So what?! Boys are born with penises and girls are born with vaginae (as well as the eggs needed for reproduction, I might add). They are born PHYSICALLY the same; 'metamorphosis' describes the change of one's form. Caterpillars do not have sexual organs at all and rely on an almost complete deconstruction and reconstruction of their bodies to mate.
Consciousness is the only phenomenon that can explain life, period. But secular evolutionists refuse to see this. They feel that consciousness is what needs explaining. I guess they forget that all explanation requires consciousness in the first place. The problem is mental. That isn't to say that evolutionists are stupid, but that the way in which they conceive the world is willfully ignorant and based upon a plethora of false assumptions.
Kudos to you for using an argument that hasn't been debunked 20 times. But nevertheless it has been addressed by Talkorigins already. Google "Claim CB311" and "Claim CB311.1".
And no, it didn't start with a caterpillar that evolved into a caterpillar-that-becomes-a-butterfly. In short, it started with a creature that's fertile in adult life, and its adult appearance and child appearance kept becoming more and more different till it was the drastic change that's metamorphosis.
@Mithcoriel (1) Check those two claims out on creationwiki(.)org. You'll find that Talk.Origins doesn't even represent the claim correctly, so they are refuting a straw man.
(2) Talk.Origins completely dodged the topic. Lining up similar processes in the typical "simplest-to-most complex" order and claiming it as proof that such processes can evolve. Such line-ups fail to show any *proof* that such a system could have evolved.
@TChapman500 Well all creationwiki says is that Talkorigins misunderstood the question. It doesn't actually refute what TO said. Talkorigins is still answering the claim that Equestions is making here. And I don't see how lining up simplest-to-most-complex examples doesn't give evidence to support it could have evolved. It says "See, each stage works on its own, so a species could have evolved their way through all these stages without suffering disadvantages along the way".
@Mithcoriel Simple-to-most-complex lineups are the only "evidence" for evolution. It usually turns out that similar structures or processes are controlled by completely different genes, refuting the lineup immediately. And Talk.Origins completely avoided the steps involved to get from no metamorphosis, to even "simple" metamorphosis.
@TChapman500 Even I can make a guess at what the steps are. Humans go through puberty. That's a time of relatively drastic change (compared to the growth throughout the rest of life). E.g. a woman's breasts grow out. Now increase the changes from child to adult more and more. And no, I'm not a growth expert, I can't hold a whole speech on how it works. But if you're gonna claim it's too difficult to happen you have to show as much evidence as me when I claim it's easy.
@Mithcoriel You've completely dodged the issue at hand. Instead of explaining the origin of the process, all that's been explained is how it might have changed. How did this "simple" metamorphosis originate? First there was no metamorphosis, now there is. How did that happen? For a theory that claims to explain the origins of everything without a Creator, it doesn't do a good job of explaining.
@TChapman500 I don't know what you think I'm dodging. First off, I'm not an expert on developmental biology, I can only give you a lay person's guess on how it works, so you may want to ask an expert. Which part do you struggle with? Where puberty came from? Are you maybe asking me why animals grow from infants to adults at all?
And even if no one could explain it, it wouldn't negate the rest of the evidence. So I guess metamorphosis was made by magic, and the rest evolved.
@Mithcoriel I understand that you're not an expert. I'm just trying to point out that those trying to explain the origin of metamorphosis completely missed the point. Instead of explaining the origin, they conveniently had metamorphosis already there and just tried to explain how the process itself could have evolved. And there are a lot of questions that evolution will never be able to answer satisfactorily.
@TChapman500 Well I started with a process like puberty, which isn't metamorphosis. Or take a deer, which has spots as a baby, and a different colour as an adult. It must have coded in its DNA both the spots and the adult colour. Add an extra change to the adult form that's not present in the juvenile, and another and another, and the change in the middle becomes more and more drastic, till it's what we call metamorphosis. Or is your issue that we (I) can't explain the process with the cocoon?
Claiming this thing is proof for creationism would be like claiming a foetus turning into a grown up adult is a proof for creationism. Sure, it's a beautiful and wonderful development process, but it proves nothing for your creationism.
No. It's not the same. A foetus is a continuous progression of development, where as the caterpillar is not. Technically, a caterpillar can stay a caterpillar if you control it's eating habits - but a foetus cannot remain a foetus.
@aveyowyns So what? Under regular circumstances metamorphosis takes place in the same way we grow up, just that it happens inside a cocoon, hidden from sight. The point is that development takes place as we move through the different stages of life, regardless of how different our development stages are, and naturally, this doesn't point to an intelligent creator at all, because for every remarkable example of aparent design, you cna find just as many for "stupid" design.
"Under regular circumstances, metamorphosis takes place in the same way we grow up."
NO, IT DOES NOT! There is no significant anatomical difference between a child and an adult that would require a complete disassembling of the person so that it can be reconstructed into something else; once again, it's a CONTINUOUS PROGRESSION!
"...you can find just as many for stupid design."
@aveyowyns The fact we develop in a different way doesn't mean we don't go through different stages of life. Sure, evolution is flawed, why should it not be? When competing characteristics emerge on a species, it's pretty expectable some undesired traits to happen. That doesn't disprove evolution, though.
As for stupid design, i think you may be familiar with us breathing through the same tube that we eat eat, making us very likely to choke at some point. That's a very popular one.
@aveyowyns The main point is, this guy is using an argument from ignorance to try and discredit something that has been extensively proven by science, and even the existence of scientific fields such as genetics.
"i can't see how this magnificent creature could have evolved, therefore, GAWD DID EEEEET!"
No. It's not an argument from ignorance. We do not have to infer that the world was created by an intelligent designer because caterpillars/butterflies do not properly fit into the mould of evolution ... but we can say evolution is flawed. What's more, the person is not saying that because evolution is flawed creationism is true, rather that the caterpillar is in itself evidence for creation!
@aveyowyns Evolution has been supported by science for centuries now. Go do some proper ressearch about it and learn how it's solid from people who actually study this particular natural event. Talkorigins (dot) org is a good place, if you are willing to understand the type of bogus claims creationists do to try and discredit evolution. Both macro and micro evolution are widely supported by evidence, even though there are still plenty of gaps in the theory.
@aveyowyns But even if you disprove evolution, you can't just go around claiming an imaginary creator that hasn't been demonstrated to be real did it. That IS an argument from ignorance, like it or not.
What’s wrong with not knowing??? You can’t start a learning process till someone admits a lack of knowledge. “God did it” is not an answer. An answer would be how God did it. You’re using an argument from ignorance(yes, naturalists do it too). I don’t know much about biology, but is it possible that at one time in history caterpillars had the ability to reproduce, and the process was eventually shifted to a later stage?
Using your rather shortsighted reasoning, puberty is a "show stopper" for evolution. Observe that young children can't reproduce until they get old enough to develop secondary sex characteristics, then conclude they're "stuck". ie: How could children evolve to be able to mature into reproductive adults?
@SotG I was trying to illustrate the misconception being presented of how evolution is proposed to work. However, a God who crafted the natural laws that allowed a natural process like evolution to exist would indeed be a creative God. Frankly, I can't think of a more intelligent way to allow a wide diversity of life to exist in the universe.
"All they're left with is 'Nature did it' and they'll move their focus elsewhere without ever trying to seriously tackle this problem. Very scientific...."
Who are "They"? There are individuals who spend most of their lives studying this subject. All you can do is take a glancing blow and call it impossible. An appeal to ignorance isn't evidence of anything, it's an opportunity learn something. These questions have answers, step one is finding what they are.
The larval stage could have initially developed into adulthood without such metamorphosis (neoteny). Predation would then be the catalyst that would allow species to devolop modfications in adulthood and as they evolve the metamorphoses become more complex.
Just look at the significant differences between a fetal infant and an adult human.
"I really just want to help better equip creationists with some strong arguments for the Bible."
Even if you would show evolution to be false, that would still not mean that the Bible is true. Besides, all you did is shout "I have no idea how this works, so goddidit!"
Besides, scientists are not stumped by metamorphosis. We have some very good explanation of the process, mostly by comparing it to the development of other insects.
@PirateXzibit No, evolution is true because of all the evidence scientists have presented for it. This video not only claimed to be a refutation of evolution, but evidence for creationism. It is neither.
ya, 4 pathways from egg to caterpillar to chrysalis to flying insect, not to mention wing color and patterns on the butterfly, it defies Darwinian evolution...can evolution explain it? No
@aaugoaa Again, there's already an hypothesis for it using "Darwinian evolution" so evolution can explain it. It took me minutes to find a references to a reliable source, a few more to download the paper itself. If you're going to say evolution can't explain something, you should do a little searching to find out if that's true.
@DarkEmergence yea yea, show this "evidence" in comments,cut and paste the evidence that you say you have from where-ever you got it from... don't just say it, show it.
@aaugoaa I already did. The hypothesis has been posted at least twice with one person actually pasting passages from the hypothesis itself. It's only a matter of a quick google search to download the scientific article in it's entirety. If you really searched for an explanation, you would have come upon it.
You people have never worked in a creative buisness. to believe something complex can come out of a random process and say it's not designed is out of ignorance.
vimeo dot com / 8200251
this video was made by random button mashing. It took me a few million years but in the end I got it. Now imagine something far far more complex. The fact that you believe that can occure through random mashing of amino acids is simply being stupid on purpose.
really just want to help better equip creationists"
You didn't make an argument, all you did was point to something and say "they don't get it so god dun did it!" the same reasoning that they used for volcanoes, bad crop yields, lighting. ect. You're just appealing to people stupidity. What is wrong with you people?
@MrWagman11 Exactly the same reasoning applies to your argument of non-design. Yours is a very very lazy argumentation. Sounds like the kind of things you would say after wondering for a while..mmmm... what could I reply to this?
It so telling that creationists arguments rely so heavily on other people being wrong. If something like god poofed everything into existence you’d be able to offer your own independent evidence for such rather than hope that evolution is wrong and that intelligence would make himself be known by something less degrading than human ignorance.
dude....this video is awesome!! Irrefutible evidence of design! I can tell by the comments below from Atheists. All they offer is complaints, but not a single one explained a reasonable evolutionary pathway! Why am I not surprised!!
Only thing - you should make a 2 minute version! Or else the video won't be accepted for the contest :( Hate to break it to you cause your video was good. Can you make a 2 minute summary video? :S
@TheScienceFoundation That's got to be the stupidest global flood rebuttal video I've ever seen!! It is sooo full of assumptions, lies, and circular reasoning it's pathetic. Maybe if that kid talking didn't bury his face in a bowl of crystal meth prior to making his ridiculous video, he could have made it make a little more since, even though it would still be a big fat Lie!! Something devastated this planet globally a long time ago, what do you think it was?
@ironman197268 Actually it's full of what are known to most people as facts logic and empirical data. The point of the video was to compile a list of every major debunking of the flood into one location
@onceforgivennowfre (1) Thanks free! I appreciate the kind words. It is amazing that the atheists simply seem to think that because a bunch of papers have been written on metamorphosis that it automatically means they've answered the riddle. Amazing that it takes such weak evidence to convince them of something. The whole 'caterpillars can't reproduce' is a real show stopper for evolution in this case. As for the contest I really don't want to win! Give the award to a truly deserving participant
"papers have been written on metamorphosis that it automatically means they've answered the riddle."
First it provides an explanation which is what you stated doesn't exist. Your claim was refuted. Evolution again maintains the preponderance of evidence while you cling on to fallacies.
@sweaty None of you get it. Simply scribbling something on paper and saying "This is how we think it happened" does NOT prove anything but apparently it does in your little mind. Amazing. All you need is some idea of how it MIGHT have happened and you just accept that it's absolutely HOW it happened. Someone says "Nature did it" and you just accept that as more than enough proof that it did happen that way. Ideas of how it MIGHT have happened proves NOTHING. Why can you not understand this?
So what is your argument there? That we don't have a time machine and the resources to go back and directly observe a multi-million year process?
You're overlooking the big difference (and hypocrisy) here. Descent with modification provides a plausible pathway with plausible mechanisms, creation provides nothing but empty assertion.
@sweatytoothmadman I wouldn't bother he can't specify anything which makes his arguments look completely shite. If it were designed then he would be able to explain it however he went through nine minutes without explaining a thing
@TheScienceFoundation This is not an insult, but I think you should get of youtube for once and really study the real world and see what lies out there for you. Staying in a nutshell that we call youtube is not healthy in the longrun if your entire reality evolves around it. I am not trying to sound mean or rude but seriously. I see you on every single creationist video I ever visit.
God has alot to offer, but the burglar wont find the cop unless he searches for him.
@Stianchez That's the great thing about the actual science I'm so fond of, I can refute creationist non-sense directly from my phone literally anywhere. If there's any legitimate reason to believe in god in the first place, you're yet another in a long line to keep such evidence completely under wraps.
@TheScienceFoundation I asked you to get off youtube, not to be able to access it everywhere that only makes your position worse in regards to my claim. To infer that since science (programming) has created a phone and somehow that supports your position is awful way of argueing. Also called a strawman, Science is neutral, you somehow try to make it subjective.Sadly, in some area it is
Im done for now, I wont bother to read your next reply, but i'll drop by some other time
@Stianchez Yes, you certainly asked that, and I declined. Yes I could see how you would think me being able to refute you and other creationists on the god would be worse from your perspective.
I never said that science created it specifically for my position, I said that it has created it, therefore my position is improved.
@onceforgivennowfree "All they offer is complaints, but not a single one explained a reasonable evolutionary pathway!"
I did. Several hours before you made this comment. Someone else also posted the same hypothesis after me with actual quotes. It's all in the comments you said you read.
"not a single one explained a reasonable evolutionary pathway!"
So, where in this video is explained how a creator did it, and why it would create such a terribly roundabout way for butterflies to grow? And no, it is not strange that the same genetic make-up can lead to different body plans. It is a good example of how evolution simply goes with what works.
Truman, J. W. and L. M. Riddiford, 1999. The origins of insect metamorphosis. Nature 401: 447-452
Quote
“Growth patterns intermediate to full metamorphosis already exist, ranging from growth with no metamorphosis (such as with silverfish) to partial metamorphosis (as with true bugs and mayflies) complete metamorphosis with relatively little change in form (as with rove beetles), and the metamorphosis seen in butterflies. (continued)
….It is surely possible that similar intermediate stages could have developed over time to produce butterfly metamorphosis from an ancestor without metamorphosis. In fact, an explanation exists for the evolution of metamorphosis based largely on changes in the endocrinology of development
@sweatytoothmadman So what you're saying is basically "This is good enough. They show some organisms that have similar processes and that's all that's needed to prove it happened via darwinian evolution in my mind. We don't have any lab evidence for any of these things even evolving a teeny bit of way from one process to another but it doesn't matter. If it could have possibly happened then I just believe that it absolutely happened," How very scientific.
Science is about preponderance of evidence. You the creationists have nothing but a logical fallacy "evolution is wrong so I'm right" mentality. We do have examples of how it could have happened and you have an argument that is solely dependant on ignorance.
Where is your evidence for creationism? Not evidence that evolution is wrong but evidence that it was poofed into existence that way.
@sweatytoothmadman Evidence against evolution *IS* evidence for creation. Its simply silent on who that creator is. Once you ask the separate question of who this designer is, then you're getting into philosophy.
Basically, it is logically impossible to have an actual infinite regression of designers creating more designers. So if nature can't "do it", and there cannot be an infinite regression of designers, then ultimately you're left with a self existent designer (God).
"Evidence against evolution *IS* evidence for creation."
No I'm sorry but that is absolutely false. Why is it that you don't need to provide positive evidence for your positive claim? I want you to look up a fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. Funny that your god exist in the ignorance of men.
@sweatytoothmadman No I'm sorry but its absolutely true. We're dealing with an absolute dichotomy. Either nature itself produced life OR an intelligence produced life. Refuting one PROVES the other.
Now if you want to claim this is a false dichotomy, then you need to demonstrate that it is by presenting an alternative. If you have no alternative, then your false dichotomy charged is dismissed.
Why did you just accuse me of a false dichotomy WITHOUT presenting an alternative? You think you can just claim something is a false dichotomy and thats it?
@TheScienceFoundation Sure. We can infer that something was intelligently designed if we have no naturalistic means that would create it. Hence, if evolution is refuted, then thats positive evidence of intelligence. Look at archeology ... If an ancient artifact is found for which we have no naturalistic means that would create it, then we logically conclude an intelligent hand.
@CasperTheMeanieGhost You're just trying to reword your false dichotomy, evolution being refuted would still not be positive evidence of design. You're using a specific type of argument from ignorance. If an artifact is found for which we have plausible artificial mechanisms of design, then design can be concluded, not based solely on lack of naturalistic explanation.
That's irrelevant anyway because there are naturalistic explanations for biodiversity.
@TheScienceFoundation "Evolution being refuted would still not be evidence of design"
I thought you stated earlier that we are warranted in believing fossils were laid down by local floods *BECAUSE* (according to you) we have evidential reasons to reject a global flood?
We DO have a mechanism for design. Intelligent agency. We don't have to know *how* an intelligent agent operates in order to conclude that any given object requires one. It could even be beyond our present understanding.
@CasperTheMeanieGhost Many of the things that are produced by intelligent agents today are done in ways that would even *appear* magical to ppl of the past.
Again, *IF* evolution is refuted, then THAT is evidence for creation by an intelligent agent (who this intelligent agent is would be a completely different subject). Why? Because there are no other naturalistic options other than evolution.
@TheScienceFoundation I wasn't asserting that we have evidential reasons for rejecting a global flood. The point is that you are claiming the refutation of evolution does *not* validate the idea of an intelligent agent (even though there are no other naturalistic options). So if thats the case, then the refutation of a global flood would also not validate your claim that local floods caused the rapid burial of fossils. You're not being consistent.
@CasperTheMeanieGhost Except that I wasn't claiming just because the evidence refutes a global flood that this is evidence of local floods resulting in fossilization. It wasn't the mechanism of a flood being disputed that could cause inundation leading to fossilization, only the scale. We still know that flooding can cause rapid burial.
Just like we know an intelligent agent can produce complex design (incredibly complex design if we're dealing with a higher intelligence). If we only have *one* naturalistic option on the table (evolution) and we rule it out, then the only option left is an intelligent agent. If you actually have ANOTHER naturalistic option, then I'd be wrong. But I'm not wrong. You DON'T have another option.
@CasperTheMeanieGhost It's apples to oranges, not only that but plastic apples to real oranges. The local flood is the same exact mechanism as far as burial as the supposed global flood, this is not the case comparing living systems to non-living systems.
No, even if evolution were ruled out this still, for the seventh time, in no way evidences design. Science is inductive, not deductive.
No you said ""Evidence against evolution *IS* evidence for creation." Proving evolution wrong only demonstrates that evolution is wrong. If you could some how rule out all natural explanations than maybe you would have a chance (not really) but such an act is impossible. It would be like telling people what type of car you drive by telling people what its not. You have to exclude everything in the universe.
@CasperTheMeanieGhost Science is about positive evidence for positive evidence for positive claims. There is no way for one to know all the possible explanations for anything therefore concluding that a supernatural brain did it would be by definition the argument from ignorance.
If evolution is refuted, then you have no other natural explanations for life. You're only option left is an intelligence. Hence, refuting evolution is proof of an intelligent origin for the creation of life.
@sweatytoothmadman No it isn't an argument from ignorance. We *KNOW* that a higher intelligence would have the potential to create life. So if there's no naturalistic explanation, then its only logical to conclude that which we *KNOW* has the potential to create life (intelligence).
" We *KNOW* that a higher intelligence would have the potential to create life."
And how do you know this?
" So if there's no naturalistic explanation, "
And how did you exclude every single possible explanaition? If you haven't refuted all known and unknown possiblities then yes it is the argument from ignorance.
@sweatytoothmadman By virtue of how you define life (as nothing more than complex material), it is INEVITABLE that we will eventually create it. So obviously a higher intelligence would have this potential.
I don't need to know every unknown naturalistic possibility. *YOU* have to present the alternative. I'm appealing to something we *KNOW* has the potential to create life. You need evolution because its the only naturalistic game in town. As a theist, I can live with or without it.
@CasperTheMeanieGhost If Evolution turns out to be wrong (as likely as gravity being wrong) that doesn't mean there is no natural explanation. Newton was wrong about some aspects of gravity, we didn't throw that theory out. Instead, we updated and corrected, something that happens with MANY theories. This video neither proves evolution wrong nor creationism right.
@DarkEmergence but to be honest i am not really interested in any half measure explanations you might have. i have listened to countless half baked excuses for evolution. i am done with it, it is your belief not mine, keep it.
@DarkEmergence i think that the fact that the Caterpillar can turn into a butterfly, shows that one species can morph into another as evolution suggests, how else would we explain all the different kinds. i get that. but it is denial of design in nature that i reject. and that is not up for debate. my feelings about that will never change.
This is a combination argument from ignorance/incredulity. The 'argument' presented is basically 'I personally don't understand the process in question, therefore it must have been bronze age magic'
No actual positive evidence is given, no testable mechanism, no falsifiable predictions, just assertion.
@TheScienceFoundation Ahhhhh TSF. You've already shown what a 'run and hide' boy you are with our previous conversation on populations. You're not worth the time.
@Equestions Your memory isn't any better than your logic and reasoning skills, apparently. You were the one that fled the discussion abruptly after outright refusing to answer my very simple and relevant questions regarding population growth.
If you want me to remind you and everyone reading this what those questions were, I'd be glad to do so.
@TheScienceFoundation Anyone can go back and see that just because you feel you 'got the last word' doesn't mean you actually answered anything. You still to this day haven't answered ANY of my questions!
@Equestions It's not a matter of my simply having the last word, I answered every one of your questions, refuted every tired 'point' you tried to make and presented my own questions which have thus far gone entirely unanswered, not just by you, but by every creationist that commented on that video.
@TheScienceFoundation Still waiting for your answers to the questions I just asked....again....for the hundredth time. Just copy/paste from the other thread into here for everyone.
@TheScienceFoundation HAHAHA!!! Dude....that SOOO doesn't answer my question! I asked "What evidence shows that a LACK of these two things leads to a stagnant population growth for thousands of years?" Your answer does NOT answer that! How do you talk to someone that can't comprehend a simple question? Answer the question you were asked and we'll continue.
@CasperTheMeanieGhost You're trying to equate 'without modern medicine' to mean 'no medicine' This isn't the case
Also, the very simple point which is being ignored is that the past 200 years has given us a 7 fold increase in population, whereas the 450 before that only gave us a three fold increase. Growth is directly correlated and tethered to resources.
@TheScienceFoundation Hint: The population rate dropped from 2.2 in 1960 to 1.1 in today's world with BETTER agriculture and BETTER medicine. Sooooo......still waiting for you to answer my question on how having neither of these stunts a populations growth. Empirical evidence shows that populations increase regardless of better medicines and agriculture.
@TheScienceFictionFoundation If Humans have been on Earth for 200,000 years, Why did it take 199,800 years for technology to kick in the way we've seen it "kick in," in the past 200 years?
And why have Living Fossils remained the same for 100's of millions of years? Why did they not evolve?
@TheScienceFoundation Typical evolutionist, lets the slightest little thing like Moniker distract him, and give him excuses for not answering questions. There, now tell me why living fossils haven't evolved, and why it took humans 199,800 years to get to the technology we have today?
@ironman197268 Nothing in evolution says any given organism or population must change morphologically. When else were we supposed to develop our technology? Also, how did you determine this?
@TheScienceFoundation What??? If you claim HomoSapiens walked the Earth 200,000 years ago, and it took them 199,800 years to get technologically advanced the way we see today, then it was NOT humans that were walking the Earth that long ago, and it destroys EVILution theory.
"Nothing in evolution says any given organism or population must change morphologically."
What a typical little "Wish" that the Fairy Tale of evo-LIE-ution DREAMS and WISHES was true!!
@TheScienceFoundation Where's all the Millions of Hominid skeletons that should be found in the Earth, if they where running around on Earth over 6 million years ago?
There's plenty of 65 Million year old Dinosaur Bones and Fossils found...Where are the hominids?
@TheScienceFoundation That's called throwing in the towel when you winning. That website is nothing but a bunch of bias Atheists, that has only atheists, and evolutionist write their work.
And your link didn't work, and I did take out the () from around the dot.
@TheScienceFoundation I don't care about your websites. Hominid fossils, and skeletons should be on the News everyday, if Hominids really existed. Just look at how Crazy the Evilutionary Wizards of Science got when that Lemur fossil hit the evolutionary media. They got sooo excited they ended up contradicting themselves. "Oh transitional fossils have been found for decades but IDA is the missing link?
@ironman197268 So basically you ask for the evidence which you admittedly don't actually care about, then you still ask 'where's the evidence?" which I just presented and you willfully and openly ignored.
There is nothing a global flood can do to a local population that a local flood cannot. On top of that we've witnessed tens of thousands of local floods and no global ones. On top of THAT, a global flood is an impossibility for numerous reasons; /watch?v=ZvavoUrtDi8
@TheScienceFoundation Sweet!! Where's the Millions of Grave sites that these hominids are buried in, along with the artifacts, that should be buried with them as well?
@ironman197268 Humans aren't the only force that can cover remains, we aren't even the best, not even close. Fossilization requires a rapid inundation
This guy tells it like it is...and he has evidence to prove it. Sorry to say it guys but creationism is true...God is true.
BenRT397 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nobody hates you for bringing this up.
It makes you look like an idiot.
This is probably another good reason why no Biology agrees with on this one.
Sexual reproduction occurs in different parts of the life cycle of just about EVERY organism.
Bonehead.
More FEC absurdity...
odinata 2 months ago
1. Children can't reproduce.
FAIL.
odinata 2 months ago
@odinata
Oh, lolz..
Children are not anatomically different than adults, like a caterpillar is to a butterfly.
aveyowyns 1 week ago in playlist More videos from Equestions
@aveyowyns
At 2:11 he says the problem is that caterpillers can't reproduce.
Children can't reproduce either.
They are physiologically different from adults.
odinata 1 week ago
@odinata
"They are physiologically different from adults."
So what?! Boys are born with penises and girls are born with vaginae (as well as the eggs needed for reproduction, I might add). They are born PHYSICALLY the same; 'metamorphosis' describes the change of one's form. Caterpillars do not have sexual organs at all and rely on an almost complete deconstruction and reconstruction of their bodies to mate.
aveyowyns 1 week ago
@aveyowyns
The maker of the video claims that immature butterflies can't reproduce
So what?! Children grow the parts necessary to reproduce, and so do caterpillars.
Just because they have different ways of developing doesn't change the fact that the basics are the same.
odinata 1 week ago
Comment removed
odinata 2 months ago
Consciousness is the only phenomenon that can explain life, period. But secular evolutionists refuse to see this. They feel that consciousness is what needs explaining. I guess they forget that all explanation requires consciousness in the first place. The problem is mental. That isn't to say that evolutionists are stupid, but that the way in which they conceive the world is willfully ignorant and based upon a plethora of false assumptions.
circusOFprecision 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"Consciousness is the only phenomenon that can explain life, period."
Why don't the facts agree with you?
odinata 2 months ago
Kudos to you for using an argument that hasn't been debunked 20 times. But nevertheless it has been addressed by Talkorigins already. Google "Claim CB311" and "Claim CB311.1".
And no, it didn't start with a caterpillar that evolved into a caterpillar-that-becomes-a-butterfly. In short, it started with a creature that's fertile in adult life, and its adult appearance and child appearance kept becoming more and more different till it was the drastic change that's metamorphosis.
Mithcoriel 2 months ago
@Mithcoriel (1) Check those two claims out on creationwiki(.)org. You'll find that Talk.Origins doesn't even represent the claim correctly, so they are refuting a straw man.
(2) Talk.Origins completely dodged the topic. Lining up similar processes in the typical "simplest-to-most complex" order and claiming it as proof that such processes can evolve. Such line-ups fail to show any *proof* that such a system could have evolved.
TChapman500 2 months ago
@TChapman500 Well all creationwiki says is that Talkorigins misunderstood the question. It doesn't actually refute what TO said. Talkorigins is still answering the claim that Equestions is making here. And I don't see how lining up simplest-to-most-complex examples doesn't give evidence to support it could have evolved. It says "See, each stage works on its own, so a species could have evolved their way through all these stages without suffering disadvantages along the way".
Mithcoriel 2 months ago
@Mithcoriel Simple-to-most-complex lineups are the only "evidence" for evolution. It usually turns out that similar structures or processes are controlled by completely different genes, refuting the lineup immediately. And Talk.Origins completely avoided the steps involved to get from no metamorphosis, to even "simple" metamorphosis.
TChapman500 2 months ago
@TChapman500 Even I can make a guess at what the steps are. Humans go through puberty. That's a time of relatively drastic change (compared to the growth throughout the rest of life). E.g. a woman's breasts grow out. Now increase the changes from child to adult more and more. And no, I'm not a growth expert, I can't hold a whole speech on how it works. But if you're gonna claim it's too difficult to happen you have to show as much evidence as me when I claim it's easy.
Mithcoriel 2 months ago
@Mithcoriel You've completely dodged the issue at hand. Instead of explaining the origin of the process, all that's been explained is how it might have changed. How did this "simple" metamorphosis originate? First there was no metamorphosis, now there is. How did that happen? For a theory that claims to explain the origins of everything without a Creator, it doesn't do a good job of explaining.
TChapman500 2 months ago
@TChapman500 I don't know what you think I'm dodging. First off, I'm not an expert on developmental biology, I can only give you a lay person's guess on how it works, so you may want to ask an expert. Which part do you struggle with? Where puberty came from? Are you maybe asking me why animals grow from infants to adults at all?
And even if no one could explain it, it wouldn't negate the rest of the evidence. So I guess metamorphosis was made by magic, and the rest evolved.
Mithcoriel 2 months ago
@Mithcoriel I understand that you're not an expert. I'm just trying to point out that those trying to explain the origin of metamorphosis completely missed the point. Instead of explaining the origin, they conveniently had metamorphosis already there and just tried to explain how the process itself could have evolved. And there are a lot of questions that evolution will never be able to answer satisfactorily.
[creation(.)com/genetics-questions-and-answers]
TChapman500 2 months ago
@TChapman500 Well I started with a process like puberty, which isn't metamorphosis. Or take a deer, which has spots as a baby, and a different colour as an adult. It must have coded in its DNA both the spots and the adult colour. Add an extra change to the adult form that's not present in the juvenile, and another and another, and the change in the middle becomes more and more drastic, till it's what we call metamorphosis. Or is your issue that we (I) can't explain the process with the cocoon?
Mithcoriel 2 months ago
Claiming this thing is proof for creationism would be like claiming a foetus turning into a grown up adult is a proof for creationism. Sure, it's a beautiful and wonderful development process, but it proves nothing for your creationism.
More arguments from personal incredulity?
hellhammerz666 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@hellhammerz666
No. It's not the same. A foetus is a continuous progression of development, where as the caterpillar is not. Technically, a caterpillar can stay a caterpillar if you control it's eating habits - but a foetus cannot remain a foetus.
aveyowyns 1 week ago
@aveyowyns So what? Under regular circumstances metamorphosis takes place in the same way we grow up, just that it happens inside a cocoon, hidden from sight. The point is that development takes place as we move through the different stages of life, regardless of how different our development stages are, and naturally, this doesn't point to an intelligent creator at all, because for every remarkable example of aparent design, you cna find just as many for "stupid" design.
hellhammerz666 1 week ago
@hellhammerz666
"Under regular circumstances, metamorphosis takes place in the same way we grow up."
NO, IT DOES NOT! There is no significant anatomical difference between a child and an adult that would require a complete disassembling of the person so that it can be reconstructed into something else; once again, it's a CONTINUOUS PROGRESSION!
"...you can find just as many for stupid design."
Name one.
aveyowyns 1 week ago
@aveyowyns The fact we develop in a different way doesn't mean we don't go through different stages of life. Sure, evolution is flawed, why should it not be? When competing characteristics emerge on a species, it's pretty expectable some undesired traits to happen. That doesn't disprove evolution, though.
As for stupid design, i think you may be familiar with us breathing through the same tube that we eat eat, making us very likely to choke at some point. That's a very popular one.
hellhammerz666 1 week ago
@aveyowyns The main point is, this guy is using an argument from ignorance to try and discredit something that has been extensively proven by science, and even the existence of scientific fields such as genetics.
"i can't see how this magnificent creature could have evolved, therefore, GAWD DID EEEEET!"
Yeah, right...
hellhammerz666 1 week ago
@hellhammerz666
No. It's not an argument from ignorance. We do not have to infer that the world was created by an intelligent designer because caterpillars/butterflies do not properly fit into the mould of evolution ... but we can say evolution is flawed. What's more, the person is not saying that because evolution is flawed creationism is true, rather that the caterpillar is in itself evidence for creation!
"...that has been extensively proven by science."
For example?
aveyowyns 1 week ago
@aveyowyns Evolution has been supported by science for centuries now. Go do some proper ressearch about it and learn how it's solid from people who actually study this particular natural event. Talkorigins (dot) org is a good place, if you are willing to understand the type of bogus claims creationists do to try and discredit evolution. Both macro and micro evolution are widely supported by evidence, even though there are still plenty of gaps in the theory.
hellhammerz666 1 week ago
@aveyowyns But even if you disprove evolution, you can't just go around claiming an imaginary creator that hasn't been demonstrated to be real did it. That IS an argument from ignorance, like it or not.
hellhammerz666 1 week ago
Perhaps I misunderstood your video.
Are you really contending that a caterpillar turns its' entire body into a jelly while undergoing metamorphosis?
qabala 2 months ago
What’s wrong with not knowing??? You can’t start a learning process till someone admits a lack of knowledge. “God did it” is not an answer. An answer would be how God did it. You’re using an argument from ignorance(yes, naturalists do it too). I don’t know much about biology, but is it possible that at one time in history caterpillars had the ability to reproduce, and the process was eventually shifted to a later stage?
tex959 2 months ago
Using your rather shortsighted reasoning, puberty is a "show stopper" for evolution. Observe that young children can't reproduce until they get old enough to develop secondary sex characteristics, then conclude they're "stuck". ie: How could children evolve to be able to mature into reproductive adults?
hugesinker 2 months ago
@hugesinker Good point. So clearly you believe in a creative God? :)
studentofthegospel 2 months ago
@SotG I was trying to illustrate the misconception being presented of how evolution is proposed to work. However, a God who crafted the natural laws that allowed a natural process like evolution to exist would indeed be a creative God. Frankly, I can't think of a more intelligent way to allow a wide diversity of life to exist in the universe.
hugesinker 2 months ago
"All they're left with is 'Nature did it' and they'll move their focus elsewhere without ever trying to seriously tackle this problem. Very scientific...."
Who are "They"? There are individuals who spend most of their lives studying this subject. All you can do is take a glancing blow and call it impossible. An appeal to ignorance isn't evidence of anything, it's an opportunity learn something. These questions have answers, step one is finding what they are.
hugesinker 2 months ago
The larval stage could have initially developed into adulthood without such metamorphosis (neoteny). Predation would then be the catalyst that would allow species to devolop modfications in adulthood and as they evolve the metamorphoses become more complex.
Just look at the significant differences between a fetal infant and an adult human.
gregkahuna1 2 months ago
@Equestions
"I really just want to help better equip creationists with some strong arguments for the Bible."
Even if you would show evolution to be false, that would still not mean that the Bible is true. Besides, all you did is shout "I have no idea how this works, so goddidit!"
Besides, scientists are not stumped by metamorphosis. We have some very good explanation of the process, mostly by comparing it to the development of other insects.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago
"But that will never happen"
"Can never and will never"
These are arguments from ignorance!!! Come on man!
orge121 2 months ago
>No evolutionary explanation.
>"That's not a refutal of evolution"
>Hence, evolution is true.
PirateXzibit 2 months ago
@PirateXzibit Check out this channel...
user/evoTARDSareINSANE
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 Yea, I know about his channel. Can't believe he's still an atheist.
PirateXzibit 2 months ago
@PirateXzibit Logical fallacy: special pleading.
"There are no explanations for this, so evolution is true."
PirateXzibit 2 months ago
@PirateXzibit You have that backwards, that has thus far been the only argumentation creationists have managed.
Evolution has been concluded to be true because of the preponderance of evidence support exclusively common descent.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@PirateXzibit No, evolution is true because of all the evidence scientists have presented for it. This video not only claimed to be a refutation of evolution, but evidence for creationism. It is neither.
DarkEmergence 2 months ago
Book: Metamorphosis: Evolution in Action written by Andreas Suchantke. Do some homework equestions haha
emptywithoutbrain 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@emptywithoutbrain You too empty...
user/evoTARDSareINSANE
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 I take it you haven't done ya homework then
emptywithoutbrain 2 months ago
@ironman197268 what are you talking about?
emptywithoutbrain 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
ya, 4 pathways from egg to caterpillar to chrysalis to flying insect, not to mention wing color and patterns on the butterfly, it defies Darwinian evolution...can evolution explain it? No
lol
aaugoaa 2 months ago
@aaugoaa Again, there's already an hypothesis for it using "Darwinian evolution" so evolution can explain it. It took me minutes to find a references to a reliable source, a few more to download the paper itself. If you're going to say evolution can't explain something, you should do a little searching to find out if that's true.
DarkEmergence 2 months ago
@DarkEmergence yea yea, show this "evidence" in comments,cut and paste the evidence that you say you have from where-ever you got it from... don't just say it, show it.
aaugoaa 2 months ago
@aaugoaa I already did. The hypothesis has been posted at least twice with one person actually pasting passages from the hypothesis itself. It's only a matter of a quick google search to download the scientific article in it's entirety. If you really searched for an explanation, you would have come upon it.
DarkEmergence 2 months ago
You people have never worked in a creative buisness. to believe something complex can come out of a random process and say it's not designed is out of ignorance.
vimeo dot com / 8200251
this video was made by random button mashing. It took me a few million years but in the end I got it. Now imagine something far far more complex. The fact that you believe that can occure through random mashing of amino acids is simply being stupid on purpose.
Stianchez 2 months ago
I dont know how abiogenesis happened so Nature did it. Really good point.
pestmanpat 2 months ago
@pestmanpat It's a logical fallacy.
PirateXzibit 2 months ago
really just want to help better equip creationists"
You didn't make an argument, all you did was point to something and say "they don't get it so god dun did it!" the same reasoning that they used for volcanoes, bad crop yields, lighting. ect. You're just appealing to people stupidity. What is wrong with you people?
sweatytoothmadman 2 months ago 2
Just because something looks like it was designed does not mean it was designed. Seems like you're arguing from ignorance and incredulity.
MrWagman11 2 months ago
@MrWagman11 Exactly the same reasoning applies to your argument of non-design. Yours is a very very lazy argumentation. Sounds like the kind of things you would say after wondering for a while..mmmm... what could I reply to this?
raponte1955 2 months ago
@raponte1955 I didn't make an argument.
MrWagman11 2 months ago
@MrWagman11 Ahh, ok. You enunciated an irreductible fact.
raponte1955 2 months ago
It so telling that creationists arguments rely so heavily on other people being wrong. If something like god poofed everything into existence you’d be able to offer your own independent evidence for such rather than hope that evolution is wrong and that intelligence would make himself be known by something less degrading than human ignorance.
sweatytoothmadman 2 months ago
dude....this video is awesome!! Irrefutible evidence of design! I can tell by the comments below from Atheists. All they offer is complaints, but not a single one explained a reasonable evolutionary pathway! Why am I not surprised!!
Only thing - you should make a 2 minute version! Or else the video won't be accepted for the contest :( Hate to break it to you cause your video was good. Can you make a 2 minute summary video? :S
onceforgivennowfree 2 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
All they offer is complaints, but not a single one explained a reasonable evolutionary pathway! "
Actually we did offer multiple papers that q questions denied even existed.
sweatytoothmadman 2 months ago
@onceforgivennowfree That is except for the citing of thousands of papers explaining reasonable evolutionary pathways.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation That's got to be the stupidest global flood rebuttal video I've ever seen!! It is sooo full of assumptions, lies, and circular reasoning it's pathetic. Maybe if that kid talking didn't bury his face in a bowl of crystal meth prior to making his ridiculous video, he could have made it make a little more since, even though it would still be a big fat Lie!! Something devastated this planet globally a long time ago, what do you think it was?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 Actually it's full of what are known to most people as facts logic and empirical data. The point of the video was to compile a list of every major debunking of the flood into one location
for instance
/watch?v=e5ElhX38w3Q
and
/watch?v=rIlWKp44T50
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@onceforgivennowfre (1) Thanks free! I appreciate the kind words. It is amazing that the atheists simply seem to think that because a bunch of papers have been written on metamorphosis that it automatically means they've answered the riddle. Amazing that it takes such weak evidence to convince them of something. The whole 'caterpillars can't reproduce' is a real show stopper for evolution in this case. As for the contest I really don't want to win! Give the award to a truly deserving participant
Equestions 2 months ago
@Equestions
"papers have been written on metamorphosis that it automatically means they've answered the riddle."
First it provides an explanation which is what you stated doesn't exist. Your claim was refuted. Evolution again maintains the preponderance of evidence while you cling on to fallacies.
sweatytoothmadman 2 months ago
@sweaty None of you get it. Simply scribbling something on paper and saying "This is how we think it happened" does NOT prove anything but apparently it does in your little mind. Amazing. All you need is some idea of how it MIGHT have happened and you just accept that it's absolutely HOW it happened. Someone says "Nature did it" and you just accept that as more than enough proof that it did happen that way. Ideas of how it MIGHT have happened proves NOTHING. Why can you not understand this?
Equestions 2 months ago
@Equestions 'does NOT prove anything'
So what is your argument there? That we don't have a time machine and the resources to go back and directly observe a multi-million year process?
You're overlooking the big difference (and hypocrisy) here. Descent with modification provides a plausible pathway with plausible mechanisms, creation provides nothing but empty assertion.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman I wouldn't bother he can't specify anything which makes his arguments look completely shite. If it were designed then he would be able to explain it however he went through nine minutes without explaining a thing
emptywithoutbrain 2 months ago
@onceforgivennowfree Are you guys going to have epic evolution pwnage #2? I want to join but I know I wont make the deadline for now :P
Stianchez 2 months ago
@Stianchez Given the pathetic response derived from this one, I'd say no.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation This is not an insult, but I think you should get of youtube for once and really study the real world and see what lies out there for you. Staying in a nutshell that we call youtube is not healthy in the longrun if your entire reality evolves around it. I am not trying to sound mean or rude but seriously. I see you on every single creationist video I ever visit.
God has alot to offer, but the burglar wont find the cop unless he searches for him.
Stianchez 2 months ago
@Stianchez That's the great thing about the actual science I'm so fond of, I can refute creationist non-sense directly from my phone literally anywhere. If there's any legitimate reason to believe in god in the first place, you're yet another in a long line to keep such evidence completely under wraps.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I asked you to get off youtube, not to be able to access it everywhere that only makes your position worse in regards to my claim. To infer that since science (programming) has created a phone and somehow that supports your position is awful way of argueing. Also called a strawman, Science is neutral, you somehow try to make it subjective.Sadly, in some area it is
Im done for now, I wont bother to read your next reply, but i'll drop by some other time
Stianchez 2 months ago
@Stianchez Yes, you certainly asked that, and I declined. Yes I could see how you would think me being able to refute you and other creationists on the god would be worse from your perspective.
I never said that science created it specifically for my position, I said that it has created it, therefore my position is improved.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@onceforgivennowfree "All they offer is complaints, but not a single one explained a reasonable evolutionary pathway!"
I did. Several hours before you made this comment. Someone else also posted the same hypothesis after me with actual quotes. It's all in the comments you said you read.
DarkEmergence 2 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@onceforgivennowfree
"I can tell by the comments below from Atheists."
How can you tell they are by atheists?
"not a single one explained a reasonable evolutionary pathway!"
So, where in this video is explained how a creator did it, and why it would create such a terribly roundabout way for butterflies to grow? And no, it is not strange that the same genetic make-up can lead to different body plans. It is a good example of how evolution simply goes with what works.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago
Hard to explain a reasonable pathway with a 500 character limit. Trying typing metamorphosis into PubMed and see what you find.
jebus6kryst 2 months ago
Argument from ignorance.
When you type in "metamorphosis" into PubMed, you get 52652 articles about it. Happy reading.
jebus6kryst 2 months ago
Truman, J. W. and L. M. Riddiford, 1999. The origins of insect metamorphosis. Nature 401: 447-452
Quote
“Growth patterns intermediate to full metamorphosis already exist, ranging from growth with no metamorphosis (such as with silverfish) to partial metamorphosis (as with true bugs and mayflies) complete metamorphosis with relatively little change in form (as with rove beetles), and the metamorphosis seen in butterflies. (continued)
sweatytoothmadman 2 months ago
….It is surely possible that similar intermediate stages could have developed over time to produce butterfly metamorphosis from an ancestor without metamorphosis. In fact, an explanation exists for the evolution of metamorphosis based largely on changes in the endocrinology of development
sweatytoothmadman 2 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman Isn't it strange how we were able to find this information when someone who based a video titled "Creation Evidence" was not.
DarkEmergence 2 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman So what you're saying is basically "This is good enough. They show some organisms that have similar processes and that's all that's needed to prove it happened via darwinian evolution in my mind. We don't have any lab evidence for any of these things even evolving a teeny bit of way from one process to another but it doesn't matter. If it could have possibly happened then I just believe that it absolutely happened," How very scientific.
Equestions 2 months ago
Science is about preponderance of evidence. You the creationists have nothing but a logical fallacy "evolution is wrong so I'm right" mentality. We do have examples of how it could have happened and you have an argument that is solely dependant on ignorance.
Where is your evidence for creationism? Not evidence that evolution is wrong but evidence that it was poofed into existence that way.
sweatytoothmadman 2 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman Evidence against evolution *IS* evidence for creation. Its simply silent on who that creator is. Once you ask the separate question of who this designer is, then you're getting into philosophy.
Basically, it is logically impossible to have an actual infinite regression of designers creating more designers. So if nature can't "do it", and there cannot be an infinite regression of designers, then ultimately you're left with a self existent designer (God).
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 months ago
"Evidence against evolution *IS* evidence for creation."
No I'm sorry but that is absolutely false. Why is it that you don't need to provide positive evidence for your positive claim? I want you to look up a fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. Funny that your god exist in the ignorance of men.
sweatytoothmadman 2 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman No I'm sorry but its absolutely true. We're dealing with an absolute dichotomy. Either nature itself produced life OR an intelligence produced life. Refuting one PROVES the other.
Now if you want to claim this is a false dichotomy, then you need to demonstrate that it is by presenting an alternative. If you have no alternative, then your false dichotomy charged is dismissed.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 months ago
@CasperTheMeanieGhost It's absolutely a false dichotomy and now you're trying to shift the burden of proof.
Science is inductive not deductive, if you make a positive claim, you have to evidence it yourself.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation "It's absolutely a false dichotomy"
Why did you just accuse me of a false dichotomy WITHOUT presenting an alternative? You think you can just claim something is a false dichotomy and thats it?
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 months ago
@CasperTheMeanieGhost Because, as I pointed out, science is not a deductive methodology. No position is correct simply by default
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Sure. We can infer that something was intelligently designed if we have no naturalistic means that would create it. Hence, if evolution is refuted, then thats positive evidence of intelligence. Look at archeology ... If an ancient artifact is found for which we have no naturalistic means that would create it, then we logically conclude an intelligent hand.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 months ago
@CasperTheMeanieGhost You're just trying to reword your false dichotomy, evolution being refuted would still not be positive evidence of design. You're using a specific type of argument from ignorance. If an artifact is found for which we have plausible artificial mechanisms of design, then design can be concluded, not based solely on lack of naturalistic explanation.
That's irrelevant anyway because there are naturalistic explanations for biodiversity.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation "Evolution being refuted would still not be evidence of design"
I thought you stated earlier that we are warranted in believing fossils were laid down by local floods *BECAUSE* (according to you) we have evidential reasons to reject a global flood?
We DO have a mechanism for design. Intelligent agency. We don't have to know *how* an intelligent agent operates in order to conclude that any given object requires one. It could even be beyond our present understanding.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 months ago 2
@CasperTheMeanieGhost Many of the things that are produced by intelligent agents today are done in ways that would even *appear* magical to ppl of the past.
Again, *IF* evolution is refuted, then THAT is evidence for creation by an intelligent agent (who this intelligent agent is would be a completely different subject). Why? Because there are no other naturalistic options other than evolution.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 months ago
@CasperTheMeanieGhost 'we have evidential reasons to reject a global flood?'
How does that help your position?
'We DO have a mechanism for design. Intelligent agency.'
That's not a mechanism, that's the same empty assertion you've been making the entire time.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I wasn't asserting that we have evidential reasons for rejecting a global flood. The point is that you are claiming the refutation of evolution does *not* validate the idea of an intelligent agent (even though there are no other naturalistic options). So if thats the case, then the refutation of a global flood would also not validate your claim that local floods caused the rapid burial of fossils. You're not being consistent.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 months ago
@CasperTheMeanieGhost Except that I wasn't claiming just because the evidence refutes a global flood that this is evidence of local floods resulting in fossilization. It wasn't the mechanism of a flood being disputed that could cause inundation leading to fossilization, only the scale. We still know that flooding can cause rapid burial.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation "We still know that flooding can cause rapid burial"
Just like we know an intelligent agent can produce complex design (incredibly complex design if we're dealing with a higher intelligence). If we only have *one* naturalistic option on the table (evolution) and we rule it out, then the only option left is an intelligent agent. If you actually have ANOTHER naturalistic option, then I'd be wrong. But I'm not wrong. You DON'T have another option.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 months ago
@CasperTheMeanieGhost It's apples to oranges, not only that but plastic apples to real oranges. The local flood is the same exact mechanism as far as burial as the supposed global flood, this is not the case comparing living systems to non-living systems.
No, even if evolution were ruled out this still, for the seventh time, in no way evidences design. Science is inductive, not deductive.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
No you said ""Evidence against evolution *IS* evidence for creation." Proving evolution wrong only demonstrates that evolution is wrong. If you could some how rule out all natural explanations than maybe you would have a chance (not really) but such an act is impossible. It would be like telling people what type of car you drive by telling people what its not. You have to exclude everything in the universe.
sweatytoothmadman 2 months ago
"Refuting one PROVES the other."
No, because evolution and god are not mutually exclusive.
sweatytoothmadman 2 months ago
@CasperTheMeanieGhost Science is about positive evidence for positive evidence for positive claims. There is no way for one to know all the possible explanations for anything therefore concluding that a supernatural brain did it would be by definition the argument from ignorance.
sweatytoothmadman 2 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman YOU HAVE NO OTHER NATURAL EXPLANATIONS. Hello???
If evolution is refuted, then you have no other natural explanations for life. You're only option left is an intelligence. Hence, refuting evolution is proof of an intelligent origin for the creation of life.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 months ago
You have yet contradicted every single natural explanation out there hence this is an argument from ignorance.
sweatytoothmadman 2 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman No it isn't an argument from ignorance. We *KNOW* that a higher intelligence would have the potential to create life. So if there's no naturalistic explanation, then its only logical to conclude that which we *KNOW* has the potential to create life (intelligence).
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 months ago
" We *KNOW* that a higher intelligence would have the potential to create life."
And how do you know this?
" So if there's no naturalistic explanation, "
And how did you exclude every single possible explanaition? If you haven't refuted all known and unknown possiblities then yes it is the argument from ignorance.
sweatytoothmadman 2 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman By virtue of how you define life (as nothing more than complex material), it is INEVITABLE that we will eventually create it. So obviously a higher intelligence would have this potential.
I don't need to know every unknown naturalistic possibility. *YOU* have to present the alternative. I'm appealing to something we *KNOW* has the potential to create life. You need evolution because its the only naturalistic game in town. As a theist, I can live with or without it.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman I saw your comment here then scrolled down to look for you refutation of the video.You have not even addressed it.
pestmanpat 2 months ago
No i did, I believe he stated that there are no explanations for this and I provided him a paper with just that. I even quoted a line from it.
sweatytoothmadman 2 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman there are no explanations for this ?
Thats not a refutation.Whats the paper?
pestmanpat 2 months ago
@CasperTheMeanieGhost If Evolution turns out to be wrong (as likely as gravity being wrong) that doesn't mean there is no natural explanation. Newton was wrong about some aspects of gravity, we didn't throw that theory out. Instead, we updated and corrected, something that happens with MANY theories. This video neither proves evolution wrong nor creationism right.
DarkEmergence 2 months ago
@DarkEmergence but to be honest i am not really interested in any half measure explanations you might have. i have listened to countless half baked excuses for evolution. i am done with it, it is your belief not mine, keep it.
aaugoaa 2 months ago
@aaugoaa It's no one's belief, it's the scientific explanation for the diversity of life.
DarkEmergence 2 months ago
@DarkEmergence
i told you, I'm not interested, i don't make a comment for every internet warrior to try to push their world view on me.
aaugoaa 2 months ago
@aaugoaa I guess I missed that since you said it as a reply to what something I wrote to CasperTheMeanieGhost.
DarkEmergence 2 months ago
@DarkEmergence i think that the fact that the Caterpillar can turn into a butterfly, shows that one species can morph into another as evolution suggests, how else would we explain all the different kinds. i get that. but it is denial of design in nature that i reject. and that is not up for debate. my feelings about that will never change.
aaugoaa 2 months ago
@aaugoaa A Caterpillar turning into a butterfly isn't really one species turning into another. The former is the young form of the latter.
Personally, I'm willing to change my views on anything if given enough reasons.
DarkEmergence 2 months ago
Check out this channel if you haven't already...
user/evoTARDSareINSANE
ironman197268 2 months ago
This is a combination argument from ignorance/incredulity. The 'argument' presented is basically 'I personally don't understand the process in question, therefore it must have been bronze age magic'
No actual positive evidence is given, no testable mechanism, no falsifiable predictions, just assertion.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Ahhhhh TSF. You've already shown what a 'run and hide' boy you are with our previous conversation on populations. You're not worth the time.
Equestions 2 months ago
@Equestions Your memory isn't any better than your logic and reasoning skills, apparently. You were the one that fled the discussion abruptly after outright refusing to answer my very simple and relevant questions regarding population growth.
If you want me to remind you and everyone reading this what those questions were, I'd be glad to do so.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Anyone can go back and see that just because you feel you 'got the last word' doesn't mean you actually answered anything. You still to this day haven't answered ANY of my questions!
Equestions 2 months ago
@Equestions It's not a matter of my simply having the last word, I answered every one of your questions, refuted every tired 'point' you tried to make and presented my own questions which have thus far gone entirely unanswered, not just by you, but by every creationist that commented on that video.
Do you care to try to answer my questions now?
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Still waiting for your answers to the questions I just asked....again....for the hundredth time. Just copy/paste from the other thread into here for everyone.
Equestions 2 months ago
You were given multiple sources all of which you stated do not exist. Stop with the dishonest.
sweatytoothmadman 2 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman I didn't say they didn't exist I said they don't answer the question. Wow...
Equestions 2 months ago
@Equestions I just answered them, agriculture feeds people (that's necessary in case you didn't know) and medicine increases lifespan.
Blatantly ignoring my answers is not an argument.
So try answering my questions
When did the most significant spike in global population occur?
When did the most rapid advancement of medicine and agriculture occur?
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation HAHAHA!!! Dude....that SOOO doesn't answer my question! I asked "What evidence shows that a LACK of these two things leads to a stagnant population growth for thousands of years?" Your answer does NOT answer that! How do you talk to someone that can't comprehend a simple question? Answer the question you were asked and we'll continue.
Equestions 2 months ago
@Equestions The point of my continually asking the same two questions over and over is that the answer to both is the answer to your question
What period in human history had the greatest global population growth?
What period in human history gave us the most rapid advancement in medicine and agriculture?
Hint; They're the same period.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation So how did the world go from 200 million ppl two thousand yrs ago to 2 billion ppl in the 20th century WITHOUT modern medicine?
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 months ago
@CasperTheMeanieGhost You're trying to equate 'without modern medicine' to mean 'no medicine' This isn't the case
Also, the very simple point which is being ignored is that the past 200 years has given us a 7 fold increase in population, whereas the 450 before that only gave us a three fold increase. Growth is directly correlated and tethered to resources.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Hint: The population rate dropped from 2.2 in 1960 to 1.1 in today's world with BETTER agriculture and BETTER medicine. Sooooo......still waiting for you to answer my question on how having neither of these stunts a populations growth. Empirical evidence shows that populations increase regardless of better medicines and agriculture.
Equestions 2 months ago
@Equestions Which period in human history gave us the most significant growth in global population?
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFictionFoundation If Humans have been on Earth for 200,000 years, Why did it take 199,800 years for technology to kick in the way we've seen it "kick in," in the past 200 years?
And why have Living Fossils remained the same for 100's of millions of years? Why did they not evolve?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 Try replying with the proper moniker.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheSciencefictionFoundation Stop whining, and just give me your pathetic excuses(that you call answers to questions) to my real questions.
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 I appreciate you demonstrating that you have nothing better than personal attack.
Reply with the proper moniker and I'll gladly answer your questions.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Typical evolutionist, lets the slightest little thing like Moniker distract him, and give him excuses for not answering questions. There, now tell me why living fossils haven't evolved, and why it took humans 199,800 years to get to the technology we have today?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 Nothing in evolution says any given organism or population must change morphologically. When else were we supposed to develop our technology? Also, how did you determine this?
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation What??? If you claim HomoSapiens walked the Earth 200,000 years ago, and it took them 199,800 years to get technologically advanced the way we see today, then it was NOT humans that were walking the Earth that long ago, and it destroys EVILution theory.
"Nothing in evolution says any given organism or population must change morphologically."
What a typical little "Wish" that the Fairy Tale of evo-LIE-ution DREAMS and WISHES was true!!
ironman197268 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Where's all the Millions of Hominid skeletons that should be found in the Earth, if they where running around on Earth over 6 million years ago?
There's plenty of 65 Million year old Dinosaur Bones and Fossils found...Where are the hominids?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 talkorigins(.)org/faqs/homs/species.html
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation That's called throwing in the towel when you winning. That website is nothing but a bunch of bias Atheists, that has only atheists, and evolutionist write their work.
And your link didn't work, and I did take out the () from around the dot.
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 No, that's called answering your question directly and concisely with a laundry list of fossils.
You didn't even look at the site before called it biased, the epitome of hypocrisy.
search 'talkorigins - Fossil Hominids'
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I don't care about your websites. Hominid fossils, and skeletons should be on the News everyday, if Hominids really existed. Just look at how Crazy the Evilutionary Wizards of Science got when that Lemur fossil hit the evolutionary media. They got sooo excited they ended up contradicting themselves. "Oh transitional fossils have been found for decades but IDA is the missing link?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 So basically you ask for the evidence which you admittedly don't actually care about, then you still ask 'where's the evidence?" which I just presented and you willfully and openly ignored.
see; cognitive dissonance.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Evilution started in the ocean right? Why is the oceans not an over populated fish tank, of transitional Marine life forms?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 It's called carrying capacity, and remains don't automatically become fossilized.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation What kind of jewelry do you think female humans wore 147,927 years ago?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 Probably some bone jewelry, maybe from a red herring.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
That made me laugh out load!
sweatytoothmadman 2 months ago
:D
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation "Fossilization requires a rapid inundation" That's right, you believe in a global flood!!
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 And now you begin strawmanning.
There is nothing a global flood can do to a local population that a local flood cannot. On top of that we've witnessed tens of thousands of local floods and no global ones. On top of THAT, a global flood is an impossibility for numerous reasons; /watch?v=ZvavoUrtDi8
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Sweet!! Where's the Millions of Grave sites that these hominids are buried in, along with the artifacts, that should be buried with them as well?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 You're asking where are remains that would be completely underground even if they would've lasted that long?
Being buried does not equate to fossilization, by the way.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Then how are dinosaur bones found 58 million years below where hominids are supposed to be?
ironman197268 2 months ago
@ironman197268 Humans aren't the only force that can cover remains, we aren't even the best, not even close. Fossilization requires a rapid inundation
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago