OMG lol i dont understand, everything someone talks about Evolution they are always fucking ugly. Ahahaha maybe you did come from a monkey, BAHAHAHAHA
You know that thing? Freedom Of Religion? Yeah. That means they can believe that their god made the earth if they want. Judge one for the content of their character, not for their creed.
If I meet a Muslim that I like? I'll be friends with him, regardless of religion. If I meet an Atheist I don't? Well, I'm not going to like him just because he has views similar to mine. Try to keep an open mind, or you'll shut decency out in the cold.
Of course people are free to believe what they want. They can believe Earth is flat for all I care. But of course, if they're going to believe things that are demonstrably false while rejecting things that are demonstrably true, then I have every right to call them ignorant.
It can't even be 63%, you know why? Because according to the study, 39% ACCEPT it.
What's 100 - 39? Nice to know AA also can't subtract.
This is not a "big difference" this a big bullsh*t,
the Third group does not represent people failling to accept the theory itself, only confusion with how so many tout Darwinism, and yet it is NOT the accepted theory. Thus, we remain disinterested, because some people for some reason can't stop themselves from licking Darwin's balls.
@TheZooCrew While I believe in evolution, It's just about as right as Creationism as we know it. I mean, Sure, there's a bunch of evidence supporting the theory, but at the end of the day, it's just that. A theory. For all we know, they're both right. Creationism doesn't outright mean you think god made everyone, either. Many "creationists" think that their god is responsible for the X-Verse being made (don't know if uni or multi, So "X") and We've sort of come up on our own.
@DanTheVikingr Well, you certainly have quite a lot of misinformation. Evolution is a fact and creationism is merely a hypothesis, not even a theory. Evolution has mountains of evidence, creationism has none. Also, creationism kinda does mean God created everyone. I'd recommend that you look up what creationism is.
Also, it would be universe, cause we're only talking about our individual universe, not multiple universes in one universe; that just wouldn't make sense.
Jesus Fucking Christ!!! Just read a fucking book if you have so many questions! Here's a good couple to start with: "A Brief History Of Time" by Stephen Hawking and "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan. Problem solved, no more debates in single paragraph snippets and the pros will explain it all. You can find these great pieces for three dollars at any used book store.
I'm well educated on those subjects to the extent that they're relevant in our conversation; educated enough to know that none of them answer the question of the origin of the universe.
Still not answering my question, so i'll ask it again. If you have positive and negative energy canceling each other out, that doesn't answer the question. You still have POSITIVE and NEGATIVE ENERGIES. WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?
Your insults are baseless because you don't know anything about my education level, and you've been using "religious" and "cretenist" (which isn't a real word) without knowing if i'm religious.
First I have to ask you - is the concept of quantum fluctiations and virtual particles known to you? Basically, it is a process when particle-antiparticle pairs appear from "nothing" and then annihilate, restoring the zero energy balance.
Yes.. yes it is. It absolutely is. Don't be an idiot. Without an origin of life you can't have an evolution of life. How hard is that to understand? If life did not originate, it cannot evolve. I don't know how plain I need to make that for someone as stupid as you to get.
>>>>>>Without an origin of life you can't have an evolution of life.
Yes you can. I already said - even if god puts life on Earth, the life still starts to evolve. The process of evolution DOES NOT depend on how life originated. Is this simple concept really so hard to grasp? Perhaps getting some basic education about biology would help you?
Life evolves, NO MATTER how it gets here - via abiogenesis, gods or aliens.
Insults against stupidity and lack of education are not baseless. There are tons of sources freely available for anyone who wishes to educate himself about Big Bang, M-theory, quantum fluctuations, virtual particles and other such stuff, not to mention biology or any other science. Therefore lack of education and stupidity is NOT excusable.
@Hobu123 Insults against stupidity and lack of education are not baseless. .. Coming from someone like you who can't properly read what someone wrote and respond to it properly afterwards, I can very well say it's baseless. "How"? All he said was, it takes an origin of life first, in order for that life to evolve. I don't see anything about how that origin created life or "HOW" life evolved, in that comment you are responding to.
Andy's comment was still hopelessly flawed. Evolution is not reliant upon the origin of life, mostly because the mechanisms used are vastly different. Reality is not dependent on our ability to explain it. We KNOW life formed. There was no life 4.4 billion years ago and there was life 3.8 billion years ago. We can observe evolution in real time today. Andy is merely attempting to use a dishonest semantic workaround.
@TheZooCrew You are just full of speculation and hot air.There was no life 4.4 billion years ago and there was life 3.8 billion years ago.
Like I said before, evolution comes in various forms. A planet can evolve as well, with life on it or not. Evolving simply means to change, or to upgrade in other instances.. Check my e-bike "evolution" videos.
@TheZooCrew There was no life 4.4 billion years ago? Not even on every single planet in the universe? Wow, you must be god to know something like that. I better subscribe to you!!
@TheZooCrew You are calling me a jackass from you not explaining yourself enough and trying to justify me "knowing what you meant" .. I guess it takes a jackass to know one.
No, I'm calling you a jackass for throwing a bitch fit for no reason. If I had said "on Earth," you would have found another place for inane ridicule.
All life science is anthropocentric by nature because we only know life as it exists on Earth. Similarly, "evolution" in the context of this video and all the discussion below refers to the theory of biology, not the colloquial definition. Sorry you're not smarter than a fifth-grader.
@Hobu123 You said to andy: The process of evolution DOES NOT depend on how life originated. Is this simple concept.. Andy Said before the comment you used the word "how" in: Without an origin of life you can't have an evolution of life.. Answer: Again I don't think you really read what is written because your response shows that. "how"? Where did he say "how"?
He was speaking about the origins of life being PART of THEORY OF EVOLUTION. He basically claimed that it thory of evolution must include how life originated. But he was wrong. Read the whole discussion in full context, although it is quite long.
Do we really need to start explaining you that Earth is round and orbits Sun and other such things? It should be understandable without explanation that when we speak about life emerging 3.8 billion years ago or life evolving then we refer to life on planet Earth, as we do not know any other life form anywhere else in the Universe.
@andyivytownley I do believe that form of energy (such as lightning, but certainly not limited to) can create amino acids under certain conditions (when reacting with other substances).
That's one of leading theories (correct me if I'm wrong) regarding the origin of life.
I do feel the needs, however, to point out that albeit we do not know completely how life began, it certainly does not mean God intervened.
@Hobu123 You sound like such a moron. Do you feel good about yourself when you use baseless insults to feel like you're putting other people down? I'm not religious. Get that through your head. Still making absurd assumptions; why would you assume that i'm unaware of string/m-verse theories? Idiot.
Here's a hint for you: If you have positive and negative energy canceling each other out, that doesn't answer the question. You still have POSITIVE and NEGATIVE ENERGIES. WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?
I never said evolution and the origin of life were related, imbecile. You can't have evolution without an origin of life from inorganic matter, and that's my point. You can't have WWII without Hitler ( @Hobu123 ), you can't have gravity without mass, you can't have heat without energy.
Either way.. I wasn't inquiring about the origin of life. I was inquiring about the energy present in the Big Bang. They don't have to be related for you retards to answer a question.
"However, as I said, origins of life DO NOT BELONG UNDER EVOLUTION. It is a separate field of research of subject called abiogenesis."
Oh right.. what you REALLY mean is, "I don't know the answer to your question so i'm just going to say that they're separate fields of study to get out of answering." Typical scientist nonsense. ;)
Also, WTF is up with you saying nonsense about "hocus-pocus men"? Who ever says that? Even religious people don't say that. Are you retarded?
"To study WORLD WAR 2, you DO NOT need to know where humans came from."
That analogy doesn't make sense. At all. It's not even close to relevant.
Origin of life is to evolution as Hitler's life is to WW2. That's a little closer. You're so unintelligent. Yes, you may have read plenty of articles and be able to recite them, that means you have good memory recall, not intelligence.
@Hobu123 "Because nobody has to tolerate STUPIDITY in any way."
Good to know nobody has to tolerate you, then. At least you got one thing right.
"And where exactly did I say that scientists are dodging the question, reliogiotard?"
Where exactly did I say that you said that, scienciotard? I didn't. I just said that you were, as plain evidence by the fact that you still have NOT answered my question, "Where did the energy in the big bang come from?"
For start, have you ever heard about the multiverse theory, string theory, M-theory? Because if you do not know what these are then it is pointless to explain you Big Bang too.
Just few hints: the total energy of the universe may be zero, because gravitational potential energu is negative, so the positive and negative energy can balance each other to zero. That is the simplest way to say it so that even uneducated religious fundie MAY understand.
>>>>Origin of life is to evolution as Hitler's life is to WW2.
No it is not.
It is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT for evolution how life formed, because evolution starts from the point when life already exists. No matter how the life formed, it changes nothing in the processes of evolution.
>>>>You can't have evolution without an origin of life from inorganic matter,
Yes you can.
Even if your magical hocus-pocus god creates life and puts it on Earth, it starts to evolve and therefore that origin changes nothing in how evolution works.
@Hobu123 I don't think you really read what people write. andyivytownley, doesn't sound religious at all, but maybe you can show me some evidence if I misses something?
I see that S has cionveniently ignored and dodged mny question again, so I post it again:
You accused bioscientists for studying facts and empirical evidence from real world and not taking into account your magical wizards, spells and invisible hocus-pocus men.
I would like to know how is magic involved in your profession, nuclear propulsion. Please write here couple of formulas you use in calculations that add god's influence into your research about nuclear propulsion.
And if you conduct any experiments or tests then please describe shortly what instrumentation you use to measure magical influences involved in these processes, and does adding western magic give different results in nuclear propulsion than using oriental magic?
@Hobu123 First of all you are a coward and you didn't reply to me so I didn't get a notification. I am no longer going to reply to you because this is the second time you've done this. I will say magic has nothing to do with God, creation, and shows you don't know anything about the bible.
I ALWAYS reply to YOUR POST, so STOP LYING. All you have to do is just scroll couple of pages back. You should know that the message about my reply disappears from your inbox when someone else in same topic replies to you.
>>>>do you really have to reply 7 times
Yes, because explaining you the numerous errors, mistakes and fallacies that are in your creationist claims takes many posts. However, I number my replies so that they are easily followed.
There is no thing as "creation science" because creationism is NOT science. Thinking up magical stories of hocus pocus is NOT science. Science works according to SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Science collects makes observations and collects facts and EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, then creates TESTABLE and FALSIFIABLE hypothesis to explain these facts, then conducts EXPERIMENTS to test these hypothesises and rejects the ones that didn't pass the tests.
Creationists do NOTHING that even remotely resembles that. All that creationism consists of is thinking up "arguments" against evolution, arguments that are full of errors, lies, misconceptions, selective presentation of data, out of context quotes and other fallacies, and then feeds those "arguments" to scientifically illiterate religious fundies who lack the knowledge to understand the fallacies in them.
>>>>The frequency that fakes are submitted isn't the issue
Nonsense.
Basically, in EVERY SCIENCE there has been some fake ideas. Now and then someone appears who wants to get fame but lacks the patience to get that via real science, and so presents some fakes. However, science exposes these fakes quickly and rejects those. There are no conspiracies.
Out of the things you listed, there was ONLY ONE fake that was presented "scientifically". And that was a century ago. At the same time you conveniently ignore the MILLIONS and MILLIONS and MILLIONS of real and perfectly authentic fossils, and claim that just because someone a century ago faked one fossil then all 21st century is wrong. That is so typical creationist idiocy and stupidity.
Correction: "fossil fraud" is a common creationist nonsense spread by religious fundamentalist retards who have problems accepting the fact that the primitive Bronze Age worldview presented in Bible is not accurate.
But now answer my question that you have been dodging for ages:
You accused bioscientists for studying facts and empirical evidence from real world and not taking into account your magical wizards, spells and invisible hocus-pocus men.
I would like to know how is magic involved in your profession, nuclear propulsion. Please write here couple of formulas you use in calculations that add god's influence into your research about nuclear propulsion.
And if you conduct any experiments or tests then please describe shortly what instrumentation you use to measure magical influences involved in these processes, and does adding western magic give different results in nuclear propulsion than using oriental magic?
By posting the same old cretinist nonsense we have alrady seen 10000 times, and then ignoring the fact that all his claims were refuted, and posting the same argument again, and leaving all questions unanswered?
@Hobu123 Just because you replied to him doesn't mean you win. Your replies were simply that, just replies, no refutes. If anyone on this thread is posting the same thing over and over again, it's you. I think you just have an issue with wanting to be the one who last spoke... I guarantee you'll respond to this, although there is no reason.
I refuted all his claims. Care to name any I didn't refute? Or name any refutation that you would like to have more information about and I will provide more. I explained him his errors and mistakes and misconceptions about evolution and why he was wrong with his "fossil frauds" and other nonsense. And after all that he simpy repeated his original claim without adding anything to it.
Want to analyze? Go to page 6 or 7 in commentaries and look for my post that is marked with A and starts with "But I give you a chance". It is about Nebraska man. Read it and then explain me how in any way Nebraska man was a "scientific fake". IT wasn't, therefore claim that it was a fake has been refuted.
I really don't think we came from animals because our intelligence is much more advanced than them. Even though I am a Christian I do believe in the Big Bang Theory.
You can teach a monkey (orangutang to be more precise) to use sign language.
Our 'intelligence' depends on the fact that we've developed a deeper conciousness compared to every other animal. Our 'cousins' - the great apes - and other mammals (elephants for example) do have 'intelligence' (conciousness), but to a smaller degree.
Basic animals are driven by instinct. The human brain has evolved into becoming considerably larger (the outer brain is the area of concioussness)
Atheists dont explain anything they just talk a pile of shit and think there some time off Intelligent people when really their just Idiot hippies who have a shit life and want too look mad slabbering about all the religions. There just really another divide off idiots who talk shit
@NORTHERNIRISHULTRAS-That's bullshit, and you know it. You're just putting the atheists into the shoes of the creationists, who never explain anything and constantly have to lie.
@xX4monX4m4rthXx Na am not actully ya prick and dont get on like a retard 'argue point voided' getting on like your having a debate at the united nations you fool , piss off ya mug.
"Whenever you talk to a creationist, he always starts the same old and boring nonsense "
Whenever you talk to a scientist they always try to belittle people who don't agree with them with insults and questions that don't even have real answers while making false claims like "You're a copy-paster!!" and "you've never read a journal i approve of!!!!" to make themselves feel better about being wrong and nobody caring about what they think.
"Whenever you talk to a scientist they always try to belittle people who don't agree with them with insults and questions that don't even have real answers "
Name a single SCIENTIST who has actually done this. Random assholes on YouTube don't count. Lying about everything isn't an argument.
"How'd the energy get there?"
Why did it need to "get there?" Laws of conservation don't appear to have exceptions.
No, you're not stating the obvious. You have no clue about what I or any other people are doing on our computers or what we've read. You're making assuptions. Idiot.
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life you imbicile. We do not KNOW FOR SURE how life appeared; one idea is something called Abiogenesis, but it is not nearly studied enough to be taken as reliable. Yet.
Evolution - as the obvious word suggests - is a theory (a scientific theory, do not try to strawman, even though I know you want to) of the development of life AFTER its beginning. Is it basically a phenomenon created by natural selection and mutation.
To study WORLD WAR 2, you DO NOT need to know where humans came from.
The same way, to study evolution, you DO NOT need to know where life came from.
And where exactly did I say that scientists are dodging the question, reliogiotard? There is huge amount of abiogenesius research going on in many institutes in the world, so who excactly is "dodging" anyhing?
>>>>Whenever you talk to a scientist they always try to
>>>>>belittle people who don't agree with them with insults
Because nobody has to tolerate STUPIDITY in any way. STUPIDITY is not "another opinion", stupidity is STUPIDITY. And creationists are famous for being STUPID and UNEDUCATED.
If someone even doesn't know what "theory" means in science and that Big Bang and evolution are totally independent things from two different fields of sciences then what are we talking about?
All "arguments" presented here by fundies are the same old 10000 times seen and 10000 times refuted crap that can be found in any cretinist blog. Whenever you talk to a creationist, he always starts the same old and boring nonsense - yara yara blah blah blah no new information, 2nd law of thermodynamics, blah blah, nebraska man, piltdown man, blah blah,
@ShawnSwander your not serious? god HAS to be made of matter for there to even be a slim chance of him existing, unless hes fictional, i think ill go for the second choice
@TheOrangeType Gravity isn't made of matter, nor is the force of magnetism, no is human morality, laws of logic, mathematics, nor is electrostatic charge, or the weak and strong nuclear forces. None of these things are made of matter.
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." JOHN 18:36
@ShawnSwander EVERYTHING IS MADE OF MATTER YOU IDIOT! Also "My kingdom is not of this world." could mean anything, was Jesus an alien sent by people from another world? (planet if your too stupid to know what i meant by world) was he from another universe? or was he a bumbling idiot with visions of grandeur? think its the last choice, also matter has had to have always existed for us, even "god", to have existed, he couldn't create himself, so answer MY question, who created god?
@TheOrangeType I listed several things that aren't made of matter. So not everything is made of matter. Matter is anything that occupies volume and has mass.
@TheOrangeType you are refusing to answer questions and think logically. If you can't move on from your presupposition that not everything is made of matter (like gravity, math or self consciousness) then you will be unable to learn.
@ShawnSwander i answered your question, everything is made of matter, matter is such a vague word and it literally means anything in the universe, and i AM thinking logically because i dont think a man in the fucking sky is controlling my life, and when you say math and self consciousness, that of course isnt made of matter because it isnt a physical thing in ANY sense of the word, that's why its thought, now ANSWER MY QUESTION! who created god?
@TheOrangeType Don't skip ahead. I asked the question first did matter always exist. You said it did.
So if matter always existed an infinite amount of time preceded this moment. The universe is expanding... if it had unlimited time to expand it would be so far apart the universe would be freezing cold approaching absolute 0. SO... Do you still think matter always existed?
There are simple logical steps to proving there is a God. They require people answer questions honestly and trust in some basic logical concepts like cause preceding effect, and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
If you believe in these laws, but don't believe there is a God please answer this question and I'd gladly walk with you through some conclusions and listen to your rebuttal.
@steviej321 unfortunately for your DOZENS (oh man, millions of years of evolution and absurd amounts of generations of pro-creating subspecies and we have DOZENS?! so convincing!) of inaccurate fossils, there should be closer to MILLIONS of them littering the earth. common sense should tell you that, seriously. why aren't there millions? because it never happened. use some common sense, smart guy ;)
@Konicava gravity isn't a theory its observable on all scales, measurable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Large-scale evolution is a bullshit theory that rides in hiding behind micro-evolution that says everyone evolved from hydrogen. 63% of Americans don't believe that evolved from non-living material. How is that not religion? TheAmazingAtheist isn't an atheist he believes life came from non-living things and that the first law of thermodynamics is a pretend law.
@deeppurple28 according to you lucid people believe living things come from non-living material and matter came from nothing for no reason. Maybe you should look in a mirror before you call people names because you believe in a fairy tale.
@Hobu123 or subspecies dur hur hur, that did not exist before. You can't get from fish to bird, form fish to alligator, for monkey to human, anything, with what you're describing. If you could, there would still be thousands, if not millions of subspecies. And you're saying that they're being evolved to now; they would have never disappeared. They would still be around to day. But they're not. So once agian, regardless of anyone's finds, the evidence does not add up to this.
@andyivytownley Look up the full evolutionary tree of land mammals to cetaceans. We also have dozens of hominids fossils to proven human ancestry. Do some research, dumbass.
@steviej321 The most simple organism was artificially simplified to have 397 characters in its genome. If you loose any 1 of these nucleotides in the RNA/DNA strand the organism can't live, absorb energy, or reproduce. So in evolution you need to go from 0 to 397 in 1 shot. Mathematically that is 4^397 (odds of cracking the code). There is also no mechanism to even take 1 attempt at this code. There is no evidence of any failed attempts in nature Do some research yourself.
>>>The most simple organism was artificially simplified to have 397
I have repeatedly explained to you that SIMPLEST SELF-REPLICATORS are just 6 UNITS LONG. How hard is that SIMPLE SENTENCE for you so that you STILL do not get it? You are comparing MODERN CELLS that have 4 billion years of evolution behind them with FIRST SIMPLEST REPLICATORS.
So you are typical excample of brainwashed religious fundamentalist who even makes NO ATTEMPT to understand what he is being explained but numbly keep repearting his nonsense just like a broken grammophone.
And in case you didn't get notification about my last answers, here is the note: I have once again answered to all your claims couple of days ago.
Admit that you have NO INTENTION of learning anything and you will be endlessly repeating the idiotic crap that you have read from your creationist blogs.
>>>For example a dog has never yielded a horse,
That is how evolution works. A species becomes another, slightly different species. And so on.
However, if parallel lineages evolve that way long time, they become so different that we do not name them both "dogs" any more - it would be impractical.
2. A becomes another species A1, B becomes another species B1.
3. B1 becomes B2, A1 becomes A2.
And so on.
Lets say "O" is a "dog" (name of genus). A and B can be also called "dogs", but now the meaning of "dog" has become wider. A1 and B1 - lets call them "dogs", but the meaning of "dog" is even more wider, incluiding 5 different species (O, A, B, A1, B1).
At the same time Ax and Bx lineages become more and more different from each other (and from original O). So if we call them all "dogs", the meaning of "dog" becomes more and more wide.
So we have reached stage B9 and A9. They are now so different from each other and so different from original O that it is impractical to classify them into same genus. And now we name B9 a "dag" and A9 a "deg" (new genera).
That is how evolution works and that is how the different organism groups arise from common ancestors.
If you think that evolution means that dog overnight, within 1 generation becomes horse, then really, GO AND GET SOME BASIC EDICATION before attempting to discuss science.
@Hobu123 dogs making more dogs isn't large scale evolution. I am fully aware and believe that dogs make more dogs. The lie you try to sneak in is that abiotic life gave rise to humans over billions of years. There is no proof of this.
Science DOES NOT deal with PROOFS. "Proofs" belong to mathematics and logic, not science. Science deals with EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
All available evidence we have shows that life originated and evolved like that. This is not an idea that needs "proofs", this is a CONCLUSION based on carefully studying and analyzing the FACTS and EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
You don't even understand the basic concept about how science works?
>>>>I am fully aware and believe that dogs make more dogs
Every time dog makes another dog, the meaning of "dog" becomes wider and wider, as the organisms become more and more different from starting position and parallel, independent lineages. So HOW LONG do you think it is practical to call them "dogs"?
Sure, we could call all carnivores "dogs" but that would be pointless. Try to understand that WE, HUMANS, give names to different branches on tree of life.
@Hobu123 way to assume garbage about my beliefs and sources. No I wasn't counting religious folks. I meant guys with safety goggles, lab coats, engineering degrees, and people who consider the biases of someone who gives them information before believing it.
@Hobu123 there is evidence of a common designer though. All organisms use the same DNA/RNA code, similar bone connections, organisms have limited mutations to adapt to changing conditions. Fine-tuning, absolute morality, altruism, irreducible complexity. Science won't accept that evidence because science believes in a different religion of matter comes from nothing and life comes from mud.
All the things you listed are PREDICTED by the theory of evolution. Morality, altruism - all that has been long ago explained by etology and behavioral ecology. Irreducible complexity is a direct result of evolution - bioscientists understood that already 100 YEARS AGO, long before Behe came out with it.
You accuse science for being able to explain life without need for your absurd invisible hocus-pocus men who moaned and waved hands and everything popped out from nothing?
There is no evidence that nuclear propulsion works.
You try to talk about science and at the same time have not even been able to understand the most basic concept of science - that it deals with EVIDENCE, not proofs? You may be engineer, but certainly not scientist.
>>>>>>>>>I have a problem with large scale evolution
You have problem because YOU HAVE NEVER BOTHERED TO LEARN ANYTHING ABOUT IT. It is clearly obvious from your comments that your "understanding" about evolutionary biology is at about mid-school level or even lower.
@Hobu123 "You don't even understand the basic concept about how science works?" I'm a nuclear propulsion engineer I work in a lab all the time I understand the process perfectly and thats why I have a problem with large scale evolution which doesn't follow scientific model of a theory its not fallible, its not testable, its not observable on the proposed scale.
Does Earth orbit Sun? Absolutely NOVBODY has EVER witnessed Earth doing that. To do that youneed to go to outer space and sit there a year and watch how Earth makes circle around Sun. Nobody has done that.
1. We see evolution taking place in living populations.
2. When studying whatever source of information, all these show that life has been evolving the same way for billions of years. No matter whether you look fossils, genetics, developmental biology, embryology, molecular biology, (paleo)biogeography - ALL THESE independent fields of biology show the SAME picture.
It IS NOT science's fault if you decide to ignore all that huge amount of evidence and want to believe youir absurd Brionze Age hallucinations about invisible wizards who wave hands and say some magical spells and everything pops out from nothing. Science is NOT for studying your hocus-pocus and magic. Science deals with EVIDENCE from REAL WORLD.
@Hobu123 You are the only one proposing an invisible wizard. Magically matter stops following the laws of nature and bang the universe came and it expanded unevenly so there must be some invisible magic matter that has no gravitational pull infact the universe is made of it mostly. Oh and life came from lightning striking mud but it doesn't happen anymore the magic in the atmosphere is all gone. Yeah thats it.... Viva EVOLUTION!
@Hobu123 "We see evolution taking place in living populations." When I say evolution I mean large scale evolution. Stop piggybacking proven theories with religious ones.
Fossils have been faked, and leave have gaping holes in the evolution theory, and genetics shows evidence against similar morphological structures being evolved because they come from different parts of the genetic code.
@Hobu123 "We see evolution taking place in living populations." piggy backing large scale evolution onto micro-evolution doesn't help you it just shows your a liar.
2. ambiguous. These fields work against evolution theory as well. Propose a mechanism that will yeild a repeating molecule or cell ANYTHING. Explain how a fly's wing evolved, explain how matter originated.... FAIL! turns out when you lie eventually you run into a wall and evolution hit it.
@Hobu123 RED HERRING AGAIN. The behavior of the force of gravity alone lets us know the Earth orbits the Sun since we know the sun has much more mass than the Earth. Stop misleading people its dishonest.
@Hobu123 Evolution constantly rejects and ignores evidence against it. Fake fossils have been submitted hundreds of times and the archaeologists have been busted for fraud.
A conspiracy is defined as -an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
So this has happened Nebraska man and archaeoraptor are two examples of such evidence. Would you agree that there is a conspiracy to advocate evolution?
>>>>Evolution constantly rejects and ignores evidence against it
Absurd and retarded creationist nonsense. There is NO evidence against evolution ever been found. If someone finds such, he would be WOLRD FAMOUS like Einstein or Darwin. No scientist would leave that oportunity unused.
When will you finally understand that the stuff you find from creationist websites is CRAP and idiotic ANTI-INTELLECTUAL fundamentalist PROPAGANDA?
>>>>Fake fossils have been submitted hundreds of times
Fake fossils have been subjected FEW TIMES and EVERY TIME SCIENTISTS have exposed them as fakes and REJECTED them. In addition to few real fakes the creationist religiotard liars also call fakes many fossils where there is absolutely no problem at all in reality, because biblical cretinists NEVER check their source and validty of their claims but just copy-paste their crap like you do now.
And yara yara yara, again starts the same old creationist crap that I HAVE HEARD ALREADY 100000000 TIMES. It is BOOOORIIINNGG already, try to understand that.
Nebraska man has NEVER been a "fake". It was a tooth that resembled hominid tooth, however, even its finder doubted whether it is hominid or not, and other scientists were even more skeptical. It was studied more closely and its true nature was soon revealed.
Where is the "hoax" here? Science in its everyday work.
Scientists found a suspicious fossil, made first guesses about what it may be, then studied it closely and established its identity: WHERE ARE THE FRAUDS HERE? This is what is going on in EVERYDAY SCIENCE.
So yiou are a LIAR if you claim that Nebraska man as a "fraud". Liar for Christ.
Arcaheoraptor was NOT a fake made by SCIENTISTS. It was a fake made by CHINESE FOSSIL TRADER. It ended up in the hands of scientists who quickly discovered that it is not ral. HOWEVER, the two fossils it consisted of were themselves valuable transiotional fossils.
By claiming that Archaeoraptor was scientific fraud you have once again showmn that you are a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
When will you finally understand that the crap you find from creationist propaganda blogs is CRAP? Full of lies, misconceptions and dishonest propaganda, as clearly shown by the above mentioned examples of Nebraska man and Archaeraptor.
And blieve me, I have ALREADY SEEN ALL THAT CREATIONIST CRAP MILLION TIMES, so you DO NOT need to copy-paste it to me once again. I know all creationist "arguments" by heart, so save your valuable time
Insect wings have evolved from extensions of their thorax exoskeleton. There uis enough scientiic articles about that, how comes you have never bothered to read any of you are interested in answers?
Says someone who has never bothered to educate himself about the level of abiogenesis research in worlds biolabs. Probably all you have ever heard about abiogenesis is M-U experiment and you imagine that this is all that has ever been done.
>>When I say evolution I mean large scale evolution.
It is the same process.
Google "29+ evidences of macroevolution" andd EDUCATE YOURSELF at least a BIT before continuing your creationist babbling
@Hobu123 So glad you brought up Miller-Urey. Miller-Urey replicated early earth conditions and yielded nothing. Then they removed oxygen which was breaking down the amino acids and then the experiment yielded amino acids. Keep in mind amino acids are NOWHERE NEAR the same thing as RNA/DNA which has never been yielded outside of living organisms and 100% required for life. There is no mechanism to make RNA outside of biological means.
@TheZooCrew notice the article says they synthesized RNA ... They synthesized it from living yeast cells. Sorry this article doesn't prove RNA originated from a nonliving source.
@Hobu123 Archaeoraptor was published in National Geographic and then commented on by the scientific community as a missing evolutionary link so stop telling lies. Cop out some more liar and what about, nebraska man, java man, pitdown man, orcre man, 8 different organizations of Lucy's frame. All scientific lies, frauds, and inconsistencies.
@Hobu123 Professionals who spend their entire life identifying fossils... Who's career depends on them identifying them carefully and correctly. They had plenty of time they could have said we don't know yet. You pointing your finger and calling me a liar doesn't change that I've caught you in lies.
@Hobu123 if by few times you mean hundreds and constantly finding more. To propagate the theory it only takes 1 fossil (like Lucy who had major authenticity issues as well). Why would this proven scientific process require fake fossils. If I use bad sources please explain exactly what I've said that is wrong, until then you are a liar now for accusing me without proof. So Mr. Liar, so far you have nothing that proves large scale evolution.
>>>>>like Lucy who had major authenticity issues as well
No, Lucy has had absolutely NO authenticity problems. When will you stop copying creationist error-filled CRAP from blogs of religious fundamentalisst?
>>>Why would this proven scientific process require fake fossils
Why are there frauds in ABSOLUTELY EVERY SCIENCE? There have been frauds in physics, chemistry, history and all other sciences. Funny how you selectively not mention those. Are all sciences therefore wrong?
You brought 2 examples but one of them was not a fake and second one was not a fake made by scientists. Didn't that already teach you that the "info" you find from creationist websites is CRAP?
>>>>>>Archaeoraptor was published in National Geographic
National Geographic is a POPULAR PRESS MAGAZINE, not a scientific peer reviewed journal. That article was made by an ART EDITOR, not scientist. Scientists criticized it from the start.
Do you start to finally get it that the "info" you find from creationist blogs is a FALLACIOUS CRAP?
Not a fraud, as I already explained. That you continue to call it a scientific fraud even after I explained that it is not shows that you are a DISHONEST RELIGIOTARD who has no intentions to accept when you have been wrong. And that is not ad hominem because I have clearly show now to any readers that you are a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
Never been any kind of "fake", it is perfectly authentic fossil.
STOP LYING.
>>>>pitdown man
Exposed as fake by SCIENTISTS, and exposed because it was seriously out of place. As knowledge about human evolution increased, the Piltdown was more and more out of place and didn't fit anywhere, which lead to furher investigation and research.
Never been any kind of "fake". It is a badly preserved piece of bone that is impossible to indentify. It has never been established what it is. The only reason why scientists pay attention to it is that IF it happens to be homninid then it would be interesting find.
There are no frauds or incionsistencies around Lucy, it is perfectly valid fossil. STOP LYING, RELIGIOTARD LIAR.
>>>>You pointing your finger and calling me a
>>>liar doesn't change that I've caught you in lies.
What LIES have you caught me in? I have refuted all your standard creationist nonsense. But it is YOU who continues to babble about "faked fossils" even after I have explained you the true story behind them.
And from the moment you called Nebraska man a scientific fraud AFTER I had explained to you that there is no fraud involved at all, I have full right to call you a LIAR. Obviously you think that in order to stuff your jebus down the throat of everyone, all methods, including pathological lying, is OK.
I did not call you liar when you simply posted the creationist nonsense because creationist have lied to you and thatwas not your fault that you believed them.
Although you could have done your research better.
However, after you showed that you have no intentions of correcting your mistakes I can safely call you a liar. There is no doubt that you will not stop using your "nebraska man" and other creationist nonsense under this or other videos just as if nothing happened., even though you have been explained that it isn't in any way a "fake".
@Hobu123 I said there was fraud I never said the fossil was fake. The Wadjak skulls were submitted as non human skulls and there are no non-human features on the skulls.
>>>>>I am including all the holes scientists ignore that
>>>>would show gradual change in human ancestry over
>>>>billions of years.
The existing material is good enough to show that.
Your absurd creationiust logic is that if we do not know EVERY SINGLE WORD that was said or written during World War 2 then World war 2 did not exist.
That is the level of absurdity that is so characteristic to creationists.
A major problem seems to be that people don't understand what scientific theory is. : /
Kaaxe 1 day ago
OMG lol i dont understand, everything someone talks about Evolution they are always fucking ugly. Ahahaha maybe you did come from a monkey, BAHAHAHAHA
holypaladinpewpew 1 day ago
You know that thing? Freedom Of Religion? Yeah. That means they can believe that their god made the earth if they want. Judge one for the content of their character, not for their creed.
If I meet a Muslim that I like? I'll be friends with him, regardless of religion. If I meet an Atheist I don't? Well, I'm not going to like him just because he has views similar to mine. Try to keep an open mind, or you'll shut decency out in the cold.
DanTheVikingr 2 days ago
@DanTheVikingr
Of course people are free to believe what they want. They can believe Earth is flat for all I care. But of course, if they're going to believe things that are demonstrably false while rejecting things that are demonstrably true, then I have every right to call them ignorant.
TheZooCrew 1 day ago
@TheZooCrew
I think the question was probably malformed.
If you believe Evolution as Darwin himself originally proposed it, your as wrong as a fundamentalist creationist.
If the question said the "Darwinian theory" or something to that effect, or explained the theory as Darwin himself described it, I'd also say no.
Alaskaslim 1 day ago
@Alaskaslim
Check out the story in the description. The question was hardly malformed. They didn't mention Darwin until the later questions.
TheZooCrew 1 day ago
@TheZooCrew
.... THE HELL?!? This doesn't say 63% are AGAINST evolution, the FIRST poll lists THAT at just 25%, and it's the SMALLEST of the three major groups.
THAT'S what I'd EXPECT, F*cking AA, as always, he comments on something, and becomes an ignorant asshat.
Alaskaslim 1 day ago
@Alaskaslim
Notice that the title of this video doesn't say "63% are against evolution." It says "63% don't accept evolution." Big difference.
TheZooCrew 1 day ago
@TheZooCrew
It can't even be 63%, you know why? Because according to the study, 39% ACCEPT it.
What's 100 - 39? Nice to know AA also can't subtract.
This is not a "big difference" this a big bullsh*t,
the Third group does not represent people failling to accept the theory itself, only confusion with how so many tout Darwinism, and yet it is NOT the accepted theory. Thus, we remain disinterested, because some people for some reason can't stop themselves from licking Darwin's balls.
Alaskaslim 1 day ago
@TheZooCrew While I believe in evolution, It's just about as right as Creationism as we know it. I mean, Sure, there's a bunch of evidence supporting the theory, but at the end of the day, it's just that. A theory. For all we know, they're both right. Creationism doesn't outright mean you think god made everyone, either. Many "creationists" think that their god is responsible for the X-Verse being made (don't know if uni or multi, So "X") and We've sort of come up on our own.
DanTheVikingr 1 day ago
@DanTheVikingr
Look up "scientific theory." Clearly you don't know what that means. Atoms are a theory. Cells are a theory. Gravity is a theory.
There are facts, and then there are theories that explain those facts. Evolution is a fact. The theory evolution explains this fact.
" Creationism doesn't outright mean you think god made everyone, either."
Actually, that's exactly what it means, according to every creationist organization.
TheZooCrew 1 day ago
@DanTheVikingr Well, you certainly have quite a lot of misinformation. Evolution is a fact and creationism is merely a hypothesis, not even a theory. Evolution has mountains of evidence, creationism has none. Also, creationism kinda does mean God created everyone. I'd recommend that you look up what creationism is.
Also, it would be universe, cause we're only talking about our individual universe, not multiple universes in one universe; that just wouldn't make sense.
Nebuli2 1 day ago
Yes your from an Ape apece of crap
moomman89 2 days ago
I miss the old TJ.
JasonTheContemptuous 2 days ago
Jesus Fucking Christ!!! Just read a fucking book if you have so many questions! Here's a good couple to start with: "A Brief History Of Time" by Stephen Hawking and "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan. Problem solved, no more debates in single paragraph snippets and the pros will explain it all. You can find these great pieces for three dollars at any used book store.
RaoulPrompt69 3 days ago
@Hobu123
I'm well educated on those subjects to the extent that they're relevant in our conversation; educated enough to know that none of them answer the question of the origin of the universe.
andyivytownley 3 days ago
@Hobu123
Still not answering my question, so i'll ask it again. If you have positive and negative energy canceling each other out, that doesn't answer the question. You still have POSITIVE and NEGATIVE ENERGIES. WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?
Your insults are baseless because you don't know anything about my education level, and you've been using "religious" and "cretenist" (which isn't a real word) without knowing if i'm religious.
andyivytownley 3 days ago
@andyivytownley
First I have to ask you - is the concept of quantum fluctiations and virtual particles known to you? Basically, it is a process when particle-antiparticle pairs appear from "nothing" and then annihilate, restoring the zero energy balance.
Hobu123 3 days ago
@hobu123
"No it is not."
Yes.. yes it is. It absolutely is. Don't be an idiot. Without an origin of life you can't have an evolution of life. How hard is that to understand? If life did not originate, it cannot evolve. I don't know how plain I need to make that for someone as stupid as you to get.
andyivytownley 3 days ago
@andyivytownley
>>>>>>Without an origin of life you can't have an evolution of life.
Yes you can. I already said - even if god puts life on Earth, the life still starts to evolve. The process of evolution DOES NOT depend on how life originated. Is this simple concept really so hard to grasp? Perhaps getting some basic education about biology would help you?
Life evolves, NO MATTER how it gets here - via abiogenesis, gods or aliens.
Hobu123 3 days ago
>>>>baseless insults
Insults against stupidity and lack of education are not baseless. There are tons of sources freely available for anyone who wishes to educate himself about Big Bang, M-theory, quantum fluctuations, virtual particles and other such stuff, not to mention biology or any other science. Therefore lack of education and stupidity is NOT excusable.
Hobu123 3 days ago
@Hobu123 Insults against stupidity and lack of education are not baseless. .. Coming from someone like you who can't properly read what someone wrote and respond to it properly afterwards, I can very well say it's baseless. "How"? All he said was, it takes an origin of life first, in order for that life to evolve. I don't see anything about how that origin created life or "HOW" life evolved, in that comment you are responding to.
luc59457 12 hours ago
@luc59457
Andy's comment was still hopelessly flawed. Evolution is not reliant upon the origin of life, mostly because the mechanisms used are vastly different. Reality is not dependent on our ability to explain it. We KNOW life formed. There was no life 4.4 billion years ago and there was life 3.8 billion years ago. We can observe evolution in real time today. Andy is merely attempting to use a dishonest semantic workaround.
TheZooCrew 9 hours ago
@TheZooCrew You are just full of speculation and hot air.There was no life 4.4 billion years ago and there was life 3.8 billion years ago.
Like I said before, evolution comes in various forms. A planet can evolve as well, with life on it or not. Evolving simply means to change, or to upgrade in other instances.. Check my e-bike "evolution" videos.
luc59457 8 hours ago
@luc59457
Nothing I've said involves speculation.
"Not even on every single planet in the universe?"
That's not what I meant and you know it. We're talking about Earth because we've only observed life on Earth. Stop being a jackass.
"Evolution" in the context of science almost always refers to the theory of biology. It is so in this video and in all the discussion below.
TheZooCrew 8 hours ago
@TheZooCrew There was no life 4.4 billion years ago? Not even on every single planet in the universe? Wow, you must be god to know something like that. I better subscribe to you!!
luc59457 8 hours ago
@TheZooCrew You are calling me a jackass from you not explaining yourself enough and trying to justify me "knowing what you meant" .. I guess it takes a jackass to know one.
luc59457 6 hours ago
@luc59457
No, I'm calling you a jackass for throwing a bitch fit for no reason. If I had said "on Earth," you would have found another place for inane ridicule.
All life science is anthropocentric by nature because we only know life as it exists on Earth. Similarly, "evolution" in the context of this video and all the discussion below refers to the theory of biology, not the colloquial definition. Sorry you're not smarter than a fifth-grader.
TheZooCrew 6 hours ago
@Hobu123 You said to andy: The process of evolution DOES NOT depend on how life originated. Is this simple concept.. Andy Said before the comment you used the word "how" in: Without an origin of life you can't have an evolution of life.. Answer: Again I don't think you really read what is written because your response shows that. "how"? Where did he say "how"?
luc59457 12 hours ago
@luc59457
He was speaking about the origins of life being PART of THEORY OF EVOLUTION. He basically claimed that it thory of evolution must include how life originated. But he was wrong. Read the whole discussion in full context, although it is quite long.
Hobu123 3 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
>>>>You are calling me a jackass from you not
>>>>explaining yourself enough
Do we really need to start explaining you that Earth is round and orbits Sun and other such things? It should be understandable without explanation that when we speak about life emerging 3.8 billion years ago or life evolving then we refer to life on planet Earth, as we do not know any other life form anywhere else in the Universe.
Hobu123 3 hours ago
@andyivytownley I do believe that form of energy (such as lightning, but certainly not limited to) can create amino acids under certain conditions (when reacting with other substances).
That's one of leading theories (correct me if I'm wrong) regarding the origin of life.
I do feel the needs, however, to point out that albeit we do not know completely how life began, it certainly does not mean God intervened.
ThisHaloFan 3 days ago
@Hobu123 You sound like such a moron. Do you feel good about yourself when you use baseless insults to feel like you're putting other people down? I'm not religious. Get that through your head. Still making absurd assumptions; why would you assume that i'm unaware of string/m-verse theories? Idiot.
Here's a hint for you: If you have positive and negative energy canceling each other out, that doesn't answer the question. You still have POSITIVE and NEGATIVE ENERGIES. WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?
andyivytownley 3 days ago
@ionlyhavethisforwow
I never said evolution and the origin of life were related, imbecile. You can't have evolution without an origin of life from inorganic matter, and that's my point. You can't have WWII without Hitler ( @Hobu123 ), you can't have gravity without mass, you can't have heat without energy.
Either way.. I wasn't inquiring about the origin of life. I was inquiring about the energy present in the Big Bang. They don't have to be related for you retards to answer a question.
andyivytownley 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hobu123
"However, as I said, origins of life DO NOT BELONG UNDER EVOLUTION. It is a separate field of research of subject called abiogenesis."
Oh right.. what you REALLY mean is, "I don't know the answer to your question so i'm just going to say that they're separate fields of study to get out of answering." Typical scientist nonsense. ;)
Also, WTF is up with you saying nonsense about "hocus-pocus men"? Who ever says that? Even religious people don't say that. Are you retarded?
andyivytownley 3 days ago
@Hobu123
"To study WORLD WAR 2, you DO NOT need to know where humans came from."
That analogy doesn't make sense. At all. It's not even close to relevant.
Origin of life is to evolution as Hitler's life is to WW2. That's a little closer. You're so unintelligent. Yes, you may have read plenty of articles and be able to recite them, that means you have good memory recall, not intelligence.
andyivytownley 3 days ago
@Hobu123 "Because nobody has to tolerate STUPIDITY in any way."
Good to know nobody has to tolerate you, then. At least you got one thing right.
"And where exactly did I say that scientists are dodging the question, reliogiotard?"
Where exactly did I say that you said that, scienciotard? I didn't. I just said that you were, as plain evidence by the fact that you still have NOT answered my question, "Where did the energy in the big bang come from?"
andyivytownley 3 days ago
@andyivytownley
1
For start, have you ever heard about the multiverse theory, string theory, M-theory? Because if you do not know what these are then it is pointless to explain you Big Bang too.
Just few hints: the total energy of the universe may be zero, because gravitational potential energu is negative, so the positive and negative energy can balance each other to zero. That is the simplest way to say it so that even uneducated religious fundie MAY understand.
Hobu123 3 days ago
2
>>>>Origin of life is to evolution as Hitler's life is to WW2.
No it is not.
It is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT for evolution how life formed, because evolution starts from the point when life already exists. No matter how the life formed, it changes nothing in the processes of evolution.
Hobu123 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3
>>>>You can't have evolution without an origin of life from inorganic matter,
Yes you can.
Even if your magical hocus-pocus god creates life and puts it on Earth, it starts to evolve and therefore that origin changes nothing in how evolution works.
Hobu123 3 days ago
@Hobu123 I don't think you really read what people write. andyivytownley, doesn't sound religious at all, but maybe you can show me some evidence if I misses something?
luc59457 12 hours ago
About 63% of Americans do not believe in evolution, because they know it ends with obesity. For reference, just ask Norman Cook.
In other words, the widespread obesity in the US is estimated to be around 63% of the American population today. ;-D
therockingtuna90 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I see that S has cionveniently ignored and dodged mny question again, so I post it again:
You accused bioscientists for studying facts and empirical evidence from real world and not taking into account your magical wizards, spells and invisible hocus-pocus men.
I would like to know how is magic involved in your profession, nuclear propulsion. Please write here couple of formulas you use in calculations that add god's influence into your research about nuclear propulsion.
Hobu123 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cont...
And if you conduct any experiments or tests then please describe shortly what instrumentation you use to measure magical influences involved in these processes, and does adding western magic give different results in nuclear propulsion than using oriental magic?
Hobu123 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hobu123 First of all you are a coward and you didn't reply to me so I didn't get a notification. I am no longer going to reply to you because this is the second time you've done this. I will say magic has nothing to do with God, creation, and shows you don't know anything about the bible.
ShawnSwander 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ShawnSwander
1
I ALWAYS reply to YOUR POST, so STOP LYING. All you have to do is just scroll couple of pages back. You should know that the message about my reply disappears from your inbox when someone else in same topic replies to you.
>>>>do you really have to reply 7 times
Yes, because explaining you the numerous errors, mistakes and fallacies that are in your creationist claims takes many posts. However, I number my replies so that they are easily followed.
Hobu123 3 days ago
2
>>>>>there are biblical creationist scientists.
There is no thing as "creation science" because creationism is NOT science. Thinking up magical stories of hocus pocus is NOT science. Science works according to SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Science collects makes observations and collects facts and EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, then creates TESTABLE and FALSIFIABLE hypothesis to explain these facts, then conducts EXPERIMENTS to test these hypothesises and rejects the ones that didn't pass the tests.
Hobu123 3 days ago
3
Creationists do NOTHING that even remotely resembles that. All that creationism consists of is thinking up "arguments" against evolution, arguments that are full of errors, lies, misconceptions, selective presentation of data, out of context quotes and other fallacies, and then feeds those "arguments" to scientifically illiterate religious fundies who lack the knowledge to understand the fallacies in them.
Hobu123 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
4
>>>>The frequency that fakes are submitted isn't the issue
Nonsense.
Basically, in EVERY SCIENCE there has been some fake ideas. Now and then someone appears who wants to get fame but lacks the patience to get that via real science, and so presents some fakes. However, science exposes these fakes quickly and rejects those. There are no conspiracies.
Hobu123 3 days ago
5
Out of the things you listed, there was ONLY ONE fake that was presented "scientifically". And that was a century ago. At the same time you conveniently ignore the MILLIONS and MILLIONS and MILLIONS of real and perfectly authentic fossils, and claim that just because someone a century ago faked one fossil then all 21st century is wrong. That is so typical creationist idiocy and stupidity.
Hobu123 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
6
>>>>Fossil fraud is common knowledge.
Correction: "fossil fraud" is a common creationist nonsense spread by religious fundamentalist retards who have problems accepting the fact that the primitive Bronze Age worldview presented in Bible is not accurate.
But now answer my question that you have been dodging for ages:
Hobu123 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
7
You accused bioscientists for studying facts and empirical evidence from real world and not taking into account your magical wizards, spells and invisible hocus-pocus men.
I would like to know how is magic involved in your profession, nuclear propulsion. Please write here couple of formulas you use in calculations that add god's influence into your research about nuclear propulsion.
Hobu123 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
8
And if you conduct any experiments or tests then please describe shortly what instrumentation you use to measure magical influences involved in these processes, and does adding western magic give different results in nuclear propulsion than using oriental magic?
Hobu123 3 days ago
Wow, I'm not sure how someone could try to prove Evolution wrong when it's a scientific fact. It's amazing how many people are in denial.
1123joey 4 days ago
But TJ, you don't know for SURE.
Ruttie2 4 days ago
Hobu needs to get out of the damn house before evolution decides he doesn't need any legs...
JoobyFoo 4 days ago
I think ShawnSwander won this argument...
JoobyFoo 4 days ago
@JoobyFoo
lmao
Won with what?
By posting the same old cretinist nonsense we have alrady seen 10000 times, and then ignoring the fact that all his claims were refuted, and posting the same argument again, and leaving all questions unanswered?
Hobu123 4 days ago
@Hobu123 Just because you replied to him doesn't mean you win. Your replies were simply that, just replies, no refutes. If anyone on this thread is posting the same thing over and over again, it's you. I think you just have an issue with wanting to be the one who last spoke... I guarantee you'll respond to this, although there is no reason.
JoobyFoo 1 day ago
@JoobyFoo
I refuted all his claims. Care to name any I didn't refute? Or name any refutation that you would like to have more information about and I will provide more. I explained him his errors and mistakes and misconceptions about evolution and why he was wrong with his "fossil frauds" and other nonsense. And after all that he simpy repeated his original claim without adding anything to it.
Take off your religiogoggles.
Hobu123 1 day ago
Want to analyze? Go to page 6 or 7 in commentaries and look for my post that is marked with A and starts with "But I give you a chance". It is about Nebraska man. Read it and then explain me how in any way Nebraska man was a "scientific fake". IT wasn't, therefore claim that it was a fake has been refuted.
Hobu123 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ShawnSwander
Oh everything you find about fossil fraud is just creationist propaganda!!! It's all lies!! You copy paster hypocrite!!
At least that's what @Hobu123 would say. So i'll just say it for him and save him the trouble.
andyivytownley 5 days ago
Comment removed
andyivytownley 5 days ago
I really don't think we came from animals because our intelligence is much more advanced than them. Even though I am a Christian I do believe in the Big Bang Theory.
TheGoldenAngel150 5 days ago
@TheGoldenAngel150 The reason humans are an intelligent species is because they have evolved to be so.
TheWirelessBrain 5 days ago
@TheWirelessBrain I see what u mean
TheGoldenAngel150 5 days ago
@TheGoldenAngel150
You can teach a monkey (orangutang to be more precise) to use sign language.
Our 'intelligence' depends on the fact that we've developed a deeper conciousness compared to every other animal. Our 'cousins' - the great apes - and other mammals (elephants for example) do have 'intelligence' (conciousness), but to a smaller degree.
Basic animals are driven by instinct. The human brain has evolved into becoming considerably larger (the outer brain is the area of concioussness)
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 4 days ago
Atheists dont explain anything they just talk a pile of shit and think there some time off Intelligent people when really their just Idiot hippies who have a shit life and want too look mad slabbering about all the religions. There just really another divide off idiots who talk shit
NORTHERNIRISHULTRAS 5 days ago
@NORTHERNIRISHULTRAS-That's bullshit, and you know it. You're just putting the atheists into the shoes of the creationists, who never explain anything and constantly have to lie.
Optimusprimemc1 5 days ago
@NORTHERNIRISHULTRAS that alot of shit talkin' you did there....while bitching that others are shit talking...argue point voided
xX4monX4m4rthXx 4 days ago
@xX4monX4m4rthXx Na am not actully ya prick and dont get on like a retard 'argue point voided' getting on like your having a debate at the united nations you fool , piss off ya mug.
NORTHERNIRISHULTRAS 4 days ago
@Hobu123
How'd the energy get there?
andyivytownley 5 days ago
@Hobu123
"Whenever you talk to a creationist, he always starts the same old and boring nonsense "
Whenever you talk to a scientist they always try to belittle people who don't agree with them with insults and questions that don't even have real answers while making false claims like "You're a copy-paster!!" and "you've never read a journal i approve of!!!!" to make themselves feel better about being wrong and nobody caring about what they think.
andyivytownley 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@andyivytownley
"Whenever you talk to a scientist they always try to belittle people who don't agree with them with insults and questions that don't even have real answers "
Name a single SCIENTIST who has actually done this. Random assholes on YouTube don't count. Lying about everything isn't an argument.
"How'd the energy get there?"
Why did it need to "get there?" Laws of conservation don't appear to have exceptions.
TheZooCrew 5 days ago
@Hobu123
No, you're not stating the obvious. You have no clue about what I or any other people are doing on our computers or what we've read. You're making assuptions. Idiot.
andyivytownley 5 days ago
@Hobu123
"How did life get there doesn't concern evolution."
Typical scientist nonsense, dodging the important questions they don't know the answers to. You copy-paster!!
andyivytownley 5 days ago
@andyivytownley
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life you imbicile. We do not KNOW FOR SURE how life appeared; one idea is something called Abiogenesis, but it is not nearly studied enough to be taken as reliable. Yet.
Evolution - as the obvious word suggests - is a theory (a scientific theory, do not try to strawman, even though I know you want to) of the development of life AFTER its beginning. Is it basically a phenomenon created by natural selection and mutation.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 4 days ago
@andyivytownley
1
What is so incredibly hard for you to understand:
To study WORLD WAR 2, you DO NOT need to know where humans came from.
The same way, to study evolution, you DO NOT need to know where life came from.
And where exactly did I say that scientists are dodging the question, reliogiotard? There is huge amount of abiogenesius research going on in many institutes in the world, so who excactly is "dodging" anyhing?
Hobu123 4 days ago
2
However, as I said, origins of life DO NOT BELONG UNDER EVOLUTION. It is a separate field of research of subject called abiogenesis.
Hobu123 4 days ago
3
>>>>Whenever you talk to a scientist they always try to
>>>>>belittle people who don't agree with them with insults
Because nobody has to tolerate STUPIDITY in any way. STUPIDITY is not "another opinion", stupidity is STUPIDITY. And creationists are famous for being STUPID and UNEDUCATED.
If someone even doesn't know what "theory" means in science and that Big Bang and evolution are totally independent things from two different fields of sciences then what are we talking about?
Hobu123 4 days ago
@Hobu123
"Matter formed AFTER Big Bang."
From what?
andyivytownley 5 days ago
@andyivytownley
ENERGY.
Don't you have any education?
Hobu123 5 days ago
@Hobu123
"That claim is 100% false, but creationists never correct their errors."
No, the SCIENTISTS' claims about Lucy are false, but SCIENTISTS never correct their errors.
See, I can point fingers too! Are my claims valid!? Yay!!
andyivytownley 5 days ago
@Hobu123
"Of course you can't because your only source is blogs of biblical cretinist liars."
Comments like this are what make you an idiot. Throwing out names and absurd unfounded claims about the motives of other people, "you copy-paster!"
You're a copy-paster, retard.
andyivytownley 5 days ago
@andyivytownley
A
>>Comments like this are what make you an idiot
I am stating the OBVIOUS.
All "arguments" presented here by fundies are the same old 10000 times seen and 10000 times refuted crap that can be found in any cretinist blog. Whenever you talk to a creationist, he always starts the same old and boring nonsense - yara yara blah blah blah no new information, 2nd law of thermodynamics, blah blah, nebraska man, piltdown man, blah blah,
BOOORIING already, Seen it all.
Hobu123 5 days ago
B
>>>>SCIENTISTS' claims about Lucy are false
What scientific claim about Lucy is wrong? Back up your accusations with FACTS and EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
Hobu123 5 days ago
@Hobu123
What molecules?
andyivytownley 5 days ago
If you believe in laws of science and not in God please answer this question...
Do you believe matter has always existed?
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@ShawnSwander yes, if not how did god exist to create the universe? if hes real that is
TheOrangeType 5 days ago
@TheOrangeType who said God was made of matter?
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@ShawnSwander your not serious? god HAS to be made of matter for there to even be a slim chance of him existing, unless hes fictional, i think ill go for the second choice
TheOrangeType 5 days ago
@TheOrangeType Gravity isn't made of matter, nor is the force of magnetism, no is human morality, laws of logic, mathematics, nor is electrostatic charge, or the weak and strong nuclear forces. None of these things are made of matter.
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." JOHN 18:36
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@TheOrangeType so has matter always existed?
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@ShawnSwander EVERYTHING IS MADE OF MATTER YOU IDIOT! Also "My kingdom is not of this world." could mean anything, was Jesus an alien sent by people from another world? (planet if your too stupid to know what i meant by world) was he from another universe? or was he a bumbling idiot with visions of grandeur? think its the last choice, also matter has had to have always existed for us, even "god", to have existed, he couldn't create himself, so answer MY question, who created god?
TheOrangeType 5 days ago
@TheOrangeType I listed several things that aren't made of matter. So not everything is made of matter. Matter is anything that occupies volume and has mass.
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@TheOrangeType you are refusing to answer questions and think logically. If you can't move on from your presupposition that not everything is made of matter (like gravity, math or self consciousness) then you will be unable to learn.
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@ShawnSwander i answered your question, everything is made of matter, matter is such a vague word and it literally means anything in the universe, and i AM thinking logically because i dont think a man in the fucking sky is controlling my life, and when you say math and self consciousness, that of course isnt made of matter because it isnt a physical thing in ANY sense of the word, that's why its thought, now ANSWER MY QUESTION! who created god?
TheOrangeType 5 days ago
@TheOrangeType Don't skip ahead. I asked the question first did matter always exist. You said it did.
So if matter always existed an infinite amount of time preceded this moment. The universe is expanding... if it had unlimited time to expand it would be so far apart the universe would be freezing cold approaching absolute 0. SO... Do you still think matter always existed?
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There are simple logical steps to proving there is a God. They require people answer questions honestly and trust in some basic logical concepts like cause preceding effect, and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
If you believe in these laws, but don't believe there is a God please answer this question and I'd gladly walk with you through some conclusions and listen to your rebuttal.
Do you believe matter has always existed?
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
Ron Paul says he doesn't believe in evolution. He is also a medical doctor and a politician who actually thinks for himself.
jowbowcow 6 days ago
@steviej321 unfortunately for your DOZENS (oh man, millions of years of evolution and absurd amounts of generations of pro-creating subspecies and we have DOZENS?! so convincing!) of inaccurate fossils, there should be closer to MILLIONS of them littering the earth. common sense should tell you that, seriously. why aren't there millions? because it never happened. use some common sense, smart guy ;)
andyivytownley 6 days ago
How about gravity? Do they accept it? Or people levitate around in your country?
Konicava 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Konicava gravity isn't a theory its observable on all scales, measurable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Large-scale evolution is a bullshit theory that rides in hiding behind micro-evolution that says everyone evolved from hydrogen. 63% of Americans don't believe that evolved from non-living material. How is that not religion? TheAmazingAtheist isn't an atheist he believes life came from non-living things and that the first law of thermodynamics is a pretend law.
ShawnSwander 6 days ago
wRong Paul doesn't accept Evolution either! LOL What a RETARD!
deeppurple28 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@deeppurple28 according to you lucid people believe living things come from non-living material and matter came from nothing for no reason. Maybe you should look in a mirror before you call people names because you believe in a fairy tale.
ShawnSwander 6 days ago
@Hobu123 or subspecies dur hur hur, that did not exist before. You can't get from fish to bird, form fish to alligator, for monkey to human, anything, with what you're describing. If you could, there would still be thousands, if not millions of subspecies. And you're saying that they're being evolved to now; they would have never disappeared. They would still be around to day. But they're not. So once agian, regardless of anyone's finds, the evidence does not add up to this.
andyivytownley 6 days ago
@andyivytownley Look up the full evolutionary tree of land mammals to cetaceans. We also have dozens of hominids fossils to proven human ancestry. Do some research, dumbass.
steviej321 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steviej321 The most simple organism was artificially simplified to have 397 characters in its genome. If you loose any 1 of these nucleotides in the RNA/DNA strand the organism can't live, absorb energy, or reproduce. So in evolution you need to go from 0 to 397 in 1 shot. Mathematically that is 4^397 (odds of cracking the code). There is also no mechanism to even take 1 attempt at this code. There is no evidence of any failed attempts in nature Do some research yourself.
ShawnSwander 6 days ago
@ShawnSwander
1
>>>The most simple organism was artificially simplified to have 397
I have repeatedly explained to you that SIMPLEST SELF-REPLICATORS are just 6 UNITS LONG. How hard is that SIMPLE SENTENCE for you so that you STILL do not get it? You are comparing MODERN CELLS that have 4 billion years of evolution behind them with FIRST SIMPLEST REPLICATORS.
Hobu123 6 days ago
2
So you are typical excample of brainwashed religious fundamentalist who even makes NO ATTEMPT to understand what he is being explained but numbly keep repearting his nonsense just like a broken grammophone.
And in case you didn't get notification about my last answers, here is the note: I have once again answered to all your claims couple of days ago.
Hobu123 6 days ago
3
Admit that you have NO INTENTION of learning anything and you will be endlessly repeating the idiotic crap that you have read from your creationist blogs.
>>>For example a dog has never yielded a horse,
That is how evolution works. A species becomes another, slightly different species. And so on.
However, if parallel lineages evolve that way long time, they become so different that we do not name them both "dogs" any more - it would be impractical.
Hobu123 6 days ago
4
Try to understand the simple concept:
1. Species O splits into species A and B.
2. A becomes another species A1, B becomes another species B1.
3. B1 becomes B2, A1 becomes A2.
And so on.
Lets say "O" is a "dog" (name of genus). A and B can be also called "dogs", but now the meaning of "dog" has become wider. A1 and B1 - lets call them "dogs", but the meaning of "dog" is even more wider, incluiding 5 different species (O, A, B, A1, B1).
Hobu123 6 days ago
5
At the same time Ax and Bx lineages become more and more different from each other (and from original O). So if we call them all "dogs", the meaning of "dog" becomes more and more wide.
So we have reached stage B9 and A9. They are now so different from each other and so different from original O that it is impractical to classify them into same genus. And now we name B9 a "dag" and A9 a "deg" (new genera).
Hobu123 6 days ago
6
That is how evolution works and that is how the different organism groups arise from common ancestors.
If you think that evolution means that dog overnight, within 1 generation becomes horse, then really, GO AND GET SOME BASIC EDICATION before attempting to discuss science.
Hobu123 6 days ago
@Hobu123 dogs making more dogs isn't large scale evolution. I am fully aware and believe that dogs make more dogs. The lie you try to sneak in is that abiotic life gave rise to humans over billions of years. There is no proof of this.
ShawnSwander 6 days ago
@ShawnSwander
>>>>There is no proof of this.
Science DOES NOT deal with PROOFS. "Proofs" belong to mathematics and logic, not science. Science deals with EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
All available evidence we have shows that life originated and evolved like that. This is not an idea that needs "proofs", this is a CONCLUSION based on carefully studying and analyzing the FACTS and EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
You don't even understand the basic concept about how science works?
Hobu123 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
>>>>I am fully aware and believe that dogs make more dogs
Every time dog makes another dog, the meaning of "dog" becomes wider and wider, as the organisms become more and more different from starting position and parallel, independent lineages. So HOW LONG do you think it is practical to call them "dogs"?
Sure, we could call all carnivores "dogs" but that would be pointless. Try to understand that WE, HUMANS, give names to different branches on tree of life.
Hobu123 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
>>>>There are millions of scientists who reject these articles you speak about.
Hint: you local PASTOR in FUNDIE CHURCH does not count as "scientist".
Hobu123 6 days ago
@Hobu123 way to assume garbage about my beliefs and sources. No I wasn't counting religious folks. I meant guys with safety goggles, lab coats, engineering degrees, and people who consider the biases of someone who gives them information before believing it.
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@Hobu123 You can't tell what a dog is without a scientific definition? Maybe you shouldn't call people stupid anymore.
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@Hobu123 There's no evidence of it either.
ShawnSwander 6 days ago
@Hobu123 there is evidence of a common designer though. All organisms use the same DNA/RNA code, similar bone connections, organisms have limited mutations to adapt to changing conditions. Fine-tuning, absolute morality, altruism, irreducible complexity. Science won't accept that evidence because science believes in a different religion of matter comes from nothing and life comes from mud.
ShawnSwander 6 days ago
1
All the things you listed are PREDICTED by the theory of evolution. Morality, altruism - all that has been long ago explained by etology and behavioral ecology. Irreducible complexity is a direct result of evolution - bioscientists understood that already 100 YEARS AGO, long before Behe came out with it.
You accuse science for being able to explain life without need for your absurd invisible hocus-pocus men who moaned and waved hands and everything popped out from nothing?
Hobu123 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
>>>>>I'm a nuclear propulsion engineer
There is no evidence that nuclear propulsion works.
You try to talk about science and at the same time have not even been able to understand the most basic concept of science - that it deals with EVIDENCE, not proofs? You may be engineer, but certainly not scientist.
Hobu123 5 days ago
>>>>>>>>>I have a problem with large scale evolution
You have problem because YOU HAVE NEVER BOTHERED TO LEARN ANYTHING ABOUT IT. It is clearly obvious from your comments that your "understanding" about evolutionary biology is at about mid-school level or even lower.
Hobu123 5 days ago
@Hobu123 "Irreducible complexity is a direct result of evolution "
Explain how a fly's win evolved.
"r absurd invisible hocus-pocus men who moaned and waved hands "
Pretty sure I never said that. But science does. How did the matter from the big bang appear?
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@Hobu123 "You don't even understand the basic concept about how science works?" I'm a nuclear propulsion engineer I work in a lab all the time I understand the process perfectly and thats why I have a problem with large scale evolution which doesn't follow scientific model of a theory its not fallible, its not testable, its not observable on the proposed scale.
ShawnSwander 6 days ago
@ShawnSwander
>>>>its not observable on the proposed scale
Absurd nonsense.
Does Earth orbit Sun? Absolutely NOVBODY has EVER witnessed Earth doing that. To do that youneed to go to outer space and sit there a year and watch how Earth makes circle around Sun. Nobody has done that.
So, does Earth orbit Sun or not?
Hobu123 5 days ago
Here are some basic facts for you:
1. We see evolution taking place in living populations.
2. When studying whatever source of information, all these show that life has been evolving the same way for billions of years. No matter whether you look fossils, genetics, developmental biology, embryology, molecular biology, (paleo)biogeography - ALL THESE independent fields of biology show the SAME picture.
Hobu123 5 days ago
It IS NOT science's fault if you decide to ignore all that huge amount of evidence and want to believe youir absurd Brionze Age hallucinations about invisible wizards who wave hands and say some magical spells and everything pops out from nothing. Science is NOT for studying your hocus-pocus and magic. Science deals with EVIDENCE from REAL WORLD.
Hobu123 5 days ago
@Hobu123 You are the only one proposing an invisible wizard. Magically matter stops following the laws of nature and bang the universe came and it expanded unevenly so there must be some invisible magic matter that has no gravitational pull infact the universe is made of it mostly. Oh and life came from lightning striking mud but it doesn't happen anymore the magic in the atmosphere is all gone. Yeah thats it.... Viva EVOLUTION!
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@Hobu123 "We see evolution taking place in living populations." When I say evolution I mean large scale evolution. Stop piggybacking proven theories with religious ones.
Fossils have been faked, and leave have gaping holes in the evolution theory, and genetics shows evidence against similar morphological structures being evolved because they come from different parts of the genetic code.
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@Hobu123 "We see evolution taking place in living populations." piggy backing large scale evolution onto micro-evolution doesn't help you it just shows your a liar.
2. ambiguous. These fields work against evolution theory as well. Propose a mechanism that will yeild a repeating molecule or cell ANYTHING. Explain how a fly's wing evolved, explain how matter originated.... FAIL! turns out when you lie eventually you run into a wall and evolution hit it.
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@Hobu123 RED HERRING AGAIN. The behavior of the force of gravity alone lets us know the Earth orbits the Sun since we know the sun has much more mass than the Earth. Stop misleading people its dishonest.
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@Hobu123 Evolution constantly rejects and ignores evidence against it. Fake fossils have been submitted hundreds of times and the archaeologists have been busted for fraud.
A conspiracy is defined as -an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
So this has happened Nebraska man and archaeoraptor are two examples of such evidence. Would you agree that there is a conspiracy to advocate evolution?
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@ShawnSwander
1
>>>>Evolution constantly rejects and ignores evidence against it
Absurd and retarded creationist nonsense. There is NO evidence against evolution ever been found. If someone finds such, he would be WOLRD FAMOUS like Einstein or Darwin. No scientist would leave that oportunity unused.
When will you finally understand that the stuff you find from creationist websites is CRAP and idiotic ANTI-INTELLECTUAL fundamentalist PROPAGANDA?
Hobu123 5 days ago
2
>>>>Fake fossils have been submitted hundreds of times
Fake fossils have been subjected FEW TIMES and EVERY TIME SCIENTISTS have exposed them as fakes and REJECTED them. In addition to few real fakes the creationist religiotard liars also call fakes many fossils where there is absolutely no problem at all in reality, because biblical cretinists NEVER check their source and validty of their claims but just copy-paste their crap like you do now.
Hobu123 5 days ago
3
And yara yara yara, again starts the same old creationist crap that I HAVE HEARD ALREADY 100000000 TIMES. It is BOOOORIIINNGG already, try to understand that.
Nebraska man has NEVER been a "fake". It was a tooth that resembled hominid tooth, however, even its finder doubted whether it is hominid or not, and other scientists were even more skeptical. It was studied more closely and its true nature was soon revealed.
Where is the "hoax" here? Science in its everyday work.
Hobu123 5 days ago
4
Scientists found a suspicious fossil, made first guesses about what it may be, then studied it closely and established its identity: WHERE ARE THE FRAUDS HERE? This is what is going on in EVERYDAY SCIENCE.
So yiou are a LIAR if you claim that Nebraska man as a "fraud". Liar for Christ.
Hobu123 5 days ago
5
Arcaheoraptor was NOT a fake made by SCIENTISTS. It was a fake made by CHINESE FOSSIL TRADER. It ended up in the hands of scientists who quickly discovered that it is not ral. HOWEVER, the two fossils it consisted of were themselves valuable transiotional fossils.
By claiming that Archaeoraptor was scientific fraud you have once again showmn that you are a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
Hobu123 5 days ago
6
When will you finally understand that the crap you find from creationist propaganda blogs is CRAP? Full of lies, misconceptions and dishonest propaganda, as clearly shown by the above mentioned examples of Nebraska man and Archaeraptor.
And blieve me, I have ALREADY SEEN ALL THAT CREATIONIST CRAP MILLION TIMES, so you DO NOT need to copy-paste it to me once again. I know all creationist "arguments" by heart, so save your valuable time
Hobu123 5 days ago
@Hobu123 this is spam don't bother reading it and wasting your time.
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
>>>>>Explain how a fly's win evolved.
Insect wings have evolved from extensions of their thorax exoskeleton. There uis enough scientiic articles about that, how comes you have never bothered to read any of you are interested in answers?
>>>>>How did the matter from the big bang appear?
Condensation of energy shortly AFTER Big Bang.
Hobu123 5 days ago
8
>Its never been observed, replicated, tested.
Says someone who has never bothered to educate himself about the level of abiogenesis research in worlds biolabs. Probably all you have ever heard about abiogenesis is M-U experiment and you imagine that this is all that has ever been done.
>>When I say evolution I mean large scale evolution.
It is the same process.
Google "29+ evidences of macroevolution" andd EDUCATE YOURSELF at least a BIT before continuing your creationist babbling
Hobu123 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
9
>>>>genetics shows evidence against similar
>>>> morphological structures being evolved because
>>>>they come from different parts of the genetic code.
How is that evidence against evolution? Do you have really ZERO understanding about genetics and evolution?
Really, DO us both a favor and GET SOME BASIC EDUCATION about the subject.
Read my lips: I HAVE ALREADY HEARD ALL THAT CREATIONIST CRAP 1000000 TIMES BEFORE AND IT IS GETTING REALLY BORING.
Hobu123 5 days ago
@Hobu123 So glad you brought up Miller-Urey. Miller-Urey replicated early earth conditions and yielded nothing. Then they removed oxygen which was breaking down the amino acids and then the experiment yielded amino acids. Keep in mind amino acids are NOWHERE NEAR the same thing as RNA/DNA which has never been yielded outside of living organisms and 100% required for life. There is no mechanism to make RNA outside of biological means.
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@ShawnSwander
" amino acids are NOWHERE NEAR the same thing as RNA/DNA which has never been yielded outside of living organisms"
BLATANT lie.
tinyurl . com / 3ulko7g
RNA and its constituents have been shown to form on their own in a prebiotic environment.
TheZooCrew 5 days ago
@TheZooCrew notice the article says they synthesized RNA ... They synthesized it from living yeast cells. Sorry this article doesn't prove RNA originated from a nonliving source.
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@ShawnSwander
Better link. Builds on the other.
tinyurl . com / r6243p
TheZooCrew 5 days ago
@ShawnSwander
Even better link that cites the second one and includes a full explanation.
tinyurl . com / 6qm37tn
TheZooCrew 5 days ago
@TheZooCrew Your source proves exactly what I said.
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@Hobu123 Archaeoraptor was published in National Geographic and then commented on by the scientific community as a missing evolutionary link so stop telling lies. Cop out some more liar and what about, nebraska man, java man, pitdown man, orcre man, 8 different organizations of Lucy's frame. All scientific lies, frauds, and inconsistencies.
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@Hobu123 Professionals who spend their entire life identifying fossils... Who's career depends on them identifying them carefully and correctly. They had plenty of time they could have said we don't know yet. You pointing your finger and calling me a liar doesn't change that I've caught you in lies.
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@Hobu123 if by few times you mean hundreds and constantly finding more. To propagate the theory it only takes 1 fossil (like Lucy who had major authenticity issues as well). Why would this proven scientific process require fake fossils. If I use bad sources please explain exactly what I've said that is wrong, until then you are a liar now for accusing me without proof. So Mr. Liar, so far you have nothing that proves large scale evolution.
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
10
>>>>>like Lucy who had major authenticity issues as well
No, Lucy has had absolutely NO authenticity problems. When will you stop copying creationist error-filled CRAP from blogs of religious fundamentalisst?
>>>Why would this proven scientific process require fake fossils
Why are there frauds in ABSOLUTELY EVERY SCIENCE? There have been frauds in physics, chemistry, history and all other sciences. Funny how you selectively not mention those. Are all sciences therefore wrong?
Hobu123 5 days ago
11
>>>>few times you mean hundreds
There are no hundreds of fakes among fossils.
You brought 2 examples but one of them was not a fake and second one was not a fake made by scientists. Didn't that already teach you that the "info" you find from creationist websites is CRAP?
Hobu123 5 days ago
12
>>>>>>Archaeoraptor was published in National Geographic
National Geographic is a POPULAR PRESS MAGAZINE, not a scientific peer reviewed journal. That article was made by an ART EDITOR, not scientist. Scientists criticized it from the start.
Do you start to finally get it that the "info" you find from creationist blogs is a FALLACIOUS CRAP?
Hobu123 5 days ago
11
>>>>nebraska man
Not a fraud, as I already explained. That you continue to call it a scientific fraud even after I explained that it is not shows that you are a DISHONEST RELIGIOTARD who has no intentions to accept when you have been wrong. And that is not ad hominem because I have clearly show now to any readers that you are a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
Does your jebus approve that kind of lying?
Hobu123 5 days ago
12
>>> java man
Never been any kind of "fake", it is perfectly authentic fossil.
STOP LYING.
>>>>pitdown man
Exposed as fake by SCIENTISTS, and exposed because it was seriously out of place. As knowledge about human evolution increased, the Piltdown was more and more out of place and didn't fit anywhere, which lead to furher investigation and research.
Hobu123 5 days ago
13
>>>>Orce man
Never been any kind of "fake". It is a badly preserved piece of bone that is impossible to indentify. It has never been established what it is. The only reason why scientists pay attention to it is that IF it happens to be homninid then it would be interesting find.
STOP LYING, RELIGIOTARD LIAR
Hobu123 5 days ago
14
>>>>8 different organizations of Lucy's frame
There are no frauds or incionsistencies around Lucy, it is perfectly valid fossil. STOP LYING, RELIGIOTARD LIAR.
>>>>You pointing your finger and calling me a
>>>liar doesn't change that I've caught you in lies.
What LIES have you caught me in? I have refuted all your standard creationist nonsense. But it is YOU who continues to babble about "faked fossils" even after I have explained you the true story behind them.
Hobu123 5 days ago
15
And from the moment you called Nebraska man a scientific fraud AFTER I had explained to you that there is no fraud involved at all, I have full right to call you a LIAR. Obviously you think that in order to stuff your jebus down the throat of everyone, all methods, including pathological lying, is OK.
I did not call you liar when you simply posted the creationist nonsense because creationist have lied to you and thatwas not your fault that you believed them.
Hobu123 5 days ago
16
Although you could have done your research better.
However, after you showed that you have no intentions of correcting your mistakes I can safely call you a liar. There is no doubt that you will not stop using your "nebraska man" and other creationist nonsense under this or other videos just as if nothing happened., even though you have been explained that it isn't in any way a "fake".
Hobu123 5 days ago
@Hobu123 I said there was fraud I never said the fossil was fake. The Wadjak skulls were submitted as non human skulls and there are no non-human features on the skulls.
ShawnSwander 5 days ago
@ShawnSwander
1
There is nothing "fake" about these fossils. Fossils of uncertain identity are not "fakes".
>>>>Wadjak skulls were submitted as non human skulls
Wrong info again from a blogs of creationist liars.
>>>>The magazine was just to point out
Dude, SCIENTISTS do not need to be "pointed out" anything via popular magazines. Scientists publish their discoveries in SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS.
Hobu123 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2
>>>>>I am including all the holes scientists ignore that
>>>>would show gradual change in human ancestry over
>>>>billions of years.
The existing material is good enough to show that.
Your absurd creationiust logic is that if we do not know EVERY SINGLE WORD that was said or written during World War 2 then World war 2 did not exist.
That is the level of absurdity that is so characteristic to creationists.
Hobu123 5 days ago