You clearly do not have as good a grasp on evolutionary biology as you think you do. Also, names and credentials of these supposed "evolutionists" that keep contacting you?
Who has been asking you to define evolution? Define macroevolution - a term non-creationists only bring up in casual conversation, to reflect human perceptions of scale. It has not been defined, and cannot be defined, in a way rigorous enough even to say that, as a rule, it cannot happen, let alone confirm it. If it's "change within species," speciation has been observed, e.g., in herring gulls.
For that matter, define "deevolution" in a way that doesn't rely on subjective human perception.
@jbz3 And you taking the frog turning into a prince exaggeration as a serious argument is a strawman. Nobody uses that as a serious counter to the claims of evolution or employ it as an accurate depiction of how evolution worked. It's akin to the statements of how God is a magical sky daddy that planted fossils that look millions of years old to test the faith of His children. That shouldn't be a serious point, but will be used to mock the other side and show how nonsensical it is.
@Sickopath333 It's not a strawman bceause that's what would have had to happen if all species existed contemporaneously, some being would had to have sorted them as they are now because they're certainly not sorted according to their hydrodynamic principles.
@Sickopath333 It's not a strawman to address his strawman.
Mocking without reason is ad lapidem. If it's not an accurate depiction, then it can't show the position to be nonsensical, and that makes it just a appeal to ridicule fallacy, a form of strawman.
Frog to prince misrepresents evolution with metamorphism.Yes, we had amphibian ancestors, but they was not frogs, and it was over millions of generations, not one that morphed.
Now, how does "magical sky daddy" not represent your beliefs?
@jbz3 The main point is that when one is mocking the other side, no matter the format or whether or not it works as an analogy, it is not a serious argument and should not be treated as a serious argument. You call them for it, but you don't treat it at face value, you roll your eyes and say, okay you tossed out an insult, now where's the beef, where's your argument.
So it's okay to deride my beliefs with a mocking description as long as it is "representative" then?
@Sickopath333 I'm never said that mocking is a serious argument, but it still implies "look how nonsensical this is". Even when only mocking, it's still just as much of a fallacy. Should I disregard all of wazooloo's arguments as non-serious? He'll still be making every single one of them.
I don't mock peoples' beliefs even if it's a "magical sky daddy", but I was merely asking how such a description is essentially different at all. What does it mean if it's still an accurate description?
@jbz3 If it's only mocking then by nature it is a fallacy already! You aren't giving any argument or laying out anything for the other person to respond to, so whether the insult or mockery is accurate or complete hogwash you're wasting your time addressing it and calling it fallacious (this isn't how evolution works, you're so stupid; you're the one arguing against an insult..).
Accurate by one's interpretation perhaps. Just like atheism is accurately the empty denial of cowards.
@TheScienceFoundation No it isn't. The only true default position on a matter is either ignorance or deciding to withold your opinion until a more satisfactory explanation or evidence comes to light. Atheism is the rejection of the claim of a deity or deities; when you reject a claim you affirm its opposite. You cannot just casually reject claims without substantiation, you are then responsible to defend your stance. And I can demonstrate this easily if you so wish.
@Sickopath333 Yes it is, not accepting a positive claim is default until evidence is presented. No, atheism is skepticism of the positive claim of deities existing.
@Sickopath333 No, when you reject a claim, you remain skeptical unless and until positive evidence is presented. Atheism is the default position of not accepting the empty assertion of a god or gods existing.
@TheScienceFoundation No, when you reject a claim you affirm its opposite. Try this with any other issue, any other affirmation, and it is obvious how accurate this is. The sky is blue. I reject that. So you affirm that the sky is not blue.
Atheism is not a default position. This passive, "lack of" definition is cowardly and pathetic.
I reject the claim of evolution. Surely you should have no problem with that since it's a default position after all.
@Sickopath333 No, when a positive claim alone is presented, the default is non-acceptance. The sky is blue, I do not accept that until evidence is presented to support this.
Atheism is absolutely the default position. It's not a passive definition, it's *the* definition. If I said I had a dragon in my garage you would likely say 'prove it'
The problem with your evolution analogy is more evidence has been presented to support it than any other theory in science.
@TheScienceFoundation The default position is ignorance. I don't know whether the sky is blue or not. I'm not sure yet if that is the case. The act of rejecting a claim can never be passive, it cannot be neutral. You do not merely reject a claim by default or else my evolution analogy wouldn't perturb you in the slightest because it's the appropriate starting point on an issue; the problem is, that isn't the case. Yeah; it's the incorrect definition.
@Sickopath333 It's not rejection, it's non-acceptance. 'I don't believe your god exists, pending positive evidence' is not a positive claim.
If there were no evidence and it were merely the claim that evolution occurred then skepticism would absolutely be warranted, but at this point it's been evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt. If the claim of god had been evidenced then non-acceptance would no longer be warranted.
@TheScienceFoundation So you try to avoid the obvious logical dictate of affirming the opposite statement when you reject a claim by using passive language (but instead of lacking belief you go with non-acceptance). You aren't actively rejecting the claim, you are merely passively non-accepting it. You still fall into the same issue because you are still in disagreement with the affirmative claim; you currently do not agree with it.
@Sickopath333 Skepticism is not the affirmation of anything, that's your problem. Again, not accepting a claim for which there is no evidence does not require evidence.
@TheScienceFoundation But skepticism is merely critical thinking/evaluation. A skeptic has no real position on the matter, but is merely holding off until they can find some more research and make a decision. So, if you've already concluded that the affirmation is erroneous or wrong, you aren't being skeptical, you're rejecting the position.
There is evidence, but it depends on your epistemological position, your worldview, and requires the individual to interpret it.
@TheScienceFoundation Then with that same reasoning I merely do not accept atheism, which is a position that has no evidence.
Evidence is never objective. Where did you figure that out from? If you see a crime scene there are objective facts (someone's dead, etc.), but the evidence left behind does not create a clear objective reality, we have to subjectively interpret what is seen and make the most reasonable conclusion we can, and that will depend on our "training."
@Sickopath333 No, by that reasoning, atheism is the default position. 'Not accepting' atheism means you're making a positive claim of a deities existence, a positive claim which requires positive evidence. Evidence itself is always objective, it's just that some, IE theists, will apply their presuppositions when examining it.
#3 Say if you leave a bicycle in a storage for 20+ years and, in that same year you had a child, and, he had just been born. Now say if that bicycle you put in the storage was put in at the SAME exact time the baby was born and, you took a time machine into 20+ years now, would the bicycle be in the same height as it was? Yes. Would you say that the baby was at the height as it was as you left? No. We humans grow overtime. Bicycles aren't living things they don't grow overtime they, DON'T evolve
#2 00:44 - 0:53 My point being is that, objects cannot evolve because they aren't living things. They can't collect Dna, in fact they don't have dna. They can't pass their dna off and, make an offspring like we living beings can and, adapt to their environment therefore, they can't evolve. The evolution in bicycles is just a advancement in technology term not in biological terms.
0:44 - 0:53 uuuh no. You see Bicycles are objects and, not living things. Objects cannot collect information in it's DNA therefore, it cannot change over-time but, living things collect DNA from their environment Therefore it CAN collect DNA information and, grow. We animals grow and, collect more DNA and make offspring's in which the child can, collect the DNA from the mom and, the dad. So that keeps going and, we don't notice that our bodies are adapting more to an environment.
The theory of evolution is about populations changing over generations. It never said that a frog can turn into a prince and if this guy can't understand that, then I don't think there is any hope for him.
The theory of evolution is about populations changing over generations. It never said that a frog can turn into a prince and if this guy can't understand that, then I don't think there is any hope for him.
When I said: "I don't think there is any hope for him" I meant that it would be unreasonable to assume that anyone could change his mind about anything regarding this topic.
de-evolution? no that would still count as evolution, but nice straw-man.
scientist have not used micro-evolution since the 40's. and only creation think a frog could become a prince.
evolution is not what you said. life coming from non-life is abiogenesis, not evolution.
but here, Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. only took he 10 seconds to find. your welcome
@panoply13 Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations...is what i put down. where do you see de-evolution? the only way that can happen is....wait that can't happen. what do you mean by De-evolution.
@TheScienceFoundation I'd say "breathing" is the most predictable of human responses. Evolution is not science because it is not observable, predictable, or repeatable.
@panoply13 " Evolution is not science because it is not observable, predictable, or repeatable"....with experiment would you like that shows otherwise?
Dear evolutionism believers. Sorry you lose. Just come out of the closet and admit you believe in something that defies scientific observation. If you do, I'd have more respect for you.
You cling to this belief with a zealosy that is most religous.
@FAA20TSO Hehe..oh man.. I don't think the ENTIRETY of Natural Science, Academia and every reputable Scientific organization is actually concerned with the "respect" of Simpletons who don't even understand what Evolution actually is. If by "lose" you mean irrelevant to the Scientific Community and Academia, beaten in Court and relegated to Ewetoob and Vlogs in the fitting company of Bigfoot, Elvis sightings, Alien abductions and wacky Conspiracy Theories..
@GawdSwill I hear this so often. No matter how intensely a person studies evolution, no matter the doctorates in science he or she has earned, if they disagree with evolution, then "they really don't understand evolution." That sounds like a faith to me.
@panoply13 Wait..what? Is it your assertion that FAA20TS0 has intensely studied Evolution and/or has Doctorates in Science? Highly unlikely..
And yes, of those who actually DO "intensely study" and possess "doctorates in Science" in any related Natural Science %99.9 accept the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supporting Evolutionary Theory and the fact of Evolution itself. But please do go ahead and list the %0.1 that do not.. they will easily fit within the character limit.
"Your definition muddies the waters because it includes everything!"
The only definition given in this video comes from a man who looks and sounds as though he never completed high school. Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time. Take this down and make a "wacky" video about bicycles with that definition, you moron.
Your bastardization of the definition of evolution tells me one of 2 things: either your very very hopelessly ignorant of the actual definition of evolution, or a liar. I'm betting on the latter. It frustrates me to see you knowingly twist the definition of evolution to lead more and more people to ignorance just so more people turn to religion. Its sickening. Evolution says nothing about god or beliefs and the bible says nothing on evolution. Evolution is a fact get over it
@buksvdl ok no problem. the definition "change over time" is a simple way of defining evolution, but you have to remember that when this definition is used its in reference to living things. If you want specifics I don't think i can explain everything here in this box but I can direct you to a book: The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. Yes, he's an atheist but he understands how evolution works and writes about it in an easy-to-read way that has the laymen's terms your looking for.
@panoply13 No, I never said believe its fact because I do. Evolution is a fact because of the mountains of evidence backing it and the best part is you can look it up yourself you don't have to take my word for it.
The word evolution has a meaning broader than what it means in the context of biology.
Perhaps you misunderstood someone saying that language evolution was a kind of evolution, as a comment about biological evolution.
Also, a mass extinction could be considered biological evolution in the sense that the gene pool changes. Or the character of the remaining pool, anyways.
Also, what reason is there to equate the unguided with the magical? That which does not involve a god with the magical?
@TheScienceFoundation you dont refute anythig U just daily fight to stay in denial of God and try 2 pretend to believe in the evol. Faith. You also fail everyday so to try to stay in denial & bring new false believers into evol. Faith. You live on Ians videos attacking them, his real Science & other creationists. Think of all the peace U would have if U just droped the denial & exepted the truth your Creator/ God/ Jesus Christ as your Lord & Savior & asking forgivness of your sins. Ill pray 4 U.
@TheScienceFoundation when I do read your comments I see nothing but excuses and nonsense No Science. Ian brings Science somthing you know Nothing about. Thanks for proving my point you answered my comment after 1 min. you do live on hear spamming his videos, you might want to consider getting a life (no offence) if thats possible.
@coolvideo28 That's probably because you don't know what science looks like. In all the videos I've watched Ian has yet to say anything in favor of creation or contradictory of evolution that has anything to do with science. Now you resort to personal attacks while remaining ignorant of the science that put the ability to rebut your ignorance right on my phone, which is why I can refute you from anywhere at any time.
@TheScienceFoundation I didnt personal attack I simply stated a fact that you proved and now proved again sorry you cant handle the truth with reality or Science bye, incase you didnt read it the 1st time I said bye
@coolvideo28 Yes, you did personally attack just as you're personally attacking now. The topic was this video and my refutation of it, you had to steer away from it with an ad hom because you couldn't actually defend the video.
@TheScienceFoundation yes, the earth is not a closed system. that doesn't change the fact that we live within the closed system of the universe, and that laws that apply to closed systems do apply to us
@daviatu The law applies to the energy overall in an isolated (not closed, two different things) system, this does not mean that usable energy cannot be shifted within the system as long as the tendency towards equilibrium is greater.
@TheScienceFoundation i'm not saying that it can't shift within the system. i'm just refuting your statement that we are not part of an isolated system, which i took to mean closed system. though i might be getting my terms wrong. what's the difference between isolated and closed systems, in this context?
@daviatu The earth itself is not an isolated system in any way, shape or form which is what was being asked. Energy can cross the boundary of a closed system, neither energy nor mass can cross the boundary of an isolated system.
@TheScienceFoundation ah i see. in that case i meant isolated system when i said closed system. thanks for the definition.
the question which you replied to was "are we part of an isolated system?" you then responded with "nope," and explained why the earth is not an isolated system. as far as i could tell, you brought up earth as a reasoning to why we are not part of an isolated system. yet we are, it's the universe. wouldn't you agree?
@TheScienceFoundation i didn't mention evolution at all. i was only refuting the claim that we are not part of an isolated system. since you do agree that we are in an isolated system, then my point is made.
by the way, i agree with you about entropy being able to decrease on the earth despite its increase in the universe. thanks for the discussion :)
@TheScienceFoundation i figured that it was, but i wasn't intending to side with anyone in that discussion. i read the implication of your statement and disagreed with it. a statement of fact is still a statement of fact, regardless of its context. perhaps what you could've said was that, yes, we are in an isolated system, although changes can occur within parts of the system that are different from the overall change of the entire system, meaning that evolution doesn't contradict this law
@TheScienceFoundation i understood the context, but your statement was made regardless. you said that we are not in an isolated system. these are statements that i've made: we are in an isolated system. we are also in a smaller system which is not isolated. these statements have relevance independently of context, so long as the definitions of the words are the same in the contexts that are used. yes, you mentioned earth, but that is independent of the statement you made, which i was refuting
@TheScienceFoundation misrepresented? hmm, let me try to understand. did you or did you not state or imply that we are not part of an isolated system?
mind you, i'm not siding with whoever you were arguing with previously. it is your statement alone that i wanted to discuss. the universe as a system is definitely relevant to that statement which i believe that you made
@TheScienceFoundation i thought i'd made it clear that i was not participating in that other discussion. their argument is none of my concern. i was disputing your statement alone. "earth is not an isolated system, that it receives usable energy from the sun" is a statement with which i agree. that it is not the statement that you seemed to make earlier, but since you have confirmed that this is your true contention, then i do not argue against it. are we in agreement?
@daviatu You're talking in context of the discussion I was having in this person. At no point did I say the universe was not an isolated system and at no point did I reference the universe.
'that it is not the statement that you seemed to make earlier'
I don't see how you could think I stated otherwise, my exact quote was "Nope, the earth receives usable energy from the sun"
@daviatu Usuable energy? Without some form of designed mechanism all the suns energy is destructive. The only natural occuring material that harness the suns energy is chlorphyll and that's more complicated then any factory. this implies an intelligent designer.??? hmm. Whenever you add energy to something it's destructive.
@FAA20TSO you just assumed that i believe in creationism just because i was arguing with an evolutionist. however i argued against @TheScienceFoundation because i believed his/her argument to be wrong, and i make a point of arguing against statements which i believe aren't correct, regardless of the beliefs of the person who makes those statements
@TheScienceFoundation re-read your own wording. your statement did not specify that you were referring to the earth. in the context of your argument, this can be ignored without fuss, however the statement still did not make that specification. i am aware that i am being overly pedantic, but i dont see why you dont understand what i'm telling you
If you spent more time listening to people rather than thinking of 'witty' ways to retort, you might learn something. The evolution of language is used as an analogy to biological evolution, not as evidence for biological evolution. It helps clear up misunderstandings like rats giving birth to monkeys that people like you deliberately spread. But that's all it is, an analogy.
@RaytownSoClassof2010 That's what I'm talking about, that you actually think Ian makes any valid points whatsoever. I already refuted this video in the comments.
@RaytownSoClassof2010 Not only tried but succeeded in full. It wasn't hard, this video is more feeble than even most creationist videos, and that's saying something.
For instance anyone who hasn't yet drowned while drinking a glass of water should be able to distinguish
"Pasteur refuted : The idea that rats appear spontaneously out of trash"
and
"Pasteur's work had nothing to do with : The molecular and biochemical formation of the building blocks of life"
Creationists, you're not garnering any respect by sticking to the same tired nonsense. You'd warrant a lot more by finally shuffling loose the stupidity.
You know creationists, you don't have to stay stuck in the cycle of stupidity. That's what it feels like when talking to a lot of you, that you started out with some Kent Hovind brand ignorance and when rapidly refuted instead of just correcting your own personal knowledge you sank into denial and fell deeper down the rabbit hole of idiocy.
It appears to be obvious to everyone else, even most creationists themselves, that they're utterly wrong. It just seems to be a pride thing.
The evolutionm of a bicycle and language are examples of memes. You can also look at the evoltion pf a legacy software system. None of these "proof" Darwin's thery of evolution but they share common ch\rcteristics. (Differences too of coutse). Viral DNA mixes with ours apparently ...
@odinata No I fucking have not you stupid bitch. There is nothing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that has been posted to you that has not been reposted immediately with nothing but spelling corrections. Is it better to keep bring up shit that answer the bloody questions?
@odinata Again YOU FUCKING STUPID BITCH no you did not. And neither has Allan been "going back through his comments and removing them. Censoring ... profanity, or .... logical errors"
If you what a civil converstion then be civil, simple.
@TheScienceFoundation so when you are ask about Evolution you would say, "Evolution," broadly defined, is "a cumulative change through time. It refers to the fact that the universe has had a history -- that if we were able to go back in time, we would find different stars, galaxies, and planets, and different forms of life on Earth" Yet another example of Eugenie at it again.
@allan3141 There is no 'at it again' except on the part of creationists trying to quote mine even if she said something to that effect, which I would want a source on by the way for full context.
Evolution in general can be used to mean change over time but in biology it specifically means the change in allele frequencies, or heritable traits, in populations.
It wasa a quote mine, and I already provided her VERY NEXT sentence, in which see said:
"In the case of Biological Evolution the big idea is that living things shared common ancestry--that we are descended with modification from common ancestors with other creatures, and all creatures are related in this way"
@TheScienceFoundation but if that is 'specifically' what it means (which I deny on serveral counts) you would be hard pushed to find ANYONE on any sides of the debate or in any nauanced position that doubts things like allele frequencies change in populations.
And even with "heritable traits in populations change" you do not state anything that goes beyond that published and evidenced way before C Darwin.
@TheScienceFoundation it is hard to believe this comment is made in good faith. If you are really not interested in a civil exchange just tell me now.
I ACCEPT ALLELE FREQUENCIES CHANGE IN POPULATIONS.
@allan3141 So then you would accept that two reproductively separated populations will only become less similar genetically as time and generations pass.
@TSF "you would accept that two reproductively separated populations will only become less similar genetically as time and generations pass?" It would be very easy to just say yes to this but actually it would depend what is being used as the measure of genetic similarity. I think: rates of divergence would plateau, that it is possible to have convergence, and there are limits to the changes under the mechanism of neo-Darwinism. I note that a UK Slow Worm can still mate with a Bulgarian CONT>>
@allan3141 'rates of divergence would plateau' Based on what? We've seen nothing in genetics that would indicate any limit or section of any genome immutable to change.
@TSF based on experience and experimental data. I lot of work has been done with things like Fruit Flies etc and that work has most certainly experienced limits. If you now take as your starting point a population of Yorkshire Terriers and a population of Wild Grey Wolves and started separate breeding programs to see which population is easier produce different breeds from, it would be far easier from the wolves, as the gene pool genome of the Yorkshire Terriers is now more depleted.
@allan3141 Fruit flies speciate regularly, and fruit flies are typically used for baseline testing for genetic therapy and drug testing so major anomalies are removed. Terriers have a smaller gene pool due to artificial selection, so pointing out that wolves would produce a higher rate of removed homology actually proves my point.
The fact remains that mutations don't halt or even slow from any observation we've made and that two segregated populations will only diverge further.
@TSF CONT one. That a White European, Australian Aboriginal, or a Native American etc can still mate with an African Pigmy, and that as far as one can tell a modern day Horseshoe Crab is remarkably similar to a Horseshoe Crab of 450 million years ago. So these genetic divergences are not just wildly rampant and without limits. But I except that it is easy especially initially to get two reproductively separate populations to became less similar genetically. CONT
@odinata “so that after many generations, following one after the other, these individuals, belonging originally to another species, find themselves at last transformed into a new species, distinct from the other. For example, if the seeds of a grass or of any other plant common to a humid prairie are transported, by some circumstance or other, at first to the slope of a neighbouring hill, where the soil, although at a higher altitude, CONT>>>
“so that after many generations, following one after the other, these individuals, belonging originally to another species, find themselves at last transformed into a new species, distinct from the other. For example, if the seeds of a grass or of any other plant common to a humid prairie are transported, by some circumstance or other, at first to the slope of a neighbouring hill, where the soil, although at a higher altitude, CONT>>>
@odinata CONT >>> is still sufficiently damp to allow the plant to continue living, if then, after living there and reproducing many times in that spot, the plant little by little reaches the almost arid soil of the mountain slope and succeeds in subsisting there and perpetuates itself through a sequence of generations, it will then be so changed that botanists who come across it there will create a special species for it.” Philosophie Zoologique1809 CONT
@odinata and again, "In 1846 the veteran geologist M. J. d’Omalius d’Halloy published in an excellent though short paper (‘Bulletins de l’Acad. Roy. Bruxelles,’ tom. xiii. p. 581) his opinion that it is more probable that new species have been produced by descent with modification than that they have been separately created: the author first promulgated this opinion in 1831" Charles Darwin (1896)
@odinata "So do you believe Lamarck was correct, or Darwin?"
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 if any, were original to Darwin and not already conclusions published by others?
@odinata CONT >>> is still sufficiently damp to allow the plant to continue living, if then, after living there and reproducing many times in that spot, the plant little by little reaches the almost arid soil of the mountain slope and succeeds in subsisting there and perpetuates itself through a sequence of generations, it will then be so changed that botanists who come across it there will create a special species for it.” Philosophie Zoologique1809 CONT
""In the case of Biological Evolution the big idea is that living things shared common ancestry--that we are descended with modification from common ancestors with other creatures, and all creatures are related in this way."
--Eugenie Scott, from the very video where the Creationist Liar tried to cite as evidence for his false claim.
Can you make a video about (intelligence/conscious awakening) related to the evolution of species. I've always found it ridiculous that we get our morals or the will to learn because of evolution in society. I also believe that people had a downfall from the beginning of sin and any evidence related to that would be cool.
You clearly do not have as good a grasp on evolutionary biology as you think you do. Also, names and credentials of these supposed "evolutionists" that keep contacting you?
gonz0love 1 week ago
Who has been asking you to define evolution? Define macroevolution - a term non-creationists only bring up in casual conversation, to reflect human perceptions of scale. It has not been defined, and cannot be defined, in a way rigorous enough even to say that, as a rule, it cannot happen, let alone confirm it. If it's "change within species," speciation has been observed, e.g., in herring gulls.
For that matter, define "deevolution" in a way that doesn't rely on subjective human perception.
IoEstasCedonta 2 weeks ago
Equivocation: Using the same word with different meanings throughout an argument.
Yes, there are different meanings of "evolution", so one must make arguments with proper context, or it becomes a straw man argument.
Only creationists bother with "micro-" vs "macro-".
A frog turning into a prince is an example of straw man. A prince is a title, not a clad.
There is no "upward" of evolution.
No one thinks frogs are ancestor to humans anywhere in the phylogeny.
That's about all I can fit.
jbz3 1 month ago
@jbz3 And you taking the frog turning into a prince exaggeration as a serious argument is a strawman. Nobody uses that as a serious counter to the claims of evolution or employ it as an accurate depiction of how evolution worked. It's akin to the statements of how God is a magical sky daddy that planted fossils that look millions of years old to test the faith of His children. That shouldn't be a serious point, but will be used to mock the other side and show how nonsensical it is.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sickopath333 It's not a strawman bceause that's what would have had to happen if all species existed contemporaneously, some being would had to have sorted them as they are now because they're certainly not sorted according to their hydrodynamic principles.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 It's not a strawman to address his strawman.
Mocking without reason is ad lapidem. If it's not an accurate depiction, then it can't show the position to be nonsensical, and that makes it just a appeal to ridicule fallacy, a form of strawman.
Frog to prince misrepresents evolution with metamorphism.Yes, we had amphibian ancestors, but they was not frogs, and it was over millions of generations, not one that morphed.
Now, how does "magical sky daddy" not represent your beliefs?
jbz3 1 month ago
@jbz3 The main point is that when one is mocking the other side, no matter the format or whether or not it works as an analogy, it is not a serious argument and should not be treated as a serious argument. You call them for it, but you don't treat it at face value, you roll your eyes and say, okay you tossed out an insult, now where's the beef, where's your argument.
So it's okay to deride my beliefs with a mocking description as long as it is "representative" then?
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 I'm never said that mocking is a serious argument, but it still implies "look how nonsensical this is". Even when only mocking, it's still just as much of a fallacy. Should I disregard all of wazooloo's arguments as non-serious? He'll still be making every single one of them.
I don't mock peoples' beliefs even if it's a "magical sky daddy", but I was merely asking how such a description is essentially different at all. What does it mean if it's still an accurate description?
jbz3 1 month ago
@jbz3 If it's only mocking then by nature it is a fallacy already! You aren't giving any argument or laying out anything for the other person to respond to, so whether the insult or mockery is accurate or complete hogwash you're wasting your time addressing it and calling it fallacious (this isn't how evolution works, you're so stupid; you're the one arguing against an insult..).
Accurate by one's interpretation perhaps. Just like atheism is accurately the empty denial of cowards.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 Actually atheism is the default position of not accepting the unsupported claim of the existence of a deity or deities.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation No it isn't. The only true default position on a matter is either ignorance or deciding to withold your opinion until a more satisfactory explanation or evidence comes to light. Atheism is the rejection of the claim of a deity or deities; when you reject a claim you affirm its opposite. You cannot just casually reject claims without substantiation, you are then responsible to defend your stance. And I can demonstrate this easily if you so wish.
Sickopath333 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sickopath333 Yes it is, not accepting a positive claim is default until evidence is presented. No, atheism is skepticism of the positive claim of deities existing.
TheScienceFoundation 4 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 No, when you reject a claim, you remain skeptical unless and until positive evidence is presented. Atheism is the default position of not accepting the empty assertion of a god or gods existing.
TheScienceFoundation 1 week ago
@TheScienceFoundation No, when you reject a claim you affirm its opposite. Try this with any other issue, any other affirmation, and it is obvious how accurate this is. The sky is blue. I reject that. So you affirm that the sky is not blue.
Atheism is not a default position. This passive, "lack of" definition is cowardly and pathetic.
I reject the claim of evolution. Surely you should have no problem with that since it's a default position after all.
Sickopath333 1 week ago
@Sickopath333 No, when a positive claim alone is presented, the default is non-acceptance. The sky is blue, I do not accept that until evidence is presented to support this.
Atheism is absolutely the default position. It's not a passive definition, it's *the* definition. If I said I had a dragon in my garage you would likely say 'prove it'
The problem with your evolution analogy is more evidence has been presented to support it than any other theory in science.
TheScienceFoundation 1 week ago
@TheScienceFoundation The default position is ignorance. I don't know whether the sky is blue or not. I'm not sure yet if that is the case. The act of rejecting a claim can never be passive, it cannot be neutral. You do not merely reject a claim by default or else my evolution analogy wouldn't perturb you in the slightest because it's the appropriate starting point on an issue; the problem is, that isn't the case. Yeah; it's the incorrect definition.
Sickopath333 1 week ago
@Sickopath333 It's not rejection, it's non-acceptance. 'I don't believe your god exists, pending positive evidence' is not a positive claim.
If there were no evidence and it were merely the claim that evolution occurred then skepticism would absolutely be warranted, but at this point it's been evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt. If the claim of god had been evidenced then non-acceptance would no longer be warranted.
TheScienceFoundation 1 week ago
@TheScienceFoundation So you try to avoid the obvious logical dictate of affirming the opposite statement when you reject a claim by using passive language (but instead of lacking belief you go with non-acceptance). You aren't actively rejecting the claim, you are merely passively non-accepting it. You still fall into the same issue because you are still in disagreement with the affirmative claim; you currently do not agree with it.
Based on your standards.
Sickopath333 1 week ago
@Sickopath333 Skepticism is not the affirmation of anything, that's your problem. Again, not accepting a claim for which there is no evidence does not require evidence.
TheScienceFoundation 1 week ago
@TheScienceFoundation But skepticism is merely critical thinking/evaluation. A skeptic has no real position on the matter, but is merely holding off until they can find some more research and make a decision. So, if you've already concluded that the affirmation is erroneous or wrong, you aren't being skeptical, you're rejecting the position.
There is evidence, but it depends on your epistemological position, your worldview, and requires the individual to interpret it.
Sickopath333 1 week ago
@Sickopath333 I've not concluded that anything is wrong, I merely do not accept a position which has no evidence.
Evidence doesn't depend on position, it's objective.
TheScienceFoundation 1 week ago
@TheScienceFoundation Then with that same reasoning I merely do not accept atheism, which is a position that has no evidence.
Evidence is never objective. Where did you figure that out from? If you see a crime scene there are objective facts (someone's dead, etc.), but the evidence left behind does not create a clear objective reality, we have to subjectively interpret what is seen and make the most reasonable conclusion we can, and that will depend on our "training."
Sickopath333 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sickopath333 No, by that reasoning, atheism is the default position. 'Not accepting' atheism means you're making a positive claim of a deities existence, a positive claim which requires positive evidence. Evidence itself is always objective, it's just that some, IE theists, will apply their presuppositions when examining it.
TheScienceFoundation 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sickopath333 I've not concluded that anything is wrong, I merely do not accept a position which has no evidence.
Evidence doesn't depend on position, it's objective.
TheScienceFoundation 1 week ago
#3 Say if you leave a bicycle in a storage for 20+ years and, in that same year you had a child, and, he had just been born. Now say if that bicycle you put in the storage was put in at the SAME exact time the baby was born and, you took a time machine into 20+ years now, would the bicycle be in the same height as it was? Yes. Would you say that the baby was at the height as it was as you left? No. We humans grow overtime. Bicycles aren't living things they don't grow overtime they, DON'T evolve
RandomfVideos 1 month ago in playlist More videos from wazooloo
#2 00:44 - 0:53 My point being is that, objects cannot evolve because they aren't living things. They can't collect Dna, in fact they don't have dna. They can't pass their dna off and, make an offspring like we living beings can and, adapt to their environment therefore, they can't evolve. The evolution in bicycles is just a advancement in technology term not in biological terms.
RandomfVideos 1 month ago in playlist More videos from wazooloo
0:44 - 0:53 uuuh no. You see Bicycles are objects and, not living things. Objects cannot collect information in it's DNA therefore, it cannot change over-time but, living things collect DNA from their environment Therefore it CAN collect DNA information and, grow. We animals grow and, collect more DNA and make offspring's in which the child can, collect the DNA from the mom and, the dad. So that keeps going and, we don't notice that our bodies are adapting more to an environment.
RandomfVideos 1 month ago in playlist More videos from wazooloo
This has been flagged as spam show
The theory of evolution is about populations changing over generations. It never said that a frog can turn into a prince and if this guy can't understand that, then I don't think there is any hope for him.
Ronilowich 2 months ago
The theory of evolution is about populations changing over generations. It never said that a frog can turn into a prince and if this guy can't understand that, then I don't think there is any hope for him.
Ronilowich 2 months ago
@Ronilowich Why would you be concerned with "hope"? Hope is a theological concept.
panoply13 2 months ago in playlist CrEvo Rants (Creation/Evolution rants)
@panoply13
When I said: "I don't think there is any hope for him" I meant that it would be unreasonable to assume that anyone could change his mind about anything regarding this topic.
Ronilowich 2 months ago
@Ronilowich "Populations over generations"? All of Ian's arguments still apply.
panoply13 2 months ago in playlist CrEvo Rants (Creation/Evolution rants)
This has been flagged as spam show
@panoply13 ""Populations over generations"? All of Ian's arguments still apply."
Read my comment again. I was only responding to Ian's lame joke that, if possible, makes him sound even more stupid than he is.
Ronilowich 2 months ago
de-evolution? no that would still count as evolution, but nice straw-man.
scientist have not used micro-evolution since the 40's. and only creation think a frog could become a prince.
evolution is not what you said. life coming from non-life is abiogenesis, not evolution.
but here, Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. only took he 10 seconds to find. your welcome
noliesundead 2 months ago
@noliesundead The definition you provided allows for de-evolution: "any change."
panoply13 2 months ago
@panoply13 Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations...is what i put down. where do you see de-evolution? the only way that can happen is....wait that can't happen. what do you mean by De-evolution.
noliesundead 2 months ago
Keep ranting on the runt of evolutionism.
theinsectmanofwv 2 months ago
@theinsectmanofwv Denial is the most predictable of all human responses.
Evolution is the sole science in regards to biodiversity.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I'd say "breathing" is the most predictable of human responses. Evolution is not science because it is not observable, predictable, or repeatable.
panoply13 2 months ago in playlist CrEvo Rants (Creation/Evolution rants)
This has been flagged as spam show
@panoply13 " Evolution is not science because it is not observable, predictable, or repeatable"....with experiment would you like that shows otherwise?
noliesundead 2 months ago
@panoply13 It's indeed all those things, read up on Lenski's e. Coli experiment
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
Dear evolutionism believers. Sorry you lose. Just come out of the closet and admit you believe in something that defies scientific observation. If you do, I'd have more respect for you.
You cling to this belief with a zealosy that is most religous.
FAA20TSO 2 months ago
@FAA20TSO Hehe..oh man.. I don't think the ENTIRETY of Natural Science, Academia and every reputable Scientific organization is actually concerned with the "respect" of Simpletons who don't even understand what Evolution actually is. If by "lose" you mean irrelevant to the Scientific Community and Academia, beaten in Court and relegated to Ewetoob and Vlogs in the fitting company of Bigfoot, Elvis sightings, Alien abductions and wacky Conspiracy Theories..
That would be you.
GawdSwill 2 months ago 5
@GawdSwill I hear this so often. No matter how intensely a person studies evolution, no matter the doctorates in science he or she has earned, if they disagree with evolution, then "they really don't understand evolution." That sounds like a faith to me.
panoply13 2 months ago in playlist CrEvo Rants (Creation/Evolution rants)
@panoply13 "That sounds like a faith to me"...it's ok to have faith. just not blind faith.
noliesundead 2 months ago
@panoply13 Wait..what? Is it your assertion that FAA20TS0 has intensely studied Evolution and/or has Doctorates in Science? Highly unlikely..
And yes, of those who actually DO "intensely study" and possess "doctorates in Science" in any related Natural Science %99.9 accept the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supporting Evolutionary Theory and the fact of Evolution itself. But please do go ahead and list the %0.1 that do not.. they will easily fit within the character limit.
GawdSwill 1 month ago 3
"Your definition muddies the waters because it includes everything!"
The only definition given in this video comes from a man who looks and sounds as though he never completed high school. Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time. Take this down and make a "wacky" video about bicycles with that definition, you moron.
dpowens 2 months ago
Your bastardization of the definition of evolution tells me one of 2 things: either your very very hopelessly ignorant of the actual definition of evolution, or a liar. I'm betting on the latter. It frustrates me to see you knowingly twist the definition of evolution to lead more and more people to ignorance just so more people turn to religion. Its sickening. Evolution says nothing about god or beliefs and the bible says nothing on evolution. Evolution is a fact get over it
lostrocko 2 months ago
@lostrocko Please give me that definition (in layman's terms). I'm confused right now.
buksvdl 2 months ago
@buksvdl ok no problem. the definition "change over time" is a simple way of defining evolution, but you have to remember that when this definition is used its in reference to living things. If you want specifics I don't think i can explain everything here in this box but I can direct you to a book: The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. Yes, he's an atheist but he understands how evolution works and writes about it in an easy-to-read way that has the laymen's terms your looking for.
lostrocko 2 months ago
@lostrocko So we should all agree that evolution is a fact just because you believe it is? That sounds like a faith to me.
panoply13 2 months ago
@panoply13 No, I never said believe its fact because I do. Evolution is a fact because of the mountains of evidence backing it and the best part is you can look it up yourself you don't have to take my word for it.
lostrocko 1 month ago
Religious people know exactly which ''evolution' proves their bible wrong. They are the IDiots that ''muddy the water''.
gregrutz 2 months ago in playlist More videos from wazooloo
Wow, creationists are always coming up with some dumb fucking arguments.
Xylogeist 2 months ago
@Xylogeist Wow, evolutionists are always coming up with the same dumb arguments.
panoply13 2 months ago
The word evolution has a meaning broader than what it means in the context of biology.
Perhaps you misunderstood someone saying that language evolution was a kind of evolution, as a comment about biological evolution.
Also, a mass extinction could be considered biological evolution in the sense that the gene pool changes. Or the character of the remaining pool, anyways.
Also, what reason is there to equate the unguided with the magical? That which does not involve a god with the magical?
pjnlsn 3 months ago
keep spreading the real Science.
coolvideo28 3 months ago
@coolvideo28 Don't worry, I will as well as continuing to refute Ian.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation you dont refute anythig U just daily fight to stay in denial of God and try 2 pretend to believe in the evol. Faith. You also fail everyday so to try to stay in denial & bring new false believers into evol. Faith. You live on Ians videos attacking them, his real Science & other creationists. Think of all the peace U would have if U just droped the denial & exepted the truth your Creator/ God/ Jesus Christ as your Lord & Savior & asking forgivness of your sins. Ill pray 4 U.
coolvideo28 3 months ago
@coolvideo28 No, I refuted it all, try reading.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation when I do read your comments I see nothing but excuses and nonsense No Science. Ian brings Science somthing you know Nothing about. Thanks for proving my point you answered my comment after 1 min. you do live on hear spamming his videos, you might want to consider getting a life (no offence) if thats possible.
coolvideo28 3 months ago
@coolvideo28 That's probably because you don't know what science looks like. In all the videos I've watched Ian has yet to say anything in favor of creation or contradictory of evolution that has anything to do with science. Now you resort to personal attacks while remaining ignorant of the science that put the ability to rebut your ignorance right on my phone, which is why I can refute you from anywhere at any time.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I didnt personal attack I simply stated a fact that you proved and now proved again sorry you cant handle the truth with reality or Science bye, incase you didnt read it the 1st time I said bye
coolvideo28 3 months ago
@coolvideo28 Yes, you did personally attack just as you're personally attacking now. The topic was this video and my refutation of it, you had to steer away from it with an ad hom because you couldn't actually defend the video.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation the video stands on its own, doesnt need any defence. Bye
coolvideo28 3 months ago
@coolvideo28 No it doesn't it's already been refuted.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation You LIE bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye
coolvideo28 3 months ago
@coolvideo28 How so?
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Are you saying there is not a continual deteriation of our DNA ?
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 3 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU Now you're getting it.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
There is a universal tendency towards decay. THAT IS A FACT I love it when you guys close one eye and peek out the other .
Of course, all in the name of science . the science which spends its day ranting that Jesus aint really real .
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 3 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 'There is a universal tendency towards decay.'
That's thermodynamics, and its equilibrium in an isolated system.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Are we part of an isolated system???
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 3 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU Nope, the earth receives usable energy from the sun.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation as far as i've learned, our universe is a closed system, so we do exist in a closed system, albeit a very large one
daviatu 3 months ago
@daviatu The universe as a whole is an isolated system, earth as a system is not.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation yes, the earth is not a closed system. that doesn't change the fact that we live within the closed system of the universe, and that laws that apply to closed systems do apply to us
daviatu 3 months ago
@daviatu The law applies to the energy overall in an isolated (not closed, two different things) system, this does not mean that usable energy cannot be shifted within the system as long as the tendency towards equilibrium is greater.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation i'm not saying that it can't shift within the system. i'm just refuting your statement that we are not part of an isolated system, which i took to mean closed system. though i might be getting my terms wrong. what's the difference between isolated and closed systems, in this context?
daviatu 3 months ago
@daviatu The earth itself is not an isolated system in any way, shape or form which is what was being asked. Energy can cross the boundary of a closed system, neither energy nor mass can cross the boundary of an isolated system.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation ah i see. in that case i meant isolated system when i said closed system. thanks for the definition.
the question which you replied to was "are we part of an isolated system?" you then responded with "nope," and explained why the earth is not an isolated system. as far as i could tell, you brought up earth as a reasoning to why we are not part of an isolated system. yet we are, it's the universe. wouldn't you agree?
daviatu 3 months ago
@daviatu We're part of the universe, yes, but I was referring to earth since it's more directly relevant to biological evolution.
The fact remains that while increasing overall in the universe, entropy can and does decrease on earth.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation i didn't mention evolution at all. i was only refuting the claim that we are not part of an isolated system. since you do agree that we are in an isolated system, then my point is made.
by the way, i agree with you about entropy being able to decrease on the earth despite its increase in the universe. thanks for the discussion :)
daviatu 3 months ago
@daviatu The discussion I was having regarded entropy and it's (non) effect on evolution.
It's a fact that the universe is an isolated system, it's also irrelevant because I was referring to earth specifically.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation i figured that it was, but i wasn't intending to side with anyone in that discussion. i read the implication of your statement and disagreed with it. a statement of fact is still a statement of fact, regardless of its context. perhaps what you could've said was that, yes, we are in an isolated system, although changes can occur within parts of the system that are different from the overall change of the entire system, meaning that evolution doesn't contradict this law
daviatu 3 months ago
@daviatu What I said was a statement of fact and the context was perfectly clear, I directly mentioned earth as the system I was regarding.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation i understood the context, but your statement was made regardless. you said that we are not in an isolated system. these are statements that i've made: we are in an isolated system. we are also in a smaller system which is not isolated. these statements have relevance independently of context, so long as the definitions of the words are the same in the contexts that are used. yes, you mentioned earth, but that is independent of the statement you made, which i was refuting
daviatu 3 months ago
@daviatu You didn't refute anything, you simply misrepresented what I said and brought up a completely irrelevant fact.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation misrepresented? hmm, let me try to understand. did you or did you not state or imply that we are not part of an isolated system?
mind you, i'm not siding with whoever you were arguing with previously. it is your statement alone that i wanted to discuss. the universe as a system is definitely relevant to that statement which i believe that you made
daviatu 3 months ago
@daviatu I said the earth is not an isolated system, that it receives usable energy from the sun.
It's not relevant because the argument was that entropy somehow invalidates evolution.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation i thought i'd made it clear that i was not participating in that other discussion. their argument is none of my concern. i was disputing your statement alone. "earth is not an isolated system, that it receives usable energy from the sun" is a statement with which i agree. that it is not the statement that you seemed to make earlier, but since you have confirmed that this is your true contention, then i do not argue against it. are we in agreement?
daviatu 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daviatu You're talking in context of the discussion I was having in this person. At no point did I say the universe was not an isolated system and at no point did I reference the universe.
'that it is not the statement that you seemed to make earlier'
I don't see how you could think I stated otherwise, my exact quote was "Nope, the earth receives usable energy from the sun"
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@daviatu Usuable energy? Without some form of designed mechanism all the suns energy is destructive. The only natural occuring material that harness the suns energy is chlorphyll and that's more complicated then any factory. this implies an intelligent designer.??? hmm. Whenever you add energy to something it's destructive.
FAA20TSO 2 months ago
@FAA20TSO you just assumed that i believe in creationism just because i was arguing with an evolutionist. however i argued against @TheScienceFoundation because i believed his/her argument to be wrong, and i make a point of arguing against statements which i believe aren't correct, regardless of the beliefs of the person who makes those statements
daviatu 2 months ago
@daviatu Except at no point was I wrong, earth still isn't an isolated system and earth was specifically what I was referring to.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation re-read your own wording. your statement did not specify that you were referring to the earth. in the context of your argument, this can be ignored without fuss, however the statement still did not make that specification. i am aware that i am being overly pedantic, but i dont see why you dont understand what i'm telling you
daviatu 2 months ago
Comment removed
IWentToGodJustToSee 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daviatu Yes, I did
I specifically said
'Nope, the earth receives usable energy from the sun.'
There's nothing to understand, you're wrong, demonstrably and definitively.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
If you spent more time listening to people rather than thinking of 'witty' ways to retort, you might learn something. The evolution of language is used as an analogy to biological evolution, not as evidence for biological evolution. It helps clear up misunderstandings like rats giving birth to monkeys that people like you deliberately spread. But that's all it is, an analogy.
Misterb0z 4 months ago
Wow Ian you just keep ownin'em.
RaytownSoClassof2010 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RaytownSoClassof2010
What are talking about?
How does someone who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old SOLELY for religious reasons "own" anything?
odinata 4 months ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 It's so sad that you think that.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation It's sad that you cant tell it's true.
RaytownSoClassof2010 3 months ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 That's what I'm talking about, that you actually think Ian makes any valid points whatsoever. I already refuted this video in the comments.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I saw your comments, and you didn't refute anything.
RaytownSoClassof2010 3 months ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 You didn't look very hard, I refuted everything.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation You tried, But obviously not hard enough.
RaytownSoClassof2010 3 months ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 Not only tried but succeeded in full. It wasn't hard, this video is more feeble than even most creationist videos, and that's saying something.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
Evolution = Change over time. Can you define a "kind?"
19822andy 4 months ago
For instance anyone who hasn't yet drowned while drinking a glass of water should be able to distinguish
"Pasteur refuted : The idea that rats appear spontaneously out of trash"
and
"Pasteur's work had nothing to do with : The molecular and biochemical formation of the building blocks of life"
Creationists, you're not garnering any respect by sticking to the same tired nonsense. You'd warrant a lot more by finally shuffling loose the stupidity.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
You know creationists, you don't have to stay stuck in the cycle of stupidity. That's what it feels like when talking to a lot of you, that you started out with some Kent Hovind brand ignorance and when rapidly refuted instead of just correcting your own personal knowledge you sank into denial and fell deeper down the rabbit hole of idiocy.
It appears to be obvious to everyone else, even most creationists themselves, that they're utterly wrong. It just seems to be a pride thing.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago 3
A five minute extended riff on argument from incredulity, curious.
TripeHoundRedux 4 months ago
This guy shows that he doesn't understand the first thing about evolution. Pathetic...
Lunarcide 4 months ago 2
Hey: Nice rant because i laughed. Funny. ;).
The evolutionm of a bicycle and language are examples of memes. You can also look at the evoltion pf a legacy software system. None of these "proof" Darwin's thery of evolution but they share common ch\rcteristics. (Differences too of coutse). Viral DNA mixes with ours apparently ...
gejost 4 months ago
This is so mind-numbingly stupid it's almost embarrassing to watch. A lizard evolving a wing??
M00nGlitz 4 months ago
amen!
vebnew 4 months ago
It appears that you believe Lamarck was the one with the correct answer.
Why doesn't modern science agree with you?
odinata 4 months ago
Ahh...now allan is going back through his comments and removing them.
Censoring your profanity, or your logical errors?
Meh...you have a pretty good chance of getting both....
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata No I fucking have not you stupid bitch. There is nothing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that has been posted to you that has not been reposted immediately with nothing but spelling corrections. Is it better to keep bring up shit that answer the bloody questions?
allan3141 4 months ago
@allan3141
"you are being childish again"
Childish?
You are the one who is using the foulest of language.
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata well if you start of by calling me a liar you get what you deserve
allan3141 4 months ago
@allan3141
Difference is that I PROVED you were a liar.
odinata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata Again YOU FUCKING STUPID BITCH no you did not. And neither has Allan been "going back through his comments and removing them. Censoring ... profanity, or .... logical errors"
If you what a civil converstion then be civil, simple.
allan3141 4 months ago
@allan3141 I've read through the conversation and yes they've shown you to be a liar at best, infinitely more moronic than I ever thought at worst.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation so when you are ask about Evolution you would say, "Evolution," broadly defined, is "a cumulative change through time. It refers to the fact that the universe has had a history -- that if we were able to go back in time, we would find different stars, galaxies, and planets, and different forms of life on Earth" Yet another example of Eugenie at it again.
allan3141 4 months ago
@allan3141
Sorry pal.
We are talking about Biology here, and stars and galaxies have NOTHING to do with Biology, or THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata "Sorry pal. We are talking about Biology here, and stars and galaxies have NOTHING to do with Biology, or THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION."
Is this to me or Eugenie Scott?
allan3141 4 months ago
@allan3141
You are so dense.
odinata 4 months ago
@allan3141 There is no 'at it again' except on the part of creationists trying to quote mine even if she said something to that effect, which I would want a source on by the way for full context.
Evolution in general can be used to mean change over time but in biology it specifically means the change in allele frequencies, or heritable traits, in populations.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
It wasa a quote mine, and I already provided her VERY NEXT sentence, in which see said:
"In the case of Biological Evolution the big idea is that living things shared common ancestry--that we are descended with modification from common ancestors with other creatures, and all creatures are related in this way"
allan isn't too bright.
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata I've had a few exchanges with allan, I think it's a combination of illiteracy and deception.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation but if that is 'specifically' what it means (which I deny on serveral counts) you would be hard pushed to find ANYONE on any sides of the debate or in any nauanced position that doubts things like allele frequencies change in populations.
And even with "heritable traits in populations change" you do not state anything that goes beyond that published and evidenced way before C Darwin.
allan3141 4 months ago
@allan3141 So basically your argument against the actual definition of evolution is that you would have to accept it.
An appeal to consequence
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation it is hard to believe this comment is made in good faith. If you are really not interested in a civil exchange just tell me now.
I ACCEPT ALLELE FREQUENCIES CHANGE IN POPULATIONS.
allan3141 4 months ago
@allan3141 So then you would accept that two reproductively separated populations will only become less similar genetically as time and generations pass.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation hang on. So are we going to have a civil exchange?
allan3141 4 months ago
@allan3141 I've never been anything but entirely civil until long refuted non-sense is trotted out.
You accepted that heritable traits change in populations.
So then you would accept that two reproductively separated populations will only become less similar genetically as time and generations pass?
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@TSF "you would accept that two reproductively separated populations will only become less similar genetically as time and generations pass?" It would be very easy to just say yes to this but actually it would depend what is being used as the measure of genetic similarity. I think: rates of divergence would plateau, that it is possible to have convergence, and there are limits to the changes under the mechanism of neo-Darwinism. I note that a UK Slow Worm can still mate with a Bulgarian CONT>>
allan3141 4 months ago
@allan3141 'rates of divergence would plateau' Based on what? We've seen nothing in genetics that would indicate any limit or section of any genome immutable to change.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@TSF based on experience and experimental data. I lot of work has been done with things like Fruit Flies etc and that work has most certainly experienced limits. If you now take as your starting point a population of Yorkshire Terriers and a population of Wild Grey Wolves and started separate breeding programs to see which population is easier produce different breeds from, it would be far easier from the wolves, as the gene pool genome of the Yorkshire Terriers is now more depleted.
allan3141 4 months ago
@allan3141 Fruit flies speciate regularly, and fruit flies are typically used for baseline testing for genetic therapy and drug testing so major anomalies are removed. Terriers have a smaller gene pool due to artificial selection, so pointing out that wolves would produce a higher rate of removed homology actually proves my point.
The fact remains that mutations don't halt or even slow from any observation we've made and that two segregated populations will only diverge further.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@TSF CONT one. That a White European, Australian Aboriginal, or a Native American etc can still mate with an African Pigmy, and that as far as one can tell a modern day Horseshoe Crab is remarkably similar to a Horseshoe Crab of 450 million years ago. So these genetic divergences are not just wildly rampant and without limits. But I except that it is easy especially initially to get two reproductively separate populations to became less similar genetically. CONT
allan3141 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allan3141 'a modern day Horseshoe Crab is remarkably similar to a Horseshoe Crab of 450 million years ago'
This is confirmation bias because almost nothing else even exists from 450ma, let alone are they similar.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@allan3141
"And even with "heritable traits in populations change" you do not state anything that goes beyond that published and evidenced way before C Darwin."
Of course you can't cite a pre-darwin source that talks about heritable traits in populations changing.
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata yes any pig farmer, dog breeder or pigeon fancier etc that had cause to write about it.
allan3141 4 months ago
@allan3141
But none that you can cite.
Do you know what hearsay is?
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata “so that after many generations, following one after the other, these individuals, belonging originally to another species, find themselves at last transformed into a new species, distinct from the other. For example, if the seeds of a grass or of any other plant common to a humid prairie are transported, by some circumstance or other, at first to the slope of a neighbouring hill, where the soil, although at a higher altitude, CONT>>>
allan3141 4 months ago
@allan3141
So do you believe Lamarck was correct, or Darwin?
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata you have split the comment. So I will repost and with an answer.
allan3141 4 months ago
@allan3141 You don't need to repost, you need to answer.
Who do you side with?
LAmarck, or Darwin?
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata reply after last comment or i cannot respond. The converstaion will get lost.
allan3141 4 months ago
@allan3141
I think you are lost.
Do you have a mental disorder such as Obsessive Compulsive Disorder?
odinata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
“so that after many generations, following one after the other, these individuals, belonging originally to another species, find themselves at last transformed into a new species, distinct from the other. For example, if the seeds of a grass or of any other plant common to a humid prairie are transported, by some circumstance or other, at first to the slope of a neighbouring hill, where the soil, although at a higher altitude, CONT>>>
allan3141 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata CONT >>> is still sufficiently damp to allow the plant to continue living, if then, after living there and reproducing many times in that spot, the plant little by little reaches the almost arid soil of the mountain slope and succeeds in subsisting there and perpetuates itself through a sequence of generations, it will then be so changed that botanists who come across it there will create a special species for it.” Philosophie Zoologique1809 CONT
allan3141 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata and again, "In 1846 the veteran geologist M. J. d’Omalius d’Halloy published in an excellent though short paper (‘Bulletins de l’Acad. Roy. Bruxelles,’ tom. xiii. p. 581) his opinion that it is more probable that new species have been produced by descent with modification than that they have been separately created: the author first promulgated this opinion in 1831" Charles Darwin (1896)
allan3141 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinata "So do you believe Lamarck was correct, or Darwin?"
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 if any, were original to Darwin and not already conclusions published by others?
allan3141 4 months ago
Comment removed
allan3141 4 months ago
@odinata CONT >>> is still sufficiently damp to allow the plant to continue living, if then, after living there and reproducing many times in that spot, the plant little by little reaches the almost arid soil of the mountain slope and succeeds in subsisting there and perpetuates itself through a sequence of generations, it will then be so changed that botanists who come across it there will create a special species for it.” Philosophie Zoologique1809 CONT
allan3141 4 months ago
Comment removed
allan3141 4 months ago
""In the case of Biological Evolution the big idea is that living things shared common ancestry--that we are descended with modification from common ancestors with other creatures, and all creatures are related in this way."
--Eugenie Scott, from the very video where the Creationist Liar tried to cite as evidence for his false claim.
odinata 4 months ago
Comment removed
allan3141 4 months ago
Question/request for Ian Juby:
Can you make a video about (intelligence/conscious awakening) related to the evolution of species. I've always found it ridiculous that we get our morals or the will to learn because of evolution in society. I also believe that people had a downfall from the beginning of sin and any evidence related to that would be cool.
pntblnguitarists 4 months ago