem, as with all Creationists, is lack of education. You don't know what you're talking about, you're not willing to learn about it in order to make an informed argument and yet you still go around claiming that evolution means one animal turning into another. You don't know what you're talking about, that's why people with common sense or basic knowledge of the world around them laugh at you. Religion claims that animals and humans magically appear out of notihng.
No, no - i went to school, just like you. I always ebleived what tehy said, but now i see that they MIGHT be wrong.
Just MIGHT be.
but they are SO aggressive about NOT EXPLORING creation, that it leaves me wondering if they KOW they are lying. They certainly show a lot of the signs of intentional deceivers, by refusing to discuss the issues openly.
It could be aliens, or god or anything, for all i know - but Darwins 200 yr old THEORY, is under STRAIN !
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome No it isn't. There is absolutely no debate in any scientific community anywhere in the world about evolution. That's what you don't understand. The debate is between uneducated Creationists who want to push Creationism as science instead of religion and rational people. They use names like "Discovery Institute" and push religion. The Discovery Institute btw has never discovered anything or done any scientific research. They're just charlatans. Belive what's real, not bs.
And, if you are confronted with ANY evidence (like in this vid), you just go MAD, and insist that NO TRUE scientist would even consider REASON, over such an issue.
You FORGET all scientific method, but ONLY where creation/evolution is concerned !
I am REALLY pushed TOWARDS religion, by your FANATICAL stance against it.
But perhaps you are right - perhaps YOUR mother is a monkey !
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome I'm sure the fact that you're angry and constantly using caps shows that I'm "fanatical" and "mad"...Maybe in some up-side-down world, but not in this one. You've made 0 points so far, you have no argument or rebuttal for anything I've said and you automatically called me a homo or some kind of pervert because deep down you're a closet hoom yourself and you're simply ashamed of going to "hell" for it. Just come out, I really don't care who you fuck, it doesn't affect me.
Yes, you are using the BASIC stupid athiest method of argument, arent you ?
STATE and STATE and STATE, that the other person knows nothing, has no valid points, is dillusional, uneducated and false - Then you use your own accusations as PROOF, that what you said is true, and the other person is indeed, completely wrong !
Well, as long as YOU are the deciding power in the universe, and everything is done YOUR way, then that works fine.
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Ignored. It was a pleasure intelectually pwning you and embarassing you in public like this. Have a nice close-minded, education hating life.
people have to realize and just leave people who beleive in evolution alone. it is a theory, it isnt pratical. theories changes thats science, it it couldnt of happen that way, science would just find another way "theory" to back they findings. they dont say where life originated from, they say according to certain evidence this is what must of happened, its a theory. so people stop tripping over evolution, let em be, they arent treatening your lives leave them be.
Even if he could disprove evolution, which would take a ''miracle''. It still doesn't lend one bit of credence to the silly belief system he ''decided'' to adopt.
@IndexFossil1 Darwin was a racist and a Eugenecist and based his evolution theory on his personal idea that a white man is more superior since he seems further from the monkey than other races...as in he "EVOLVED" and thus is better and smarter and all that crap. If you agree with this theory, you are a dupe. People of other races are no different from the rest. The fact that some do not (or do not want to) recieve the same values and education that others do doesn't make them closer to monkey .
@anonymousone2011 Breathtakingly misguided rambling. Where do you get your information?, perhaps you could site some sources. I think there aren't any, I think these are your own ,very wrong, delusional conclusions.Post your sources please, I'm sure everyone would like to be finally enlightened about Darwin, after being wrong about him all these years.If you can't, what makes you want to lie and slander another person?
@Texoki Evolution assumes in some chemistry unknown to science,Homochirality proves evolution can never happen..its a faith to believe in evolution .right and left handed amino acids are toxic to life when together !!!..for it to happen in a natural process..it would be a conundrum paradox.in some primordial mud or seawater that would take more blind faith than anyone that believes in God
''the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series.'' ONE IS ENOUGH TO SHOW IT HAPPENED. Actually there are 6 intermediate fossils between Ambulocetus and the modern whale. -Dalanistes -Rodhocetus -Takracetus -Gaviocetus -Dorudon -Basilosaurus -Modern whale And Darwin was wrong about gradual, he is 150 years out of date.
They can date sedimentry layers, ash layers are easily dated.
@4:55 ''Fossilization does not take place today as it did in the past. WHAT??
Did the laws of nature change?
Uniformitarianism states that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.
@Texoki a missing link does nothing to disprove evolution... not even remotely... by your method i could say that because the bible claims humans were created after the beasts on the 6th day yet somehow the beasts were also created for man's amusement (after the creation of man) that the bible is one large contradiction and holds no water, even though the rest of it is very ethical and morally good. actually that analogy is bad, evolution has no contradiction like the bible merely missing pages
@Texoki supernovas dont remain as rings for all eternity they eventually colapse in on themselves by way of a nebula... also not all supernovas make a ring some just collapse or hyperexpand... additionally please cyte something to back up you 30 yr reacurring supernova gap
But in some cases, they actually DO address your specific arguments.. Maybe not all the time, but you've made some arguments that I've heard from other creationists and I've heard debunked on youtube AND talkorigins..
But I'll give you some credit, your article has some fairly new arguments.. You're actually making me do research.. lolz..
But sorry, there's no part of evolution that claims that any species is "better", just better suited for it's environment.. They can have certain attributes like speed, strength, or intelligence that is better than any other species, but they still fall short in other aspects..
And even if it did promote racism, that wouldn't speak for it's validity..
@JesterAzazel You've been saying that you don't even have time to provide .01% of the evidence that evolution is fake, yet you've been here for 2 hours..
-
LOL..2 hours might be .0001% of the evidence. And that's not any sort of a lie :).
Galileo and Kepler are heroes of science to pretty much everyone who studies science seriously. Of course, no scientist is perfect no matter what viewpoint they're from.
@JesterAzazel I'm always willing to read more with time,but I've read/watched for 100s of hours at talk origins, the best atheists on youtube, Dawkins, Hitchens, Gould, Darwin&so many others. They spend the majority of their time building straw men or falsely representing arguments from teenagers or non-professionals as the best creationist arguments...talk origins is really bad at this, so many textbook straw men and their distortion of indisputable scientific facts and history is atrocious.
I can back up my facts.. Just message me and ask for it.. It will take a matter of minutes after I get the message..
Now think hard about what you want to say next, because I'm not going to fill out a captcha every time I send a message.. (youtube requires it after you post so many comments)
@JesterAzazel I can back up my facts.. Just message me and ask for it.. It will take a matter of minutes after I get the message..
-
With due respect for you as a person I think is sincere and more open minded than most, so far you haven't. There is not one reference at all in any of your PMs to me. You've only stated your opinions so far...that are in line with the establishment's thinking...if you really respect Darwin..then follow his example and question and challenge the establishment.
Darwin's theory promoting racism is a fact of history, but that doesn't deal with whether it has evidence or not. It just means we should demand the highest level of evidence before teaching it.
-
SOME of what you have learned is backed up by evidence, some is most certainly not. I've discovered that in quite a number of areas due to living in several different countries. Quite a few things I learned in American schools were just not true eg: printing press, democracy, ironclad ships&others.
Nothing in the theory of evolution states that we are any better than any other race of people.. In fact, most animals are better than us in some way..
Blaming evolution for racism is like blaming someone for being black..
Racism is based off people's ignorance.. If they want to try to use evolution to support their racism, then they'll first have to find the part of the theory that actually agrees with them..
@Texoki Eugenics plays off ages old horticulture and breeding practices, which by the way, are not concerned with the means by which species diversification comes about. If anything what evolutionary theory tells us is that greater diversity equals stronger genome. Eugenics represents the antithesis of increasing diversity.
@Texoki I'm not gonna repeat myself like you do. You've had my answer. You choose to stubbornly cling to your wish that evolution is an evil notion with no basis in reality. I'm pretty convinced there's not gonna be any budging you from your stance. That would take being willing and able to learn. I won't say you are not able but you have to be willing and it seems obvious you are not.
@Texoki of course I don't agree. Your proposition is ridiculous. You have not any capacity to think through anything in regards to this topic. It's not missing pieces from a jigsaw puzzle that proves the pieces you have do not belong to only one picture. It's when you have pieces that are the wrong color and don't fit anywhere that you can know you don't have a single right picture. So far we have no out of place pieces in evidence against evolution.
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ could not have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications my theory absolutely would break down.
@Texoki you are misusing that quote... it actually contradicts your point... a "missing link" between an organism and its evolutionary predicesor doesnt prove it couldn't have evolved from it... it just proves that foscilization didncapture that particular transition... also "missing links" is a very missleading term... Evolution takes place at an incredibly slow rate with millions of "missing links" (between us and apes for example) to transition through to the next more dominant species.
You've been making all these claims, saying that you don't even have time to provide .01% of the evidence that evolution is fake, yet you've been here for 2 hours..
Not to mention I've debunked the last bit of proof you sent me (Veith)
PROOF that you are dishonest..
You know, that usually means disqualification in a formal debate..
If you're so set on your beliefs, why do you have to lie?
@JesterAzazel There are NO lies on my side or Veith's and so far I have seen very few on your side if any compared to other atheists and evolutionists..I commend you for that. A lie is when you promote things that you KNOW are false. I NEVER do that..EVER&neither does Veith. I'm not set on my beliefs..I'm set on following the evidence where it leads..and none of the evidence from science points towards atheism. I'll get to your supposed debunking of Veith as soon as I can. But need to sleep.
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ could not have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications my theory absolutely would break down.
@JesterAzazel When you get done with creation, there's almost nothing left..
When you get done with evolution, you get small fixable holes.
-
This is absolute fiction. You may be sincere in this idea, but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality.
-
Stop reading slanderous books written by religious people.
-
To read only books on 1 side destroys any possibility of objectivity. I've digested MASSIVE info on BOTH sides. Most don't. Creationists are slandered more than almost ANYONE.
I see what's happening.. He gets into debates, and when he loses he claims that he has too much going on to respond or provide evidence..
He's used this excuse on me 3 or 4 times now.. And every single time I see him, he's having a lengthy debate with someone else while my messages go unanswered..
@JesterAzazel No, Jester...I have told people from the START that I have very little time OFTEN...I'm writing now at 3am...I REALLY need to stop completely ALL youtube debates for a while and finish my book on the topic and then just send that to them. I have not lost any debates so far in 20 years. No atheist has ever provided comparable evidence for abiogenesis or Darwin's hypothesis of evolution way past the family boundary, etc. comparable to what I have for creation science.
@JesterAzazel I am MONTHS behind on answering many people...this year has been one of the worst in that area and I answer the best I can as many as I can shortly. I would love to have more free time to do this..but no one pays me for this.
@JesterAzazel As a creationist to back up their claims, offer evidence, etc. and they'll disappear or start talking about "straw men" arguments as a quick way to evade logic and reasoning. You want to eliminate a creationist, just keep asking for evidence. :)
I finally got his evidence actually.. We're chatting via PM.. He sent me an article that he wrote that is over 30 pages.. I've debunked 5 pages but getting through all of it is going to take some time..
Some of his arguments were debunked on talkorigins but he says that they just provide different sources that aren't any more valid then his, even though they cite more numerous, unbias, and more credible sources.. (people that specialize in the particular field most of their lives)
@blaisingm ROFL. I have challenged atheists to provide evidence for 20 years and THEY are the ones who run away. I've never run away from any debate except due to real life priorities.
In ANY fair contest, creation science beats evolution and especially atheism hands down.
But, I'm sick of curing atheists again and again of the SAME delusions that they are brainwashed with that violate the scientific method and indisputably distort historical facts. I'm going to finish a book on this now.
Dawkins here says that there are only 6 Christian who have won Nobel prizes and much other absolute nonsense and fiction. This claim is outraegously false.
This is outrageously false. Google:
nobelistsgod and go to the first link.
There are countless examples like this.
Most people are ignorant of the evidence because evolutionists have banned learning evidence if it leads to a Creator. This is an explicit rejection of objective science.
@JesterAzazel Veith knows what he is teaching is true& is not wrong.
There is no moving of goal posts here. Evolutionists are the ones who are continually moving goal posts and reinventing evolution after it's been falsified in one form and another form. Google darwinspredictions to see ~20 ways evolution has been falsified.
There is ZERO assumption that evolution is wrong. Darwinism tries to steal all it's evidence from prior creation science and just extrapolate. That's NOT science.
Scientists don't move the goal post, they work on fixing their method of reaching the goal..
Of course science fixes it's theories.. That's kind of how it works.. Unlike creationists that still try to prove their stories that have been proven wrong..
If scientists weren't willing to admit their mistakes and fix their theories, you wouldn't have the internet..
@JesterAzazel I have so many hours at talk origins...from 10+ years ago...it's so dishonest about so many things. If I didn't have 3 jobs, I could debunk almost everything there with TESTABLE evidence in a few months at most.
-
Btw, don't confuse evolutionists with scientists. Evos are engaged in untestable, unobservable speculation. Scientists deal with what can be observed and tested. Most of creation science does too.
@JesterAzazel You have a utopian view of scientists that has very little to do with reality. Read Thomas Kuhn's masterpiece "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and many of the greatest scientists in history to learn that scientists are just as biased as anyone and often refuse to admit their mistakes. Some do, but many follow traditions until they die. Thus Kuhn, a prof at Harvard, Berkeley, MIT and Princeton and others have said that science progresses when the old scientists die.
If there are errors that don't affect a scientists pet theories, etc...they'll find it much easier to admit their mistakes...but if it affects their life work of many decades...there are not many scientists who will easily admit that their whole life has been spent working on something that is not true...this is the reality...there are a few who are mature enough to do that..but not many. Tradition is at LEAST as big a problem in science as it is in religion.
It doesn't effect their life work, it just means that they have to do more research and modify their theories.. And they're usually happy to be able to learn more about the universe around them..
They don't just throw out the entire theory because of a few small holes, they fix the theory..
Weren't you just complaining about creation being thrown out like the baby with the bath water? But you think it's ok to do with evolution?
@JesterAzazel I know all about anomalies...and how major views are falsified, modified, etc. learned all that literally DECADES ago. But, when a theory continues to get falsified after every modification and can't provide any testable evidence for it's major unique claims...at what point do you think we should discard it as something similar to spontaneous generation or geocentrism? Creation has billions of fully testable confirmations of most of it's major claims.
@ExtantFrodo parents giving birth to similar children is billions of testable confirmations, but it does not stand as falsification of evolution.
-
Sigh..that is ONLY one of hundreds of claims of creation and Bible science.
Biogenesis falsifies abiogenesis...and the observable evidence ONLY falls within creation science limits and this falsifies evolution...why do you persist in ignoring the scientific method that you supposedly admire????
First of all, I don't see them as "heroes", I just learn from them.. They aren't perfect, so of course, I don't agree with everything they say.. (IE: people say that darwin was racist, as if that has any bearing on his theory)
Second: What did Veith agree with them on that I've disagreed with? Just curious..
Frodo, when a scientist makes a hypothesis, they are responsible to find TESTABLE EVIDENCE OF THAT EXACT CLAIM, not some speculative extrapolations that have often been proven wrong. You MUST follow the scientific method, not your personal bias. No law of science and no theory I know of rests solely on speculative extrapolations (unless greed or politics or something like have major influence).
-
You just cannot be any sort of solid scientist with the methods you are trying to use.
@JesterAzazel Creationists trust the Bible to be true because the track record of accuracy of the Bible's statements is FAR FAR superior to science during our records of history. What would you trust more...
A) a view that ranges from ~20%-80% accurate over 3,000 years or
B) a view that is consistently accurate and continues to be consistently accurate with all testable evidence that is discovered over 3,000 years.
The choice should be obvious. A is science. B is the Bible.
@JesterAzazel Scientists don't move goal posts and only creationists do. Utter poppycock. Read a LOT more books on the history of science. My professor did his ph.d. at Yale and required us to read some of the top scientists on BOTH sides in the world...I can send you a book of cases showing how science REALLY has worked in history. Creationists change theories quite a bit to try to figure out things in science and the Bible. But, it would be stupid to distrust a consistently accurate source.
Indeed.. He says that he doesn't have time to send evidence, but he seems to have the time to send comments filled with blind assertions and accusations..
The last time he DID send me evidence, it was basically "Dr Walter Veither says.."
@JesterAzazel Just checked and I HAVE answered a number of your PMs...but not the last couple yet...why do you dishonestly say I don't answer your PMs.
@ExtantFrodo you DIDN'T read my rebuttal of his presentation.
-
Umm...I read your comments and THEY were lame since they misrepresented what he was saying. YOu can't expect someone to consider you honest when almost the only thing you do is distort what someone says..and then blame them for lying when they are listing what evolutionists are and have been teaching for many years.
@dotoree no misrepresentation at all. Hell, i even linked to the part of the video in question. How much more do you want? His presentation is erroneous as i stated for the reasons I stated and you have nothing at all to say about it because you know it's the truth. Truly I'm laughing as you stumble around for any way to avoid this as you've been doing for over 3 hours now.
@JesterAzazel You just seem to be making up facts.. Very dishonest
-
I do not ever make up facts. I sometimes get myself involved in too many discussions and also many real life responsibilities (2 sets of relatives came to visit this week)...and so don't have time to send even .001% of the evidence I have. I would give almost anything to have a year long paid sabbatical soon :).
How convenient that you don't have time to send any evidence..
Here's a time saver: Make sure your evidence hasn't already been debunked at talkorigins.. That way you don't waste your time sending my theories that I can crack in 2 seconds..
@JesterAzazel Sorry, but there is SOOO much that mismatches evolution and the sad thing is that this is banned from public education...which is a direct attack on science...and prevents advances in science.
Using two dating methods or 100 methods doesn't matter a bit when they are all based on guess&calibrated on evolutionary assumptions. I could tell 100 friends that I think you are 536 years old&have all guess accordingly...it wouldn't make that a fact.
No, it's not calibrated to evolution, it deals with the half life of the materials being dated..
No, it's not a guess because no matter how many people use radiometric dating, then all get the same answer, even if they don't know the answers that others have gotten..
Simply saying something doesn't make it true..
I debunked other arguments that Veith made, and it's been in your inbox for days..
@JesterAzazel Sorry, but they ARE calibrated to evolution and they can be calibrated to creation without difficulty. As soon as you say the word millions of years, that's indisputable evidence it's been calibrated to evidence.
And NUMEROUS cases have conflicted with evolution in the past...but they modified their calibrations because those were embarrassing and they don't happen as much. The # of people making guesses is irrelevant if they're all based on evolution assumptions.
@JesterAzazel No, you haven't debunked VEITH..NOT EVEN close (sorry I haven't answered inbox yet...will try to get time for it sometime soon).... You assume that what you learned is the standard of truth that everything else should be judged by. That standard would ruin most of the scientific progress in history...what must be done is compare your view&OTHER views as honestly as you possibly can to the testable evidence...remembering that there is no reason to be baised in favor of your death.
@dotoree I note that you mention repeatedly this phrase "no reason to be biased in favor of your death". It really is the stage setter for everything you disallow in your field of view. Isn't it? It really doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
@ExtantFrodo People should try to remove as much bias as possible on all sides and I have done far more than most in that area (partially because of living in so many cultures and knowing so many people from so many perspectives). But, to by biased in favor of your own death is just the height of insanity and nothing less. It has EVERYTHING to do with atheism...and since evolution is a gateway to atheism it has a lot to do with that to.
@dotoree "It has EVERYTHING to do with atheism...and since evolution is a gateway to atheism"
Atheism is defined by the non-belief in gods, not the christian god or any of the 3 million + Hindu gods. Unless your belief system encompasses all gods... then everyone is an atheist.
@blaisingm A) Sigh..I hear the same debunked arguments from atheists for 20 years. Atheism for millenia was explicit denial that gods exist and the idea that life can develop without intelligence. Modern atheists only diluted that because they don't have proof of abiogenesis, etc.
B) The only necessary thing in choosing which religion is right is finding which has proof that it can give you life after death.
C) Sorry, but Darwinism is not testable. Creationist natural selection IS.
He claims that we don't know how old the fossils are..
It's called radiometric dating..
And when you carbon date things that are buried in the same layer as the fossil and get a similar result, it's a little hard to argue that both methods have failed and coincidentally came to the same result..
Not to mention the correlation between the evolutionary timescale and the order that things in the same area are buried..
@Texoki and uniformitarianism is well founded both in theory and in evidence. The spectra of stars indicates only incredibly small change over the entire history of the universe. There is certainly not the huge amount that would be necessary for a YEC scenario to be true.
Then there's supernova 1986A
htt p://w ww.infidels. org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/additional_topics/supernova . html
@ExtantFrodo No, uniformitarianism is NOT well founded on theory or evidence. I have a file listing 76 different ways to date the age of the earth based on uniformitarianism...ranging from a few centuries to many billions of years...you can pick and choose whichever one matches your bias.
-
I see you haven't learned from our discussion on another page where I explained the supernova is no problem for what most YEC actually teach. You are straw manning YECs and intentionally so.
@ExtantFrodo . Supernovas? Every explotion of a supernova makes a Ring There are 300 supernova rings in our galaxie You say they explote average of every 30 years 9000 years, pretty close, isn't it. . Do you belive in time's relativity? Up to wht point?
@Texoki Obviously you have not read the web page I linked. You offer no rebuttal to it. How long do the rings last? They do often re-collapse into type 2 stars with planets around them. So how many would you expect to see?
Still regardless those questions, what about SN1987A?
@Texoki Time's relativity is confirmed by repeat experiments. No need to believe in what is known to be true.
I have not studied the math or the data that yields the conclusion there was a singularity that became the universe. So I don't have a lot to say about the BB.
In the fictional world of gods, anything is possible.
Yes what about SN1987A? Care to read the page yet?
@JesterAzazel Sigh...you assume that because Veith says something different from what you learned, he's lying. But, when Galileo did the same thing and Kepler...somehow they are heroes. Do you not see the double standard you are using? What you learned is NOT and never has been and never SHOULD be the standard of truth. NO scientific progress could be made if that was the standard everyone tested new ideas by.
-
You have not debunked Veith. You only compared him to what you learned.
Finding fossils of the same type in various areas at various depths does not indicate layers that are the same age. That is his first lie. It's only the oldest instance of a kind of fossil that would be represented as an index fossil. Finding an index fossil only gives a maximum age for the layer. The order is in the sequence of maximums. Reproducing into forward ages is expected observed and natural. Calling it otherwise is very bizarre.
@ExtantFrodo There is no lying by Veith. He used to teach these things in university and this is what top evolutionists have taught for NUMEROUS years...if you want to say someone is lying, it was those evolutionists who trained MANY students in this way. It's possible that in the last few years, evolution has changed from what Veith learned tho. It continually does that every time evidence that can falsify it is found...instead of manning up to the facts and having scientific integrity.
@dotoree speaking of manning up to the facts, did you read what I said? do you have anything to comment about the CONTENT or are you gonna forever babble on about the spirit of it all? Cuz frankly it's getting rather boring.
@ExtantFrodo re: 3:10-3:26, yet AGAIN, much of what he is saying is referencing what evolutionists have taught for MANY years and comparing it to the evidence. If you think it's wrong, your first duty is to convince evolutionists of this and to get rid of these things in the textbooks and all levels of school. The fact is that they HAVE BEEN TAUGHT to NUMEROUS students as fact. Your problem is not with Veith..it's with the evolutionists who are teaching these things that you think are false.
@Texoki At 4:40 he notes the standard model of fossilization. No problem there. So why at 6:20 does he attempt to suggest that scientists claim that volcanic burial is the sole method of burial and fossilization? Could it be his need to guide his audience away from trusting science's real claims (as he did in the fossil layer aging example)?
Does he really think he can just wish that local floods pass as equivalent to global flood?
@ExtantFrodo Frodo stop lying about people who differ from you. NOWHERE near 6:20 (or anywhere else that I know of) does Veith say that volcanic burial is the "SOLE method of burial and fossilization" That's completely false and simply does not exist in what he's saying. FURTHERMORE, AGAIN he is just reporting what many evolution textbooks teach...SHEESH. You can't even think of doing science or any rational thinking if you misrpresent things so astoundingly badly.
@dotoree pot kettle? I said "why at 6:20 does he ATTEMPT TO SUGGEST that scientists claim that volcanic burial is the sole method of burial and fossilization?"
Yet another instance of your poor reading skills. Most of his unconscious audience would view it as presented.. "the text books will show you how these animals apparently fossilized..."
@ExtantFrodo Veith NEVER ANYWHERE "attempts to suggest" anything you claim. He's summarizing what EVOLUTION textbooks teach and even then NOWHERE says anything about a "sole method". You are being extremely dishonest intentionally or your LISTENING skills (He is SPEAKING...not giving you a text to read) are so bad that you have business typing a word.
@dotoree so do you deny he is pushing his audience to the proposition that the sole reason for dinosaur fossils is a world wide flood? Do you deny that his errors do not indicate support for that claim? Do you just want to avoid talking about that?
It's important to understand that there is a BIG, BIG difference between science and belief systems. Scientific laws and theories are tools used to solve problems. Religions are things you believe in. Evolution is NOT something you believe in. It is a tool used to solve problems... like your hammer. You don't believe in your hammer, you use it to solve problems.
@Texoki "And very litle difference between pseudo-science". If the current model of evolution is a pseudo-science, then all the sciences are pseudo (astronomy, geology, chemistry, etc). All the sciences are comprised of theories that we can both test/observe and not observe/test. Is evolution a "pseudo-science" or is all science "pseudo-science"?
@Texoki "To use the scientific method" I suppose I agree with your statement, but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Your response was not a complete sentence. Could you restate your thought/response for me?
@blaisingm And very litle difference between pseudo-science". If the current model of evolution is a pseudo-science, then all the sciences are pseudo (astronomy, geology, chemistry, etc).
-
I can not refrain from exposing this blatant falsehood. NUMEROUS sciences existed for 1000s of years before evolution and major evolutionists are on record saying that evolution has not helped in any single major advance of science and is just used as a narrative to gain acceptance.
@dotoree@dotoree "I can not refrain from exposing this blatant falsehood. NUMEROUS sciences existed for 1000s of years before evolution and major evolutionists"
What blatant falsehood are you looking to expose? My point is that ALL the sciences have models that are based on completely non-observable phenomena...this is way we CREATE models. What major evolutionist "admits" that the evolutionary model is used as a narrative to gain acceptance?
@Texoki "Do you have any empirical evidences of MACROevolution?" You'll have to define "macroevolution" for me. "Macroevolution" has many definitions with most of the scientific community ignoring the definitions since the prefix "macro" doesn't differentiate/enhance the current evolutionary model. The process of evolution can easily be experimented/tested/observed. How do you define "macroevolution"?
@blaisingm There are ~15 definitions even of species, even among evolutionists...so evolutionists need to clarify their own house. But, here's one based on nature.
Species=living things that mate with each other naturally in nature.
genus=living things that don't naturally mate with each other in nature, but can be mated artificially.
No directly testable evidence for evolution has yet been found. All cases of speciation up to the family level fall 100% within creation science.
@dotoree "No directly testable evidence for evolution has yet been found. All cases of speciation up to the family level fall 100% within creation science."
The evolutionary model is one of the most testable of all the sciences. Artificial selection can be performed by just about anyone. Speciation events are well documented. What is, by the way, creation science? What kinds of models does creation science offer that can be used to solve problems?
@blaisingm Creation science and Bible science have made numerous predictions and hypothesis, often against the conventional scientific wisdom of the time (spontaneous generation, bleeding as a medical practice and others)&been proven right time and time and time again, in very practical ways. Bible science and just 4 creation scientists work based on the Bible has saved way over a billion lives. Bible science has OFTEN been used to solve problems. It's sad these facts are banned from study.
Also read proverbs 3:5-6 This is for evolutionist.
After you read this verse you will know that what you are saying is a fairytell.
These people are real people in the bible like you and me not fairy tails. History shows king Solomon, and King david exist just as much as Julius Caesar.
King Solomon was blessed, and was the most wise man on earth because of God. So no scientist can compete with the knowledge and wisdom of him.
The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
With that said Veith is talking about what has been revealed to us by God. Scientist like to come up with their own idea, and are way off. The bible tells us why. If someone is disobedient to God there is no convincing them of the truth.
2 Peter 3:5, 6 "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."
johnthreesixteen316 4 months ago
and he is messing up with the logic of science... and he mocks that logic... and by doing so, he makes the science discovery and logic look ridiculous...
but if you try to look at it very closely, the things that he is mocking are actually the one he fabricated...
I think this is really really bad and dangerous person!
- anonymous chemist-physicist
AScythe 6 months ago
It is so refreshing to see a scientifst who actually takes a look at the fossil record and follows the scientific evidence wherever it may lead. No biases based on the religion of God and no biases based on the religion of Evolution. Just the facts, please : ) simple honesty, ..dealing with the realities of what we can know, and what we cannot know, .. and having the guts to follow this evidence to the truth .. whatever that may be .. even if it is *gasp* an uncomfortable truth to swallow
TheCreationchick 6 months ago
@TheCreationchick "religion of Evolution" LOL
maxergud 5 months ago
@maxergud 'evolutionary science' lol talk about about contradiction in terms - when one flies in the face of the laws of science
sweetpappya 1 month ago
People who BELIVE in a THEORY, are FAR more fanatical than those who look around them, and believe that there MAT be something more than that which is obvious.
and those who's INSTINCT tells them there MAY be somehting amazing behind the scenes, are FAR more intelligent than those who accept the words of a THEORY !
I can make a THEORY, saying that day is night, and night is day - and YOU cant prove it wrong !
The FACT is, that we EXIST, and THATS amazing.
DONT BE A MONKEY - BE A MAN !!!
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 9 months ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome You're an idiot. Look up the definition of a scientific theory, you fool. There's also a theory of gravity you freaking unevolved monkey. Go preach on about how there's no gravity now since it's "just a theory". Yeah instinct is much better than 150 years of education and scientific knowledge from tens of thousands of highly educated people.
iSOBigD 9 months ago
@iSOBigD:
I cant belive someone like you calls ME an indiot.
Can YOU even understand the blabble you just spouted out ? Cu sI cant.
Something about YOU knwoing everything, because you believe in the science god ?
And i sound as though i dont 100% agree with you, so im an "idiot, frekain unevolved monkey, fool, etc." ?
And yet, YOU sound like the monkey in the room, dont you ?
ooh, ooh !
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 9 months ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Ah yes, the ol' "I'll ignore all of his points since I have no rebuttal and just imply that he's dumb even though I am" routine. Yeah, that seems to be working out great for you.
Out science doubled the average human lifespan in the last 100 years you tool. That's a pretty nice achievement, wouldn't you say? But yes, let's ignore proven facts and assume things just happen magically in the world even though over tens of thousands of years there has been 0 proof of that.
iSOBigD 8 months ago
@iSOBigD:
You are SO dumb !
Men DISCOVEREd things, using the scientific method, and put them to good use (or bad).
Do you claim that science created the "plough" or the "wheel" ?
NO - MAN created the wheel, and he discovered it, using basic scientific procedure, called EXPERIMENTATION.
THat does NOT mean that God doesnt exist - and it DOESNT mean that charles darwin, some idiot form 2 centruies ago, was right in every word he said.
You use stupidity, as your main weapon - DUUUURRRR !!
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 8 months ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Oh I get it, so you chose the ol' "I'll use logic to attack someone else but then throw logic out the window when it comes to defending my claims" trick. Alright. Charles Darwin was by no means 100% right, no one ever was. He was dead on about evolution though. People added to it but all in all, every living thing evolves, everyone knows that, including most Christians. That has nothing to do with god though. Not having any proof of god means there most likely isn't one.
iSOBigD 8 months ago
@iSOBigD:
No, no, you are getting mixed up - NATURAL SELECTION says that abig lion will always make more big lions, because to fight (as lions need to), ther bigger you are, the beter.
But SMALL mice would survive better, because they can hide in little spaces - big mice can't, so they get caught and eaten. No one has a problem with that.
But EVOLUTION, as they call it, means one animal turning into another, and that doesnt happen - EVER !
And the proof of god STARTS with your existence !
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 8 months ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome The proof of any god starts with proof. There is none for any god of any religion that exists or ever has existed. Get a hint. Also, evolution does not claim an animal will turn into another. Only idiot creationists think that because they've never spent a minute actually looking up the definition of evolution or any information related to it.
If an animal magically turns into another, you'll not only disprove evolution but also have something to back up your god claim.
iSOBigD 8 months ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Your problem, as with all Creationists, is lack of education. You don't know what you're talking about, you're not willing to learn about it in order to make an informed argument and yet you still go around claiming that evolution means one animal turning into another. You don't know what you're talking about, that's why people with common sense or basic knowledge of the world around them laugh at you. Religion claims that animals and humans magically appear out of notihng.
iSOBigD 8 months ago
@iSOBigD:
No, no - i went to school, just like you. I always ebleived what tehy said, but now i see that they MIGHT be wrong.
Just MIGHT be.
but they are SO aggressive about NOT EXPLORING creation, that it leaves me wondering if they KOW they are lying. They certainly show a lot of the signs of intentional deceivers, by refusing to discuss the issues openly.
It could be aliens, or god or anything, for all i know - but Darwins 200 yr old THEORY, is under STRAIN !
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 8 months ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome No it isn't. There is absolutely no debate in any scientific community anywhere in the world about evolution. That's what you don't understand. The debate is between uneducated Creationists who want to push Creationism as science instead of religion and rational people. They use names like "Discovery Institute" and push religion. The Discovery Institute btw has never discovered anything or done any scientific research. They're just charlatans. Belive what's real, not bs.
iSOBigD 8 months ago
@iSOBigD:
I honestly dont know where you differenciate between religion and science.
As far as RELIGIONISTS are concerened, SIENCE is part of Gods law.
But YOU (who are probably some invertibrate homosexual, seem to DEPEND on God and HIS science being false.
It's as though you are TERRIFIED of God (which is why i think you may be a homo, or pervert, of some sort).
You are MAD about "anti Godness", and its REALLY very disturbing - you won teven CONSIDER the POSSIBILITY.
You are ILL !!!!
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 8 months ago
@iSOBigD:
Cont'd...
And, if you are confronted with ANY evidence (like in this vid), you just go MAD, and insist that NO TRUE scientist would even consider REASON, over such an issue.
You FORGET all scientific method, but ONLY where creation/evolution is concerned !
I am REALLY pushed TOWARDS religion, by your FANATICAL stance against it.
But perhaps you are right - perhaps YOUR mother is a monkey !
ha ha ha ha !
Stpid monkey !
ha ha ha ha !
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 8 months ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome I'm sure the fact that you're angry and constantly using caps shows that I'm "fanatical" and "mad"...Maybe in some up-side-down world, but not in this one. You've made 0 points so far, you have no argument or rebuttal for anything I've said and you automatically called me a homo or some kind of pervert because deep down you're a closet hoom yourself and you're simply ashamed of going to "hell" for it. Just come out, I really don't care who you fuck, it doesn't affect me.
iSOBigD 8 months ago
@iSOBigD:
Yes, you are using the BASIC stupid athiest method of argument, arent you ?
STATE and STATE and STATE, that the other person knows nothing, has no valid points, is dillusional, uneducated and false - Then you use your own accusations as PROOF, that what you said is true, and the other person is indeed, completely wrong !
Well, as long as YOU are the deciding power in the universe, and everything is done YOUR way, then that works fine.
But only in your stupid little bubble head !!
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 8 months ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome List two arguments you've made in defense of the existance of God in your last 15 comments.
Do that simple thing for me. Show me that you're not a babbling idiot.
iSOBigD 8 months ago
@iSOBigD:
Go and stick a banana in your ear, and say out loud "i'm a stupid monkey", then electricute yourself.
Do these 2 things for me, to show me that you are not as stupid as you seem !
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 8 months ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Ignored. It was a pleasure intelectually pwning you and embarassing you in public like this. Have a nice close-minded, education hating life.
iSOBigD 8 months ago
@iSOBigD:
I graciously accept your grovelling apology, and hope you do indeed, fck off !
Thanks for being such an easy win !
BYE !
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 8 months ago
Comment removed
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 8 months ago
people have to realize and just leave people who beleive in evolution alone. it is a theory, it isnt pratical. theories changes thats science, it it couldnt of happen that way, science would just find another way "theory" to back they findings. they dont say where life originated from, they say according to certain evidence this is what must of happened, its a theory. so people stop tripping over evolution, let em be, they arent treatening your lives leave them be.
beedip84 10 months ago
Even if he could disprove evolution, which would take a ''miracle''. It still doesn't lend one bit of credence to the silly belief system he ''decided'' to adopt.
IndexFossil1 1 year ago
@IndexFossil1 Darwin was a racist and a Eugenecist and based his evolution theory on his personal idea that a white man is more superior since he seems further from the monkey than other races...as in he "EVOLVED" and thus is better and smarter and all that crap. If you agree with this theory, you are a dupe. People of other races are no different from the rest. The fact that some do not (or do not want to) recieve the same values and education that others do doesn't make them closer to monkey .
anonymousone2011 1 year ago
@anonymousone2011 Breathtakingly misguided rambling. Where do you get your information?, perhaps you could site some sources. I think there aren't any, I think these are your own ,very wrong, delusional conclusions.Post your sources please, I'm sure everyone would like to be finally enlightened about Darwin, after being wrong about him all these years.If you can't, what makes you want to lie and slander another person?
IndexFossil1 1 year ago
i think i just got stupider
orca464 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
100 PHYLUM without ancestors
.
Total Animal phyla = 36
Everyone in the Cambrian Period 500 million years ago, had a mom and a dad, just like today
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz : Everyone in the Cambrian Period 500 million years ago, had a mom and a dad, just like today
.
GOD
Texoki 1 year ago
Mr. Butinski and 'stopped counting at 50,000'' I am sure he counted every change.
That's what happens when a math teacher expalins biology.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
.
Dr. Berlinski is a secular Jew and agnostic.
P.H in mathematics and molecular biology
at Columbia University,
Texoki 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Texoki Evolution assumes in some chemistry unknown to science,Homochirality proves evolution can never happen..its a faith to believe in evolution .right and left handed amino acids are toxic to life when together !!!..for it to happen in a natural process..it would be a conundrum paradox.in some primordial mud or seawater that would take more blind faith than anyone that believes in God
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
.
50.000 morphological changes.
.
Dr. David Berlinski: What Does It Take for Change? (Clip5)
youtube . com / watch?v=DRqdvhL3pgM
.
Texoki 1 year ago
@gregrutz :
ONE IS ENOUGH TO SHOW IT HAPPENED
.
ONE IS ENOUGH TO SHOW IT DID NOT HAPPENED
100 PHYLUM without ancestors
Texoki 1 year ago
What about all the complex organsof the 100 phyla of the cambrian explosion?
The Cambrian animals were all small marine creatures, no land animals.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz : The Cambrian animals were all small marine creatures, no land animals.
.
Does it make any diference?
.
Texoki 1 year ago
@Texoki Yes, they evolved into complex land animals, most of which are now extinct.
gregrutz 1 year ago
No, the speed of light is not slowing down. Where did you hear that one, AIG?
Study a little of Einstein's Theory.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz : No, the speed of light is not slowing down. Where did you hear that one, AIG?
.
Put yourself up to date
Texoki 1 year ago
They can date sedimentry layers, ash layers are easily dated.
@4:55 ''Fossilization does not take place today as it did in the past. WHAT??
Did the laws of nature change?
Uniformitarianism states that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
.
Any empirical evidences that Uniformitarianism is true?
Texoki 1 year ago
@Texoki If you go boil water, will it boil at the same temp. it did yesterday?
If the Laws of nature change every day, they couldn't be laws of nature.
We couldn't fly to the moon is gravity keep changing.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz :
.
don't you know that the speed of light is slowing down?
Texoki 1 year ago
@Texoki Do you argue with every person who corrects you?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel : evidence that evolution is fake,
.
Only one missing link it's enouth.
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ could not have been formed by numerous successive,
slight modifications my theory absolutely would break down.
Charles Darwin. Origin of Species, p.189 1st ed.
.
What about al the complex organs
of the 100 phyla of the cambrian explosion?
.
Texoki 1 year ago
@Texoki a missing link does nothing to disprove evolution... not even remotely... by your method i could say that because the bible claims humans were created after the beasts on the 6th day yet somehow the beasts were also created for man's amusement (after the creation of man) that the bible is one large contradiction and holds no water, even though the rest of it is very ethical and morally good. actually that analogy is bad, evolution has no contradiction like the bible merely missing pages
robman8855 1 year ago
Supernovas?
Every explosion of a supernova makes a Ring.
There are 300 supernova rings in our galaxie.
You say they explote average of every 30 years,
9000 years, pretty close, isn't it. .
.
Texoki 1 year ago
@Texoki supernovas dont remain as rings for all eternity they eventually colapse in on themselves by way of a nebula... also not all supernovas make a ring some just collapse or hyperexpand... additionally please cyte something to back up you 30 yr reacurring supernova gap
robman8855 1 year ago
But in some cases, they actually DO address your specific arguments.. Maybe not all the time, but you've made some arguments that I've heard from other creationists and I've heard debunked on youtube AND talkorigins..
But I'll give you some credit, your article has some fairly new arguments.. You're actually making me do research.. lolz..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
"They spend the majority of their time building straw men or falsely representing arguments"
Actually, they are representing arguments of creationists other than yourself.. Not all creationists believe the same things..
talkorigins, especially, has SEVERAL quotes that I've heard from actual creationists..
Just because they don't all address your specific arguments, doesn't mean they are building straw men..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
But sorry, there's no part of evolution that claims that any species is "better", just better suited for it's environment.. They can have certain attributes like speed, strength, or intelligence that is better than any other species, but they still fall short in other aspects..
And even if it did promote racism, that wouldn't speak for it's validity..
Besides, the bible promotes killing witches..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
I'm currently reading the lengthy article you sent me.. Thanks for sending..
Just let me know if you want me to send you an article about anything that I've mentioned..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JesterAzazel You've been saying that you don't even have time to provide .01% of the evidence that evolution is fake, yet you've been here for 2 hours..
-
LOL..2 hours might be .0001% of the evidence. And that's not any sort of a lie :).
Galileo and Kepler are heroes of science to pretty much everyone who studies science seriously. Of course, no scientist is perfect no matter what viewpoint they're from.
dotoree 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel I'm always willing to read more with time,but I've read/watched for 100s of hours at talk origins, the best atheists on youtube, Dawkins, Hitchens, Gould, Darwin&so many others. They spend the majority of their time building straw men or falsely representing arguments from teenagers or non-professionals as the best creationist arguments...talk origins is really bad at this, so many textbook straw men and their distortion of indisputable scientific facts and history is atrocious.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree "Dawkins, Hitchens, Gould, Darwin&so many others. They spend the majority of their time building straw men"
Offer an example of a "straw man" argument that one of the aforementioned individuals endorses.
blaisingm 1 year ago
I can back up my facts.. Just message me and ask for it.. It will take a matter of minutes after I get the message..
Now think hard about what you want to say next, because I'm not going to fill out a captcha every time I send a message.. (youtube requires it after you post so many comments)
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel I can back up my facts.. Just message me and ask for it.. It will take a matter of minutes after I get the message..
-
With due respect for you as a person I think is sincere and more open minded than most, so far you haven't. There is not one reference at all in any of your PMs to me. You've only stated your opinions so far...that are in line with the establishment's thinking...if you really respect Darwin..then follow his example and question and challenge the establishment.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree
I've asked for evidence several times.. Even in private messages..
And evidence for my claims, as I've already mentioned, can be found on talkorigins.. They provide links to other sites as well..
I've compared Veith to what I've learned because what I've learned is backed up by evidence and logic..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
Darwin's theory promoting racism is a fact of history, but that doesn't deal with whether it has evidence or not. It just means we should demand the highest level of evidence before teaching it.
-
SOME of what you have learned is backed up by evidence, some is most certainly not. I've discovered that in quite a number of areas due to living in several different countries. Quite a few things I learned in American schools were just not true eg: printing press, democracy, ironclad ships&others.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree
Nothing in the theory of evolution states that we are any better than any other race of people.. In fact, most animals are better than us in some way..
Blaming evolution for racism is like blaming someone for being black..
Racism is based off people's ignorance.. If they want to try to use evolution to support their racism, then they'll first have to find the part of the theory that actually agrees with them..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel : Nothing in the theory of evolution states that we are any better than any other race of people..
.
Have you heard of "Eugenics"?
Have read Darwin's " The Descent of Man,"?
Texoki 1 year ago
@Texoki Eugenics plays off ages old horticulture and breeding practices, which by the way, are not concerned with the means by which species diversification comes about. If anything what evolutionary theory tells us is that greater diversity equals stronger genome. Eugenics represents the antithesis of increasing diversity.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo
.
Eugenics is a consecuence of Darwinism
You have not read Darwin, like most evolutionist
Texoki 1 year ago
@Texoki I'm not gonna repeat myself like you do. You've had my answer. You choose to stubbornly cling to your wish that evolution is an evil notion with no basis in reality. I'm pretty convinced there's not gonna be any budging you from your stance. That would take being willing and able to learn. I won't say you are not able but you have to be willing and it seems obvious you are not.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo : willing and able to learn
.
Are you willing and able to learn?
in which direction?
in direction of the truth?
o in direction of evolution?
.
One missing link and evolution flunks.
Do you agree?
.
Texoki 1 year ago
@Texoki of course I don't agree. Your proposition is ridiculous. You have not any capacity to think through anything in regards to this topic. It's not missing pieces from a jigsaw puzzle that proves the pieces you have do not belong to only one picture. It's when you have pieces that are the wrong color and don't fit anywhere that you can know you don't have a single right picture. So far we have no out of place pieces in evidence against evolution.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo
.
Only one missing link it's enouth.
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ could not have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications my theory absolutely would break down.
Charles Darwin. Origin of Species, p.189 1st ed.
.
What about all the complex organs
of the 100 phyla of the cambrian explosion?
Texoki 1 year ago
@Texoki you are misusing that quote... it actually contradicts your point... a "missing link" between an organism and its evolutionary predicesor doesnt prove it couldn't have evolved from it... it just proves that foscilization didncapture that particular transition... also "missing links" is a very missleading term... Evolution takes place at an incredibly slow rate with millions of "missing links" (between us and apes for example) to transition through to the next more dominant species.
robman8855 1 year ago
@Texoki ''One missing link and evolution flunks. Do you agree?''
WTF?
No, that is not logical. Look at the evidence, the fossils we have, not the ones between the ones.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz :
."It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed phylogenies, for most organisms."
Ayala, F. J. and Valentine J. W., Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Evolution, 1978, p. 230)
"Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series.
The origins of many groups are still not documented at all."
Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)
Texoki 1 year ago
You've been making all these claims, saying that you don't even have time to provide .01% of the evidence that evolution is fake, yet you've been here for 2 hours..
Not to mention I've debunked the last bit of proof you sent me (Veith)
PROOF that you are dishonest..
You know, that usually means disqualification in a formal debate..
If you're so set on your beliefs, why do you have to lie?
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel There are NO lies on my side or Veith's and so far I have seen very few on your side if any compared to other atheists and evolutionists..I commend you for that. A lie is when you promote things that you KNOW are false. I NEVER do that..EVER&neither does Veith. I'm not set on my beliefs..I'm set on following the evidence where it leads..and none of the evidence from science points towards atheism. I'll get to your supposed debunking of Veith as soon as I can. But need to sleep.
dotoree 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel : evidence that evolution is fake,
.
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ could not have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications my theory absolutely would break down.
Charles Darwin.
Can you name the transitional fossils ancestors
of the 100 phyla of the Cambrian Explosion?
Texoki 1 year ago
The difference, of course, is the size of the holes.. When you get done with creation, there's almost nothing left..
When you get done with evolution, you get small fixable holes.. And they've been fixed already..
"Read a LOT more books on the history of science"
Stop reading slanderous books written by religious people and you wont see that sort of thing..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel When you get done with creation, there's almost nothing left..
When you get done with evolution, you get small fixable holes.
-
This is absolute fiction. You may be sincere in this idea, but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality.
-
Stop reading slanderous books written by religious people.
-
To read only books on 1 side destroys any possibility of objectivity. I've digested MASSIVE info on BOTH sides. Most don't. Creationists are slandered more than almost ANYONE.
dotoree 1 year ago
I see what's happening.. He gets into debates, and when he loses he claims that he has too much going on to respond or provide evidence..
He's used this excuse on me 3 or 4 times now.. And every single time I see him, he's having a lengthy debate with someone else while my messages go unanswered..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel No, Jester...I have told people from the START that I have very little time OFTEN...I'm writing now at 3am...I REALLY need to stop completely ALL youtube debates for a while and finish my book on the topic and then just send that to them. I have not lost any debates so far in 20 years. No atheist has ever provided comparable evidence for abiogenesis or Darwin's hypothesis of evolution way past the family boundary, etc. comparable to what I have for creation science.
dotoree 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel I am MONTHS behind on answering many people...this year has been one of the worst in that area and I answer the best I can as many as I can shortly. I would love to have more free time to do this..but no one pays me for this.
dotoree 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel As a creationist to back up their claims, offer evidence, etc. and they'll disappear or start talking about "straw men" arguments as a quick way to evade logic and reasoning. You want to eliminate a creationist, just keep asking for evidence. :)
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm
I finally got his evidence actually.. We're chatting via PM.. He sent me an article that he wrote that is over 30 pages.. I've debunked 5 pages but getting through all of it is going to take some time..
Some of his arguments were debunked on talkorigins but he says that they just provide different sources that aren't any more valid then his, even though they cite more numerous, unbias, and more credible sources.. (people that specialize in the particular field most of their lives)
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@blaisingm ROFL. I have challenged atheists to provide evidence for 20 years and THEY are the ones who run away. I've never run away from any debate except due to real life priorities.
In ANY fair contest, creation science beats evolution and especially atheism hands down.
But, I'm sick of curing atheists again and again of the SAME delusions that they are brainwashed with that violate the scientific method and indisputably distort historical facts. I'm going to finish a book on this now.
dotoree 1 year ago
@blaisingm Watch: watch?v=4EWyD34FxmI
Dawkins here says that there are only 6 Christian who have won Nobel prizes and much other absolute nonsense and fiction. This claim is outraegously false.
This is outrageously false. Google:
nobelistsgod and go to the first link.
There are countless examples like this.
Most people are ignorant of the evidence because evolutionists have banned learning evidence if it leads to a Creator. This is an explicit rejection of objective science.
dotoree 1 year ago
At least Veith seems to believe that stuff that he's saying.. (though, he's still wrong)
You just seem to be making up facts.. Very dishonest..
You are stuck on the assumption that evolution is wrong, and no matter how much evidence is presented, you'll keep moving the goal post..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel Veith knows what he is teaching is true& is not wrong.
There is no moving of goal posts here. Evolutionists are the ones who are continually moving goal posts and reinventing evolution after it's been falsified in one form and another form. Google darwinspredictions to see ~20 ways evolution has been falsified.
There is ZERO assumption that evolution is wrong. Darwinism tries to steal all it's evidence from prior creation science and just extrapolate. That's NOT science.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree
Scientists don't move the goal post, they work on fixing their method of reaching the goal..
Of course science fixes it's theories.. That's kind of how it works.. Unlike creationists that still try to prove their stories that have been proven wrong..
If scientists weren't willing to admit their mistakes and fix their theories, you wouldn't have the internet..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel I have so many hours at talk origins...from 10+ years ago...it's so dishonest about so many things. If I didn't have 3 jobs, I could debunk almost everything there with TESTABLE evidence in a few months at most.
-
Btw, don't confuse evolutionists with scientists. Evos are engaged in untestable, unobservable speculation. Scientists deal with what can be observed and tested. Most of creation science does too.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree
Simply saying that it's dishonest doesn't make it true..
If you can debunk it, then do it.. Or don't you have the time to provide evidence?
It's not untestable or unobservable.. It's been proven in an experiment with e coli..
Very little to do with reality? You use things developed by science everyday..
Saying that scientists are biased is just a way to whine because they don't accept your views..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel You have a utopian view of scientists that has very little to do with reality. Read Thomas Kuhn's masterpiece "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and many of the greatest scientists in history to learn that scientists are just as biased as anyone and often refuse to admit their mistakes. Some do, but many follow traditions until they die. Thus Kuhn, a prof at Harvard, Berkeley, MIT and Princeton and others have said that science progresses when the old scientists die.
dotoree 1 year ago
If there are errors that don't affect a scientists pet theories, etc...they'll find it much easier to admit their mistakes...but if it affects their life work of many decades...there are not many scientists who will easily admit that their whole life has been spent working on something that is not true...this is the reality...there are a few who are mature enough to do that..but not many. Tradition is at LEAST as big a problem in science as it is in religion.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree
It doesn't effect their life work, it just means that they have to do more research and modify their theories.. And they're usually happy to be able to learn more about the universe around them..
They don't just throw out the entire theory because of a few small holes, they fix the theory..
Weren't you just complaining about creation being thrown out like the baby with the bath water? But you think it's ok to do with evolution?
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel I know all about anomalies...and how major views are falsified, modified, etc. learned all that literally DECADES ago. But, when a theory continues to get falsified after every modification and can't provide any testable evidence for it's major unique claims...at what point do you think we should discard it as something similar to spontaneous generation or geocentrism? Creation has billions of fully testable confirmations of most of it's major claims.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree "Creation has billions of fully testable confirmations of most of it's major claims. "
parents giving birth to similar children is billions of testable confirmations, but it does not stand as falsification of evolution.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo parents giving birth to similar children is billions of testable confirmations, but it does not stand as falsification of evolution.
-
Sigh..that is ONLY one of hundreds of claims of creation and Bible science.
Biogenesis falsifies abiogenesis...and the observable evidence ONLY falls within creation science limits and this falsifies evolution...why do you persist in ignoring the scientific method that you supposedly admire????
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree
First of all, I don't see them as "heroes", I just learn from them.. They aren't perfect, so of course, I don't agree with everything they say.. (IE: people say that darwin was racist, as if that has any bearing on his theory)
Second: What did Veith agree with them on that I've disagreed with? Just curious..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@dotoree "and the observable evidence ONLY falls within creation science limits and this falsifies evolution."
You're going to have to run the logic of this over to me. Wouldn't it take something CONTRARY to evolutionary theory to falsify the ToE?
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
Frodo, when a scientist makes a hypothesis, they are responsible to find TESTABLE EVIDENCE OF THAT EXACT CLAIM, not some speculative extrapolations that have often been proven wrong. You MUST follow the scientific method, not your personal bias. No law of science and no theory I know of rests solely on speculative extrapolations (unless greed or politics or something like have major influence).
-
You just cannot be any sort of solid scientist with the methods you are trying to use.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree By testable evidence you mean accurate predictions based on the theory, right?
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel Creationists trust the Bible to be true because the track record of accuracy of the Bible's statements is FAR FAR superior to science during our records of history. What would you trust more...
A) a view that ranges from ~20%-80% accurate over 3,000 years or
B) a view that is consistently accurate and continues to be consistently accurate with all testable evidence that is discovered over 3,000 years.
The choice should be obvious. A is science. B is the Bible.
dotoree 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel Scientists don't move goal posts and only creationists do. Utter poppycock. Read a LOT more books on the history of science. My professor did his ph.d. at Yale and required us to read some of the top scientists on BOTH sides in the world...I can send you a book of cases showing how science REALLY has worked in history. Creationists change theories quite a bit to try to figure out things in science and the Bible. But, it would be stupid to distrust a consistently accurate source.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree "Veith knows what he is teaching is true& is not wrong."
so you DIDN'T read my rebuttal of his presentation. How fucking lame.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo
Indeed.. He says that he doesn't have time to send evidence, but he seems to have the time to send comments filled with blind assertions and accusations..
The last time he DID send me evidence, it was basically "Dr Walter Veither says.."
That's actually how I found this video.. lolz..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel Just checked and I HAVE answered a number of your PMs...but not the last couple yet...why do you dishonestly say I don't answer your PMs.
dotoree 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo you DIDN'T read my rebuttal of his presentation.
-
Umm...I read your comments and THEY were lame since they misrepresented what he was saying. YOu can't expect someone to consider you honest when almost the only thing you do is distort what someone says..and then blame them for lying when they are listing what evolutionists are and have been teaching for many years.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree no misrepresentation at all. Hell, i even linked to the part of the video in question. How much more do you want? His presentation is erroneous as i stated for the reasons I stated and you have nothing at all to say about it because you know it's the truth. Truly I'm laughing as you stumble around for any way to avoid this as you've been doing for over 3 hours now.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel You just seem to be making up facts.. Very dishonest
-
I do not ever make up facts. I sometimes get myself involved in too many discussions and also many real life responsibilities (2 sets of relatives came to visit this week)...and so don't have time to send even .001% of the evidence I have. I would give almost anything to have a year long paid sabbatical soon :).
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree
How convenient that you don't have time to send any evidence..
Here's a time saver: Make sure your evidence hasn't already been debunked at talkorigins.. That way you don't waste your time sending my theories that I can crack in 2 seconds..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
continued:
So they are dated using two methods and appear in the correct order..
Then you have the physiologic, anatomic, and genetic correlations and match up with each other AND the fossil records..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel Sorry, but there is SOOO much that mismatches evolution and the sad thing is that this is banned from public education...which is a direct attack on science...and prevents advances in science.
Using two dating methods or 100 methods doesn't matter a bit when they are all based on guess&calibrated on evolutionary assumptions. I could tell 100 friends that I think you are 536 years old&have all guess accordingly...it wouldn't make that a fact.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree
No, it doesn't mismatch evolution..
No, it's not calibrated to evolution, it deals with the half life of the materials being dated..
No, it's not a guess because no matter how many people use radiometric dating, then all get the same answer, even if they don't know the answers that others have gotten..
Simply saying something doesn't make it true..
I debunked other arguments that Veith made, and it's been in your inbox for days..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel Sorry, but they ARE calibrated to evolution and they can be calibrated to creation without difficulty. As soon as you say the word millions of years, that's indisputable evidence it's been calibrated to evidence.
And NUMEROUS cases have conflicted with evolution in the past...but they modified their calibrations because those were embarrassing and they don't happen as much. The # of people making guesses is irrelevant if they're all based on evolution assumptions.
dotoree 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel No, you haven't debunked VEITH..NOT EVEN close (sorry I haven't answered inbox yet...will try to get time for it sometime soon).... You assume that what you learned is the standard of truth that everything else should be judged by. That standard would ruin most of the scientific progress in history...what must be done is compare your view&OTHER views as honestly as you possibly can to the testable evidence...remembering that there is no reason to be baised in favor of your death.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree I note that you mention repeatedly this phrase "no reason to be biased in favor of your death". It really is the stage setter for everything you disallow in your field of view. Isn't it? It really doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo People should try to remove as much bias as possible on all sides and I have done far more than most in that area (partially because of living in so many cultures and knowing so many people from so many perspectives). But, to by biased in favor of your own death is just the height of insanity and nothing less. It has EVERYTHING to do with atheism...and since evolution is a gateway to atheism it has a lot to do with that to.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree "It has EVERYTHING to do with atheism...and since evolution is a gateway to atheism"
Atheism is defined by the non-belief in gods, not the christian god or any of the 3 million + Hindu gods. Unless your belief system encompasses all gods... then everyone is an atheist.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm A) Sigh..I hear the same debunked arguments from atheists for 20 years. Atheism for millenia was explicit denial that gods exist and the idea that life can develop without intelligence. Modern atheists only diluted that because they don't have proof of abiogenesis, etc.
B) The only necessary thing in choosing which religion is right is finding which has proof that it can give you life after death.
C) Sorry, but Darwinism is not testable. Creationist natural selection IS.
dotoree 1 year ago
He claims that we don't know how old the fossils are..
It's called radiometric dating..
And when you carbon date things that are buried in the same layer as the fossil and get a similar result, it's a little hard to argue that both methods have failed and coincidentally came to the same result..
Not to mention the correlation between the evolutionary timescale and the order that things in the same area are buried..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel : radiometric dating..
.
Radiometric dating is based on a Uniformitarianism premise
Texoki 1 year ago
@Texoki and uniformitarianism is well founded both in theory and in evidence. The spectra of stars indicates only incredibly small change over the entire history of the universe. There is certainly not the huge amount that would be necessary for a YEC scenario to be true.
Then there's supernova 1986A
htt p://w ww.infidels. org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/additional_topics/supernova . html
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo No, uniformitarianism is NOT well founded on theory or evidence. I have a file listing 76 different ways to date the age of the earth based on uniformitarianism...ranging from a few centuries to many billions of years...you can pick and choose whichever one matches your bias.
-
I see you haven't learned from our discussion on another page where I explained the supernova is no problem for what most YEC actually teach. You are straw manning YECs and intentionally so.
dotoree 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo
.
Do you believe that?
Texoki 1 year ago
Texoki 1 year ago
@Texoki Obviously you have not read the web page I linked. You offer no rebuttal to it. How long do the rings last? They do often re-collapse into type 2 stars with planets around them. So how many would you expect to see?
Still regardless those questions, what about SN1987A?
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo : Obviously you have not read the web page I linked.
.
Do you believe in time's relativity?
Up to what point?
You believe that the univers(matter) was compresed in a dot in the BB
Can God compress 15 billion years in 6 days?
.
What about the argument of the supernova rings?
.
Texoki 1 year ago
@Texoki Time's relativity is confirmed by repeat experiments. No need to believe in what is known to be true.
I have not studied the math or the data that yields the conclusion there was a singularity that became the universe. So I don't have a lot to say about the BB.
In the fictional world of gods, anything is possible.
Yes what about SN1987A? Care to read the page yet?
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@Texoki
A premise proven to be true..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel : (Uniformitarianism)
A premise proven to be true..
.
When?
.
Texoki 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel Sigh...you assume that because Veith says something different from what you learned, he's lying. But, when Galileo did the same thing and Kepler...somehow they are heroes. Do you not see the double standard you are using? What you learned is NOT and never has been and never SHOULD be the standard of truth. NO scientific progress could be made if that was the standard everyone tested new ideas by.
-
You have not debunked Veith. You only compared him to what you learned.
dotoree 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why does he lie so much?
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo : Why does he lie so much?
.
He believes things different than you believe.
.
Any empirical evidences of your believe?
.
Texoki 1 year ago
@Texoki Look at what he says from 3:10 - 3:26
Finding fossils of the same type in various areas at various depths does not indicate layers that are the same age. That is his first lie. It's only the oldest instance of a kind of fossil that would be represented as an index fossil. Finding an index fossil only gives a maximum age for the layer. The order is in the sequence of maximums. Reproducing into forward ages is expected observed and natural. Calling it otherwise is very bizarre.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo There is no lying by Veith. He used to teach these things in university and this is what top evolutionists have taught for NUMEROUS years...if you want to say someone is lying, it was those evolutionists who trained MANY students in this way. It's possible that in the last few years, evolution has changed from what Veith learned tho. It continually does that every time evidence that can falsify it is found...instead of manning up to the facts and having scientific integrity.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree speaking of manning up to the facts, did you read what I said? do you have anything to comment about the CONTENT or are you gonna forever babble on about the spirit of it all? Cuz frankly it's getting rather boring.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo re: 3:10-3:26, yet AGAIN, much of what he is saying is referencing what evolutionists have taught for MANY years and comparing it to the evidence. If you think it's wrong, your first duty is to convince evolutionists of this and to get rid of these things in the textbooks and all levels of school. The fact is that they HAVE BEEN TAUGHT to NUMEROUS students as fact. Your problem is not with Veith..it's with the evolutionists who are teaching these things that you think are false.
dotoree 1 year ago
@Texoki At 4:40 he notes the standard model of fossilization. No problem there. So why at 6:20 does he attempt to suggest that scientists claim that volcanic burial is the sole method of burial and fossilization? Could it be his need to guide his audience away from trusting science's real claims (as he did in the fossil layer aging example)?
Does he really think he can just wish that local floods pass as equivalent to global flood?
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo Frodo stop lying about people who differ from you. NOWHERE near 6:20 (or anywhere else that I know of) does Veith say that volcanic burial is the "SOLE method of burial and fossilization" That's completely false and simply does not exist in what he's saying. FURTHERMORE, AGAIN he is just reporting what many evolution textbooks teach...SHEESH. You can't even think of doing science or any rational thinking if you misrpresent things so astoundingly badly.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree pot kettle? I said "why at 6:20 does he ATTEMPT TO SUGGEST that scientists claim that volcanic burial is the sole method of burial and fossilization?"
Yet another instance of your poor reading skills. Most of his unconscious audience would view it as presented.. "the text books will show you how these animals apparently fossilized..."
So who is misrepresenting what?
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo Veith NEVER ANYWHERE "attempts to suggest" anything you claim. He's summarizing what EVOLUTION textbooks teach and even then NOWHERE says anything about a "sole method". You are being extremely dishonest intentionally or your LISTENING skills (He is SPEAKING...not giving you a text to read) are so bad that you have business typing a word.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree so do you deny he is pushing his audience to the proposition that the sole reason for dinosaur fossils is a world wide flood? Do you deny that his errors do not indicate support for that claim? Do you just want to avoid talking about that?
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
Henderson dicctionary Biology
Macroevolution
Evolutionary proceses extendeding thru geological times
leading to the evolution of makeing diferent genere and higher taxa
Texoki 1 year ago
Macroevolution
evolution on a large scale extending over geologic era and resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups
wordnetweb(dot)princeton(dot)edu / perl / webwn
Texoki 1 year ago
It's important to understand that there is a BIG, BIG difference between science and belief systems. Scientific laws and theories are tools used to solve problems. Religions are things you believe in. Evolution is NOT something you believe in. It is a tool used to solve problems... like your hammer. You don't believe in your hammer, you use it to solve problems.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm : It's important to understand that there is a BIG, BIG difference between science and belief systems.
.
And very litle difference
between pseudo-science
and belief systems
Evolution is just pseudo-science
.
Do you have any empirical evidences of MACROevolution?
.
Texoki 1 year ago
@Texoki "And very litle difference between pseudo-science". If the current model of evolution is a pseudo-science, then all the sciences are pseudo (astronomy, geology, chemistry, etc). All the sciences are comprised of theories that we can both test/observe and not observe/test. Is evolution a "pseudo-science" or is all science "pseudo-science"?
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm : Is evolution a "pseudo-science" or is all science "pseudo-science"?
.
To use the scientific method, does not make science
It's only the best method
Texoki 1 year ago
@Texoki "To use the scientific method" I suppose I agree with your statement, but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Your response was not a complete sentence. Could you restate your thought/response for me?
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm And very litle difference between pseudo-science". If the current model of evolution is a pseudo-science, then all the sciences are pseudo (astronomy, geology, chemistry, etc).
-
I can not refrain from exposing this blatant falsehood. NUMEROUS sciences existed for 1000s of years before evolution and major evolutionists are on record saying that evolution has not helped in any single major advance of science and is just used as a narrative to gain acceptance.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree @dotoree "I can not refrain from exposing this blatant falsehood. NUMEROUS sciences existed for 1000s of years before evolution and major evolutionists"
What blatant falsehood are you looking to expose? My point is that ALL the sciences have models that are based on completely non-observable phenomena...this is way we CREATE models. What major evolutionist "admits" that the evolutionary model is used as a narrative to gain acceptance?
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm Sigh,
D) Creation science=speciation from species to family level and was published as such LONG before Darwin by Edward Blyth, Wallace and others.
E) Evolution=speciation way past the family level to astoudingly the kingdom level. This is the major way it differs from prior creation science.
F) NO real scientific field depends on Darwinian evolution. NONE. Even respected evolutionists are on record saying that. You've been sold a myth.
dotoree 1 year ago
@Texoki "Do you have any empirical evidences of MACROevolution?" You'll have to define "macroevolution" for me. "Macroevolution" has many definitions with most of the scientific community ignoring the definitions since the prefix "macro" doesn't differentiate/enhance the current evolutionary model. The process of evolution can easily be experimented/tested/observed. How do you define "macroevolution"?
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm : define "macroevolution" for me
.
Macroevolution
evolution on a large scale extending over geologic era and resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups
wordnetweb(dot)princeton(dot)edu / perl / webwn
Texoki 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Texoki "new taxonomic groups" empirical evidence for evolution? Dinosaur fossils.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm : define "macroevolution" for me.
.
Henderson dicctionary Biology
Macroevolution
Evolutionary proceses extendeding thru geological times
leading to the evolution of makeing diferent genere and higher taxa
Texoki 1 year ago
@blaisingm There are ~15 definitions even of species, even among evolutionists...so evolutionists need to clarify their own house. But, here's one based on nature.
Species=living things that mate with each other naturally in nature.
genus=living things that don't naturally mate with each other in nature, but can be mated artificially.
No directly testable evidence for evolution has yet been found. All cases of speciation up to the family level fall 100% within creation science.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree there are ring species which can not be made to produce offspring even through artificial means.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@dotoree "No directly testable evidence for evolution has yet been found. All cases of speciation up to the family level fall 100% within creation science."
The evolutionary model is one of the most testable of all the sciences. Artificial selection can be performed by just about anyone. Speciation events are well documented. What is, by the way, creation science? What kinds of models does creation science offer that can be used to solve problems?
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm Creation science and Bible science have made numerous predictions and hypothesis, often against the conventional scientific wisdom of the time (spontaneous generation, bleeding as a medical practice and others)&been proven right time and time and time again, in very practical ways. Bible science and just 4 creation scientists work based on the Bible has saved way over a billion lives. Bible science has OFTEN been used to solve problems. It's sad these facts are banned from study.
dotoree 1 year ago
Also read proverbs 3:5-6 This is for evolutionist.
After you read this verse you will know that what you are saying is a fairytell.
These people are real people in the bible like you and me not fairy tails. History shows king Solomon, and King david exist just as much as Julius Caesar.
King Solomon was blessed, and was the most wise man on earth because of God. So no scientist can compete with the knowledge and wisdom of him.
incredible916 1 year ago 2
Deuteronomy 29:29
The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
With that said Veith is talking about what has been revealed to us by God. Scientist like to come up with their own idea, and are way off. The bible tells us why. If someone is disobedient to God there is no convincing them of the truth.
incredible916 1 year ago
Don't waste your breath arguing with gregrutz God has given him up to his on mind.
incredible916 1 year ago
The Geologic Column is not layers of rocks. It is TIme Periods.
"Off course it exists today" WRONG
Show me a triolbite that is alive today
gregrutz 2 years ago
or a dinosaur.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
OOPS4U2CNOW