Evolution: the change in allelic frequencies. So simple to understand. Leave it to half-wits like Ian Juby to confound it into something garbled and impossible to understand.
I am a scientists and and can tell you that the people in this"documentary" are not well trained scientists just based on the first three minutes of this video. Nobody who understands science would ever claim that science has disproved a god. Supernatural things are not part of scientific inquiry because they are supernatural. Hence, these people aren't good scientists, if they have ever been actual scientists.....
@snigglefritz12345 I am sorry, but where did I commit a "genetic fallacy"??? First of all, genetics is a sub-field of biology, which is a field of science. Second, I was talking about the pseudo-scientists in this video. Or did you not understand my comment? I am happy to explain it to you, if you want me to.
@usertripppleA HAHAHAHAHA! Another clown pretending to be "rational". Get with the program, Skippy, and LOOK IT UP! The only thing worse than arrogant atheists are when they cannot admit when they've royally fouled up - AGAIN.
@snigglefritz12345 Again, where did I talk about genetics in my previous comment? I am really not sure you are responding to a comment you think you are responding to.
@snigglefritz12345 Fine, look up science, you lazy slob! Show me where science claims god doesn't exist! The pseudo-scientists pretend that "science has disprove god" and science cannot make that claim by definition. And science these people mischaracterize science in its core, they can't be scientists. It is that simple. Start thinking - or at least try...
@snigglefritz12345 Sorry, but if somebody doesn't understand that science cannot disprove a supernatural being, they have not understood the fundamentals of science. If you want scientific advice/commentary from people who have no idea about the core science, that's your choice. But it speaks for you (and probably about your scientific knowledge). I usually try to get facts and truth, but than again, I live in the real world...
@snigglefritz12345 And before I forget, where did I commit the genetic fallacy? All I said was that these people are not welled trained scientists since they don't understand the core of science. If I would have said something like "anything they say must be wrong because they are not well trained scientists" it would be a different issue. So I just learned a few minutes ago what a genetic fallacy is and I already understand it better than you -- are you embarrassed yet?
@usertripppleA "So I just learned a few minutes ago what a genetic fallacy is and I already understand it better than you -- are you embarrassed yet?" I am embarrassed for your astonishing ego, bravado and arrogance. Typical.
BTW, I read your comment on live radio and embarrassed you further.
@snigglefritz12345 Again, where is the fallacy? They don't know about the fundamentals of science - hence they are not well trained scientist - do you understand that?
@usertripppleA You claim to understand it better than I do (and I wrote an article about this, as well as other logical fallacies), and you cannot see such a basic error. No, you want to live with your presuppositions and religious bigotry. You disgust me.
@usertripppleA I think lots of these people do understand science but misrepresent it intentionally to make it easier for them to challenge evolution. If their followers expect to see a 1/2duck 1/2alligator it's easier for them to challenge evolution. Don't get me wrong, I think most creationists don't understand evolution & honestly believe what they say but I do think some understand, intentionally misrepresent & foster these false beliefs & misunderstandings to keep creationist beliefs going
@snigglefritz12345 In addition you claim that I live in religious bigotry. Where did I say anything about religion? I did not make a single claim about religions or gods. I only talked about these people being poorly educated in science based on the fact that they don't know the fundamentals of science. And you claim I commit the fallacy here? Please, please use your head or at least try.
@snigglefritz12345 Fine, look up science, you lazy slob! Show me where science claims god doesn't exist! The pseudo-scientists pretend that "science has disprove god" and science cannot make that claim by definition. And science these people mischaracterize science in its core, they can't be scientists. It is that simple. Start thinking - or at least try...
@blackplanetmedia Well, I did pass my TOEFL test but you are correct, english is not my native language. Not sure what that has to do with science though....
orge121 The,gay people are against nature,this is,and always will be,just as every distinguished psychologist would say to you AN MENTAL DISORDER...just like anxiety,hypochondria,or OKP is...homosexuality is mental sexual disorder,and if you think its not unnatural..then fine...would you agree that we need to send all gays in some lonely island,and then...see how long would it need for them to survive..?Hmm?I am for that...just send them somewhere all together,and check out how long they last..
@giska1000 Homosexuality is a mental disorder???? It hasnt been called that since the 1970s... What the hell is this comment about putting gay people on an island? They wouldnt last? Honestly I have no clue what you are getting at. I think you just like to ramble.
@orge121 And homosexuality IS mental disorder..it is classified as such today by alot of prominent psychologists,especially here in europe,and there are even centers where they cure this disease,also sado mazochism,voayerism,paraphilia,fetishism,transvestism,exibitionism,GID are along with pedophilioa,necrophilia and zoophilia classified,TILL THIS VERY DAY,here in europe as SEXUAL DISORDERS and mental dysfunctions...check any medical center here in europe,or any psychologist here and see ...
@orge121 ....for yourself......homosexuality IS sexual-mental disorder and dont pretend that you dont know what im talking about...you americans and your media promote homosexuality and all kinds of sick and perverted disorders,pornography,even zoophilia and pedestria,but anyway...if you put homoexuals in an island..how long they ll last,since you wanted someone here to explain to you why homosexuality is against nature...well...tell me..how long they ll last?
@orge121 ummm lets see...he did EVERYTHING opposite from Judeo Christianity,he killed JEWS,and wanted to exterminate both jews,and whole orthodox christian church(serbs,romanians,russians,slavs in general) he actually did EVERYTHING against christianity,and Christ..he even had so many quotes against christianity ,both antisemic and antichristian comments at the same time ....study little bit you know..knowledge wont hurt....
@giska1000 Would I consider his actions christain...no. The question is did Hitler consider his actions to be those of the lords...the answer appears to be a yes given statements made by Hitler. All...I repeat ALL anti-Christian comments made by Hitler originate in one of two books...neither is considered trustworthy by the historical community.
@orge121 Kid..kid..go and watch cartoons or something......THE QUESTION IS DID HITLER CONSIDER HIS ACTIONS TO BE THOSE OF THE LORDS...ummmm...you do get that LORD i stitle,and it could be applied to anyone riiight?I know you dont,because after all...you are dumb...so...you should be honest,and specific,and ask did hitler consider his actions to be those of the Christ..or Christlike..or of Lord Christ... ...ohh..and this about ,,historical trustworthy,, hahaha...idiot...he had his original quote.
@orge121 ...in croatio where he said christianity is jewish conspiracy so that they can rule the world,till this day you have this original quote from hitler while he was with ustashas in croatia,killing ethnic serbs,russians,killing romanians,vlachs,roms ..etc....
@orge121 And yes....its shame for man to have longhair,ACCORDING TO OLD TESTAMENT concerning jewish people...male,man need to have short,nice looking,elegant hairstyle...and woman need to have long,elegant hair ...nature ,,cannot teach you anything,, concerning these kind of issues,because nature is not intelligent,nor a person ....
@orge121 Is your response in two parts? I understand the first part but why are you talking about nature?
...Wel..go back to my comments and see....im talking about nature concerning your quetions about homosexuality,and is it natural or not(you seem to have some objections there) and nature concerning ,,long hair and shame,, .. ..Because you seem to have objections toward Bible verse in which it is naturally shame for man to have long hair(like a woman) ....
@giska1000 Aight man...wow you are full of it. 1. Cite me the reference for those quote by hitler...5 bucks its from either hitlers secret conversations or hitlers table talks. 2. Hitler thought he was doing his creator work in the same way every religious nut believes that. 3. Read the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union... 4. I am sure gay people would last on an island as long as straight people. 5. What the hell is that question even about?
@orge121 When National Socialism has ruled long enough, it will no longer be possible to conceive of a form of life different from ours. In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together. … No, it does not mean a war. The ideal solution would be to leave the religions to devour themselves, without persecutions.
@orge121 But in that case we must not replace the Church with something equivalent…The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. [Hitler's Table Talk, p. 6-7]
@orge121 Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. [p. 51]
So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.
@orge121 The Jew who fraudulently introduced Christianity into the ancient world—in order to ruin it—re-opened the same breach in modern times, taking as his pretext the social question. Just as Saul became St. Paul, Mardochai has become Karl Marx. [p. 314]
..............And on..and on...YOU NEED TO BE AN IDIOT to believe that hitler was christian...oh and 2.No,hitler was atheist,he had atheistic quotes,do you want to see them too?
@giska1000 That was my entire point Giska...The book Hitlers Table Talks is widely considered a mistranslation and is not accepted as accurate within the historical community. Honestly this is a moot point. Hitler did what he did not for his god...but for himself (my point 2 was misleading and im sorry). He may of had religious views...but they were the justification and not the driving force.
@orge121 Yes,he had ,,religious views,, but anyway,they were not christian w.views ..definitely,you wont find in Bible that there are aryans,half apes half aryans,almost full apes etc...thats only found in socialdarwinism (evolution,and stage of evolvability) ...so my whole point was hitler newer killed for Christ,because it is not consistent with Christianity or the Bible ....
@giska1000 I cant believe...some random douche on the internet is actually upsetting me with his stupidity. You're whole island point was about reproduction!!!!! Man 5th graders have better arguments then you...
@orge121 3.This has nothing to do with the fact that from perspective of medicine,biology,and psychology HOMOSEXUALITY is mental sexual disorder ....(if this 3rd is reffered to gays anyway) ...4.Ahahahahaahah you IDIOT....you think that gays would survive..for 30,40 0r lets say 100 years if you put themn in some island...ok,explain to me..HOW?:) 5.Since you dont even know what you said,and then what i adressed ...then..nevermind...forget it ...
@giska1000 The european union does not consider gay to be a disorder. The UN does not consider gay to be a disorder...maybe Iran does, but thats not helping your case much. Further more explain to me why gay people would NOT survive on an island while straight people would.
@orge121 Ok,so if european union does not consider that HIV and Aids are disease,then,they are not disease?Im not speaking about ,,european nion,, which is falling apart right now...BUT im speaking from an perspective of expert in PSYCHOLOGY,MEDICINE,BOLOGY ...can you understand it or not?And if you want,i ll name you alot of prominent leading world,and european psychologists who said that like it was always,homosexuality is now and always will be,MENTAL SEXUAL DISORDER ....simple as that ....
@orge121 Ok,you are an ignorant little kid,you just keep claiming what YOU think is right to be right,and it is expected from you ignorant americans,so it is me who doesn not want to have thi suseless conversation with you anymore ...Homosexuality is not mental disorder just like necrophilia,pedophilia,zoophilia,sado masochism and other disorders arent...you just keep saying this to yourself,you may keep believing it some day...oh...and concerning reproduction...of course,this is the best ...
@orge121 I ll give you a citations when YOU answer some of my questions ...dumbass ..;) ok?
And yes,mostly gays,and bisexuals get STDs,the fact is they are,from the very beginning,the biggest source of HIV ...HIV is actually even called GRID at first ..because it eruрted amongst gays first ....check out рercentage of HEALTHY,normal couрles,and by that i mean man and women,who are married,and who are moral,and founded family ..check out how many of them has STDs,and then check out ....
According to the CDC in 2009, the stats go (for HIV) gay white men, gay black men, gay latin men, straight black women, straight black men, straight latin women, straight white women. Gay men have aids in a higher percentage than any other sub-section of the population. I am sure they also by more Cher albums. The fact sheet said nothing about relationship status.
@orge121 -.- what a fail ...as i said,check out health of normal couples.,and then exually perverted ,,couples,, ..ok?Enough said ...And concerning this blacks,jews etc...no,i am not terrible person,who are YOU to tell me that,and based on WHAT you just called me bad,what is your objective ground for doing that?But anyway,i would not kill blacks,jews,etc. dont use ad hominem fallacies with me ok?I newer said i would kill gays also,i just said i woud sent then to some lonely island,because ...
@orge121 ..because there,they would be able to live hovewer they want to,and there they could be able to practice their perversions between themselves,separate from normal human beings ....
@giska1000 I hate to break it to you by your standards you and yours should put yourselves on the island right next to them as 'normal human beings' don't cast people out based on ignorance from a bronze age text.
@orge121 ..oh and that ,,maybe iran,, thing is actually ironic,because i just wanted to say ,,maybe european or american unin,, or NATO consider gays to be ,,normal,, but..ummm..experts...actual scientists..NOT...so...you mixing apples and oranges here...EU is ONE THING,and PSYCHOLOGY,MEDICINE,BIOLOGY,NEUROLOGY etc is ANOTHER THING...when you are sick,mentally or physically,you wont go to european union to cure you,would you?Oh maybe you would ?-.- ..But anyway lets go back to lonely island ....
@orge121 ..Simply,if you had any logic,and knowledge you would know that putting gays in lonely island,would cause death,they would die very soon from STD diseases,HIV,sifilis,and all kinds of different bacteria that is transmitted trough anus,when you have anal sex,but lets say one small percent of them WOULD survive,i.e by some miracle,they woudnt contract one os SDT diseases,virus,or bacteria....well...they would DIE OFF,because they CANNOT reproduce..they would go extinct....or you believe..
@giska1000 Your talking about reproduction??? I thought you were trying to make a valid point about gay people...my bad. I do not know where you find your information, but I do not want to have this conversation with you anymore. You are a very angry man and have no clue why you are angry. Being gay is not a mental disorder and the prominent psychology and medical organizations (which voice the opinions of their fields as a whole) feel the same way.
@orge121 ..point out there...NATURE itself is in bipolar relationship,and it is NATURAL for male and female to be together and have famialy and reproduce.....homosexuality disorder is AGAINST nature,and against the main law of biogenesis in natural biosystem,and its bipolarity,...gays can only .... each other,sodomise themselves in their arse,and get HIV,aids,sifilis and other diseases and die...but ...when male and female are together in healthy and normal relationship ..its completely opposite
..how many gays,bisexuals,transvestites,рrostitutes,exibitionalists,рedoрhiles and other immoral рerverted monsters have STDs and how many of them would die,if not from aids,then at least from extinction...listre...i would send gays in some lonely island,since they want to have their rights,let them have rights in their own,isolated sick рerverted ,,community,, and then just come back after 30,40,50 years or so,when they die out,lol and just sterilise island,and then bring next gaygeneration etc
@giska1000 I am glad you have no real power...because you would be a tyrant. Who would follow next...the Jews? Blacks? You are a terrible person and I am done responding to you. Get out in the world and meet people. You make me sick.
@OnionSportsdome Hmmm..lets see,talking snakes is alegory,snake from genesiswas not even animal,but satan,its one of his synonyms,magical fruit...naaah...there isnt one,man newer sinned because he ate fruit,but because he broke his рromise,and lied,and rib women...look...Omniрotent Intelligent Designer can make woman from rib,but i seriously doubt that woman can come from magic rocks,or some sort of magic ,,souр,, and then somehow magically evolve into рrotein,then more of them,then enzymes..
@OnionSportsdome ..then more of them рroteins,then DNA,and RNA ,then in cells,then in organisms,and then worms,and later ...eleрhants...yeah..right...every natural law broken,laws of thermodynamics broken,basic laws of biogenesis broken,basic laws of logic broken....and...YOU talking to me here about magick and unnatural?Are you serious?Do you even know what means unnatural?;)
The fault seen at Yamnuska is called the McConnell thrust, and despite what Ian claims, slickensides have been found in association with the thrust sheet, as well as fault gouge, cataclasites (formed by grinding and fracturing along a fault line), and mylonite, (a metamorphic rock formed as a result of shear stress). No evidence for sliding indeed.
Thrust faults typically have a dip angle of under 5 percent and are created by the inexorable forces of plate tectonics. They are invariably found in what are clearly folded and faulted mountains and the faults are often visually obvious, despite what roundboy asserts. Ian, dressing up to look like Bob Bakker does not qualify you to discuss geology any more than it qualifies you to bloviate on biochemstry.
@orge121 I'm preparing a new episode of "Jubylation" that addresses Ian's absurd, intellectually dishonest claims regarding geology. It's taking awhile because this is a very long and tedious video and, frankly, I can only watch Ian for a short while before my gag reflex kicks in. I'll leave his effluent spew concerning biology to the biologists.
Ian, your statement that you "have to have DNA to make life" amply demonstrates that you have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. Have you ever heard of RNA?
Ian, the press did not hail the Miller-Urey experiment as having "created life in the lab," and even if they did the unlettered ramblings of reporters are irrelevant.
Oh gee, look at that. Not one biologist, biochemist, physicist or geologist; in other words, not one with professional qualifications to weigh in on geology, cosmology or biology. And I'll wager not one can list a published, peer-reviewed research article on any of those topics. That's some panel of "experts" you've got there Ian! Why didn't you ask my fatassed cats to appear as "experts?" I'm sure they'd have been happy to squeeze out some evidence for you.
Ian: A very interesting and surprising video. It is encouraging to see other scientists realising the fact that evolution is the myth, not Creation. Many of the well known "historical" and "modern" scientists throughout the world were Christians and Creationists to boot, without which the science we deal with today would have had no foundation. Of course I discount Darwin.
Odc for video, but some conspiracy state that the free mason or pretty much the illuminati altered the bible and change facts about it. Remember to always question things urself and dig deep
You can hold any religious opinion you like, Dolly.
What you can't do is claim Jesus for your own.
And millions of Christians worldwide know that a fact is a fact, and one of those facts that they embrace is the fact that wolves are indeed related to foxes.
although evolution is not proven , poeple saw the existence of the theory alone enough to deny the existence of god; even though evolution doesn't say anything about how life started and the universe and its complexity;yet it was enough for atheists to disbelieve in god. everything was just coincidence!!
"why, on our present and ancient earth, do some organisms still maintain the simplest anatomies? Why were these forms not pushed up the ladder of complexity ages ago?
Lamarck this problem with the last major argument of his full system--continuous spontaneous generation. New life continues to arise from chemical constituents; these simple forms begin their march up the ladder, while replacements at their lowly status continue to form anew."
""...that these little forms of life were the original inhabitants of the globe; moreover, that spontaneous generation of these organisms was still going on."--Henry Fairfield Osborn
@odi "Looks like that blogger's opinion was dead on"
You really do not have the ability to separate out issues do you? And this from an Evolutionaut who are always ranting on about how abiogenesis has nothing to do with Evolution Theory, go figure! We are not talking about abiogenesis! Darwin thought they may have formed in a 'little warm pond,' so what? "that these little forms of life were the original inhabitants of the globe" right! and our ancestors via a branching tree. Viola!
"Like many of his contemporaries, Lamarck believed that life had begun through spontaneous generation. Unlike those same contemporaries, however, he claimed that new primitive life forms sprang up throughout the history of life, rather than all at one time."
--The Robinson Library
....
So much for Lamarck being the author of a mysterious, pre-Darwin theory called "The Theory of Common Descent".....
@odinata@odinata "Like many of his contemporaries, Lamarck believed that life had begun through spontaneous generation" So what? So did Darwin! So did Miller and Urey!" So do you! It is not what we are discussing!
"he claimed that new primitive life forms sprang up throughout the history of life, rather than all at one time." Well, so did Darwin but said they get gobbled up (eaten); so what? It is a side issue to the main point.
"However, unlike Darwin's later theory, Lamarck's assumed that each species was the result of an independent event of spontaneous generation, and that they were continuing to the present day - each species was advanced just as much as it had been in existence. "
Thats not common descent.
Common descent would be if spontaneous generation happened only once.
@odinata quoting a blog that states something that is not true, ie that Lamarck said "each species was the result of an independent event of spontaneous generation," and then tries to it back it up with something that doesn't in any way demonstrate what is claimed, is pretty poor show. And it does not even refer to Lamarck's Zoological Philosophy 1809 anyway! This didn't bother you did it? cont...
"Thats not common descent" Well that is a strawman argument as that is not what Lamarck say.
""Lamarck believed that life had begun through spontaneous generation. But he claimed that new primitive life forms sprang up throughout the history of life"--University of California Museum of Paleontology
@odinata Facepalm. No where bar no where did I claim this! This is just another symptom of the fact that, all issues are one gigantic blur in your mind and you not having the wherewithal this separate them out at the moment.
"Since simple organisms exist alongside complex "advanced" animals today, Lamarck thought they must be continually created by spontaneous generation. "
That does NOT mean 'each species was the result of a seperate generation event' The sentance is completely at odds with what Lamarck actually said. You clearly have not read Lamarck's book have you? And one wonders if the person or persons writting for PBS actually have either!
"Lamarck resolved this problem with the last major argument of his full system — continuous spontaneous generation. New life continues to arise from chemical"
@odinata And so? I know what Lamarck said and am pretty sure Gould did too. You are mixing issues. The whole thing is just one great blur to you isn't it?
Do me a favour, humour me. List at list ten basic separable issues pertinent to what we have been discussing. Then list Darwin's conclusions as stated in the Origin of Species about those issues. Then tell me; of those conclusions which were original to Darwin and not already conclusions published by others? (and incidentally read by Darwin)
@odinata List at list ten basic separable issues pertinent to what we have been discussing. Then list Darwin's conclusions as stated in the Origin of Species about those issues. Then tell me; of those conclusions which were original to Darwin and not already conclusions published by others? (and incidentally read by Darwin)
@odinata listen. If you are actually interested in the getting to the truth about this, even if that means finding out you are wrong, no matter how amazing and inconceivable that is to you at present, then I am willing take the time to go through it from the top. I will be polite, but you will need to actually listen and adopt a more genuinely enquiring attitude. Do you wish to do this or not?
Yes, evolutionists do not believe in Lamarckian evolution. They believe in spontaneous generation. Yes, this must be true. How on earth else could life come from non-living matter? It doesn't matter if you break it down into macromolecules or elements, life CANNOT come from non-life. There you have it. In 1668, Francesco Redi demonstrated that this is NOT science.
The exact same principle. Doesn't matter if it's at a macromolecular level or unicellular. Life coming from non-life is the same. In fact, please tell me where RNA came from without a living organism? Again, this is not observable science. This is simply someone imagination. Real science is testable, observable, and can be demonstrated through the 5 senses. If not, it's supernatural. Hence, evolution IS a religion.
@tamarind777 No it's not. Not even close. No one even remotely literate in organic chemistry is claiming that modern life arose spontaneously out of any sort of prebiotic mixture.
Check it out. That is exactly what the claim is. One cell at a time, life developed from unicellular organisms. In fact, take it further than that. They go as far as to say that not only cells, but molecules assembled themselves from this organic soup to make the first cell. Read Miller and Urey's nonsense experiment. How come we don't see molecules arranging themselves to make new things today? This is NOT science. This is one of the reasons why I am a creationist.
This is where you're dead wrong. It's my knowledge of molecular biology that leads me to being a creationist. Additionally, my logical mind also leads me to my conclusion that where information, DNA, is concerned, nothing in nature programs itself. This is a claim evolution makes. What part of molecular biology bares this out? Show me one example where life came from non-life since you have a vast knowledge of molecular biology.
@tamarind777 'It's my knowledge of molecular biology that leads me to being a creationist.'
Or rather, lack thereof.
You're employing an argument from ignorance here. You're saying "We haven't observed X therefore Y" when you haven't evidenced Y at all but are merely trying to shoehorn it in from meaningless deduction. In science you actually have to positively evidence your own claims, if you were familiar with it you would know that.
@TheScienceFoundation dude f*** you... you want sources but dont give any yourself... I'm not here to debate you your the f***face harassing me because I made a comment encouraging Ian... your scum man, your a pest... a dribbling bafoon with no life... your not science anything your a stalker with waaaay too much time... your a muck maker, attention seeker, a nobody in this world... clawing scratching and biting to destroy the credibility of solid science... sooo needy like a child... crying out
@alcolyte76 I've already told you three times, the source was the exact same article Ian cited. This is a public comment section, if you don't like people replying to your comments don't make them.
'sooo needy like a child... crying out'
Says the one rambling profanely and accusing someone on the internet of being a stalker because he refuted your pseudo-science.
@TheScienceFoundation I have been doing nothing of the kind. What a stupid comment. Yet more evidence that your grasp of issues is really quite shallow.
The truth is you are WRONG about their being a formal theory called "The Theory of Common Descent" which was created by Lamarck, as you insist exists but can provide no citation for, as we can clearly see that Lamarck believed that life spontaneously arose continuously, giving rise to INDEPENDANT lines of organisms rather than ALL lines having COMMON descent.
@odinata "Common descent would be if spontaneous generation happened only once"
Well no!, that is not right, is it? It is a separate issue. If there is successive branching, forming new 'species', following any of these (be there two or many) spontaneous generation events, then any creature is related by common descent to the creatures in the lower branches of that tree from whence is came.
@odinata "Apparently you don't understand the word 'common' .....what is your native language?"
You are joking. Tell me you are joking, you have got to be joking! "ON **THAT** TREE" Can you read? Even Darwin did not claim anything beyond that. "There is grandeur in this view of life......having been originally breathed into a FEW FORMS or into one" English how about you?
"However, unlike Darwin's later theory, Lamarck's assumed that each species was the result of an independent event of spontaneous generation, and that they were continuing to the present day - each species was advanced just as much as it had been in existence. "
"Since simple organisms exist alongside complex "advanced" animals today, Lamarck thought they must be continually created by spontaneous generation. "
@odinata no Lamarck did not. The assertion by the blogger is ridiculous but you just copy and paste it any way! Lamarck's Tree had branches which branch through "a long period of time," those branches have nodes. So that anything on the branch just before the node is a common ancester of anything on any branch following the node. How can it not be? Moreover.. Cont
@odinata "Google it" Are you serious? I have given you original sourses. All before 1859. You have only responsed by pasting the opinion of an internet blogger called Luke Jostins, which would be fine if what he said made sense or was actually true. But it is neither.
Anyhow I asked, "what do you even mean? Cow Cow Cow Cow Cow .....(back still we go).....Cow Cow Cow ....Cow Reptile?" Your response is not even possibly an answer to the question.
LAmarck didn't believe in common descent, and this is why he never proposed a THEORY, as you claim, titled "The Theory of Common Descent"
...Over and over I will show you how wrong you are.
....
"Lamarck believed that life had begun through spontaneous generation. But he claimed that new primitive life forms sprang up throughout the history of life"--University of California Museum of Paleontology
"In the waters of the ancient world, an at the present time, very small masses of mucilaginous matter were collected.Under the influences of light, certain elements, caloric and electric, entered these little bodies. These corpuscles became capable of taking in and exhaling gases; vital movements began, and thus an elemental plant or animal sprang into existence. Possibly higher forms of life, such as infest the intestines, originate in this way. Nature is thus always creating." {1802}
@odinata Cont... Moverover Lamarck stated among a great many other things contrary to this bloggers claim, "I do not wish to state that existing animals form a very simple series, equally modified throughout. But I do say that they form a branching series, with irregular gradations, something which has no discontinuity in its parts or which, at least, has not always had them" and that any "gap" is do to "loss" Also Larmack's Tree actually has Classes indicated on it. Darwin's does not! cont...
@odinata Darwin's Tree, the only one in The Origin, only has arbitrary letters and numbers on it. Lamarck in 1809 is clear he is referring to very long periods of time, is clear the modifications occur very slowly, is clear that species were not created uniquely and as we see them today were not there from the beginning, that they have changed, that if you go back far enough in time any creatures ancestors would not be the same species, not eventually even the same class. These are facts.
@odinata "What is Lamarcks "tree" called, and where can we find it?"
So you haven't even read it! You can find it where I said you can find in! In Lamarck's Zoological Philosophy1809. As to what the diagram is 'called' who cares it could be called Bob or Susan for all it matters. It is what it is. It has nodes. So is proposing common descent.
What kind of fuckery is this?
cutes22 1 month ago
Evolution: the change in allelic frequencies. So simple to understand. Leave it to half-wits like Ian Juby to confound it into something garbled and impossible to understand.
SiniSterDr 1 month ago
Wow these guys are well educated
Fusion840 2 months ago
Comment removed
S7320 2 months ago
I am a scientists and and can tell you that the people in this"documentary" are not well trained scientists just based on the first three minutes of this video. Nobody who understands science would ever claim that science has disproved a god. Supernatural things are not part of scientific inquiry because they are supernatural. Hence, these people aren't good scientists, if they have ever been actual scientists.....
usertripppleA 3 months ago
@usertripppleA Follow where the evidence leads, Skippy. And don't commit the very unscientific Genetic Fallacy next time.
snigglefritz12345 2 months ago
@snigglefritz12345 I am sorry, but where did I commit a "genetic fallacy"??? First of all, genetics is a sub-field of biology, which is a field of science. Second, I was talking about the pseudo-scientists in this video. Or did you not understand my comment? I am happy to explain it to you, if you want me to.
usertripppleA 2 months ago
@usertripppleA HAHAHAHAHA! Another clown pretending to be "rational". Get with the program, Skippy, and LOOK IT UP! The only thing worse than arrogant atheists are when they cannot admit when they've royally fouled up - AGAIN.
snigglefritz12345 2 months ago
@snigglefritz12345 Again, where did I talk about genetics in my previous comment? I am really not sure you are responding to a comment you think you are responding to.
usertripppleA 2 months ago
@usertripppleA LOOK UP "GENETIC FALLACY", you lazy slob!
snigglefritz12345 2 months ago
@snigglefritz12345 Fine, look up science, you lazy slob! Show me where science claims god doesn't exist! The pseudo-scientists pretend that "science has disprove god" and science cannot make that claim by definition. And science these people mischaracterize science in its core, they can't be scientists. It is that simple. Start thinking - or at least try...
usertripppleA 2 months ago
@usertripppleA Non-sequitur cop-out noted.
snigglefritz12345 2 months ago
@snigglefritz12345 Sorry, but if somebody doesn't understand that science cannot disprove a supernatural being, they have not understood the fundamentals of science. If you want scientific advice/commentary from people who have no idea about the core science, that's your choice. But it speaks for you (and probably about your scientific knowledge). I usually try to get facts and truth, but than again, I live in the real world...
usertripppleA 2 months ago
@snigglefritz12345 And before I forget, where did I commit the genetic fallacy? All I said was that these people are not welled trained scientists since they don't understand the core of science. If I would have said something like "anything they say must be wrong because they are not well trained scientists" it would be a different issue. So I just learned a few minutes ago what a genetic fallacy is and I already understand it better than you -- are you embarrassed yet?
usertripppleA 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@usertripppleA "So I just learned a few minutes ago what a genetic fallacy is and I already understand it better than you -- are you embarrassed yet?" I am embarrassed for your astonishing ego, bravado and arrogance. Typical.
BTW, I read your comment on live radio and embarrassed you further.
snigglefritz12345 2 months ago
@snigglefritz12345 Again, where is the fallacy? They don't know about the fundamentals of science - hence they are not well trained scientist - do you understand that?
usertripppleA 2 months ago
@usertripppleA You claim to understand it better than I do (and I wrote an article about this, as well as other logical fallacies), and you cannot see such a basic error. No, you want to live with your presuppositions and religious bigotry. You disgust me.
snigglefritz12345 2 months ago
@snigglefritz12345 Show me the fallacy here. They don't know the basics of science, hence they are not well trained - where is the fallacy?
usertripppleA 2 months ago
@usertripppleA I think lots of these people do understand science but misrepresent it intentionally to make it easier for them to challenge evolution. If their followers expect to see a 1/2duck 1/2alligator it's easier for them to challenge evolution. Don't get me wrong, I think most creationists don't understand evolution & honestly believe what they say but I do think some understand, intentionally misrepresent & foster these false beliefs & misunderstandings to keep creationist beliefs going
shananagans5 2 months ago in playlist More videos from wazooloo
@usertripppleA Since you have not answered my question, I was wondering if you could send me the paper you wrote about the fallacy. Thanks!
usertripppleA 1 month ago
@snigglefritz12345 In addition you claim that I live in religious bigotry. Where did I say anything about religion? I did not make a single claim about religions or gods. I only talked about these people being poorly educated in science based on the fact that they don't know the fundamentals of science. And you claim I commit the fallacy here? Please, please use your head or at least try.
usertripppleA 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@snigglefritz12345 Fine, look up science, you lazy slob! Show me where science claims god doesn't exist! The pseudo-scientists pretend that "science has disprove god" and science cannot make that claim by definition. And science these people mischaracterize science in its core, they can't be scientists. It is that simple. Start thinking - or at least try...
usertripppleA 2 months ago
@usertripppleA - I don't think you're a "scientists" at all. You certainly don't posses the ability to construct coherent sentences.
blackplanetmedia 2 months ago
@blackplanetmedia Well, I did pass my TOEFL test but you are correct, english is not my native language. Not sure what that has to do with science though....
usertripppleA 2 months ago
"Evolutionarily" rocks. What on Earth is that supposed to mean?!
Webofscience 3 months ago
@Webofscience It's a Swedish rock band.
snigglefritz12345 2 months ago
Nice to see how these guys just bring up childish psedo-facts and apologetics.
Delusions upon delusions.
RainerWarrior666 3 months ago
@RainerWarrior666 Yes, that's exactly what evolution is, glad that you see it, too.
snigglefritz12345 2 months ago
No proof or evidence here move along to the next christian distraction so they don't have to bring any proof to the table.
GodKillerAtheist 3 months ago
orge121 The,gay people are against nature,this is,and always will be,just as every distinguished psychologist would say to you AN MENTAL DISORDER...just like anxiety,hypochondria,or OKP is...homosexuality is mental sexual disorder,and if you think its not unnatural..then fine...would you agree that we need to send all gays in some lonely island,and then...see how long would it need for them to survive..?Hmm?I am for that...just send them somewhere all together,and check out how long they last..
giska1000 4 months ago
@giska1000 Homosexuality is a mental disorder???? It hasnt been called that since the 1970s... What the hell is this comment about putting gay people on an island? They wouldnt last? Honestly I have no clue what you are getting at. I think you just like to ramble.
orge121 4 months ago
@orge121 And homosexuality IS mental disorder..it is classified as such today by alot of prominent psychologists,especially here in europe,and there are even centers where they cure this disease,also sado mazochism,voayerism,paraphilia,fetishism,transvestism,exibitionism,GID are along with pedophilioa,necrophilia and zoophilia classified,TILL THIS VERY DAY,here in europe as SEXUAL DISORDERS and mental dysfunctions...check any medical center here in europe,or any psychologist here and see ...
giska1000 4 months ago
@orge121 ....for yourself......homosexuality IS sexual-mental disorder and dont pretend that you dont know what im talking about...you americans and your media promote homosexuality and all kinds of sick and perverted disorders,pornography,even zoophilia and pedestria,but anyway...if you put homoexuals in an island..how long they ll last,since you wanted someone here to explain to you why homosexuality is against nature...well...tell me..how long they ll last?
giska1000 4 months ago
What is your evidence that Hitler was "destroying Christianity"?
"Sick things the gay people do against nature"...you want to clarify that please...
"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" Is long hair a shame then?
orge121 4 months ago
@orge121 ummm lets see...he did EVERYTHING opposite from Judeo Christianity,he killed JEWS,and wanted to exterminate both jews,and whole orthodox christian church(serbs,romanians,russians,slavs in general) he actually did EVERYTHING against christianity,and Christ..he even had so many quotes against christianity ,both antisemic and antichristian comments at the same time ....study little bit you know..knowledge wont hurt....
giska1000 4 months ago
@giska1000 Would I consider his actions christain...no. The question is did Hitler consider his actions to be those of the lords...the answer appears to be a yes given statements made by Hitler. All...I repeat ALL anti-Christian comments made by Hitler originate in one of two books...neither is considered trustworthy by the historical community.
orge121 4 months ago
@orge121 Kid..kid..go and watch cartoons or something......THE QUESTION IS DID HITLER CONSIDER HIS ACTIONS TO BE THOSE OF THE LORDS...ummmm...you do get that LORD i stitle,and it could be applied to anyone riiight?I know you dont,because after all...you are dumb...so...you should be honest,and specific,and ask did hitler consider his actions to be those of the Christ..or Christlike..or of Lord Christ... ...ohh..and this about ,,historical trustworthy,, hahaha...idiot...he had his original quote.
giska1000 4 months ago
@orge121 ...in croatio where he said christianity is jewish conspiracy so that they can rule the world,till this day you have this original quote from hitler while he was with ustashas in croatia,killing ethnic serbs,russians,killing romanians,vlachs,roms ..etc....
giska1000 4 months ago
@orge121 And yes....its shame for man to have longhair,ACCORDING TO OLD TESTAMENT concerning jewish people...male,man need to have short,nice looking,elegant hairstyle...and woman need to have long,elegant hair ...nature ,,cannot teach you anything,, concerning these kind of issues,because nature is not intelligent,nor a person ....
giska1000 4 months ago
@giska1000 Is your response in two parts? I understand the first part but why are you talking about nature?
orge121 4 months ago
@orge121 Is your response in two parts? I understand the first part but why are you talking about nature?
...Wel..go back to my comments and see....im talking about nature concerning your quetions about homosexuality,and is it natural or not(you seem to have some objections there) and nature concerning ,,long hair and shame,, .. ..Because you seem to have objections toward Bible verse in which it is naturally shame for man to have long hair(like a woman) ....
giska1000 4 months ago
@giska1000 Aight man...wow you are full of it. 1. Cite me the reference for those quote by hitler...5 bucks its from either hitlers secret conversations or hitlers table talks. 2. Hitler thought he was doing his creator work in the same way every religious nut believes that. 3. Read the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union... 4. I am sure gay people would last on an island as long as straight people. 5. What the hell is that question even about?
orge121 4 months ago
@orge121 When National Socialism has ruled long enough, it will no longer be possible to conceive of a form of life different from ours. In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together. … No, it does not mean a war. The ideal solution would be to leave the religions to devour themselves, without persecutions.
giska1000 4 months ago
@orge121 But in that case we must not replace the Church with something equivalent…The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. [Hitler's Table Talk, p. 6-7]
giska1000 4 months ago
@orge121 Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. [p. 51]
So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.
giska1000 4 months ago
@orge121 The Jew who fraudulently introduced Christianity into the ancient world—in order to ruin it—re-opened the same breach in modern times, taking as his pretext the social question. Just as Saul became St. Paul, Mardochai has become Karl Marx. [p. 314]
..............And on..and on...YOU NEED TO BE AN IDIOT to believe that hitler was christian...oh and 2.No,hitler was atheist,he had atheistic quotes,do you want to see them too?
giska1000 4 months ago
@giska1000 That was my entire point Giska...The book Hitlers Table Talks is widely considered a mistranslation and is not accepted as accurate within the historical community. Honestly this is a moot point. Hitler did what he did not for his god...but for himself (my point 2 was misleading and im sorry). He may of had religious views...but they were the justification and not the driving force.
orge121 4 months ago
@orge121 Yes,he had ,,religious views,, but anyway,they were not christian w.views ..definitely,you wont find in Bible that there are aryans,half apes half aryans,almost full apes etc...thats only found in socialdarwinism (evolution,and stage of evolvability) ...so my whole point was hitler newer killed for Christ,because it is not consistent with Christianity or the Bible ....
giska1000 4 months ago
@orge121 ....or you believe that two men,or two women can somehow concieve a child do you?-.- It wont surprise me if you do ....
giska1000 4 months ago
@giska1000 I cant believe...some random douche on the internet is actually upsetting me with his stupidity. You're whole island point was about reproduction!!!!! Man 5th graders have better arguments then you...
orge121 4 months ago
@orge121 3.This has nothing to do with the fact that from perspective of medicine,biology,and psychology HOMOSEXUALITY is mental sexual disorder ....(if this 3rd is reffered to gays anyway) ...4.Ahahahahaahah you IDIOT....you think that gays would survive..for 30,40 0r lets say 100 years if you put themn in some island...ok,explain to me..HOW?:) 5.Since you dont even know what you said,and then what i adressed ...then..nevermind...forget it ...
giska1000 4 months ago
@giska1000 The european union does not consider gay to be a disorder. The UN does not consider gay to be a disorder...maybe Iran does, but thats not helping your case much. Further more explain to me why gay people would NOT survive on an island while straight people would.
orge121 4 months ago
@orge121 Ok,so if european union does not consider that HIV and Aids are disease,then,they are not disease?Im not speaking about ,,european nion,, which is falling apart right now...BUT im speaking from an perspective of expert in PSYCHOLOGY,MEDICINE,BOLOGY ...can you understand it or not?And if you want,i ll name you alot of prominent leading world,and european psychologists who said that like it was always,homosexuality is now and always will be,MENTAL SEXUAL DISORDER ....simple as that ....
giska1000 4 months ago
@giska1000 Please do...I would love to see those citations.
orge121 4 months ago
@orge121 Ok,you are an ignorant little kid,you just keep claiming what YOU think is right to be right,and it is expected from you ignorant americans,so it is me who doesn not want to have thi suseless conversation with you anymore ...Homosexuality is not mental disorder just like necrophilia,pedophilia,zoophilia,sado masochism and other disorders arent...you just keep saying this to yourself,you may keep believing it some day...oh...and concerning reproduction...of course,this is the best ...
giska1000 4 months ago
@giska1000 sooo no citation then??? Pathetic...
orge121 4 months ago
@orge121 I ll give you a citations when YOU answer some of my questions ...dumbass ..;) ok?
And yes,mostly gays,and bisexuals get STDs,the fact is they are,from the very beginning,the biggest source of HIV ...HIV is actually even called GRID at first ..because it eruрted amongst gays first ....check out рercentage of HEALTHY,normal couрles,and by that i mean man and women,who are married,and who are moral,and founded family ..check out how many of them has STDs,and then check out ....
giska1000 4 months ago
@giska1000 so your question was....?
According to the CDC in 2009, the stats go (for HIV) gay white men, gay black men, gay latin men, straight black women, straight black men, straight latin women, straight white women. Gay men have aids in a higher percentage than any other sub-section of the population. I am sure they also by more Cher albums. The fact sheet said nothing about relationship status.
orge121 4 months ago
@orge121 -.- what a fail ...as i said,check out health of normal couples.,and then exually perverted ,,couples,, ..ok?Enough said ...And concerning this blacks,jews etc...no,i am not terrible person,who are YOU to tell me that,and based on WHAT you just called me bad,what is your objective ground for doing that?But anyway,i would not kill blacks,jews,etc. dont use ad hominem fallacies with me ok?I newer said i would kill gays also,i just said i woud sent then to some lonely island,because ...
giska1000 4 months ago
@orge121 ..because there,they would be able to live hovewer they want to,and there they could be able to practice their perversions between themselves,separate from normal human beings ....
giska1000 4 months ago
@giska1000 I hate to break it to you by your standards you and yours should put yourselves on the island right next to them as 'normal human beings' don't cast people out based on ignorance from a bronze age text.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation This boy is messed man...not worth getting into it with.
orge121 4 months ago
@orge121 ..oh and that ,,maybe iran,, thing is actually ironic,because i just wanted to say ,,maybe european or american unin,, or NATO consider gays to be ,,normal,, but..ummm..experts...actual scientists..NOT...so...you mixing apples and oranges here...EU is ONE THING,and PSYCHOLOGY,MEDICINE,BIOLOGY,NEUROLOGY etc is ANOTHER THING...when you are sick,mentally or physically,you wont go to european union to cure you,would you?Oh maybe you would ?-.- ..But anyway lets go back to lonely island ....
giska1000 4 months ago
@orge121 ..Simply,if you had any logic,and knowledge you would know that putting gays in lonely island,would cause death,they would die very soon from STD diseases,HIV,sifilis,and all kinds of different bacteria that is transmitted trough anus,when you have anal sex,but lets say one small percent of them WOULD survive,i.e by some miracle,they woudnt contract one os SDT diseases,virus,or bacteria....well...they would DIE OFF,because they CANNOT reproduce..they would go extinct....or you believe..
giska1000 4 months ago
@giska1000 Your talking about reproduction??? I thought you were trying to make a valid point about gay people...my bad. I do not know where you find your information, but I do not want to have this conversation with you anymore. You are a very angry man and have no clue why you are angry. Being gay is not a mental disorder and the prominent psychology and medical organizations (which voice the opinions of their fields as a whole) feel the same way.
orge121 4 months ago
@orge121 ..point out there...NATURE itself is in bipolar relationship,and it is NATURAL for male and female to be together and have famialy and reproduce.....homosexuality disorder is AGAINST nature,and against the main law of biogenesis in natural biosystem,and its bipolarity,...gays can only .... each other,sodomise themselves in their arse,and get HIV,aids,sifilis and other diseases and die...but ...when male and female are together in healthy and normal relationship ..its completely opposite
giska1000 4 months ago
@giska1000 Ahhh yes I forgot how only gays can get STD's...my bad. dumbass
orge121 4 months ago
..how many gays,bisexuals,transvestites,рrostitutes,exibitionalists,рedoрhiles and other immoral рerverted monsters have STDs and how many of them would die,if not from aids,then at least from extinction...listre...i would send gays in some lonely island,since they want to have their rights,let them have rights in their own,isolated sick рerverted ,,community,, and then just come back after 30,40,50 years or so,when they die out,lol and just sterilise island,and then bring next gaygeneration etc
giska1000 4 months ago
@giska1000 I am glad you have no real power...because you would be a tyrant. Who would follow next...the Jews? Blacks? You are a terrible person and I am done responding to you. Get out in the world and meet people. You make me sick.
orge121 4 months ago
@giska1000 >Homosexuality is unnatural
>Talking snakes, magical fruit and rib women are all good by me
lol
OnionSportsdome 4 months ago
@OnionSportsdome Its not worth it homeboy...this giska1000 guy is pretty bad
orge121 4 months ago
@OnionSportsdome Hmmm..lets see,talking snakes is alegory,snake from genesiswas not even animal,but satan,its one of his synonyms,magical fruit...naaah...there isnt one,man newer sinned because he ate fruit,but because he broke his рromise,and lied,and rib women...look...Omniрotent Intelligent Designer can make woman from rib,but i seriously doubt that woman can come from magic rocks,or some sort of magic ,,souр,, and then somehow magically evolve into рrotein,then more of them,then enzymes..
giska1000 4 months ago
@OnionSportsdome ..then more of them рroteins,then DNA,and RNA ,then in cells,then in organisms,and then worms,and later ...eleрhants...yeah..right...every natural law broken,laws of thermodynamics broken,basic laws of biogenesis broken,basic laws of logic broken....and...YOU talking to me here about magick and unnatural?Are you serious?Do you even know what means unnatural?;)
giska1000 4 months ago
Whens the next one coming out?
hmcdaniel1979 4 months ago
The fault seen at Yamnuska is called the McConnell thrust, and despite what Ian claims, slickensides have been found in association with the thrust sheet, as well as fault gouge, cataclasites (formed by grinding and fracturing along a fault line), and mylonite, (a metamorphic rock formed as a result of shear stress). No evidence for sliding indeed.
Vegavis 4 months ago
@Vegavis Well thats what happened when your research involves nothing more than looking at vacation photos...
orge121 4 months ago
Thrust faults typically have a dip angle of under 5 percent and are created by the inexorable forces of plate tectonics. They are invariably found in what are clearly folded and faulted mountains and the faults are often visually obvious, despite what roundboy asserts. Ian, dressing up to look like Bob Bakker does not qualify you to discuss geology any more than it qualifies you to bloviate on biochemstry.
WildwoodClaire1 4 months ago
@WildwoodClaire1 Have fun claire...ive been arguing with his supporters since this video dropped...
orge121 4 months ago
@orge121 I'm preparing a new episode of "Jubylation" that addresses Ian's absurd, intellectually dishonest claims regarding geology. It's taking awhile because this is a very long and tedious video and, frankly, I can only watch Ian for a short while before my gag reflex kicks in. I'll leave his effluent spew concerning biology to the biologists.
WildwoodClaire1 4 months ago
@WildwoodClaire1 Check out my video on it and give me your opinion...if you dont mind. Every bit of criticism helps improve my final product.
orge121 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ian, your statement that you "have to have DNA to make life" amply demonstrates that you have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. Have you ever heard of RNA?
WildwoodClaire1 4 months ago 2
Ian, the press did not hail the Miller-Urey experiment as having "created life in the lab," and even if they did the unlettered ramblings of reporters are irrelevant.
WildwoodClaire1 4 months ago
Oh gee, look at that. Not one biologist, biochemist, physicist or geologist; in other words, not one with professional qualifications to weigh in on geology, cosmology or biology. And I'll wager not one can list a published, peer-reviewed research article on any of those topics. That's some panel of "experts" you've got there Ian! Why didn't you ask my fatassed cats to appear as "experts?" I'm sure they'd have been happy to squeeze out some evidence for you.
WildwoodClaire1 4 months ago 2
Ian: A very interesting and surprising video. It is encouraging to see other scientists realising the fact that evolution is the myth, not Creation. Many of the well known "historical" and "modern" scientists throughout the world were Christians and Creationists to boot, without which the science we deal with today would have had no foundation. Of course I discount Darwin.
JesuismyKing 4 months ago
@BloodOfRayne i am pretty sure that Dawkins is debating that fucktard in october or november at oxford
Cactarpus 4 months ago
Odc for video, but some conspiracy state that the free mason or pretty much the illuminati altered the bible and change facts about it. Remember to always question things urself and dig deep
gamingalltheway 4 months ago
Comment removed
odinata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Imagine you're a scientist"
Juby's first line of the video is the YEC motto.
odinata 4 months ago
Comment removed
odinata 4 months ago
Comment removed
odinata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You can hold any religious opinion you like, Dolly.
What you can't do is claim Jesus for your own.
And millions of Christians worldwide know that a fact is a fact, and one of those facts that they embrace is the fact that wolves are indeed related to foxes.
odinata 5 months ago
Glad to finally see some evolution-to-creation converts online. Good video, thanks.
gr8vibes2 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gr8vibes2
They are shills.
odinata 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We've already found out what the truth is, and who is wrong.
It's you .
Lamarck didn't believe in common descent, and he didn't conceive common descent.
Sorry =)
odinata 5 months ago
although evolution is not proven , poeple saw the existence of the theory alone enough to deny the existence of god; even though evolution doesn't say anything about how life started and the universe and its complexity;yet it was enough for atheists to disbelieve in god. everything was just coincidence!!
ahmadov 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"why, on our present and ancient earth, do some organisms still maintain the simplest anatomies? Why were these forms not pushed up the ladder of complexity ages ago?
Lamarck this problem with the last major argument of his full system--continuous spontaneous generation. New life continues to arise from chemical constituents; these simple forms begin their march up the ladder, while replacements at their lowly status continue to form anew."
--Steven Jay Gould
odinata 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"It is a side issue to the main point."
Check the thread.
The point has bee that you made a claim--that Lamarck authored a scientific theory titled "The Theory of Common Descent" before Darwin.
The fact that he didn't even believe in common descent shows that your assertion is utter bullshit.
odinata 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The assertion by the blogger is ridiculous"
...
""...that these little forms of life were the original inhabitants of the globe; moreover, that spontaneous generation of these organisms was still going on."--Henry Fairfield Osborn
Looks like that blogger's opinion was dead on.
odinata 5 months ago
@odi "Looks like that blogger's opinion was dead on"
You really do not have the ability to separate out issues do you? And this from an Evolutionaut who are always ranting on about how abiogenesis has nothing to do with Evolution Theory, go figure! We are not talking about abiogenesis! Darwin thought they may have formed in a 'little warm pond,' so what? "that these little forms of life were the original inhabitants of the globe" right! and our ancestors via a branching tree. Viola!
allan3141 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allan3141
Lamarck believed that new organisms spontaneously generated all the time.
That's not "Common Descent", and confirms that he did not author "The Theory of Common Descent" as you have claimed.
Why can't you grasp that?
odinata 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Like many of his contemporaries, Lamarck believed that life had begun through spontaneous generation. Unlike those same contemporaries, however, he claimed that new primitive life forms sprang up throughout the history of life, rather than all at one time."
--The Robinson Library
....
So much for Lamarck being the author of a mysterious, pre-Darwin theory called "The Theory of Common Descent".....
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata @odinata "Like many of his contemporaries, Lamarck believed that life had begun through spontaneous generation" So what? So did Darwin! So did Miller and Urey!" So do you! It is not what we are discussing!
"he claimed that new primitive life forms sprang up throughout the history of life, rather than all at one time." Well, so did Darwin but said they get gobbled up (eaten); so what? It is a side issue to the main point.
Again you cannot separate out issues.
allan3141 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allan3141
"However, unlike Darwin's later theory, Lamarck's assumed that each species was the result of an independent event of spontaneous generation, and that they were continuing to the present day - each species was advanced just as much as it had been in existence. "
Thats not common descent.
Common descent would be if spontaneous generation happened only once.
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata quoting a blog that states something that is not true, ie that Lamarck said "each species was the result of an independent event of spontaneous generation," and then tries to it back it up with something that doesn't in any way demonstrate what is claimed, is pretty poor show. And it does not even refer to Lamarck's Zoological Philosophy 1809 anyway! This didn't bother you did it? cont...
"Thats not common descent" Well that is a strawman argument as that is not what Lamarck say.
allan3141 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allan3141
""Lamarck believed that life had begun through spontaneous generation. But he claimed that new primitive life forms sprang up throughout the history of life"--University of California Museum of Paleontology
odinata 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allan3141
"Nature is thus always creating."
--Jean Baptiste Lamarcke
odinata 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allan3141
Why are you the only person in the world who claims that Lamarck did not believe that spontaneous generation occurs throughout history?
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata aka wildwoodclaire aka shortbuslake02 aka majoratheist etc
allan is pwning you, You are always getting pwned and making a fool of yourself Odinutter, You should give up while you are behind.
hahahahahahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@odinata Facepalm. No where bar no where did I claim this! This is just another symptom of the fact that, all issues are one gigantic blur in your mind and you not having the wherewithal this separate them out at the moment.
Have you tried listing them? It can help. .
allan3141 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allan3141
Maybe you should stop hitting yourself in the face.
You made a specific claim, and I provided the evidence that assertion is false.
odinata 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allan3141
"No where bar no where did I claim this! "
Sorry allan.
I can't decipher this gibberish.
Please, can you tell me what your native language is?
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata ""each species was the result of an independent event of spontaneous generation"........That's not common Descent"
Right, but that's not what Lamarck said. Not even close!
Cont...
allan3141 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allan3141
"Since simple organisms exist alongside complex "advanced" animals today, Lamarck thought they must be continually created by spontaneous generation. "
--PBS dot org
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata PBS now!
That does NOT mean 'each species was the result of a seperate generation event' The sentance is completely at odds with what Lamarck actually said. You clearly have not read Lamarck's book have you? And one wonders if the person or persons writting for PBS actually have either!
allan3141 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allan3141
Don't forget Steven Jay Gould.
Oh, and Lamarck Himself.
Your claim is that Darwin didn't propose universal common descent, and your evidence was supposedly Lamarck.
Lamarck believed that not ALL species shared a common ancestor.
Therefore he could NOT have proposed your "Theory of Common Descent"
odinata 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allan3141
"Lamarck resolved this problem with the last major argument of his full system — continuous spontaneous generation. New life continues to arise from chemical"
--Stephen Jay Gould
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata And so? I know what Lamarck said and am pretty sure Gould did too. You are mixing issues. The whole thing is just one great blur to you isn't it?
Do me a favour, humour me. List at list ten basic separable issues pertinent to what we have been discussing. Then list Darwin's conclusions as stated in the Origin of Species about those issues. Then tell me; of those conclusions which were original to Darwin and not already conclusions published by others? (and incidentally read by Darwin)
allan3141 5 months ago
Comment removed
odinata 5 months ago
Comment removed
odinata 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allan3141
No, I'm not mixing the issue.
You claim that Lamarck is authored the "The Theory of Common Descent"--PRE-Darwin.
I've shown that Lamarck didn't believe in common descent.
But you should have been able to figure that out on your own with a minimum of research.
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata List at list ten basic separable issues pertinent to what we have been discussing. Then list Darwin's conclusions as stated in the Origin of Species about those issues. Then tell me; of those conclusions which were original to Darwin and not already conclusions published by others? (and incidentally read by Darwin)
allan3141 5 months ago
@allan3141
You claim that a scientific theory called "The Theory of Common Descent" was created before Darwins book. You cite Lamarck as contributing this.
Lamarck did not believe in universal common descent.
Your assertion is false.
How is that hard to understand?
Is it a language issue?
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata aka foxlake aka claire etc said
" is it a language issue?"
Even if he broke it down in simple child like language for you then you would not understand because you are so stupid, So there is an issue for you.
hahahahahahahahaha
You said " snakes are fish" hahahahahahahahahah
That shows there is a problem for you, You talk shit.
hahahahahahahahahahhaha
WildCatsKitten1 5 months ago
@odinata listen. If you are actually interested in the getting to the truth about this, even if that means finding out you are wrong, no matter how amazing and inconceivable that is to you at present, then I am willing take the time to go through it from the top. I will be polite, but you will need to actually listen and adopt a more genuinely enquiring attitude. Do you wish to do this or not?
allan3141 5 months ago
@allan3141 It's hilarious how you imply you know anything about the truth given the subject matter.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation explain?
allan3141 5 months ago
@allan3141 You've been trying to conflate Lamarckian evolution with the basis of modern evolutionary synthesis for days now.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Yes, evolutionists do not believe in Lamarckian evolution. They believe in spontaneous generation. Yes, this must be true. How on earth else could life come from non-living matter? It doesn't matter if you break it down into macromolecules or elements, life CANNOT come from non-life. There you have it. In 1668, Francesco Redi demonstrated that this is NOT science.
tamarind777 5 months ago
@tamarind777 No, spontaneous generation was the idea that modern life arose out of non-living medium, this is not abiogenesis.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
The exact same principle. Doesn't matter if it's at a macromolecular level or unicellular. Life coming from non-life is the same. In fact, please tell me where RNA came from without a living organism? Again, this is not observable science. This is simply someone imagination. Real science is testable, observable, and can be demonstrated through the 5 senses. If not, it's supernatural. Hence, evolution IS a religion.
tamarind777 5 months ago
@tamarind777 No it's not. Not even close. No one even remotely literate in organic chemistry is claiming that modern life arose spontaneously out of any sort of prebiotic mixture.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Check it out. That is exactly what the claim is. One cell at a time, life developed from unicellular organisms. In fact, take it further than that. They go as far as to say that not only cells, but molecules assembled themselves from this organic soup to make the first cell. Read Miller and Urey's nonsense experiment. How come we don't see molecules arranging themselves to make new things today? This is NOT science. This is one of the reasons why I am a creationist.
tamarind777 5 months ago
@tamarind777 Apparently I'm not the one that needs to check things out. Nothing in abiogenetic study is even close to resembling modern life.
'This is one of the reasons why I am a creationist.'
Heh, I have no doubt that the depth of your knowledge in molecular biology plays a large part in your being a creationist.
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
This is where you're dead wrong. It's my knowledge of molecular biology that leads me to being a creationist. Additionally, my logical mind also leads me to my conclusion that where information, DNA, is concerned, nothing in nature programs itself. This is a claim evolution makes. What part of molecular biology bares this out? Show me one example where life came from non-life since you have a vast knowledge of molecular biology.
tamarind777 4 months ago
@tamarind777 'It's my knowledge of molecular biology that leads me to being a creationist.'
Or rather, lack thereof.
You're employing an argument from ignorance here. You're saying "We haven't observed X therefore Y" when you haven't evidenced Y at all but are merely trying to shoehorn it in from meaningless deduction. In science you actually have to positively evidence your own claims, if you were familiar with it you would know that.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation dude f*** you... you want sources but dont give any yourself... I'm not here to debate you your the f***face harassing me because I made a comment encouraging Ian... your scum man, your a pest... a dribbling bafoon with no life... your not science anything your a stalker with waaaay too much time... your a muck maker, attention seeker, a nobody in this world... clawing scratching and biting to destroy the credibility of solid science... sooo needy like a child... crying out
alcolyte76 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alcolyte76 I've already told you three times, the source was the exact same article Ian cited. This is a public comment section, if you don't like people replying to your comments don't make them.
'sooo needy like a child... crying out'
Says the one rambling profanely and accusing someone on the internet of being a stalker because he refuted your pseudo-science.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@alcolyte76 awww you hurt his feelings...
orge121 4 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I have been doing nothing of the kind. What a stupid comment. Yet more evidence that your grasp of issues is really quite shallow.
allan3141 5 months ago
@allan3141 So then you understand that Lamarck's work has nothing to do with modern evolutionary synthesis?
TheScienceFoundation 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allan3141
I've got the truth.
The truth is you are WRONG about their being a formal theory called "The Theory of Common Descent" which was created by Lamarck, as you insist exists but can provide no citation for, as we can clearly see that Lamarck believed that life spontaneously arose continuously, giving rise to INDEPENDANT lines of organisms rather than ALL lines having COMMON descent.
Sorry =).
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata "Common descent would be if spontaneous generation happened only once"
Well no!, that is not right, is it? It is a separate issue. If there is successive branching, forming new 'species', following any of these (be there two or many) spontaneous generation events, then any creature is related by common descent to the creatures in the lower branches of that tree from whence is came.
allan3141 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allan3141
Apparently you don't understand the word "common".
This is why I asked what your native language is, and if you would rather converse in that.
Out of curiosity allan, what is your native language?
odinata 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata "Apparently you don't understand the word 'common' .....what is your native language?"
You are joking. Tell me you are joking, you have got to be joking! "ON **THAT** TREE" Can you read? Even Darwin did not claim anything beyond that. "There is grandeur in this view of life......having been originally breathed into a FEW FORMS or into one" English how about you?
allan3141 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"However, unlike Darwin's later theory, Lamarck's assumed that each species was the result of an independent event of spontaneous generation, and that they were continuing to the present day - each species was advanced just as much as it had been in existence. "
....
continued in next post
odinata 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Since simple organisms exist alongside complex "advanced" animals today, Lamarck thought they must be continually created by spontaneous generation. "
--PBS dot org
odinata 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LAmarcks opinions on cows is no longer relevant.
LAmarckism was dropped over 150 years ago.
If you want to know what he thought about it, read his book.
odinata 5 months ago
Lamarck believed they each came from a SEPARATE reptile species.
That is NOT "common descent, you muppet.
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata no Lamarck did not. The assertion by the blogger is ridiculous but you just copy and paste it any way! Lamarck's Tree had branches which branch through "a long period of time," those branches have nodes. So that anything on the branch just before the node is a common ancester of anything on any branch following the node. How can it not be? Moreover.. Cont
allan3141 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allan3141
Lamarck believed they each came from a SEPARATE reptile species.
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata what do you even mean? Cow Cow Cow Cow Cow .....(back still we go).....Cow Cow Cow ....Cow Reptile?
allan3141 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allan3141
YEs, Lamarck did.
No ,Lamarck did NOT compose anything called "the Theory of Common Descent".
Google it.
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata "Google it" Are you serious? I have given you original sourses. All before 1859. You have only responsed by pasting the opinion of an internet blogger called Luke Jostins, which would be fine if what he said made sense or was actually true. But it is neither.
Anyhow I asked, "what do you even mean? Cow Cow Cow Cow Cow .....(back still we go).....Cow Cow Cow ....Cow Reptile?" Your response is not even possibly an answer to the question.
allan3141 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allan3141
Yes.
LAmarck believed that changes DURING the organisms lifetime were passed on to the next generation.
Lamarkism isn't Darwinism.
Lamarck didn't propose a "Theory of Common Descent".
Its true.
A simple Google search will confirm this fact.
odinata 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allan3141
LAmarck didn't believe in common descent, and this is why he never proposed a THEORY, as you claim, titled "The Theory of Common Descent"
...Over and over I will show you how wrong you are.
....
"Lamarck believed that life had begun through spontaneous generation. But he claimed that new primitive life forms sprang up throughout the history of life"--University of California Museum of Paleontology
odinata 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"In the waters of the ancient world, an at the present time, very small masses of mucilaginous matter were collected.Under the influences of light, certain elements, caloric and electric, entered these little bodies. These corpuscles became capable of taking in and exhaling gases; vital movements began, and thus an elemental plant or animal sprang into existence. Possibly higher forms of life, such as infest the intestines, originate in this way. Nature is thus always creating." {1802}
odinata 5 months ago
@odinata Cont... Moverover Lamarck stated among a great many other things contrary to this bloggers claim, "I do not wish to state that existing animals form a very simple series, equally modified throughout. But I do say that they form a branching series, with irregular gradations, something which has no discontinuity in its parts or which, at least, has not always had them" and that any "gap" is do to "loss" Also Larmack's Tree actually has Classes indicated on it. Darwin's does not! cont...
allan3141 5 months ago
@odinata Darwin's Tree, the only one in The Origin, only has arbitrary letters and numbers on it. Lamarck in 1809 is clear he is referring to very long periods of time, is clear the modifications occur very slowly, is clear that species were not created uniquely and as we see them today were not there from the beginning, that they have changed, that if you go back far enough in time any creatures ancestors would not be the same species, not eventually even the same class. These are facts.
allan3141 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allan3141
What is Lamarcks "tree" called, and where can we find it?
odinata 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata "What is Lamarcks "tree" called, and where can we find it?"
So you haven't even read it! You can find it where I said you can find in! In Lamarck's Zoological Philosophy1809. As to what the diagram is 'called' who cares it could be called Bob or Susan for all it matters. It is what it is. It has nodes. So is proposing common descent.
allan3141 5 months ago