Re: The Sloppy Science of Evolution (Re: TheLivingDinosaur)

[rpk58]

I like your analogy

[Answerquestions1]

the point is that evolution has to explain and understand the first self replicating molecule, and in order do that, you have to know how did it appeard

[SentientRaven]

@Answerquestions1: There's quite a difference. "Who created God?" is not a general argument against the existence of God, but an argument to demonstrate that "everything needs a cause, therefore there's a God" has to be either false or useless in explaining the origin of anything because it leaves open the very question it attempts to answer.

In contrast, evolution is intended to explain speciation, not life itself or everything.

Even if I gave you that point, evolution is still a fact.

[Answerquestions1]

@SentientRaven

so.. not knowing who creted god, does not invalidate inteligent design, just like not knowing how did life appear does not invalidate evolution ¿do we agree?

[SentientRaven]

@Answerquestions1: Absolutely! Not knowing the origin of God is by no means any sort of disproof of his existence. It merely works to neutralize one of the common arguments *for* the existence of God.

[Answerquestions1]

the according to you logic asking ´´if god created life then who created God´´ is not valid, since creationists do not deal with the origin of god.

[cmpresents]

Evolutionist/Atgeist are hypocrites, you ppl are hypocrites. Listen very clearly, if God created it, then it's not evolution, it's creation. Don't be hypocrites, you know very well that when u say "evolution", what you are saying is abiogenesis, so stop your double talk. Stop hiding behind the word evolution.

[SentientRaven]

@cmpresents: Sir, did you watch the video at all?

[cmpresents]

@cmpresents Sorry, I didn't mean you, well, if you don't call it creation, then you are included, and yes, I did watch your video, or else I would not have commented. Why did you ask me if I watch your video, what did I say that is not true.

[SentientRaven]

@cmpresents: You'd be surprised how many people comment without watching the full video. ;) - Couldn't God have created things through evolution?

[rpk58]

@cmpresents Did you ever think of the possibility that the first self replecating molecule would have been created by God, and the rest happened through evolution?

You dont want to consider that because your version of God-belief depends on a scripture which gives a very different account for creation, and you want to believe in that account literally.

And you call the evolutionists hypocrites!

[hildegain]

"Close enough to call a fact" You would never swap out the word theory for 'fact' because theories are always made up of several facts and observations.

You might have said "close enough to call perfect". You listed several facts about relativity beforehand afterall ;)

[TheNameIsUnimportant]

Wow, what a perfect analogy. I am not quite sure what should surprise me more: your elegance of delivery or that your whole point seems to have been completely lost on the recipient...

[GardenHeath]

This was a wonderful response and I wish that it could have more effect on the person it was directed at.

But regardless. It's brilliant.

Thanks

[MrSamuelSpade]

Well done. You clearly explain yourself with consideration and understanding.

[spiritualbully]

you scared me, I actually thought you were telling me that TheLivingDinosaur didn't understand evolution. Good luck getting Matt to admit he's wrong though, he's ignored many of my corrections over time.

[charlesfloyb]

Great video! Very informative. I was under the notion that in order to believe in evolution one had to believe in abiogenesis as well. But obviously, as you pointed out, evolution works. Evolution is fact no matter what the starting point is.

[TheRenekruse]

Great video SentientRaven and one that needed to be made. Thumbs up on it and as always much respect from me for you, keep up the good work.

[Domzdream]

I love your videos. See that's why I just don't make vids. You, and people like you who DO make vids, say things that are on my mind, but just more eloquently. I don't see a point in making that which can be said in a way far better than I could ever communicate.

Keep the eloquence coming. I thirst for more.

[DaynaGoldstein]

Very even toned. My sense is that Abrahamic theists can't accept a definition of life that isn't fully modern. I think that their creation story says that man was fully formed from the dirt, all at once, poof. To say man evolved at all is to contradict their premise.

[onceforgivennowfree]

Thanks for the video. Feel free to post it as a response if you want. Just to clear things up tho, I'm aware that abiogenesis is not considered part of evolution - and I don't think that abiogenesis disproves evolution - I'm just saying that evolutino pressupposes it happened (which it does). But I dont like talking about semantics. I was hoping you would adress my actual arguements against evolution!

Take care,

Matt

[SentientRaven]

@onceforgivennowfree: Wow, I screwed that comment up good, let me try again. Evolution doesn't presuppose abiogenesis, it merely presupposes the existence of life, entirely regardless of how it originated. That's what the video is about. So if that's not clear, I'm afraid you've missed the point. I'll go into Intelligent Design when I've done more homework on it and after watching your series on it a couple of times. Thank you for the positive reception.

[BillKiernan]

@onceforgivennowfree "(which it does) no, it doesn't. it only deals with the life that we have to work with, and the life that has actually existed. not what had come before that life or how the life appeared. i'm sorry, it's just the reality of the matter.

[MaximumAxiom]

@onceforgivennowfree

"I'm just saying that evolutino pressupposes it happened (which it does)"

Did you even watch the video because it completely addressed that point you're reasserting? SR gave a great analogy that just as Newton could know and apply the laws of motion prior to even knowing anything about the origin of the universe, biologists can do the same without Abiogenesis. If you disagree, I look forward to an actual rebuttal.

[rogan71]

@onceforgivennowfree - Arthur C Clarke once said life could have spawned on Earth from faecal matter jettisoned by a passing alien spacecraft....I don't imagine this was a real hypothesis, rather a slight on the fact we really have no idea, but it is something of a failure of the imagination to invent a supernatural cause. Evolution doesn't pre-suppose anything. It's merely what the evidence points to.

[Saukko31]

Good old creationist debunking. Thumbs up.

[hens0w]

It dose presuppose life which to me implies "an" origin of life but "god dun it" is an origin of life

Also ID presuppose a creator so "ID is stupid because it presupposes a creator for which there is no naturalistic explanation", I'll stick with ID is IDiotic

I think that Einstein said that Hubble finding should that the Cosmological constant was and incorrect addition to the math of relativity

[R2rGangstaFC]

havent seen you for a while. I thought Dawkins put you out of business