It's not only about the evidence, it's also about applicability. Evolution paves the foundation for many other branches of science, ranging from genetics, to ecology to bioinformatics.
Meanwhile, i still have yet to see just a single one demonstrable scientific benefit from creation research!
Evolutionist do claim vertebrates and insects had a common ancestor. It just doesn't exist. Using the scientific method a theory is not valid without OBSERVATION. You can't claim a link then expect it to be valid without evidence. If you do come up with that common ancestor let me Know. Waiting... still waiting.......Who looks foolish now.
@philackey Evolutionist do say insects and vertebrates have a common ancestor but that wasn’t what you said in your original comment. You don’t make a correction but carried on like you were never wrong.
Detectives don’t have to be present at a crime when its committed to prove a particular person committed the crime. They find clues that lead to a conclusion. Now grow up and do some real science instead of listening to preachers.
@NotEnoughLions Ok in my original comment I made a mistake, I meant to say common ancestor. Please enlighten us as to this C.A. that evolution predicts. waiting...... waiting......Funny how you change the subject and start talking about religion when you have no answer. Please Mr detective present your evidence. U-oh no evidence! I guess evolution is not the mechanism that explains life.
@philackey Fossils, DNA (Molecular), Vestigial Organs, Tectonic Plate Movement and Anatomical Similarity. That’s five separate branches of science that each provide evidence for common ancestry. That’s a lot of science not contradicting each others findings. Now what do we have as an alternative? Nothing but a bunch of people unhappy with the results.
@philackey There are more than 430,000 peer reviewed scientific papers many of which contain multiple proven facts that support evolution by Natural Selection. That's probably around a million proven facts. Not one scientific paper negates evolution.
@NotEnoughLions Every paper you mention only addresses micro-evolution which is uncontroversial. As usual your million facts are irrelevent. The devil is in the details, we have no mechanism which can explain the development of complex structures. Years of research with fruit flies have proved that mutation cannot explain the development of new types. The reason for the controversy is evolutions utter lack of scientific discipline when explaining macro-evolution.
@philackey Simply put selective breeding shows mutations can change a species greatly in a short few thousand years. Given a few hundred million years, a changing environment and the pressure to survive it is easy to understand the diversity of life.
@kandtell Dobzhansky proved even through forced mutation of fruit flies they never produced a VIABLE species. After several generations all the mutants died out. He produced 4-wing flies but they lacked the muscle structure to run the extra wings. This proved that several hundred beneficial mutations must occur simultaneously for 1 new structure to evolve. Take all the time you want evolution can NEVER cross this hurdle.. Yet mutation is the only mechanism for change and it fails.
@philackey It is accepted in the scientific community that fossil evidence is no longer even required to prove evolution as fact. The molecular evidence is enough in itself. Remember the scientific community are the people who have brought us modern communication, space travel, medicine, electricity, improved agriculture and a wide range of things that we know work. Modern medicine and agriculture are built on evolution biology.
@NotEnoughLions Of course fossils are not needed they utterly contradict everything evolution predicts. Molecular biology has has destroyed evolution. The smaller we go the more complex we find everything is. Not simple, exponentially complex. Once again your molecular evidence is for micro-evolution.
@philackey The fossil evidence does not contradict Biological evidence at all. You have merely grasped a point in the hope it will work for you. You are dishonest like all creationists. You have a preconceived agenda that corrupts you argument because you have a solution that is based on predetermined idea. Science looks at the evidence and concludes a result. Religion looks at a belief and endeavors to find ways of supporting that belief. Religion is backward.
@NotEnoughLions I probably agree with you more than you realize. I agree with 95 percent of evolutions facts. However it is a dirty little secret what evolution can't, won't, and doesn't explain about life's origins and diversity. Michael Behe in his books has challenged the scientific community to expain how complex structures evolved. NOT ONE peer reviewed paper has ever done this. They avoid the tough questions. I don't think you realize what I'm questioning.
@philackey Life’s diversity is explained by mutation and a diverse environment. Life’s origins are not explained by evolution but is the subject of a hypothesis called Biogenesis. Biogenesis and evolution are two separate sciences and evolution is not dependent on Biogenesis to be a fact. Behe has not managed to challenge the scientific community with any science at all. Complex organs like eyes have been explained by showing logical pathways through evolution that they can develop.
@philackey If you have read Behe, I suggest you read Ken Miller too. His Only a Theory presents very good explanation of macro-evolution and comprehensively counters Behe's arguments.
Coming back to Behe himself, as he himself has said in the Dover trial that his definition of science would include subjects such as astrology as well. That just destroys the credibility of anybody claiming to be a scientist.
@milind006 The claim that BEHE BELIEVES ASTROLOGY as valid science is a bald face lie. You can read the entire Dover transcript at the ACLU website and nowhere is it found. Dr. John Wise invented this erroneous quote, that when confronted it mysteriously disappeared from his site, and he refused to respond. I view this kind of lie more and more not as a mistake but proof that many evolutionist are dishonest. Why if evolution is such a fact is it necessary to lie?
@philackey Go to page 38 on this pdf: aclupa. org / downloads / Day11PMSession. pdf It is the transcript of the dover trial.Read from line 18 on that page to line 14 on page 42. Behe has accepted that he thinks of astrology as theory. I know the kind of argument you might put against this, but irrespective of that, your claim that behe believing in astrology is a bald face lie and a misquote is incorrect. It is not a lie. And more importantly it is not a lie about evolution.
@milind006 Behe clearly said that ether theory, geocentrism and astrology are all examples of theories that have proven to be incorrect. He was giving examples of what people 500 years ago thought. He clearly states that he feels these are incorrect. He states he has no control over what others believed. You are being dishonest. If Behe believed as you assert it would not threaten my world view and I would freely admit it. But to anyone who reads the transcript he didn't.
@milind006 As far as Ken Miller, although honestly I haven't read everything he has written I have seen one attempt to refute Behe's work. I found his arguments unconvincing in the least. Its all straw men. He put a mouse trap on his tie. All that shows was he didn't understand the analogy. Miller essentially claims nothing is irreducibly complex. So is that true? Is nothing irreducibly complex? I will try to read more Miller as I am always ready to be converted.
@philackey Again, if you actually read Miller, you will understand that Miller not only understood the analogy correctly, but he also disproved the assertion made by the analogy quite convincingly. In fact it is not really Miller that does the convincing, but the facts he presents on the different favorite examples used Behe.that do the convincing. The immediate example that comes to mind is that of the supposed irreducible complexity of a propulsion motor found in certain bacteria.
@philackey I'm sorry, but you seem to have gotten confused. When did I claim that something is irreducibly complex? I do not claim that. I know that creationists and design proponents or the cdesign proponentists claim that. That claim in fact is the basis for the idea of Intelligent Design.
@milind006 That is exactly the point. You believe NOTHING is irreducibly complex. Way to man up on taking Behe out of context. This is when I start to realize you aren't interested in the TRUTH. You are only interested in proving what you BELIEVE to be true. If evolution were true it wouldn't need to lie. I respect your right to believe what you want. But, we are men of action lies do not become us.
@philackey sorry to poke my nose where it probably doesn't belong, but i'd like to point out there's nothing wrong with the belief that nothing in nature is irreducibly complex, as there really is nothing in nature that's irreducibly complex, and there's no lie in that
@bakayurei Do you believe anything, anywhere is irreducibly complex? What about something obviously created like an automobile? Where do we draw the line between something created and something formed by random unintelligent natural causes? Forensics, archeaology, cryptography are all sciences that can determine when something is man-made. Is it possible someone could create a biological machine. No that's not possible, that could never happen!
@philackey let me reiterate with the relevant parts capitalized so you can keep the discussion relevant: 'nothing IN NATURE is irreducibly complex' .. but if we're talking about all kinds of machine, then even things like cars can be simplified to the point of a fuel tank that forces pistons to turn a wheel .. but anyway, it's irrelevant as cars didn't evolve by incremental steps .. if you have an example of an irreducibly complex biological machine tho, i'd be happy to hear about it
@bakayurei So a car can work without a fuel tank? A car is I.C. So it follows something as complex as a car didn't evolve. Its very relevant whether the complexity of a thing is sufficient to determine whether it was created or not. I assert nature contains many examples of I.C. Without proof you assume evolution is correct beforehand. Therefore you are flawed before the discussion begins. If in your mind NOTHING is I.C. then you are not mentally capable of debating the issue.
@philackey nature didn't give us cars tho, and cars didn't evolve from simplicity to complexity, and you've misquoted me (i specifically said that a car can be made 'as simple as' just a fuel tank, piston, and wheels, implying that they can't be made any simpler..) .. anyway, doesn't matter, you're arguing in the wrong direction entirely .. and you've got it backwards, it's not scientific to beg the question, how science works is, you make a hypothesis then look for evidence that'll disprove it
@philackey .. e.g. as dawkins once quoted haldane as suggesting, 'fossil rabbits in the precambrian'.. there are millions, infinite, even, examples of evidence that would falsify the theory of evolution by natural selection, but nobody's found any so far .. as another example, IC, and if any evolutionary biologist knew of an example of an organism that couldn't possibly work in a slightly simpler form, then it would be in all the literature, especially the 'intelligent design' leaflets
@philackey but nobody's found any..if we're arguing about facts, then show me an example of something that's IC (not counting cars, because they don't count, 'someone designed cars therefore someone designed me' is not an argument).. also please try to keep our discussion civil, i'm not attacking your intelligence even tho i've had plenty of reasons to do so, don't attack mine.. and don't misquote me
@bakayurei Why isn't it an argument? What determines whether something was created or not? Was Mount Rushmore caused by wind and erosion or did some intelligence create it? If I insisted it was formed naturally how could you prove me wrong?
@philackey it's not an argument because .. okay, so try to apply the same kind of reasoning somewhere else- 'erosion couldn't have formed this rock because erosion didn't form books' .. 'turtles don't lay eggs because houses don't lay eggs' .. you're talking about two completely different things that have nothing to do with each other.. and the fact that you can't disprove a hypothesis doesn't make it a good hypothesis.. in fact it's the very opposite of that
@bakayurei But you just said that is the way science works. Here is what you said, "you make a hypothesis then look for evidence that'll disprove it" Then you just said,"..and the fact that you can't disprove a hypothesis doesn't make it a good hypothesis.. " You are wrong, try again. Please prove that Mount Rushmore wasn't made by erosion. We both know its true. You should be able point to one factor which makes it different from other rocks.
@philackey you've misunderstood again .. it's possible to falsify the theory of evolution by natural selection ('fossil rabbits in the precambrian'), and that makes it a 'good', valid hypothesis, and it hasn't been falsified yet, which makes it, for all intents and purposes, 'true' .. what i meant was that if your argument is that you can't falsify ID, then you've shot yourself in the foot .. and mt rushmore is a completely irrelevant example, again .. show me an actual example of IC
@bakayurei If a pre-cambrian rabbit were found evolutionist would blithely conclude that their previous understanding when life evolved has changed. Discoveries that completely destroy evolution are too numerous to count. Its evolution that is non-falsifiable and you've already admitted it. Since all you do is jump around and at no point answer my questions I wish you the best but fail to see your points. I think its this forum, its not conducive to resolution.
@philackey discoveries like what, cars and mount rushmore? i've refused to address your questions because as i've already said, these things are irrelevant to this discussion, there's no connection .. maybe the facts against evolution are too numberous to count, but just point me towards one valid example that's supposed to 'destroy' any modern theory of evolution, that's all it'll take, just one fact, and we'll both ignore all the mountains of facts that support modern theories of evolution
@philackey and it wouldn't be without precedent, theories of evolution have been rejected in the past, and that's how science moves forwards, sheds the bad theories and replaces them with ones that better explain all of the currently known facts .. .. and i don't know where i've 'admitted' that evolution's non-falsifiable when i clearly said 'it's possible to falsify ..' look it's right there .. i said it HASN'T been falsified, not that it can't be, and i've asked you before not to misquote me
@philackey to clarify: show me evidence of a biological machine that's not man-made but is irreducibly complex, and i'll concede that maybe life doesn't evolve.. then stop getting flu jabs every year .. and stop visiting doctors altogether, since the entire basis of biology is the fact that life evolves, therefore if that's ever falsified, then all of western medicine would be rendered meaningless nonsense
@philackey There are more than 240,000 peer reviewed scientific papers many of which contain multiple facts proving Evolution by Natural Selection and you think some religious turkey with an opinion and a vested interest in an outcome is worth listening to? Get yourself a real education and know that there isn’t a single peer reviewed paper supporting Intelligent Design. Not one. If Behe is a real scientist where is his real work? He is a preacher. Fail fail fail.
@NotEnoughLions Behe is professor biochemistry at Lehigh U. NO ONE anywhere disputes that he is a real scientist, they only dispute some of his conclusions. The Discovery Institute just released 50 peer-reviewed papers on intelligent design. There is not one peer-reviewed paper of an unambiguous example of species change or macro evolution. Don't bring your uncontroversial micro evolution proofs no one is disputing that. Do you believe everything they tell you?
there's no evidence that a creator intervened in our biosphere of life, but there is plenty for naturally occurring processes being the source of this planet's diversity of life.
Seems simple enough for me. Whit all the proselytizing going on in the Christian, or other religions, post's here, you forgot one thing. EVIDENCE.
Produce some that supports your ridiculous claims, or stfu.
Once again Dawkins shows something completely uncontroversial in the evolution debate and claims its some strong proof of evolution. Hey Dawkins why don't you show us the evolution of insects to vertebrates. Evolution predicts it. What no fossils, no mechanism that can explain complex structures evolving? Neo darwinian evolution is the greatest hoax perpetrated in the history human life. Someday they will laugh at Dawkins like we laugh at those who believe the Sun goes around the earth.
@philackey Quoting things you don’t understand (Like junk DNA) only impresses those who know even less than you. If Dawkins suffered a head injury and became a Christian the science that supports evolution would remain. It would make no difference at all.
@NotEnoughLions Things I don't understand. What? Even if I knew nothing my statement is still correct. You refuted nothing. How do you determine how much I know? Probably the same way you determine the validity of evolution. Sticking your head up your ass. Don't make the mistake of claiming to know what I believe. Stick to the discussion of evolution. Maybe you are the one who suffered a head injury, might want to get that checked out.
@philackey You have merely quoted a Christian site that exists to refute evolution because evolution means no fall, no original sin and no need for god to send his only begotten boy to save mankind. You have a screwed up idea of Junk DNA and think evolution predicts insects to vertebrates. You parrot fools just like you probably parrot the bible and it like you it was wrong about everything.
@philackey said "Hey Dawkins why don't you show us the evolution of insects to vertebrates. Evolution predicts it."
If you actually think that evolution theory claims that insects evolved into vertebrates, you clearly don't know enough about the theory to comment without looking foolish.
Romans 1:20-23 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
@talons2112 If a God exists, God makes the fungus grow by "faking" biological processes; he simulates random chance when forcing the dice to fall a certain way; he pretends that the laws of physics exist when he actively supports cell phone calls; and he's actually the one who "cured" someone when the doctor removes a tumor.
The trouble with this stance is that it is indistinguishable from a universe where there is no god and things actually do happen according to physical laws.
@slashingraven how do we explain those physical laws? with complex mathmatical explanations, physics is the method by which we explain these laws. very complex stuff which denotes that we are intelligent as it takes our best minds to figure these out. the fact that nature screams back at us also denotes intelligence and it was God that created these laws
@talons2112 Science posits that everything in the universe has a natural explanation as to its origin and function, and that the physical laws of the universe were there for as long as the universe itself was, without the need of any gods as a component of that explanation. Prove that your god must necessarily be part of that explanation.
@slashingraven Actually concerning science positing something that's not really true; that's what I believe personally, and I trust science to bring me those natural explanations. Science itself doesn't put forward that position, so it's not like science WON'T deal with the supernatural, but rather it CAN'T. It can only measure and observe that which exists physically, as part of our natural world, so supernatural concepts by definition cannot be tested.
@talons2112 Then of course, while you're proving gods, prove that YOUR god is the correct one to posit as our ultimate creator, and that YOUR god gave his actual instructions for living to men in the form of the Bible.
If you can't find substantial support beyond the Bible itself, your argument is circular, and therefore invalid.
@talons2112 Life is a bunch of complex chemical reactions and your belief that it isn’t is just another chemical reaction. Some realities exist. We all take a crap and some people think god is real. That's the nature of the life we are all part of.
@NotEnoughLions I never said there weren't complex chemical reactions required for life. Just the opposite. So complex in fact it took a master creator to put it all in motion. But if want to believe life evolves from your crap and thats the nature of life than thats what you think. However, and as someone worried about your sanity, I must say you are living in a sad little delusional world. Get a grip man! Dickie Dawkins is a liar and YOU are responsible for your actions on this rock.
@talons2112 Dawkins is one of hundreds of thousands of scientists past and present who all say evolution is a fact. All you do is make personal attacks and baseless claims. Intelligent design was thrown out as religious belief when they tried to teach it as science. There isn’t one single scientific paper that supports an intelligent creator. Not one. I bet you use the latest medicine developed using evolution biology when you’re sick, you should be ashamed.
@NotEnoughLions You mean like what evolution taught us about so called junk DNA. Because of evolution, research on non-coding regions of the genome stopped. Because evolutionist said it was junk. Only when some scientists rejected evolution was evidence found on how critical to life these sections really are. The theory of evolution is credited with causing one of the largest blunders in the history of science.
@talons2112 In that case, a god who does hands-on is basically useless -- praying to him is a waste of time since he'll let things happen according to how the dice would fall anyway, and worshipping him is a waste of time since he does what he does according to the laws he's simulating, not according to your entreaties.
The existence of a god or not doesn't change the fact that things in our universe turn out a certain way, independent of human desires.
@slashingraven He does things not according to the roll of the dice, but to bring you to Him. He wants you to live and rule the universe with Him. God is the ultimate scientist, creator of life.
@talons2112 As far as your claims that the Bible is an inerrant, divinely inspired resource for mankind, there just isn't enough space in the Youtube comment section to cover this publicly. I'm going to direct you to a fantastic video series by a user named AronRa. It's titled "the foundational falsehoods of creationism". If you investigate no other external resources I give you, investigate that one. In full. Respond to the author of those videos if you wish.
.....for once, words fail me in describing the depths of your ignorance.
Suffice it to say that anyone reading this comments section who knows who AronRa is, or have seen his videos, will read this comment of yours and see just how little you care about being correct. I feel I should offer something more in response than "No he isn't, you're wrong", but I can't even begin to imagine what led you to believe the thing you just said.
@talons2112 Specifically, the video dealing with an inerrant Bible are the 2nd and 3rd foundational falsehoods of creationism in that series. You should watch the whole series, but if you're looking for a specific counterargument in this issue, watch those two.
@slashingraven ocre man, piltdown man, nebraska man, haeckles fraud proven a lie in court is still in the books, vestigial organs, peppered moth, homology, stanley miller, sidney fox, ota benga, piltdown man to name a few are all deliberate frauds
It's ORCE man, by the way, not OCRE man. Most of these frauds you list are covered in the 13th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism. Orce Man is the exception, and the website TalkOrigins covers it decently. None of these frauds fooled the scientific community. They generated press attention, but never did anything more significant than that.
@talons2112 The video series also specifically deals with some of the bullshit you've put forward about evolution as well. Later videos in the series discuss these "frauds" you refer to, as well as the strawman you're persistently parroting which is the misrepresentation of evolution's claims.
@talons2112 You know, now that I've written all that, I think that maybe I just don't have the stamina I thought I did to continue this. So I'm going to leave you with the recommendation that you watch the "foundational falsehoods of creationism" series, front to back, and if you find any problems or missing elements in those videos, contact AronRa and discuss it with him. He is much better educated and more inclined than I am to talk about this stuff.
@slashingraven "I'm just tired of your nonsense" - code for my argument is weak and i dont know how to reply to you so i must insult you to make myself feel better and give up. that was the fastest win i have had. wake up my friend. you have been lied to. dont close your ears and eyes and folow these fools blindly off a clif evolution is fail at every turn. if you dont believe me go to harlem and explain to a group od its residents they are all apes with low iq's see how they reply
@talons2112 It's not code for weak argumentation skills. It's very plain clear language for I AM TIRED OF YOUR NONSENSE. You're full of shit, you don't know anything about reality, and you should stay the hell away from any future discussions about science.
Like, I could go through, point-by-point, how wrong you are about everything you've said here. But it would take HOURS, if not DAYS of writing work describing in full detail how wholly retarded your arguments are. So I won't bother.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
hahaha it costs food to make a wing so save the ecomics of making a wing hahaha and this has been observed and scientifically tested?? this is all speculation and imagination with no evidence presented at all. fail
@talons2112 Yes it does cost energy to make any body part -- it costs a lot more protein. That's basic biological knowledge, not "speculation and imagination".
@talons2112 They won't. Pigs are far too evolved into their specific type of body to be able to do that. It's the same reason why humans will not evolve claws, because we've been so evolved into a corner in respect to our fingers that we can't "re-evolve" them
@kly45 i find it strange that evolutionists say everything is constantly in a state of change with its environment except when they find something they claim has been extinct for 100 million years turns up with no changes. now pigs are perfect? my friend this keeps getting more rediculous if you have a copy of the Bible read through it, see what it says quit listening to these people lying to you.
@talons2112 The things that change "slower" are still in a constant evolution like the rest of us. The crocodiles we have today are not the same ones we would have had 1 million years ago. What it means is that they've not needed to change as much as other animals have. Any genetic changes between crocodiles haven't been significant enough to improve their survival because their survival has still been doing well. I hardly see how this is a challenge to evolution
@talons2112 nor do I see why it's impossible for someone to accept the bible and evolution. The bible is a collection of different stories and "eye witness'" accounts from unknown authors, so they aren't necessarily all true nor are they necessarily supposed to be literal. I have no need for a holy book in my life anyway. I am aware of the bible, the koran, I have read them
@kly45 the Bible says God created the heavens, earth, and everything on it in 6 literal days. there is no middle ground. He is ultimate power. accepting evolution instead of the 6 days is muddying the waters and confusing the Bible Truth from the very beginning of it. and it is this type of reasoning that creeps in that muddys the Truth.
@talons2112 The idea that not only the Earth, but the entire universe was created in more or less its current state in a span of 6 days is egregiously absurd.
You keep talking about "truth"; well I don't believe you know what's true or not. You want to convince properly? Support your claims with evidence. Give me examples of natural phenomena for which divine creation is the most reasonable explanation having the closest accord with what we know of natural laws.
@slashingraven i know man cheats, lies, steals and i know dawkins is a fraud. he knows he a liar... you seem upset. the issue is that we dont know anything and God is ultimate power. we are a creation of His and will never be able to do any of those things. go ahead animate a life. cant can you? everything you see, hear, touch, walk on, build with, breath are all his creations. do you really believe dna came about by it raining on rocks billions of years ago? you have been lied to.
@talons2112 You completely ignored what I asked you to do. You can only "know" something by being able to defend it rationally, so demonstrate to me that you KNOW Dawkins is a fraud by refuting specific claims of his. You haven't yet.
I'm not upset, by the way. But stupid people frustrate me sometimes.
@slashingraven it is frustrating when people challenge your religion and you cant answer back isnt it? i did answer you. why doesnt life pop out of your butt? or my butt? all the ingredients for life are there. or crawl out a blender with a blended frog inside? how can a language like dna, the code for life, create itself? how is it we can create clouds and lighting in a modern lab but not a simple organism? why is evolution lined with frauds? nothing he says is provable. lets see you prove 1
@talons2112 Challenge my religion? You've completely lost me. I have no religion.
You still aren't challenging a specific claim made by Dawkins, which is what I asked, and your bafflingly obtuse rhetorical line of questioning really drives home how hopelessly uneducated you are about evolutionary theory. Basically, you're dismissing evolution because you never bothered to learn a thing about what it actually says.
There's not a lot I can do for you there, unfortunately. Please go to school.
@slashingraven science - observable, testable. religion - faith n things unseen. no one has observed a star being born(stellar evolution) or organic from inorganic(chemical evolution) or a creature turning into another(biological evolution) and no one has sucesfuly tested these, so it takes faith to believe these things are true which makes it a religion. and all of these thing defy the law of entropy. dna a super complex coding language denoted intelligence did not appear from a rock
@talons2112 "no one has observed a star being born"
'Astronomers witness a star being born'. Science Daily article. 2010. Google it.
"or organic from inorganic"
'Building Organic Compounds'. Fun illustrated step-by-step science project. Google it.
"or a creature turning into another"
Now THIS is true. It is also solid evidence that your idea of what evolution claims happens is completely wrong. Like I suggested several posts back, go to school.
@slashingraven probably gas and dust dispersing from between the lens and star, there is no way to test this over the trillions of miles betwen the 2. again this defies the law of entropy. organic from inorganic? no organic compunds are used in this and if it were true it would be world headlines, no one has created life in a lab or from a kids chemistry kit. evolution is lined with frauds ocre, nebraska, etc, no one has observed anything turning into another creature only vrtns in gntic code
@talons2112 You know what? I'm not yet done here. Your selective interpretation of the evidence is infuriating, and I'm gonna set you straight no matter what it takes.
To put it simply, you don't know how the natural world works. You are completely ignorant of most science, and the fact that you would put forward a contradictory and much less likely hypothesis on the protostar formation without any serious investigation betrays astounding bias and denial of reality.
@talons2112 You also don't know what organic compounds ARE if you're dismissing my link as containing no organic end products. If you're expecting complex life forms to crawl out of the test tube after this, your expectation is a straw man. No scientist has ever expected something like that to have been the case in the formation of early life on Earth.
"no one has created life from a lab"
You don't ever research the things you say. Google "scientists create synthetic life".
@talons2112 You also adhere to your other, much more serious strawman of "evolution is false because we haven't seen one kind of creature transform into another kind from Step 1 to Step 2". Stop saying this. Evolution does not say it works that way, and you're knocking down an artificial theory that only exists in your head instead of the real scientific one.
As long as you start with the wrong ideas of what evolution claims, everything you say about the theory will be wrong.
@talons2112 It's quite obvious that you run your mouth about things you don't understand with no regard to factual accuracy or consistency. You are the last person to ask about matters of observable reality. Just stop already.
@slashingraven i took those definitions from websters and it is you that has run out of debate. do you have any evidence to show these 3 things have happened? no so unless you do it is as stated. blaming me for your lack of evidence is not a fail for me but you. now admit you dont have it and it is by faith you believe these things. these lies. and that is the first step in turning away from this indoctrination.
@talons2112 I just showed you the evidence for two of them. Good job ignoring them entirely.
For the third you're asking me to do something completely unsupported by evolutionary theory. YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK EVOLUTION CLAIMS. I can't show you things magically turning into other things because it DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY, and evolution has never said it happens that way.
You are stupid and intellectually dishonest. Analyze yourself the hell out of here.
@talons2112 "why doesn't life pop out of your butt?" "or crawl out a blender with a blended frog inside?"
I know these questions were most likely meant as a reductio ad absurdum, but you have to actually _follow the real logic of the claim_ for it to work. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you don't realize evolutionary theory doesn't claim complex living organisms spontaneously appear out of freely available organic components.
@slashingraven but it does."billions of years ago it was raining on the rocks creating a primordial soup from which the beginings of life sprang forth" im sure you have heard that before. never mind they dont explain where all the water came from. but we have no examples anywhere especially in the lab of organic life springing forth from inorganic material. we did not come from a rock.
@talons2112 "never mind they dont explain where all the water came from"
Wiki article, "Origin of Water on Earth", details science's best guess on the matter. The Earth was very young when liquid water appeared on the planet (Earth itself was formed 4.6 billion years ago while the earliest evidence of liquid water has been dated at 4.4 billion years), but it's difficult to say for sure how it really went down because so much was happening in our solar system at the time.
@slashingraven God created these laws when He created the heavens and earth. we snt a spaceship out into the nether with information about who we are and some math so whoever would find it would know it was sent by intelligent beings, however the heavens scream back at us with mathmatical complexity we are barely scratching the surface of. this denotes an intelligent designer of ultimate power. an ultimate scientist. Jesus. He wants to know us us know Him and share with us His knowledge
@talons2112 Of course this has been observed. Only 4 lineages have ever evolved wings in the known history of organisms. Pterosaurs, insects, mammals and aves. Only 4 that's it. One of the many reasons as to why only a select few attain flight is due to energy requirements. Each winged species has lost functioning hands in exchange for wings. There are no animals that have two hind legs, two forelimbs, AND a set of wings on their back, this is simply that their body would require too much energy
@italbello6t9 i disagree. i have never seen a video of a living organism turning from one kind of critter to another. how has your claim been observed? and under what testing has been done to confirm this? kids have been breeding fruit flies in science class for years yet they only change according to the genetic code available with some negative mutations, but yet no positive mutations and not one has ever evolved to a new life form. this has been observed and tested
@talons2112 So if you can't observe something happening then it didn't?
Man those crime scene investigators must have all been gathering EVIDENCE to falsely convict, or clear, people of crimes just for kicks. I certainly wouldn't want you for a lawyer.
@EmuMobile the weather man reports santa claus and his reindeer on his radar every year for the kids too and crime scene investigators have been known to mishandle, bungle, and lie as well. what we see with this evolution stuff is no different. how about climategate when they were caught redhanded lying, cheating and manipulating the data for more money for their research and steal money from the population in a new tax? the only truth is in the Bible. man lies.
@talons2112 THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN BY MAN, you thick moron. The Bibles that sit in countless hotel nightstand drawers are copies of copies of translations of copies of a source we no longer have. Any Biblical passage that you've ever been exposed to in your life had a human writer.
You're right when you say man lies, though you're hopelessly misdirected if you're trying to point out who among us is most likely to lie.
@slashingraven yes it was written by men but with the inspiration of the Father. that is why it is so profound and has been the best selling book through all history. i sincerely hope you read it sometime and i God is not a mere man. He through is Son are offering you more than the people that are lying to everyone trying to lead people away from the Truth.
@talons2112 Oh trust me, I've read it. I find it no more profound than a fantasy paperback. Less so than the average, in fact.
My guess is that you're the one who hasn't read it... cherry-picked some feel-good bits maybe, and glossed over the bloodier bits with mountains of rationalization, but not actually READ the thing, to absorb the material as you would any other interesting story. There are just too many things either completely fictional or dead wrong in the Bible to take it seriously.
@slashingraven dont lie, steal, murder, comit adultery, honor father and mother for example. whats wrong with that? love your neighbor as youself dont mess with children and the earth is round. sounds good to me. much better than being lied to by uae and mr dawkins at tax payer expense. now let me ask you what is fictional about the bible? what is dead wrong?
@talons2112 By the way, the only reason the Bible is the "best-selling book through all history" is due to the fact that Christianity, ever since it came into being as a religion, has been foisted on every population it has come into contact with and been absorbed through missionary work or conquistador-esque strongarming. In modern times, the global proselytizing is largely thanks to people from the USA, which has a predominantly Christian population.
@slashingraven before the press was invented books were extremely expensive and commoners were not able to afford them. the catholic church, the ultimate power of the world at the time and the only ones allowed to dispense the "truth" labeled anyone owning a bible in their own language a heritic and burned the offender at the stake using their bible as kindling. Jesus never forced anyone to do anything, anyone who does is not a christian or a follower of Christ but of the beast who lies, murders
@talons2112 So it has nothing to do with how valid the Bible actually is. Here's a quiz for you: given that we know just how many revisions, translations and editions the Bible has endured since its first printing, how do you know which parts are faithfully accurate to the original "inspiration", and which parts were added in or changed due to cultural, linguistic or political reasons?
@slashingraven good question. and it was a question many had until the dead sea scrolls written in hebrew, araimic and greek were found which show the translations we have today are true and accurate. the Bibles printed today are mostly taken from one biblical source with a 20% difference in wording as required by plagarism law. biblical scholars also study aramaic, greek, and hebrew. the Bible is inspired from the first word to the last word. our creator works through men.
@talons2112 Btw, in response to "Climategate": Please do yourself a favor and search Youtube for potholer54. His first video listed in the search is "Climate Change -- The Scientific Debate". Watch that and get educated before embarassing yourself further.
@slashingraven watched the video but he left out that co2 is plant food and long ago it was 300 times more of it in our atmosphere when the dinosaurs roamed and everything was fine nor did he address climate gate the topic of my post you repsonded to where the "scientists" were caught red handed systematically rigging the system, fixing, the numbers, providing false information blackballing dissenting opinions from publishment in journals, etc fraud and lies the same is done the evolution quacks
@talons2112 Re: Climategate -- hey, guess what? He DID address it! "7. Climate Change - "Those" emails and science censorship" is the title. Your insinuations about the extent of this alleged conspiracy are completely absurd, and potholer54 demonstrates this in the video.
Re: CO2 concentrations in the Carboniferous -- you're (sort of) right, CO2 concentrations back then WERE much higher, and guess what? So were average global temperatures! Funny how that works out.
@slashingraven in title but not the video. he discussed c02 but not the lies, frauds, and black balling done to dissenting opinions by their own admission through their emails. lies, frauds, fudging numbers, and blackballing is not science, its a con and on parallel with people who are fortunetellers and telling their kids about santa claws and evidence suggests this is the methodolgy used by evolutionists as well
@talons2112 You have repeated the same conspiracy drivel three times now. I don't believe it any more than when you said it the first time. For being an "analyst", you sure do take dubious data to crazy conclusions.
I can't even work with this kind of garbage. You are so far beyond help with your complete commitment to "Climategate" and your Christian myths that productive discussion is impossible. You're an unfixable moron. Go away.
@slashingraven climategate was front page news. dubious data is what it is false unreliable data. they lied, got caught, which puts their whole campaign into the toilet. it is not i that comited fraud but them. i am just ponting it out and the commonalities used in the evolution debate. these lies are methods of indoctrination falsehoods presented as reality which they are not. ie garbage as you say. you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink
@talons2112 I see so much projection on yourself when you talk so much about falsehoods and indoctrination. You are so utterly blinkered and your perception of reality so warped that I'm not going to bother losing brain cells talking about this anymore. You are a lost cause.
NOTICE TO READERS: The views expressed by talons2112 do not represent those of the scientific community or any members of the rational, clearheaded population of Earth. Please read his comments with caution.
@slashingraven thanks for the endorsement! :) its funny how crazy people always think everyone else is crazy but themselves. hahaha it is always interesting to see how absolutly how angry people get whn their indoctrination is challenged and the defense mechanisms they were programmed to use come to fruition when challenged using their own facts and belief system puts them up against a wall. i sincerely hope you free yourself from this matrix of lies you are surroundeed by.
@talons2112 Re: "plant food": yeah, it's nice and all that a carbon dioxide-rich atmosphere would be a plant's paradise, but that doesn't magically make it a good thing for humans. We, like many thousands of other animal species, require a fairly narrow operating range of atmospheric gas mixtures to live. You don't have to do much to that mixture to kill us. You could probably do even less to trigger a mass extinction event. The temperature increase certainly wouldn't help either.
@slashingraven however it does turn it into a good thing for humans, co2 + sunshine = o2 and more h20 in the atmosphere creating a heavier breathing sphere for which is what made all the plants larger and produce more. as i said in the days the dinosaurs roamed there was 300% more co2 in the atmosphere than today, the world did fine then, it will do fine today. the real issue the tax money and the billions people like al gore will make off it. greed, politics and lies
@talons2112 "the world did fine then"? The world back then was inhospitable to the species that exist in modern times. It doesn't matter how well-adapted things were to living 300 million years ago, WE AREN'T. Neither are most of the animal species alive today. Global warming is a dangerous thing for our current biodiversity.
@slashingraven global warming is only dangerous to our pocket and the new power structure the resulting world taxes it will create to control us one step step further into a new form of serfdom as the divide between the poor and poorer and the super rich ruling class widens. except for being eaten by a flesh eating dinosaur man would have and did do fine in that atmosphere before all the deforestation and industrial waste be added into the mix
@talons2112 Increased CO2 levels acidify the oceans, upsetting its pH balance and killing lots of aquatic life right there. Hotter oceans kill off even more.
Higher temperatures create more water vapor in the atmosphere which makes things _even hotter_, as well as increasing the frequency of weather-related natural disasters.
Droughts, food shortages, toxic ground-level ozone production... they all become bigger problems in a hotter global environment.
@slashingraven however according to core sampling it was 300% higher some time ago and life still existed and flourished extremely well according to scientists for millions of years. however as you probably have guessed i doubt the whole age thing as well for many reasons. i think we can safely solve this problem by making more beer and coke for my mixed drinks. salinity due to run off will be a problem long before acidity in the oceans. the earth naturally works with carbon but not salt
@talons2112 For f**k's sake dude, how many times do I have to say it? "life still existed and flourished", BUT NOT THE LIFE WE KNOW. Life in the paleozoic was adapted to a much different environment than the one that exists today. Were we to go back in a time machine a la Terra Nova, WE WOULD DIE.
We're fine as long as our environment stays pretty much like it is or changes slowly enough to adapt. But all scientific predictions tell us it's going to change too quickly for that.
@slashingraven we would have been fine, and were fine. an atmosphere like that would be like living in a hyperbaric chamber which they use in hospitals to rejuvenate people suffering disease, injury, and the bends. people would heal quicker and live longer. al gore just wants your tax dollars to get rich. uea was caught red handed fixing the numbers,black balling dissenting opinions from funding and publishment of diseenting opinions. fraud then, fraud now. dont fall for these lies.
@talons2112 You don't have a bloody clue what you're talking about. You've done no research, and stick to your pig-ignorant assertions without any evidence whatsoever. You consider Al Gore and "Climategate" trenchant disproofs of climate change, as stupid as it is misdirected, while any actual scientific arguments you've made are either wrong or irrelevant.
You probably won't ever change your mind about the issue, but at least I've shown to everyone else that you're not worth listening to.
@slashingraven bzzt wrong again im an analyst, research is the name of my game, the tactics used by the uea, the "defacto clearinghouse" research facility was caught red handed. the same tactics are used throughout the scientific community specifically in climate and evolutionary research which are dubbed psuedo science becuase lying cheating, stealing, black balling and committing fraud are the only way they can get there quackery passed by. i'd rather be lied to by a hooker its more fun
@slashingraven why because i disagree with the people you are quoting from that have been caught lying, cheating, and committing fraud? let me ask why is it you are so blindly loyal to someone who has been caught lying to you? you should question that more than my credentials.
@talons2112 Speaking of greed and making billions, I'd argue that most of the opposition to it comes from people who'd rather not believe that the wasteful polluting consumer culture of which they are a part is going to come back on them. Business leaders who are "skeptics" are more interested in preserving their cashflow than preserving the planet. People dismiss global warming because they want to delude themselves into thinking everything'll turn out fine. Well it won't. Snap out of it.
@slashingraven i crtainly will agree with you on the corporate greed spun out of control the majority of the pollution is created by them paying off politicians to look the other way and not pass legislation aimed at them to clean up their polutting ways. if the tax is passed they will be excused from paying it and implementing the measures to clean up their act all in the name of profit. whose polutes more? my litle 3 bedroom? or bill gates house which is the size of a large mall? greed lies
@slashingraven sure experimentation with plants has caused them to grow SUPER large. tomato plants standing 16 feet tall growing over 900 tomatos over its life the size of grapefruit. this would go a long way solving hunger around the world. the 300% increase in co2 is not a life threatening amount in our atmosphere which is currently at 392 ppm. 300% sounds large but for an extremely small number its not a huge jump. plants have to wait for it to float by in order to use it
@talons2112 So the mass extinction of much of the world's ocean life and countless land-based animal species doesn't even register with you while you're fantasizing about how well off plants will be, eh?
By the way, all those lovely crops you think will solve our hunger problems? When they're not being blown away by storms or ravaged by fire, both of which become more frequent according to predictions, they'll also have droughts and desertification to contend with. Less arable land = less food.
@talons2112 Wait, did you just say the bible is truth? Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not. It's written by men, and it contradicts itself oh so many times. It certainly isn't god's word. If you do believe that, you're a lunatic.
@Helge129 the Bible is and has always been the best selling book throughout history. it does not contradict itself at all and yes men wrote it but from the inspiration of God. i hope you read it someday. in the meantime why is it crazy people always think everyone is a lunatic but them?
@flyingscience2 nah mate, the very nature of science is to updating what you believe to be true with new evidence. You literally described that in your comment. Are you trying to say that in a few generations if these cormorants need to flay again they will have far larger fully functioning wings??
@andymc24 Would I dare say that? Not without first saying what was observed already. Scientifically speaking of course. We observed finches growing their beaks during a drought. When the drought was over, the beaks shrunk again in just a few generations. So would cormorant wings grow again if we took them away from the ocean? Let's try and see what happens. That my friend is science. "I don't know" is science. "Lets try something" is science. Science is discovery not propaganda.
@flyingscience2 what are you on man, that's what I said! And YOU said in your first comment, that 100 years ago they thought there were 70, now they think there are none (although that's not true - the appendix). I think all that' going on is a confusing articulation of what you're trying to say. You obviously aren't an ignorant creationist, but I think you sort of shot yourself in the foot by saying "evolutionary scientists are arrogant and set in their ways. Look they've changed their mind!"
@flyingscience2 Ah right ye, I just read up on its potential functions, fair enough. But what about the remnants of the leg bones that can be found in some whale species, from when they were terrestrial beings?
This has been flagged as spam show
It's not only about the evidence, it's also about applicability. Evolution paves the foundation for many other branches of science, ranging from genetics, to ecology to bioinformatics.
Meanwhile, i still have yet to see just a single one demonstrable scientific benefit from creation research!
Casshyr 3 weeks ago
I didn't even know Cormorant was flightless, is it that bird with the ring around the necks that are used for fishing?
Primus2X 1 month ago
@Primus2X not all of them, just this kind
bakayurei 4 days ago
Noah's ark is a fucking bullshat joke4
rp007007007 2 months ago
Evolutionist do claim vertebrates and insects had a common ancestor. It just doesn't exist. Using the scientific method a theory is not valid without OBSERVATION. You can't claim a link then expect it to be valid without evidence. If you do come up with that common ancestor let me Know. Waiting... still waiting.......Who looks foolish now.
philackey 3 months ago
@philackey Evolutionist do say insects and vertebrates have a common ancestor but that wasn’t what you said in your original comment. You don’t make a correction but carried on like you were never wrong.
Detectives don’t have to be present at a crime when its committed to prove a particular person committed the crime. They find clues that lead to a conclusion. Now grow up and do some real science instead of listening to preachers.
NotEnoughLions 3 months ago
@NotEnoughLions Ok in my original comment I made a mistake, I meant to say common ancestor. Please enlighten us as to this C.A. that evolution predicts. waiting...... waiting......Funny how you change the subject and start talking about religion when you have no answer. Please Mr detective present your evidence. U-oh no evidence! I guess evolution is not the mechanism that explains life.
philackey 3 months ago
@philackey Fossils, DNA (Molecular), Vestigial Organs, Tectonic Plate Movement and Anatomical Similarity. That’s five separate branches of science that each provide evidence for common ancestry. That’s a lot of science not contradicting each others findings. Now what do we have as an alternative? Nothing but a bunch of people unhappy with the results.
NotEnoughLions 3 months ago
@philackey There are more than 430,000 peer reviewed scientific papers many of which contain multiple proven facts that support evolution by Natural Selection. That's probably around a million proven facts. Not one scientific paper negates evolution.
NotEnoughLions 3 months ago
@NotEnoughLions Every paper you mention only addresses micro-evolution which is uncontroversial. As usual your million facts are irrelevent. The devil is in the details, we have no mechanism which can explain the development of complex structures. Years of research with fruit flies have proved that mutation cannot explain the development of new types. The reason for the controversy is evolutions utter lack of scientific discipline when explaining macro-evolution.
philackey 3 months ago
@philackey Simply put selective breeding shows mutations can change a species greatly in a short few thousand years. Given a few hundred million years, a changing environment and the pressure to survive it is easy to understand the diversity of life.
NotEnoughLions 2 months ago
@philackey " Years of research with fruit flies have proved that mutation cannot explain the development of new types."
Actually speciation of fruit flies *has* been seen in the lab (Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971)).
kandtell 2 months ago
@kandtell Dobzhansky proved even through forced mutation of fruit flies they never produced a VIABLE species. After several generations all the mutants died out. He produced 4-wing flies but they lacked the muscle structure to run the extra wings. This proved that several hundred beneficial mutations must occur simultaneously for 1 new structure to evolve. Take all the time you want evolution can NEVER cross this hurdle.. Yet mutation is the only mechanism for change and it fails.
philackey 2 months ago
@philackey It is accepted in the scientific community that fossil evidence is no longer even required to prove evolution as fact. The molecular evidence is enough in itself. Remember the scientific community are the people who have brought us modern communication, space travel, medicine, electricity, improved agriculture and a wide range of things that we know work. Modern medicine and agriculture are built on evolution biology.
NotEnoughLions 3 months ago
@NotEnoughLions Of course fossils are not needed they utterly contradict everything evolution predicts. Molecular biology has has destroyed evolution. The smaller we go the more complex we find everything is. Not simple, exponentially complex. Once again your molecular evidence is for micro-evolution.
philackey 3 months ago
@philackey Simply wrong!
NotEnoughLions 2 months ago
@philackey The fossil evidence does not contradict Biological evidence at all. You have merely grasped a point in the hope it will work for you. You are dishonest like all creationists. You have a preconceived agenda that corrupts you argument because you have a solution that is based on predetermined idea. Science looks at the evidence and concludes a result. Religion looks at a belief and endeavors to find ways of supporting that belief. Religion is backward.
NotEnoughLions 2 months ago
@NotEnoughLions I probably agree with you more than you realize. I agree with 95 percent of evolutions facts. However it is a dirty little secret what evolution can't, won't, and doesn't explain about life's origins and diversity. Michael Behe in his books has challenged the scientific community to expain how complex structures evolved. NOT ONE peer reviewed paper has ever done this. They avoid the tough questions. I don't think you realize what I'm questioning.
philackey 3 months ago
@philackey Life’s diversity is explained by mutation and a diverse environment. Life’s origins are not explained by evolution but is the subject of a hypothesis called Biogenesis. Biogenesis and evolution are two separate sciences and evolution is not dependent on Biogenesis to be a fact. Behe has not managed to challenge the scientific community with any science at all. Complex organs like eyes have been explained by showing logical pathways through evolution that they can develop.
NotEnoughLions 2 months ago
@philackey If you have read Behe, I suggest you read Ken Miller too. His Only a Theory presents very good explanation of macro-evolution and comprehensively counters Behe's arguments.
Coming back to Behe himself, as he himself has said in the Dover trial that his definition of science would include subjects such as astrology as well. That just destroys the credibility of anybody claiming to be a scientist.
milind006 2 months ago
@milind006 The claim that BEHE BELIEVES ASTROLOGY as valid science is a bald face lie. You can read the entire Dover transcript at the ACLU website and nowhere is it found. Dr. John Wise invented this erroneous quote, that when confronted it mysteriously disappeared from his site, and he refused to respond. I view this kind of lie more and more not as a mistake but proof that many evolutionist are dishonest. Why if evolution is such a fact is it necessary to lie?
philackey 2 months ago
@philackey Go to page 38 on this pdf: aclupa. org / downloads / Day11PMSession. pdf It is the transcript of the dover trial.Read from line 18 on that page to line 14 on page 42. Behe has accepted that he thinks of astrology as theory. I know the kind of argument you might put against this, but irrespective of that, your claim that behe believing in astrology is a bald face lie and a misquote is incorrect. It is not a lie. And more importantly it is not a lie about evolution.
milind006 2 months ago
@milind006 Behe clearly said that ether theory, geocentrism and astrology are all examples of theories that have proven to be incorrect. He was giving examples of what people 500 years ago thought. He clearly states that he feels these are incorrect. He states he has no control over what others believed. You are being dishonest. If Behe believed as you assert it would not threaten my world view and I would freely admit it. But to anyone who reads the transcript he didn't.
philackey 2 months ago
@milind006 As far as Ken Miller, although honestly I haven't read everything he has written I have seen one attempt to refute Behe's work. I found his arguments unconvincing in the least. Its all straw men. He put a mouse trap on his tie. All that shows was he didn't understand the analogy. Miller essentially claims nothing is irreducibly complex. So is that true? Is nothing irreducibly complex? I will try to read more Miller as I am always ready to be converted.
philackey 2 months ago
@philackey Again, if you actually read Miller, you will understand that Miller not only understood the analogy correctly, but he also disproved the assertion made by the analogy quite convincingly. In fact it is not really Miller that does the convincing, but the facts he presents on the different favorite examples used Behe.that do the convincing. The immediate example that comes to mind is that of the supposed irreducible complexity of a propulsion motor found in certain bacteria.
milind006 2 months ago
@milind006 Please name something that is irreducibly complex?
philackey 2 months ago
@philackey I'm sorry, but you seem to have gotten confused. When did I claim that something is irreducibly complex? I do not claim that. I know that creationists and design proponents or the cdesign proponentists claim that. That claim in fact is the basis for the idea of Intelligent Design.
milind006 2 months ago
@milind006 That is exactly the point. You believe NOTHING is irreducibly complex. Way to man up on taking Behe out of context. This is when I start to realize you aren't interested in the TRUTH. You are only interested in proving what you BELIEVE to be true. If evolution were true it wouldn't need to lie. I respect your right to believe what you want. But, we are men of action lies do not become us.
philackey 2 months ago
@philackey sorry to poke my nose where it probably doesn't belong, but i'd like to point out there's nothing wrong with the belief that nothing in nature is irreducibly complex, as there really is nothing in nature that's irreducibly complex, and there's no lie in that
bakayurei 4 days ago
@bakayurei Do you believe anything, anywhere is irreducibly complex? What about something obviously created like an automobile? Where do we draw the line between something created and something formed by random unintelligent natural causes? Forensics, archeaology, cryptography are all sciences that can determine when something is man-made. Is it possible someone could create a biological machine. No that's not possible, that could never happen!
philackey 2 days ago
@philackey let me reiterate with the relevant parts capitalized so you can keep the discussion relevant: 'nothing IN NATURE is irreducibly complex' .. but if we're talking about all kinds of machine, then even things like cars can be simplified to the point of a fuel tank that forces pistons to turn a wheel .. but anyway, it's irrelevant as cars didn't evolve by incremental steps .. if you have an example of an irreducibly complex biological machine tho, i'd be happy to hear about it
bakayurei 2 days ago
@bakayurei So a car can work without a fuel tank? A car is I.C. So it follows something as complex as a car didn't evolve. Its very relevant whether the complexity of a thing is sufficient to determine whether it was created or not. I assert nature contains many examples of I.C. Without proof you assume evolution is correct beforehand. Therefore you are flawed before the discussion begins. If in your mind NOTHING is I.C. then you are not mentally capable of debating the issue.
philackey 1 day ago
@philackey nature didn't give us cars tho, and cars didn't evolve from simplicity to complexity, and you've misquoted me (i specifically said that a car can be made 'as simple as' just a fuel tank, piston, and wheels, implying that they can't be made any simpler..) .. anyway, doesn't matter, you're arguing in the wrong direction entirely .. and you've got it backwards, it's not scientific to beg the question, how science works is, you make a hypothesis then look for evidence that'll disprove it
bakayurei 1 day ago
@philackey .. e.g. as dawkins once quoted haldane as suggesting, 'fossil rabbits in the precambrian'.. there are millions, infinite, even, examples of evidence that would falsify the theory of evolution by natural selection, but nobody's found any so far .. as another example, IC, and if any evolutionary biologist knew of an example of an organism that couldn't possibly work in a slightly simpler form, then it would be in all the literature, especially the 'intelligent design' leaflets
bakayurei 1 day ago
@philackey but nobody's found any..if we're arguing about facts, then show me an example of something that's IC (not counting cars, because they don't count, 'someone designed cars therefore someone designed me' is not an argument).. also please try to keep our discussion civil, i'm not attacking your intelligence even tho i've had plenty of reasons to do so, don't attack mine.. and don't misquote me
bakayurei 1 day ago
@bakayurei Why isn't it an argument? What determines whether something was created or not? Was Mount Rushmore caused by wind and erosion or did some intelligence create it? If I insisted it was formed naturally how could you prove me wrong?
philackey 1 day ago
@philackey it's not an argument because .. okay, so try to apply the same kind of reasoning somewhere else- 'erosion couldn't have formed this rock because erosion didn't form books' .. 'turtles don't lay eggs because houses don't lay eggs' .. you're talking about two completely different things that have nothing to do with each other.. and the fact that you can't disprove a hypothesis doesn't make it a good hypothesis.. in fact it's the very opposite of that
bakayurei 1 day ago
@bakayurei But you just said that is the way science works. Here is what you said, "you make a hypothesis then look for evidence that'll disprove it" Then you just said,"..and the fact that you can't disprove a hypothesis doesn't make it a good hypothesis.. " You are wrong, try again. Please prove that Mount Rushmore wasn't made by erosion. We both know its true. You should be able point to one factor which makes it different from other rocks.
philackey 1 day ago
@philackey you've misunderstood again .. it's possible to falsify the theory of evolution by natural selection ('fossil rabbits in the precambrian'), and that makes it a 'good', valid hypothesis, and it hasn't been falsified yet, which makes it, for all intents and purposes, 'true' .. what i meant was that if your argument is that you can't falsify ID, then you've shot yourself in the foot .. and mt rushmore is a completely irrelevant example, again .. show me an actual example of IC
bakayurei 1 day ago
@bakayurei If a pre-cambrian rabbit were found evolutionist would blithely conclude that their previous understanding when life evolved has changed. Discoveries that completely destroy evolution are too numerous to count. Its evolution that is non-falsifiable and you've already admitted it. Since all you do is jump around and at no point answer my questions I wish you the best but fail to see your points. I think its this forum, its not conducive to resolution.
philackey 1 day ago
@philackey discoveries like what, cars and mount rushmore? i've refused to address your questions because as i've already said, these things are irrelevant to this discussion, there's no connection .. maybe the facts against evolution are too numberous to count, but just point me towards one valid example that's supposed to 'destroy' any modern theory of evolution, that's all it'll take, just one fact, and we'll both ignore all the mountains of facts that support modern theories of evolution
bakayurei 1 day ago
@philackey and it wouldn't be without precedent, theories of evolution have been rejected in the past, and that's how science moves forwards, sheds the bad theories and replaces them with ones that better explain all of the currently known facts .. .. and i don't know where i've 'admitted' that evolution's non-falsifiable when i clearly said 'it's possible to falsify ..' look it's right there .. i said it HASN'T been falsified, not that it can't be, and i've asked you before not to misquote me
bakayurei 1 day ago
@philackey to clarify: show me evidence of a biological machine that's not man-made but is irreducibly complex, and i'll concede that maybe life doesn't evolve.. then stop getting flu jabs every year .. and stop visiting doctors altogether, since the entire basis of biology is the fact that life evolves, therefore if that's ever falsified, then all of western medicine would be rendered meaningless nonsense
bakayurei 1 day ago
@philackey There are more than 240,000 peer reviewed scientific papers many of which contain multiple facts proving Evolution by Natural Selection and you think some religious turkey with an opinion and a vested interest in an outcome is worth listening to? Get yourself a real education and know that there isn’t a single peer reviewed paper supporting Intelligent Design. Not one. If Behe is a real scientist where is his real work? He is a preacher. Fail fail fail.
NotEnoughLions 3 days ago
@NotEnoughLions Behe is professor biochemistry at Lehigh U. NO ONE anywhere disputes that he is a real scientist, they only dispute some of his conclusions. The Discovery Institute just released 50 peer-reviewed papers on intelligent design. There is not one peer-reviewed paper of an unambiguous example of species change or macro evolution. Don't bring your uncontroversial micro evolution proofs no one is disputing that. Do you believe everything they tell you?
philackey 2 days ago
there's no evidence that a creator intervened in our biosphere of life, but there is plenty for naturally occurring processes being the source of this planet's diversity of life.
Seems simple enough for me. Whit all the proselytizing going on in the Christian, or other religions, post's here, you forgot one thing. EVIDENCE.
Produce some that supports your ridiculous claims, or stfu.
EmuMobile 3 months ago
Once again Dawkins shows something completely uncontroversial in the evolution debate and claims its some strong proof of evolution. Hey Dawkins why don't you show us the evolution of insects to vertebrates. Evolution predicts it. What no fossils, no mechanism that can explain complex structures evolving? Neo darwinian evolution is the greatest hoax perpetrated in the history human life. Someday they will laugh at Dawkins like we laugh at those who believe the Sun goes around the earth.
philackey 3 months ago
@philackey Quoting things you don’t understand (Like junk DNA) only impresses those who know even less than you. If Dawkins suffered a head injury and became a Christian the science that supports evolution would remain. It would make no difference at all.
NotEnoughLions 3 months ago
@NotEnoughLions Things I don't understand. What? Even if I knew nothing my statement is still correct. You refuted nothing. How do you determine how much I know? Probably the same way you determine the validity of evolution. Sticking your head up your ass. Don't make the mistake of claiming to know what I believe. Stick to the discussion of evolution. Maybe you are the one who suffered a head injury, might want to get that checked out.
philackey 3 months ago
@philackey You have merely quoted a Christian site that exists to refute evolution because evolution means no fall, no original sin and no need for god to send his only begotten boy to save mankind. You have a screwed up idea of Junk DNA and think evolution predicts insects to vertebrates. You parrot fools just like you probably parrot the bible and it like you it was wrong about everything.
NotEnoughLions 3 months ago
@philackey said "Hey Dawkins why don't you show us the evolution of insects to vertebrates. Evolution predicts it."
If you actually think that evolution theory claims that insects evolved into vertebrates, you clearly don't know enough about the theory to comment without looking foolish.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
Folks, I wish you would all quit fighting and listen to the very important point Dawkins is trying to make… that birds turned into birds.
Entropy56 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Romans 1:20-23 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
talons2112 3 months ago
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 If a God exists, God makes the fungus grow by "faking" biological processes; he simulates random chance when forcing the dice to fall a certain way; he pretends that the laws of physics exist when he actively supports cell phone calls; and he's actually the one who "cured" someone when the doctor removes a tumor.
The trouble with this stance is that it is indistinguishable from a universe where there is no god and things actually do happen according to physical laws.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@slashingraven how do we explain those physical laws? with complex mathmatical explanations, physics is the method by which we explain these laws. very complex stuff which denotes that we are intelligent as it takes our best minds to figure these out. the fact that nature screams back at us also denotes intelligence and it was God that created these laws
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 "it was God that created these laws"
Prove it.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@talons2112 Science posits that everything in the universe has a natural explanation as to its origin and function, and that the physical laws of the universe were there for as long as the universe itself was, without the need of any gods as a component of that explanation. Prove that your god must necessarily be part of that explanation.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@slashingraven Actually concerning science positing something that's not really true; that's what I believe personally, and I trust science to bring me those natural explanations. Science itself doesn't put forward that position, so it's not like science WON'T deal with the supernatural, but rather it CAN'T. It can only measure and observe that which exists physically, as part of our natural world, so supernatural concepts by definition cannot be tested.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@talons2112 Then of course, while you're proving gods, prove that YOUR god is the correct one to posit as our ultimate creator, and that YOUR god gave his actual instructions for living to men in the form of the Bible.
If you can't find substantial support beyond the Bible itself, your argument is circular, and therefore invalid.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@talons2112 Rocks must be very intelligent to know exactly how fast to accelerate when they fall. Proof of the intelligent rock.
NotEnoughLions 3 months ago
@NotEnoughLions HAHAHAHAHA!
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 Life is a bunch of complex chemical reactions and your belief that it isn’t is just another chemical reaction. Some realities exist. We all take a crap and some people think god is real. That's the nature of the life we are all part of.
NotEnoughLions 3 months ago
@NotEnoughLions I never said there weren't complex chemical reactions required for life. Just the opposite. So complex in fact it took a master creator to put it all in motion. But if want to believe life evolves from your crap and thats the nature of life than thats what you think. However, and as someone worried about your sanity, I must say you are living in a sad little delusional world. Get a grip man! Dickie Dawkins is a liar and YOU are responsible for your actions on this rock.
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 Dawkins is one of hundreds of thousands of scientists past and present who all say evolution is a fact. All you do is make personal attacks and baseless claims. Intelligent design was thrown out as religious belief when they tried to teach it as science. There isn’t one single scientific paper that supports an intelligent creator. Not one. I bet you use the latest medicine developed using evolution biology when you’re sick, you should be ashamed.
NotEnoughLions 3 months ago
@NotEnoughLions You mean like what evolution taught us about so called junk DNA. Because of evolution, research on non-coding regions of the genome stopped. Because evolutionist said it was junk. Only when some scientists rejected evolution was evidence found on how critical to life these sections really are. The theory of evolution is credited with causing one of the largest blunders in the history of science.
philackey 3 months ago
@talons2112 In that case, a god who does hands-on is basically useless -- praying to him is a waste of time since he'll let things happen according to how the dice would fall anyway, and worshipping him is a waste of time since he does what he does according to the laws he's simulating, not according to your entreaties.
The existence of a god or not doesn't change the fact that things in our universe turn out a certain way, independent of human desires.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@slashingraven He does things not according to the roll of the dice, but to bring you to Him. He wants you to live and rule the universe with Him. God is the ultimate scientist, creator of life.
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 "He does things not according to the roll of the dice, but to bring you to Him."
Spiritual claptrap, non-answer, dodges the issue.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@talons2112 As far as your claims that the Bible is an inerrant, divinely inspired resource for mankind, there just isn't enough space in the Youtube comment section to cover this publicly. I'm going to direct you to a fantastic video series by a user named AronRa. It's titled "the foundational falsehoods of creationism". If you investigate no other external resources I give you, investigate that one. In full. Respond to the author of those videos if you wish.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@slashingraven AranRa is a pagan sun worshipper. why would i or even you as an atheist listen to someone who worships a sun god?
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 "AronRa is a pagan sun worshipper"
.....for once, words fail me in describing the depths of your ignorance.
Suffice it to say that anyone reading this comments section who knows who AronRa is, or have seen his videos, will read this comment of yours and see just how little you care about being correct. I feel I should offer something more in response than "No he isn't, you're wrong", but I can't even begin to imagine what led you to believe the thing you just said.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@talons2112 Specifically, the video dealing with an inerrant Bible are the 2nd and 3rd foundational falsehoods of creationism in that series. You should watch the whole series, but if you're looking for a specific counterargument in this issue, watch those two.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@slashingraven ocre man, piltdown man, nebraska man, haeckles fraud proven a lie in court is still in the books, vestigial organs, peppered moth, homology, stanley miller, sidney fox, ota benga, piltdown man to name a few are all deliberate frauds
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 "ocre man, piltdown man, nebraska man, haeckles fraud"
It's ORCE man, by the way, not OCRE man. Most of these frauds you list are covered in the 13th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism. Orce Man is the exception, and the website TalkOrigins covers it decently. None of these frauds fooled the scientific community. They generated press attention, but never did anything more significant than that.
Oh right, I forgot, you're a conspiracy nut.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@talons2112 The video series also specifically deals with some of the bullshit you've put forward about evolution as well. Later videos in the series discuss these "frauds" you refer to, as well as the strawman you're persistently parroting which is the misrepresentation of evolution's claims.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@talons2112 You know, now that I've written all that, I think that maybe I just don't have the stamina I thought I did to continue this. So I'm going to leave you with the recommendation that you watch the "foundational falsehoods of creationism" series, front to back, and if you find any problems or missing elements in those videos, contact AronRa and discuss it with him. He is much better educated and more inclined than I am to talk about this stuff.
I'm just tired of your nonsense.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@slashingraven "I'm just tired of your nonsense" - code for my argument is weak and i dont know how to reply to you so i must insult you to make myself feel better and give up. that was the fastest win i have had. wake up my friend. you have been lied to. dont close your ears and eyes and folow these fools blindly off a clif evolution is fail at every turn. if you dont believe me go to harlem and explain to a group od its residents they are all apes with low iq's see how they reply
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 It's not code for weak argumentation skills. It's very plain clear language for I AM TIRED OF YOUR NONSENSE. You're full of shit, you don't know anything about reality, and you should stay the hell away from any future discussions about science.
Like, I could go through, point-by-point, how wrong you are about everything you've said here. But it would take HOURS, if not DAYS of writing work describing in full detail how wholly retarded your arguments are. So I won't bother.
slashingraven 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
:D how beautiful!
freiheitsalv 5 months ago
Subtitles ?
maxflofull 5 months ago
hahaha it costs food to make a wing so save the ecomics of making a wing hahaha and this has been observed and scientifically tested?? this is all speculation and imagination with no evidence presented at all. fail
talons2112 5 months ago
@talons2112 Yes it does cost energy to make any body part -- it costs a lot more protein. That's basic biological knowledge, not "speculation and imagination".
adi87tya 5 months ago
@adi87tya maybe one day pigs will fly
talons2112 5 months ago
@talons2112 They won't. Pigs are far too evolved into their specific type of body to be able to do that. It's the same reason why humans will not evolve claws, because we've been so evolved into a corner in respect to our fingers that we can't "re-evolve" them
kly45 4 months ago
@kly45 i find it strange that evolutionists say everything is constantly in a state of change with its environment except when they find something they claim has been extinct for 100 million years turns up with no changes. now pigs are perfect? my friend this keeps getting more rediculous if you have a copy of the Bible read through it, see what it says quit listening to these people lying to you.
talons2112 4 months ago
@talons2112 The things that change "slower" are still in a constant evolution like the rest of us. The crocodiles we have today are not the same ones we would have had 1 million years ago. What it means is that they've not needed to change as much as other animals have. Any genetic changes between crocodiles haven't been significant enough to improve their survival because their survival has still been doing well. I hardly see how this is a challenge to evolution
kly45 4 months ago
@talons2112 nor do I see why it's impossible for someone to accept the bible and evolution. The bible is a collection of different stories and "eye witness'" accounts from unknown authors, so they aren't necessarily all true nor are they necessarily supposed to be literal. I have no need for a holy book in my life anyway. I am aware of the bible, the koran, I have read them
kly45 4 months ago
@kly45 the Bible says God created the heavens, earth, and everything on it in 6 literal days. there is no middle ground. He is ultimate power. accepting evolution instead of the 6 days is muddying the waters and confusing the Bible Truth from the very beginning of it. and it is this type of reasoning that creeps in that muddys the Truth.
talons2112 4 months ago
@talons2112 The idea that not only the Earth, but the entire universe was created in more or less its current state in a span of 6 days is egregiously absurd.
You keep talking about "truth"; well I don't believe you know what's true or not. You want to convince properly? Support your claims with evidence. Give me examples of natural phenomena for which divine creation is the most reasonable explanation having the closest accord with what we know of natural laws.
slashingraven 4 months ago
@slashingraven i know man cheats, lies, steals and i know dawkins is a fraud. he knows he a liar... you seem upset. the issue is that we dont know anything and God is ultimate power. we are a creation of His and will never be able to do any of those things. go ahead animate a life. cant can you? everything you see, hear, touch, walk on, build with, breath are all his creations. do you really believe dna came about by it raining on rocks billions of years ago? you have been lied to.
talons2112 4 months ago
@talons2112 You completely ignored what I asked you to do. You can only "know" something by being able to defend it rationally, so demonstrate to me that you KNOW Dawkins is a fraud by refuting specific claims of his. You haven't yet.
I'm not upset, by the way. But stupid people frustrate me sometimes.
slashingraven 4 months ago
@slashingraven it is frustrating when people challenge your religion and you cant answer back isnt it? i did answer you. why doesnt life pop out of your butt? or my butt? all the ingredients for life are there. or crawl out a blender with a blended frog inside? how can a language like dna, the code for life, create itself? how is it we can create clouds and lighting in a modern lab but not a simple organism? why is evolution lined with frauds? nothing he says is provable. lets see you prove 1
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 Challenge my religion? You've completely lost me. I have no religion.
You still aren't challenging a specific claim made by Dawkins, which is what I asked, and your bafflingly obtuse rhetorical line of questioning really drives home how hopelessly uneducated you are about evolutionary theory. Basically, you're dismissing evolution because you never bothered to learn a thing about what it actually says.
There's not a lot I can do for you there, unfortunately. Please go to school.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@slashingraven science - observable, testable. religion - faith n things unseen. no one has observed a star being born(stellar evolution) or organic from inorganic(chemical evolution) or a creature turning into another(biological evolution) and no one has sucesfuly tested these, so it takes faith to believe these things are true which makes it a religion. and all of these thing defy the law of entropy. dna a super complex coding language denoted intelligence did not appear from a rock
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 "no one has observed a star being born"
'Astronomers witness a star being born'. Science Daily article. 2010. Google it.
"or organic from inorganic"
'Building Organic Compounds'. Fun illustrated step-by-step science project. Google it.
"or a creature turning into another"
Now THIS is true. It is also solid evidence that your idea of what evolution claims happens is completely wrong. Like I suggested several posts back, go to school.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@slashingraven probably gas and dust dispersing from between the lens and star, there is no way to test this over the trillions of miles betwen the 2. again this defies the law of entropy. organic from inorganic? no organic compunds are used in this and if it were true it would be world headlines, no one has created life in a lab or from a kids chemistry kit. evolution is lined with frauds ocre, nebraska, etc, no one has observed anything turning into another creature only vrtns in gntic code
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 You know what? I'm not yet done here. Your selective interpretation of the evidence is infuriating, and I'm gonna set you straight no matter what it takes.
To put it simply, you don't know how the natural world works. You are completely ignorant of most science, and the fact that you would put forward a contradictory and much less likely hypothesis on the protostar formation without any serious investigation betrays astounding bias and denial of reality.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@talons2112 You also don't know what organic compounds ARE if you're dismissing my link as containing no organic end products. If you're expecting complex life forms to crawl out of the test tube after this, your expectation is a straw man. No scientist has ever expected something like that to have been the case in the formation of early life on Earth.
"no one has created life from a lab"
You don't ever research the things you say. Google "scientists create synthetic life".
slashingraven 3 months ago
@talons2112 You also adhere to your other, much more serious strawman of "evolution is false because we haven't seen one kind of creature transform into another kind from Step 1 to Step 2". Stop saying this. Evolution does not say it works that way, and you're knocking down an artificial theory that only exists in your head instead of the real scientific one.
As long as you start with the wrong ideas of what evolution claims, everything you say about the theory will be wrong.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@talons2112 It's quite obvious that you run your mouth about things you don't understand with no regard to factual accuracy or consistency. You are the last person to ask about matters of observable reality. Just stop already.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@slashingraven i took those definitions from websters and it is you that has run out of debate. do you have any evidence to show these 3 things have happened? no so unless you do it is as stated. blaming me for your lack of evidence is not a fail for me but you. now admit you dont have it and it is by faith you believe these things. these lies. and that is the first step in turning away from this indoctrination.
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 I just showed you the evidence for two of them. Good job ignoring them entirely.
For the third you're asking me to do something completely unsupported by evolutionary theory. YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK EVOLUTION CLAIMS. I can't show you things magically turning into other things because it DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY, and evolution has never said it happens that way.
You are stupid and intellectually dishonest. Analyze yourself the hell out of here.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@talons2112 "why doesn't life pop out of your butt?" "or crawl out a blender with a blended frog inside?"
I know these questions were most likely meant as a reductio ad absurdum, but you have to actually _follow the real logic of the claim_ for it to work. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you don't realize evolutionary theory doesn't claim complex living organisms spontaneously appear out of freely available organic components.
You're publicly embarassing yourself here.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@slashingraven but it does."billions of years ago it was raining on the rocks creating a primordial soup from which the beginings of life sprang forth" im sure you have heard that before. never mind they dont explain where all the water came from. but we have no examples anywhere especially in the lab of organic life springing forth from inorganic material. we did not come from a rock.
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 "never mind they dont explain where all the water came from"
Wiki article, "Origin of Water on Earth", details science's best guess on the matter. The Earth was very young when liquid water appeared on the planet (Earth itself was formed 4.6 billion years ago while the earliest evidence of liquid water has been dated at 4.4 billion years), but it's difficult to say for sure how it really went down because so much was happening in our solar system at the time.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@slashingraven God created these laws when He created the heavens and earth. we snt a spaceship out into the nether with information about who we are and some math so whoever would find it would know it was sent by intelligent beings, however the heavens scream back at us with mathmatical complexity we are barely scratching the surface of. this denotes an intelligent designer of ultimate power. an ultimate scientist. Jesus. He wants to know us us know Him and share with us His knowledge
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 Of course this has been observed. Only 4 lineages have ever evolved wings in the known history of organisms. Pterosaurs, insects, mammals and aves. Only 4 that's it. One of the many reasons as to why only a select few attain flight is due to energy requirements. Each winged species has lost functioning hands in exchange for wings. There are no animals that have two hind legs, two forelimbs, AND a set of wings on their back, this is simply that their body would require too much energy
italbello6t9 4 months ago
@italbello6t9 i disagree. i have never seen a video of a living organism turning from one kind of critter to another. how has your claim been observed? and under what testing has been done to confirm this? kids have been breeding fruit flies in science class for years yet they only change according to the genetic code available with some negative mutations, but yet no positive mutations and not one has ever evolved to a new life form. this has been observed and tested
talons2112 4 months ago
@talons2112 So if you can't observe something happening then it didn't?
Man those crime scene investigators must have all been gathering EVIDENCE to falsely convict, or clear, people of crimes just for kicks. I certainly wouldn't want you for a lawyer.
EmuMobile 4 months ago
@EmuMobile the weather man reports santa claus and his reindeer on his radar every year for the kids too and crime scene investigators have been known to mishandle, bungle, and lie as well. what we see with this evolution stuff is no different. how about climategate when they were caught redhanded lying, cheating and manipulating the data for more money for their research and steal money from the population in a new tax? the only truth is in the Bible. man lies.
talons2112 4 months ago
@talons2112 THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN BY MAN, you thick moron. The Bibles that sit in countless hotel nightstand drawers are copies of copies of translations of copies of a source we no longer have. Any Biblical passage that you've ever been exposed to in your life had a human writer.
You're right when you say man lies, though you're hopelessly misdirected if you're trying to point out who among us is most likely to lie.
slashingraven 4 months ago
@slashingraven yes it was written by men but with the inspiration of the Father. that is why it is so profound and has been the best selling book through all history. i sincerely hope you read it sometime and i God is not a mere man. He through is Son are offering you more than the people that are lying to everyone trying to lead people away from the Truth.
talons2112 4 months ago
@talons2112 Oh trust me, I've read it. I find it no more profound than a fantasy paperback. Less so than the average, in fact.
My guess is that you're the one who hasn't read it... cherry-picked some feel-good bits maybe, and glossed over the bloodier bits with mountains of rationalization, but not actually READ the thing, to absorb the material as you would any other interesting story. There are just too many things either completely fictional or dead wrong in the Bible to take it seriously.
slashingraven 4 months ago
@slashingraven dont lie, steal, murder, comit adultery, honor father and mother for example. whats wrong with that? love your neighbor as youself dont mess with children and the earth is round. sounds good to me. much better than being lied to by uae and mr dawkins at tax payer expense. now let me ask you what is fictional about the bible? what is dead wrong?
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 By the way, the only reason the Bible is the "best-selling book through all history" is due to the fact that Christianity, ever since it came into being as a religion, has been foisted on every population it has come into contact with and been absorbed through missionary work or conquistador-esque strongarming. In modern times, the global proselytizing is largely thanks to people from the USA, which has a predominantly Christian population.
slashingraven 4 months ago
@slashingraven before the press was invented books were extremely expensive and commoners were not able to afford them. the catholic church, the ultimate power of the world at the time and the only ones allowed to dispense the "truth" labeled anyone owning a bible in their own language a heritic and burned the offender at the stake using their bible as kindling. Jesus never forced anyone to do anything, anyone who does is not a christian or a follower of Christ but of the beast who lies, murders
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 So it has nothing to do with how valid the Bible actually is. Here's a quiz for you: given that we know just how many revisions, translations and editions the Bible has endured since its first printing, how do you know which parts are faithfully accurate to the original "inspiration", and which parts were added in or changed due to cultural, linguistic or political reasons?
slashingraven 4 months ago
@slashingraven good question. and it was a question many had until the dead sea scrolls written in hebrew, araimic and greek were found which show the translations we have today are true and accurate. the Bibles printed today are mostly taken from one biblical source with a 20% difference in wording as required by plagarism law. biblical scholars also study aramaic, greek, and hebrew. the Bible is inspired from the first word to the last word. our creator works through men.
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 Btw, in response to "Climategate": Please do yourself a favor and search Youtube for potholer54. His first video listed in the search is "Climate Change -- The Scientific Debate". Watch that and get educated before embarassing yourself further.
slashingraven 4 months ago
@slashingraven watched the video but he left out that co2 is plant food and long ago it was 300 times more of it in our atmosphere when the dinosaurs roamed and everything was fine nor did he address climate gate the topic of my post you repsonded to where the "scientists" were caught red handed systematically rigging the system, fixing, the numbers, providing false information blackballing dissenting opinions from publishment in journals, etc fraud and lies the same is done the evolution quacks
talons2112 4 months ago
@talons2112 Re: Climategate -- hey, guess what? He DID address it! "7. Climate Change - "Those" emails and science censorship" is the title. Your insinuations about the extent of this alleged conspiracy are completely absurd, and potholer54 demonstrates this in the video.
Re: CO2 concentrations in the Carboniferous -- you're (sort of) right, CO2 concentrations back then WERE much higher, and guess what? So were average global temperatures! Funny how that works out.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@slashingraven in title but not the video. he discussed c02 but not the lies, frauds, and black balling done to dissenting opinions by their own admission through their emails. lies, frauds, fudging numbers, and blackballing is not science, its a con and on parallel with people who are fortunetellers and telling their kids about santa claws and evidence suggests this is the methodolgy used by evolutionists as well
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 You have repeated the same conspiracy drivel three times now. I don't believe it any more than when you said it the first time. For being an "analyst", you sure do take dubious data to crazy conclusions.
I can't even work with this kind of garbage. You are so far beyond help with your complete commitment to "Climategate" and your Christian myths that productive discussion is impossible. You're an unfixable moron. Go away.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@slashingraven climategate was front page news. dubious data is what it is false unreliable data. they lied, got caught, which puts their whole campaign into the toilet. it is not i that comited fraud but them. i am just ponting it out and the commonalities used in the evolution debate. these lies are methods of indoctrination falsehoods presented as reality which they are not. ie garbage as you say. you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 I see so much projection on yourself when you talk so much about falsehoods and indoctrination. You are so utterly blinkered and your perception of reality so warped that I'm not going to bother losing brain cells talking about this anymore. You are a lost cause.
NOTICE TO READERS: The views expressed by talons2112 do not represent those of the scientific community or any members of the rational, clearheaded population of Earth. Please read his comments with caution.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@slashingraven thanks for the endorsement! :) its funny how crazy people always think everyone else is crazy but themselves. hahaha it is always interesting to see how absolutly how angry people get whn their indoctrination is challenged and the defense mechanisms they were programmed to use come to fruition when challenged using their own facts and belief system puts them up against a wall. i sincerely hope you free yourself from this matrix of lies you are surroundeed by.
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 Re: "plant food": yeah, it's nice and all that a carbon dioxide-rich atmosphere would be a plant's paradise, but that doesn't magically make it a good thing for humans. We, like many thousands of other animal species, require a fairly narrow operating range of atmospheric gas mixtures to live. You don't have to do much to that mixture to kill us. You could probably do even less to trigger a mass extinction event. The temperature increase certainly wouldn't help either.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@slashingraven however it does turn it into a good thing for humans, co2 + sunshine = o2 and more h20 in the atmosphere creating a heavier breathing sphere for which is what made all the plants larger and produce more. as i said in the days the dinosaurs roamed there was 300% more co2 in the atmosphere than today, the world did fine then, it will do fine today. the real issue the tax money and the billions people like al gore will make off it. greed, politics and lies
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 "the world did fine then"? The world back then was inhospitable to the species that exist in modern times. It doesn't matter how well-adapted things were to living 300 million years ago, WE AREN'T. Neither are most of the animal species alive today. Global warming is a dangerous thing for our current biodiversity.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@slashingraven global warming is only dangerous to our pocket and the new power structure the resulting world taxes it will create to control us one step step further into a new form of serfdom as the divide between the poor and poorer and the super rich ruling class widens. except for being eaten by a flesh eating dinosaur man would have and did do fine in that atmosphere before all the deforestation and industrial waste be added into the mix
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 Increased CO2 levels acidify the oceans, upsetting its pH balance and killing lots of aquatic life right there. Hotter oceans kill off even more.
Higher temperatures create more water vapor in the atmosphere which makes things _even hotter_, as well as increasing the frequency of weather-related natural disasters.
Droughts, food shortages, toxic ground-level ozone production... they all become bigger problems in a hotter global environment.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@slashingraven however according to core sampling it was 300% higher some time ago and life still existed and flourished extremely well according to scientists for millions of years. however as you probably have guessed i doubt the whole age thing as well for many reasons. i think we can safely solve this problem by making more beer and coke for my mixed drinks. salinity due to run off will be a problem long before acidity in the oceans. the earth naturally works with carbon but not salt
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 For f**k's sake dude, how many times do I have to say it? "life still existed and flourished", BUT NOT THE LIFE WE KNOW. Life in the paleozoic was adapted to a much different environment than the one that exists today. Were we to go back in a time machine a la Terra Nova, WE WOULD DIE.
We're fine as long as our environment stays pretty much like it is or changes slowly enough to adapt. But all scientific predictions tell us it's going to change too quickly for that.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@slashingraven we would have been fine, and were fine. an atmosphere like that would be like living in a hyperbaric chamber which they use in hospitals to rejuvenate people suffering disease, injury, and the bends. people would heal quicker and live longer. al gore just wants your tax dollars to get rich. uea was caught red handed fixing the numbers,black balling dissenting opinions from funding and publishment of diseenting opinions. fraud then, fraud now. dont fall for these lies.
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 You don't have a bloody clue what you're talking about. You've done no research, and stick to your pig-ignorant assertions without any evidence whatsoever. You consider Al Gore and "Climategate" trenchant disproofs of climate change, as stupid as it is misdirected, while any actual scientific arguments you've made are either wrong or irrelevant.
You probably won't ever change your mind about the issue, but at least I've shown to everyone else that you're not worth listening to.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@slashingraven bzzt wrong again im an analyst, research is the name of my game, the tactics used by the uea, the "defacto clearinghouse" research facility was caught red handed. the same tactics are used throughout the scientific community specifically in climate and evolutionary research which are dubbed psuedo science becuase lying cheating, stealing, black balling and committing fraud are the only way they can get there quackery passed by. i'd rather be lied to by a hooker its more fun
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 If you're an analyst, then take remedial training classes. You're bad at it.
slashingraven 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@slashingraven why because i disagree with the people you are quoting from that have been caught lying, cheating, and committing fraud? let me ask why is it you are so blindly loyal to someone who has been caught lying to you? you should question that more than my credentials.
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 Speaking of greed and making billions, I'd argue that most of the opposition to it comes from people who'd rather not believe that the wasteful polluting consumer culture of which they are a part is going to come back on them. Business leaders who are "skeptics" are more interested in preserving their cashflow than preserving the planet. People dismiss global warming because they want to delude themselves into thinking everything'll turn out fine. Well it won't. Snap out of it.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@slashingraven i crtainly will agree with you on the corporate greed spun out of control the majority of the pollution is created by them paying off politicians to look the other way and not pass legislation aimed at them to clean up their polutting ways. if the tax is passed they will be excused from paying it and implementing the measures to clean up their act all in the name of profit. whose polutes more? my litle 3 bedroom? or bill gates house which is the size of a large mall? greed lies
talons2112 3 months ago
@slashingraven sure experimentation with plants has caused them to grow SUPER large. tomato plants standing 16 feet tall growing over 900 tomatos over its life the size of grapefruit. this would go a long way solving hunger around the world. the 300% increase in co2 is not a life threatening amount in our atmosphere which is currently at 392 ppm. 300% sounds large but for an extremely small number its not a huge jump. plants have to wait for it to float by in order to use it
talons2112 3 months ago
@talons2112 So the mass extinction of much of the world's ocean life and countless land-based animal species doesn't even register with you while you're fantasizing about how well off plants will be, eh?
By the way, all those lovely crops you think will solve our hunger problems? When they're not being blown away by storms or ravaged by fire, both of which become more frequent according to predictions, they'll also have droughts and desertification to contend with. Less arable land = less food.
slashingraven 3 months ago
@talons2112 Wait, did you just say the bible is truth? Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not. It's written by men, and it contradicts itself oh so many times. It certainly isn't god's word. If you do believe that, you're a lunatic.
Helge129 4 months ago in playlist Más vídeos de richarddawkinsdotnet
@Helge129 the Bible is and has always been the best selling book throughout history. it does not contradict itself at all and yes men wrote it but from the inspiration of God. i hope you read it someday. in the meantime why is it crazy people always think everyone is a lunatic but them?
talons2112 4 months ago
@talons2112 I've read the Bible. And the Quran. The Bible contradicts itself at least once every second page.
In one part it says divorce is ok. Not much later it says divorce isn't ok.
Helge129 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@talons2112 .... Did you graduate from high school?
TeKNiQ50 4 months ago
Richard Dawkins has gone off the rails:
search for Richard Dawkins and male privilege on Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog.
Participating in flaming a woman because she dares to say 'don't objectify me at a conference'? Poorly done, Dawkins.
8yankee 6 months ago
100 years ago there were over 70 organs in the human body called vestigial.
Now we have zero.
Maybe arrogant scientists that think they know it all, can't admit they don't know what something does, so they call it vestigial.
Fact is, animals adapt to their surroundings and is called micro-evolution.
They were born with the complete DNA to do this and it happens quickly.
A matter of a few generations.
If the surroundings change back again, so does the animal.
Another evolution con job vid.
flyingscience2 6 months ago
@flyingscience2 nah mate, the very nature of science is to updating what you believe to be true with new evidence. You literally described that in your comment. Are you trying to say that in a few generations if these cormorants need to flay again they will have far larger fully functioning wings??
andymc24 6 months ago
flyingscience2 6 months ago
@flyingscience2 what are you on man, that's what I said! And YOU said in your first comment, that 100 years ago they thought there were 70, now they think there are none (although that's not true - the appendix). I think all that' going on is a confusing articulation of what you're trying to say. You obviously aren't an ignorant creationist, but I think you sort of shot yourself in the foot by saying "evolutionary scientists are arrogant and set in their ways. Look they've changed their mind!"
andymc24 6 months ago
@andymc24 Sorry dude.
The appendix is part of our immune system.
We can live without it but without it we become more susceptible to some diseases.
Humans have zero vestigial parts.
I assert that no animal has a vestigial part but I couldn't prove it.
I assert that based on the fact that macro evolution is a dead deal.
Evolutionary scientists haven't changed their minds.
They still believe in vestigial parts even though they have been dis-proven thousands of times.
That's insanity.
flyingscience2 6 months ago
@flyingscience2 Ah right ye, I just read up on its potential functions, fair enough. But what about the remnants of the leg bones that can be found in some whale species, from when they were terrestrial beings?
andymc24 6 months ago
@andymc24 There are no leg bones in whales.
Every time evolutionary scientists don't know what a part does it's automatically vestigial LOL.
The truly funny aspect to that is the more we learn about life, the less vestigial parts are documented.
That's a pattern we have observed since "vestigial" was made up.
Get this one thing, the more we learn, the more vestigial parts we lose.
It's never, the more we know, the more vestigial parts we gain because vestigial is assertion not science.
flyingscience2 5 months ago
@flyingscience2 Are you a Kent Hovind fan? That would explain a lot.
ndrthrdr1 5 months ago