ok there is so many flaws in this guys logic and reasoning. but I will just go with the first flaw he starts with. He states no one was there is ot see it, the same goes with his magic invisible geani god making a universe no one there to see,.and using the bible like it supose sort ext book is a joke. The bible is right because the bible says its right, no evidence no proof, epic fail lol
Try Googling "Problems with the Big Bang" and see how great the later versions of the theory are. Still many major problems, still unviable. Creation theory only lacks an answer for light travel time, which is a problem to the philosophical naturalist, but not if God made the stars to be observed... seeing the Hubble deep field SHOULD help us prideful, brain dead humans understand that the term "God Almighty," an uber superlative (yes, just made that up), is no exaggeration.
Try Googling "Problems with the Big Bang" and see how great the later versions of the theory are. Still many major problems, still unviable. Creation theory only lacks an answer for light travel time, which is a problem to the philosophical naturalist, but not if God made the stars to be observed... seeing the Hubble deep field SHOULD help us prideful, brain dead humans understand that the term "God Almighty," an uber superlative (yes, just made that up), is no exaggeration.
Try Googling "Problems with the Big Bang" and see how great the later versions of the theory are. Still many major problems, still unviable. Creation theory only lacks an answer for light travel time, which is a problem to the philosophical naturalist, but not if God made the stars to be observed... seeing the Hubble deep field SHOULD help us prideful, brain dead humans understand that the term "God Almighty," an ubersuperlative (yes, just made that up), is no exaggeration.
From the very beginning he starts off with out of date science!! The notion that we expanded from a singularity went out in the 1980's, now we know that the sign of a singularity in our models is a sign that the model is incomplete. Now the idea is that the initial big bang is as transition point from one state to another which leads to the idea of something before the big bang, this idea has been around for a while but Lisle ignores that. Typical creationist dishonesty.
Lisle did not claim these were the latest theories. He said these things are taught in most textbooks, which, of course, are typically way behind with this sort of thing.
And what else are you trying to imply? That all of these problems are solved? Are you saying the horizon and the flatness problems are solved? Does this "transition" theory make sweeping terrific predictions, or does it sound more like geocentric "epicycles" than sound theory?
Try Googling "Problems with the Big Bang" and see how great the later versions of the theory are. Still many major problems, still unviable. Creation theory only lacks an answer for light travel time, which is a problem to the philosophical naturalist, but not if God made the stars to be observed... seeing the deep field SHOULD help us prideful, brain dead humans understand that the term "God Almighty," an ubersuperlative (yes I made that up), is no exaggeration.
Try Googling "Problems with the Big Bang" and see how great the later versions of the theory are. Still many major problems, still unviable. Creation theory only lacks an answer for light travel time, which is a problem to the philosophical naturalist, but not if God made the stars to be observed... seeing the deep field SHOULD help us prideful, brain dead humans understand that the term "God Almighty," an ubersuperlative (yes I made that up), is no exaggeration.
Try Googling "Problems with the Big Bang" and see how great the later versions of the theory are. Still many major problems, still unviable. Creation theory only lacks an answer for light travel time, which is a problem to the philosophical naturalist, but not if God made the stars to be observed... seeing the deep field SHOULD help us prideful, brain dead humans understand that the term "God Almighty," an ubersuperlative (yes I made that up), is no exaggeration.
@357MagnumBob In saying that they are the usual theories, he was not referring to the textbooks but science as a whole. So he is attacking a strawman in effect, as for the horizon and flatness problems, I suggest you look at inflation to get the solutions to those problems.
I understand that you want you deity at the centre of everything but unfortunately that's just not the case. The transition idea has it's base in solid theoretical physics.
Try Googling "Problems with the Big Bang" and see how great later versions of the theory are. Still many major problems, still unviable. Creation theory only lacks an answer for light travel time, which is a problem to the philosophical naturalist, but not if God made the stars to be observed... seeing the Hubble deep field SHOULD help us prideful, brain dead humans understand that the term "God Almighty," an uber superlative (yes, just made that up), is no exaggeration.
Try Googling "Problems with the Big Bang" and see how great later versions of the theory are. Still many major problems, still unviable. Creation theory only lacks an answer for light travel time, which is a problem to the philosophical naturalist, but not if God made the stars to be observed... seeing the Hubble deep field SHOULD help us prideful, brain dead humans understand that the term "God Almighty," an uber superlative (yes, just made that up), is no exaggeration.
Stopped at 1:20 and refuse to listen to another word. "the big bang was made up by people who wern't there."
So what? You don't have to BE at an event to learn about it. No one was here when an asteroid killed the dinosaurs, however, that hasn't hindered us from LEARNING about the event. Ha ha ha CSI put people away DAILY, yet their not "there to witness the crime." I mean saying you have to witness something to learn about it is an UNscientific statement. And they wanna talk science? Ha ha ha
@TacoBurgher327 You stopped listening? meaning you never actually started. I listen to both view, evolution and creation, you have to test your beliefs from time to time. You fail.
@MrWhadayaknow "You stopped listening? meaning you never actually started."
Um, no... If someone starts a video game, then stops half way though, that doesn't mean they NEVER played the game in the first place. I stopped after the guy says "No one was there to see the big bang" then gave my REASON why I stopped. In case you missed it " You don't have to BE at an event to learn about it." The speaker i the video is distorting the truth.... Maybe you should take another look at my comment.....
@TacoBurgher327 Well Tacoburgher, that's fine for you, but I like to hear everything a person has to say on the topic, particularly if I made the effort to begin the investigation in the first place. But to each his own. Hopefully you found a passtime more suited to your intellectual curiosity, perhaps a video game? Nice analogy, not.
@MrWhadayaknow " but I like to hear everything a person has to say on the topic, particularly if I made the effort to begin the investigation in the first place."
Sure, who doesn't? I'm not arguing this. I'm saying, if someone will blatantly lie and say you have to witness something to learn about it, which isn't true, then what else is he lying about? Why is he lying in the first place?
So basically, this guy lumps all kind of scientific fields together, even if they don't have anything to do with the Big Bang. Then he rejects them all, because the findings don't match his religious beliefs.
Wow. Just wow. The retardation is just awe-inspiring.
A lot of people don't know that the Big Bang model was not presented by atheists. Georges Lemaitre, a priest from Ukraine, actually presented it. Atheists didn't like it at first, but they eventually were forced to accept it due to overwhelming evidence for its existence.
I am amazed that there are people like this out there. "Gods word." If only the science fiction writers of their day who wrote the bible could come back from the dead and smack this guy in the face and say "wake the fuck up. We were kidding."
jason, the person who discovered the big bang theory was an ordained catholic priest named george lemaitre........i dont think he was trying to attack the bible
snowflakes are created by Belinda , the snowflake fairy. If you doubt this look at mashed potato flakes and see the difference. Nothing in nature that appears designed occurs on its own, fairies do it all. ;-)
.......science is the result of a self driven forces. It is a denial of humanity. Science, in the modern sense, in itself is a man-made entity that claims to know all or promises to. Yet it simply denies anything that it does't understand and casts it aside. Men who follow this concept do exactly the same thing. They case anyone who doesnt follow their ideas aside. Religion and humanity both go hand in hand because all things are considered", unlike with science.
@highnote606 You sir, are an idiot. Science is the result of rational thought and experimentation. We view the world, create a hypothesis, test this hypothesis over and over again. If it's wrong, it is altered. If it is correct, we test it again, and again, and slowly this hypothesis becomes something we know to be a theory. Evolution, a theory. Gravity, a theory. Theories are what we know, in so far, to be a fact. As we learn more, theories are edited with evidence.
Religion replaces what science takes away. Science does create. It shifts things around. But it literally changes nothing. Nature cannot be changed. We are part of that nature. When we observe and interact, something grande happens. Our spiritual being is revealed. This is how we detect the unseen reality of existence. Science cannot detect this because of it lack of capacity and function. In other words, only humans can detect the spirit. This make science pointless in a big way.........
@highnote606 ok, science is poitless, please throw away the computer that you used to view youtube. It is a creation of science and therefore pointless. ;-)
To brag about a personal experience of intelligence in nature is like altering it to suit an ego. It suddenly becomes something it's not. We are each responsible for observing and interacting, ultimately being our own "scientist" in life. To centralize knowledge for the sake of imposing a consolidated system upon the masses is the same as throwing away half a carton of eggs and keeping the other half because limited knowledge creates casualties in the world. Mere observation does not.
The years prior to us have been full of people without science. But they all had soething in common. They were born with the ability to observe their environment. The same applies today. Science says we don't need God. Our observation without science says we don't need science. Nature emits a force of philosophy that enters us through mere observation and interaction. A documented analysis of it is not needed. Our brain takes care of it as we go. Bragging about the experience isn't needed either
The whole farce of evolution and science is that we have at least thousands of years behind us, minus much of the knowledge we have today. The knowledge is said to come from "reality". And science has a biased perception of reality because its based solely upon its limited ability and knowledge. In other words, science doesn't have 20/20 vision. People do. We can see intelligent design all around us in nature. We can witness it, and in fact have. But proponents of evolution ignore this evidence.
@Trine834 Oh I agree that the 'cause' is reasonable, but is it actual? For it to be so, you'd have to establish it with evidence. "Similarity"? Wrong. Unique character combinations in nested sets. Have you ever heard of endogenous retroviruses? If not, I invite you to watch a cool video that explains how they solidify common ancestry:
youtube. com / watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
Mac os, windows and linux don't reproduce, so it's a horrible analogy to living organisms. Reproduction is key to evolution.
@Trine834 "I don't see why God should make the organism from nothing again" Because that would confirm that it ever happened to begin with!
"Aha...You don't believe He could" No, I just don't see any evidence that a God ever did. All the evidence I've seen points toward evolution. And again, it's not random processes alone, but natural selection *acting on* the mutations. This isn't stupid, as it's been observed. Saying plants were made before the sun ...now THAT is stupid.
@Trine834 If I hadn't seen it, I wouldn't infer any being created it, but a natural process. Just like I see snowflakes, which we know arises from purely natural processes. I don't think that a guy in the sky is making snowflakes, just because I have seen kids cut them from paper in art class. lol
@Trine834 The word is 'deny'. And it's natural selection acting on mutation which does bring about new information. And natural selection isn't a mindful process; it's a filter. As for "is not the same as getthing the origins of the program", well evolution isn't about the origin of life, only how it diversifies. Or did you not know that?
@Trine834 No it doesn't give any probability. You're just appealing to what's more convenient, not on anything which is testable. And "more likely that a developer made a program" is an argument from inductive reasoning. We know computers, paintings, and buildings have 'designers' because we have SEEN humans design them. This is NOT analogous to the universe, matter, or living organisms. If you want to prove Genesis is true, have God speak again and make an entire organism appear from nothing.
@Trine834 "We do not see something change into something else" You're still being vague. If I'm getting what you're trying to say though, that's what speciation is about, buddy. The parent population gets geographically isolated, and thanks to changes (which we do observe) in allelic frequencies within separate populations, reproductive isolation takes place, where the two populations cannot interbreed - giving rise to a different (genetically and ever-so-slightly morphologically) species.
@Trine834 "A creator can do it more easy, than evolution" Sorry but that doesn't make it true. You need evidence to support how you think something occurs.
@Trine834 "claiming a past upon it, is stupid" I can't tell if this is an argument from ignorance or just personal incredulity now. Science has precise methods of adjudicating how things *most likely* occured in the past, particularly with DNA and fossil remains. Regarding evolution, we know it occurs, in the same fashion that we know anything: observation and mutually supporting evidence. Evolution isn't just something that happened in the past; it continues to happen.
@Trine834 No I don't think that, because unlike you, I actually know how evolution works. The phylogenetic tree is based on a strict model. If you violate the concept of nested sets, from whatever chimera you find, you disprove evolution. That's a perfect example of how to test it.
You don't "make up some transitional form" in science. If there is no find, and the genetic evidence doesn't link them, it won't work. This is all build on a strict model. There is NO strict model for creationism.
@Trine834 Because the interpretations are based on TESTING the gathered evidence and drawing conclusions based on that. Creationism is a 180 from the scientific method; it STARTS with a conclusion (God did it) and then attempts to find "evidence" to support it. This is also known as confirmation bias. You cannot test creationism, because no evidence or discovery found can ever falsify it. You can just always say "well God just did it that way" because he doesn't function under a specific order.
@Trine834 "Why would chimeras disprove evolution really? It couldn't"
*facepalm* Thank you for demonstrating that you haven't the slightest clue about how evolution works. Chimeras would destroy the phylogenetic tree and our concept of nested hierarchies, when it comes to evolution. If we found something like a mermaid or centaur, we'd have no way of explaining it because it can't occur via lateral gene transfer nor symbiosis. It would disprove our theory of evolution via natural selection.
@Trine834 "this is an interpretation" Interpretations left alone are a dime a dozen. Our whole perception of reality is an interpretation that we can't "know" for sure, yet that's what the scientific method does - works with probability, based specifically on where the evidence overwhelmingly points towards. Your appeal to "that's just an interpretation" won't fly on this topic. Sorry.
@Trine834 "You have already set the basis for what evolution can and cannot do, according to our observation" Yes, and you can NOT do the same thing with creation, because there isn't a "cannot do" for a supernatural, all-powerful deity. You don't seem to be able to grasp the simple concept that, if it can't be falsfied nor tested, IT IS NOT SCIENCE.
@Trine834 "What do I need to provide in order to disprove evolution" Based on what I said it function under, you have to show me:
1) true chimeras, e.g. organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together
2) a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating
@Trine834 "how would you gather evidence for a past event" In biology, it's called DNA. Look up the Human Genome Project. In another branch of scientific study, called geology, we have corroborating evidence as well. AIG is an absolute joke.
@Trine834 "I'll tell you what the better evidence for creation theory is. We have an adequate description for the events that happens"
That tells me all I need to know about what you believe. And I responded to it with what your book of Genesis describes about creation. It's not only unscientific, but against what we know from science. How the $^@#! can plants be older than the sun?? LOL!
@Trine834 "Evolution can make the world, life and all there is, however it want" Wrong. Evolution operates under precise functions, e.g. differential success in reproduction (natural selection) acting on mutation, genetic drift, geographic & reproductive isolation (speciation). And I can tell you what you'd need to show me in order to disprove evolution. This isn't the same thing as "God can do whatever he wants; he's omnipotent." Don't even try to make them look the same.
@Trine834 "circumstantial evidence, which we also know can be wrong" That's applicable to scientific theories. That's why science continues to gather evidence and theories get discarded or reformulated, based on the evidence. The scientific method is self-correcting; I can tell you what you'd have to show in order to disporve evolution. You can NOT do the same thing with creationism, because no amount of evidence can be brought to you without you saying "Well, God just did it that way."
@Trine834 "We have an adequate description for the events that happens." Adequate? An incomprehensible (and not testable), incorporeal being 'spoke' and *POOF*: living organisms pop into being ex nihilo. Plants are older than the sun (lol!) and after this being made man from dirt, he took out one of his ribs and somehow made it transfigure into a full-grown woman. And then a talking snake tempted them into eating forbidden fruit; God banished them and they died at over 900 years old.
@Trine834 "The past is not testable" It's a matter of empirical evidence, when it comes to theories. Do you think criminal court cases can't have a valid verdict, because hey, 'It's the past! We weren't there, right?' lol You seem to be quite ignorant on how the scientific method works, in adjudicating what occured in the past. When it comes to evolution, the evidence is overwhelming, thanks in large part to the work of an evangelical christian - Dr. Francis Collins (Human Genome Project).
@Trine834 "that Einstein came up with relativity" Which is falsifiable. Is creationism falsifiable? No, because "God can do anything! He can make the world however he wants!" If your "hypothesis" of 'God did it' cannot be tested or potentially falsified, it's not scientific. Period.
Jason Lisle shows how the believers in the big bang theory don't have much evidence to back up their belief system, and that there is much more evidence for the creation theory.
@earlysda "there is much more evidence for the creation theory"? Such as...? 'Creationism' is not falsifiable; no kind of evidence can falsify the "hypothesis" of 'God did it', given that 'God' can make the world ANY way he wants (God's omnipotent) right? Ergo, creationism is not scientific; it's religion. Lisle says the Bible teaches the world is 6,000 years old based on genealogies, as if genealogy is an accurate method of determining how old a *planet* is, or doesn't have gaps in the list.
@Nissemiss3 I on the other hand, have documented, peer-reviewed journals that confirm all of what I've said regarding evolution. Using the Bible as a science book was your biggest mistake. I mean it makes all sorts of ridiculous claims. Peter walking on water? Oh yeah, please demonstrate how that could occur, considering all observations show humans can't walk on water.
@Nissemiss3 No you cited an article that was addressing the location of the early environment for life, which was ALWAYS thought to be a 'body of water'. All that changed was what kind of body of water: not the oceans but in the lakes. Wow! lol This has NOTHING to do with the biodiversity of living systems AFTER life already got here (i.e. evolution). This isn't ignoring; I've addressed them and you continue to play dumb.
"The Bible provides evidence for it" A verse in a book is your evidence?
@Nissemiss3 The big bang is not testable? How much crap can you type in one day?? lol All we'd have to see is the opposite of Hubble's Law, Einstein's theory of relativity being wrong (he originally espoused Steady-State before discovering the evidence pointed toward expansion), etc.
"there was light" Specifics, please. Light needs a source. Also, distance in relation to the earth. Degree of heat. Or did God just use a light for 3 days before saying "I have a better idea"? LOL!
@Nissemiss3 If you understood bronze-age myth (particularly Sumerian), you'd get why "stretching out the heavens" is a description of the firmament being like a dome above the earth. It's not at all refering to the expansion of spacetime.
"Plants existed before the sun" Evidence, please! *note: plants can't exist for a nanosecond without the heat from the sun*
"merely a ignorance" No, you just can't address it logically or with anything valid... at all.
@Nissemiss3 "when an alternative is obvious" ...is obvious?? HAHAHAHA! Yes, it's blatantly obvious that a supernatural (not testable) deity "spoke" the entire natural world into existence and *poof* everything appeared, in a succession of 24-hour days (even when there was no sun to measure this). You get funnier by the minute! lol
@Nissemiss3 "Buy we have a revelation for the origin" You have NO way to substantiate this claim. You're welcome to try though; it'll make for a good laugh.
I have listed ways to falsify evolution, so repeating that nonsense isn't going to help you.
@Nissemiss3 No it says you shouldn't pick when something is literal or figurative when it's convenient for you, like you did with "stretches out the heavens" lol. And how is the "revealed history" taken literal? Seriously? Plants existing before the sun? Plants are older than the stars? A talking snake who deceived a rib-woman into eating a fruit off a tree that gave knowledge? This is mythology at its finest.
@Nissemiss3 "reveal it's origin" If that's the case then only the development and processes of the universe can be apprehended by human beings. The "origin" of all things cannot be scientifically adjudicated. So the only honest position about "origins" is agnosticism :)
We can know steps 2 through n; we don't know step 1. Throwing "God did it" into a gap of our knowledge is a logical fallacy - argument from ignorance.
And again, you cannot falsify your position, so it's not science.
@Nissemiss3 No it's not ignoring, as bible verses are subject to self-interested interpretation. That was my point. "terms sunrise and sunset" And I'm sure you're probably familiar with the phrase "hurries back to where it rose". That implies that the sun is going around the earth. Oops. LOL!
@Nissemiss3 Science is based on philosophy, but it's method (while logical) doesn't seek to answer philosophical questions like "what's the meaning of life?"
Yeah we presuppose some metaphysical truths, namely that 1) the universe exists and 2) we can learn something about it. Those are the bedrock assumptions for science. If you don't believe any of those, then there's no point in trying to discover anything, as our perception of the natural world would be unreliable.
@Nissemiss3 Your article is an epic fail. It starts off with Behe's Black Box, whose entire position on "irreducible complexity" has been debunked by Dr. Kenneth Miller (a christian, btw).
@Nissemiss3 Wrong. Hubble's law is constant but he himself cautioned that his data points were 'noisy' and its been through our advanced forms of technology that more precise measurements on the observed expansion (and rate in which it occured) have been refined. A great example of how science only gets better, while religion can only reinterperate.
"but the Bible got it right" I think someone's reading too much into a verse. Did the bible get heliocentrism wrong in Eccl.1:5 then? LOL!
@Nissemiss3 What is with all this attempt at regress? "it's just how it works not its origins" That's the whole point of science: how things work. As to "why" its that way, it'd be like asking "why is there anything instead of nothing", which is something philosophy gets into. Not science.
"arised from watching it first"? Not only watching, but via sensory input. And if you don't know that your senses are in response to the NATURAL environment, then I can't help you.
@Nissemiss3 "God streches out the heavens" ... Oh yes, a supernatural (not testable) deity, in some unexplainable way, stretches out the universe. That's a far better prediction than a model that gives precise measurements, rates, forces involved, etc.
@Nissemiss3 I don't have evidence that natural processes cause them?? HAHAHAHA! The entire NATURAL WORLD's processes like the water cycle, snowflakes, etc. all have NATURAL explanations for them.
"How do you know"? Name a way you apprehend information without appealing to any sensory source for input (e.g. eyes, ears etc). Because all of those are NATURAL sources. As for miracles, if you mean improbable events, those are a dime a dozen. If you mean suspension of natural law? Evidence, please.
@Nissemiss3 The newest article rests on the information of the previous article. The topic of the "newest articles" isn't on interbreeding but references what's been documented on that site previously about it. And even later than both articles, evidence shows they didn't:
independent. co . uk / news / science / the-neanderthal-murder-mystery-888276.html
@Nissemiss3 No it's only one piece of evidence, which along with other evidence, was gathered to give us the conclusion that the Big Bang is the best explanation of the model. How else do you explain all of it? Lemme guess... "God just did it that way." How very testable/scientific. Pshh.
@Nissemiss3 Because we don't have evidence of "other possibilites" aside from natural explanations. Everything you experience is based on your sense which are confined to the NATURAL world.
"expansion was prior to the big bang" The expansion occured at Planck's epoch (10^-43 seconds), "prior" to which our physics breaks down. "based on observation then placed into the model" Since it actually fits the model, it clearly IS a prediction. lol
@Nissemiss3 "Having trouble with linking" .... How convenient. I just looked up "neanderthals interbred" into the search engine at creation. com ... the article I previously cited was the #1 result. lol
@Nissemiss3 That's not a presupposition; that's the grounding philosophical principle of science - methodological naturalism. Look it up if you don't believe me. Including a "God" which is a supernatural entity is automatically appealing to religion, which is NOT science.
We don't just "throw in a big bang", we look at the evidence: Hubble's Law; cosmic microwave background radiation; general relativity; ratio of the lighter elements present in the universe, etc. ALL support the Big Bang.
@Nissemiss3 No, other verses and the one in question uses the word "yom" which has more than one meaning: a 24-hour day, or an indefinitely long period of time. See Gleason Archer's work on this issue. Remember, the bible wasn't originally written in english. lol
@Nissemiss3 "i don't think" I don't care about your opinion. I need facts.
"Origin is ... not testable" The models for the origin of the universe are certainly testable; it's why the Steady-State model has been discredited. As to if anything happened "prior" to the big bang expansion, that of course is currently unknown. With that being said, you don't throw "God did it" into the gaps of our knowledge.
And by your own reasoning, how do you know if the 'evening and morning' mean 24 hours?
@Nissemiss3 No it presupposes that we can explain natural phenomena in a natural way. In science we don't have "Step 2. A miracle occurs." Again, science rests on methodological naturalism, without commenting at all on the supernatural.
"no light wasn't present" But it is specifically the sun (and moon and stars) which are created FOR THE PURPOSE of determining the lengths of seasons, years and regular days. And "evening and morning" at face value would only be a 12 hour span. lol
@Nissemiss3 Hugh Ross is a creationist. He just doesn't believe the universe is only 6,000 years old. And I'm willing to bet money that you didn't even read the article. *smh*
And "7 years old"? Okay, cite an updated article that verifies that neanderthals interbred with humans. I'm waiting...
@Nissemiss3 How is that changing the theory? Trying to follow your line of reasoning brings about laughter and confusion lol. The theory didn't demand that specificially oceans were the initial environment; it was on a 'body of water' (which a lake still is).
"afterall, secular scientists have previously" Source required. You are good at making claims, and rather poor at supporting them.
@Nissemiss3 The main reason that they do not get published in reputable science journals is that they do not try to publish there. In a survey of editors of 68 journals, only 18 out of an estimated 135,000 submissions were found that could be described as advocating creationism. McLean v. Arkansas Board of Ed. trial, creationists complained to the judge that the scientific journals refused to consider their articles, but they were unable to produce any articles that had been refused publication.
@Nissemiss3 Either you don't know the difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism, or you're just playing dumb.
"The bible does not stay in any way" What?! On "day" 4: "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." (Genesis 1:14)
How do we know how long a day (24 hours) is? We refer to the sun, which was made on "day" 4. Without a sun, how long are days 1-3?
@Nissemiss3 No that wasn't the point. The article was addressing the location of the first environment for life, lakes or oceans? The new find suggests lakes; no big deal, considering all models for abiogenesis include 'a body of water.' It doesn't present a static fossil record in any way. You want to disprove evolution? Go find me rabbit bones in the cambrian layer.
@Nissemiss3 "have been dealt with" You make claim after claim with nothing to support it. "at the major creationist sites" Do any of those cites reference any scientific, peer-reviewed journals? Creationists sites are filled with nonsense that's been long-debunked, like the Paluxy footprints, the Calaveras skull, Moab and Malachite Man, and others.
@Nissemiss3 Do me and yourself a favor. Instead of continuing to ramble on with such staggering ignorance, WATCH THE VIDEO I CITED on ERVs.
"You are right. God can make things however He wants" Thank you for admitting that creationism cannot be falsified. Nothing I bring you can demonstrate that "God did it" is wrong, because God has the power to make things however he wants. Unfalsifiable = unscientific. :-)
@Nissemiss3 "naturalistic causes before even looking at the evidence" ALL OF SCIENCE rests on methodological naturalism, smart guy.
"erosion of them should have flattne them all if billions of years were true" LOL! Where do you come up with this stuff?
"God stopped creating on day 6" So you believe the entire universe was made in 6 days, as Genesis depicts. So you believe that plants came before the sun, and that each day was 24 hours eventhough "day 4" says that's when regular days were made?
@Nissemiss3 The more you post, the more you reveal you have no idea what you're talking about. Here's why ERV's confirm evolution:
youtube. com / watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
(remove spaces)
The sequencing of mtDNA in neanderthals showed such great genetic divergence from humans that it's concluded that they were NOT human. "I'd say" Yeah except your opinion doesn't come with any scientific facts to back it up. "created kind"? Define "kind", because it's not a scientific term.
@Nissemiss3 "Yes, that has happened a lot, and they don't throw away the theory because of it.
They just make minor adjustment to the theory."
This is mere assertion. Either cite your source within scientific journals that states that a fossil was found out of place, or shut up about the issue.
@Nissemiss3 "there are similarities but not common ancestry" LOL! Your entire argument against what was discovered by the HGP is "nuh uh!" Creationists like Kent Hovind et al will say "horses and zebras are the same kind", yet it seems you all have a problem because humans and chimps have LESS genetic divergence between them than horses and zebras do. Wanna know why? ... Common ancestry.
Differences or similarities wouldn't matter to a creationists, right? God can make things however he wants.
@Nissemiss3 "if there's design, of course the most likely conclusion is designer" Creationists all believe in a Creator PRIOR TO looking at any evidence. Also, you rely on (unreliable) inductive reasoning to arrive at that conclusion. Sorry but we know how mountains, snowflakes, etc. are made and no designer is required to explain any of them.
Looking at evidence is meaningless for your stance, because "God can do anything!", right? You cannot falsify creationism, ergo it's not science. Period.
@Nissemiss3 I know what evidence is, and don't think your continued dodging of it is going unnoticed lol. How do you explain endogenous retroviruses, mtDNA of neanderthals, atavistic traits, etc. without evolution?
"Species don't change outside their own specie" This is hilarious. It's clear you don't have the slightest clue how speciation works. Changes not only within species occur but also AT the species level. Do you think evolution states that a whale gave birth to a hippo or something?
@Nissemiss3 Yeah, falsifiable. Please cite one example (backed by a legitimate scientific journal) of where a fossil was found out of place. Want to disprove evolution? Show me: (a) a static fossil record, (b) true chimeras - organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, or symbiosis; (c) a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating (d) observed creation ex nihilo.
@Nissemiss3 My claims are backed up all the way through. You simply can't address them because I can tell you don't know enough about them.
"what has been published"? Is that suppose to be a negative thing? Yes, we know what occurs because of what gets documented! lol From this, I know ID got its teeth kicked in. Behe was nearly laughed out of the courtroom when it was shown his use of the term 'theory' (in an attempt to call ID an alternative one) was so broad, it would apply to astrology too.
@Nissemiss3 "we don't see it" We do see it; again common ancestry is confirmed, thanks to the Human Genome Project. Even ID proponent Behe accepts common ancestry.
@Nissemiss3 "turning into better things by themself" Huh? No, because this isn't what evolution proposes. I think you really don't understand the theory. "specified complexity arise on its own" We see it arise from natural selection acting on mutation.
"embrace such an ideology"? One should accept evolution because the evidence for it is overwhelming. Again, endogenous retroviruses, mtDNA sequencing of neanderthals, chromosomal fusion, observed speciation, atavistic traits, and much more.
@Nissemiss3 "how do them change?" Aside from that nice grammar (lol) We see the change via differential success in reproduction (i.e. natural selection) acting on mutation. We see new species arise through geographic and reproductive isolation (i.e. speciation). And the DNA clearly supports common ancestry, as was demonstrated by the Human Genome Project - which was led by an evangelical protestant (Dr. Francis Collins), by the way.
"it was good" Define "good". "now falling appart" What is??
@Nissemiss3 You can "think" that all you wish but the facts say otherwise. Evolution by natural selection was arrived at following the scientific method; ID is a 180 from this method. Science gathers evidence and asks what conclusion(s) can be drawn from the evidence; ID/creationism STARTS with a conclusion (God did it) and then looks for "evidence" to support it. And as was pointed out earlier, a scientific theory must be falsifiable; creationism isn't.
@Nissemiss3 "You are dead wrong" Nice argument. Not even an attempt to address the evidence I laid out in support of evolution. Good job ...
"Like one turns to a better one?" Thank you for demonstrating that you don't understand evolution. Better?? It's only about being more suitable to survive in a *specific* environment. And in an evolutionary context, species are delimited through independent lineages (i.e. no gene flow), making speciation (observed!) a macroevolutionary process.
@Nissemiss3 "both are interpretations of observations" But only one is falsifiable, that being evolution. Creationism is not falsifiable (ergo, nonscientific) because "God can make things anyway he wants; he's all-powerful." I can tell you what you would have to show to disprove evolution; the same cannot be said with regard to "God did it".
@Nissemiss3 And how are those "assumptions" problematic? We observe changes in allelic frequencies within a population, as well as speciation. And there are a plethora of 'transitional forms'; every thing that ever lived is a transition between what came before it and it's offspring.
"court systems or science" A judge who listened to both sides (including ID) fairly, and in his conclusion was that ID was not science. Note that if he was biased, being a Christian, he'd have voted in favor of ID.
@Nissemiss3 "They are all evolution" Somebody has been listening to Kent Hovind WAY too much. Watch this and then come back after you've been made aware:
youtube. com / watch?v=fCGz9dMd1Y8
(remove spaces)
**Note the references to scientific journals that backup every statement**
@Nissemiss3 What assumption(s) is evolution built on? "Only happened in the past and is no longer happening"? Is this what you think of evolution? *facepalm* Again speciation is observed even today. And the proponents of creationism are truly "slickery like snakes", with their "Wedge Strategy" and attempting to masquerade as science under the name "Intelligent Design", which (mind you) a Lutheran Judge (Jones III) spotted and rightly called "not science" at the Dover Trial of 2005.
@Nissemiss3 "while evolution does not" This is probably the most often repeated lie told by creationists. Evolution is change in allelic frequencies within a population. This is observed quite often. It has extreme backup in observed speciation, endogenous retroviruses, mtDNA sequencing of neanderthals, atavistic traits, chromosomal fusion, etc. Please educate yourself.
@Nissemiss3 Ah. Well it's not begging the question, because scientific theories deal with explaining particular set of emprical observations. It's foolish to condemn a theory because it doesn't explain everything. The theory of relativity isn't harmed just because it doesn't explain where gravity came from.
And no, it's not part of the theory of evolution; abiogenesis may be complimentary to evolution but they simply are not the same.
@Nissemiss3 Wrong. Darwin was inspired by Paley's natural theology and initially looked for "centres of creation" to explain distribution. He related the antlion found near kangaroos to distinct "periods of Creation." Heck, even on board the Beagle he would quote the Bible as an authority on moraltiy. It was in considering the 'problem of evil' in the natural world that he lost faith. Ichneumon wasps paralyzing caterpillars as live food for their eggs, for example.
@Lenni43ify "the term for origin of life is" Exploration into the origins of life is theory of abiogenesis, which is NOT evolution, "mr."
The theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin is SOLELY concerned with the diversification of life, NOT how it began. That's why Darwin himself said it's possible that life was "originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one" and evolution took place thereafter.
I KNOW computer programs are designed by humans because I've WATCHED it happen.
@Lenni43ify thanks for answering, as far as i understand though the big bang is the explanation of what we see now and from that we can see what happened in the past, a predition in reverse if you like, the expansion that we see now if followed back gives us the big bang and if taken to the future gives us the heat death, i admit not what i would like to believe but it is what the evidence we see shows, sorry about the last post you tube did not inform me about your posts
@Lenni43ify the big bang is what happened according to the evidence it does not need to predict any thing, and there is observations and evidence for it, all you have to do is look. saying there is not is just a lie, may be a lie becoures of your lack of education but a lie never the less, also you do not embrace science, science gives the facts to our best understanding, 'god did it' does not give us any explanation of how it happened.
and you have not answered any of my questions. can you ?
@jse8888 In fact, with the tools of modern science, Diamond can determine things that were not understood by past generations. Unlike a bronze age religion, science keeps advancing in its power to explain.
@jetti974 But God did order genocide. According to the Bible, he selected a people for rape, murder and slavery. How where those not people chosen by God? Do not predators choose their prey?
a few questions, why does the big bang need to predict anything ? why does it have to be simple, not every thing is?is it that the god concept is simple and that's why it feels safe? and also if you are using science to say that the big bang is wrong and say nothing is infinite as part of the proof, that leaves the infinite god left hanging and the 'who made god?' question back on the table
@jetti974 "Since you say, "no observation has been made regarding origin of universe" and life for that matter, how can you at the same time say evolution is based on science?"
Because evolution is NOT about how life began, only about how life diversifies, which we have observed. Change in allelic frequencies within a population via differential success in reproduction. Computer programs we KNOW to be designed by humans because we can WATCH them do it. Can you say that about the universe? NO.
@jetti974 "I don't care what Hitler nor Stalin said" The issue is what he believed (creationism, clearly) and what his justification for his actions were, in his mind. Hitler clearly appealed to his belief in Jesus & God to justify his actions; he said so explicitly. "what can permit a person to do what Hitler did" Simple. Believing God is on your side justifies EVERY action (in that persons mind), regardless of what it is (e.g. manifest destiny, genocide, slavery, etc.)
@Jonny34ogenhalv "though not fundamental laws" I suppose you believe that lying is a fundamental one. Tell me, was Rahab sinning or doing the right thing by LYING to the guards at her door about keeping Israelite spies in her house? Was Jacob wrong for deliberately deceiving his blind father Isaac, by putting animal hair on his arm (pretending to be his older brother Esau) and STEALING his brother's blessing?
@jetti974 The scientific background was in the sides presenting the cases, and one side (ID) clearly lost, as Jones explicitly declared that the evidence overwhelmingly favored the opposing side.
And the DI can cry all the want; it won't change the fact that Behe's IC claim has been thoroughly refuted by Dr. Kenneth Miller - who appeared at Dover Trial - and who is also a Christian :)
@Longyearathome I know exactly what happened at that trial, especially with regard to the outcome of ID being declared as "not science" by Judge Jones III. And Behe was practically laughed out of court for use of the term "theory" in such a broad sense that he *conceded* to the question of if 'astrology' would qualify as a theory in his view. LOL!
And mind telling me which scientific laws say "no" to evolution? This oughta be interesting.
@jetti974 "Saddam, Stalin, Hitler" 2/3 believed in God. "Thought they were doing good" Yes, but what gave them justification for doing so? Thinking that God was on their side (remember "Gott Mit Uns"?)
"he wanted a race gone, now the Bible does not teach such" Are you kidding? Tell me what Deuteronomy 20:17 says. LOL!
@Longyearathome "building a human from primates"? Humans ARE (bipedal) primates, as CREATIONIST Carl Linnaeus (the father of taxonomy) classified us homo sapiens as. What do you think evolution is, a monkey one day gave birth to a human being? ...If so, you haven't the slightest idea about what evolution is. It works by changes in allelic frequencies within a population, via differential success in reproduction which we DO observe regularly. As well as speciation.
@Jonny34ogenhalv I am not equating man with God. I am holding all men accountable for their actions. I do not accept that every person in a nation deserves death, rape or slavery. Do you want to defend that as moral? I want to condemn that action by David, just like I condemn Hitler's Holocaust. I think it is more likely that claims of Gods support for genocide are propaganda by tyrants than the word of a supernatural being.
@Longyearathome I'm not sure that I agree with an assertion that quality control is the same as natural selection. If quality control does nothing other than culling 'defective' parts, then I can see the analogy. But, good quality control goes beyond this and seeks to remove the root causes of the defects. Prevention is more cost effective than rework. I would also point out that natural selection is only part of the process that leads to evolution. So your analogy doesn't seem very useful.
@jetti974 Why do you insist, against direct quotes of Hitler himself, that Hitler was not a Creationist? He clearly was. If you look at his treatment of scientists, it seems pretty clear that his only concern was using them for advanced weapons. He had no concern for science as a human endeavor. To think that he cared about Darwin's theories is absurd. As to following the Bible, what did David do to the Amalekites?
@jetti974 A judge is not expected to be an expert in all subjects. That is why courts routinely use expert witnesses. If you have the opinion that if only the judge had been 'more scientific', he would have found Creationism compelling, I think that you are the one who needs more education in science. The DNA evidence that is forming in support of evolution is amazing in its specificity and detail. This evidence goes way beyond something you counter with opinion.
@jetti974 I am happy to concede that you can survive jumping off a cliff under certain conditions. In fact, I have done it before. Its called cliff diving. But I don't go jumping off cliffs or building under conditions where I think that the probability of death is greater than one in a hundred thousand. There is no certainty in most of science, only probabilities. As to the questions about Windows 95, is that really where you want to go to attack empiricism? Probably not.
@Jonny34ogenhalv But we are social animals. We depend upon all of the people in our community. Lying undermines the cohesion of that society. So we oppose lying, except under conditions where we understand that the lying is not an attempt to deceive. For example, nobody should get angry with an actor who pretends to be someone else for the duration of a play. Undermining group cohesion can be deadly, ask any soldier. So lying has a direct impact on survivability.
@Jonny34ogenhalv What evidence do you have that you can present to me that the voices in a Christian's head are God, while the voices in a Muslim's head are either imaginary of the words of a supernatural deceiver? The only evidence you can show is the fruits of their labor. But Protestant Christianity holds that you are saved by faith alone, not by acts, so that is very hard to demonstrate through the senses. So once again, what evidence can you present that your views are correct?
@jetti974 "Mein Kampf is certainly not one of them" Of course, because creationists want to associate evolution with Hitler, when the FACT remains that Hitler (in his own words!) was a creationist.
"The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator." - Adolf Hitler, Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier
@jetti974 "all you do is to make up assumptions to bypass it" No. This has been put into court documents. Seriously, look up the Kitzmiller vs. Dover (2005) trial. A christian judge looked at both sides objectively, and in his own words, "the overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view ... and not a scientific theory." Michael Behe was nearly laughed out of the courtroom, so yeah IC did get its teeth kicked in.
@jetti974 We know windows 95 was made by a human being, as all observation of the building of computer programs has been done by human beings. This is noncomparable to the universe, as no observation has been made regarding it's origin. Why are you struggling with this? Again, you cannot rely on inductive reasoning here.
@jetti974 He was one of you (a creationist) and how did he not follow the Bible? Genocide "in the name of God" (FYI, "Gott mit uns" was written on the belts of the Nazis) is a common theme in the OT.
He blended Social Darwinism with his own ideas, which in case you didn't know, was the creation of Herbert Spencer and NOT Charles Darwin. Spencer took a strawman of natural selection and blended it with sociology and Lamarkian evolution (a discredit theory)... not Darwin's theory. Again, nice try.
@jetti974 What are you talking about, "I don't find that Bible verse"? We're talking about what Hitler himself said, revealing his personal beliefs, which clearly are that of a creationist.
@jetti974 Yes I can, because evolution is testable and falsifiable. I can tell you what you'd have to show in order to falsify evolution. You cannot do the same thing with creationism, because "God can do anything!", right?
Irreducible complexity got its teeth kicked in during the Dover Trial. Judge Jones III - a devout Lutheran! - made his verdict: "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."
@jetti974 Your analogy does fail, as makes the problem of relying on inductive reasoning to establish that world has a creator, in the sense that windows was made by microsoft. The latter can be empirically established; the former cannot.
And regardless of the authenticity of who built windows, it was certainly a human. Again, this is noncomparable to the universe.
"we have Gods word"? Any way to establish that in a noncircular way?
@jetti974 "The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi
Hitler was clearly one of you. As to "why he was doing": "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Hilter, Mein Kampf
As for morality, evolution rests on methodological NOT metaphysical naturalism.
Where did he studied?
85Damix 2 weeks ago
ok there is so many flaws in this guys logic and reasoning. but I will just go with the first flaw he starts with. He states no one was there is ot see it, the same goes with his magic invisible geani god making a universe no one there to see,.and using the bible like it supose sort ext book is a joke. The bible is right because the bible says its right, no evidence no proof, epic fail lol
mandrillx 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Maffhunt,
Try Googling "Problems with the Big Bang" and see how great the later versions of the theory are. Still many major problems, still unviable. Creation theory only lacks an answer for light travel time, which is a problem to the philosophical naturalist, but not if God made the stars to be observed... seeing the Hubble deep field SHOULD help us prideful, brain dead humans understand that the term "God Almighty," an uber superlative (yes, just made that up), is no exaggeration.
357MagnumBob 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Maffhunt,
Try Googling "Problems with the Big Bang" and see how great the later versions of the theory are. Still many major problems, still unviable. Creation theory only lacks an answer for light travel time, which is a problem to the philosophical naturalist, but not if God made the stars to be observed... seeing the Hubble deep field SHOULD help us prideful, brain dead humans understand that the term "God Almighty," an uber superlative (yes, just made that up), is no exaggeration.
357MagnumBob 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Maffhunt,
Try Googling "Problems with the Big Bang" and see how great the later versions of the theory are. Still many major problems, still unviable. Creation theory only lacks an answer for light travel time, which is a problem to the philosophical naturalist, but not if God made the stars to be observed... seeing the Hubble deep field SHOULD help us prideful, brain dead humans understand that the term "God Almighty," an ubersuperlative (yes, just made that up), is no exaggeration.
357MagnumBob 3 weeks ago
From the very beginning he starts off with out of date science!! The notion that we expanded from a singularity went out in the 1980's, now we know that the sign of a singularity in our models is a sign that the model is incomplete. Now the idea is that the initial big bang is as transition point from one state to another which leads to the idea of something before the big bang, this idea has been around for a while but Lisle ignores that. Typical creationist dishonesty.
maffhunt 3 weeks ago
@maffhunt
Lisle did not claim these were the latest theories. He said these things are taught in most textbooks, which, of course, are typically way behind with this sort of thing.
And what else are you trying to imply? That all of these problems are solved? Are you saying the horizon and the flatness problems are solved? Does this "transition" theory make sweeping terrific predictions, or does it sound more like geocentric "epicycles" than sound theory?
357MagnumBob 3 weeks ago
@maffhunt
Try Googling "Problems with the Big Bang" and see how great the later versions of the theory are. Still many major problems, still unviable. Creation theory only lacks an answer for light travel time, which is a problem to the philosophical naturalist, but not if God made the stars to be observed... seeing the deep field SHOULD help us prideful, brain dead humans understand that the term "God Almighty," an ubersuperlative (yes I made that up), is no exaggeration.
357MagnumBob 3 weeks ago
Try Googling "Problems with the Big Bang" and see how great the later versions of the theory are. Still many major problems, still unviable. Creation theory only lacks an answer for light travel time, which is a problem to the philosophical naturalist, but not if God made the stars to be observed... seeing the deep field SHOULD help us prideful, brain dead humans understand that the term "God Almighty," an ubersuperlative (yes I made that up), is no exaggeration.
357MagnumBob 3 weeks ago
@357MagnumBob
Try Googling "Problems with the Big Bang" and see how great the later versions of the theory are. Still many major problems, still unviable. Creation theory only lacks an answer for light travel time, which is a problem to the philosophical naturalist, but not if God made the stars to be observed... seeing the deep field SHOULD help us prideful, brain dead humans understand that the term "God Almighty," an ubersuperlative (yes I made that up), is no exaggeration.
357MagnumBob 3 weeks ago
@357MagnumBob
Googling hasn't replaced understanding, has it bob?
Your religious opinions haven't replaced science, bob.
You have a political opinion, not a science education.
odinata 1 week ago
@357MagnumBob In saying that they are the usual theories, he was not referring to the textbooks but science as a whole. So he is attacking a strawman in effect, as for the horizon and flatness problems, I suggest you look at inflation to get the solutions to those problems.
I understand that you want you deity at the centre of everything but unfortunately that's just not the case. The transition idea has it's base in solid theoretical physics.
maffhunt 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@maffhunt
Try Googling "Problems with the Big Bang" and see how great later versions of the theory are. Still many major problems, still unviable. Creation theory only lacks an answer for light travel time, which is a problem to the philosophical naturalist, but not if God made the stars to be observed... seeing the Hubble deep field SHOULD help us prideful, brain dead humans understand that the term "God Almighty," an uber superlative (yes, just made that up), is no exaggeration.
357MagnumBob 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@maffhunt
Try Googling "Problems with the Big Bang" and see how great later versions of the theory are. Still many major problems, still unviable. Creation theory only lacks an answer for light travel time, which is a problem to the philosophical naturalist, but not if God made the stars to be observed... seeing the Hubble deep field SHOULD help us prideful, brain dead humans understand that the term "God Almighty," an uber superlative (yes, just made that up), is no exaggeration.
357MagnumBob 3 weeks ago
Stopped at 1:20 and refuse to listen to another word. "the big bang was made up by people who wern't there."
So what? You don't have to BE at an event to learn about it. No one was here when an asteroid killed the dinosaurs, however, that hasn't hindered us from LEARNING about the event. Ha ha ha CSI put people away DAILY, yet their not "there to witness the crime." I mean saying you have to witness something to learn about it is an UNscientific statement. And they wanna talk science? Ha ha ha
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
@TacoBurgher327 You stopped listening? meaning you never actually started. I listen to both view, evolution and creation, you have to test your beliefs from time to time. You fail.
MrWhadayaknow 1 month ago
@MrWhadayaknow "You stopped listening? meaning you never actually started."
Um, no... If someone starts a video game, then stops half way though, that doesn't mean they NEVER played the game in the first place. I stopped after the guy says "No one was there to see the big bang" then gave my REASON why I stopped. In case you missed it " You don't have to BE at an event to learn about it." The speaker i the video is distorting the truth.... Maybe you should take another look at my comment.....
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
@TacoBurgher327 Well Tacoburgher, that's fine for you, but I like to hear everything a person has to say on the topic, particularly if I made the effort to begin the investigation in the first place. But to each his own. Hopefully you found a passtime more suited to your intellectual curiosity, perhaps a video game? Nice analogy, not.
MrWhadayaknow 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrWhadayaknow " but I like to hear everything a person has to say on the topic, particularly if I made the effort to begin the investigation in the first place."
Sure, who doesn't? I'm not arguing this. I'm saying, if someone will blatantly lie and say you have to witness something to learn about it, which isn't true, then what else is he lying about? Why is he lying in the first place?
" Nice analogy, not."
Care to explain why it wasn't a good one?
TacoBurgher327 1 month ago
Doc Lies talking to a group of people at desks (taking notes no less). Could you get any more corn ball stage craft than that?
If Lisle had jack he'd have published a peer review paper already.... But, he hasn't.
Keep the conspiracy theories to yourself. Unless sounding like a jackass is something you strive for.
xdassinx 1 month ago
So basically, this guy lumps all kind of scientific fields together, even if they don't have anything to do with the Big Bang. Then he rejects them all, because the findings don't match his religious beliefs.
Wow. Just wow. The retardation is just awe-inspiring.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 month ago
Thank you for uploading
elkellenhabla 1 month ago
A lot of people don't know that the Big Bang model was not presented by atheists. Georges Lemaitre, a priest from Ukraine, actually presented it. Atheists didn't like it at first, but they eventually were forced to accept it due to overwhelming evidence for its existence.
angryspidertv 2 months ago
I am amazed that there are people like this out there. "Gods word." If only the science fiction writers of their day who wrote the bible could come back from the dead and smack this guy in the face and say "wake the fuck up. We were kidding."
aerosmithskoal 2 months ago
Gj Jason Lisle, now explain Noah,Dinosaurs, and how we can find human bones even europe going 40.000 year+ ...
quezcatol 2 months ago
jason, the person who discovered the big bang theory was an ordained catholic priest named george lemaitre........i dont think he was trying to attack the bible
jamaicanification 2 months ago
@jamaicanification he doesnt care, he is 100% sure the unvierse is 6000 years, anything that doesnt go along with that must be bs according to him.
quezcatol 2 months ago
@quezcatol yeah, thats really unfortunate.....
jamaicanification 2 months ago
so the evidence of life found in meteors is false. ?
SqueakerAlpha 2 months ago
story ? try scientific theory, well tested and with supportive evidence. As a PhD astrophysist Jason , you should know that.
SqueakerAlpha 2 months ago
snowflakes are created by Belinda , the snowflake fairy. If you doubt this look at mashed potato flakes and see the difference. Nothing in nature that appears designed occurs on its own, fairies do it all. ;-)
SqueakerAlpha 2 months ago
So every comment is a reply?
KeshnerfFilms 3 months ago
.......science is the result of a self driven forces. It is a denial of humanity. Science, in the modern sense, in itself is a man-made entity that claims to know all or promises to. Yet it simply denies anything that it does't understand and casts it aside. Men who follow this concept do exactly the same thing. They case anyone who doesnt follow their ideas aside. Religion and humanity both go hand in hand because all things are considered", unlike with science.
highnote606 3 months ago
@highnote606 You sir, are an idiot. Science is the result of rational thought and experimentation. We view the world, create a hypothesis, test this hypothesis over and over again. If it's wrong, it is altered. If it is correct, we test it again, and again, and slowly this hypothesis becomes something we know to be a theory. Evolution, a theory. Gravity, a theory. Theories are what we know, in so far, to be a fact. As we learn more, theories are edited with evidence.
j4k3me 3 months ago
@highnote606 Religion is the exact opposite of this, instead it is taking a conclusion, and trying to make it true by bastardizing evidence.
j4k3me 3 months ago
Religion replaces what science takes away. Science does create. It shifts things around. But it literally changes nothing. Nature cannot be changed. We are part of that nature. When we observe and interact, something grande happens. Our spiritual being is revealed. This is how we detect the unseen reality of existence. Science cannot detect this because of it lack of capacity and function. In other words, only humans can detect the spirit. This make science pointless in a big way.........
highnote606 3 months ago
@highnote606 ok, science is poitless, please throw away the computer that you used to view youtube. It is a creation of science and therefore pointless. ;-)
SqueakerAlpha 2 months ago
To brag about a personal experience of intelligence in nature is like altering it to suit an ego. It suddenly becomes something it's not. We are each responsible for observing and interacting, ultimately being our own "scientist" in life. To centralize knowledge for the sake of imposing a consolidated system upon the masses is the same as throwing away half a carton of eggs and keeping the other half because limited knowledge creates casualties in the world. Mere observation does not.
highnote606 3 months ago
The years prior to us have been full of people without science. But they all had soething in common. They were born with the ability to observe their environment. The same applies today. Science says we don't need God. Our observation without science says we don't need science. Nature emits a force of philosophy that enters us through mere observation and interaction. A documented analysis of it is not needed. Our brain takes care of it as we go. Bragging about the experience isn't needed either
highnote606 3 months ago
The whole farce of evolution and science is that we have at least thousands of years behind us, minus much of the knowledge we have today. The knowledge is said to come from "reality". And science has a biased perception of reality because its based solely upon its limited ability and knowledge. In other words, science doesn't have 20/20 vision. People do. We can see intelligent design all around us in nature. We can witness it, and in fact have. But proponents of evolution ignore this evidence.
highnote606 3 months ago
@Trine834 Oh I agree that the 'cause' is reasonable, but is it actual? For it to be so, you'd have to establish it with evidence. "Similarity"? Wrong. Unique character combinations in nested sets. Have you ever heard of endogenous retroviruses? If not, I invite you to watch a cool video that explains how they solidify common ancestry:
youtube. com / watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
Mac os, windows and linux don't reproduce, so it's a horrible analogy to living organisms. Reproduction is key to evolution.
gmn545 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trine834 "I did not say, that I did not believe. Learn to read or something, because you are stating the opposite of what I said"
What the hell are you talking about? I quoted you in your reply to me. How dumb are YOU really?
gmn545 3 months ago
@Trine834 "I don't see why God should make the organism from nothing again" Because that would confirm that it ever happened to begin with!
"Aha...You don't believe He could" No, I just don't see any evidence that a God ever did. All the evidence I've seen points toward evolution. And again, it's not random processes alone, but natural selection *acting on* the mutations. This isn't stupid, as it's been observed. Saying plants were made before the sun ...now THAT is stupid.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Trine834 If I hadn't seen it, I wouldn't infer any being created it, but a natural process. Just like I see snowflakes, which we know arises from purely natural processes. I don't think that a guy in the sky is making snowflakes, just because I have seen kids cut them from paper in art class. lol
gmn545 3 months ago
@Trine834 The word is 'deny'. And it's natural selection acting on mutation which does bring about new information. And natural selection isn't a mindful process; it's a filter. As for "is not the same as getthing the origins of the program", well evolution isn't about the origin of life, only how it diversifies. Or did you not know that?
gmn545 3 months ago
@Trine834 No it doesn't give any probability. You're just appealing to what's more convenient, not on anything which is testable. And "more likely that a developer made a program" is an argument from inductive reasoning. We know computers, paintings, and buildings have 'designers' because we have SEEN humans design them. This is NOT analogous to the universe, matter, or living organisms. If you want to prove Genesis is true, have God speak again and make an entire organism appear from nothing.
gmn545 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trine834 "I think the end product, makes it very true."
The end product? What are you talking about. And do you have any evidence to back up any of these "i think" opinions of yours??
gmn545 3 months ago
@Trine834 "We do not see something change into something else" You're still being vague. If I'm getting what you're trying to say though, that's what speciation is about, buddy. The parent population gets geographically isolated, and thanks to changes (which we do observe) in allelic frequencies within separate populations, reproductive isolation takes place, where the two populations cannot interbreed - giving rise to a different (genetically and ever-so-slightly morphologically) species.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Trine834 "We don't know that species changes into something else"
Elaborate on what you mean by "something else". That's vague.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Trine834 "A creator can do it more easy, than evolution" Sorry but that doesn't make it true. You need evidence to support how you think something occurs.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Trine834 "claiming a past upon it, is stupid" I can't tell if this is an argument from ignorance or just personal incredulity now. Science has precise methods of adjudicating how things *most likely* occured in the past, particularly with DNA and fossil remains. Regarding evolution, we know it occurs, in the same fashion that we know anything: observation and mutually supporting evidence. Evolution isn't just something that happened in the past; it continues to happen.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Trine834 No I don't think that, because unlike you, I actually know how evolution works. The phylogenetic tree is based on a strict model. If you violate the concept of nested sets, from whatever chimera you find, you disprove evolution. That's a perfect example of how to test it.
You don't "make up some transitional form" in science. If there is no find, and the genetic evidence doesn't link them, it won't work. This is all build on a strict model. There is NO strict model for creationism.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Trine834 Because the interpretations are based on TESTING the gathered evidence and drawing conclusions based on that. Creationism is a 180 from the scientific method; it STARTS with a conclusion (God did it) and then attempts to find "evidence" to support it. This is also known as confirmation bias. You cannot test creationism, because no evidence or discovery found can ever falsify it. You can just always say "well God just did it that way" because he doesn't function under a specific order.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Trine834 "Why would chimeras disprove evolution really? It couldn't"
*facepalm* Thank you for demonstrating that you haven't the slightest clue about how evolution works. Chimeras would destroy the phylogenetic tree and our concept of nested hierarchies, when it comes to evolution. If we found something like a mermaid or centaur, we'd have no way of explaining it because it can't occur via lateral gene transfer nor symbiosis. It would disprove our theory of evolution via natural selection.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Trine834 "this is an interpretation" Interpretations left alone are a dime a dozen. Our whole perception of reality is an interpretation that we can't "know" for sure, yet that's what the scientific method does - works with probability, based specifically on where the evidence overwhelmingly points towards. Your appeal to "that's just an interpretation" won't fly on this topic. Sorry.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Trine834 "You have already set the basis for what evolution can and cannot do, according to our observation" Yes, and you can NOT do the same thing with creation, because there isn't a "cannot do" for a supernatural, all-powerful deity. You don't seem to be able to grasp the simple concept that, if it can't be falsfied nor tested, IT IS NOT SCIENCE.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Trine834 "What do I need to provide in order to disprove evolution" Based on what I said it function under, you have to show me:
1) true chimeras, e.g. organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together
2) a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating
gmn545 3 months ago
@Trine834 "how would you gather evidence for a past event" In biology, it's called DNA. Look up the Human Genome Project. In another branch of scientific study, called geology, we have corroborating evidence as well. AIG is an absolute joke.
gmn545 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Trine834 "I'll tell you what the better evidence for creation theory is. We have an adequate description for the events that happens"
That tells me all I need to know about what you believe. And I responded to it with what your book of Genesis describes about creation. It's not only unscientific, but against what we know from science. How the $^@#! can plants be older than the sun?? LOL!
gmn545 3 months ago
@Trine834 "Evolution can make the world, life and all there is, however it want" Wrong. Evolution operates under precise functions, e.g. differential success in reproduction (natural selection) acting on mutation, genetic drift, geographic & reproductive isolation (speciation). And I can tell you what you'd need to show me in order to disprove evolution. This isn't the same thing as "God can do whatever he wants; he's omnipotent." Don't even try to make them look the same.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Trine834 "circumstantial evidence, which we also know can be wrong" That's applicable to scientific theories. That's why science continues to gather evidence and theories get discarded or reformulated, based on the evidence. The scientific method is self-correcting; I can tell you what you'd have to show in order to disporve evolution. You can NOT do the same thing with creationism, because no amount of evidence can be brought to you without you saying "Well, God just did it that way."
gmn545 3 months ago
@Trine834 "You believe the same thing happen". When have I ever stated about how I believe the universe came about? Oh that's right... I didn't.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Trine834 "We have an adequate description for the events that happens." Adequate? An incomprehensible (and not testable), incorporeal being 'spoke' and *POOF*: living organisms pop into being ex nihilo. Plants are older than the sun (lol!) and after this being made man from dirt, he took out one of his ribs and somehow made it transfigure into a full-grown woman. And then a talking snake tempted them into eating forbidden fruit; God banished them and they died at over 900 years old.
Seriously?
gmn545 3 months ago
@Trine834 "The past is not testable" It's a matter of empirical evidence, when it comes to theories. Do you think criminal court cases can't have a valid verdict, because hey, 'It's the past! We weren't there, right?' lol You seem to be quite ignorant on how the scientific method works, in adjudicating what occured in the past. When it comes to evolution, the evidence is overwhelming, thanks in large part to the work of an evangelical christian - Dr. Francis Collins (Human Genome Project).
gmn545 3 months ago
@Trine834 "that Einstein came up with relativity" Which is falsifiable. Is creationism falsifiable? No, because "God can do anything! He can make the world however he wants!" If your "hypothesis" of 'God did it' cannot be tested or potentially falsified, it's not scientific. Period.
gmn545 3 months ago
Jason Lisle shows how the believers in the big bang theory don't have much evidence to back up their belief system, and that there is much more evidence for the creation theory.
earlysda 3 months ago
@earlysda "there is much more evidence for the creation theory"? Such as...? 'Creationism' is not falsifiable; no kind of evidence can falsify the "hypothesis" of 'God did it', given that 'God' can make the world ANY way he wants (God's omnipotent) right? Ergo, creationism is not scientific; it's religion. Lisle says the Bible teaches the world is 6,000 years old based on genealogies, as if genealogy is an accurate method of determining how old a *planet* is, or doesn't have gaps in the list.
gmn545 3 months ago
3:13 made me laugh hella hard!
fritos10 3 months ago
Too funny:)
mrjholland1 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 I on the other hand, have documented, peer-reviewed journals that confirm all of what I've said regarding evolution. Using the Bible as a science book was your biggest mistake. I mean it makes all sorts of ridiculous claims. Peter walking on water? Oh yeah, please demonstrate how that could occur, considering all observations show humans can't walk on water.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 No you cited an article that was addressing the location of the early environment for life, which was ALWAYS thought to be a 'body of water'. All that changed was what kind of body of water: not the oceans but in the lakes. Wow! lol This has NOTHING to do with the biodiversity of living systems AFTER life already got here (i.e. evolution). This isn't ignoring; I've addressed them and you continue to play dumb.
"The Bible provides evidence for it" A verse in a book is your evidence?
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 The big bang is not testable? How much crap can you type in one day?? lol All we'd have to see is the opposite of Hubble's Law, Einstein's theory of relativity being wrong (he originally espoused Steady-State before discovering the evidence pointed toward expansion), etc.
"there was light" Specifics, please. Light needs a source. Also, distance in relation to the earth. Degree of heat. Or did God just use a light for 3 days before saying "I have a better idea"? LOL!
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 If you understood bronze-age myth (particularly Sumerian), you'd get why "stretching out the heavens" is a description of the firmament being like a dome above the earth. It's not at all refering to the expansion of spacetime.
"Plants existed before the sun" Evidence, please! *note: plants can't exist for a nanosecond without the heat from the sun*
"merely a ignorance" No, you just can't address it logically or with anything valid... at all.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 "when an alternative is obvious" ...is obvious?? HAHAHAHA! Yes, it's blatantly obvious that a supernatural (not testable) deity "spoke" the entire natural world into existence and *poof* everything appeared, in a succession of 24-hour days (even when there was no sun to measure this). You get funnier by the minute! lol
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 "Buy we have a revelation for the origin" You have NO way to substantiate this claim. You're welcome to try though; it'll make for a good laugh.
I have listed ways to falsify evolution, so repeating that nonsense isn't going to help you.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 No it says you shouldn't pick when something is literal or figurative when it's convenient for you, like you did with "stretches out the heavens" lol. And how is the "revealed history" taken literal? Seriously? Plants existing before the sun? Plants are older than the stars? A talking snake who deceived a rib-woman into eating a fruit off a tree that gave knowledge? This is mythology at its finest.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 "reveal it's origin" If that's the case then only the development and processes of the universe can be apprehended by human beings. The "origin" of all things cannot be scientifically adjudicated. So the only honest position about "origins" is agnosticism :)
We can know steps 2 through n; we don't know step 1. Throwing "God did it" into a gap of our knowledge is a logical fallacy - argument from ignorance.
And again, you cannot falsify your position, so it's not science.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 No it's not ignoring, as bible verses are subject to self-interested interpretation. That was my point. "terms sunrise and sunset" And I'm sure you're probably familiar with the phrase "hurries back to where it rose". That implies that the sun is going around the earth. Oops. LOL!
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 Science is based on philosophy, but it's method (while logical) doesn't seek to answer philosophical questions like "what's the meaning of life?"
Yeah we presuppose some metaphysical truths, namely that 1) the universe exists and 2) we can learn something about it. Those are the bedrock assumptions for science. If you don't believe any of those, then there's no point in trying to discover anything, as our perception of the natural world would be unreliable.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 Your article is an epic fail. It starts off with Behe's Black Box, whose entire position on "irreducible complexity" has been debunked by Dr. Kenneth Miller (a christian, btw).
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 Wrong. Hubble's law is constant but he himself cautioned that his data points were 'noisy' and its been through our advanced forms of technology that more precise measurements on the observed expansion (and rate in which it occured) have been refined. A great example of how science only gets better, while religion can only reinterperate.
"but the Bible got it right" I think someone's reading too much into a verse. Did the bible get heliocentrism wrong in Eccl.1:5 then? LOL!
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 What is with all this attempt at regress? "it's just how it works not its origins" That's the whole point of science: how things work. As to "why" its that way, it'd be like asking "why is there anything instead of nothing", which is something philosophy gets into. Not science.
"arised from watching it first"? Not only watching, but via sensory input. And if you don't know that your senses are in response to the NATURAL environment, then I can't help you.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 "God streches out the heavens" ... Oh yes, a supernatural (not testable) deity, in some unexplainable way, stretches out the universe. That's a far better prediction than a model that gives precise measurements, rates, forces involved, etc.
*facepalm*
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 I don't have evidence that natural processes cause them?? HAHAHAHA! The entire NATURAL WORLD's processes like the water cycle, snowflakes, etc. all have NATURAL explanations for them.
"How do you know"? Name a way you apprehend information without appealing to any sensory source for input (e.g. eyes, ears etc). Because all of those are NATURAL sources. As for miracles, if you mean improbable events, those are a dime a dozen. If you mean suspension of natural law? Evidence, please.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 The newest article rests on the information of the previous article. The topic of the "newest articles" isn't on interbreeding but references what's been documented on that site previously about it. And even later than both articles, evidence shows they didn't:
independent. co . uk / news / science / the-neanderthal-murder-mystery-888276.html
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 No it's only one piece of evidence, which along with other evidence, was gathered to give us the conclusion that the Big Bang is the best explanation of the model. How else do you explain all of it? Lemme guess... "God just did it that way." How very testable/scientific. Pshh.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 Because we don't have evidence of "other possibilites" aside from natural explanations. Everything you experience is based on your sense which are confined to the NATURAL world.
"expansion was prior to the big bang" The expansion occured at Planck's epoch (10^-43 seconds), "prior" to which our physics breaks down. "based on observation then placed into the model" Since it actually fits the model, it clearly IS a prediction. lol
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 "Having trouble with linking" .... How convenient. I just looked up "neanderthals interbred" into the search engine at creation. com ... the article I previously cited was the #1 result. lol
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 Cite your newest article on neanderthals interbreeding with humans here then.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 That's not a presupposition; that's the grounding philosophical principle of science - methodological naturalism. Look it up if you don't believe me. Including a "God" which is a supernatural entity is automatically appealing to religion, which is NOT science.
We don't just "throw in a big bang", we look at the evidence: Hubble's Law; cosmic microwave background radiation; general relativity; ratio of the lighter elements present in the universe, etc. ALL support the Big Bang.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 "and got lots more" How many of those key word search results SPECIFICALLY address the interbreeding question? ...
That's what I thought. Looks like you fail.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 No, other verses and the one in question uses the word "yom" which has more than one meaning: a 24-hour day, or an indefinitely long period of time. See Gleason Archer's work on this issue. Remember, the bible wasn't originally written in english. lol
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 "i don't think" I don't care about your opinion. I need facts.
"Origin is ... not testable" The models for the origin of the universe are certainly testable; it's why the Steady-State model has been discredited. As to if anything happened "prior" to the big bang expansion, that of course is currently unknown. With that being said, you don't throw "God did it" into the gaps of our knowledge.
And by your own reasoning, how do you know if the 'evening and morning' mean 24 hours?
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 On that site, the only website that matched the specific topic of interbreeding was this one:
creation. com / do-genetic-differences-disprove-that-neandertals-and-modern-humans-interbred
Dated: 18 June 2003
My article I cited to you was April 4, 2004. Looks like I win on the "updated information" category. lol
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 "Several have tried" Yet they couldn't produce any at the trial, eh?
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 No it presupposes that we can explain natural phenomena in a natural way. In science we don't have "Step 2. A miracle occurs." Again, science rests on methodological naturalism, without commenting at all on the supernatural.
"no light wasn't present" But it is specifically the sun (and moon and stars) which are created FOR THE PURPOSE of determining the lengths of seasons, years and regular days. And "evening and morning" at face value would only be a 12 hour span. lol
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 Hugh Ross is a creationist. He just doesn't believe the universe is only 6,000 years old. And I'm willing to bet money that you didn't even read the article. *smh*
And "7 years old"? Okay, cite an updated article that verifies that neanderthals interbred with humans. I'm waiting...
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 How is that changing the theory? Trying to follow your line of reasoning brings about laughter and confusion lol. The theory didn't demand that specificially oceans were the initial environment; it was on a 'body of water' (which a lake still is).
"afterall, secular scientists have previously" Source required. You are good at making claims, and rather poor at supporting them.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 The main reason that they do not get published in reputable science journals is that they do not try to publish there. In a survey of editors of 68 journals, only 18 out of an estimated 135,000 submissions were found that could be described as advocating creationism. McLean v. Arkansas Board of Ed. trial, creationists complained to the judge that the scientific journals refused to consider their articles, but they were unable to produce any articles that had been refused publication.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 Either you don't know the difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism, or you're just playing dumb.
"The bible does not stay in any way" What?! On "day" 4: "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." (Genesis 1:14)
How do we know how long a day (24 hours) is? We refer to the sun, which was made on "day" 4. Without a sun, how long are days 1-3?
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 No that wasn't the point. The article was addressing the location of the first environment for life, lakes or oceans? The new find suggests lakes; no big deal, considering all models for abiogenesis include 'a body of water.' It doesn't present a static fossil record in any way. You want to disprove evolution? Go find me rabbit bones in the cambrian layer.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 "well, studies have shown" You didn't get the memo? Let a fellow creationist (Hugh Ross) school you on this one:
reasons. org / evolution / neanderthals / did-neanderthals-and-humans-interbreed
(remove spaces)
And notice he was able to source legitimate scientific journals for this. Nice try, but you still fail.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 "have been dealt with" You make claim after claim with nothing to support it. "at the major creationist sites" Do any of those cites reference any scientific, peer-reviewed journals? Creationists sites are filled with nonsense that's been long-debunked, like the Paluxy footprints, the Calaveras skull, Moab and Malachite Man, and others.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 Care to explain to me how this article, in any way, harms the theory of evolution? ... LOL!
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 Do me and yourself a favor. Instead of continuing to ramble on with such staggering ignorance, WATCH THE VIDEO I CITED on ERVs.
"You are right. God can make things however He wants" Thank you for admitting that creationism cannot be falsified. Nothing I bring you can demonstrate that "God did it" is wrong, because God has the power to make things however he wants. Unfalsifiable = unscientific. :-)
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 "naturalistic causes before even looking at the evidence" ALL OF SCIENCE rests on methodological naturalism, smart guy.
"erosion of them should have flattne them all if billions of years were true" LOL! Where do you come up with this stuff?
"God stopped creating on day 6" So you believe the entire universe was made in 6 days, as Genesis depicts. So you believe that plants came before the sun, and that each day was 24 hours eventhough "day 4" says that's when regular days were made?
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 The more you post, the more you reveal you have no idea what you're talking about. Here's why ERV's confirm evolution:
youtube. com / watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
(remove spaces)
The sequencing of mtDNA in neanderthals showed such great genetic divergence from humans that it's concluded that they were NOT human. "I'd say" Yeah except your opinion doesn't come with any scientific facts to back it up. "created kind"? Define "kind", because it's not a scientific term.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 "Yes, that has happened a lot, and they don't throw away the theory because of it.
They just make minor adjustment to the theory."
This is mere assertion. Either cite your source within scientific journals that states that a fossil was found out of place, or shut up about the issue.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 "there are similarities but not common ancestry" LOL! Your entire argument against what was discovered by the HGP is "nuh uh!" Creationists like Kent Hovind et al will say "horses and zebras are the same kind", yet it seems you all have a problem because humans and chimps have LESS genetic divergence between them than horses and zebras do. Wanna know why? ... Common ancestry.
Differences or similarities wouldn't matter to a creationists, right? God can make things however he wants.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 "if there's design, of course the most likely conclusion is designer" Creationists all believe in a Creator PRIOR TO looking at any evidence. Also, you rely on (unreliable) inductive reasoning to arrive at that conclusion. Sorry but we know how mountains, snowflakes, etc. are made and no designer is required to explain any of them.
Looking at evidence is meaningless for your stance, because "God can do anything!", right? You cannot falsify creationism, ergo it's not science. Period.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 I know what evidence is, and don't think your continued dodging of it is going unnoticed lol. How do you explain endogenous retroviruses, mtDNA of neanderthals, atavistic traits, etc. without evolution?
"Species don't change outside their own specie" This is hilarious. It's clear you don't have the slightest clue how speciation works. Changes not only within species occur but also AT the species level. Do you think evolution states that a whale gave birth to a hippo or something?
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 Yeah, falsifiable. Please cite one example (backed by a legitimate scientific journal) of where a fossil was found out of place. Want to disprove evolution? Show me: (a) a static fossil record, (b) true chimeras - organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, or symbiosis; (c) a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating (d) observed creation ex nihilo.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 My claims are backed up all the way through. You simply can't address them because I can tell you don't know enough about them.
"what has been published"? Is that suppose to be a negative thing? Yes, we know what occurs because of what gets documented! lol From this, I know ID got its teeth kicked in. Behe was nearly laughed out of the courtroom when it was shown his use of the term 'theory' (in an attempt to call ID an alternative one) was so broad, it would apply to astrology too.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 "we don't see it" We do see it; again common ancestry is confirmed, thanks to the Human Genome Project. Even ID proponent Behe accepts common ancestry.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 "turning into better things by themself" Huh? No, because this isn't what evolution proposes. I think you really don't understand the theory. "specified complexity arise on its own" We see it arise from natural selection acting on mutation.
"embrace such an ideology"? One should accept evolution because the evidence for it is overwhelming. Again, endogenous retroviruses, mtDNA sequencing of neanderthals, chromosomal fusion, observed speciation, atavistic traits, and much more.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 "how do them change?" Aside from that nice grammar (lol) We see the change via differential success in reproduction (i.e. natural selection) acting on mutation. We see new species arise through geographic and reproductive isolation (i.e. speciation). And the DNA clearly supports common ancestry, as was demonstrated by the Human Genome Project - which was led by an evangelical protestant (Dr. Francis Collins), by the way.
"it was good" Define "good". "now falling appart" What is??
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 You can "think" that all you wish but the facts say otherwise. Evolution by natural selection was arrived at following the scientific method; ID is a 180 from this method. Science gathers evidence and asks what conclusion(s) can be drawn from the evidence; ID/creationism STARTS with a conclusion (God did it) and then looks for "evidence" to support it. And as was pointed out earlier, a scientific theory must be falsifiable; creationism isn't.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 "You are dead wrong" Nice argument. Not even an attempt to address the evidence I laid out in support of evolution. Good job ...
"Like one turns to a better one?" Thank you for demonstrating that you don't understand evolution. Better?? It's only about being more suitable to survive in a *specific* environment. And in an evolutionary context, species are delimited through independent lineages (i.e. no gene flow), making speciation (observed!) a macroevolutionary process.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 "both are interpretations of observations" But only one is falsifiable, that being evolution. Creationism is not falsifiable (ergo, nonscientific) because "God can make things anyway he wants; he's all-powerful." I can tell you what you would have to show to disprove evolution; the same cannot be said with regard to "God did it".
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 And how are those "assumptions" problematic? We observe changes in allelic frequencies within a population, as well as speciation. And there are a plethora of 'transitional forms'; every thing that ever lived is a transition between what came before it and it's offspring.
"court systems or science" A judge who listened to both sides (including ID) fairly, and in his conclusion was that ID was not science. Note that if he was biased, being a Christian, he'd have voted in favor of ID.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 What book did darwin write? It was called "Origin of Species", not "Origin of Life".
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 "They are all evolution" Somebody has been listening to Kent Hovind WAY too much. Watch this and then come back after you've been made aware:
youtube. com / watch?v=fCGz9dMd1Y8
(remove spaces)
**Note the references to scientific journals that backup every statement**
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 What assumption(s) is evolution built on? "Only happened in the past and is no longer happening"? Is this what you think of evolution? *facepalm* Again speciation is observed even today. And the proponents of creationism are truly "slickery like snakes", with their "Wedge Strategy" and attempting to masquerade as science under the name "Intelligent Design", which (mind you) a Lutheran Judge (Jones III) spotted and rightly called "not science" at the Dover Trial of 2005.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 "while evolution does not" This is probably the most often repeated lie told by creationists. Evolution is change in allelic frequencies within a population. This is observed quite often. It has extreme backup in observed speciation, endogenous retroviruses, mtDNA sequencing of neanderthals, atavistic traits, chromosomal fusion, etc. Please educate yourself.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 Ah. Well it's not begging the question, because scientific theories deal with explaining particular set of emprical observations. It's foolish to condemn a theory because it doesn't explain everything. The theory of relativity isn't harmed just because it doesn't explain where gravity came from.
And no, it's not part of the theory of evolution; abiogenesis may be complimentary to evolution but they simply are not the same.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 "But then your begging the question really. You push everything back." What statement of mine are you referring to?
gmn545 3 months ago
@Nissemiss3 Wrong. Darwin was inspired by Paley's natural theology and initially looked for "centres of creation" to explain distribution. He related the antlion found near kangaroos to distinct "periods of Creation." Heck, even on board the Beagle he would quote the Bible as an authority on moraltiy. It was in considering the 'problem of evil' in the natural world that he lost faith. Ichneumon wasps paralyzing caterpillars as live food for their eggs, for example.
gmn545 3 months ago
@Lenni43ify "the term for origin of life is" Exploration into the origins of life is theory of abiogenesis, which is NOT evolution, "mr."
The theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin is SOLELY concerned with the diversification of life, NOT how it began. That's why Darwin himself said it's possible that life was "originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one" and evolution took place thereafter.
I KNOW computer programs are designed by humans because I've WATCHED it happen.
gmn545 4 months ago
@Lenni43ify thanks for answering, as far as i understand though the big bang is the explanation of what we see now and from that we can see what happened in the past, a predition in reverse if you like, the expansion that we see now if followed back gives us the big bang and if taken to the future gives us the heat death, i admit not what i would like to believe but it is what the evidence we see shows, sorry about the last post you tube did not inform me about your posts
333derick333 4 months ago
@Lenni43ify sorry about the last part of my post about the teen thing i was getting your post and the vids description muddled
333derick333 4 months ago
Comment removed
333derick333 4 months ago
@Lenni43ify the big bang is what happened according to the evidence it does not need to predict any thing, and there is observations and evidence for it, all you have to do is look. saying there is not is just a lie, may be a lie becoures of your lack of education but a lie never the less, also you do not embrace science, science gives the facts to our best understanding, 'god did it' does not give us any explanation of how it happened.
and you have not answered any of my questions. can you ?
333derick333 4 months ago
@jse8888 In fact, with the tools of modern science, Diamond can determine things that were not understood by past generations. Unlike a bronze age religion, science keeps advancing in its power to explain.
shishkabobby 4 months ago
@jetti974 But God did order genocide. According to the Bible, he selected a people for rape, murder and slavery. How where those not people chosen by God? Do not predators choose their prey?
shishkabobby 4 months ago
a few questions, why does the big bang need to predict anything ? why does it have to be simple, not every thing is?is it that the god concept is simple and that's why it feels safe? and also if you are using science to say that the big bang is wrong and say nothing is infinite as part of the proof, that leaves the infinite god left hanging and the 'who made god?' question back on the table
333derick333 4 months ago
@jetti974 "Since you say, "no observation has been made regarding origin of universe" and life for that matter, how can you at the same time say evolution is based on science?"
Because evolution is NOT about how life began, only about how life diversifies, which we have observed. Change in allelic frequencies within a population via differential success in reproduction. Computer programs we KNOW to be designed by humans because we can WATCH them do it. Can you say that about the universe? NO.
gmn545 4 months ago
@jetti974 "I don't care what Hitler nor Stalin said" The issue is what he believed (creationism, clearly) and what his justification for his actions were, in his mind. Hitler clearly appealed to his belief in Jesus & God to justify his actions; he said so explicitly. "what can permit a person to do what Hitler did" Simple. Believing God is on your side justifies EVERY action (in that persons mind), regardless of what it is (e.g. manifest destiny, genocide, slavery, etc.)
gmn545 4 months ago
@Jonny34ogenhalv "though not fundamental laws" I suppose you believe that lying is a fundamental one. Tell me, was Rahab sinning or doing the right thing by LYING to the guards at her door about keeping Israelite spies in her house? Was Jacob wrong for deliberately deceiving his blind father Isaac, by putting animal hair on his arm (pretending to be his older brother Esau) and STEALING his brother's blessing?
gmn545 4 months ago
@jetti974 The scientific background was in the sides presenting the cases, and one side (ID) clearly lost, as Jones explicitly declared that the evidence overwhelmingly favored the opposing side.
And the DI can cry all the want; it won't change the fact that Behe's IC claim has been thoroughly refuted by Dr. Kenneth Miller - who appeared at Dover Trial - and who is also a Christian :)
gmn545 4 months ago
@Longyearathome I know exactly what happened at that trial, especially with regard to the outcome of ID being declared as "not science" by Judge Jones III. And Behe was practically laughed out of court for use of the term "theory" in such a broad sense that he *conceded* to the question of if 'astrology' would qualify as a theory in his view. LOL!
And mind telling me which scientific laws say "no" to evolution? This oughta be interesting.
gmn545 4 months ago
@jetti974 "Saddam, Stalin, Hitler" 2/3 believed in God. "Thought they were doing good" Yes, but what gave them justification for doing so? Thinking that God was on their side (remember "Gott Mit Uns"?)
"he wanted a race gone, now the Bible does not teach such" Are you kidding? Tell me what Deuteronomy 20:17 says. LOL!
gmn545 4 months ago
@Longyearathome "building a human from primates"? Humans ARE (bipedal) primates, as CREATIONIST Carl Linnaeus (the father of taxonomy) classified us homo sapiens as. What do you think evolution is, a monkey one day gave birth to a human being? ...If so, you haven't the slightest idea about what evolution is. It works by changes in allelic frequencies within a population, via differential success in reproduction which we DO observe regularly. As well as speciation.
gmn545 4 months ago
@Jonny34ogenhalv I am not equating man with God. I am holding all men accountable for their actions. I do not accept that every person in a nation deserves death, rape or slavery. Do you want to defend that as moral? I want to condemn that action by David, just like I condemn Hitler's Holocaust. I think it is more likely that claims of Gods support for genocide are propaganda by tyrants than the word of a supernatural being.
shishkabobby 4 months ago
@Longyearathome I'm not sure that I agree with an assertion that quality control is the same as natural selection. If quality control does nothing other than culling 'defective' parts, then I can see the analogy. But, good quality control goes beyond this and seeks to remove the root causes of the defects. Prevention is more cost effective than rework. I would also point out that natural selection is only part of the process that leads to evolution. So your analogy doesn't seem very useful.
shishkabobby 4 months ago
@jetti974 Why do you insist, against direct quotes of Hitler himself, that Hitler was not a Creationist? He clearly was. If you look at his treatment of scientists, it seems pretty clear that his only concern was using them for advanced weapons. He had no concern for science as a human endeavor. To think that he cared about Darwin's theories is absurd. As to following the Bible, what did David do to the Amalekites?
shishkabobby 4 months ago
@jetti974 A judge is not expected to be an expert in all subjects. That is why courts routinely use expert witnesses. If you have the opinion that if only the judge had been 'more scientific', he would have found Creationism compelling, I think that you are the one who needs more education in science. The DNA evidence that is forming in support of evolution is amazing in its specificity and detail. This evidence goes way beyond something you counter with opinion.
shishkabobby 4 months ago
@jetti974 I am happy to concede that you can survive jumping off a cliff under certain conditions. In fact, I have done it before. Its called cliff diving. But I don't go jumping off cliffs or building under conditions where I think that the probability of death is greater than one in a hundred thousand. There is no certainty in most of science, only probabilities. As to the questions about Windows 95, is that really where you want to go to attack empiricism? Probably not.
shishkabobby 4 months ago
@Jonny34ogenhalv But we are social animals. We depend upon all of the people in our community. Lying undermines the cohesion of that society. So we oppose lying, except under conditions where we understand that the lying is not an attempt to deceive. For example, nobody should get angry with an actor who pretends to be someone else for the duration of a play. Undermining group cohesion can be deadly, ask any soldier. So lying has a direct impact on survivability.
shishkabobby 4 months ago
@Jonny34ogenhalv What evidence do you have that you can present to me that the voices in a Christian's head are God, while the voices in a Muslim's head are either imaginary of the words of a supernatural deceiver? The only evidence you can show is the fruits of their labor. But Protestant Christianity holds that you are saved by faith alone, not by acts, so that is very hard to demonstrate through the senses. So once again, what evidence can you present that your views are correct?
shishkabobby 4 months ago
@jetti974 "Mein Kampf is certainly not one of them" Of course, because creationists want to associate evolution with Hitler, when the FACT remains that Hitler (in his own words!) was a creationist.
"The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator." - Adolf Hitler, Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier
There's no use denying facts, jetti974.
gmn545 4 months ago
@jetti974 "all you do is to make up assumptions to bypass it" No. This has been put into court documents. Seriously, look up the Kitzmiller vs. Dover (2005) trial. A christian judge looked at both sides objectively, and in his own words, "the overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view ... and not a scientific theory." Michael Behe was nearly laughed out of the courtroom, so yeah IC did get its teeth kicked in.
gmn545 4 months ago
@jetti974 We know windows 95 was made by a human being, as all observation of the building of computer programs has been done by human beings. This is noncomparable to the universe, as no observation has been made regarding it's origin. Why are you struggling with this? Again, you cannot rely on inductive reasoning here.
gmn545 4 months ago
@jetti974 He was one of you (a creationist) and how did he not follow the Bible? Genocide "in the name of God" (FYI, "Gott mit uns" was written on the belts of the Nazis) is a common theme in the OT.
He blended Social Darwinism with his own ideas, which in case you didn't know, was the creation of Herbert Spencer and NOT Charles Darwin. Spencer took a strawman of natural selection and blended it with sociology and Lamarkian evolution (a discredit theory)... not Darwin's theory. Again, nice try.
gmn545 4 months ago
@jetti974 What are you talking about, "I don't find that Bible verse"? We're talking about what Hitler himself said, revealing his personal beliefs, which clearly are that of a creationist.
gmn545 4 months ago
@jetti974 Yes I can, because evolution is testable and falsifiable. I can tell you what you'd have to show in order to falsify evolution. You cannot do the same thing with creationism, because "God can do anything!", right?
Irreducible complexity got its teeth kicked in during the Dover Trial. Judge Jones III - a devout Lutheran! - made his verdict: "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."
gmn545 4 months ago
@jetti974 Your analogy does fail, as makes the problem of relying on inductive reasoning to establish that world has a creator, in the sense that windows was made by microsoft. The latter can be empirically established; the former cannot.
And regardless of the authenticity of who built windows, it was certainly a human. Again, this is noncomparable to the universe.
"we have Gods word"? Any way to establish that in a noncircular way?
gmn545 4 months ago
@jetti974 "The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi
Hitler was clearly one of you. As to "why he was doing": "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Hilter, Mein Kampf
As for morality, evolution rests on methodological NOT metaphysical naturalism.
gmn545 4 months ago