"answersingenesisDOTorrrg/tj/v18/i3/mistakes.asp" should put to rest the claim of yours that our inability to produce vitamin C ourselves as chimps also can't proves common ancestry.
I read only from the section "Introduction to vitamin C biosynthesis," btw. I know how much you love answersingenesis, so I gave you an excuse to visit them again.
" [Concerning] the design flaws of the human eye. I don't think it's unfair to say you have a god of the gaps argument. When you don't acknowledge all the things that evolution correctly predicts, and eloquently explains, and continue to point to the few gaps of human knowledge as your primary defense. Then yeah, you've got a god of the gaps." No. I told you that since it's either the supernatural INTENDING nature or accidents creating the universe, I got God right.
@AthosAmo You say that accidents without intelligence involved CAN create high order and you cite diamonds. I already told you over a week ago that you beg the question with diamonds since you start off with a world where things can come together. In your paradigm, you have to start from scratch and you are still stuck at the big explosion notion where you can't get any star to form because the gases are still separating in the void. And the bonded carbon atoms are simple despite being pretty.
@AthosAmo Also, being an atheist, you like to think you are not a person of faith when the fact of the matter is you have an amazing amount of it. You like to say that I have a god-of-the-gaps argument yet you dont see that you have a ridiculous accidents-of-the-gaps argument. Abiogenesis? You don't know, but you have faith that accidents did it. How the gases coalesced in the big bang's first creation events you don't know, but you have faith that accidents did it. And more.
@AthosAmo Give me some time to find out how you're wrong about the vitamin C switches in chimps/humans proves common ancestry claim. You are just not able to see that your SUBJECTIVE interpretations aren't the only ones, are you? And that they are not experiments? You still have ZERO experiments for either the big explosion notion or macroevolution, so you are defending science fiction which you tout as scientific facts. Open your eyes.
Oh, the Jehovah's Witnesses called 1914 an important year with respect to the end time. They were partially correct. Although in retrospect there were some problems. but what impressed me is they could call the year and describe events that would happen at that time. What I didn't know was there were 100's of small bible study groups in the late 19th century doing the same thing as the JWs. Reading the bible and prophesying. The ones that were wrong are gone. The JW's were sorta right.
@MsMrNoface I've an axiom: if it's an "American" Religion, it has to be wrong. Moronism and JaydoubleUism are both insanely absurd. I mean, you think any religion's absurd, but when you take a look at these....
@AthosAmo Or could you be being little biased? What I liked about the JW's at the time was their lack of hell fire. Their apparent fulfillment of documented prophecy, and their adherence to a form of Christianity more similar to the first century Christians. It failed for me on logic, but the same logic failure applies to all theism. And certainly it fails on creationism.
@MsMrNoface Every religion has selling points. Islam's is, to name one, simplicity. The JW religion's is the abscence of true justice which makes us feel comfy with ourselves and all happy-like because we're not gonna get punished or our most loved ones. Roman Catholicism: that it is the original church, supposedly. Atheism: that it is free from dogma (semi-joke). Judaism and true Christianity: that we deserve to die... but can be given grace by our loving Creator.
In a PM: " If the scientists who looked at human chromosome 2 did not find evidence of a fusion event between ape 2a & 2b you would have heard about it. That was a test and evolution passed with flying colors."
I would laugh, but this is just sad. You have no proof it is the fusion of apes' genes. It is just apparently a fusion which is LIKE the apes' genes combined. While that makes for a weighty interpretation, I admit, it falls far short of being any scientific experiment/test. Cont.
@AthosAmo That was a test to see if their SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION matched an OBJECTIVE REALITY. It is STILL an interpretation!
By the way, I'm assuming that those people actually predicted that man's genes included an apparently fused one. If they DID, which they probably did, then they knew enough about genetics to have arrived at that conclusion, making their prediction less than extraordinary.
@AthosAmo It's an interpretations that gets reaffirmed again and again and is the best explanation for what we observe in reality. That's why it's a scientific theory.
@MsMrNoface The interpretation that gets "reaffirmed" according to you is just an interpretation that makes sense to people who don't see the big picture. That's all. If an interpretation makes sense, it does not mean it is true and making sense is not a scientific experiment. Back in time, people would think that the earth being stationed in one spot in space and not moving from there was the best explanation for what they observed in reality, yet they never proved it as you haven't for yours.
@AthosAmo The most important point that you continue to miss again and again. Evolution explains the evidence and when more [PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN] material evidence comes to light, low and behold it agrees with evolutionary theory. No, crocoducks, no vetebrates with verted eyes, every new animal fits into the tree of life. And nothing to prevent an all powerful God from making life on Earth anyway he wanted. Why oh why oh why did he make it look like animals evolve?
@MsMrNoface Creation explains all lifeforms "again and again." And when more [PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN] material evidence comes to light, low and behold it agrees with at least one version of creationism. Whoop- dee-doo for me and you. Neither interpretation of the evidence is true just because it incorporates apparently all evidence. Animals DO evolve. MICRO-evolution. So what if it makes sense to you that macro-evolution is true? It ain't tested; it ain't science.
@AthosAmo The life forms on Earth do NOT agree with creation. You have to imagine why a free creative God would just choose to have all animals fit into the tree of life, and further that this tree of life would agree with the DNA. And here's the really important point. He didn't have to! There are numerous ways that you can program genes to build a human. Do you understand gene analogues? He could have used analogues, he didn't because apparently he wanted it to look like common decent.
@AthosAmo "When the often misquoted Darwin... is tested and reaffirmed more strongly than ever every time a new fossil species is discovered and it HAPPENS to fit in the tree of life."
It is super easy to make a form fit into an imaginary "evolution tree" in which all forms are linked. You just put it where you think it fits. That proves nothing but that their interpretations can make sense, especially to people who are ignorant of the dating methods' flaws and of alternative interpretations.
@AthosAmo Why no crocoduck then? A crocoduck would not fit in the tree of life. A pegasus would not either. And why so damn many coeleoptera? You think God could have mixed things up a bit. Linnaeus and his followers were primarily responsible for the creation of the tree of life and they were mostly creationists. They made it not knowing its implications.
@MsMrNoface If there were a crocoduck, your people would incorporate it, adjusting their interpretations. If you people can say that a hyrax is closely related to an elephant, you can make any connection you fancy.
What do you mean about "coeleoptera"? It does not surprise that a religious man developed macroevolutionary ideas since back then nearly everyone was religious (deists included).
@AthosAmo They predicted this before they looked, I know I've said that a few times, but you don't seem to get it. That's the essence of science. They observed, they hypothesized, they investigated they confirmed in this case. They could have found so many other things when they investigated the human genome, yet they found we shared most of it with the animals most physically similar to us, but you have to understand DNA there is no reason why God needed to make our DNA so similar, NO REASON!
@MsMrNoface Careful not to use the argument from ignorance to attempt to "prove" that your myth is true. Just because I don't know why there are apparently fused chromosomes doesn't mean that you are right. Look at all the supposedly vestigial body parts claimed to exist from your side. Not long ago, I saw on Yahoo's front page when I went to my mail, that an organ or other part believed by your people to be vestigial actually is not. And they actually said "Don't worry; Darwin is still right!"
@AthosAmo What the hell are you talking about? They predicted before anyone knew, that there would be evidence of a fusion. Later it was confirmed. That's powerful evidence. That's the best kind, Does the theory make predictions and are the predictions correct? The answer for evolution is YES and YES! You accept that chromosomes can fuse, right? you accept that humans and apes have very similar genes, right? To understand the problem with your argument re-read the article you sent me.
@MsMrNoface I told you that their prediction is not proof of macroevolution. I could tell you just as you tell me about prophecies, that you're just highlighting a correct prediction by macroevolutionists and ignoring all the failures. So what if there is an apparently fused chromosome? It does not prove macroevolution; only that there is an apparently fused chromosome and we are similar to chimps. To go further is to leave empirical territory.
@AthosAmo It's not a problem in the article you sent me [about the apparent fusion of ape chromosome 2a and 2b. Actually I found the writer quite reasonable. you said, 'So what if there was a fusion event.' or something along those lines. I'd rather you hear it from another creationist why your position is flawed.
@MsMrNoface I'm not going to read the article again when you can just tell me what the guy said that supposedly proves me wrong. I'm not going to look through it all to see if I did something wrong when I don't think I did and it's your job to support your claims, not mine.
Then why didn't it say as you said? Are you trying to tell me that bronze and classical age people did not literally believe that God made the sun rise? Dude that IS what they believed! That's what the writers of the bible believed and that's why they said what they said!
@MsMrNoface I said that bronze-age nomads (though actually they were settled by the time of Ezekiel's time and had known iron) couldn't know of their own power that their country would resurrect. I NEVER said that ALL ancient people of any time period believed that God [or their god(s)] had to make the sun rise each day. Stop assuming that your interpretations have to be the right ones without proving it. Sheesh. You do it with the Bible and you do it with natural things. It's a big problem.
@AthosAmo It's just so weak Athos, as I have said many nations have prophecies of doom, and resurrection. Some of them are bound to be wrong, and we never hear about them, and some of them are bound to b e right. BIG DEAL! The Greek word means 'make to rise' or 'cause to rise.' Ancient societies really did believe the bible as it was written. That's why the idea of the sun stopping in the sky was not so crazy.
@MsMrNoface It's so weak that you can't provide even 1 example of a non-Jewish prophecy that was completely fulfilled.
What do you mean "we never hear about them?" The Quetzalcoatl case is one we hear about. There are more.
I believe that the sun was stopped by God. I know you think I'm crazy or something, but I think the same of you, you who believe that accidents are ultimately your creators.
@AthosAmo I'm not in the prophecy business here. Do you know what a double blind experiment is? Well if you do then I can't understand why you can continue to insist that the nation of Israel being created is any big deal.
@MsMrNoface You should apply your standards to your own stuff as well as mine. Why should the correct prediction of macroevolutionists which you tout as the best evidence for macroevolution be considered a big deal when someone's bound to get one right eventually? Is it because it wasn't vague?
@AthosAmo Stop right there. A nation dieing out or living on has a grand total of 2 possible outcomes. A chromosome has many many more possibilities. The fact that a scientist applying evolution to the question of why humans have fewer chromosomes than apes, and he predicted there will be evidence of a fusion. Later other scientist find telomeres in the interior of Human gene 2. That's very different from the Jews saying our nation will be reconstructed in some way at some undefined time.
@MsMrNoface A scientist who presumably knew quite a bit about genes or whatnot predicting in a relatively short time before turning out to be right that there would be evidence of a fusion is vague enough. You don't talk about the other macroevolutionists who made predictions that failed. I'm going to sleep. If this response somehow fails, it's 'cause I'm sleepy. If I win, I had my right mind with me. More predictions.
@MsMrNoface Wait,wait,wait,wait,wait. You misrerpesent the prophecies. The 2 possible outcomes is not the case. Remember that the Bible prophesied two resurrections which were fulfilled, the second one still going on. The one after the Babylonian exile and the one after the Roman exile.
You can't hear about the nations that predicted their doom and rebirth when they were wrong. because those nations are now destroyed and the prophecy unfulfillef is not heard of. You think I'm crazy for being a skeptic of Shiva, Thor, Zeus, etc etc. No? Well the arguments are indistinguishable.
@MsMrNoface There are many alleged prophecies in history that don't involve nations resurrecting. You won't bother finding one that worked and was not vague?
Since according to you it is so easy for some to coincidentally turn out right, then why can't you provide just one?
@AthosAmo The biblical prophecies were vague. And the only ones that were not vague didn't require divine help. I don't know about non-biblical prophecies and I am not really interested as I view it as a waste of time. I have looked at prophecies before. And that's the main reason why I left the creationist religion I was involved with. because I finally realized the prophecy they claimed was fulfilled was not really as impressive as I thought.
@MsMrNoface I know you can always have faith that the Bible's prophecies were not divinely inspired but to dismiss the Bible as being coincidentally right without providing even one example of some other prophecy of any kind that was as good as Ezekiel 37 is weak.
I've seen your channel before and I think you're an ex-Muslim. Right? What was that alleged prophecy you became disillusioned with? I never read the Koran so I don't know of any. I want to learn Arabic before I read it.
@AthosAmo Ezekial 37 is nothing. Again I tell you about my prophecy that you will have your faith greatly tested and then you will experience a revival, well. That could happen, right? If it does, does it make me a prophet? How is this any different from EZ. 37? Actually I'm not an ex Muslim. A muslim apologist pissed me off with his disingenuousness, and I started researching Islam. I actually wanted to concentrate more on this area, i.e. refuting creationism and ID.
@MsMrNoface If you prophesied that I would get kidnapped and later be freed, then you would approach Ezekiel, but your example is not only so vague that anyone can interpret it as fulfilled (which can't be done with Ezekiel), it makes you look desparate.
@MsMrNoface You're not only cheating for having the ultimately God-provided conditions for such processes, those explosions are quite unlike the imaginary big bang in that the big bang separates things, whereas those explosions compress things. And no big bang believer has ever satisfactorily answered my question about what makes any gases come together when they are separating from each other in a freaking void. Try it.
Also, there is little order possible with explosions, I know. I meant big.
@AthosAmo It's an unintelligent force and it produces order. You seemed to be under the impression that explosions were somehow incapable of creating order. How do we know God provided those conditions? The Big Bang Model says a cooling expanding universe has gravity. When the universe was sufficiently cool to allow for hydrogen gravity started to gather it up in denser and denser aggregations.
@MsMrNoface You take it for granted that gravity would bring gases together despite them being far from each other by the time the universe cooled. Gravity was too weak to bring them together at first, so how could it get stronger later on for gases to combine? I have to make a lot of unwarranted assumptions to believe that merely imagined scenario.
@AthosAmo Yup, you got me. I don't really know that much about cosmology to say for sure that I know the hydrogen gas was close enough to collapse and form stars. I wasn't there after all. But, we can look out into space and see large clouds of gas in space that are collapsing to form stars [really get a pair of binoculars and point them down and left under the belt of Orion], so it doesn't sound as far fetched as say a Bronze Age God of nomadic Semites having done it.
@MsMrNoface No one was in that imaginary past. By the way, you impress with your unusual honesty as an atheist. How many would say "you got me"? 1 in a million. It seems you're not as closed minded as your typical comrade. I love the word "comrade."
As for the coalescing observed in the already existing Cosmos, the conditions for it have already been set. It doesn't save the big bang from not making sense besides not having proof (evidence subjectively interpreted for it, yes, but no proof).
@AthosAmo I honestly don't know how rarefied the hydrogen gas would be when it precipitated out of the expansion. I don't know what you mean by, "...the conditions have already been set." I was pointing that we can observe gas clouds that span 1000's of light years collapsing to form stars, so why could this not happen in the early universe? As I said this is a topic I cannot speak on off the top of my head and would require sources, of which who am I to say they are right or wrong?
@MsMrNoface By "...the conditions have already been set," I mean that the universe is already a system in which things can hit each other, bounce off, combine... meaning that star formation is possible. On the other hand, in the big bang scenario, particles separate from each other in a void. That's about it. No coalescing possible there, now is there? There lies the difference which makes a difference.
@AthosAmo That's your assumption, which is at odds with those people who have dedicated their lives to studying such things. I told you honestly, I don't know enough about the conditions of the early universe or have the math skills to tell you if the forces would have prevented or facilitated the formation of the first stars quasars. How can you know that it is impossible?
@MsMrNoface I can't prove that it's impossible for stars to form after gases separated in a void just as I can't prove to you that the moon chimera doesn't exist. How do YOU know that the chimera is impossilbe? You live like it is, so why can't I live like the BB is?
You can dedicate countless lives to something and still be wrong. Are you familiar with science history or ANY history? Numbers mean nothing truthwise.
P.S. I have class in about 35 minutes, so I won't be done responding today.
@MsMrNoface I didn't say or imply that they fulfilled their own prophecy. You can't do what those barbarians did and neither can any atheist, yet it is "nothing" to you. I guess defeating a bear with no weapons means nothing to you either, or less than nothing, considering that it is exceedingly less amazing than a prophecy fulfilled an era after making it. Can you defeat a bear? Didn't think so.
You'd have to believe that Jews have ALWAYS controlled the world to believe as you do. Do you?
@AthosAmo About Israel? Yeah, some of the western power from post WWII up until the present American government believe that securing Israel was the key to bringing the Messiah. So they supported the formation and maintenance of Israel for that reason+ After WWII there were many displaced and fearful Jews. So after the word prophecy [above [in your post]] I'm a little unclear as to what you're talking about. Could you clarify?
@MsMrNoface By "prophecy," I mean a divine prediction. Simple as that.
What do "many displaced and fearful Jews after WW2" have to do with this? Are you saying that the restoration of Israel wasn't an immediate and absolute restoration in every way? Who said it had to be complete as soon as it was formed? It is a process. The majority of Israel still rejects God by rejecting the Messiah, so they are just a body without a spirit. In the end, Israel will have the Spirit.
@AthosAmo The displaced Jews raised the question of "what do we do with the displaced Jews?" Next they needed a place to go. Do I need to spell this out? There's no need for a magical force or influence. < [That was my main point by the way.] The bible encouraged the belief, leaders believed it, so it happening is no proof. You've got to listen to yourself saying,"...they are just a body without a spirit." of the Jews.
@MsMrNoface If I assumed, you could have told me: "You shouldn't have assumed." Since I ask to not assume, you tell me: "Do I need to spell this out?"
Your assertion that there's no need for a God I have already refuted. You are missing the point. Again (answer it this time): "How could those PRE-CHRISTIANITY ancient "barbarian" Hebrews accurately predict that it would be possible for their nation to resurrect after being destroyed? If you don't answer my questions, I won't answer all yours.
@AthosAmo Are you saying you refuted my assertion that the existence of modern Israel does not support the divine source of prophecies specific to Israel? Because I didn't catch that. Could you post that again?
@MsMrNoface I've said on more than one occasion that the Hebrews could not have accurately predicted the resurrection of Israel when there were no powerful agents who were interested in making the prophecy come true. There were no Great Britains then. The Hebrews were weak among their neighbours save for David and Solomon's reigns, but they didn't last long. You fail to explain how they could know. You act as if Britain always existed.
@AthosAmo I hope if you remember one thing from this engagement it is this: Most nations have creation and destruction myths. It is no big deal if some of the VAGUE myths come to pass in some way, BECAUSE all nations have a beginning and all of them thus far have had an end. It's like me predicting I will one day die. Are you impressed? No, well perhaps you can understand why the Jews calling their destruction and resurrection as a nation doesn't impress me ONE BIT
@MsMrNoface Dying is an obvious certainty so your example doesn't work. I've considered the Quetzalcoatl prophecy of the Aztecs in which, it is said, they prophecied that a white, bearded Quetzalcoatl from the east would return to Mexico. While many of those elements turned out right, there were some that were obviusly not, such as the fact that it would be a "return." Cortes never lived in Mexico before he went on his expeditions. So can you provide a fully true pagan prophecy that compares?
@AthosAmo Sounds like you're just not reading that Aztec prophecy with the same amount of charity with which you read the bible. When were the skeletons of the Jews reassembled?
@MsMrNoface Sounds like you're at a loss for providing even one pagan prophecy that has been fulfilled. Even if you find one, I will show the differences between it and the Jewish ones and they WILL make a difference.
The Jews were reassembled after WWII. Most of them being fake Jews, Ashkenazim.
@MsMrNoface If you had read Ezekiel 37, you would have read this: [[[Then he said to me: “Son of man, these bones are the people of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’ Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. ]]]
@AthosAmo The oracle of Delphi. It's [appropriately] a prophecy of doom and redemption. This region of the world had a long tradition of prophets and had adherents that truely believed in the divine origin of their message.
@MsMrNoface You DO realize I wasn't asking for a mere example of a pagan prophecy? I was asking for one that was fully accurate. I don't know much about the Oracle at Delphi, but I kind of remember from the History Channel or something like that that its prophecies were vague, unlike the one from Ezekiel 37. So, which of the Oracle's prophecies compares to Ezekiel 37?
@MsMrNoface By the way, do you apply your reasoning to the alleged prediction some scientists made about the chromosomes? I mean, that isn't very amazing if true, using your reasoning.
@AthosAmo I was trying to point out the fundamental/qualitative difference between, what bible believers do [when arguing for the accuracy of the bible or the existence of divinely inspired prophecies] and what scientists do. It's like that cartoon --left frame scientists talking "OK, that's the evidence. What conclusions can we make?" Right frame two creationists talking, "OK, that's the conclusion we want. What evidence can we find to support it?" Science = Observe>hypothesize>test>repeat
@MsMrNoface This is not creationists versus scientists as much as it is creationists with few scientists versus macroevolutionists/bigbangbelievers with most scientists.
Both sides have people who want to believe something and people who have no desire to believe something in particular. Even though I want to believe that I am not an accident as you believe, it should not discredit me if my arguments are valid.
Since science includes testng and repeating tests, then provide one for BB/Mac-E.
@AthosAmo Look really accident is not the right word , and again no one uses this to describe our existence but creationist who strawman evolutionists. I just google the phrases life is an accident and evolution is an accident the overwhelming majority of people who use this phrase in the pages, blogs, etc. I saw were creationists strawmaning evolutionists or atheists. provide one thing...that's become a battle cry for creationists --- How about 1000 things?
@MsMrNoface I'm not strawman-ing at all. If other creationists do, that's not me, so the point is invalid. I do not lie when I say that you believe that we are accidents. In effect, you're playing the arbitrary word police telling me I can't use the word "accident" to refer to what you certainly do believe we and the Cosmos are. Besides it being an apparent pet peeve of yours, why should I not use it? I don't care if the establishment doesn't use it. I covered that already.
@MsMrNoface I don't know what "this context" is supposed to mean, but I'll assume it means the whole general debate we're having. Surely that's it. I mean events that are not intended. Simple as that. When I spill my cup, I don't intend it. When the black-hole-like "singularity" exploded, it was not intended. And so on.
@AthosAmo As I said before, expanded is more accurate. I don't know if comparing the singularity that preceded the big bang (a phrase coined by an opponent (Hoyle) of the theory btw) is helpful. As the singularity that preceded the BB was all of space while a black hole singularity it a space time singularity. I will accept the comparison only in so far as it demonstrates matter can be shrunk down to enormous densities. BB = accident? I would just say we don't know.
@MsMrNoface "Expanded" and "exploded" both work. One just makes it sound worse and I choose it because it is what it is: ridiculous. The other makes it sound okay and you choose it because you don't want it to sound bad. And you do as the establishment wants you to.
@AthosAmo Because it points to what is a huge qualitative difference between what the big bang is and what an explosion is. The BB is the expansion of space time itself. just to call it an explosion glosses over this tremendously important difference.
@MsMrNoface If time can expand, why can't it explode? To me, it makes no sense that time expands. Of course, I don't consider my making-sense-o-meter the sole basis for rejecting or accepting every claim.
I'm going to sleep soon. It's about to be five and I'm an idiot.
@MsMrNoface I don't know what "this context" is supposed to mean, but I'll assume it means the whole general debate we're having. Surely that's it. I mean events that are not intended. Simple as that. When I spill my cup, I don't intend it. When the black-hole-like "singularity" exploded, it was not intended. And so on.
@MsMrNoface Yes. Still no test in sight. My. Those "scientific" "theories" just aren't living up to what they're supposed to be!
It should not be difficult to provide even one test of either. You say "How about 1000 things?" If you can provide 1000 tests, that would be swell, but you can't provide one, so don't push it. And don't worry; it's not just you; it's the establishment. Is that another pet peeve word?
@AthosAmo What the hell do you mean by test? Evidence for evolution {or are we talking about abiogenesis, or Big Bang cosmology?, I have no idea], retrovirus mutations in our genes in some 16 locations. These are locations in the genome of humans and great apes where a virus has embedded itself in the code. It screams common ancestry and scientist are familiar with viruses today that operate in the same manner. The great apes have the same scare in the same location. Why would God do that?
@MsMrNoface Don't you know what the scientific method's step of testing is? It is experimenting. Come on! You should know that!
Hmm. I haven't heard of "retrovirus mutations in our genes in some 16 locations" before. I don't have the time to investigate it now. For later, then. Bye.
Whatever it is, it sure ain't an experiment, but something interpreted for macroevolution. So, you still haven't provided a test, so it ain't science. Get back to me on that and I plan 2 get back to you on this.
@AthosAmo Don't patronize. When you hypothesize and observe that in and of itself is a test. An experiment is a test, but not all tests are experiments. It's just the nature of the subject being studied that determines the test. The retrovirus scars just came to my attention, too. Don't forget to look that up. There was a vid. might be in my favorites. Got it: it's user cdk007's video Evidence for Evolution part III.
@MsMrNoface The one who asked me "do I need to spell this out?" tells me not to patronize. Well, I was wrong to depict you as ignorant when you could have just been checking to not assume as I did before here. Having seen that video, I was like: "I don't know how to respond since I'm not knowledgable about the details of particulars like some scientists and afficionados, but I know he is not presenting the big picture." I was right. See the rebuttal: youtube . com /watch?v=zjXP3vEA3Rk
@AthosAmo OK, I'll get back to you. The video is of poor quality. I mean the sound it difficult [he apparently used some demo audio software]. But I'll give it a listen. I also not the he has devoted his channel to debunking cdk007, and doesn't allow comments. It's hard to have much respect for this guy from the start. But as I said I'll give it a try.
@MsMrNoface I was gonna mention that the video has an annoying "demo" phrase made through it all, but I didn't have enough space and didn't feel like making a follow-up comment. I haven't checked his channel yet and I plan to soon. Yes, it is unfortunate that he does not allow public debating/comments.
@AthosAmo Yes, it is unfortunate. It certainly won't help his credibility. But it is funny and ironic that cdk007 throws back at the creationists an argument based on probabilities; when traditionally this has been a favorite argument of creationists.
@AthosAmo Well, yeah. cdk007 is a pretty well established youtuber. If the refutation is valid it will get views, though slowly. I suspect it's not valid for some reason, but I haven't looked at it carefully yet. I want to check out the other responses on YT as well. If there's a smoking gun of deception in cdk007's video someone will point it out. pay attention to us evolutionists, if one of us says BS, the others will call them on it. Trust me.
@MsMrNoface I've seen it is not always the case. Likewise, I've seen creationists do the same, though creationists have more dumb people, perhaps since they have more people, period.
@AthosAmo Do you know how much scrolling down it took to find this? :P Well, there is the example in the article I sent you of a creationist who urges other creationists to drop some arguments that he sees as incorrect. Doesn't Answers in Genesis devote a page to arguments they advise creationists no to use anymore? I thought I stumbled on that before.
@MsMrNoface 'Ey. I do it too. And this is nothing. Try arguing with several atheists who outnumber you in a very popular atheist video which gets new comments coming in every five minutes. I gave up on those.
I don't know about AnswersinGenesis. I haven't visited it in a long time and when I did, it was a relatively short visit.
@AthosAmo A test that is not an experiment -- I observe a bird species in my area. I wonder about its diet. I think given the bill shape the animal seems to be adapted to picking insects and spiders from trees. To test this I capture the number of birds needed to make it statistically significant and I examine stomach contents. My approach is scientific because it is falsifiable, repeatable, and based on things we can see and measure. And yes, the prediction was scientific and it was a good test
@AthosAmo Fetal development recapitulates our evolutionary history; including tail, gill slits, and many other features which humans don't need but are replayed every time a fetus develops. In genetics, why would we have a gene that allows us and the other primates to be unable to produce vitamin C? Did the gorillas suffer a fall as well? I hope you understand; we have the gene that would allow our bodies to make vitamin C like my dog can, but it's stuck in the OFF position.
@MsMrNoface Your first sentence there about fetal development is an outright assumption that you can't prove. Stop calling assumptions science. I've read of Haeckel before.... He was a racist German, I think, who did embryonic forgeries for that assumption, if I remember right.
The vitamin-C-gene-chimp-people thing, I have to investigate. To be continued.
I know you're not telling me everything I need to know, so I have to investigate.
And these things are still not tests of macroevolution.
@AthosAmo Why would we have the gene for tail growth, but have it stuck in the OFF position? Why would our eyes develop with the blood vessels in front of the light sensitive cells? Requiring massive brain development in the visual cortex in order to compensate for its imperfection? Why not just have eyes like the cephlopoda with the sensitive cells in front? Intelligent design? No, stupid inefficient design. The answer is evolution! It explains all the above very neatly. Shall I go on?
@MsMrNoface The tail growth gene thing I have to investigate, but it doesn't worry me since it is not proof. It is not a test. Macroevolution is still unscientific.
Many problems in the world/universe can be explained as the indirect/direct results of sin, and while unproven, untested and unscientific (I'm not claiming it to be scientific), macroevolution is also those things. I have an answer in my mind for the rest of your comment, but it must wait. Class, studying, investigating... Bye.
@MsMrNoface The tail growth gene thing I have to investigate, but it doesn't worry me since it is not proof. It is not a test. Macroevolution is still unscientific.
Many problems in the world/universe can be explained as the indirect/direct results of sin, and while unproven, untested and unscientific (I'm not claiming it to be scientific), macroevolution is also those things. I have an answer in my mind for the rest of your comment, but it must wait. Class, studying, investigating... Bye.
@AthosAmo Well, I would like to ask, with all the possibilities in reality why did he give us a tail bone we don't use? But we have in common with the other animals in our branches of the tree of life. A tree of life pointing directly at common ancestry, because its the easiest explanation for what is seen. God the simple forms come first! [In the rock strata] Why do the simple forms come first by way of a few different methods of measuring time, they come up the same. Macro view simple first???
@MsMrNoface The tail bone may well be for things like muscles or ligaments to attach to. Strata? Oh, man! You serious? I didn't go over dating methods with you, did I? They have in common (at least most of them, anyway) the assumption that what is dated was never contaminated in the supposed eras of their being in the earth. But on this: if you're gonna assume that the oldest things are the ones buried deepest, you are making an unwarranted assumption. Continued...
@MsMrNoface The geosphere isn't as stable as you assume it to be. Things always shift in it, melt, combine, react, etcetera. Tectonic plates go over others, some go under, some crash.... With volcanoes and earthquakes in supposed millions of years of earth history, what is deepest isn't necessarily what is oldest. What's more, layers aren't universal. Do you ever question the establishment? What they feed you? Do you think for yourself?
@MsMrNoface Your tree of life is like a constellation. It is subjectivity using objectivity. The stars are the species. Your lines between them are the lines of the imaginary constellations. Science indeed.
@MsMrNoface Since I'm not a scientist, I obviously will be at a loss to deal with the detailed specifics of many subjective interpretations of natural things that macroevolutionists will consider "proof" in effect, as you do, when all they are are interpretations that make sense to ignorant people who don't see the big picture and make unwarranted assumptions, though I can research a few and deal with those. But the interpretations are endless and I am trying to have a life. continued...
@MsMrNoface I found this site which seems to destroy your eye argument: ht tp :/ /ww w.icr[dotORG]/article/backwards-human-retina-evidence-poor-design/
I don't agree with everything the site says, so keep that in mind.
@MsMrNoface Of course Jews each have a spirit. Otherwise they'd be dead. I was obviously referring to Jews collectively; to Israel. Israel rejects God, so Israel is spiritually dead, being there corporally but full of corruption. Jews lack the Holy Spirit since they don't accept their King. One can have a spirit and still be spiritually dead. Anyone who rejects God willingly is spiritually dead despite having a spirit.
@MsMrNoface Are you saying that the weak Jews among mighty nation-states and empires would predict that they would be destroyed (easy to do) and then be resurrected far in the future (impossible for those mere mortals to know) despite being one of the weakest? To think that is to think that they weren't weak, but that they controlled world affairs. I don't see any other way for you to deny that the prophecy is divine.
@AthosAmo If I didn't make it clear before: Most nations in the past [and many today] tell creation stories as well as destruction stories. The Jewish story is one of many. Applying the story to reality is easy providing the story is sufficiently vague. If you are only aware of Jewish creation/destruction stories well, you ought to broaden your reading. If you are aware that many nations have such stories, then why would it impress you that some may come to pass? And why would it require God?
@MsMrNoface I ignored that point because it was pointless since you didn't provide an example of a non-Jewish prophecy that was fulfilled. Give it a shot now. You're gonna have a hard time with it. lol
The story is not so vague that it can be read into whatever event seems to fit it. Read Ezekiel 37 and show me your alternative interpretation so I can laugh. In it, it clearly says that Israel will be resurrected.
I've read of other creation stories. I'm not that ignorant.
@AthosAmo The historical context is enough. Israel was undergoing a destruction at that time. The book of Ezekial reassured the Jews of that time as it was used in the Nazi concentration camps to comfort the Jewish captives there. And again big deal! Of course someone prophesied the restoration of Israel. Can you imagine Ezekial coming out to the captive Jews in Babylon and saying ." We're doomed, dooomed!"
@MsMrNoface I see what you mean now (sorry). "It's just a coincidence." But Israel had more than one prophecy of a restoration come true. There's the Babylonian instance and then there's the Roman instance. The prophecies were fulfilled. Why would the Jew in the room be the only one to win two lotteries in a row when there are many in the room who gambled with more likelihood of winning? Ezekiel did say "we're doomed" in 22:20, e.g.. Chptr37 is not about the Babylonian, but the Roman case.
You mean the part were it says "...the Earth was without form and void"? There are a few creation myths that say that or something similar. It was a condensation out of a disc of gas. You can try to hammer it into your bible verse, but that's not going to lead to any greater understanding of reality. The verses in the bible, Koran, or other holy texts were written by men of their times. If they really were divinely enlightened why not give one tidbit of information unknown in ancient times?
The Bible has prophecies that have been fulfilled, one of which is before our eyes: Israel. How could those bronze age nomads have known that millenia into the future, a long-dead Israel would rise again?
Yes, Great Britain and other worldly entities had to do with it, but the point is that the prophecy is right.
The Bible does not claim to be a science book. It just claims to be flawless when it touches on anything, including nature.
@AthosAmo Well, as I said if you admit there were human actors who are familiar with bible prophecy and so the fulfillment of that prophecy doesn't mean divine involvement of any kind. "The Bible does not claim to be a science book. It just claims to be flawless when it touches on anything, including nature." Sorry dude, this is out right contradiction. If the book comments on nature and it is not scientifically accurate it's wrong, and so has no claim to divine authorship.
@MsMrNoface You don't see the big picture. The prophecy was not made during the age of Christianity (A.D. or C.E.). So let me rephrase it for you: How could bronze-age "barbarians" predict that Israel would be resurrected when in their era there was no such thing as "Christianity," let alone "Christian" nations trying to fulfill prophecy themselves?
You didn't answer my question about Jews' control of the world.
@AthosAmo There were many other peoples in the ancient past; many with prophecies of doom and rebirth, it's a normal part of nationhood. Myths. All nations have them, and the ancient world had some doozies, Great serpents, giant Earth bearing turtles, And the idea of the one God, monotheism. It's a natural question. How many Gods are there? How many Gods do you think there are?
@MsMrNoface Where is the Bible wrong on nature? Do you mean macroevolution and the big bang? Have either been tested empirically? No. They're not even testable, practically speaking. So they're unscientific theories. And since accidents (esp. without intenders involved) don't lead to order and more order as your experience -and all of mankind's- testifies without exception, they are wishful thinking against empiricism.
@AthosAmo Sorry to answer a question with a question, but do you consider the bible literally true? I mean even the miracles and how shall I say...the righteousness of all the mass killings attributed or commanded by God in the bible. Because in establishing your beliefs about those points could save us a good deal of time.
@MsMrNoface "Do you consider the Bible literally true?" is a poor question since some parts are and some aren't. You refer to miracles being true and God creating in literal days and Adam and Eve being literal people who were literally deceived by the serpent. Yeah. I believe that. Now let's deal with the big bang and macroevolution. Do you know of any tests that makes them scientific?
@AthosAmo Science never claimed to have all the answers. Science is an on going process, however much has been established that contradicts the bible. The Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are scientific. They are falsifiable [often important in modern definitions of what is science]. A while ago scientist were able to count the number of chromosome humans have; oddly one less than apes. According to evolution 2 ape genes must have merged. Much later scientists confirmed this. cont.
@MsMrNoface The BBT says that the universe is getting bigger and cooler. Cosmic background radiation added supporting evidence. Hmm, but a test. OK, I'll work on that. Meanwhile you come up with a test for the Theory of Gravity please. :) And no, dropping an object to the floor is not a test, it is just a demonstration, like showing that most galaxies are red shifted. Those are the observations upon which BBT and GT are based, they do not actually test the theory, right?
@MsMrNoface There is more than one explanation for CMB radiation. I don't have to have an alternative explanation to reject the conventional explanation, considering that the radiation is not detected as coming from one point, as the big explosion notion would have it.
I need a separate comment to respond to you on gravity.
@MsMrNoface Why would it come from all directions when the expansion is still going on and it began at a point somewhere? That subjective interpretation is not fact.
@AthosAmo It's not subjective. Imagine the singularity. It expand to the universe of present day. The radiation of that initial moment is now that which lies on the outer limit. When you look out into space you're looking back in time. The estimated age of the universe is about 13.6 billlion years. When you look out that far all there is is the cosmic background radiation. We wouldn't expect that it would be a point that could be observed within the universe, it is the outer edge.
@MsMrNoface There is no such thing as an interpretation that is not subjective. It can also be objective in some sense of that word, but it will always be subjective.
I'm not saying that we should find the radiation at the point of the explosion's origin, but that it should be detected as having come from that point.
@AthosAmo No really man, you're missing something here. Imagine the young universe, expanding we are inside that 13 1/2 billion years later the CBR is still there only now it has spread out. We are inside the balloon and the CBR is the outer shell of what we can see. So it should be in all directions. It is objective. Because it's simple geometry. And it's exactly what a hot BB or expansion would predict.
@MsMrNoface Chuck Norris, in his epic fight with Weegee, created a time vortex portal thing by doing a round-house kick that equalled the power of Weegee's wicked stare, thus making the universe go back in time to the age of the dinosaurs, wiping the strongest of beings out but leaving the weakest (mainly plushy mammals) to dominate the Urth. The effects of that fight is seen in the radiation which the theory accurately predicted. Now, why would you not believe that?
@MsMrNoface My point with the Norris/Weegee example is that you can say whatever you want and make it fit the radiation and say "it predicts just that" as if it means anything significant.
So, why would you not believe that Norris and Weegee caused the background radiation? You believe that gravity exists, yet there are no known mechanisms for how it works, so that can't be a reason to not believe in the Norris-Weegee theory. Yet the big bang you believe is no better than it.
@MsMrNoface Demonstrations can be tests, you know. Dropping, for example, one of Dawkins' propaganda books in the toilet is a test for the force known as gravity. What gravity IS in detail is not known, but it IS a force and it IS tested and proven. Unlike the explosion myth and the we-came-from-slime-which-came-from-gas myth.
Also, red-shift has alternative interpretations. Subjective interpretations are the most you macroevolutionists have ever achieved for your myths.
@AthosAmo Gah, you must have to imagine there is a world wide conspiracy among scientists in a number of fields dating back a couple of hundred years to keep evidence of divine creation out of public view. in order to qualify as a theory in science, evolution like gravity theory has to pass the same requirements.
@MsMrNoface Worldwide deception is what. And not absolutely universally either since not all scientists assume and call their assumptions science. Look at the history of science and you will see that scientists have always been wrong in popular theories that they taught as fact when all they did was interpret things subjectively without proving their theories. You must imagine that scientists before contemporary times were in general neanderthals. How arrogant that would be.
@MsMrNoface And I never claimed that science claimed that. I do know, however, that most scientists claim the big explosion notion and macro-evolution to be scientific theories. You know what else is falsifiable? The claim that a chimera lives inside of the moon. It is a scientific theory because it is falsifiable. All we gotta do is drill and find it to see if it is true or not. Until then, it is SCIENCE, and don't you dare question SCIENCE.
@MsMrNoface One can interpret strange patterns on the surface as pawprints of the legendary beast and look at shadows in pictures of moon landings and interpret peculiar ones as the chimera curled up or something. My point was that something isn't scientific just because it is falsifiable.
@MsMrNoface If we have one less chromosome than apes, it just means we are similar to them. Any claim beyond that is stepping out of the bounds of empiricism and entering the non-scientific realm of wishful thinking. Why not quote to me how similar we are to a banana in terms of DNA? 50% I've heard. But one percent means a huge difference, so it's the same with chimps being 98% or even 99% similar to us DNA-wise: there's a big difference. It means nothing but similarity in physical composition.
@AthosAmo There's more. The prediction [that 2 ape chromosome merged] was made long before the human genome was mapped out. On doing that they found that the sequences matched up nearly perfectly, and genetic features called telomeres, normally found at the end of a chromosome, were found IN THE MIDDLE of human chromosome 2. I'll PM a link to a good short illustrated article just in case you're interested. I wonder what Answers in Genesis has on this, I'll have to look for it,should be a laugh.
@MsMrNoface "According to evolution 2 ape genes must have merged. Much later scientists confirmed this." What do you mean "two ape genes must have merged"? What apes' genes? What genes?
@AthosAmo It's just an example of how science works. humans have 23 chromosomes. Apes have 24. A scientist predicted evidence of a fusion of 2 ape chromosome would be found. Later it was. That's science. I prophesize I will get a glass of water *goes to fridge, gets water bottle, pours water into glass* Ta dah! I'm a prophet! No? Oh well, maybe it was all that talk of hydrogen that foreshadowed my water glass. No, you wouldn't accept that as evidence of my prophetic powers? Meh, me neither.
@MsMrNoface In a private message in response to a link you gave, I sent you my own which explains why it is not science that our apparently fused chromosome came from apes. You interpret subjectively and call it science. Come on. That's as scientific as literary criticism.
@MsMrNoface Your prediction is a ridiculous comparison to the prophecy of Israel's resurrection because you obviously had the power to make it happen, not just in your lifetime, but in a minute. Are you implying that the ancient Jews long before Christianity existed had the power to make their prophecy happen? Are the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in your library?
@MsMrNoface As for mass killings commanded by God in the Bible, you are using your subjective morality to evaluate them. To you, it is not wrong for someone to do many things that to God is wrong. Concerning the mass slaughter of Philistines, you think they were innocent, for the most part. God knows they were wicked, minus the youngest of them, who suffered/died as a consequence of their parents' crimes. I think God would take the dead babies to heaven because they were innocent.
@AthosAmo Yes, I am. And you are using your belief in a being that cannot be seen, heard, touched or tested in any verifiable way. Who's on firmer ground here. At least I can tell you why I think it's a bad idea to butcher a city's inhabitants from babies to adults. If God takes the innocent Philistine babies to heaven, how is that fair to you? Someone who has had to live in this world with all its temptations?
@MsMrNoface The being is the God of the Scriptures which make up the best explanation for reality/existence. Give me something that comes close. No, your accidents-created-the-world myth doesn't count. Since accidents can't create much order, an intender or intenders did. And it is one intender known as Elohim, for the reason given in the first sentence of this comment.
Again, they were wicked. If Osama Bin Laden were executed, would you protest?
@AthosAmo The only people who say accidents created the Earth and life are Creationists. I notice you say "can't create much order" now, lol. If they can create any order then you have something to build on. What proof do you have for God? Actually, I would protest the execution of Bin Laden. The Philistine babies get a free pass and you have to go through life resisting vices [sex, drugs, rock 'n roll] and arguing with nasty atheists like me. Those little babies had it easy.
@MsMrNoface Of course the only people who present your mythology for the absurdity it is are creationists. You can't deny that you believe that accidents created the accident that earth supposedly is. And the first lifeform.
You have something to build on? lol. Accidents don't build. The little order they create is destroyed in time since for every step forward accidents take, they make a hundred back. There is no far progression in that. Though you have faith for such a scenario.
MEOW!!!! MEOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
spckk 7 months ago
"answersingenesisDOTorrrg/tj/v18/i3/mistakes.asp" should put to rest the claim of yours that our inability to produce vitamin C ourselves as chimps also can't proves common ancestry.
I read only from the section "Introduction to vitamin C biosynthesis," btw. I know how much you love answersingenesis, so I gave you an excuse to visit them again.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo To clarify, I read only from that section to the end, not just that section. I meant "from" as "starting from."
AthosAmo 1 year ago
" [Concerning] the design flaws of the human eye. I don't think it's unfair to say you have a god of the gaps argument. When you don't acknowledge all the things that evolution correctly predicts, and eloquently explains, and continue to point to the few gaps of human knowledge as your primary defense. Then yeah, you've got a god of the gaps." No. I told you that since it's either the supernatural INTENDING nature or accidents creating the universe, I got God right.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo You say that accidents without intelligence involved CAN create high order and you cite diamonds. I already told you over a week ago that you beg the question with diamonds since you start off with a world where things can come together. In your paradigm, you have to start from scratch and you are still stuck at the big explosion notion where you can't get any star to form because the gases are still separating in the void. And the bonded carbon atoms are simple despite being pretty.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Also, being an atheist, you like to think you are not a person of faith when the fact of the matter is you have an amazing amount of it. You like to say that I have a god-of-the-gaps argument yet you dont see that you have a ridiculous accidents-of-the-gaps argument. Abiogenesis? You don't know, but you have faith that accidents did it. How the gases coalesced in the big bang's first creation events you don't know, but you have faith that accidents did it. And more.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Give me some time to find out how you're wrong about the vitamin C switches in chimps/humans proves common ancestry claim. You are just not able to see that your SUBJECTIVE interpretations aren't the only ones, are you? And that they are not experiments? You still have ZERO experiments for either the big explosion notion or macroevolution, so you are defending science fiction which you tout as scientific facts. Open your eyes.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
You ask in a PM: "What site?"
Last week, I think it was, I said...
"I found this site which seems to destroy your eye argument: ht tp :/ /ww w.icr[dotORG]/article/backwards-human-retina-evidence-poor-design/
I don't agree with everything the site says, so keep that in mind."
AthosAmo 1 year ago
Oh, the Jehovah's Witnesses called 1914 an important year with respect to the end time. They were partially correct. Although in retrospect there were some problems. but what impressed me is they could call the year and describe events that would happen at that time. What I didn't know was there were 100's of small bible study groups in the late 19th century doing the same thing as the JWs. Reading the bible and prophesying. The ones that were wrong are gone. The JW's were sorta right.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface I've an axiom: if it's an "American" Religion, it has to be wrong. Moronism and JaydoubleUism are both insanely absurd. I mean, you think any religion's absurd, but when you take a look at these....
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Or could you be being little biased? What I liked about the JW's at the time was their lack of hell fire. Their apparent fulfillment of documented prophecy, and their adherence to a form of Christianity more similar to the first century Christians. It failed for me on logic, but the same logic failure applies to all theism. And certainly it fails on creationism.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface Every religion has selling points. Islam's is, to name one, simplicity. The JW religion's is the abscence of true justice which makes us feel comfy with ourselves and all happy-like because we're not gonna get punished or our most loved ones. Roman Catholicism: that it is the original church, supposedly. Atheism: that it is free from dogma (semi-joke). Judaism and true Christianity: that we deserve to die... but can be given grace by our loving Creator.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
In a PM: " If the scientists who looked at human chromosome 2 did not find evidence of a fusion event between ape 2a & 2b you would have heard about it. That was a test and evolution passed with flying colors."
I would laugh, but this is just sad. You have no proof it is the fusion of apes' genes. It is just apparently a fusion which is LIKE the apes' genes combined. While that makes for a weighty interpretation, I admit, it falls far short of being any scientific experiment/test. Cont.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo That was a test to see if their SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION matched an OBJECTIVE REALITY. It is STILL an interpretation!
By the way, I'm assuming that those people actually predicted that man's genes included an apparently fused one. If they DID, which they probably did, then they knew enough about genetics to have arrived at that conclusion, making their prediction less than extraordinary.
Cont.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo It's an interpretations that gets reaffirmed again and again and is the best explanation for what we observe in reality. That's why it's a scientific theory.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface The interpretation that gets "reaffirmed" according to you is just an interpretation that makes sense to people who don't see the big picture. That's all. If an interpretation makes sense, it does not mean it is true and making sense is not a scientific experiment. Back in time, people would think that the earth being stationed in one spot in space and not moving from there was the best explanation for what they observed in reality, yet they never proved it as you haven't for yours.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo The most important point that you continue to miss again and again. Evolution explains the evidence and when more [PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN] material evidence comes to light, low and behold it agrees with evolutionary theory. No, crocoducks, no vetebrates with verted eyes, every new animal fits into the tree of life. And nothing to prevent an all powerful God from making life on Earth anyway he wanted. Why oh why oh why did he make it look like animals evolve?
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface Creation explains all lifeforms "again and again." And when more [PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN] material evidence comes to light, low and behold it agrees with at least one version of creationism. Whoop- dee-doo for me and you. Neither interpretation of the evidence is true just because it incorporates apparently all evidence. Animals DO evolve. MICRO-evolution. So what if it makes sense to you that macro-evolution is true? It ain't tested; it ain't science.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo The life forms on Earth do NOT agree with creation. You have to imagine why a free creative God would just choose to have all animals fit into the tree of life, and further that this tree of life would agree with the DNA. And here's the really important point. He didn't have to! There are numerous ways that you can program genes to build a human. Do you understand gene analogues? He could have used analogues, he didn't because apparently he wanted it to look like common decent.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@AthosAmo "When the often misquoted Darwin... is tested and reaffirmed more strongly than ever every time a new fossil species is discovered and it HAPPENS to fit in the tree of life."
It is super easy to make a form fit into an imaginary "evolution tree" in which all forms are linked. You just put it where you think it fits. That proves nothing but that their interpretations can make sense, especially to people who are ignorant of the dating methods' flaws and of alternative interpretations.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Why no crocoduck then? A crocoduck would not fit in the tree of life. A pegasus would not either. And why so damn many coeleoptera? You think God could have mixed things up a bit. Linnaeus and his followers were primarily responsible for the creation of the tree of life and they were mostly creationists. They made it not knowing its implications.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface If there were a crocoduck, your people would incorporate it, adjusting their interpretations. If you people can say that a hyrax is closely related to an elephant, you can make any connection you fancy.
What do you mean about "coeleoptera"? It does not surprise that a religious man developed macroevolutionary ideas since back then nearly everyone was religious (deists included).
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo They predicted this before they looked, I know I've said that a few times, but you don't seem to get it. That's the essence of science. They observed, they hypothesized, they investigated they confirmed in this case. They could have found so many other things when they investigated the human genome, yet they found we shared most of it with the animals most physically similar to us, but you have to understand DNA there is no reason why God needed to make our DNA so similar, NO REASON!
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface Careful not to use the argument from ignorance to attempt to "prove" that your myth is true. Just because I don't know why there are apparently fused chromosomes doesn't mean that you are right. Look at all the supposedly vestigial body parts claimed to exist from your side. Not long ago, I saw on Yahoo's front page when I went to my mail, that an organ or other part believed by your people to be vestigial actually is not. And they actually said "Don't worry; Darwin is still right!"
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo What the hell are you talking about? They predicted before anyone knew, that there would be evidence of a fusion. Later it was confirmed. That's powerful evidence. That's the best kind, Does the theory make predictions and are the predictions correct? The answer for evolution is YES and YES! You accept that chromosomes can fuse, right? you accept that humans and apes have very similar genes, right? To understand the problem with your argument re-read the article you sent me.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface I told you that their prediction is not proof of macroevolution. I could tell you just as you tell me about prophecies, that you're just highlighting a correct prediction by macroevolutionists and ignoring all the failures. So what if there is an apparently fused chromosome? It does not prove macroevolution; only that there is an apparently fused chromosome and we are similar to chimps. To go further is to leave empirical territory.
What's the problem with the article?
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo It's not a problem in the article you sent me [about the apparent fusion of ape chromosome 2a and 2b. Actually I found the writer quite reasonable. you said, 'So what if there was a fusion event.' or something along those lines. I'd rather you hear it from another creationist why your position is flawed.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface I'm not going to read the article again when you can just tell me what the guy said that supposedly proves me wrong. I'm not going to look through it all to see if I did something wrong when I don't think I did and it's your job to support your claims, not mine.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
Then why didn't it say as you said? Are you trying to tell me that bronze and classical age people did not literally believe that God made the sun rise? Dude that IS what they believed! That's what the writers of the bible believed and that's why they said what they said!
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface I said that bronze-age nomads (though actually they were settled by the time of Ezekiel's time and had known iron) couldn't know of their own power that their country would resurrect. I NEVER said that ALL ancient people of any time period believed that God [or their god(s)] had to make the sun rise each day. Stop assuming that your interpretations have to be the right ones without proving it. Sheesh. You do it with the Bible and you do it with natural things. It's a big problem.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo It's just so weak Athos, as I have said many nations have prophecies of doom, and resurrection. Some of them are bound to be wrong, and we never hear about them, and some of them are bound to b e right. BIG DEAL! The Greek word means 'make to rise' or 'cause to rise.' Ancient societies really did believe the bible as it was written. That's why the idea of the sun stopping in the sky was not so crazy.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface It's so weak that you can't provide even 1 example of a non-Jewish prophecy that was completely fulfilled.
What do you mean "we never hear about them?" The Quetzalcoatl case is one we hear about. There are more.
I believe that the sun was stopped by God. I know you think I'm crazy or something, but I think the same of you, you who believe that accidents are ultimately your creators.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo I'm not in the prophecy business here. Do you know what a double blind experiment is? Well if you do then I can't understand why you can continue to insist that the nation of Israel being created is any big deal.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface You should apply your standards to your own stuff as well as mine. Why should the correct prediction of macroevolutionists which you tout as the best evidence for macroevolution be considered a big deal when someone's bound to get one right eventually? Is it because it wasn't vague?
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Stop right there. A nation dieing out or living on has a grand total of 2 possible outcomes. A chromosome has many many more possibilities. The fact that a scientist applying evolution to the question of why humans have fewer chromosomes than apes, and he predicted there will be evidence of a fusion. Later other scientist find telomeres in the interior of Human gene 2. That's very different from the Jews saying our nation will be reconstructed in some way at some undefined time.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface A scientist who presumably knew quite a bit about genes or whatnot predicting in a relatively short time before turning out to be right that there would be evidence of a fusion is vague enough. You don't talk about the other macroevolutionists who made predictions that failed. I'm going to sleep. If this response somehow fails, it's 'cause I'm sleepy. If I win, I had my right mind with me. More predictions.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface Wait,wait,wait,wait,wait. You misrerpesent the prophecies. The 2 possible outcomes is not the case. Remember that the Bible prophesied two resurrections which were fulfilled, the second one still going on. The one after the Babylonian exile and the one after the Roman exile.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
You can't hear about the nations that predicted their doom and rebirth when they were wrong. because those nations are now destroyed and the prophecy unfulfillef is not heard of. You think I'm crazy for being a skeptic of Shiva, Thor, Zeus, etc etc. No? Well the arguments are indistinguishable.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface There are many alleged prophecies in history that don't involve nations resurrecting. You won't bother finding one that worked and was not vague?
Since according to you it is so easy for some to coincidentally turn out right, then why can't you provide just one?
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo The biblical prophecies were vague. And the only ones that were not vague didn't require divine help. I don't know about non-biblical prophecies and I am not really interested as I view it as a waste of time. I have looked at prophecies before. And that's the main reason why I left the creationist religion I was involved with. because I finally realized the prophecy they claimed was fulfilled was not really as impressive as I thought.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface I know you can always have faith that the Bible's prophecies were not divinely inspired but to dismiss the Bible as being coincidentally right without providing even one example of some other prophecy of any kind that was as good as Ezekiel 37 is weak.
I've seen your channel before and I think you're an ex-Muslim. Right? What was that alleged prophecy you became disillusioned with? I never read the Koran so I don't know of any. I want to learn Arabic before I read it.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Ezekial 37 is nothing. Again I tell you about my prophecy that you will have your faith greatly tested and then you will experience a revival, well. That could happen, right? If it does, does it make me a prophet? How is this any different from EZ. 37? Actually I'm not an ex Muslim. A muslim apologist pissed me off with his disingenuousness, and I started researching Islam. I actually wanted to concentrate more on this area, i.e. refuting creationism and ID.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface If you prophesied that I would get kidnapped and later be freed, then you would approach Ezekiel, but your example is not only so vague that anyone can interpret it as fulfilled (which can't be done with Ezekiel), it makes you look desparate.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface You're not a skeptic of Accidenthor and Accidenthena. I had to say that. Okay. For real this time: good night. Or good day to you sir.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo I don't believe in God (YWH) or those other kinds period. What's not to understand? OK, Athos, have a good snooze. later.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface But as I said, you do believe in the gods of non-intelligence-related accidents as the creators of the universe for the most part.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
A diamond is so strong because of the strict order of the molecules. Powerful. Explosive forces can trigger these. No intelligence needed.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface You're not only cheating for having the ultimately God-provided conditions for such processes, those explosions are quite unlike the imaginary big bang in that the big bang separates things, whereas those explosions compress things. And no big bang believer has ever satisfactorily answered my question about what makes any gases come together when they are separating from each other in a freaking void. Try it.
Also, there is little order possible with explosions, I know. I meant big.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo It's an unintelligent force and it produces order. You seemed to be under the impression that explosions were somehow incapable of creating order. How do we know God provided those conditions? The Big Bang Model says a cooling expanding universe has gravity. When the universe was sufficiently cool to allow for hydrogen gravity started to gather it up in denser and denser aggregations.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface You take it for granted that gravity would bring gases together despite them being far from each other by the time the universe cooled. Gravity was too weak to bring them together at first, so how could it get stronger later on for gases to combine? I have to make a lot of unwarranted assumptions to believe that merely imagined scenario.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Yup, you got me. I don't really know that much about cosmology to say for sure that I know the hydrogen gas was close enough to collapse and form stars. I wasn't there after all. But, we can look out into space and see large clouds of gas in space that are collapsing to form stars [really get a pair of binoculars and point them down and left under the belt of Orion], so it doesn't sound as far fetched as say a Bronze Age God of nomadic Semites having done it.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface No one was in that imaginary past. By the way, you impress with your unusual honesty as an atheist. How many would say "you got me"? 1 in a million. It seems you're not as closed minded as your typical comrade. I love the word "comrade."
As for the coalescing observed in the already existing Cosmos, the conditions for it have already been set. It doesn't save the big bang from not making sense besides not having proof (evidence subjectively interpreted for it, yes, but no proof).
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo I honestly don't know how rarefied the hydrogen gas would be when it precipitated out of the expansion. I don't know what you mean by, "...the conditions have already been set." I was pointing that we can observe gas clouds that span 1000's of light years collapsing to form stars, so why could this not happen in the early universe? As I said this is a topic I cannot speak on off the top of my head and would require sources, of which who am I to say they are right or wrong?
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface By "...the conditions have already been set," I mean that the universe is already a system in which things can hit each other, bounce off, combine... meaning that star formation is possible. On the other hand, in the big bang scenario, particles separate from each other in a void. That's about it. No coalescing possible there, now is there? There lies the difference which makes a difference.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo That's your assumption, which is at odds with those people who have dedicated their lives to studying such things. I told you honestly, I don't know enough about the conditions of the early universe or have the math skills to tell you if the forces would have prevented or facilitated the formation of the first stars quasars. How can you know that it is impossible?
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface I can't prove that it's impossible for stars to form after gases separated in a void just as I can't prove to you that the moon chimera doesn't exist. How do YOU know that the chimera is impossilbe? You live like it is, so why can't I live like the BB is?
You can dedicate countless lives to something and still be wrong. Are you familiar with science history or ANY history? Numbers mean nothing truthwise.
P.S. I have class in about 35 minutes, so I won't be done responding today.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
Well, as you said they fulfilled their own prophecy so that doesn't mean anything.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface I didn't say or imply that they fulfilled their own prophecy. You can't do what those barbarians did and neither can any atheist, yet it is "nothing" to you. I guess defeating a bear with no weapons means nothing to you either, or less than nothing, considering that it is exceedingly less amazing than a prophecy fulfilled an era after making it. Can you defeat a bear? Didn't think so.
You'd have to believe that Jews have ALWAYS controlled the world to believe as you do. Do you?
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo About Israel? Yeah, some of the western power from post WWII up until the present American government believe that securing Israel was the key to bringing the Messiah. So they supported the formation and maintenance of Israel for that reason+ After WWII there were many displaced and fearful Jews. So after the word prophecy [above [in your post]] I'm a little unclear as to what you're talking about. Could you clarify?
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface By "prophecy," I mean a divine prediction. Simple as that.
What do "many displaced and fearful Jews after WW2" have to do with this? Are you saying that the restoration of Israel wasn't an immediate and absolute restoration in every way? Who said it had to be complete as soon as it was formed? It is a process. The majority of Israel still rejects God by rejecting the Messiah, so they are just a body without a spirit. In the end, Israel will have the Spirit.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo The displaced Jews raised the question of "what do we do with the displaced Jews?" Next they needed a place to go. Do I need to spell this out? There's no need for a magical force or influence. < [That was my main point by the way.] The bible encouraged the belief, leaders believed it, so it happening is no proof. You've got to listen to yourself saying,"...they are just a body without a spirit." of the Jews.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface If I assumed, you could have told me: "You shouldn't have assumed." Since I ask to not assume, you tell me: "Do I need to spell this out?"
Your assertion that there's no need for a God I have already refuted. You are missing the point. Again (answer it this time): "How could those PRE-CHRISTIANITY ancient "barbarian" Hebrews accurately predict that it would be possible for their nation to resurrect after being destroyed? If you don't answer my questions, I won't answer all yours.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Are you saying you refuted my assertion that the existence of modern Israel does not support the divine source of prophecies specific to Israel? Because I didn't catch that. Could you post that again?
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface I've said on more than one occasion that the Hebrews could not have accurately predicted the resurrection of Israel when there were no powerful agents who were interested in making the prophecy come true. There were no Great Britains then. The Hebrews were weak among their neighbours save for David and Solomon's reigns, but they didn't last long. You fail to explain how they could know. You act as if Britain always existed.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo I hope if you remember one thing from this engagement it is this: Most nations have creation and destruction myths. It is no big deal if some of the VAGUE myths come to pass in some way, BECAUSE all nations have a beginning and all of them thus far have had an end. It's like me predicting I will one day die. Are you impressed? No, well perhaps you can understand why the Jews calling their destruction and resurrection as a nation doesn't impress me ONE BIT
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface Dying is an obvious certainty so your example doesn't work. I've considered the Quetzalcoatl prophecy of the Aztecs in which, it is said, they prophecied that a white, bearded Quetzalcoatl from the east would return to Mexico. While many of those elements turned out right, there were some that were obviusly not, such as the fact that it would be a "return." Cortes never lived in Mexico before he went on his expeditions. So can you provide a fully true pagan prophecy that compares?
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Sounds like you're just not reading that Aztec prophecy with the same amount of charity with which you read the bible. When were the skeletons of the Jews reassembled?
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface Sounds like you're at a loss for providing even one pagan prophecy that has been fulfilled. Even if you find one, I will show the differences between it and the Jewish ones and they WILL make a difference.
The Jews were reassembled after WWII. Most of them being fake Jews, Ashkenazim.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo No no, I want bone and sinew and stuff or else it's just like the Aztec prophecy. It just takes some imagination to interpret it.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface If you had read Ezekiel 37, you would have read this: [[[Then he said to me: “Son of man, these bones are the people of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’ Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. ]]]
It's so vague, it explains itself clearly.
No pagan prophecy? As expected.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo The oracle of Delphi. It's [appropriately] a prophecy of doom and redemption. This region of the world had a long tradition of prophets and had adherents that truely believed in the divine origin of their message.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface You DO realize I wasn't asking for a mere example of a pagan prophecy? I was asking for one that was fully accurate. I don't know much about the Oracle at Delphi, but I kind of remember from the History Channel or something like that that its prophecies were vague, unlike the one from Ezekiel 37. So, which of the Oracle's prophecies compares to Ezekiel 37?
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface By the way, do you apply your reasoning to the alleged prediction some scientists made about the chromosomes? I mean, that isn't very amazing if true, using your reasoning.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo I was trying to point out the fundamental/qualitative difference between, what bible believers do [when arguing for the accuracy of the bible or the existence of divinely inspired prophecies] and what scientists do. It's like that cartoon --left frame scientists talking "OK, that's the evidence. What conclusions can we make?" Right frame two creationists talking, "OK, that's the conclusion we want. What evidence can we find to support it?" Science = Observe>hypothesize>test>repeat
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface This is not creationists versus scientists as much as it is creationists with few scientists versus macroevolutionists/bigbangbelievers with most scientists.
Both sides have people who want to believe something and people who have no desire to believe something in particular. Even though I want to believe that I am not an accident as you believe, it should not discredit me if my arguments are valid.
Since science includes testng and repeating tests, then provide one for BB/Mac-E.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Look really accident is not the right word , and again no one uses this to describe our existence but creationist who strawman evolutionists. I just google the phrases life is an accident and evolution is an accident the overwhelming majority of people who use this phrase in the pages, blogs, etc. I saw were creationists strawmaning evolutionists or atheists. provide one thing...that's become a battle cry for creationists --- How about 1000 things?
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface I'm not strawman-ing at all. If other creationists do, that's not me, so the point is invalid. I do not lie when I say that you believe that we are accidents. In effect, you're playing the arbitrary word police telling me I can't use the word "accident" to refer to what you certainly do believe we and the Cosmos are. Besides it being an apparent pet peeve of yours, why should I not use it? I don't care if the establishment doesn't use it. I covered that already.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo What does accident in this context mean to you?
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface I don't know what "this context" is supposed to mean, but I'll assume it means the whole general debate we're having. Surely that's it. I mean events that are not intended. Simple as that. When I spill my cup, I don't intend it. When the black-hole-like "singularity" exploded, it was not intended. And so on.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo As I said before, expanded is more accurate. I don't know if comparing the singularity that preceded the big bang (a phrase coined by an opponent (Hoyle) of the theory btw) is helpful. As the singularity that preceded the BB was all of space while a black hole singularity it a space time singularity. I will accept the comparison only in so far as it demonstrates matter can be shrunk down to enormous densities. BB = accident? I would just say we don't know.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface "Expanded" and "exploded" both work. One just makes it sound worse and I choose it because it is what it is: ridiculous. The other makes it sound okay and you choose it because you don't want it to sound bad. And you do as the establishment wants you to.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo No, I choose it because it is more accurate.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface How is it more accurate?
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Define your pronoun-- "it". I have no idea what this is responding to.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Because it points to what is a huge qualitative difference between what the big bang is and what an explosion is. The BB is the expansion of space time itself. just to call it an explosion glosses over this tremendously important difference.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface If time can expand, why can't it explode? To me, it makes no sense that time expands. Of course, I don't consider my making-sense-o-meter the sole basis for rejecting or accepting every claim.
I'm going to sleep soon. It's about to be five and I'm an idiot.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface I don't know what "this context" is supposed to mean, but I'll assume it means the whole general debate we're having. Surely that's it. I mean events that are not intended. Simple as that. When I spill my cup, I don't intend it. When the black-hole-like "singularity" exploded, it was not intended. And so on.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface Yes. Still no test in sight. My. Those "scientific" "theories" just aren't living up to what they're supposed to be!
It should not be difficult to provide even one test of either. You say "How about 1000 things?" If you can provide 1000 tests, that would be swell, but you can't provide one, so don't push it. And don't worry; it's not just you; it's the establishment. Is that another pet peeve word?
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo What the hell do you mean by test? Evidence for evolution {or are we talking about abiogenesis, or Big Bang cosmology?, I have no idea], retrovirus mutations in our genes in some 16 locations. These are locations in the genome of humans and great apes where a virus has embedded itself in the code. It screams common ancestry and scientist are familiar with viruses today that operate in the same manner. The great apes have the same scare in the same location. Why would God do that?
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface Don't you know what the scientific method's step of testing is? It is experimenting. Come on! You should know that!
Hmm. I haven't heard of "retrovirus mutations in our genes in some 16 locations" before. I don't have the time to investigate it now. For later, then. Bye.
Whatever it is, it sure ain't an experiment, but something interpreted for macroevolution. So, you still haven't provided a test, so it ain't science. Get back to me on that and I plan 2 get back to you on this.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Don't patronize. When you hypothesize and observe that in and of itself is a test. An experiment is a test, but not all tests are experiments. It's just the nature of the subject being studied that determines the test. The retrovirus scars just came to my attention, too. Don't forget to look that up. There was a vid. might be in my favorites. Got it: it's user cdk007's video Evidence for Evolution part III.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface The one who asked me "do I need to spell this out?" tells me not to patronize. Well, I was wrong to depict you as ignorant when you could have just been checking to not assume as I did before here. Having seen that video, I was like: "I don't know how to respond since I'm not knowledgable about the details of particulars like some scientists and afficionados, but I know he is not presenting the big picture." I was right. See the rebuttal: youtube . com /watch?v=zjXP3vEA3Rk
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo OK, I'll get back to you. The video is of poor quality. I mean the sound it difficult [he apparently used some demo audio software]. But I'll give it a listen. I also not the he has devoted his channel to debunking cdk007, and doesn't allow comments. It's hard to have much respect for this guy from the start. But as I said I'll give it a try.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface I was gonna mention that the video has an annoying "demo" phrase made through it all, but I didn't have enough space and didn't feel like making a follow-up comment. I haven't checked his channel yet and I plan to soon. Yes, it is unfortunate that he does not allow public debating/comments.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Yes, it is unfortunate. It certainly won't help his credibility. But it is funny and ironic that cdk007 throws back at the creationists an argument based on probabilities; when traditionally this has been a favorite argument of creationists.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface It's also funny that cdk007 gets thousands of views while the refutation of his propaganda gets a measly few hundred or so.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Well, yeah. cdk007 is a pretty well established youtuber. If the refutation is valid it will get views, though slowly. I suspect it's not valid for some reason, but I haven't looked at it carefully yet. I want to check out the other responses on YT as well. If there's a smoking gun of deception in cdk007's video someone will point it out. pay attention to us evolutionists, if one of us says BS, the others will call them on it. Trust me.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface I've seen it is not always the case. Likewise, I've seen creationists do the same, though creationists have more dumb people, perhaps since they have more people, period.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Do you know how much scrolling down it took to find this? :P Well, there is the example in the article I sent you of a creationist who urges other creationists to drop some arguments that he sees as incorrect. Doesn't Answers in Genesis devote a page to arguments they advise creationists no to use anymore? I thought I stumbled on that before.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface 'Ey. I do it too. And this is nothing. Try arguing with several atheists who outnumber you in a very popular atheist video which gets new comments coming in every five minutes. I gave up on those.
I don't know about AnswersinGenesis. I haven't visited it in a long time and when I did, it was a relatively short visit.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo A test that is not an experiment -- I observe a bird species in my area. I wonder about its diet. I think given the bill shape the animal seems to be adapted to picking insects and spiders from trees. To test this I capture the number of birds needed to make it statistically significant and I examine stomach contents. My approach is scientific because it is falsifiable, repeatable, and based on things we can see and measure. And yes, the prediction was scientific and it was a good test
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface I'm a microevolutionist so I don't know why you bothered with the beak example.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Fetal development recapitulates our evolutionary history; including tail, gill slits, and many other features which humans don't need but are replayed every time a fetus develops. In genetics, why would we have a gene that allows us and the other primates to be unable to produce vitamin C? Did the gorillas suffer a fall as well? I hope you understand; we have the gene that would allow our bodies to make vitamin C like my dog can, but it's stuck in the OFF position.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface Your first sentence there about fetal development is an outright assumption that you can't prove. Stop calling assumptions science. I've read of Haeckel before.... He was a racist German, I think, who did embryonic forgeries for that assumption, if I remember right.
The vitamin-C-gene-chimp-people thing, I have to investigate. To be continued.
I know you're not telling me everything I need to know, so I have to investigate.
And these things are still not tests of macroevolution.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Why would we have the gene for tail growth, but have it stuck in the OFF position? Why would our eyes develop with the blood vessels in front of the light sensitive cells? Requiring massive brain development in the visual cortex in order to compensate for its imperfection? Why not just have eyes like the cephlopoda with the sensitive cells in front? Intelligent design? No, stupid inefficient design. The answer is evolution! It explains all the above very neatly. Shall I go on?
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface The tail growth gene thing I have to investigate, but it doesn't worry me since it is not proof. It is not a test. Macroevolution is still unscientific.
Many problems in the world/universe can be explained as the indirect/direct results of sin, and while unproven, untested and unscientific (I'm not claiming it to be scientific), macroevolution is also those things. I have an answer in my mind for the rest of your comment, but it must wait. Class, studying, investigating... Bye.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface The tail growth gene thing I have to investigate, but it doesn't worry me since it is not proof. It is not a test. Macroevolution is still unscientific.
Many problems in the world/universe can be explained as the indirect/direct results of sin, and while unproven, untested and unscientific (I'm not claiming it to be scientific), macroevolution is also those things. I have an answer in my mind for the rest of your comment, but it must wait. Class, studying, investigating... Bye.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Great. A repeated comment. First it said "error. Try again." then it said "ok." Yet... both were "ok."
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Well, I would like to ask, with all the possibilities in reality why did he give us a tail bone we don't use? But we have in common with the other animals in our branches of the tree of life. A tree of life pointing directly at common ancestry, because its the easiest explanation for what is seen. God the simple forms come first! [In the rock strata] Why do the simple forms come first by way of a few different methods of measuring time, they come up the same. Macro view simple first???
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface The tail bone may well be for things like muscles or ligaments to attach to. Strata? Oh, man! You serious? I didn't go over dating methods with you, did I? They have in common (at least most of them, anyway) the assumption that what is dated was never contaminated in the supposed eras of their being in the earth. But on this: if you're gonna assume that the oldest things are the ones buried deepest, you are making an unwarranted assumption. Continued...
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface The geosphere isn't as stable as you assume it to be. Things always shift in it, melt, combine, react, etcetera. Tectonic plates go over others, some go under, some crash.... With volcanoes and earthquakes in supposed millions of years of earth history, what is deepest isn't necessarily what is oldest. What's more, layers aren't universal. Do you ever question the establishment? What they feed you? Do you think for yourself?
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface Your tree of life is like a constellation. It is subjectivity using objectivity. The stars are the species. Your lines between them are the lines of the imaginary constellations. Science indeed.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface Since I'm not a scientist, I obviously will be at a loss to deal with the detailed specifics of many subjective interpretations of natural things that macroevolutionists will consider "proof" in effect, as you do, when all they are are interpretations that make sense to ignorant people who don't see the big picture and make unwarranted assumptions, though I can research a few and deal with those. But the interpretations are endless and I am trying to have a life. continued...
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface I found this site which seems to destroy your eye argument: ht tp :/ /ww w.icr[dotORG]/article/backwards-human-retina-evidence-poor-design/
I don't agree with everything the site says, so keep that in mind.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface Of course Jews each have a spirit. Otherwise they'd be dead. I was obviously referring to Jews collectively; to Israel. Israel rejects God, so Israel is spiritually dead, being there corporally but full of corruption. Jews lack the Holy Spirit since they don't accept their King. One can have a spirit and still be spiritually dead. Anyone who rejects God willingly is spiritually dead despite having a spirit.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface Are you saying that the weak Jews among mighty nation-states and empires would predict that they would be destroyed (easy to do) and then be resurrected far in the future (impossible for those mere mortals to know) despite being one of the weakest? To think that is to think that they weren't weak, but that they controlled world affairs. I don't see any other way for you to deny that the prophecy is divine.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo If I didn't make it clear before: Most nations in the past [and many today] tell creation stories as well as destruction stories. The Jewish story is one of many. Applying the story to reality is easy providing the story is sufficiently vague. If you are only aware of Jewish creation/destruction stories well, you ought to broaden your reading. If you are aware that many nations have such stories, then why would it impress you that some may come to pass? And why would it require God?
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface I ignored that point because it was pointless since you didn't provide an example of a non-Jewish prophecy that was fulfilled. Give it a shot now. You're gonna have a hard time with it. lol
The story is not so vague that it can be read into whatever event seems to fit it. Read Ezekiel 37 and show me your alternative interpretation so I can laugh. In it, it clearly says that Israel will be resurrected.
I've read of other creation stories. I'm not that ignorant.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo The historical context is enough. Israel was undergoing a destruction at that time. The book of Ezekial reassured the Jews of that time as it was used in the Nazi concentration camps to comfort the Jewish captives there. And again big deal! Of course someone prophesied the restoration of Israel. Can you imagine Ezekial coming out to the captive Jews in Babylon and saying ." We're doomed, dooomed!"
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface I see what you mean now (sorry). "It's just a coincidence." But Israel had more than one prophecy of a restoration come true. There's the Babylonian instance and then there's the Roman instance. The prophecies were fulfilled. Why would the Jew in the room be the only one to win two lotteries in a row when there are many in the room who gambled with more likelihood of winning? Ezekiel did say "we're doomed" in 22:20, e.g.. Chptr37 is not about the Babylonian, but the Roman case.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
You mean the part were it says "...the Earth was without form and void"? There are a few creation myths that say that or something similar. It was a condensation out of a disc of gas. You can try to hammer it into your bible verse, but that's not going to lead to any greater understanding of reality. The verses in the bible, Koran, or other holy texts were written by men of their times. If they really were divinely enlightened why not give one tidbit of information unknown in ancient times?
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface Yes, that part.
The Bible has prophecies that have been fulfilled, one of which is before our eyes: Israel. How could those bronze age nomads have known that millenia into the future, a long-dead Israel would rise again?
Yes, Great Britain and other worldly entities had to do with it, but the point is that the prophecy is right.
The Bible does not claim to be a science book. It just claims to be flawless when it touches on anything, including nature.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Well, as I said if you admit there were human actors who are familiar with bible prophecy and so the fulfillment of that prophecy doesn't mean divine involvement of any kind. "The Bible does not claim to be a science book. It just claims to be flawless when it touches on anything, including nature." Sorry dude, this is out right contradiction. If the book comments on nature and it is not scientifically accurate it's wrong, and so has no claim to divine authorship.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface You don't see the big picture. The prophecy was not made during the age of Christianity (A.D. or C.E.). So let me rephrase it for you: How could bronze-age "barbarians" predict that Israel would be resurrected when in their era there was no such thing as "Christianity," let alone "Christian" nations trying to fulfill prophecy themselves?
You didn't answer my question about Jews' control of the world.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo There were many other peoples in the ancient past; many with prophecies of doom and rebirth, it's a normal part of nationhood. Myths. All nations have them, and the ancient world had some doozies, Great serpents, giant Earth bearing turtles, And the idea of the one God, monotheism. It's a natural question. How many Gods are there? How many Gods do you think there are?
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface Answer my question about Jews' control or I won't answer yours.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Though you already know what you asked, I think.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface Where is the Bible wrong on nature? Do you mean macroevolution and the big bang? Have either been tested empirically? No. They're not even testable, practically speaking. So they're unscientific theories. And since accidents (esp. without intenders involved) don't lead to order and more order as your experience -and all of mankind's- testifies without exception, they are wishful thinking against empiricism.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Sorry to answer a question with a question, but do you consider the bible literally true? I mean even the miracles and how shall I say...the righteousness of all the mass killings attributed or commanded by God in the bible. Because in establishing your beliefs about those points could save us a good deal of time.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface "Do you consider the Bible literally true?" is a poor question since some parts are and some aren't. You refer to miracles being true and God creating in literal days and Adam and Eve being literal people who were literally deceived by the serpent. Yeah. I believe that. Now let's deal with the big bang and macroevolution. Do you know of any tests that makes them scientific?
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Science never claimed to have all the answers. Science is an on going process, however much has been established that contradicts the bible. The Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are scientific. They are falsifiable [often important in modern definitions of what is science]. A while ago scientist were able to count the number of chromosome humans have; oddly one less than apes. According to evolution 2 ape genes must have merged. Much later scientists confirmed this. cont.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface The BBT says that the universe is getting bigger and cooler. Cosmic background radiation added supporting evidence. Hmm, but a test. OK, I'll work on that. Meanwhile you come up with a test for the Theory of Gravity please. :) And no, dropping an object to the floor is not a test, it is just a demonstration, like showing that most galaxies are red shifted. Those are the observations upon which BBT and GT are based, they do not actually test the theory, right?
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface There is more than one explanation for CMB radiation. I don't have to have an alternative explanation to reject the conventional explanation, considering that the radiation is not detected as coming from one point, as the big explosion notion would have it.
I need a separate comment to respond to you on gravity.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo BBT would predict that the CBR would come from all directions and that's what we find.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface Why would it come from all directions when the expansion is still going on and it began at a point somewhere? That subjective interpretation is not fact.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo It's not subjective. Imagine the singularity. It expand to the universe of present day. The radiation of that initial moment is now that which lies on the outer limit. When you look out into space you're looking back in time. The estimated age of the universe is about 13.6 billlion years. When you look out that far all there is is the cosmic background radiation. We wouldn't expect that it would be a point that could be observed within the universe, it is the outer edge.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface There is no such thing as an interpretation that is not subjective. It can also be objective in some sense of that word, but it will always be subjective.
I'm not saying that we should find the radiation at the point of the explosion's origin, but that it should be detected as having come from that point.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo No really man, you're missing something here. Imagine the young universe, expanding we are inside that 13 1/2 billion years later the CBR is still there only now it has spread out. We are inside the balloon and the CBR is the outer shell of what we can see. So it should be in all directions. It is objective. Because it's simple geometry. And it's exactly what a hot BB or expansion would predict.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface Chuck Norris, in his epic fight with Weegee, created a time vortex portal thing by doing a round-house kick that equalled the power of Weegee's wicked stare, thus making the universe go back in time to the age of the dinosaurs, wiping the strongest of beings out but leaving the weakest (mainly plushy mammals) to dominate the Urth. The effects of that fight is seen in the radiation which the theory accurately predicted. Now, why would you not believe that?
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo There are no known mechanisms for what you describe, and it is obviously comical and contrived. I don't know what this is in answer to.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface My point with the Norris/Weegee example is that you can say whatever you want and make it fit the radiation and say "it predicts just that" as if it means anything significant.
So, why would you not believe that Norris and Weegee caused the background radiation? You believe that gravity exists, yet there are no known mechanisms for how it works, so that can't be a reason to not believe in the Norris-Weegee theory. Yet the big bang you believe is no better than it.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface Demonstrations can be tests, you know. Dropping, for example, one of Dawkins' propaganda books in the toilet is a test for the force known as gravity. What gravity IS in detail is not known, but it IS a force and it IS tested and proven. Unlike the explosion myth and the we-came-from-slime-which-came-from-gas myth.
Also, red-shift has alternative interpretations. Subjective interpretations are the most you macroevolutionists have ever achieved for your myths.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Gah, you must have to imagine there is a world wide conspiracy among scientists in a number of fields dating back a couple of hundred years to keep evidence of divine creation out of public view. in order to qualify as a theory in science, evolution like gravity theory has to pass the same requirements.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface Worldwide deception is what. And not absolutely universally either since not all scientists assume and call their assumptions science. Look at the history of science and you will see that scientists have always been wrong in popular theories that they taught as fact when all they did was interpret things subjectively without proving their theories. You must imagine that scientists before contemporary times were in general neanderthals. How arrogant that would be.
So provide a test.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface And I never claimed that science claimed that. I do know, however, that most scientists claim the big explosion notion and macro-evolution to be scientific theories. You know what else is falsifiable? The claim that a chimera lives inside of the moon. It is a scientific theory because it is falsifiable. All we gotta do is drill and find it to see if it is true or not. Until then, it is SCIENCE, and don't you dare question SCIENCE.
Continued...
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo What is your evidence for the lunar core chimera theory?
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface One can interpret strange patterns on the surface as pawprints of the legendary beast and look at shadows in pictures of moon landings and interpret peculiar ones as the chimera curled up or something. My point was that something isn't scientific just because it is falsifiable.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface If we have one less chromosome than apes, it just means we are similar to them. Any claim beyond that is stepping out of the bounds of empiricism and entering the non-scientific realm of wishful thinking. Why not quote to me how similar we are to a banana in terms of DNA? 50% I've heard. But one percent means a huge difference, so it's the same with chimps being 98% or even 99% similar to us DNA-wise: there's a big difference. It means nothing but similarity in physical composition.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo There's more. The prediction [that 2 ape chromosome merged] was made long before the human genome was mapped out. On doing that they found that the sequences matched up nearly perfectly, and genetic features called telomeres, normally found at the end of a chromosome, were found IN THE MIDDLE of human chromosome 2. I'll PM a link to a good short illustrated article just in case you're interested. I wonder what Answers in Genesis has on this, I'll have to look for it,should be a laugh.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface "According to evolution 2 ape genes must have merged. Much later scientists confirmed this." What do you mean "two ape genes must have merged"? What apes' genes? What genes?
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo It's just an example of how science works. humans have 23 chromosomes. Apes have 24. A scientist predicted evidence of a fusion of 2 ape chromosome would be found. Later it was. That's science. I prophesize I will get a glass of water *goes to fridge, gets water bottle, pours water into glass* Ta dah! I'm a prophet! No? Oh well, maybe it was all that talk of hydrogen that foreshadowed my water glass. No, you wouldn't accept that as evidence of my prophetic powers? Meh, me neither.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface In a private message in response to a link you gave, I sent you my own which explains why it is not science that our apparently fused chromosome came from apes. You interpret subjectively and call it science. Come on. That's as scientific as literary criticism.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface Your prediction is a ridiculous comparison to the prophecy of Israel's resurrection because you obviously had the power to make it happen, not just in your lifetime, but in a minute. Are you implying that the ancient Jews long before Christianity existed had the power to make their prophecy happen? Are the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in your library?
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface As for mass killings commanded by God in the Bible, you are using your subjective morality to evaluate them. To you, it is not wrong for someone to do many things that to God is wrong. Concerning the mass slaughter of Philistines, you think they were innocent, for the most part. God knows they were wicked, minus the youngest of them, who suffered/died as a consequence of their parents' crimes. I think God would take the dead babies to heaven because they were innocent.
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo Yes, I am. And you are using your belief in a being that cannot be seen, heard, touched or tested in any verifiable way. Who's on firmer ground here. At least I can tell you why I think it's a bad idea to butcher a city's inhabitants from babies to adults. If God takes the innocent Philistine babies to heaven, how is that fair to you? Someone who has had to live in this world with all its temptations?
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface The being is the God of the Scriptures which make up the best explanation for reality/existence. Give me something that comes close. No, your accidents-created-the-world myth doesn't count. Since accidents can't create much order, an intender or intenders did. And it is one intender known as Elohim, for the reason given in the first sentence of this comment.
Again, they were wicked. If Osama Bin Laden were executed, would you protest?
How isn't it fair that they go to heaven?
AthosAmo 1 year ago
@AthosAmo The only people who say accidents created the Earth and life are Creationists. I notice you say "can't create much order" now, lol. If they can create any order then you have something to build on. What proof do you have for God? Actually, I would protest the execution of Bin Laden. The Philistine babies get a free pass and you have to go through life resisting vices [sex, drugs, rock 'n roll] and arguing with nasty atheists like me. Those little babies had it easy.
MsMrNoface 1 year ago
@MsMrNoface Of course the only people who present your mythology for the absurdity it is are creationists. You can't deny that you believe that accidents created the accident that earth supposedly is. And the first lifeform.
You have something to build on? lol. Accidents don't build. The little order they create is destroyed in time since for every step forward accidents take, they make a hundred back. There is no far progression in that. Though you have faith for such a scenario.
AthosAmo 1 year ago