@gregrutz No one denies natural selection. It still has nothing to do with MACROevolution - only MICRO. You're committing the fallacy of equivocation on the word "evolution." It's a common mistake. Dawkins does it all the time.
@gregrutz The theory of evolution has been around since the ancient Greeks - over 3,000 years. Natural selection was merely Darwin's proposed mechanism. It's a fact and it drives MICROevolution - not MACRO.
@bestvalue Darwin was talking about SPECIES in his book. ''ORIGIN of SPECIES''
.
Variation in species, different dogs from a wolf, is not evolution. It proves the ''new information'' is already there for Natural Selection to act on.
What causes the increase in information (i.e. decrease in entropy) are the error-correcting mechanisms already present in the genome, *not* natural selection. You are giving credit to the wrong mechanism. If an organism is fit, and errors are introduced into it that do not decrease its fitness, and it reproduces, those errors will be weeded out over time due to the way transcription works. Darwinian evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the process.
@drshamast There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
I haven't watched the video yet so maybe you cover this but first, the argument is not merely the addition of information but of "NEW" information. Second, the presence of information at all demands an intelligent creator since information always comes from a MIND.
@bestvalue Why would you make that leap of faith that information comes from a mind? I am assuming you read it somewhere. On what logical argument do you sustain that belief?
Please define how addition of information and NEW information differ.
What would you need to see to show you that NEW information had been created?
@Huttate1 It is not a leap of faith. It is an inference to the best explanation based on what we know. As far as we know, information - especially a coded language like that in DNA - always comes from a mind.
If you had one phone book and I gave you another copy of the same phone book, you would have more information but not new information. If I ripped out some pages from my phone book and inserted it into yours, you still would not have new information. (cont.)
@Huttate1 If I tore out pages from your phone book, you would have lost information. I would expect to see information that was not already present in your existing phone book (i.e your genome).
The pepper moths for example never gained new information. Light- and dark-colored moths already existed and there was merely a shift in the population. Natural selection, yes, but evolution, no.
@Huttate1 That would be truly new information. Unfortunately for evolutionists, we never see anything like that happening through natural processes. The creation of a new "phone book" would requite a mind. Natural selection can only select from the information it is given and often causes a loss of information not a gain.
Your argument that information requires a mind is an empty statement based purely on your assumption that no evidence has been found for spontaneous creation of information.
That is like me arguing, for instance, there is no god because there is no evidence for any god.
@gregrutz They have the same information. It's not the size that matters. It's the code to create the organism. A more complex organism requires more information.
@gregrutz Yes, although technically I would argue that this is an incorrect usage of the words "evolve" and "species." They have not "evolved" anything and they are still the same species. Now, for a wolf to "evolve" into a modern domestic dog, it must LOSE genetic information - not gain it. That's why domestic dogs are less healthy (or fit) than wolves and would not survive in the wild if man were not keeping them alive.
@bestvalue But that is how new species are formed, by spliting a group into two. Dogs from wolf proves variation in species, a needed part of evolution. Dogs are weaker because they were breed by man so Natural Selection [evolution] had nothing to do with it. It does show the ''new information'' is already there for species to change, Darwin knew this even thought he did not know about DNA or mutations [new information]
@gregrutz I already know and agree with everything you said except that mutations do not generate NEW information but degrade existing information. That's the main reason why evolution is impossible.
My above statement should have read that wolves and domestic dogs should be considered the same species - not that they are - because they can interbreed.
@bestvalue And mutation or change in DNA IS ''new information''. Dogs breed from a wolf shows that the ''information'' is already there, a wolf can 'adapt' or evolve into anything the size of a Great Dane to a toy poodle. Dogs are man made and are not evolution, they just show 'variation in species''
Darwin proved this and did not need to know about mutation or how the variation got there, it is there.
Now tell me ''it is still a wolf'' showing you have no Idea what I just said.
@gregrutz No, mutations do not provide NEW information. As I said, they degrade and lose existing information. I agree, dogs are artificially made and are not evolution. I know Darwin didn't know about mutations. (I pointed that out in a book I wrote about evolution - page 101). I did not say "it is still a wolf." Technically, it is less than a wolf because it has lost information. But it is still the same species since they can interbreed. They have classified it incorrectly. I can prove that.
@gregrutz Suppose you have a copy of a book and I give you another copy. Now you have two but you have no NEW information. That's like a gene duplication. Now suppose I tear a page out of your book. That's like a gene deletion. It's a loss of information. Or suppose I tear a page out of my book and insert it into your book. That's like an insertion mutation. In no instances has there been an increase in NEW genetic information. Get it? Mutations cannot be the driving force behind evolution.
@bestvalue ''Mutations cannot be the driving force behind evolution.'' NO ONE SAYS IT IS ! Darwin didn't even know about mutations and he showed how Natural Selection is the driving force behind evolution.
@gregrutz Yes they do. That's a common misunderstanding of evolution. Of course Darwin didn't know about mutations - just some kind of variation. But now we do and natural selection requires mutations to have anything to act on. Without beneficial mutations, no natural selection. But mutations cannot produce the kind of change necessary for macroevolution. Natural selection is a fact. But evolution? Not so much. (cont.)
@gregrutz “The first major objection to genes being the sole and sufficient driving force for evolution is that practically every mutation is obviously harmful, and puts the organism at a disadvantage rather than an advantage.” - Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong," 1982. (cont.)
@bestvalue Where Darwin went wrong??? Darwin's Ideas are 150 years out of date. We know he was wrong about some things, like gradualism. Nice mine quote though.
@gregrutz “A majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations, produce deteriorations of viability, hereditary disease, and monstrosities. Such changes, it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks.” - Dr. Theodosius Dobzhansky, as quoted by Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong," 1982. (cont.)
@bestvalue ''In their desperation to find a mechanism, scientists have grasped at mutations, the one agency in nature that causes inheritable deterioration in living organisms.'' ''Mutation is a pathological process which has little or nothing to do with evolution''
@gregrutz “In their desperation to find a mechanism, scientists have grasped at mutations, the one agency in nature that causes inheritable deterioration in living organisms. This total inability of scientists to explain how evolution occurred constitutes a major crisis in the continued survival of the theory of evolution.”
- H. Heibert, "Evolution: It's Collapse in View?" 1979, pp. 35-36. (cont.)
@gregrutz “Mutation is a pathological process which has little or nothing to do with evolution.” - C.P. Martin, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," American Scientist, January 1953, p. 100.
“The greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful.” - Peo Koller, "Chromosomes and Genes," 1971, p. 127.
@gregrutz Because mutations are essential to MICROevolution - which no one in there right mind denies. But MACROevolution does not happen. The evidence is against it - in the field, in the fossil record and in the laboratory.
@gregrutz Got any evidence for that claim? That's one of the lies they teach us in school about evolution - that MACRO equals MICRO over a long period of time. It's just not true.
@gregrutz It wasn't. It isn't because it's wrong. Besides, even if every scientist in the world believed it, majority opinion does not determine truth.
@gregrutz I'm well aware of the evidence that supports evolution. The problem is that most of the evidence supports MICROevolution but not MACROevolution. Then dishonest people like Richard Dawkins lead unsuspecting people like you to believe they are the same thing. They ignore the information problem. Evolution is a theory without a mechanism.
@bestvalue Darwin is famous for discovering the mechanism, Natural Selection.
What is the difference between ''little'' evolution and ''big' evolution?
Remember, Evolution does not allow one KIND to change into a different KIND, Humans are still apes, still mammals, still tetrapods, still vertebrates.
@TheMrgoku1985 I know all about it. It's not proof for macroevolution although I'll admit it IS interesting. Too much other evidence against it to make a definitive call yet.
@TheMrgoku1985 You first. Peer review is largely a myth, by the way. But that's another issue entirely. You also cite junk DNA as evidence on your channel. Are they still teaching that? There's no such thing. It's been known to be wrong for nearly a decade. That evolutionary assumption held back science for 30 years.
- Scientific peer review is the most effective means in all of human history for identifying what is true, it isnt perfect but it's the best there is.
@types10000 I'm not denying that it's a good system when it works. My point is that peer review does not work the way you think it does (or the way it is commonly claimed) most of the time.
"I'm not denying that it's a good system when it works. My point is that peer review does not work the way you think it does (or the way it is commonly claimed) most of the time."
- what evidence do you base this claim on?
if it's the whining of people who's papers were rejected then that doesnt quite cut it.
There are that many peer reviewed magazines the level of bias and suppression you purpose would require an international conspiracy
@types10000 I'm not referring to whining by anybody or anybody's papers being rejected. I'm saying that many papers gets published where the experiments are never repeated by anyone due to lack of funding or other reasons. The unverified findings are then taken as gospel because they went through the peer-review system.
"I'm saying that many papers gets published where the experiments are never repeated by anyone due to lack of funding or other reasons"
- Peer review panels are organized for the purpose of identifying illogical/inconsistent and erroneous data
- Once a paper is published it is subjected to the scrutiny of the entire scientific community FOREVER, any of whom can debunk it with their own paper.
How is what you've just suggested a problem in such a system?.
"I'm saying that many papers gets published where the experiments are never repeated by anyone due to lack of funding or other reasons"
- Peer review panels are organized for the purpose of identifying illogical/inconsistent and erroneous data
- Once a paper is published it is subjected to the scrutiny of the entire scientific community FOREVER, any of whom can debunk it with their own paper.
How is what you've just suggested a problem in such a system?.
"You also cite junk DNA as evidence on your channel. Are they still teaching that? There's no such thing"
- we know random mutation and recombination occur and observe large segments of genome that have no discernible function whatsoever and even if you dont consider them to be junk, there are still endogenus retrovirus' (inert viral DNA that embeds itself in genome when a virus fails to replicate inside a sex cell) the distribution of which IS EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION.
@types10000 "no discernible function" is the key phrase. We should learn a lesson from the history of human vestigial structures like the appendix. 100 years ago there was a list compiled of 180 parts in the human body that were thought to be vestigial. Now we know nearly every one serves a purpose. And it's being discovered that DNA which is thought to serve no purpose actually has important functions. That's evidence of design.
"no discernible function" is the key phrase" - again we know how genes mutate, we know random mutations can be deleterious and we have examples of virus inserting inert (nonfunctional) copies of themselves.
Assuming everything in there has a function (unless proven otherwise) when we have both causal links explaining and examples of, things in there that dont, is just plain stupid.
"We should learn a lesson from the history of human vestigial structures like the appendix"
The appendix is directly analogous to a broken car being used as a home for bums.
- The fact we observe so many in the animal kingdom means we know what it is and know what is missing inorder to make it function as it's supposed to.
- the fact it has been co-opted as a store for bacteria; whose uselessness is demonstrated in the populations born without an appendix, does not change this.
"You have no idea that this is true. This is an ad hoc explanation just like many others that are employed to rescue evolution's failed predictions."
incorrect, as i already point-out we know the appendix isnt meant to function as a storehouse for bacteria in the exact same way we know a car isnt meant to function as a house for hobos
ie.
- We observe working variants of it.
- We know what parts are missing from it inorder to make it function as they do.
"And it's being discovered that DNA which is thought to serve no purpose actually has important functions. That's evidence of design."
...what?
How exactly do you get from:
'This segment of DNA was re-examined and found to do something'
To:
'This is evidence of intelligent design'
The fact DNA CAN do things was never in question nor does it indicate intelligent design, the fact an instance that was thought to do nothing was later found to do something does not change this.
@types10000 OMG! Has the theory of evolution become so unfalsifiable now that when it makes a prediction that is wrong (parts of DNA will be found to serve no function), excuses are made to salvage the theory? Further, when a prediction by I.D. is made that is right (all DNA will be found to serve a function), it still doesn't get any credit? Shameful! That's when you realize that evolution is based on little more than BLIND FAITH. You just proved that to me.
"OMG! Has the theory of evolution become so unfalsifiable..."
- evolution is very falsifiable, i can give you several ways off the top of my head
"it makes a prediction that is wrong (parts of DNA will be found to serve no function"
- incorrect, we know for a fact parts of the genome are non-functional. i already provided an example of an observable process that causes this ie. Endogenus retrovirus' = inert viral fragments inserted as resulted of failed replication in sex cells
"Further, when a prediction by I.D. is made that is right (all DNA will be found to serve a function)"
a). this is incorrect (as i just demonstrated using ERV's)
b). it commits the argument from ignorance logical fallacy ie. it assumes there is function even where none is evident (which is utterly stupid when we know for a fact parts of the genome arnt eg. ERV's)
@toobsucker naturalistic explanations are supported by lots of evidence, and god is supported by none. just because god is a possibility doesn't mean its the strongest. natural explanations (abiogenesis, nebular hypothesis) are the best explanations and supernatural ones are pretty much ridiculous.
@toobsucker you say god could exist and therefore we shouldn't reject the idea of him? well, there is no evidence for god, but because there is no evidence against him your argument is partly correct. however, you also can't disprove a flying teapot in the middle of the sun who has a dwarf inside it that made everything. don't think that the argument "you can't disprove god" is good when you can't disprove the gods you reject; thor, zeus, allah, or even a flying spaghetti monster.
Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
@toobsucker "Facepalm"....Sigh... You have no idea what i just tried telling you... Not a clue.. One more time.. Homologous structures ARE STILL recognizable and are differentiable between anologous ones. the underlying synapomorphies both in Phenotype and genotype will always be visable and inescapable, it does not matter how radicaly the Gene that codes for a particular structure mutates over time. HGT is not used as an excuss for anything, It too is directly observable.
@AcanLord "Homologous structures ARE STILL recognizable..."
It does not appear you even know what im taking about , or you just will not accept the evidence. Evolution predicts the genotypes (DNA sequences) of "closely related species" will be more similar to each other than distantly related ones
AND the genotypes of distantly related species will show more differences than closely related ones
This is evolutions ORIGINAL PREDICTION and has been falsified over and over again
@toobsucker -- ORIGINAL PREDICTION and has been falsified over and over again ---
No Toobsucker it hasent. using genotype is a major component of constructing phylogenetic trees in modern molecular biology. These trees have not been "falsified" infact its an entire field of research on its own.
@AcanLord "No Toobsucker it hasent. using genotype is a major component of constructing phylogenetic trees in modern molecular biology"
LOL... I gave you the DATA and you still will not accept it. You give me NO DATA other than your emotional opinion.
Ill send it to your inbox next week and you can read it in detail. But you still will not accept it because of your emotional attachment to your presupposition of atheism. FEELINGS DECEIVE
I have to take off now, wont be online till next Monday
@toobsucker --But you still will not accept it because of your emotional attachment to your presupposition of atheism. FEELINGS DECEIVE -- Atheism is not a presuppostion. Its a lack of a position. I lack a belief in all of the worlds deities, This includes yahweh. i do not herald from a culture or background where this particular mesopotamian deity was ever even talked about or even matters. Is their any particular reason why this particular mythology and its deity is more valid then any other?
@AcanLord "so Atheists do not believe in god because they feel he doesnt exist rather then they havent seen this creature or any sort of evidence it exists?"
You have not seen ANY life other than what is on planet earth. So if you were logically consistent you would reject ALL other life from existing on the same grounds. But you do not.
You HAVE FAITH other life could exist based on logical inferences (we exist therefore other life can exist) but you reject these inference when it suits you
@toobsucker i do not "have faith" life could exist on other planets. i am merely open to the possibility, this is not synomomous with faith in the slightest. in the same respect i am open to the possibility higher powers could exist. however i am left based on the lack of evidence to decare it to be highly unlikely. Sorry but life simply existing in the first place does not consitute evidence of yahweh or any other similar mythological creature.
@AcanLord "Does this at all contrast to how Theists "feel" the holy spirit ?"
Also.. By god i am to assume you mean Yahweh as aposed to the thousands of other gods right"
Assuming the Holy spirit exists (I know he does) that is a force outside yourself thus would be objective and not subjective. But that said many people think they get a FEELING from God but do not. So this can not be considered "evidence"
Evidence must be testable and repeatable. DNA code writing VIA an intellect is testable
@AcanLord It is meant to describe people who think an emotion or feeling is DATA. --
This is not definition of liberal.
--- 100% of these people (ill call them FEELERS) vote liberal.--- CITATION NEEDED"
I said everyone that votes liberal are NOT "feelers". Many that vote liberal are "one issue voters". They know the liberal mind has very little sense but vote liberal for other reasons, such as abortion.
My theory makes predictions. The ARTS (acting singing etc..) are mostly "feelers"
@AcanLord "Protein folding is still dictated by specific set of phenomina and you wontever see One protein suddenly "try" folding into different configurations,"
Wrong again AcanLord. you hit the trifecta.
"Becoming apparent are the stringent quality-control systems that come into play if the folding process fails, ensuring that the misfolded products are targeted for degradation before they cause harm"
They DO misfold. Its the error correction mechanism that eliminates them.
@toobsucker And third. Its a fucking joke that you use "liberal" in the perjorative sense. Are you a Faux new employee or a conservapedian or something to that effect? You don`t know what my political affiliations are so its quite frankly backwards and socialy awkward to try and use that as an insult. Attempting to use this wording makes you apear to resemble a giant talking vagina....or some sort of relation to alex jones.. or some type of backwards spin doctor.
@toobsucker --- It is meant to describe people who think an emotion or feeling is DATA. -- This is not definition of liberal. --- 100% of these people (ill call them FEELERS) vote liberal.--- CITATION NEEDED.
@toobsucker ----- And well over 90% of atheists are liberals. there IS a clear connection. Atheists FEEL God does not exist, this is DATA to them ------
Oh really? so Atheists do not believe in god because they feel he doesnt exist rather then they havent seen this creature or any sort of evidence it exists? Does this at all contrast to how Theists "feel" the holy spirit ?" Also.. By god i am to assume you mean Yahweh as aposed to the thousands of other gods right?
@AcanLord "Atheism is not a presuppostion. Its an imposition. I lack a belief in all of the worlds deities,"
Right you self impose your presupposition God does not exist.
I can show you how easy it is to dismantle the atheists logic. Any atheist that says God can not or does not exist, but other life in the universe can or does exist is a FEELER and void of critical thinking
Once you open the door of possibility for life to exist, you now need a LOGICAL reason to limit it.
@toobsucker You fail to understand what i`m trying to tell you. Atheism is the lack of theism. It is not a positive affirmation of the nonexistence of yahweh. In this respect anyone who hasent heard of religion or gods is also an Atheist. This includes Infants and cultures such as the Pirahã. I do not deny the possibility of something like a god existing. But i also freely admit their is no evidence anywhere in the observable universe for one. Esspecialy Yahweh.
@AcanLord "Atheism is the lack of theism. It is not a positive affirmation of the nonexistence of yahweh" Atheism makes two claims Theism makes two claims Agnosticism makes two claims Atheists BELIEVE God does not exist Atheists DO NOT BELIEVE God exists Theists BELIEVE God exists Theists DO NOT BELIEVE God does not exist Agnostics BELIEVE its not possible to know if God exists Agnostic DO NOT BELIEVE its possible to know if God exists I dont believe in SANTA, I BELIEVE Santa does NOT exist
@toobsucker --- But what you fail to consider is, there is not one logical reason to be open to other life existing but not just as open to God existing. ---- Yes their is. Using mass spectrometry we have discovered a abundance of materials that are conducive to Life and Organic chemistiry. Infact using this very method we have been able to confirm the presence of organic chemistry in deep space, albeit nonliving as far as we can see.
@AcanLord "But what you fail to consider is, there is not one logical reason to be open to other life existing but not just as open to God existing. ---- Yes their is. Using mass spectrometry"
Your not getting the argument AcanLord.
Your statement amounts to "we have evidence the building blocks of simple life exist in space" therefore this equates BIG COMPLEX LIFE is prohibited.
I reiterate...If other life CAN exist, you now need experimental DATA that suggests it can NEVER be BIG LIFE
@toobsucker I never said the possiability of complex life existing out in space is impossible. just unconfirmed. Infact i`m inclined to suggest in all likely hood their probably is some fairly complex life elsewhere, but i have no evidence to say that their is, theirfor i will not say that their is.
@AcanLord "I never said the possiability of complex life existing out in space is impossible. just unconfirmed. Infact i`m inclined to suggest in all likely hood their probably is"
Which leads to the second question. Give me the DATA that prohibits a God-life from existing. No such DATA exists. This is why I have deemed atheism illogical. You CAN NOT say "other life" can exist without giving LOGICAL REASONS to then put limitations on this "other life".
@toobsucker ---Give me the DATA that prohibits a God-life from existing. No such DATA exists.-- You are attacking a strawman.
I never made the assertion god like entities can`t, exist. I just don`t believe in them because i have no evidence "their is no reason to" . i don`t deny that its possible they exist. I do not put any limitations on what type of Life might exist in the universe. I don`t have the required evidence to say with certainity weather such things exist or do not exist.
I never made the assertion god like entities can`t, exist. I just don`t believe in them because i have no evidence"
That's fine.
All I attempt to do when debating an atheist is to get them to realize their decision to be an atheist is based solely on FAITH that God does not exist, and not empirical verifiable evidence that God-like entities do not exist. Most atheists actually believe naturalism is verified and thus atheism is logically justified
@toobsucker Well if that was your intent then you have not succeeded. because i do not have faith any gods do or do not exist. Yahweh or otherwise. i merely don`t believe in them, that is not the same as rejecting them. i have no reason to believe in or favour any deities over any others, so to me they have Equal value as mythology. and this is the position of the vast majority of us. Those who make the positive assertion that no gods exist are called Antitheists.
@toobsucker "" You fail to see logical absolutes ""
absolutism is only practiced by those with ether to much confedence or not enough experience. You cannot know everything about anything nor anything about everything. Esspecialy not with one hundred percent certainty and to say anything else is completely dishonest and disingenuous. When someone does not believe in something, it does not logicaly follow they must also reject it. to say otherwise is just impulsive, headstrong nonsense.
@toobsucker naturalism is justified. its the Crux of scientific methodology which is Tried and tested. it has the best track record for success on the planet. with it we are able to verifiably learn how the world works, Invent new technologies, improve our lives, treat diseases, increase our life expectancy and travel into space among many other great things. All of it stems from employing Naturalistic standards instead of supersition to our lives and thinking.
Your logic and reasoning fails. The only thing that can justify naturalism is the cells self assembly by natural means. This is not only unobservable but statistically ridiculous. RNA& DNA must RANDOMLY produce nucleotide sequences to build molecular machines to assist in cell division even before the cell is replicating and making copying errors. I LOL@ "intelligent" men that can actually believe this. The concept is utterly absurd and unobservable
@toobsucker You are changing the subject. i was not talking about abiogenesis. I was talking about the Implementation of Methodological naturalism toobsucker. the process that eliminates the purposal of supernatural causation in nature and replaces it knowable, more plausible natural phenomina. its vital to how all science operates.
@AcanLord ". I was talking about the Implementation of Methodological naturalism toobsucker. the process that eliminates the purposal of supernatural causation in nature and replaces it knowable, more plausible natural phenomina"
1. There is nothing supernatural about an intelligence writing coded languages in DNA/RNA to build a biological machine. It only seems "super natural" to the simple minded
2. Randomness & deletions creating the cells complexity is not "more plausible" than I.D.
2. Randomness & deletions creating the cells complexity is not "more plausible" than I.D.
---- Your Refutation is missing some points. i believe what you intended to say is """Non-random processes with Random variables, Deletions, Duplications "like hox gene duplication", the addition of new codons , Frameshifts, the retention of situationaly superior alleles, and Enviromental selective pressures"""
@toobsucker """ 1. There is nothing supernatural about an intelligence writing coded languages in DNA/RNA to build a biological machine. It only seems "super natural" to the simple minded """" If its Yahweh, then by deffinition it is supernatural. Because Yahweh is a mystical, whimsical being from mythological sources that employs magical powers. If it is ANY deity then the same rule applies. Unless you believe your god is not actualy a god, but rather a "god like" Space alien.
@toobsucker -- f you can NOT demonstrate "something" to be true, but yet still believe it, you have FAITH in it. its as simple as that. -- So you have faith in yahweh. it is hypocrtical to use Faith in the perjorative sense while you maintain it yourself.
it is hypocrtical to use Faith in the perjorative sense while you maintain it yourself. "
I never claimed to have empirical observable evidence of Yahweh existence. All Christians stand on FAITH The God of the Bible is the intelligent designer
@toobsucker --------never claimed to have empirical observable evidence of Yahweh existence. All Christians stand on FAITH The God of the Bible is the intelligent designer ---------- Yes.. Their for to cry "FAITH!" whenever you stumble across of someone with different views then you is Pure hypocrisy.
@AcanLord If its Yahweh, then by deffinition it is supernatural. Because Yahweh is a mystical, whimsical being from mythological sources that employs magical powers. If it is ANY deity then the same rule applies. Unless you believe your god is not actualy a god, but rather a "god like" Space alien"
No. Super natural does not = mystical/whimsical. And tell me what magical powers are needed to write coded languages in DNA & RNA, encapsulate them in a cell and push GO?
@toobsucker -- No. Super natural does not = mystical/whimsical. And tell me what magical powers are needed to write coded languages in DNA & RNA, encapsulate them in a cell and push GO? --- Without the nessisary technology or natural processes at work, Magic IS required. so unless you are suggesting Yahweh has a DNA sequencing machine and a team of lab jockies you havent a leg to stand on.
@AcanLord "Non-random processes with Random variables, Deletions, Duplications "like hox gene duplication", the addition of new codons Frameshifts, the retention of situationaly superior alleles
and Enviromental selective pressures"
DNA copying errors are 100% RANDOM The only NON-Random part of evolution is selection. However selection can only select from the "luckiest copying errors". This is the extent of N.S. powers
And the rest is nothing more than INFO shuffling. Not valid in naturalism
@toobsucker You seem lost as to what a Lack of faith means. Being an Atheist is not the Antithesis of belief like so many zealots believe it is. If i do not believe in something, that does not mean i reject it. it merely means i do not proclaim it to be true. I and others have a position of NEUTRALITY. Neither rejecting, or actualy accepting, instead we reserve judgement based on the evidence or lack of evidence. i`m personaly dumfounded that so many zealots don`t understand it.
@AcanLord "Karl popper did not invent modern science.
Methodological naturalism has been employed long before he was born"
First. Science was never established as atheistic. Most scientists before Darwins day were theists. unlike today.
Secondly. Science should only explain WHY things work the way they do. Science should NOT attempt to explain origins as this is beyond their scope of understanding.
Falsifiability Is the parameter that prevents I.D. (God) from being accepted as a hypothesis
@toobsucker --- First. Science was never established as atheistic. Most scientists before Darwins day were theists. unlike today.-- Factualy incorrect sir. Science has always nessisarily been without Theism. Their are still plenty of Theists in scientific disaplines, but the process is still inherently without belief in gods. The same was still true in darwins time. The Non-theistic nature of science exists weather the Practioners are religious or not.
@toobsucker -- Secondly. Science should only explain WHY things work the way they do. Science should NOT attempt to explain origins as this is beyond their scope of understanding. --- 100% Catagoricaly false. Forensic science completely kills your backwards assertion. As does All venues of geology, Paleontology, Phylogenetics and cosmology. The Only reason you want it to be so, is because you would like to shield abrahamic mythology from critisism.
@AcanLord "The Scientific process has No Religious affiliation"
It does when it attempts to prove origins by natural means. When making a naturalistic claim (without proof), you at the same time profess an atheistic origins. Because (hypothetically speaking) If God exists, then intelligent design is the easiest way to get the cell built and the codes written. So it would be ILLOGICAL for a theist scientists to proclaim naturalism by default
@toobsucker --- When making a naturalistic claim (without proof), --- Which it never does. All of the Theories currently accepted are pieced togeather Entirely WITH evidence.
@AcanLord "Studying the past is not off limits and their is no reason it should be."
Studying the past is not the same as categorically denying I.D. based on the grounds A designer can not be ruled out (falsified)
The fact is falsification puts in place the parameters to keep what has been deemed unfalsifiable out of science. Because God is not falsifiable, I.D. is rejected SOLELY from that premise, even though God could exist.
@toobsucker "" Give me ONE other example this analogy holds true."" Certainly. I do have a belief in aliens. But i do not reject that aliens could exist. i do not believe in them because i have never been presented with evidence of them. this is not the same as rejecting them outright. My position on the whimstical Sky fairy you know as Yahweh is in the same catagory as all other invisable people. The same Rules Apply to do anything which cannot be shown to me. Evidence is primary.
@toobsucker Here, read the whole thing.. ------ Science has always nessisarily been without Theism. Their are still plenty of Theists in scientific disaplines, but the process is still inherently without belief in gods. The same was still true in darwins time. The Non-theistic nature of science exists weather the Practioners are religious or not. -------- The Scientific process has No Religious affiliation, it is their for atheistic. Even if the practitioner has a religion.
@AcanLord 100% "Forensic science completely kills your backwards assertion.
As does All venues of geology, Paleontology, Phylogenetics and cosmology
Right. You know very well what science I am referring to, since we have been discussing this for months. Its EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE that IM referring to and its NATURALISM these fields proclaim. Forensic science does not concern its self with ORIGINS of life/universe. ALL other areas you mentioned do. Just because they DO does not mean they should
@toobsucker Forensic Science Deals with the past. That was the point in bringing it up.
The same applies to all of the mentioned fields. Studying the past is not off limits and their is no reason it should be. The Aim of these fields is to learn about their respective subject matter. The discovery of common ancestry, the formation of the earth and the birth of the known universe are simply emergient discoveries.
@AcanLord "When someone does not believe in something, it does not logicaly follow they must also reject it."
Yes it does. simple examples refute you
I do not believe Santa exists
I believe Santa does not exist
I do not believe the Easter exists
I believe the Easter bunny does not exist
If you do not believe Z exists, then it logically follows you reject Z from existing. How can you logically accept Z CAN EXIST and at the same time not believe Z exists.
@toobsucker --- If you do not believe Z exists, then it logically follows you reject Z from existing. How can you logically accept Z CAN EXIST and at the same time not believe Z exists. --- Except when you are wrong. What if someone has never heard of Z? if they have not heard of it, then they still do not believe it. rejection isent required not to believe something. their are plenty of exceptions. Their is also a Neutral position. Absolutism is for the Naive and headstrong.
@AcanLord "with it we are able to verifiably learn how the world works, Invent new technologies"
The atheists within science have injected metaphysical assumptions into science that do not belong. Anti-I.D Professor Michael Ruse said in a speech Saturday, February 13, 1993 science has adopted the metaphysical position that God does not exist. You then build a theory on what is NOT KNOWN
You fail to understand claiming God does NOT exist is just as much a statement of faith as God DOES exist
"atheists within science have injected metaphysical assumptions into ..."
Stop right there.
Methodlogical Naturalism was never "injected" into science. it is the very core of the scientific method itself This position exists regardless of weather you believe in magical things like gods, faries and wizards or not. Their are plenty of Scientists who are Theists and have all sorts of weird beliefs but they all still nessisarily must employ this methodology in order to pratice science.
@toobsucker -- Methodlogical Naturalism was never "injected" into science"
Yes it was with illogical falsification. -- This methodology was been implemented since the time of the ancient greeks toobsucker. since the very inception of what we call modern science...
@toobsucker ----------------- If you say life could exist out there, you then need DATA not emotion that prohibits this life to be less than "God like" in its attributes.
No such DATA exists. ----------------------- So from this statement may i take it to believe that your god is a lifeform in deepspace somewhere?
I never claimed to know the properties of possible extraterrestrial life. For all i know they could very easily resemble god like entities. But i have no evidence for this.
@toobsucker I should like to point out to you at this point that string theory is not a theory. That name is a misnomer. Its a untested hypothesis based on Strong mathmatical inferances. It has yet to be verified. Additionaly, i was asking You a question. as to weather you believe your deity is an Alien lifeform somewhere. "similar to cthulhu?" And finaly, no. You do not get to say Life can exist as energy. This has never been directly observed before.
@AcanLord "I should like to point out to you at this point that string theory is not a theory"
So then you reject other unseen dimensions as a possibility when phantom DNA and quantum entanglement suggest otherwise
"you believe your deity is an Alien life form somewhere. "similar to cthulhu?"
In the strict definition of the word alien YES. Anyone not indigenous to earth is an "alien". But he (God) is perfect in attributes we can not comprehend, Not a invention of a science fiction writer
@toobsucker And no. i don`t really reject them. i merely am skeptical of them, because they have not been confirmed. I freely admit that the Math Strongly infers it, but this is not the same as confirming it conclusively, So now, about your god. we can now agree that in the stricted definition your god is an alien. i can be down with that. However, How can you say with absolute certainity that it is perfect in all of its attributes, esspecialy when you cannot comprehend it?
@AcanLord "So now, about your god. we can now agree that in the stricted definition your god is an alien. i can be down with that. However, How can you say with absolute certainity that it is perfect in all of its attributes, esspecialy when you cannot comprehend it?"
Of course you can be "down with that" because you don't have to answer for your actions to that life form. An all powerful God life (which is as unfalsifiable as a grey alien) you would .
@AcanLord "Is their any particular reason why this particular mythology is more valid
then any other?"
Which deity is not relevant to this discussion. When I was eighteen I doubted all religions validity to some degree. But the evidence of God was overwhelming to me.
The chances of BOTH male and female sex organs JUST HAPPENING to develop at the same time by random chance made me LOL. And now I know how many of these "strange coincidences" (a myriad) must happen for evolution to be valid
@toobsucker --- he chances of BOTH male and female sex organs --- Arguements from irreducible complexity no not work. the origins of sexual reproduction is actively researched.
and as for -- (a myriad) must happen for evolution to be valid --- This is catagoricaly false. All that needs to be shown is for Alleles to change in frequency over time in biological populations and to show restrictions in gene flow occur to confirm Evolution is a real world phenomina. Already done.
''Natural selection is a fact.'' Glad you accept evolutions driving force.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz No one denies natural selection. It still has nothing to do with MACROevolution - only MICRO. You're committing the fallacy of equivocation on the word "evolution." It's a common mistake. Dawkins does it all the time.
bestvalue 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue Every here of a book called, ORIGIN OF SPECIES [EVOLUTION] BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz The theory of evolution has been around since the ancient Greeks - over 3,000 years. Natural selection was merely Darwin's proposed mechanism. It's a fact and it drives MICROevolution - not MACRO.
bestvalue 7 months ago
@bestvalue Darwin was talking about SPECIES in his book. ''ORIGIN of SPECIES''
.
Variation in species, different dogs from a wolf, is not evolution. It proves the ''new information'' is already there for Natural Selection to act on.
gregrutz 7 months ago
What causes the increase in information (i.e. decrease in entropy) are the error-correcting mechanisms already present in the genome, *not* natural selection. You are giving credit to the wrong mechanism. If an organism is fit, and errors are introduced into it that do not decrease its fitness, and it reproduces, those errors will be weeded out over time due to the way transcription works. Darwinian evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the process.
benpipercom 7 months ago
@benpipercom Thank you for the comment
drshamast 7 months ago
Assumption And Imagination don't make weak hypothesis of evolution true
drshamast 8 months ago
@drshamast There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz where did you get your facts?
drshamast 7 months ago
@drshamast A science book. Try reading one.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz That is very good Educated Reply Good for you !!!!
drshamast 7 months ago
I haven't watched the video yet so maybe you cover this but first, the argument is not merely the addition of information but of "NEW" information. Second, the presence of information at all demands an intelligent creator since information always comes from a MIND.
bestvalue 9 months ago
@bestvalue Why would you make that leap of faith that information comes from a mind? I am assuming you read it somewhere. On what logical argument do you sustain that belief?
Please define how addition of information and NEW information differ.
What would you need to see to show you that NEW information had been created?
Huttate1 8 months ago
@Huttate1 It is not a leap of faith. It is an inference to the best explanation based on what we know. As far as we know, information - especially a coded language like that in DNA - always comes from a mind.
If you had one phone book and I gave you another copy of the same phone book, you would have more information but not new information. If I ripped out some pages from my phone book and inserted it into yours, you still would not have new information. (cont.)
bestvalue 8 months ago
@Huttate1 If I tore out pages from your phone book, you would have lost information. I would expect to see information that was not already present in your existing phone book (i.e your genome).
The pepper moths for example never gained new information. Light- and dark-colored moths already existed and there was merely a shift in the population. Natural selection, yes, but evolution, no.
bestvalue 8 months ago
@bestvalue And when the new phone book comes out with new numbers in it?
Huttate1 8 months ago
@Huttate1 That would be truly new information. Unfortunately for evolutionists, we never see anything like that happening through natural processes. The creation of a new "phone book" would requite a mind. Natural selection can only select from the information it is given and often causes a loss of information not a gain.
bestvalue 8 months ago
@bestvalue But we do.
w w w . pnas . org / content / 105 / 23/ 7899
Your argument that information requires a mind is an empty statement based purely on your assumption that no evidence has been found for spontaneous creation of information.
That is like me arguing, for instance, there is no god because there is no evidence for any god.
Huttate1 8 months ago
@bestvalue What has more ''information'', a big wolf or a little wolf?
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz They have the same information. It's not the size that matters. It's the code to create the organism. A more complex organism requires more information.
bestvalue 7 months ago
@bestvalue So for a wolf to evolve into a big and a small species the information is already there.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz Yes, although technically I would argue that this is an incorrect usage of the words "evolve" and "species." They have not "evolved" anything and they are still the same species. Now, for a wolf to "evolve" into a modern domestic dog, it must LOSE genetic information - not gain it. That's why domestic dogs are less healthy (or fit) than wolves and would not survive in the wild if man were not keeping them alive.
bestvalue 7 months ago
@bestvalue But that is how new species are formed, by spliting a group into two. Dogs from wolf proves variation in species, a needed part of evolution. Dogs are weaker because they were breed by man so Natural Selection [evolution] had nothing to do with it. It does show the ''new information'' is already there for species to change, Darwin knew this even thought he did not know about DNA or mutations [new information]
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz I already know and agree with everything you said except that mutations do not generate NEW information but degrade existing information. That's the main reason why evolution is impossible.
My above statement should have read that wolves and domestic dogs should be considered the same species - not that they are - because they can interbreed.
bestvalue 7 months ago
@bestvalue And mutation or change in DNA IS ''new information''. Dogs breed from a wolf shows that the ''information'' is already there, a wolf can 'adapt' or evolve into anything the size of a Great Dane to a toy poodle. Dogs are man made and are not evolution, they just show 'variation in species''
Darwin proved this and did not need to know about mutation or how the variation got there, it is there.
Now tell me ''it is still a wolf'' showing you have no Idea what I just said.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz No, mutations do not provide NEW information. As I said, they degrade and lose existing information. I agree, dogs are artificially made and are not evolution. I know Darwin didn't know about mutations. (I pointed that out in a book I wrote about evolution - page 101). I did not say "it is still a wolf." Technically, it is less than a wolf because it has lost information. But it is still the same species since they can interbreed. They have classified it incorrectly. I can prove that.
bestvalue 7 months ago
@bestvalue Where did they loose it?
And any change is NEW.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz Suppose you have a copy of a book and I give you another copy. Now you have two but you have no NEW information. That's like a gene duplication. Now suppose I tear a page out of your book. That's like a gene deletion. It's a loss of information. Or suppose I tear a page out of my book and insert it into your book. That's like an insertion mutation. In no instances has there been an increase in NEW genetic information. Get it? Mutations cannot be the driving force behind evolution.
bestvalue 7 months ago
@bestvalue ''Mutations cannot be the driving force behind evolution.'' NO ONE SAYS IT IS ! Darwin didn't even know about mutations and he showed how Natural Selection is the driving force behind evolution.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz Yes they do. That's a common misunderstanding of evolution. Of course Darwin didn't know about mutations - just some kind of variation. But now we do and natural selection requires mutations to have anything to act on. Without beneficial mutations, no natural selection. But mutations cannot produce the kind of change necessary for macroevolution. Natural selection is a fact. But evolution? Not so much. (cont.)
bestvalue 7 months ago
@bestvalue ''But mutations cannot produce the kind of change necessary....'' Why not?
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz “The first major objection to genes being the sole and sufficient driving force for evolution is that practically every mutation is obviously harmful, and puts the organism at a disadvantage rather than an advantage.” - Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong," 1982. (cont.)
bestvalue 7 months ago
@bestvalue Where Darwin went wrong??? Darwin's Ideas are 150 years out of date. We know he was wrong about some things, like gradualism. Nice mine quote though.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz “A majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations, produce deteriorations of viability, hereditary disease, and monstrosities. Such changes, it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks.” - Dr. Theodosius Dobzhansky, as quoted by Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong," 1982. (cont.)
bestvalue 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue ''In their desperation to find a mechanism, scientists have grasped at mutations, the one agency in nature that causes inheritable deterioration in living organisms.'' ''Mutation is a pathological process which has little or nothing to do with evolution''
MAKE UP YOUR MIND !!
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz “In their desperation to find a mechanism, scientists have grasped at mutations, the one agency in nature that causes inheritable deterioration in living organisms. This total inability of scientists to explain how evolution occurred constitutes a major crisis in the continued survival of the theory of evolution.”
- H. Heibert, "Evolution: It's Collapse in View?" 1979, pp. 35-36. (cont.)
bestvalue 7 months ago
@gregrutz “Mutation is a pathological process which has little or nothing to do with evolution.” - C.P. Martin, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," American Scientist, January 1953, p. 100.
“The greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful.” - Peo Koller, "Chromosomes and Genes," 1971, p. 127.
bestvalue 7 months ago
@bestvalue ''Mutation has nothing to do with evolution.'' Thank You.
So why do you keep talking about mutations then?
Evoltion is a process that happens, that is a fact.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz Because mutations are essential to MICROevolution - which no one in there right mind denies. But MACROevolution does not happen. The evidence is against it - in the field, in the fossil record and in the laboratory.
bestvalue 7 months ago
@bestvalue So you ''believe'' in little evolution but not big evolution. LOL It's all the same thing, change.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz Got any evidence for that claim? That's one of the lies they teach us in school about evolution - that MACRO equals MICRO over a long period of time. It's just not true.
bestvalue 7 months ago
@bestvalue You talk like you don't know Evoltuion was accepted 150 Years ago. Get over it.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz It wasn't. It isn't because it's wrong. Besides, even if every scientist in the world believed it, majority opinion does not determine truth.
bestvalue 7 months ago
@bestvalue Evolution is accepted by 99.98% of Scienitists and educated people BECAUSE OF THE MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE that supports it.
Search Proof of Evolution There is enough of it right here on YouTube.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz I'm well aware of the evidence that supports evolution. The problem is that most of the evidence supports MICROevolution but not MACROevolution. Then dishonest people like Richard Dawkins lead unsuspecting people like you to believe they are the same thing. They ignore the information problem. Evolution is a theory without a mechanism.
bestvalue 7 months ago
@bestvalue Darwin is famous for discovering the mechanism, Natural Selection.
What is the difference between ''little'' evolution and ''big' evolution?
Remember, Evolution does not allow one KIND to change into a different KIND, Humans are still apes, still mammals, still tetrapods, still vertebrates.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@bestvalue
Look up human chromosome 2 proof of macro evolution in humans.
TheMrgoku1985 6 months ago
@TheMrgoku1985 I know all about it. It's not proof for macroevolution although I'll admit it IS interesting. Too much other evidence against it to make a definitive call yet.
bestvalue 6 months ago
@bestvalue
You are wrong show your work using peer reviewed material and sources
TheMrgoku1985 6 months ago
@TheMrgoku1985 You first. Peer review is largely a myth, by the way. But that's another issue entirely. You also cite junk DNA as evidence on your channel. Are they still teaching that? There's no such thing. It's been known to be wrong for nearly a decade. That evolutionary assumption held back science for 30 years.
bestvalue 6 months ago
@bestvalue
Talk origins. org
TheMrgoku1985 6 months ago
@bestvalue
Opinion and reworked arguments are not proof
Peer reviewed sources please.
TheMrgoku1985 6 months ago
@bestvalue
"Peer review is largely a myth"
- Scientific peer review is the most effective means in all of human history for identifying what is true, it isnt perfect but it's the best there is.
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 I'm not denying that it's a good system when it works. My point is that peer review does not work the way you think it does (or the way it is commonly claimed) most of the time.
bestvalue 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue
"I'm not denying that it's a good system when it works. My point is that peer review does not work the way you think it does (or the way it is commonly claimed) most of the time."
- what evidence do you base this claim on?
if it's the whining of people who's papers were rejected then that doesnt quite cut it.
There are that many peer reviewed magazines the level of bias and suppression you purpose would require an international conspiracy
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 I'm not referring to whining by anybody or anybody's papers being rejected. I'm saying that many papers gets published where the experiments are never repeated by anyone due to lack of funding or other reasons. The unverified findings are then taken as gospel because they went through the peer-review system.
bestvalue 5 months ago
@bestvalue
"I'm saying that many papers gets published where the experiments are never repeated by anyone due to lack of funding or other reasons"
- Peer review panels are organized for the purpose of identifying illogical/inconsistent and erroneous data
- Once a paper is published it is subjected to the scrutiny of the entire scientific community FOREVER, any of whom can debunk it with their own paper.
How is what you've just suggested a problem in such a system?.
types10000 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue
"I'm saying that many papers gets published where the experiments are never repeated by anyone due to lack of funding or other reasons"
- Peer review panels are organized for the purpose of identifying illogical/inconsistent and erroneous data
- Once a paper is published it is subjected to the scrutiny of the entire scientific community FOREVER, any of whom can debunk it with their own paper.
How is what you've just suggested a problem in such a system?.
types10000 5 months ago
@bestvalue
"You also cite junk DNA as evidence on your channel. Are they still teaching that? There's no such thing"
- we know random mutation and recombination occur and observe large segments of genome that have no discernible function whatsoever and even if you dont consider them to be junk, there are still endogenus retrovirus' (inert viral DNA that embeds itself in genome when a virus fails to replicate inside a sex cell) the distribution of which IS EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION.
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 "no discernible function" is the key phrase. We should learn a lesson from the history of human vestigial structures like the appendix. 100 years ago there was a list compiled of 180 parts in the human body that were thought to be vestigial. Now we know nearly every one serves a purpose. And it's being discovered that DNA which is thought to serve no purpose actually has important functions. That's evidence of design.
bestvalue 5 months ago
@bestvalue
"no discernible function" is the key phrase" - again we know how genes mutate, we know random mutations can be deleterious and we have examples of virus inserting inert (nonfunctional) copies of themselves.
Assuming everything in there has a function (unless proven otherwise) when we have both causal links explaining and examples of, things in there that dont, is just plain stupid.
types10000 5 months ago
@bestvalue
"We should learn a lesson from the history of human vestigial structures like the appendix"
The appendix is directly analogous to a broken car being used as a home for bums.
- The fact we observe so many in the animal kingdom means we know what it is and know what is missing inorder to make it function as it's supposed to.
- the fact it has been co-opted as a store for bacteria; whose uselessness is demonstrated in the populations born without an appendix, does not change this.
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 "the fact it has been co-opted as a store for bacteria"
You have no idea that this is true. This is an ad hoc explanation just like many others that are employed to rescue evolution's failed predictions.
bestvalue 5 months ago
@bestvalue
"You have no idea that this is true. This is an ad hoc explanation just like many others that are employed to rescue evolution's failed predictions."
incorrect, as i already point-out we know the appendix isnt meant to function as a storehouse for bacteria in the exact same way we know a car isnt meant to function as a house for hobos
ie.
- We observe working variants of it.
- We know what parts are missing from it inorder to make it function as they do.
types10000 5 months ago
@bestvalue
"And it's being discovered that DNA which is thought to serve no purpose actually has important functions. That's evidence of design."
...what?
How exactly do you get from:
'This segment of DNA was re-examined and found to do something'
To:
'This is evidence of intelligent design'
The fact DNA CAN do things was never in question nor does it indicate intelligent design, the fact an instance that was thought to do nothing was later found to do something does not change this.
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 OMG! Has the theory of evolution become so unfalsifiable now that when it makes a prediction that is wrong (parts of DNA will be found to serve no function), excuses are made to salvage the theory? Further, when a prediction by I.D. is made that is right (all DNA will be found to serve a function), it still doesn't get any credit? Shameful! That's when you realize that evolution is based on little more than BLIND FAITH. You just proved that to me.
bestvalue 5 months ago
@bestvalue
"OMG! Has the theory of evolution become so unfalsifiable..."
- evolution is very falsifiable, i can give you several ways off the top of my head
"it makes a prediction that is wrong (parts of DNA will be found to serve no function"
- incorrect, we know for a fact parts of the genome are non-functional. i already provided an example of an observable process that causes this ie. Endogenus retrovirus' = inert viral fragments inserted as resulted of failed replication in sex cells
types10000 5 months ago
@bestvalue
"Further, when a prediction by I.D. is made that is right (all DNA will be found to serve a function)"
a). this is incorrect (as i just demonstrated using ERV's)
b). it commits the argument from ignorance logical fallacy ie. it assumes there is function even where none is evident (which is utterly stupid when we know for a fact parts of the genome arnt eg. ERV's)
GET SMARTER
types10000 5 months ago
@toobsucker naturalistic explanations are supported by lots of evidence, and god is supported by none. just because god is a possibility doesn't mean its the strongest. natural explanations (abiogenesis, nebular hypothesis) are the best explanations and supernatural ones are pretty much ridiculous.
Mr12345EGGNOG 10 months ago
@toobsucker you say god could exist and therefore we shouldn't reject the idea of him? well, there is no evidence for god, but because there is no evidence against him your argument is partly correct. however, you also can't disprove a flying teapot in the middle of the sun who has a dwarf inside it that made everything. don't think that the argument "you can't disprove god" is good when you can't disprove the gods you reject; thor, zeus, allah, or even a flying spaghetti monster.
Mr12345EGGNOG 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
achilles197474 10 months ago
Well done on this video. Pity most creationists neither have the education or willingness to watch it and "get it".
warren52nz 10 months ago
Background music: who is the artist and name of the piece?
wilwad 10 months ago
I posted @ AcanLord at least 4 times that never showed up on this board
I hope he got them
toobsucker 11 months ago
@toobsucker "Facepalm"....Sigh... You have no idea what i just tried telling you... Not a clue.. One more time.. Homologous structures ARE STILL recognizable and are differentiable between anologous ones. the underlying synapomorphies both in Phenotype and genotype will always be visable and inescapable, it does not matter how radicaly the Gene that codes for a particular structure mutates over time. HGT is not used as an excuss for anything, It too is directly observable.
AcanLord 11 months ago
@AcanLord "Homologous structures ARE STILL recognizable..."
It does not appear you even know what im taking about , or you just will not accept the evidence. Evolution predicts the genotypes (DNA sequences) of "closely related species" will be more similar to each other than distantly related ones
AND the genotypes of distantly related species will show more differences than closely related ones
This is evolutions ORIGINAL PREDICTION and has been falsified over and over again
FACT AcanLord
toobsucker 11 months ago
@toobsucker -- ORIGINAL PREDICTION and has been falsified over and over again ---
No Toobsucker it hasent. using genotype is a major component of constructing phylogenetic trees in modern molecular biology. These trees have not been "falsified" infact its an entire field of research on its own.
AcanLord 11 months ago
@AcanLord "No Toobsucker it hasent. using genotype is a major component of constructing phylogenetic trees in modern molecular biology"
LOL... I gave you the DATA and you still will not accept it. You give me NO DATA other than your emotional opinion.
Ill send it to your inbox next week and you can read it in detail. But you still will not accept it because of your emotional attachment to your presupposition of atheism. FEELINGS DECEIVE
I have to take off now, wont be online till next Monday
toobsucker 11 months ago
Comment removed
AcanLord 11 months ago
Comment removed
AcanLord 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker --But you still will not accept it because of your emotional attachment to your presupposition of atheism. FEELINGS DECEIVE -- Atheism is not a presuppostion. Its a lack of a position. I lack a belief in all of the worlds deities, This includes yahweh. i do not herald from a culture or background where this particular mesopotamian deity was ever even talked about or even matters. Is their any particular reason why this particular mythology and its deity is more valid then any other?
AcanLord 11 months ago
@AcanLord "so Atheists do not believe in god because they feel he doesnt exist rather then they havent seen this creature or any sort of evidence it exists?"
You have not seen ANY life other than what is on planet earth. So if you were logically consistent you would reject ALL other life from existing on the same grounds. But you do not.
You HAVE FAITH other life could exist based on logical inferences (we exist therefore other life can exist) but you reject these inference when it suits you
toobsucker 11 months ago
@toobsucker i do not "have faith" life could exist on other planets. i am merely open to the possibility, this is not synomomous with faith in the slightest. in the same respect i am open to the possibility higher powers could exist. however i am left based on the lack of evidence to decare it to be highly unlikely. Sorry but life simply existing in the first place does not consitute evidence of yahweh or any other similar mythological creature.
AcanLord 11 months ago
@AcanLord "Does this at all contrast to how Theists "feel" the holy spirit ?"
Also.. By god i am to assume you mean Yahweh as aposed to the thousands of other gods right"
Assuming the Holy spirit exists (I know he does) that is a force outside yourself thus would be objective and not subjective. But that said many people think they get a FEELING from God but do not. So this can not be considered "evidence"
Evidence must be testable and repeatable. DNA code writing VIA an intellect is testable
toobsucker 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AcanLord It is meant to describe people who think an emotion or feeling is DATA. --
This is not definition of liberal.
--- 100% of these people (ill call them FEELERS) vote liberal.--- CITATION NEEDED"
I said everyone that votes liberal are NOT "feelers". Many that vote liberal are "one issue voters". They know the liberal mind has very little sense but vote liberal for other reasons, such as abortion.
My theory makes predictions. The ARTS (acting singing etc..) are mostly "feelers"
toobsucker 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AcanLord "ORIGINAL PREDICTION and has been falsified over and over again ---
No Toobsucker it hasent.
using genotype is a major component of constructing
phylogenetic trees in modern molecular biology. These trees have not been "falsified"
infact its an entire field of research on its own"
Ill send it to your inbox
toobsucker 11 months ago
@toobsucker
Additionaly,
Nothing you`ve said actualy invalidates what i`ve tried to tell you.
Protein folding is still dictated by specific set of phenomina and you wont
ever see One protein suddenly "try" folding into different configurations, What the Proteins
fold into is directly contingent on things such as its own makeup "see energy landscape"
And the makeup of the Acid that produces it.
AcanLord 11 months ago
@AcanLord "Protein folding is still dictated by specific set of phenomina and you wontever see One protein suddenly "try" folding into different configurations,"
Wrong again AcanLord. you hit the trifecta.
"Becoming apparent are the stringent quality-control systems that come into play if the folding process fails, ensuring that the misfolded products are targeted for degradation before they cause harm"
They DO misfold. Its the error correction mechanism that eliminates them.
Just Study
toobsucker 11 months ago
@toobsucker And third. Its a fucking joke that you use "liberal" in the perjorative sense. Are you a Faux new employee or a conservapedian or something to that effect? You don`t know what my political affiliations are so its quite frankly backwards and socialy awkward to try and use that as an insult. Attempting to use this wording makes you apear to resemble a giant talking vagina....or some sort of relation to alex jones.. or some type of backwards spin doctor.
AcanLord 11 months ago
@AcanLord "Its a fucking joke that you use "liberal" in the perjorative sense."
By liberal I do not mean someone that votes liberal. It is meant to describe people who think an emotion or feeling is DATA.
100% of these people (ill call them FEELERS) vote liberal.
This does not mean 100% of people that vote liberal are FEELERS, only that 100% of FEELERS are liberals
And well over 90% of atheists are liberals. there IS a clear connection. Atheists FEEL God does not exist, this is DATA to them
toobsucker 11 months ago
@toobsucker --- It is meant to describe people who think an emotion or feeling is DATA. -- This is not definition of liberal. --- 100% of these people (ill call them FEELERS) vote liberal.--- CITATION NEEDED.
AcanLord 11 months ago
@toobsucker ----- And well over 90% of atheists are liberals. there IS a clear connection. Atheists FEEL God does not exist, this is DATA to them ------
Oh really? so Atheists do not believe in god because they feel he doesnt exist rather then they havent seen this creature or any sort of evidence it exists? Does this at all contrast to how Theists "feel" the holy spirit ?" Also.. By god i am to assume you mean Yahweh as aposed to the thousands of other gods right?
AcanLord 11 months ago
@AcanLord "Atheism is not a presuppostion. Its an imposition. I lack a belief in all of the worlds deities,"
Right you self impose your presupposition God does not exist.
I can show you how easy it is to dismantle the atheists logic. Any atheist that says God can not or does not exist, but other life in the universe can or does exist is a FEELER and void of critical thinking
Once you open the door of possibility for life to exist, you now need a LOGICAL reason to limit it.
what is it?
toobsucker 11 months ago
@toobsucker You fail to understand what i`m trying to tell you. Atheism is the lack of theism. It is not a positive affirmation of the nonexistence of yahweh. In this respect anyone who hasent heard of religion or gods is also an Atheist. This includes Infants and cultures such as the Pirahã. I do not deny the possibility of something like a god existing. But i also freely admit their is no evidence anywhere in the observable universe for one. Esspecialy Yahweh.
AcanLord 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
toobsucker 11 months ago
@AcanLord i do not "have faith" life could exist on other planets.
i am merely open to the possibility"
But what you fail to consider is, there is not one logical reason to be open to other life existing but not just as open to God existing.
If you say life could exist out there, you then need DATA not emotion that prohibits this life to be less than "God like" in its attributes.
No such DATA exists.
IN fact its not even more likely that "small life" can exist but "big life" can not
toobsucker 11 months ago
@toobsucker --- But what you fail to consider is, there is not one logical reason to be open to other life existing but not just as open to God existing. ---- Yes their is. Using mass spectrometry we have discovered a abundance of materials that are conducive to Life and Organic chemistiry. Infact using this very method we have been able to confirm the presence of organic chemistry in deep space, albeit nonliving as far as we can see.
AcanLord 11 months ago
@AcanLord "But what you fail to consider is, there is not one logical reason to be open to other life existing but not just as open to God existing. ---- Yes their is. Using mass spectrometry"
Your not getting the argument AcanLord.
Your statement amounts to "we have evidence the building blocks of simple life exist in space" therefore this equates BIG COMPLEX LIFE is prohibited.
I reiterate...If other life CAN exist, you now need experimental DATA that suggests it can NEVER be BIG LIFE
toobsucker 11 months ago
@toobsucker I never said the possiability of complex life existing out in space is impossible. just unconfirmed. Infact i`m inclined to suggest in all likely hood their probably is some fairly complex life elsewhere, but i have no evidence to say that their is, theirfor i will not say that their is.
AcanLord 11 months ago
@AcanLord "I never said the possiability of complex life existing out in space is impossible. just unconfirmed. Infact i`m inclined to suggest in all likely hood their probably is"
Which leads to the second question. Give me the DATA that prohibits a God-life from existing. No such DATA exists. This is why I have deemed atheism illogical. You CAN NOT say "other life" can exist without giving LOGICAL REASONS to then put limitations on this "other life".
Atheism does not follow rules of logic
toobsucker 11 months ago
@toobsucker ---Give me the DATA that prohibits a God-life from existing. No such DATA exists.-- You are attacking a strawman.
I never made the assertion god like entities can`t, exist. I just don`t believe in them because i have no evidence "their is no reason to" . i don`t deny that its possible they exist. I do not put any limitations on what type of Life might exist in the universe. I don`t have the required evidence to say with certainity weather such things exist or do not exist.
AcanLord 11 months ago
@AcanLord "You are attacking a strawman.
I never made the assertion god like entities can`t, exist. I just don`t believe in them because i have no evidence"
That's fine.
All I attempt to do when debating an atheist is to get them to realize their decision to be an atheist is based solely on FAITH that God does not exist, and not empirical verifiable evidence that God-like entities do not exist. Most atheists actually believe naturalism is verified and thus atheism is logically justified
toobsucker 11 months ago
@toobsucker Well if that was your intent then you have not succeeded. because i do not have faith any gods do or do not exist. Yahweh or otherwise. i merely don`t believe in them, that is not the same as rejecting them. i have no reason to believe in or favour any deities over any others, so to me they have Equal value as mythology. and this is the position of the vast majority of us. Those who make the positive assertion that no gods exist are called Antitheists.
AcanLord 11 months ago
@AcanLord "i do not have faith any gods do or do not exist i merely don`t believe in them, that is not the same as rejecting them"
I agree this is the position of MOST atheist. This is why MOST atheists are VOID of critical thinking. You fail to see logical absolutes
I DO NOT believe in Santa
I BELIEVE Santa DOES NOT exist
Are logically identical in meaning
If I come to a T in the road and turn RIGHT, is this all IM doing? NO, I am ALSO NOT turning left or going back
Learn logical absolutes
toobsucker 11 months ago
Comment removed
AcanLord 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker "" You fail to see logical absolutes ""
absolutism is only practiced by those with ether to much confedence or not enough experience. You cannot know everything about anything nor anything about everything. Esspecialy not with one hundred percent certainty and to say anything else is completely dishonest and disingenuous. When someone does not believe in something, it does not logicaly follow they must also reject it. to say otherwise is just impulsive, headstrong nonsense.
AcanLord 11 months ago
@AcanLord "Those who make the positive assertion that no gods exist are called Antitheists"
Incorrect there are only 4 positions
1.Theists BELIEVE God exists/Disbelieve in Gods NON-existence
2.Atheists BELIEVE God does NOT exist/ DO NOT believe God exists
3.Agnostics BELIEVE its impossible to know if God exists/ DO NOT believe its possible to know if God exists
4.Those who have no concept of a God i.e. babies/mentally ill
Turning right is ALSO making the POSITIVE ASSERTION U did not turn left
toobsucker 11 months ago
@toobsucker naturalism is justified. its the Crux of scientific methodology which is Tried and tested. it has the best track record for success on the planet. with it we are able to verifiably learn how the world works, Invent new technologies, improve our lives, treat diseases, increase our life expectancy and travel into space among many other great things. All of it stems from employing Naturalistic standards instead of supersition to our lives and thinking.
AcanLord 11 months ago
@AcanLord "naturalism is justified"
Your logic and reasoning fails. The only thing that can justify naturalism is the cells self assembly by natural means. This is not only unobservable but statistically ridiculous. RNA& DNA must RANDOMLY produce nucleotide sequences to build molecular machines to assist in cell division even before the cell is replicating and making copying errors. I LOL@ "intelligent" men that can actually believe this. The concept is utterly absurd and unobservable
toobsucker 11 months ago
@toobsucker You are changing the subject. i was not talking about abiogenesis. I was talking about the Implementation of Methodological naturalism toobsucker. the process that eliminates the purposal of supernatural causation in nature and replaces it knowable, more plausible natural phenomina. its vital to how all science operates.
AcanLord 11 months ago
@AcanLord ". I was talking about the Implementation of Methodological naturalism toobsucker. the process that eliminates the purposal of supernatural causation in nature and replaces it knowable, more plausible natural phenomina"
1. There is nothing supernatural about an intelligence writing coded languages in DNA/RNA to build a biological machine. It only seems "super natural" to the simple minded
2. Randomness & deletions creating the cells complexity is not "more plausible" than I.D.
toobsucker 10 months ago
@toobsucker
----
2. Randomness & deletions creating the cells complexity is not "more plausible" than I.D.
---- Your Refutation is missing some points. i believe what you intended to say is """Non-random processes with Random variables, Deletions, Duplications "like hox gene duplication", the addition of new codons , Frameshifts, the retention of situationaly superior alleles, and Enviromental selective pressures"""
AcanLord 10 months ago
@toobsucker """ 1. There is nothing supernatural about an intelligence writing coded languages in DNA/RNA to build a biological machine. It only seems "super natural" to the simple minded """" If its Yahweh, then by deffinition it is supernatural. Because Yahweh is a mystical, whimsical being from mythological sources that employs magical powers. If it is ANY deity then the same rule applies. Unless you believe your god is not actualy a god, but rather a "god like" Space alien.
AcanLord 10 months ago
@toobsucker Oh and one more thing. their is something Truely ironic about a creotard that uses "faith" in the perjorative sense.
AcanLord 10 months ago
@AcanLord "Oh and one more thing. their is something Truely ironic about a creotard that uses "faith" in the perjorative sense."
The word FAITH contains no connotations except that in which the reader imagines. Faith is needed when no observable empirical evidence is available.
If you can NOT demonstrate "something" to be true, but yet still believe it, you have FAITH in it. its as simple as that.
Ill respond to your other posts tomorrow. ran out of time today
toobsucker 10 months ago
@toobsucker -- f you can NOT demonstrate "something" to be true, but yet still believe it, you have FAITH in it. its as simple as that. -- So you have faith in yahweh. it is hypocrtical to use Faith in the perjorative sense while you maintain it yourself.
AcanLord 10 months ago
@AcanLord "So you have faith in yahweh.
it is hypocrtical to use Faith in the perjorative sense while you maintain it yourself. "
I never claimed to have empirical observable evidence of Yahweh existence. All Christians stand on FAITH The God of the Bible is the intelligent designer
toobsucker 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker --------never claimed to have empirical observable evidence of Yahweh existence. All Christians stand on FAITH The God of the Bible is the intelligent designer ---------- Yes.. Their for to cry "FAITH!" whenever you stumble across of someone with different views then you is Pure hypocrisy.
AcanLord 10 months ago
@AcanLord If its Yahweh, then by deffinition it is supernatural. Because Yahweh is a mystical, whimsical being from mythological sources that employs magical powers. If it is ANY deity then the same rule applies. Unless you believe your god is not actualy a god, but rather a "god like" Space alien"
No. Super natural does not = mystical/whimsical. And tell me what magical powers are needed to write coded languages in DNA & RNA, encapsulate them in a cell and push GO?
toobsucker 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker -- No. Super natural does not = mystical/whimsical. And tell me what magical powers are needed to write coded languages in DNA & RNA, encapsulate them in a cell and push GO? --- Without the nessisary technology or natural processes at work, Magic IS required. so unless you are suggesting Yahweh has a DNA sequencing machine and a team of lab jockies you havent a leg to stand on.
AcanLord 10 months ago
@AcanLord "Non-random processes with Random variables, Deletions, Duplications "like hox gene duplication", the addition of new codons Frameshifts, the retention of situationaly superior alleles
and Enviromental selective pressures"
DNA copying errors are 100% RANDOM The only NON-Random part of evolution is selection. However selection can only select from the "luckiest copying errors". This is the extent of N.S. powers
And the rest is nothing more than INFO shuffling. Not valid in naturalism
toobsucker 10 months ago
@AcanLord "Yes it was with illogical falsification. --
This methodology was been implemented since the time of the ancient greeks toobsucker.
since the very inception of what we call modern science."
And I guess Karl Popper just took credit for it. You just make things up as you go along AcanLord. I can not take you seriously
toobsucker 10 months ago
@toobsucker
Karl popper did not invent modern science.
Methodological naturalism has been employed long before he was born.
AcanLord 10 months ago
@AcanLord "What if someone has never heard of Z? if they have not heard of it, then they still do not believe it."
Incorrect. If I ask you if you believe Zielgoats exist.
Your response would be "I don't know, tell me what a Zielgoat is"
You can not make a decision if Zielgoats exist or not unless you know what they are
You must have a concept of what you claim NOT to believe in.
toobsucker 10 months ago
@toobsucker You seem lost as to what a Lack of faith means. Being an Atheist is not the Antithesis of belief like so many zealots believe it is. If i do not believe in something, that does not mean i reject it. it merely means i do not proclaim it to be true. I and others have a position of NEUTRALITY. Neither rejecting, or actualy accepting, instead we reserve judgement based on the evidence or lack of evidence. i`m personaly dumfounded that so many zealots don`t understand it.
AcanLord 10 months ago
@AcanLord "Karl popper did not invent modern science.
Methodological naturalism has been employed long before he was born"
First. Science was never established as atheistic. Most scientists before Darwins day were theists. unlike today.
Secondly. Science should only explain WHY things work the way they do. Science should NOT attempt to explain origins as this is beyond their scope of understanding.
Falsifiability Is the parameter that prevents I.D. (God) from being accepted as a hypothesis
toobsucker 10 months ago
@toobsucker --- First. Science was never established as atheistic. Most scientists before Darwins day were theists. unlike today.-- Factualy incorrect sir. Science has always nessisarily been without Theism. Their are still plenty of Theists in scientific disaplines, but the process is still inherently without belief in gods. The same was still true in darwins time. The Non-theistic nature of science exists weather the Practioners are religious or not.
AcanLord 10 months ago
@toobsucker -- Secondly. Science should only explain WHY things work the way they do. Science should NOT attempt to explain origins as this is beyond their scope of understanding. --- 100% Catagoricaly false. Forensic science completely kills your backwards assertion. As does All venues of geology, Paleontology, Phylogenetics and cosmology. The Only reason you want it to be so, is because you would like to shield abrahamic mythology from critisism.
AcanLord 10 months ago
@AcanLord "The Scientific process has No Religious affiliation"
It does when it attempts to prove origins by natural means. When making a naturalistic claim (without proof), you at the same time profess an atheistic origins. Because (hypothetically speaking) If God exists, then intelligent design is the easiest way to get the cell built and the codes written. So it would be ILLOGICAL for a theist scientists to proclaim naturalism by default
Naturalism is the "religion" of atheists
toobsucker 10 months ago
@toobsucker --- When making a naturalistic claim (without proof), --- Which it never does. All of the Theories currently accepted are pieced togeather Entirely WITH evidence.
AcanLord 10 months ago
@AcanLord "Studying the past is not off limits and their is no reason it should be."
Studying the past is not the same as categorically denying I.D. based on the grounds A designer can not be ruled out (falsified)
The fact is falsification puts in place the parameters to keep what has been deemed unfalsifiable out of science. Because God is not falsifiable, I.D. is rejected SOLELY from that premise, even though God could exist.
Its an irrational parameter
toobsucker 10 months ago
@AcanLord "If i do not believe in something, that does not mean i reject it"
Thats EXACTLY what it means.
Give me ONE other example this analogy holds true.
Give me one other instance (besides God) in which you DO NOT believe it to be true, but yet still do not reject it as being FALSE.
You wont find one because it can not logically exist
toobsucker 10 months ago
Comment removed
AcanLord 10 months ago
@toobsucker "" Give me ONE other example this analogy holds true."" Certainly. I do have a belief in aliens. But i do not reject that aliens could exist. i do not believe in them because i have never been presented with evidence of them. this is not the same as rejecting them outright. My position on the whimstical Sky fairy you know as Yahweh is in the same catagory as all other invisable people. The same Rules Apply to do anything which cannot be shown to me. Evidence is primary.
AcanLord 10 months ago
@AcanLord "Factualy incorrect sir. Science has always nessisarily been without Theism"
Why do you spout off factual errors without even attempting to research them first. Nothing you say now can be taken seriously
Google "Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past" by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
This is one of intelligent designs talking points. Its well know most scientists before Darwin's time were theists. We have documentation on this
toobsucker 10 months ago
@toobsucker Finish reading the post dumbass.
AcanLord 10 months ago
@AcanLord "Finish reading the post dumbass."
"Most scientists before Darwins day were theists. unlike today.--"
"Factualy incorrect sir. Science has always nessisarily been without Theism"
You are a illogical piece of work. The rest of the post does not nullify your incorrect statement that
"Science has always nessisarily been without Theism"
FACTUALLY untrue. We know who the scientists were before Darwin and we KNOW their beliefs (for the most part) MOST were theists. UNLIKE today
toobsucker 10 months ago
@toobsucker Here, read the whole thing.. ------ Science has always nessisarily been without Theism. Their are still plenty of Theists in scientific disaplines, but the process is still inherently without belief in gods. The same was still true in darwins time. The Non-theistic nature of science exists weather the Practioners are religious or not. -------- The Scientific process has No Religious affiliation, it is their for atheistic. Even if the practitioner has a religion.
AcanLord 10 months ago
@AcanLord I have to take off. Wont be back until probably Monday
toobsucker 10 months ago
@AcanLord 100% "Forensic science completely kills your backwards assertion.
As does All venues of geology, Paleontology, Phylogenetics and cosmology
Right. You know very well what science I am referring to, since we have been discussing this for months. Its EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE that IM referring to and its NATURALISM these fields proclaim. Forensic science does not concern its self with ORIGINS of life/universe. ALL other areas you mentioned do. Just because they DO does not mean they should
toobsucker 10 months ago
@toobsucker Forensic Science Deals with the past. That was the point in bringing it up.
The same applies to all of the mentioned fields. Studying the past is not off limits and their is no reason it should be. The Aim of these fields is to learn about their respective subject matter. The discovery of common ancestry, the formation of the earth and the birth of the known universe are simply emergient discoveries.
AcanLord 10 months ago
@AcanLord "When someone does not believe in something, it does not logicaly follow they must also reject it."
Yes it does. simple examples refute you
I do not believe Santa exists
I believe Santa does not exist
I do not believe the Easter exists
I believe the Easter bunny does not exist
If you do not believe Z exists, then it logically follows you reject Z from existing. How can you logically accept Z CAN EXIST and at the same time not believe Z exists.
This is illogical FAITH in action
toobsucker 10 months ago
@toobsucker --- If you do not believe Z exists, then it logically follows you reject Z from existing. How can you logically accept Z CAN EXIST and at the same time not believe Z exists. --- Except when you are wrong. What if someone has never heard of Z? if they have not heard of it, then they still do not believe it. rejection isent required not to believe something. their are plenty of exceptions. Their is also a Neutral position. Absolutism is for the Naive and headstrong.
AcanLord 10 months ago
@AcanLord "with it we are able to verifiably learn how the world works, Invent new technologies"
The atheists within science have injected metaphysical assumptions into science that do not belong. Anti-I.D Professor Michael Ruse said in a speech Saturday, February 13, 1993 science has adopted the metaphysical position that God does not exist. You then build a theory on what is NOT KNOWN
You fail to understand claiming God does NOT exist is just as much a statement of faith as God DOES exist
toobsucker 11 months ago
@toobsucker
"atheists within science have injected metaphysical assumptions into ..."
Stop right there.
Methodlogical Naturalism was never "injected" into science. it is the very core of the scientific method itself This position exists regardless of weather you believe in magical things like gods, faries and wizards or not. Their are plenty of Scientists who are Theists and have all sorts of weird beliefs but they all still nessisarily must employ this methodology in order to pratice science.
AcanLord 11 months ago
@AcanLord "Stop right there.
Methodlogical Naturalism was never "injected" into science"
Yes it was with illogical falsification.
Falsification states what is INCAPABLE of being proven false must then be ASSUMED to be false.
God can not be proven false, therefor he is false, therefore naturalism at all costs even without verification. it is laughably ridiculous.
God is not falsifiable, therefore randomness & deletions MUST HAVE written overlapping coded languages.
LOL@liberal logic
toobsucker 10 months ago
@toobsucker -- Methodlogical Naturalism was never "injected" into science"
Yes it was with illogical falsification. -- This methodology was been implemented since the time of the ancient greeks toobsucker. since the very inception of what we call modern science...
AcanLord 10 months ago
@toobsucker ----------------- If you say life could exist out there, you then need DATA not emotion that prohibits this life to be less than "God like" in its attributes.
No such DATA exists. ----------------------- So from this statement may i take it to believe that your god is a lifeform in deepspace somewhere?
I never claimed to know the properties of possible extraterrestrial life. For all i know they could very easily resemble god like entities. But i have no evidence for this.
AcanLord 11 months ago
@AcanLord "So from this statement may i take it to believe that your god is a lifeform in deepspace somewhere?
...I never claimed to know the properties of possible extraterrestrial life. For all i know they could very easily resemble god like entities"
LOL, AcanLord your liberal logic never fails.
First, LIFE can exist with matter or energy since they are interchangeable. The String theory stands on other dimensions existing.
And "resemble god like entities" = Duck resembles Duck.. LOL
toobsucker 11 months ago
@toobsucker I should like to point out to you at this point that string theory is not a theory. That name is a misnomer. Its a untested hypothesis based on Strong mathmatical inferances. It has yet to be verified. Additionaly, i was asking You a question. as to weather you believe your deity is an Alien lifeform somewhere. "similar to cthulhu?" And finaly, no. You do not get to say Life can exist as energy. This has never been directly observed before.
AcanLord 11 months ago
@AcanLord "I should like to point out to you at this point that string theory is not a theory"
So then you reject other unseen dimensions as a possibility when phantom DNA and quantum entanglement suggest otherwise
"you believe your deity is an Alien life form somewhere. "similar to cthulhu?"
In the strict definition of the word alien YES. Anyone not indigenous to earth is an "alien". But he (God) is perfect in attributes we can not comprehend, Not a invention of a science fiction writer
toobsucker 11 months ago
@toobsucker And no. i don`t really reject them. i merely am skeptical of them, because they have not been confirmed. I freely admit that the Math Strongly infers it, but this is not the same as confirming it conclusively, So now, about your god. we can now agree that in the stricted definition your god is an alien. i can be down with that. However, How can you say with absolute certainity that it is perfect in all of its attributes, esspecialy when you cannot comprehend it?
AcanLord 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AcanLord "So now, about your god. we can now agree that in the stricted definition your god is an alien. i can be down with that. However, How can you say with absolute certainity that it is perfect in all of its attributes, esspecialy when you cannot comprehend it?"
Of course you can be "down with that" because you don't have to answer for your actions to that life form. An all powerful God life (which is as unfalsifiable as a grey alien) you would .
You have a CLEAR emotional blinder
toobsucker 11 months ago
@AcanLord "You do not get to say Life can exist as energy. This has never been directly observed before"
Shall we list all of sciences unsubstantiated hypotheses?
toobsucker 11 months ago
@AcanLord "Is their any particular reason why this particular mythology is more valid
then any other?"
Which deity is not relevant to this discussion. When I was eighteen I doubted all religions validity to some degree. But the evidence of God was overwhelming to me.
The chances of BOTH male and female sex organs JUST HAPPENING to develop at the same time by random chance made me LOL. And now I know how many of these "strange coincidences" (a myriad) must happen for evolution to be valid
toobsucker 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker --- he chances of BOTH male and female sex organs --- Arguements from irreducible complexity no not work. the origins of sexual reproduction is actively researched.
and as for -- (a myriad) must happen for evolution to be valid --- This is catagoricaly false. All that needs to be shown is for Alleles to change in frequency over time in biological populations and to show restrictions in gene flow occur to confirm Evolution is a real world phenomina. Already done.
AcanLord 11 months ago
0:36 Information THEORY? Sorry, but you're basing your argument on a mere THEORY.
Ha!
hurpderp123