New World Monkey - Evolutionist Know Little

[spikeroni4u]

Prove the color of Jesus Christ's eyes and I'll accept this absurd "proof."

[mmorgan0678]

@spikeroni4u Jesus' lineage was mostly what we today would call Arabian, with some Ethiopian. This fact alone proves (to me at least) that his eyes were brown. I don't know what they are trying to prove with this video. The evidence in favor of evolution is so strong, and what do they have against it? Small holes in the record here and there? A book of folk tales? Seriously?

[33LB]

lack of knowledge about new world monkeys doesn't invalidate evolution. we have a lack of knowledge about many things, including gravity (we don't know what exactly causes it). does that mean gravity is invalidated?

[kuckold]

theres no evidence only propagandistic dogma

[evirus]

does your BS know no bounds? i mean honestly this dosn't do jack in terms of disproving evolution.

[BereanBeacon]

evirus, it means you people will have to fabricate other stories.

[evirus]

so the only evidence for evolution is fabricated then? thats a vary bold claim that just dosn't hold up to the fact that tons of evidence is still held valid, you have a vary vary vary long list to start disproving.

[Mekelsior]

Evirus: Those that believe in evolution, this relativly old religion of "There is no God", a cult of death and suffering, has no scientific evidence to support their claim. Do feel free to believe you came from an ape, but do not say it is based on science.

[evirus]

again a layman shows his utter lack of understanding of science falsly justified by the idea that it somehow says god dosn't exist, not only IS there evidence for the COMMON ANCESTORY of apes and man(retro-viral insertions for instance) but evolution dosn't say a single thing about the existance of god, if you would have bothered to pay a little more attention in your science class you would have known that!

[Mekelsior]

Evirus: You should perhaps read what other people write before you state something. All I did say, was that Evolution is not based on science. It is based on interpetations of a meaning we give the evidence, and then conclude either for.

[evirus]

the ability to falsify, as well as the peer review process, requires strong claims to be backed up by strong evidence, are you saying the concept of mutations effecting the survival of an animal and being passed on to offspring is only based on interpretation? then you should be able to find some valid evidence, problem is that your other replys arn't valid.

[Mekelsior]

Evirus: Now consider this. The Earth, in regard to C-14, has not yet reached equilibrium. The Speed of Light, is not constant. Poloniom Halos appear in granite (indicating that it was never in melted form) Artifacts have been found that regarding the (G)eological (C)olumn is 2.8 billion years old. That the only place you can find the GC is in the textbooks. Now, consider this: What if your assumptions about how it all came about is wrong?

[evirus]

inaccuracy after inaccuracy after inaccuracy, C-14 equilibrium? the speed of light is constant and there is no evidence which suggests otherwise. halos are formed by radon gas the decayed form of uranium. the GC can befound in entirety in many places like Williston Basin of North Dakota, but there is enough over lap in non-complete areas to make this irrelevent.

[Mekelsior]

Evirus: It is appearant that you do not know "The Google" I suggest you use it. Do a "Light Not Constant" and you will find several science articles arguing that it is not constant, that they have discovered that it is not constant and so on. If you want to believe in this god of death of yours, then so be it, I can do nothing about it, it is your choise.

[evirus]

i don't believe in a god of death just because i accept the fact of evolution, you accept english does that mean you believe in the god of english? the god of print? the god of squiggle lines? and more on topic the speed of light, what i found says the speed of light may have been lower, meaning slower, that dosn't exactly bood well for young earth creationism considering it would expand age rather than contract it.

[Mekelsior]

Evirus: My referal to the god of death, was simply an alorgy to explain what your religion is all about. Evolutionism need death in order to advance life. You imagine that death has some unknown properties, an inspiration of sorts that further the development of Life. So you make something that is obviously bad into something that you use for good. This by definition, since it is opposite Life, a death cult.

[evirus]

clearly you do not understand evolution. what does death provide? nothing, quite the oppisite actually it prevents genes from being reproduced, natural selection favors those with better genes, meaning the survivers make up the offspring. to say this is immoral and false is not only an ignorant arguement, but flys in the face of everything we know today, if an animal was born genetically missing a leg would you expect its survival?

[Mekelsior]

Evirus: I believe it is you who do not know Evolution. Or perhaps you see how it cannot be the way the state it to be. We are Born (additive) We die (negative) Since death does not provide anything. So if Evolution was Positive, that is adding anything, why do we die? Why did we not evolve into none dying entities?

[evirus]

reality and evolution dosn't concern itself with what we wish to be the case. don't fall into the anti-intellectual trap of thinking evolution fallows what want the creature wants to happen.

[evirus]

even assuming the speed of light can change rapidly enough to give creationism some room you would have to prove the speed of light at around the time of creation was suitable for creation as well as show how it has changed to current day speed. if your so optimistic about this why not get a degree in physics and prove it though the process of peer review.

[Mekelsior]

Evirus: Err no, you have to prove it did not change. The question to this entire debate is this. "Evolutionists claim that they have based their theory on science. This translates into: We need to prove our theory is correct, or disprove it, by testing." Now, if you cant prove or disprove that light was constant billion of years ago it is no longer science, it is religion.

[evirus]

are you saying a biologist concerned with earthly matters should also be experts in physics, cosmology, chemistry, geology etc? even if the speed of light wasn't costant that dosn't change the fact of evolution nor does it change the agreement between strata and tree ring data. as the the validity of strata time periods.

[Mekelsior]

Evirus: Tree ring data? Oldest tree alive today, 4.2ish years old? That was when the flood was according to the Bible. Speed of Light is used to meassure the distance to stars, if the speed is faster then expected, the time spent to get to the star is less. Strata? You speak of the column, you do know it does not exist for real, just in the text books?

[evirus]

did i not already tell you that it does exist, in full, in a few locations, and the locations in which it isn't fully desplayed the overlap is enough to indicate consistancy. also the oldist living thing dosn't mean a thing, the oldest bush is 11,700 years old(King Clone creosote bush in the Mojave Desert) plus tree ring data can be collected from dead trees. and finally show me the citation to a scholarly article which says the speed of light was faster in the past.

[Mekelsior]

Evirus: Regarding my moon comment, that was with 1 cm pr year speed. It moves away from us faster than that.

[evirus]

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Moon is receding at 6 inches per year(thats 15.24cm, in reality its 3.8cm). If we go back a million years, then the Moon was 6 million inches(15,240,000cm) closer to the earth. That comes to about 95 miles! Since the Moon is about 240,000 miles away, that doesn't amount to diddly-squat!

[evirus]

keep in mind i inflated the recession speed for you(you said it was 1cm, in reality its 3.8cm, but im giving you 15.24cm, to get easy to read resualts and give you a massive advantage for the arguement, even with this massive advantage of quicker recession the math just dosn't old up)

[Mekelsior]

Evirus: hmm hehe oki I miscalculated twice, let me get back to you on this one :)

[evirus]

its easier if you just keep everything in centimeters seeing as how that the rate of recession's units. google will give you conversion rates if you need it(like typing in 12 inches in feet it will tell you its one foot)

[evirus]

also remember ,the most accepted hypothesis at this time, that a giant earth impact caused formation of the moon, this means that even if the moon isn't there the earth still exists, therefore age estimates shouldn't start at the existance of the moon.

[Mekelsior]

evirus: True, doesnt seem much, now try the same bit with 1 billion years, and you end up at 3 800 000 km. wich is 10x the current distance of the moon, hehe perhaps my math is horrible but I still cant see where it is wrong :)

[evirus]

and thats not even taking into account the fact that the agrocultural revolution took place, by YEC's world view, before the earth ever existed, kind of hard to farm with no ground or plants. also you present a straw man arguement, evolution isn't about death its about survival.

[Mekelsior]

Evirus: Nothing strawman about it. Your claim: Life mutates into new forms, improved. The Improved lifeform lives, the rest die, if the rest does not die, the new improved life form can not bring forth the new information in its geonom. Thus the statement is correct, by death, life is improved.

[evirus]

than prehaps a red harring? destracting from the centeral point? science dosn't depend on morality. and as for death, we who die are the lucky ones, for we have lived, take human reproduction, millions of sperm, useually only one makes it, one life form from many many possable ones. to use the concept of an after life or immorality of death to defend your side is to insult all those who could have been here had we not been so lucky.

[Mekelsior]

Evirus: True, Science does not depend, but it is guided, or you would get holocausts all the time. We are lucky if we die you say, so then huh.. you just admitted that Death is positive. This means by default, that you are a religion of death, and you worship death. And not once did I speak of an afterlife.

[evirus]

my comment was to remove the immorality you sense from the vary concept of death. death happens, to say it has no effect in reality is asinine, do you think there was no effect in Lincoln's death? how about JFKs? say what you will about morality but that arguement dosn't disprove the data therefore you are wasting our time.

[Mekelsior]

Evirus: Im not forcing you to spend any time at all. Your choise. Now, if you read carefully of what I wrote, "You need to prove that Light was constant" not me. I already believe it was not so :) Anyway, you are trying to rationalize again, do what you wish, embrace your religion, it is your right, does not become truth just cause you say it is.

[evirus]

the amount of evidence you can find simply by going to a library and searching for it is staggering, to suggest that all of it is invalid, as i have said before, is insane at best.

[Mekelsior]

Evirus: No.. I think it is you who waste my time, you refuse to see simple logic, and start arguing about sematics and things that are not important. I can tell you this, The moon is moving away from us at a so far constant rate pr year. 400 000 million years ago, the moon would have crashed with the earth.

[evirus]

addressed in your correction

[Mekelsior]

Evirus: Since you speak of me in terms of a layman, then I can assume you have a degree of sorts. Wonderful, then you should be able to explain it, and then tell me how you can still justify evolution when there are so many uncertainties. Anyway hope you find the answer you seek. I have already accepted that I believe.

[evirus]

but is your belief strong in that science will never counter it, or is it weak in that the slighest discovery will offend? i think its obvious that your belief is weak. and the evidence for evolution if monumental the devloped drug resistance of germs is a perfect example. but the question is, can you actually define evolution for me(it would give me a good idea of what exactly you know)

[evirus]

correction: "the evidence for evolution IS monumental" and lets not assume authorities here, peer reviewed scholarly evidence can be researched by anyone capable of going to a college library.

[33LB]

"a cult of death and suffering,"

actually, you're thinking of christianity. christianity is a death cult of people who just can't wait to die so they can fly up to heaven. everytime someone mentions "rapture" or "apocalypse" or "end times" or "war", christians get a hard-on for death and destruction.