I think, although I may be wrong, that the United States is the only modern country in the world where there is such a strong movement to include creationism into public schools corriculums. I fear the day that happens, because we would be moving backwards in time. Remember the dark ages? Look today at the countries that were once the centers of knowledge, how backwards they are because of their devotion to their religion and their god.
And of course the whole argument is irrelevant because it doesn't matter who believes in a theory, it's the evidence that counts. Millions of people CAN be wrong, no matter who they are.
Didn't Pythagoras discover Heliocentricism? Copernicus get's the credit for it of course because he was a Christian. It's like how Leaf Erikson or Zheng He didn't get credit for discovering America, but Columbus did in spite of traveling there later than them.
Pythagoras was the first to come up with the idea of Heliocentricism, but I don't know if he gave enough support for his claim. If he didn't, maybe that's why Copernicus got the credit. Wikipedia says that he was first to " formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology"
And I will never understand why everyone calls him Copernicus. Wasn't he Polish? His name is Kopernik, damnit! I don't get it why people always translate names. They just rename everything their own way, makes no sense.
At a guess it is because Latin was the language of academia in that time and that Copernicus is the Latinisation (?) of Kopernik. It's the name he would have used in publications.
I haven't actually checked any of this, so you may want to ;) just an educated guess.
Pythagoreans believed in Heliocentrism but had no evidence. Copernicus gets credit because he supplied evidence.
Columbus's fame should be that he discovered a wealth of resources which Europeans could & did exploit. Ericson prob came to the Americas, but did not exploit its resources.
As it is, Some native american ancestor "discovered" America long before literate civilizations, but we'll never know who, and probably not know when either.
@drfoxcourt Columbus is not famous for being the first person to discover America, he is famous because he was the last... It didn't need to be discoverd any more after he discovered it.
@gregrutz I agree. Certainly Columbus established there was a continent there to be explored. Printable maps and books made that discovery a fact. Columbus had no notion of the extent of America and there was more to be discovered. You could say Vespuchi, Hudson, Verizanno are each discoverers with significant finds after Columbus.
I stand by my original statement, Columbus should be famous for locating and establishing an exploitation system that Pizzarro, Cortez et al used.
May I go on to add something here: Lucilio Vanini speculated on how man might have evolved from apes as early as the 17th century. And Anaxamander int he 6th century BCE had an evolutionary theory, although not nearly as refined as Darwins.
hey, about Hovind and VenomFangX, I'd bet they purposely hid themselves when their bullshit supply ran dry. hovind used the law, vfx used his parents; lol.
It's bullshit they want creation to be taught in public school. Yea, the U.S school system already blows, but hey, let's teach them something completely useless so the later generations can go on to be retarded.
ROBERT boyle. Irish physicist. There's more than one boyle in the entire academia, duh.
I mean seriously, you're 3 centuries off. Not big surprise. You fail to do even a simple wiki-search before opening your mouth and making yourself look like an idiot. Not big surprise.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
WHy should people believe in random stuff that comes out of anonymius idiots that doesn´t understand sciance and only follow the message of other evolutionists blindly???
2. They follow the message of other humans before them, that showed reproducibility and observable expirments and evidence, which they in turn recreated. Therefore you do not blindly follow people, but they follow the evidence.
"Hovind is a doctor" No he isn't. He has a "Ph.D" from an unrecognised bible college in christian education or something. Besides the majority of Ph.Ds are opposed to Hovinds ideas. "are you?" The extant dodos are Ph.D/MD students. "disturbed kid!!" psychological reflection? "Hovind owns!!" Hovind owns in convincing uneducated uncritical people, like yourself. "Evolution was invented by satan" Evidence? "it was not Charles darwin that started it." We know, so what?
Kent Hovind is not a Dr. and you're not 'theultimatestrawman'. You call yourself 'theultimatestrawman', but a rose by any other name is still a rose. Although Hovind calls himself a doctor, he is still just a quack with a piece of non-accredited paper. Heck, if you pay me enough, I'll send you a 'doctorate' and give you the title doctor, but it wouldn't make you a doctor.
Aww. My roommate went to Loma Linda U for her nursing degree and is an "unbeliever." She was required to go to church, so she sat in the back and put her homework in a bible. They also require that students sign an agreement to not drink, smoke, or share the residence of a member of the other sex unless they are blood related or married (i.e. boyfriends and girlfriends could not live together). So sad. :(
Just so you know, that wasn't directed seriously at you. You can probably figure this out, but last time I didn't add a disclaimer, I got chewed out by thirty thousand people who don't understand the meaning of "joking", or "quoting".
Agreed, middekk, but deliberately trying to confuse the subject is the raison d'etre of ID "science". As to being imaginary, there are a few creatures found that were "imaginary" until exploration found them, so the transformation of a conjectural hypothesis into a scientific one *can* happen.. if evidence is found. The idea that can be formulated can be as wacky and goofy and ridiculous as any, but then needs evidence to be found. Prior observations aren't always neccessary. Just an idea.
Lets not forget: Creationism: -Bananas fitting in the hand proves God -Its too complicated, it has to be God -Look, the Bible says so, it has to be God -Look, people are recovering from illnesses, it has to be God! Evolution: -99% of our genome is the same as the Chimpanzee -Geologic evidence suggests evolution -mutation and natural selection has been shown in the lab -archeology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, genetics, taxonomy all point to evolution I wonder what makes more sense...
2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences. Remember, too, that hypothesis comes in a scientific form (as shown) and a conjectural form, like Sherlock finding that bit of ripped cloth near the crime scene and supposing it came off the perpetrator of the crime. Since they say that their evidence for "God" is scientific, their hypothesis also has to be. Even if absurd.
Hahaha.. well, unfortunately, anything at all, no matter how daft, can be a hypothesis. "Unicorns eat flowers and poop rainbows" is a hypothesis. It's going to be hard to find a unicorn, so proof is going to be rather scarce and figuring out what kind of evidence could disprove this hypothesis so we can test for it even harder, but it's *still* a hypothesis. That's the unfortunate part for science. Anything that makes a claim of causal connection is a hypothesis and needs to be examined :P
In order to qualify as a scientific hypothesis, it has to be based on observations (facts). The hypothesis has to be based on verifiable, repeatable, and most-important, falsifiable evidence, and you have to use it to make predictions.
Any hypothesis about imaginary creatures fails on all of those grounds, so cannot be considered part of science.
Colloquial use of the words "theory" and "hypothesis" is the problem. In science, neither word means "guess" or "pulling something out of my ass".
Creationism is, at best, a "hypothesis". They can claim a huge number of positive proofs, none of which stand up to scrutiny, but have not even bothered to expose or expound on the second tenet of the scientific theory, that they also be able to delineate and test for evidence that would *disprove* their hypothesis. Observation->Hypothesis->Tests(True)/Repeats(Confirmation by others)->Disproofs(False)/Repeats(Falsified by others)->Theory.They fail at step 3 and quail at step 4. ID is not theory.
While I do concur in some manner, I have to say that to, creationism isn't even a hypothesis in any way shape or form... i don't consider it a coherent thought
The scary part of this video is that Loma Linda University has a MEDICAL SCHOOL and graduates many, many doctors. Some of whom practice in my community.
Trust me, I check on credentials before I go to a physician who believes in a 6000 year old universe.
Aiight, I'm starting to get impatient for the next video. This one is great. I must've watched it 20+ times... still though... where's the next? I'm about to get whiney. =-D
Except irreducible complexity can emerge out of evolution ,its the principle of scaffolding. A latent function can emerge through slow successive process with no goals.
Yes, the statement that "all these guys were creationists and had great scientific achievements" is akin to asking why there weren't any pilots before airplanes were invented. Illogical, incomprehensibly ignorant, and, most of all, chronologically confused.
The first person the Creationist listed was the inventor of The Scientific Method. The whole point of the Scientific Method is to NOT bow down to Authority, not even yyour own, but to actually try and disprove your own hypothesis.
I feel more at awe of the power of God knowing that the earth is 4.5 billion - 6 billion years old than I ever would believing that the earth is 6000 years old.
if the beleifs of scientists past is a reason to teach those beleifs in classrooms then if you teach pythagorus you must teach numerollogy. If you teach newton you must teach alchemy. If you teach astronomy then for many of the ancient astronomers you would also have to teach astrollogy. how about predicting the future on the basis of the entrails of surgical patients dont forget that fab theory. While teaching how to build roman arches we can teach the importance of animal sacrifice. fab.
Of course, my big issue is that my community's hospital is run by the 7th Day Adventists. I have to assume that many of the physicians who practice there were educated through Loma Linda or other similar SAI institutions.
Can I trust them with my health care? If they're so willing to jettison the simplest scientific concepts, can I trust them to prescribe the right antibiotic for my strep throat?
Anybody who actually needs to be pointed out that Newton and other famous scientists were "Creationists" (as if they had a choice) is just not using their head (or seriously making misleading statements)
My only problem with Huxley is when he coined the term, "Agnostic". Character space keeps me from elaborating but he opened a whole new kettle of fish. I am sure he did not know those fish would be rotten & not last more than a couple decades but none-the-less, he fucked up.
As for Newton, though he was big into Textual Criticism I think it was to support his private thoughts that the bible was BULLOCKS. Remember announcing disbelief in his era was a death sentence
Huxley's word choice could have been better there, but the context it is used in makes a significant difference. In one way it has helped establish those who know nothing about the subject by misrepresenting agnostic atheists.
the penalties for not being a believer back then were high ...even if you were the "wrong" religion you would be harassed like the jews in europe were
As always, both enjoyable and informative of the various methods employed by creation "scientists" and I thank you all for your work.
If I may ask, what is the general consensus at Extant Dodo productions for the most common logical fallacy employed by creation "scientists"? If I had to give my guess, the most covered would either be that of the Red Herring or ad hominem attacks, though that is merely my observations on the matter.
The Dodos have actually done a video on logical fallacys (watch is, its really nice!) and I think the most common logical fallacy is the strawman argument
Imagine what a 'primitive babtist' university would be like. :) Of course I've never really understood that - aren't all judeo-christian religions pretty much primitive?
well these creationist want each and every scientist to have complete knowledge in all fields so they don't get attacked by creationist ....like Ben stein said..." Darwin explains so little he doesn't explain gravity , thermodynamics, how the planets orbit the begging of the universe..." RETARDED
Whenever creationists say things like "Newton was a creationist" i always ask them "and will you kindly tell us when Newton lived", then they shuffle about and go quiet. Newton also believed in alchemy shall we take that as truth as well? They betray science for abandoning it as soon as it takes them to a place they dont approve of, dishonest.
And can you prove this god? Or can you simply make feeble attempts to discredit science. Even if you were to disprove evolution (which would mean undermining most of biology as well) you dont win by default. All your work is still ahead of you.
mate, IC was debunked before the ink even dried on Michael Behe's paper concerning his hypothesis. It is not peer reviewed & the same mouse trap used as evidence of his hypothesis, was used to debunk his nonsense. IC was also shot down in court as scientific, by a conservative Christian judge, the Honorable Judge Jones III. The Discovery Institute was humiliated in that debacle. Behe was even caught lying under oath.
Behe said that there was no peer reviewed evidence for the evolution of the immuned system in mammals. The ACLU lawyer began piling journals, magazines, papers, books, etc., all with peer reviewed material within them concerning the evidence for the evolution of the immune system in mammals. The pile of evidence literally got so high,it obstructed Behe's line of vision. Behe had to admit he "mispoke". The lawyer walked away & sat down. Behe then looked around the pile & said,
"you forgot your evidence" or words to that affect. It was precious. Also, of 7 star witnesses for the Discovery Institute, only 3 testified, the other 4 backed out without explanation. Then there was the preacher who got busted lying under oath also. That was about who had paid for the books, "Of Pandas & People", the book the board of education was trying to use in science class. The entire thing was a joke & a joy to follow. I have several vids on it in my favs.
which caused most of the scientifically literate to crack up .since thats what creationists of all stripes do ...move the evidence to one side and try o forget about it
Face it mejc2, there is no court which recognizes your claims as scientific & no peer reviewed material for your silly god hypothesis. You know this & it frustrates the hell out of you. I find great pleasure in knowing that. I love to think of the Discovery Institute members, Ben Stein, Hovind, Kirk Cameron & all those of your ilk, having sleepless nights over the fact that you cannot propagate your cult's nonsense in our public schools. Oh the sweet & precious JOY!!!
Yeah its amazing how christians need to shut themselves off from the rest of us in order to keep their faith. It is a damn pity also. These people who think they have the god given right to judge us all need to hold themselves incomunicado in order to do so.
Well put. Science is based on conclusions based on tested and observed results. Creationism is the other way around in which let's find "evidence" (not that there is any) that support our conclusion and omit everything else that destroys it. If creationism really had evidence they wouldn't need to back step to quoting the bible so damn much.
Yay another Hovindism. But what made this a Hovindism? You should have included Hovind somewhere in the video. Otherwise it's just a... creationismism..?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Equal Opportunity? there are many fine scientists that provide empirical evidence that not only supports the biblical account but draws evolutionism into question. How many have been hired by the University? How many have been offered tenure by that University? The indoctrination of evolutionists starts at a young age and continues through their path through academia. The gate keepers of evolutionism are steadfast make no mistake.
why do you say evolutionism. The -ism implies a sort of belief, there is no need for faith like young earth creationists need. I see the facts, i know they're facts, they're are millions of facts, so i choose to know evoultion is a completely sound, in every manner, theory
@ mejc2 : I laugh in your general direction. Please tell me which creation believer has presented actual empirical evidence? I'd like to look real evidence opposing evolution over. I don't expect to see it though. After reading thousands of creationist articles and many books, I have seen nothing but arguments from ignorance, straw-man attacks, arguments from authority, non-sequitur conclusions, evidence cherry-picking, and outright lies. Of course they're not hired, with such fallacious work.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
which area of science are you interested in. Just pick one and I'll look up some stuff for you because obviously you are too lazy or far to indoctrinated into evolutionism to be able to think clearly.
Very few people believe in evolutionism anymore. Evolutionism is a philosophy that states that cultures are evolving toward a particular form (i.e. platonic forms). It was popular in the 19th century, but has not seen much popularity recently.
@soulhunger1 -- Great point! They like to use Evolutionism and Evolutionist to try and make it seem like a religious belief. It's too bad the creationists can't see the difference between science and religion. Of course, whenever one of them does realize the difference, they stop being creationists. For a very visible example, consider DonExodus2.
mejc2, please offer one piece of empirical data for the god hypothesis. Any will do & I will allow you to pick. Or, how about just one peer reviewed article which proves the Theory of Evolution is invalid. I am not asking for much & made it very simple for you to respond.
Okay, look up anything in the field of biology that disproves the evolutionary theory and supports the bible. I really want to see what you are going to come up with.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Evolutionists have so broadly defined the term that any change through descent is called evolution by evolutionists. Some of the things that evolutionists have hijacked into their hypothesis are observed facts. If it is the the observed occurrences that you are referring to then yes biology by all means but in the overarching definition of common descent it is mere speculation not science.
mejc2, it looks as though you are just like the rest in the god hypothesis corner. You come & make your claims, provide no evidence of your claims, then resort to ad hominems as a deflection. I pity you & your ilk. You claim there is empirical data, it is politely asked for & instead of politely responding, you run & hide in your corner again. So sad, so very very sad.
"Evolutionists have so broadly defined the term that any change through descent is called evolution by evolutionists." -- mejc2
You're still avoiding the question.
It isn't scientists who've mis-defined evolution into some over-broad definition containing more than biology. Look to your friends to see who does that. We are talking about evolution. The changes in a population over time, driven by diversity, heredity, and natural selection, that results in the diversity of life on earth.
"The problem is that there is no known mechanism to account for the variety we see." -- mejc2
Failure on your part to comprehend how heredity + random mutation + natural selection + time IS the mechanism that accounts for the observed variation is not a failure on the part of the explanation.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hello hooya,
"Speculation with:
1. An observed mechanism"
I'll just trash one of your arguments. Actually the first one. What oh hooya do you think is the "observed mechanism of evolution"
You see I claim there is no known mechanism to account for the diversity we observe. there are plenty of Evolutionist speculations, but no known mechanism.
"I'll just trash one of your arguments. Actually the first one. What oh hooya do you think is the "observed mechanism of evolution""
Don't feed me that bs; we've seen beneficial mutations, we've witnessed them being selected for, we've observed speciation. You know full well what the mechanism is, *and* that it's been observed.
Hooya, you missed the part where he said, "I claim" there is no known mechanism...
Yes he claims it, but he cannot prove it. Just like he claims to have empirical data but has yet offered any. I claim to be the world's greatest lover, so what, it does not mean it is true or I can prove it. However, I am willing to offer evidence & data to anyone willing to question my claim.
"I claim to be the world's greatest lover, so what, it does not mean it is true or I can prove it. However, I am willing to offer evidence & data to anyone willing to question my claim.
*snicker*"
My friend Steve is willing to question that claim. He's about 5'10", and weighs 300 lbs. (and none of it's muscle). He wants to know what's your phone number?
Hooya, I knew as soon as I hit "Post Comment" that I should have put in the necessary qualifications in order to test my claim.
I guess it is just best at this point to come to terms with the fact that I may not be the greatest. Give Steve my best & tell him that I apologize for getting his hopes up.
"You see I claim there is no known mechanism to account for the diversity we observe. there are plenty of Evolutionist speculations, but no known mechanism."
Wow. Some of the dubest creationist nonsense ever. This can be disproven by reading just the wikipedia introduction to evolution. Mutation, gene recombination, allel frequencies, genetic drift, natural selection, among others.
I love #6. The poor IDershave spent literally tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars to get their pseudo science taught in public schools so they can gain more cult members, but they fail miserably. Even with conservatice Christian judges they fail miserably. Thank GAWD that even though they were conservative Christians, they were also honest & intelligent, like the honorable Judge Jones III.
"If it is the the observed occurrences that you are referring to then yes biology by all means but in the overarching definition of common descent it is mere speculation not science."
Evolutionary theory is the unifying principle of biology. Common descent allows us to examine the effect of novel drug treatments in mice and extrapolate their mechanism and side effects to humans before conducting human trials. Where is that "evidence" you claimed to have?
Biologists define evolution as the change in allele frequency within a population over time. So the scientific definition is quite succinct. Creationists on the other hand often drag in cosmological evolution as a talking point.
"in the overarching definition of common descent it is mere speculation not science."
ALL (not some, not a hint full, but *ALL*) evidence points toward common descent. Fossils, anatomy, genetics, etc. all agree.
Mecj2, I would suggest you went to a room in your house and politely ask a doorknob to give you a little crash course in basic science. I say a doorknob because it's obviously bound to know more about science than you probably ever will and also because I am quite sure you must at least have or two laying around.
Once you've actually understand what science was really all about, get back here and we'll talk...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
oh yeah right, you understand science. You don't even understand the English language. learn to read and write then try learning some science and we won't have to talk.
mejc2, oh the irony abounds. First off, the Theory of Evolution is just that, it is a scientific theory, yet you refer to it as a hypothesis. Talk about not understanding the English language. As for understanding science, we are still patiently waiting for your peer reviewed science which supports your god hypothesis or invalidates the Theory of Evolution. Please don't keep this important information secret, especially if it can save my eternal residence.
mejc2, once again your ignorance exposes itself. A group of fundaMENTALists is not considered a peer review group, whether they are Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or Christ cult members. It is fun watching you jump through your hoops though. You made the claim there is empirical data for thus & so & further claimed you could present it. Now you deflect, avoid, dodge, interject conspiracy theories, hide, jump, use snmoke & mirrors, etc. Is it tough living in your world of delusion & lies? Me thinks so
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"mejc2, once again your ignorance exposes itself. A group of fundaMENTALists is not considered a peer review group, whether they are Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or Christ cult members"
OR EVOLUTIONISTS
Which field of science are you interested in seeing empirical evidence.
also, seeing that you believe it happened billions of times successfully, can you give me one,only one of the billions, proof of any organism changing into another kind of organism.
mejc2, I told you, you choose. Give me any epirical evidence for your god hypothesis. I leave it all up to you & your great wisdom. Any discipline of science.
As for scientific peer review being a group of fundaMENTALists, you again let that silly little ignorance bug out for all to see. Most scientists Scooter, are believers in a god thingy so if they were in this so-called conspiracy, they are going against their own beliefs in order to keep this big secret that Evolution is invalid.
"also, seeing that you believe it happened billions of times successfully, can you give me one,only one of the billions, proof of any organism changing into another kind of organism."
We call them fossils. Why not try researching any one of the millions that have been described. And again, whatever happened to your evidence that all of the biodiversity we observe appeared by magic?
They are not interested in what most logical people consider 'transitional fossils' - they want somebody to show them a crocaduck fossil. Of course they are readily willing to display fossils of giants - even when they are proven to be photoshop images.
mejc2, one last thing Scooter, empirical data & or evidence, cannot be denied if it is truly empirical. If you prove to me that Crayola makes green crayons by showing me a green crayon made by Crayola, I am not braggin here but I am smart enough to no longer doubt that Crayola makes green crayons. This supposed conspiracy theory of yours regarding the science community, is utterly nonsensical & would require over 99.5% of the community.
I think, although I may be wrong, that the United States is the only modern country in the world where there is such a strong movement to include creationism into public schools corriculums. I fear the day that happens, because we would be moving backwards in time. Remember the dark ages? Look today at the countries that were once the centers of knowledge, how backwards they are because of their devotion to their religion and their god.
Campineiroamericano 1 year ago
And of course the whole argument is irrelevant because it doesn't matter who believes in a theory, it's the evidence that counts. Millions of people CAN be wrong, no matter who they are.
What do you have against cockroaches?
tctheunbeliever 2 years ago
Didn't Pythagoras discover Heliocentricism? Copernicus get's the credit for it of course because he was a Christian. It's like how Leaf Erikson or Zheng He didn't get credit for discovering America, but Columbus did in spite of traveling there later than them.
jaymthegenius 2 years ago
Pythagoras was the first to come up with the idea of Heliocentricism, but I don't know if he gave enough support for his claim. If he didn't, maybe that's why Copernicus got the credit. Wikipedia says that he was first to " formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology"
And I will never understand why everyone calls him Copernicus. Wasn't he Polish? His name is Kopernik, damnit! I don't get it why people always translate names. They just rename everything their own way, makes no sense.
dragonofthedarknight 2 years ago
At a guess it is because Latin was the language of academia in that time and that Copernicus is the Latinisation (?) of Kopernik. It's the name he would have used in publications.
I haven't actually checked any of this, so you may want to ;) just an educated guess.
NoodlesTux 2 years ago 2
@jaymthegenius
pythagoras today, is mentioned as discoverer
there may be a point to the latter statement.
thegoochieguy 2 years ago
Pythagoreans believed in Heliocentrism but had no evidence. Copernicus gets credit because he supplied evidence.
Columbus's fame should be that he discovered a wealth of resources which Europeans could & did exploit. Ericson prob came to the Americas, but did not exploit its resources.
As it is, Some native american ancestor "discovered" America long before literate civilizations, but we'll never know who, and probably not know when either.
Thanks for thinking critically.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
@drfoxcourt Columbus is not famous for being the first person to discover America, he is famous because he was the last... It didn't need to be discoverd any more after he discovered it.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz I agree. Certainly Columbus established there was a continent there to be explored. Printable maps and books made that discovery a fact. Columbus had no notion of the extent of America and there was more to be discovered. You could say Vespuchi, Hudson, Verizanno are each discoverers with significant finds after Columbus.
I stand by my original statement, Columbus should be famous for locating and establishing an exploitation system that Pizzarro, Cortez et al used.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
May I go on to add something here: Lucilio Vanini speculated on how man might have evolved from apes as early as the 17th century. And Anaxamander int he 6th century BCE had an evolutionary theory, although not nearly as refined as Darwins.
jaymthegenius 2 years ago
Hi,
it isn't pronounced "veerCHow", but more like "feerkof"
millmlena 2 years ago
wonderful video :)
hey, about Hovind and VenomFangX, I'd bet they purposely hid themselves when their bullshit supply ran dry. hovind used the law, vfx used his parents; lol.
IAlreadyDid 2 years ago 5
It's bullshit they want creation to be taught in public school. Yea, the U.S school system already blows, but hey, let's teach them something completely useless so the later generations can go on to be retarded.
DetroitPistonsFTW 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Proof that this is a lie- it says "Boyle 1627-1691".
FAIL! susan boyle was born in 1961.
theultimatestrawman 2 years ago
*facepalm*
ROBERT boyle. Irish physicist. There's more than one boyle in the entire academia, duh.
I mean seriously, you're 3 centuries off. Not big surprise. You fail to do even a simple wiki-search before opening your mouth and making yourself look like an idiot. Not big surprise.
NichtDieseTone 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I won!
theultimatestrawman 2 years ago
"I won!"?.....How exacly did you win?
NuclearMouse94 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
because I was only joking and I manged to fool people so easily.
theultimatestrawman 2 years ago
So she says. She sure looks like she was born in 1627!
IlGreven 2 years ago
I rated it 2 stars by mistake :(
martiallaw09 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
WHy should people believe in random stuff that comes out of anonymius idiots that doesn´t understand sciance and only follow the message of other evolutionists blindly???
dallas31o5 2 years ago
Says the guy that blindly follows what his pedophile pastor tells him.
Evolution is a fact, moron. You don't need a Phd to tell you that.
Greywyn7 2 years ago 9
1. Because these people do understand science.
2. They follow the message of other humans before them, that showed reproducibility and observable expirments and evidence, which they in turn recreated. Therefore you do not blindly follow people, but they follow the evidence.
3. English damn it. You speak it?
Orthrus 2 years ago 7
latter should be "former" in the response letter, no?
MarshalNey13 2 years ago
Seriously, most of those scientists would turn in their graves if they knew they were classed together with the likes of Hovind
giliellthesecond 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hovind is a doctor are you?
You are just some disturbed kid!!
Hovind owns!! Evolution was invented by satan in the garden of eden it was not Charles darwin that started it.
dallas31o5 2 years ago
antiantiantifahool 2 years ago 9
"You are just some disturbed kid!!"
How very apt. You would have to be disturbed to believe anything that Hovind says. I recommend you receive help immediately Dallas31o5.
He is a doctor in the same way that Colonel Sanders was a colonel. He didn't earn it, it was given to him.
By the way, a doctorate in Christian education is pretty useless in science.
One does not have to be a doctor to understand that Hovind has the sub-elemetary knowledge of biology that a two year old posesses.
Hatesfury08 2 years ago 3
Go off yourself.
Orthrus 2 years ago
Dude, howind is not a doctor.
He is a criminal doing time though. 10 years for tax fraud, unless reality haven't caught up with you.
NichtDieseTone 2 years ago
His name is DR Kent Hovind. I rest my case.
theultimatestrawman 2 years ago
At what university and in what dicipline? Should be easy enough to *cough* dig up.
NichtDieseTone 2 years ago
Kent Hovind is not a Dr. and you're not 'theultimatestrawman'. You call yourself 'theultimatestrawman', but a rose by any other name is still a rose. Although Hovind calls himself a doctor, he is still just a quack with a piece of non-accredited paper. Heck, if you pay me enough, I'll send you a 'doctorate' and give you the title doctor, but it wouldn't make you a doctor.
aimforcentermass 2 years ago 3
Dr pepper is also adoctor
TheReptilianAgenda 2 years ago
I have a Phd, two BAs, a Bsc, an LLd and a D.Phil. These laser printers are wonderful.
gamesbok 2 years ago 7
Aww. My roommate went to Loma Linda U for her nursing degree and is an "unbeliever." She was required to go to church, so she sat in the back and put her homework in a bible. They also require that students sign an agreement to not drink, smoke, or share the residence of a member of the other sex unless they are blood related or married (i.e. boyfriends and girlfriends could not live together). So sad. :(
teenzo 2 years ago
whats the name of the channel on youtube where a creationist douchebag in a white labcoat tries to prove god etc?
sugmegpls 2 years ago
you WILL respect my authoritay!
GodlessHippie 3 years ago
Aeh, screw you, hippie!
Just so you know, that wasn't directed seriously at you. You can probably figure this out, but last time I didn't add a disclaimer, I got chewed out by thirty thousand people who don't understand the meaning of "joking", or "quoting".
NoxVulpes 2 years ago
"I got chewed out by thirty thousand people who don't understand the meaning of "joking", or "quoting"."
What's a joke? ;-)
FSAthe1st 2 years ago
A dead pokemon. -_-'
NoxVulpes 2 years ago 3
Agreed, middekk, but deliberately trying to confuse the subject is the raison d'etre of ID "science". As to being imaginary, there are a few creatures found that were "imaginary" until exploration found them, so the transformation of a conjectural hypothesis into a scientific one *can* happen.. if evidence is found. The idea that can be formulated can be as wacky and goofy and ridiculous as any, but then needs evidence to be found. Prior observations aren't always neccessary. Just an idea.
RyuDarragh 3 years ago
TheTruePatriot72 3 years ago 30
hmm! wondering!wondering!
Evolution! Evolution!! Evolution!!! Evolution!!!!
EVOLUTION!!!!!!!!
Dargo099 3 years ago 3
2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences. Remember, too, that hypothesis comes in a scientific form (as shown) and a conjectural form, like Sherlock finding that bit of ripped cloth near the crime scene and supposing it came off the perpetrator of the crime. Since they say that their evidence for "God" is scientific, their hypothesis also has to be. Even if absurd.
RyuDarragh 3 years ago
Hahaha.. well, unfortunately, anything at all, no matter how daft, can be a hypothesis. "Unicorns eat flowers and poop rainbows" is a hypothesis. It's going to be hard to find a unicorn, so proof is going to be rather scarce and figuring out what kind of evidence could disprove this hypothesis so we can test for it even harder, but it's *still* a hypothesis. That's the unfortunate part for science. Anything that makes a claim of causal connection is a hypothesis and needs to be examined :P
RyuDarragh 3 years ago
A hypothesis should still be a sort of proposition, a possible answer to a problem.
chert95 3 years ago 3
In order to qualify as a scientific hypothesis, it has to be based on observations (facts). The hypothesis has to be based on verifiable, repeatable, and most-important, falsifiable evidence, and you have to use it to make predictions.
Any hypothesis about imaginary creatures fails on all of those grounds, so cannot be considered part of science.
Colloquial use of the words "theory" and "hypothesis" is the problem. In science, neither word means "guess" or "pulling something out of my ass".
middlekk 3 years ago 6
Hahahaha.. well, I'll grant you the "coherent thought" in the kinds of reactions you can get, but it's still a hypothesis.
RyuDarragh 3 years ago
Giving it the title of 'hypothesis' is pretty generous of you.
Sorastor 3 years ago
Creationism is, at best, a "hypothesis". They can claim a huge number of positive proofs, none of which stand up to scrutiny, but have not even bothered to expose or expound on the second tenet of the scientific theory, that they also be able to delineate and test for evidence that would *disprove* their hypothesis. Observation->Hypothesis->Tests(True)/Repeats(Confirmation by others)->Disproofs(False)/Repeats(Falsified by others)->Theory.They fail at step 3 and quail at step 4. ID is not theory.
RyuDarragh 3 years ago
While I do concur in some manner, I have to say that to, creationism isn't even a hypothesis in any way shape or form... i don't consider it a coherent thought
IamtheVOICE123 3 years ago
The scary part of this video is that Loma Linda University has a MEDICAL SCHOOL and graduates many, many doctors. Some of whom practice in my community.
Trust me, I check on credentials before I go to a physician who believes in a 6000 year old universe.
middlekk 3 years ago
RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!
Perspektyva 3 years ago 3
Awesome! Extantdodo, I missed you greatly, and your sense of truth, justice and making fun of Kent Hovind.
mathsfreak628 3 years ago 3
Welcome back. Looking forward to more Hovindism videos
venurm1286 3 years ago 2
Thank Christ, if he is the Son of God, your back
gooyzit 3 years ago
Welcome back! I hope you are going to pay more attention to Ken Ham for this.
g12er 3 years ago
Euclid was a pagan. When you study the elements of geometry, you need to acknowledge the authority of Zeus almighty!
CHAS1422 3 years ago 5
Lol, Damn right you should!
anonbehell 3 years ago
That was rude, cockroaches aren't that bad. They would be offended to hear that they're being compared to creationists.
doogtoog 3 years ago 49
Aiight, I'm starting to get impatient for the next video. This one is great. I must've watched it 20+ times... still though... where's the next? I'm about to get whiney. =-D
EndlessVoids 3 years ago 9
Whoops, accidentally marked someone's comment as spam. Sorry, whoever it was.
Anyway, great video.
YTrann 3 years ago
Great Video!!!
datalorez 3 years ago 3
Except irreducible complexity can emerge out of evolution ,its the principle of scaffolding. A latent function can emerge through slow successive process with no goals.
VoteNixon2008 3 years ago 2
Heres my take on Carl von Linné (referred to as Carl Linneaus):
He would probably accept evolution theory as evident IF he hadn't lived BEFORE Darwin.
That he was a religious man is not, however, in doubt.
"Ungodly" behaviour and views could lead to the separation of head from shoulder in Sweden, in those days. At the very least imprisonment.
Try this for an experiment, put an axe to the neck of any creationist and ask them `gently` to accept another religion. What would the outcome be?
Rationellskeptiker 3 years ago 4
Yes, the statement that "all these guys were creationists and had great scientific achievements" is akin to asking why there weren't any pilots before airplanes were invented. Illogical, incomprehensibly ignorant, and, most of all, chronologically confused.
TheGreatDolanmite 3 years ago 6
The first person the Creationist listed was the inventor of The Scientific Method. The whole point of the Scientific Method is to NOT bow down to Authority, not even yyour own, but to actually try and disprove your own hypothesis.
Besides, Newton was an Alchemist, too.
dechha1981 3 years ago
academia sounds like macadamia :)
awesome11991 3 years ago
I feel more at awe of the power of God knowing that the earth is 4.5 billion - 6 billion years old than I ever would believing that the earth is 6000 years old.
bearpaw72 3 years ago 4
LOL Puff the Magic Dragon is also a product of the freedom of imagination!
georg1984 3 years ago 3
More More to the point, even if Newton et al were alive to day, and knew of Darwin's theories and rejected them, that wouldn't make them right.
Just because someone has been correct once does not make them necessarily correct again.
Just as being 'evil' (a la 'that's something Hitler would say') doesn't make you wrong.
georg1984 3 years ago 6
You mispronounced "Virchow" (the proper pronunciation is 'ver-cow')
SisyphusRedeemed 3 years ago
if the beleifs of scientists past is a reason to teach those beleifs in classrooms then if you teach pythagorus you must teach numerollogy. If you teach newton you must teach alchemy. If you teach astronomy then for many of the ancient astronomers you would also have to teach astrollogy. how about predicting the future on the basis of the entrails of surgical patients dont forget that fab theory. While teaching how to build roman arches we can teach the importance of animal sacrifice. fab.
ooglebydoogleby 3 years ago 7
Of course, my big issue is that my community's hospital is run by the 7th Day Adventists. I have to assume that many of the physicians who practice there were educated through Loma Linda or other similar SAI institutions.
Can I trust them with my health care? If they're so willing to jettison the simplest scientific concepts, can I trust them to prescribe the right antibiotic for my strep throat?
Scary. Truly scary.
middlekk 3 years ago 5
OVERKILL.
Anybody who actually needs to be pointed out that Newton and other famous scientists were "Creationists" (as if they had a choice) is just not using their head (or seriously making misleading statements)
funwjoshnjenn 3 years ago 2
Ah Huxley, Darwin's bulldog!
My only problem with Huxley is when he coined the term, "Agnostic". Character space keeps me from elaborating but he opened a whole new kettle of fish. I am sure he did not know those fish would be rotten & not last more than a couple decades but none-the-less, he fucked up.
As for Newton, though he was big into Textual Criticism I think it was to support his private thoughts that the bible was BULLOCKS. Remember announcing disbelief in his era was a death sentence
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Huxley's word choice could have been better there, but the context it is used in makes a significant difference. In one way it has helped establish those who know nothing about the subject by misrepresenting agnostic atheists.
I do nod my hat to him for that.
Cacovangor 3 years ago
the penalties for not being a believer back then were high ...even if you were the "wrong" religion you would be harassed like the jews in europe were
dancingnature 3 years ago
Great video as always! I can always count on ExtantDodo for incredible, informative videos. Please don't stop making videos anytime soon!
GuyaRicanMC 3 years ago
Good video
But you commited one grevious error: It's spelled AUTHORITAH!
revolutionaryluddite 3 years ago 3
As always, both enjoyable and informative of the various methods employed by creation "scientists" and I thank you all for your work.
If I may ask, what is the general consensus at Extant Dodo productions for the most common logical fallacy employed by creation "scientists"? If I had to give my guess, the most covered would either be that of the Red Herring or ad hominem attacks, though that is merely my observations on the matter.
CommanderX1125 3 years ago
The Dodos have actually done a video on logical fallacys (watch is, its really nice!) and I think the most common logical fallacy is the strawman argument
toxicman88 3 years ago
Yes, I've seen it, but I was curious as to which fallacies they encounter the most.
CommanderX1125 3 years ago
Another creationist logical fallacy bites the dust!
Akatam0t0ma 3 years ago
Doesnt anyone know history. IF you werent a "Christian" in Europe at this time, you would almost be killed at least ostrisized.
dragoonthief 3 years ago 2
Spagadeity help us...
Spagadeity help us all...
mhale71 3 years ago
Do not use Spagedeity's name in vain
photekxl 3 years ago
Imagine what a 'primitive babtist' university would be like. :) Of course I've never really understood that - aren't all judeo-christian religions pretty much primitive?
naughtypagan72 3 years ago
Actually, there is a Primitive Baptist church. ...I've read their stuff and I STILL don't understand what they are.
whatthehellpeople 3 years ago
well these creationist want each and every scientist to have complete knowledge in all fields so they don't get attacked by creationist ....like Ben stein said..." Darwin explains so little he doesn't explain gravity , thermodynamics, how the planets orbit the begging of the universe..." RETARDED
tomdamho 3 years ago
lol authoritii.. well done! DODO 4EVER! LOLOLOLOLOLWTFBBQ~!!1
VitaminTMan 3 years ago
Excellent smackdown!
damialni 3 years ago
that was great!
bu1ckgnx 3 years ago
Great letter - thanks for sharing, my friend.
Clausfarre 3 years ago
University of Illinois FTW!
AthynKronos 3 years ago
extantdodo you along with thunderf00t and donexodus2 taught me a ton on evolutionary biology
hornedbeast91 3 years ago 4
Whenever creationists say things like "Newton was a creationist" i always ask them "and will you kindly tell us when Newton lived", then they shuffle about and go quiet. Newton also believed in alchemy shall we take that as truth as well? They betray science for abandoning it as soon as it takes them to a place they dont approve of, dishonest.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
well creationism is true because there is something called a God, and irreducible complexity.
beat that atheists.
matereymate 3 years ago
"well creationism is true because there is something called a God, and irreducible complexity.
beat that atheists."
Don't troll bait.
ExtantDodo 3 years ago
i was kidding, poking some fun
sorry.
matereymate 3 years ago
And can you prove this god? Or can you simply make feeble attempts to discredit science. Even if you were to disprove evolution (which would mean undermining most of biology as well) you dont win by default. All your work is still ahead of you.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 3 years ago
go watch cdk007's video about irreducible complexity. on second thought you'll just spam it too...
theveganamedchaze 3 years ago
mate, IC was debunked before the ink even dried on Michael Behe's paper concerning his hypothesis. It is not peer reviewed & the same mouse trap used as evidence of his hypothesis, was used to debunk his nonsense. IC was also shot down in court as scientific, by a conservative Christian judge, the Honorable Judge Jones III. The Discovery Institute was humiliated in that debacle. Behe was even caught lying under oath.
Try again Sunshine.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago 2
"Behe was even caught lying under oath."
Huh, I hadn't heard that; what was he lying about?
Hooya2 3 years ago
Hooya,
Behe said that there was no peer reviewed evidence for the evolution of the immuned system in mammals. The ACLU lawyer began piling journals, magazines, papers, books, etc., all with peer reviewed material within them concerning the evidence for the evolution of the immune system in mammals. The pile of evidence literally got so high,it obstructed Behe's line of vision. Behe had to admit he "mispoke". The lawyer walked away & sat down. Behe then looked around the pile & said,
IaintNoGood 3 years ago 2
"you forgot your evidence" or words to that affect. It was precious. Also, of 7 star witnesses for the Discovery Institute, only 3 testified, the other 4 backed out without explanation. Then there was the preacher who got busted lying under oath also. That was about who had paid for the books, "Of Pandas & People", the book the board of education was trying to use in science class. The entire thing was a joke & a joy to follow. I have several vids on it in my favs.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
IIRC he said "can we move the evidence aside"
which caused most of the scientifically literate to crack up .since thats what creationists of all stripes do ...move the evidence to one side and try o forget about it
dancingnature 3 years ago
I forgot to mention I was just joking.
matereymate 3 years ago
"well creationism is true because there is something called a God, and irreducible complexity.
beat that atheists."
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
dechha1981 3 years ago 9
Face it mejc2, there is no court which recognizes your claims as scientific & no peer reviewed material for your silly god hypothesis. You know this & it frustrates the hell out of you. I find great pleasure in knowing that. I love to think of the Discovery Institute members, Ben Stein, Hovind, Kirk Cameron & all those of your ilk, having sleepless nights over the fact that you cannot propagate your cult's nonsense in our public schools. Oh the sweet & precious JOY!!!
IaintNoGood 3 years ago 2
Again another great video exposing creationism's painful ironies. Keep 'em coming!
hunaynay 3 years ago
Logic:creationism::water:the wicked witch
Hooya2 3 years ago 2
Great vid! Keep 'em coming
Elol22 3 years ago
Responded Javor, "Shut up! I hate you, you're not invited to my birthday party!!!!"
closedmouth 3 years ago
Yeah its amazing how christians need to shut themselves off from the rest of us in order to keep their faith. It is a damn pity also. These people who think they have the god given right to judge us all need to hold themselves incomunicado in order to do so.
KasparHauser4 3 years ago
Another point that was missed by the reply, even if all scientists believed creationism, it still would not qualify as science.
Science ideally is not prejudiced by preconceived conclusions.
bpabbott1st 3 years ago
Well put. Science is based on conclusions based on tested and observed results. Creationism is the other way around in which let's find "evidence" (not that there is any) that support our conclusion and omit everything else that destroys it. If creationism really had evidence they wouldn't need to back step to quoting the bible so damn much.
a012345 3 years ago
I say we all ban together and believe in fairies - maybe they will become true. :)
naughtypagan72 3 years ago
I'm going to put in my psych PhD application at loma linda.
superfisto 3 years ago
You'll probably end up getting burned at the stake. :)
naughtypagan72 3 years ago
Yay another Hovindism. But what made this a Hovindism? You should have included Hovind somewhere in the video. Otherwise it's just a... creationismism..?
soulhunger1 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Equal Opportunity? there are many fine scientists that provide empirical evidence that not only supports the biblical account but draws evolutionism into question. How many have been hired by the University? How many have been offered tenure by that University? The indoctrination of evolutionists starts at a young age and continues through their path through academia. The gate keepers of evolutionism are steadfast make no mistake.
mejc2 3 years ago
evidence supporting the bible??? = none
evidence questioning evolution = none
why do you say evolutionism. The -ism implies a sort of belief, there is no need for faith like young earth creationists need. I see the facts, i know they're facts, they're are millions of facts, so i choose to know evoultion is a completely sound, in every manner, theory
ihdiferog 3 years ago 4
@ mejc2 : I laugh in your general direction. Please tell me which creation believer has presented actual empirical evidence? I'd like to look real evidence opposing evolution over. I don't expect to see it though. After reading thousands of creationist articles and many books, I have seen nothing but arguments from ignorance, straw-man attacks, arguments from authority, non-sequitur conclusions, evidence cherry-picking, and outright lies. Of course they're not hired, with such fallacious work.
renegade4dio 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
which area of science are you interested in. Just pick one and I'll look up some stuff for you because obviously you are too lazy or far to indoctrinated into evolutionism to be able to think clearly.
mejc2 3 years ago
"evolutionism"
Very few people believe in evolutionism anymore. Evolutionism is a philosophy that states that cultures are evolving toward a particular form (i.e. platonic forms). It was popular in the 19th century, but has not seen much popularity recently.
soulhunger1 3 years ago
@soulhunger1 -- Great point! They like to use Evolutionism and Evolutionist to try and make it seem like a religious belief. It's too bad the creationists can't see the difference between science and religion. Of course, whenever one of them does realize the difference, they stop being creationists. For a very visible example, consider DonExodus2.
renegade4dio 3 years ago
mejc2, please offer one piece of empirical data for the god hypothesis. Any will do & I will allow you to pick. Or, how about just one peer reviewed article which proves the Theory of Evolution is invalid. I am not asking for much & made it very simple for you to respond.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
Okay, look up anything in the field of biology that disproves the evolutionary theory and supports the bible. I really want to see what you are going to come up with.
a012345 3 years ago
If you get your source from Hovind or Discovery Institute...well...do I really need to say more than that?
a012345 3 years ago
"obviously you are too lazy or far to indoctrinated into evolutionism to be able to think clearly." --mejc2
LOL again! Calling US indoctrinated!
Oh, my. This is gonna be fun. Avoiding the clearly worded question, you launch personal attacks. Great tactic, it'll win you LOTS of converts.
Did you miss that I read these books of tripe for their humor value? I've probably already read whatever you are going to say.
By the way, since you implied it could be otherwise, EVOLUTION IS BIOLOGY.
renegade4dio 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evolutionists have so broadly defined the term that any change through descent is called evolution by evolutionists. Some of the things that evolutionists have hijacked into their hypothesis are observed facts. If it is the the observed occurrences that you are referring to then yes biology by all means but in the overarching definition of common descent it is mere speculation not science.
mejc2 3 years ago
mejc2, it looks as though you are just like the rest in the god hypothesis corner. You come & make your claims, provide no evidence of your claims, then resort to ad hominems as a deflection. I pity you & your ilk. You claim there is empirical data, it is politely asked for & instead of politely responding, you run & hide in your corner again. So sad, so very very sad.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago 3
"Evolutionists have so broadly defined the term that any change through descent is called evolution by evolutionists." -- mejc2
You're still avoiding the question.
It isn't scientists who've mis-defined evolution into some over-broad definition containing more than biology. Look to your friends to see who does that. We are talking about evolution. The changes in a population over time, driven by diversity, heredity, and natural selection, that results in the diversity of life on earth.
renegade4dio 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The problem is that there is no known mechanism to account for the variety we see.
mejc2 3 years ago
"The problem is that there is no known mechanism to account for the variety we see." -- mejc2
Failure on your part to comprehend how heredity + random mutation + natural selection + time IS the mechanism that accounts for the observed variation is not a failure on the part of the explanation.
renegade4dio 3 years ago 4
"The problem is that there is no known mechanism to account for the variety we see."
Research the following terms: mutation, recombination, horizontal gene transfer, natural selection, and genetic drift.
You have yet to give any of your "evidence." That is strike number two.
ExtantDodo 3 years ago
"any change through descent is called evolution"
That is evolution.
soulhunger1 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If that is your entire definition of evolution then it is an observable fact.
mejc2 3 years ago
"If that is your entire definition of evolution then it is an observable fact."
Yes, it is.
soulhunger1 3 years ago 2
"If that is your entire definition of evolution then it is an observable fact."
We've gone over the definition of evolution with you before.
ExtantDodo 3 years ago
"...common descent...is mere speculation not science."
Speculation with:
1. An observed mechanism (something creationism doesn't have).
2. Successful predictions (something creationism doesn't have).
3. A natural, testable source (something creationism doesn't have).
4. Observed instances of its occurrence (something creationism doesn't have).
5. A scientific consensus (something creationism doesn't have).
6. And legal permission to be taught in schools (lol).
In short: evolution won. Suck it.
Hooya2 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hello hooya,
"Speculation with:
1. An observed mechanism"
I'll just trash one of your arguments. Actually the first one. What oh hooya do you think is the "observed mechanism of evolution"
You see I claim there is no known mechanism to account for the diversity we observe. there are plenty of Evolutionist speculations, but no known mechanism.
mejc2 3 years ago
"I'll just trash one of your arguments. Actually the first one. What oh hooya do you think is the "observed mechanism of evolution""
Don't feed me that bs; we've seen beneficial mutations, we've witnessed them being selected for, we've observed speciation. You know full well what the mechanism is, *and* that it's been observed.
Hooya2 3 years ago 3
Hooya, you missed the part where he said, "I claim" there is no known mechanism...
Yes he claims it, but he cannot prove it. Just like he claims to have empirical data but has yet offered any. I claim to be the world's greatest lover, so what, it does not mean it is true or I can prove it. However, I am willing to offer evidence & data to anyone willing to question my claim.
*snicker*
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
"I claim to be the world's greatest lover, so what, it does not mean it is true or I can prove it. However, I am willing to offer evidence & data to anyone willing to question my claim.
*snicker*"
My friend Steve is willing to question that claim. He's about 5'10", and weighs 300 lbs. (and none of it's muscle). He wants to know what's your phone number?
Hooya2 3 years ago
Hooya, I knew as soon as I hit "Post Comment" that I should have put in the necessary qualifications in order to test my claim.
I guess it is just best at this point to come to terms with the fact that I may not be the greatest. Give Steve my best & tell him that I apologize for getting his hopes up.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
"Give Steve my best & tell him that I apologize for getting his hopes up."
He's sad, but he understands. He says you got more than his hopes up, though 0.0
Hooya2 3 years ago
"You see I claim there is no known mechanism to account for the diversity we observe."
You can claim whatever nonsense you wish, but you were supposed to be presenting evidence. That is strike number three.
"there are plenty of Evolutionist speculations, but no known mechanism."
As was explained to you previously numerous times, the evolutionists were 19th century philosophers. They were rejected by science long ago.
ExtantDodo 3 years ago
"You see I claim there is no known mechanism to account for the diversity we observe. there are plenty of Evolutionist speculations, but no known mechanism."
Wow. Some of the dubest creationist nonsense ever. This can be disproven by reading just the wikipedia introduction to evolution. Mutation, gene recombination, allel frequencies, genetic drift, natural selection, among others.
BalmungSama0 3 years ago 3
That and the no known mechanism statement would disallow his god.
rjbonacolta 3 years ago
Hooya
LMGDAO!!!
I love #6. The poor IDershave spent literally tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars to get their pseudo science taught in public schools so they can gain more cult members, but they fail miserably. Even with conservatice Christian judges they fail miserably. Thank GAWD that even though they were conservative Christians, they were also honest & intelligent, like the honorable Judge Jones III.
*snicker*
IaintNoGood 3 years ago 2
Nice.
AthynKronos 3 years ago
"Evolutionists have so broadly defined the term that any change through descent is called evolution by evolutionists."
That is a straw man argument and strike one. Evolution is the change is the frequency of alleles in a population through time.
ExtantDodo 3 years ago
"Some of the things that evolutionists have hijacked into their hypothesis are observed facts."
The frequency of alleles present in a population change; move on with your life and get to that "evidence" you claimed to have.
ExtantDodo 3 years ago
"If it is the the observed occurrences that you are referring to then yes biology by all means but in the overarching definition of common descent it is mere speculation not science."
Evolutionary theory is the unifying principle of biology. Common descent allows us to examine the effect of novel drug treatments in mice and extrapolate their mechanism and side effects to humans before conducting human trials. Where is that "evidence" you claimed to have?
ExtantDodo 3 years ago
"Evolutionists have so broadly defined the term"
Biologists define evolution as the change in allele frequency within a population over time. So the scientific definition is quite succinct. Creationists on the other hand often drag in cosmological evolution as a talking point.
"in the overarching definition of common descent it is mere speculation not science."
ALL (not some, not a hint full, but *ALL*) evidence points toward common descent. Fossils, anatomy, genetics, etc. all agree.
coasterpro 3 years ago
"evolutionism" ... riiiiight....
Mecj2, I would suggest you went to a room in your house and politely ask a doorknob to give you a little crash course in basic science. I say a doorknob because it's obviously bound to know more about science than you probably ever will and also because I am quite sure you must at least have or two laying around.
Once you've actually understand what science was really all about, get back here and we'll talk...
Falloutmoon 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
oh yeah right, you understand science. You don't even understand the English language. learn to read and write then try learning some science and we won't have to talk.
mejc2 3 years ago
mejc2, oh the irony abounds. First off, the Theory of Evolution is just that, it is a scientific theory, yet you refer to it as a hypothesis. Talk about not understanding the English language. As for understanding science, we are still patiently waiting for your peer reviewed science which supports your god hypothesis or invalidates the Theory of Evolution. Please don't keep this important information secret, especially if it can save my eternal residence.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
oh, peer reviewed. By that you mean let a bunch of evolutionists tell you that your evidence doesn't discredit evolutionism.
Why don't you bring the bible to Muslims for peer review.
bring your evolutionist nonsense to scientists that provide empirical evidence for the biblical accounts for review.
mejc2 3 years ago
mejc2, once again your ignorance exposes itself. A group of fundaMENTALists is not considered a peer review group, whether they are Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or Christ cult members. It is fun watching you jump through your hoops though. You made the claim there is empirical data for thus & so & further claimed you could present it. Now you deflect, avoid, dodge, interject conspiracy theories, hide, jump, use snmoke & mirrors, etc. Is it tough living in your world of delusion & lies? Me thinks so
IaintNoGood 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"mejc2, once again your ignorance exposes itself. A group of fundaMENTALists is not considered a peer review group, whether they are Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or Christ cult members"
OR EVOLUTIONISTS
Which field of science are you interested in seeing empirical evidence.
also, seeing that you believe it happened billions of times successfully, can you give me one,only one of the billions, proof of any organism changing into another kind of organism.
mejc2 3 years ago
mejc2, I told you, you choose. Give me any epirical evidence for your god hypothesis. I leave it all up to you & your great wisdom. Any discipline of science.
As for scientific peer review being a group of fundaMENTALists, you again let that silly little ignorance bug out for all to see. Most scientists Scooter, are believers in a god thingy so if they were in this so-called conspiracy, they are going against their own beliefs in order to keep this big secret that Evolution is invalid.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
"can you give me one,only one of the billions, proof of any organism changing into another kind of organism."
Define "kind".
Pythol 3 years ago 4
"OR EVOLUTIONISTS "
Abuse of the shift key is yet another extension to your stay in time out. You are up to three semesters now.
"Which field of science are you interested in seeing empirical evidence. "
You claimed to have the evidence and were told to present any piece of it. Who was that seems to have difficulty comprehending basic English?
ExtantDodo 3 years ago
"also, seeing that you believe it happened billions of times successfully, can you give me one,only one of the billions, proof of any organism changing into another kind of organism."
We call them fossils. Why not try researching any one of the millions that have been described. And again, whatever happened to your evidence that all of the biodiversity we observe appeared by magic?
ExtantDodo 3 years ago
They are not interested in what most logical people consider 'transitional fossils' - they want somebody to show them a crocaduck fossil. Of course they are readily willing to display fossils of giants - even when they are proven to be photoshop images.
naughtypagan72 3 years ago
mejc2, one last thing Scooter, empirical data & or evidence, cannot be denied if it is truly empirical. If you prove to me that Crayola makes green crayons by showing me a green crayon made by Crayola, I am not braggin here but I am smart enough to no longer doubt that Crayola makes green crayons. This supposed conspiracy theory of yours regarding the science community, is utterly nonsensical & would require over 99.5% of the community.
IaintNoGood 3 years ago
It also means that none of these scientists want fame & fortune. This means that literal