This is an argument from ignorance. Most anatomists would never argue that the eye is poorly designed. Only ignorant biologists--philosophers in scientific sounding garb--say that. The more we know about the human body the more intricate it becomes. Years ago evolutionists told us the pituitary was vestigial along with the coccyx. Yet the more we learn the more wrong these people appear. The same is true for the appendix....simply not vestigial...only ignorance would say so.
@3AngelDefense1844 No, an understanding of anatomy would say so. Neither the coccyx nor the appendix serve their original function so yes, they're vestigial.
@TheScienceFoundation You presume that you know what their function is in humans and what it was in creatures that are not even around for us to test--which is presumption. No expert in anatomy makes that argument. Please tell me the function of both and explain to me how they are vestigial!? Again this is the great evolutionary myth of vestigial organs. At one time they even argued that the pituitary gland was vestigial...talk about a hypothesis leading to wrong conclusions.
@3AngelDefense1844 We know the appendix is vestigial because it's homologous to the end of the mammalian caecum and we know that the coccyx is vestigial because the human embryo has a primate tail as well as the genes for a primate tail. Now the appendix has remnant function in the immune system and the coccyx serves as a nerve connection axis.
@TheScienceFoundation First I appreciate your respectful tone and willingness to discuss the issues in a calm manner. But I must ask what in the world does the location of the appendix at the ascending colon slightly distal to ileocecal valve have anything to do with it being vestigial? In order to make your point you have to explain how this blind pouch functioned in other species and why it randomly selected to go from that ancient function, to being a part of the GALT system in the gut.
@3AngelDefense1844 Because although it is homologous to the end of the caecum in other mammals it's not a functioning part of the digestive tract in humans. It would've been easily co-opted for the galt system given its position in relation to the large intestine
@TheScienceFoundation Here is the problem science cannot prove that the appendix had any different function than it does today. Sure the philosopher could come up with a reason and perhaps the grade school biology teacher, but they are not concerned with evidence. The appendix still functions in mammals as a part of GALT just as it does in humans.
@3AngelDefense1844 Sure it has a function, vestigial doesn't mean functionless, it simply means crude or not retaining original function. It's considered vestigial in humans because of the aforementioned homology and the fact that the appendix in herbivorous mammals serves a primary function in aiding the metabolizing of cellulose.
@TheScienceFoundation What you write is speculation. Fact is, it took research published in 2006 for the evolution community to admit that the appendix even had a use....hence vestigial. Your altered definition is a post hoc reaction to the overwhelming evidence that appendix is not only useful but a key part of the developing immune system and a store house for gut flora. To say it functions entirely different in animals is to philosophize your way out of the embarrassing evidence.
@3AngelDefense1844 Now you're ignoring the actual data suggesting it used to serve other function to simply assert that we're speculating. We're not, the morphology and placement of the appendix indicates it served another function prior to its current one.
@TheScienceFoundation Forgive me for taking your definition of vestigial organs at face value. I knew that you were using a new contrived definition which has been edited to avoid the embarrassment of evidence. Nevertheless, for your perusal I am going to share some quotes from Evolutionists defining vestigial organs. You will notice they do it differently from you, yet try to argue the same idea that because the appendix functions differently in animals it is PROOF that the organ is vestigial.
@TheScienceFoundation "The term vestigial is used in anatomy as being more convenient in describing those parts generally known as rudimentary, abortive, atrophied, or USELESS. There are many vestigial structures in man, and an attempt to more than mention some of the most interesting of them would far exceed the limits of this article."--W.B. Rotzeix M.D., "Some vestigial structures in man," Scientific American, June 15, 1895 p. 375. emphasis mine.
@3AngelDefense1844 'The term vestigial is used in anatomy as being more convenient in describing those parts generally known as rudimentary, abortive, atrophied, or USELESS'
or : used as a function word to indicate an alternative.
"In man, for example, there exist over one hundred of these vestigial or rudimentary organs, as the vermiform appendix, the PINEAL GLAND, and the like. Many of these vestigial organs, which are now FUNCTIONLESS in man, perform functions in lower animals, and this is held to show that at some remote period in the past they also functioned in man's ancestors."--Charles Ellwood Ph.D, Sociology and Modern Social Problems (New York, American Book Company, 1910), 29 - 32. Emphasis mine.
@TheScienceFoundation "Rudimentary organs are those that were once functional at some point in phylogeny, but are retained in current species as useless or near-useless vestiges. Such rudiments in humans include the wisdom teeth, certain muscles for moving or twitching the skin, and the vermiform appendix."—Kent G. Bailey, Human Paleopsychology: applications to aggression and pathological processes, (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1987), 19
@TheScienceFoundation I don't even know how to respond to your twisting of the English language and grammar. What does atrophied, abortive, or rudimentary mean? Perhaps spending a few moments in your grade school grammar book will suffice to clear up the confusion. Nevertheless, you need to stop dancing attempting to dance between the rain drop and abandon your contrived definition of "vestigial." You discrediting yourself by using philosophy vs. facts to make your argument.
@TheScienceFoundation Every single time we talked about vestigial organs in class, it ALWAYS meant completely functionless and served no purpose today. We were taught that they were organs that used to have a function but no longer did. Well, one by one, each of these vestigial organs have been shown to be fully functional and serve a purpose today.
@AndyG792 Not sure where you went to school and I really doubt that it was claimed that it always meant useless as simply looking in the dictionary completely contradicts that. Sure it can serve a function, but it's a non-original function.
@ItssBrian How would he known their conclusions are flawed if he's never had any experience in that field? If all the biology experts agree, but one guy with an engineering degree disagrees then who's right?
You berate people for being ignorant in subjects YOU claim they have no right to comment on, then go and say that nobody can say that the human body isn't as complex as you make it out to be. And you are an ENGINEER!!! Not a doctor, or biologist, an ENGINEER. Although, judging by your videos, you sem to be an expert in palientology, biology, chemistry, physics, not to mention an expert in radiometric dating. If you really are an expert in all those fields, then why doesn't anyone agree with you?
@Spocktacular96@Faustaao It's not really hypocritical and here's why. He says they are under-qualified to say that it's a poor design until they can produce a better one. When he talks about these different areas of science he doesn't just say that their logic is flawed and leave it at that, he offers more logical conclusions.
@ItssBrian Wrong, it's based on erroneous analogy because biological machines are subject to replication with variation including modulation, artificial machines are not.
I have to agree with you @ 0:54 has i too often call those saying we where "poorly designed" ...arrogantly ignorant. I love your examples & how u handle these rather stupid objections.
Man says to God, "We don't need u anymore!" God says, "Really?" Man says, "Yep, since u made us in your image, we can now create life from clay via modern science discoveries." God says, "Ok, Show me... "
Man starts molding up some clay, but God Stops him & says, "Get your own dirt, wiseguy!"
@Tyjohnable Wow... 1st, who says rabbits have to eat their own poo? I've raised rabbits and i have never seen them eat their own entrails. On a positive note, it makes good fertilizer for the flower garden.
The reason the human body has its flaws,is because the flesh is corrupt now,,,after the first sin we lost our glorified body and so forth everyday we are wasting away closer to the grave,but thank u Jesus we will recieve a new glorified body again.How great is our God ;-)
Have you ever designed a fully functioning human body? Then you have no right to claim the body is INTELLIGENTLY designed. Its a double edged sword. You have no proof the body was designed, we have a mountain of evidence SCREAMING that it evolved. We have the fossils, the genome, the dating (which works beautifully and accurately despite what you choose to ignore), the how, the why, the when, the research, the facts, the scientific consensus, AND the OBSERVATIONS in labs AND nature! So we win.
@shldflght Do u really believe all that crap.. honestly... your joking, right?
If so ..how can u trust the media & education system with it's "agenda 21" ...and the Old-World-Disorder's depopulation program? We call them banksters & their media clowns presstitutes for a reason!!
Simply what you trust is the consensus of a corrupted C.I.A, C.F.R, UN, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberge influenced science & educational system. Does Mr. Rockefeller or Mr. Rothschild have u on their pay roll 2?
The example of your ROVs shows how a machine is developed and improved upon. Your first ROVs that sunk are no longer used. Why? Because they sunk.
This is the same with the human body.
Home Erectus -> Homo Neanderthal -> Homo Sapien (this is an incredibley simplified version)
The only difference is that rather than a designer improving upon a species, the animals that were better adapted to survive outlived the others and got to reproduce more.
Now you're just shifting the irreducibly complex goalposts, any time one system is show to be reducible, you just say the reduced system is irreducible.
What would follow? Gravity having a different constant in a different universe wouldn't affect the constant in this universe.
Yes, a very excellent point. If you've studied anatomy and actually built muscles/bones etc (For example 3D, or sculpt) you really get the feel of how it was DESIGNED. I keep seeing you in these ranst and again and again your statements keep getting shown to be wrong and you repost them. What atheist are really good at is sugarcoating their statement and once you get an argument you cant counter, you just go "that is irelevant" or if theres a hole in the theory (science cant answer everything)
And if you knew anything about science you would know it doesn't work by opinion or intuition based on erroneous comparison, it works by evidence, empirical data. You not understanding my points does not constitute them being wrong.
It's not all black and white, take the famouse gravity dilemma, we know what it does and that its there we just dont know why it works like it does. And you totally ignored my statement on how everything is designed. What came first, the brain, the blood, the vessels, the brain?. Slowly constructed through evolution you say? One cannot work without the other. What about quantum physics the closest thing we have to fairytales and miracle working. And people use this as "evidence".
No, your state was that things appear designed, which is an argument from personal incredulity.
"What came first, the brain, the blood, the vessels, the brain?"
Earth worms have a series of simple hearts, along with very few, sometimes just two blood vessels, but no real brain to speak of.
Who said quantum physics are fairytales? Reminds me of the Arthur C. Clarke quote "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
I see your point with the earthworm however there still had to be a connection between many essential organs for it to survive. All of these could not just pop up at the same time randomly. Then you also have the nerve system.
"Who said quantum physics are fairytales"
Take gravity and the discussion of it being stylized. Some dude made a theory about it would be the same in every alternate universe whatever if gravity value changed, then the rest would follow.
"Now you're just shifting the irreducibly complex goalposts" Wrong -->
? I merely repeat myself becuase you keep avoiding answering me how these things can all randomly "evolve" at the same time. A primitive brain is still a brain. A worm has a brain, a heart and a nervesystem.
Regarding Gravity his theory is by no means proven it is merely that people use this as a fact which is very common by atheist. Use something that is highly debateable as a fact.
Of course, this also means that creationists can't claim that the body is "Well designed."
After all, until they build a human body themselves, they are horribly unqualified to say if it's well designed.
Similarly, creationists can't use the 'Poorly evolved' argument. Until they can make an animal 'evolve' and know from experience, they can't say that structures are poorly evolved or 'well evolved'.
But, having said that, this does simplify the field a little.
You're a moron. It doesn't matter if I can make a human or not, stupidity is stupidity and it's easily recognizable. That our hearts have no collateral blood flow is stupid, among thousands of other stupidities in every form of life on the planet.
I did make a human body: I grew from a single cell and developed into the being you see today, not to mention the false premise of your statement. It's designed the way it is because it was shaped by evolution and NOT an omniscient being.
Stupidity is stupidity I agree. False confidence used to cover ignorance and feeble mindedness is one common side effect of stupidity.
If your arguments are the height of evolutionary argumentation then the future is looking bright indeed for creationism. You would be laughed out of academia with that drivel.
If it was dead than why is it growing? I find this the most interesting of all. Creationism is gaining major strides. The belief in evolution is actually a minority position now in the american public. The ratio of creationist/ID vs evolutionist in science is growing and not towards evolution. The medical field has the highest percentage of believers in intelligent design or creationism and who strangely enough would know best about "bad design". Check the numbers yourself.
No, it's not even growing as a belief, non belief is the only demographic to have increased in every state every year for the past 19 years. The ratio of evolutionist to creationists in science is 100% to 0, because creationism is not, nor has it ever been science.
Hah! Thats not even close. Are you still in high school or something? As your arguments are about that level of comprehension. Creationism and ID has been growing while belief in evolution is stagnating. Merely one third of the populace believes in evolution. It was not nearly that low before. 1/3 of doctors reject darwinism and fully 2/3rds are skeptical of it. You can cover your ears and go nananana all you want but it wont make them go away.
No, creationism and ID are still only belief, and it's hard to get higher than a 100% consensus in the biologically literate community. I'd definitely like a source on the doctors claim
The only source I can find for that is the discovery institute, which is known to be blatantly dishonest, particularly regarding people and their affinity for ID, check out a video by DonExodus2 on the debunking of the dissent from Darwin paper.
Belief in the sense that 'I believe if i drop a rock it's going to hit the ground' yes.
Believe means holding to a idea or thought or opinion. Whether right or wrong stupid or not has zero relevance. You can find it outside of the discovery institute. Obviously your google-fu is weak.
Your assertion on the discovery institute is empty. DonExodus is a joke. His credibility is zero. His "refutations" are worthless.
It wouldn't matter where it was found outside the DI, DI were the ones who did the 'survey' so it would just link back there.
No, my assertion on the DI is full, because creationists wanting DonExodus to be a joke is meaningless, as he actually provides sources for his claims.
Why are you even looking at the Discovery Institute? I never did. You also fail to realize more then one survey can be done. You have not given a reason as to the likely falsity of the DIs survey either simply claiming bias is easy proving it isnt reliable is another thing altogether. Wishful thinking doesnt change the reality
That's the only source for any '1/3 doctors rejection evolution' survey in the first 30 results on google. If you have a different source, provide it. They provided no names, no contact information whatsoever, just one blog with the claim that '1/3 of doctors favor ID'
Do you have any competence in using search engines? Apparently not. Its too bad I cant link damn site will never let me do so every time I tried. One thing though DI never did the poll at all it was another group DI just reported on it. So your claim of bias is worthless considering pro evolution uses it despite a full 1/3 of doctors believing in ID.
Since you seem to be down to nothing but fallacy, ad populums followed by ad hominem. I'm hitting the sack. Though the former was really my fault, leading you on as if it mattered if 99% of the planet rejected it.
Nor did I. My claim was that considering more doctors than many other fields accept Intelligent Design whose profession would put them in the best position to judge bad design it makes the relevance of bad design far less convincing.
Bad design means nothing I can make a crappy badly designed house but what relevance does that have to whether or not I designed it?
I may mean I suck at carpentry and dont know much about architecture but it doesnt make the doghouse a natural product of time.
Nor does mutation or replication have any relevance to bad design. They obviously matter in the case of evolution as a whole but they still have no relevance to whether or not bad design matters at all either.
For one check Zogby, Gallup and Harris. They show that unequivocally more americans are believers in a form of intelligent design than not from YEC to OEC to ID.
My confidence is not false, as you vainly hope, nor does it cover a feeble mind.
My arguments are evidence based, unassailable, unarguable and rational. I cant help but notice that you don't offer evidence for your position or attempt to falsify my positions. Instead you insult me, which shows the vacuousness of your position, and make unsupported assertions as though they're self evident fact. Present evidence for your position or shut up.
Again, you merely insult me. Yes, the mountainous, giant pile of evidence that proves evolution and nothing else spans from horizon to horizon and up beyond the blue of the sky. To stand in opposition to it is the height of willfully ignorant arrogance. Yes, some facts are self evident: The sky is blue, for example. You're so dumb, you don't even know you're stupid: I'm close minded because I accept evidence? Ask your doctor if a 5th grade education is right for you!
How pathetic. Of course I insult you. The only thing "self-evident" is just how lame and irrelevant you are and how meaningless your arguments are.
The only time people use exaggerated descriptions like yours is to compensate for ignorance or inability to justify their assertions. I have no wish to further discuss this as you clearly are just a troll.
More insults, no falsifications, and no definable position from you whatsoever. Looks like a slam dunk win for rationalism then, and if you wish to leave it at that, I'm fine with it.
This is a very poor argument. I have never built a car from scratch. Not once nor would I want to. But I can tell you when a car is poorly made and is a pile of junk. To do so I dont need a mechanics license. Same goes for a shitty painting and a shitty movie even though I have never made either of those things.
Yes... Thank you for this. Even if somehow you don't convince a single person to open their hearts and minds to the truth, you strengthen the knowledge and faith of us who love the LORD.
So you would compare the all powerful designer of everything - including the physical laws themselves - to a wacky internet creationist that designs robots?
When you claim a being can do anything and has supernatural power its a fail to assume said god had to work in the confines of what some loon creotard had to work with while assembling his robots.
but then im nothing so lofty as a robotics engineer with a mensa membership and a bullshit creation "museum"
Sadly ironic that you rag people about 'qualifications' in this video yet dodge the question and say that sausage4mash was guilty of an ad hom in your last video
Creationists, do NOT start thumbing comments down just because you can't refute them, if you do, I promise you that my vote-fu is stronger than your vote-fu.
By your logic of 'The human body is complex therefore we know its designed" the designer would necessarily be more complex and necessitate and even more complex designer. I know you're going to begin the circular logic of 'if god required a designer he wouldn't be god' but thats not an actual reason why he would be exempt from your own causal chain.
"They think they know better than the original designer" If noone ever thought that, we would still be throwing rocks at mountain lions and dying of old age in fear at 24. Yes the human body is complex, it's also the product of accumulated change and differential reproductive success for a period beyond ordinary human comprehension. No, you don't 'know' that life was intelligently designed, you believe it based on invalid comparisons. By your logic of 'The human body is
Basically the position taken in the video is that you're going to assume humans are designed until humans are designed. Fully functioning human bodies are produced by the hundreds of thousands daily, all by completely natural and explicable processes, no magical intervention from space necessary. No, if you evolve a human body over the course of ~3.8by you'll find out why it fits perfectly in the nested hierarchies of genetics comparative anatomy embryology etc. without exception.
"Horribly underqualified to make such statements" borderline ad hominem/appeal to authority. Irrelevant anyway as many prominent geneticists and cell biologists such as Ken Miller, have commented on the backwardness and occasional hazard of the 'design' of the human body IE eating and breathing through the same tube.
Nice how u are are avoiding the argument all together. The human body can be designed. Wazooloo, try keeping up on modern science. For when it becomes possible to genetically alter ourselves in the near future, we can design ourselves better, or else create a clone of a human and genetically advance it. So how come we aren't designed correctly?
Nice how you make ludicrous statements as fact and completely miss the point! First, you say we CAN design a human body (which is ludicrous - you betray your ignorance with such silly statements), then you admit it and say "In the future we can design ourselves." Your comments betray that you obviously know nothing about the subject of "poor design" - you are unqualified, but nevertheless, tell me: in what way is the human body not "designed correctly?" hmmm?
U aren't even qualified yourself to make a rebuttal according to your logic. First statement to bad design is the human eye. Google "why is the eye a bad design" Take your christian bullshit logic else where because u haven't even taken the time to listen to scientist who studies such areas. Richard Dawkins discusses this matter with other scientist that thoroughly explains why the human eye is a crap design. Cool, you are a robotics engineer. Meet the mechanical eng. smart ass.
As I suspected, you simply cite the same old nonsense that's already been proven wrong a long time ago - see
trueorigin(dot)org/retina(dot)asp
So as a mechanical engineer, you're trying to claim that the human eye - which blows the doors off of any camera we could ever possibly design as far as resolution, colour contrast, weight and power consumption - is a "poor design?" What about television cameras? Are they designed?
No, SciFound, TV cameras don't replicate and can't adapt to their environment. That puts one more mark in the column of the human body (with its amazing eyes) having a better design than any kind of camera designed by a human.
: ) Nice one, SF. But evolution and adaptation are totally different. God programmed the DNA of every creature with many different variations. But none of us creatures will ever exceed the parameters of His original programming.
No, it's not, evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population, aka adaptation. What ARE these supposed parameters, what useful predictions can be made to test them?
sounds like moving the goal posts to define creationism out of the game. redefine science everytime evolution is threatened only appeals to the ignorance in the general public and does nothing but to soothe the cognitive dissonance of evolutionists.
Since when is it not explicitly defined? Do you even bother to just skim creationist material (up-to-date material that is)? Or do you just simply argue against what you assume creationism is? I find it funny you are defending your ignorance by claiming caricatures and straw men arguments are the same as the real thing.
The only person you are convincing is yourself. Your admission of lack of comprehension only makes you out to be a fool.
Well position as to what? Evolution? I would be a Young Earth Creationist. I believe the Earth is from 6k to 10k years old. I am also a Presuppositionalist. I personally consider the age of the earth not quite as important though. I believe it is possible that the earth is old as is commonly accepted but I find that the more I learn the more I lean towards young earth as the old earth "evidences" are often just smoke and mirrors based off of a projection of false confidence.
Well for one repeating over and over again that something is obvious and mountains of evidence exists is just pure BS and is clearly smoke and mirrors. Saying no evidence exists to the contrary is also childish argumentation. It only serves to make the person appear like and ignorant fool. Hardly convincing when no substance in their arguments can be found.
You know what actually makes a person sound foolish? When they say something to the effect of 'old earth evidence is smoke and mirrors' and then when asked for a single example of smoke, or even a mirror, they simply change the subject and ad hominem the person who asked for the example.
No I gave exactly what was smoke and mirrors if you cant read then so be it. What is smoke an mirrors is people giving assertions as if mere assertion was evidence.
The other "evidences" such as radiometric dating is both dubious and based on faulty assumptions. The basis for long ages from people like lyell and others is based on pure bias and little to no evidence just wishful thinking. Or lets take cosmology most of those assertions are even worse. The Big Bang cant explain many faults of its
You're narrowing it down some now, in what way is radiometric dating dubious and on what faulty assumptions is it based? What are these 'worse assertions' in cosmology?
Well for one the idea dates can be derived at a reasonable accuracy is not likely. For one how do they know what the starting conditions are? They dont they dont know for certain the rats of all variable involved and in fact they cant without some other verification (highly unlikely given the dates they use). Plus to top it off they get contradictory dates and arbitrarily pick the one best suited to fit evolution a priori.
They know modern decay rates, and they know that the only plausible natural environmental change, for example, to uranium-lead is lead leeching caused by heat, which gives for a YOUNGER dating. Also, zircon completely rejects the integration of lead, meaning any lead found in zircon is from uranium decay. If modern rates of decay were to have been accelerated in the past to give the appearance of 4.6 billion years of aging in only 10,000 years, it would've sterilized the surface of the earth
@TheScienceFoundation To date an event or thing that preceded written records, one must assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clocks initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid.
ALL dating methods are based on unproven asumptions PERIOD
Radiometric dates are consistently concordant with several non radiometric dating methods, The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot. Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity.
@TheScienceFoundation a decline in the speed of light was observed, that's peer reviewed science. the problem is that you do not take catastrophe into consideration. plenty of evidence for catastrophe.
do you not agree that it is possible to be consistently wrong ?
My point still remains. ALL dating methods are based on assumptions
The speed of light has never been observed to decrease in a vacuum, even if it had, this would mean the universe is OLDER than we think it is.
In that sense existence is based on assumption, you assume that everything outside of your own cognition exists, that can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The speed of light (yes, in a vacuum) HAS been observed to be faster in the past
ldolphin(.)org / cdkgal(.)html
If my thoughts ARE the universe, than i wrote all the works of Beethoven, Bach, Mozart & Led Zepplin. Painted all the classic art , wrote all the works of shakesphere and plato. I created Bugs Bunny & all the Looney Toons. I Wrote and directed (and created the score for) Star Wars... DANG !!!! I'm a SUPERGENIUS!!!
Measurements have recently been taken with a calibrated photometer .... These measurements show a rapid reduction in the transmission of sunlight from a value of 97% on a clear day to the lower level of approximately 80% during the early stages of heavy aerosol operations.
Forest M. Mims III, Sun and Sky Monitoring Station and Manual, Radio Shack, 2003
A reduction of the rate of storage in the lattices of crystals would actually mean they were OLDER than we think, because it would've taken longer at the reduced rate to produce the same effect.
@TheScienceFoundation Since the speed of light was faster in the past, all radiometric dating methods are in fact skewed to look much older.
What's worse is that we measure the speed of light today with atomic clocks, which are directly effected by c . this makes it impossible to accurately measure c . It's like having a scale that calibrates itself down 5lbs every time you gain 5 lbs.
Most radiometric dating methods have nothing to do with the speed of light, and modern measuring methods use the fact that light is a form of electromagnetic wave. The speed of any wave is the product of its frequency and its wavelength.
I challenge that assertion anyway. are you saying speed of light has nothing to do with atomic mass ??? are you saying atomic mass dosen't affect the atomic clock ??
Finally are you conceding that c was faster in the past ?
This is an argument from ignorance. Most anatomists would never argue that the eye is poorly designed. Only ignorant biologists--philosophers in scientific sounding garb--say that. The more we know about the human body the more intricate it becomes. Years ago evolutionists told us the pituitary was vestigial along with the coccyx. Yet the more we learn the more wrong these people appear. The same is true for the appendix....simply not vestigial...only ignorance would say so.
3AngelDefense1844 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@3AngelDefense1844
You apparently don't know what the term "vestigial" means.
odinata 3 months ago
@3AngelDefense1844 No, an understanding of anatomy would say so. Neither the coccyx nor the appendix serve their original function so yes, they're vestigial.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation You presume that you know what their function is in humans and what it was in creatures that are not even around for us to test--which is presumption. No expert in anatomy makes that argument. Please tell me the function of both and explain to me how they are vestigial!? Again this is the great evolutionary myth of vestigial organs. At one time they even argued that the pituitary gland was vestigial...talk about a hypothesis leading to wrong conclusions.
3AngelDefense1844 2 months ago
@3AngelDefense1844 We know the appendix is vestigial because it's homologous to the end of the mammalian caecum and we know that the coccyx is vestigial because the human embryo has a primate tail as well as the genes for a primate tail. Now the appendix has remnant function in the immune system and the coccyx serves as a nerve connection axis.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation First I appreciate your respectful tone and willingness to discuss the issues in a calm manner. But I must ask what in the world does the location of the appendix at the ascending colon slightly distal to ileocecal valve have anything to do with it being vestigial? In order to make your point you have to explain how this blind pouch functioned in other species and why it randomly selected to go from that ancient function, to being a part of the GALT system in the gut.
3AngelDefense1844 2 months ago
@3AngelDefense1844 Because although it is homologous to the end of the caecum in other mammals it's not a functioning part of the digestive tract in humans. It would've been easily co-opted for the galt system given its position in relation to the large intestine
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Here is the problem science cannot prove that the appendix had any different function than it does today. Sure the philosopher could come up with a reason and perhaps the grade school biology teacher, but they are not concerned with evidence. The appendix still functions in mammals as a part of GALT just as it does in humans.
3AngelDefense1844 2 months ago
@3AngelDefense1844 Sure it has a function, vestigial doesn't mean functionless, it simply means crude or not retaining original function. It's considered vestigial in humans because of the aforementioned homology and the fact that the appendix in herbivorous mammals serves a primary function in aiding the metabolizing of cellulose.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation What you write is speculation. Fact is, it took research published in 2006 for the evolution community to admit that the appendix even had a use....hence vestigial. Your altered definition is a post hoc reaction to the overwhelming evidence that appendix is not only useful but a key part of the developing immune system and a store house for gut flora. To say it functions entirely different in animals is to philosophize your way out of the embarrassing evidence.
3AngelDefense1844 2 months ago
@3AngelDefense1844 Now you're ignoring the actual data suggesting it used to serve other function to simply assert that we're speculating. We're not, the morphology and placement of the appendix indicates it served another function prior to its current one.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Forgive me for taking your definition of vestigial organs at face value. I knew that you were using a new contrived definition which has been edited to avoid the embarrassment of evidence. Nevertheless, for your perusal I am going to share some quotes from Evolutionists defining vestigial organs. You will notice they do it differently from you, yet try to argue the same idea that because the appendix functions differently in animals it is PROOF that the organ is vestigial.
3AngelDefense1844 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation "The term vestigial is used in anatomy as being more convenient in describing those parts generally known as rudimentary, abortive, atrophied, or USELESS. There are many vestigial structures in man, and an attempt to more than mention some of the most interesting of them would far exceed the limits of this article."--W.B. Rotzeix M.D., "Some vestigial structures in man," Scientific American, June 15, 1895 p. 375. emphasis mine.
3AngelDefense1844 2 months ago
@3AngelDefense1844 'The term vestigial is used in anatomy as being more convenient in describing those parts generally known as rudimentary, abortive, atrophied, or USELESS'
or : used as a function word to indicate an alternative.
Notice it doesn't say 'and'
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
"In man, for example, there exist over one hundred of these vestigial or rudimentary organs, as the vermiform appendix, the PINEAL GLAND, and the like. Many of these vestigial organs, which are now FUNCTIONLESS in man, perform functions in lower animals, and this is held to show that at some remote period in the past they also functioned in man's ancestors."--Charles Ellwood Ph.D, Sociology and Modern Social Problems (New York, American Book Company, 1910), 29 - 32. Emphasis mine.
3AngelDefense1844 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation "Rudimentary organs are those that were once functional at some point in phylogeny, but are retained in current species as useless or near-useless vestiges. Such rudiments in humans include the wisdom teeth, certain muscles for moving or twitching the skin, and the vermiform appendix."—Kent G. Bailey, Human Paleopsychology: applications to aggression and pathological processes, (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1987), 19
3AngelDefense1844 2 months ago
@3AngelDefense1844 Your citation still depends on vestigial meaning solely functionless, it doesn't and your own source contradicts that.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I don't even know how to respond to your twisting of the English language and grammar. What does atrophied, abortive, or rudimentary mean? Perhaps spending a few moments in your grade school grammar book will suffice to clear up the confusion. Nevertheless, you need to stop dancing attempting to dance between the rain drop and abandon your contrived definition of "vestigial." You discrediting yourself by using philosophy vs. facts to make your argument.
3AngelDefense1844 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@3AngelDefense1844 'What does atrophied, abortive, or rudimentary mean?'
What does 'or' mean?
Try educating yourself instead of projecting
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@3AngelDefense1844
It isn't a "contrived" definition.
It is the scientific definition.
That's an F for you.....
odinata 2 weeks ago
@TheScienceFoundation Every single time we talked about vestigial organs in class, it ALWAYS meant completely functionless and served no purpose today. We were taught that they were organs that used to have a function but no longer did. Well, one by one, each of these vestigial organs have been shown to be fully functional and serve a purpose today.
AndyG792 1 week ago
@AndyG792 Not sure where you went to school and I really doubt that it was claimed that it always meant useless as simply looking in the dictionary completely contradicts that. Sure it can serve a function, but it's a non-original function.
TheScienceFoundation 1 week ago
@TheScienceFoundation Is this really a science foundation? I find it hard to believe that this is a science foundation by your answers.
AndyG792 1 week ago
@AndyG792 Why would that be? I'm posting actual science.
TheScienceFoundation 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think I LOVE THIS GUY. In-fact ... yes, YES I DO! He's got the John Mackay swagger times 10 !!
KiddJesus 4 months ago
Comment removed
KiddJesus 4 months ago
@ItssBrian How would he known their conclusions are flawed if he's never had any experience in that field? If all the biology experts agree, but one guy with an engineering degree disagrees then who's right?
Spocktacular96 4 months ago
You berate people for being ignorant in subjects YOU claim they have no right to comment on, then go and say that nobody can say that the human body isn't as complex as you make it out to be. And you are an ENGINEER!!! Not a doctor, or biologist, an ENGINEER. Although, judging by your videos, you sem to be an expert in palientology, biology, chemistry, physics, not to mention an expert in radiometric dating. If you really are an expert in all those fields, then why doesn't anyone agree with you?
Spocktacular96 5 months ago
@Spocktacular96 @Faustaao It's not really hypocritical and here's why. He says they are under-qualified to say that it's a poor design until they can produce a better one. When he talks about these different areas of science he doesn't just say that their logic is flawed and leave it at that, he offers more logical conclusions.
ItssBrian 4 months ago
@ItssBrian We don't have to produce anything, the claim of design is thus far just that, an empty claim.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation It's well supported. By every measure one could use to determine intelligence, biological machines are intelligently designed.
ItssBrian 2 months ago
@ItssBrian Wrong, it's based on erroneous analogy because biological machines are subject to replication with variation including modulation, artificial machines are not.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
It's pretty hypocritical of you to call someone else "underqualified."
Ian, why won't you make a video explaining the Laryngeal Nerve in the giraffe?
Faustaao 5 months ago
I have to agree with you @ 0:54 has i too often call those saying we where "poorly designed" ...arrogantly ignorant. I love your examples & how u handle these rather stupid objections.
MajesticCyru 6 months ago
This reminds me of a joke..
Man says to God, "We don't need u anymore!" God says, "Really?" Man says, "Yep, since u made us in your image, we can now create life from clay via modern science discoveries." God says, "Ok, Show me... "
Man starts molding up some clay, but God Stops him & says, "Get your own dirt, wiseguy!"
Tylorne 6 months ago
loved this video!
22complexity 8 months ago
Rabbits have to eat there own poo why did God make them that way?
Tyjohnable 1 year ago
@Tyjohnable Wow... 1st, who says rabbits have to eat their own poo? I've raised rabbits and i have never seen them eat their own entrails. On a positive note, it makes good fertilizer for the flower garden.
Tylorne 6 months ago
@Tylorne
Record them at night when there alone and you'll get a nice surprise
Tyjohnable 6 months ago
@Tyjohnable Oh I see you say it... well that makes it true... NOT!
Tylorne 6 months ago
@Tylorne
Well I did tell you to try it for yourself but ok than.
Just call me a liar and move on.
Tyjohnable 6 months ago
@Tyjohnable Lets c if I get this right?
v I asked u to explain your question below.. v
[Rabbits have to eat their own poo ..why did God make them that way?]
U tell me 2 record my rabbits doing this ..when i feed rabbits!
v Then after disagree with your response.. v
[Just call me a liar and move on.]
So r u now confessing u lied?
In my Country forcing rabbits to eat their own entrails would b considered animal abuse punishable by either fine or prison term.. (eyes-rolling)
Tylorne 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tylorne
Can you fucking read?
I said at night not when you're feeding them.
And saying "Oh I see you say it... well that makes it true... NOT!" is clearly calling me a liar.
How could I take that any other way?
Just google "why do rabbits eat there own poo and read for fuck sakes I'm done with you.
Tyjohnable 6 months ago
We are talking about a supernatural if not omnipotent creat0r, right? If so, your argument falls entirely flat.
TheAmazingSatirist 1 year ago
and all these vids are made by someone claiming to have 145 as iq??? waaahahaha
he has no argument...he thinks he is the product of millennia of incest..(desending from noah and his family)...waaaahahahahahahaha
TheRelitard 1 year ago
The reason the human body has its flaws,is because the flesh is corrupt now,,,after the first sin we lost our glorified body and so forth everyday we are wasting away closer to the grave,but thank u Jesus we will recieve a new glorified body again.How great is our God ;-)
paraglidermx 1 year ago
@paraglidermx Yes & No... what flaws are you talking about?
If your talking about sin then Yes, but otherwise I'd say these creative is bang on.
Tylorne 6 months ago
Have you ever designed a fully functioning human body? Then you have no right to claim the body is INTELLIGENTLY designed. Its a double edged sword. You have no proof the body was designed, we have a mountain of evidence SCREAMING that it evolved. We have the fossils, the genome, the dating (which works beautifully and accurately despite what you choose to ignore), the how, the why, the when, the research, the facts, the scientific consensus, AND the OBSERVATIONS in labs AND nature! So we win.
shldflght 1 year ago 2
@shldflght Do u really believe all that crap.. honestly... your joking, right?
If so ..how can u trust the media & education system with it's "agenda 21" ...and the Old-World-Disorder's depopulation program? We call them banksters & their media clowns presstitutes for a reason!!
Simply what you trust is the consensus of a corrupted C.I.A, C.F.R, UN, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberge influenced science & educational system. Does Mr. Rockefeller or Mr. Rothschild have u on their pay roll 2?
Tylorne 6 months ago
I'm designed better than Ian because I have hair on the top of my head
jk28416 1 year ago
The example of your ROVs shows how a machine is developed and improved upon. Your first ROVs that sunk are no longer used. Why? Because they sunk.
This is the same with the human body.
Home Erectus -> Homo Neanderthal -> Homo Sapien (this is an incredibley simplified version)
The only difference is that rather than a designer improving upon a species, the animals that were better adapted to survive outlived the others and got to reproduce more.
jimboblious 1 year ago
Too friggin good man. : )
drzip1993 1 year ago
GREAT, you've got a new subscriber :)
signofthehammer 1 year ago
wacko
jk28416 1 year ago
@jk28416 Ahhh,you love em!!!Hes got a great argument!!
paraglidermx 1 year ago
Great argument!!! Never heard it from that point of view before.
Well done. :)
gmh1206 1 year ago
Now you're just shifting the irreducibly complex goalposts, any time one system is show to be reducible, you just say the reduced system is irreducible.
What would follow? Gravity having a different constant in a different universe wouldn't affect the constant in this universe.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
Excellent!
theTRUTHgroup 1 year ago
God this video is stupid. I want my 5 minutes back.
ebullock43 1 year ago
=)....Amen
erttua 2 years ago
I dont think this guy built a human body so he has no room to talk either!
ewbernauer 2 years ago 2
3:52 I think he explains his point here
Haekel68 1 year ago
He has a point?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
Yes, a very excellent point. If you've studied anatomy and actually built muscles/bones etc (For example 3D, or sculpt) you really get the feel of how it was DESIGNED. I keep seeing you in these ranst and again and again your statements keep getting shown to be wrong and you repost them. What atheist are really good at is sugarcoating their statement and once you get an argument you cant counter, you just go "that is irelevant" or if theres a hole in the theory (science cant answer everything)
StianDaMan 1 year ago
And if you knew anything about science you would know it doesn't work by opinion or intuition based on erroneous comparison, it works by evidence, empirical data. You not understanding my points does not constitute them being wrong.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
It's not all black and white, take the famouse gravity dilemma, we know what it does and that its there we just dont know why it works like it does. And you totally ignored my statement on how everything is designed. What came first, the brain, the blood, the vessels, the brain?. Slowly constructed through evolution you say? One cannot work without the other. What about quantum physics the closest thing we have to fairytales and miracle working. And people use this as "evidence".
StianDaMan 1 year ago
No, your state was that things appear designed, which is an argument from personal incredulity.
"What came first, the brain, the blood, the vessels, the brain?"
Earth worms have a series of simple hearts, along with very few, sometimes just two blood vessels, but no real brain to speak of.
Who said quantum physics are fairytales? Reminds me of the Arthur C. Clarke quote "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
I see your point with the earthworm however there still had to be a connection between many essential organs for it to survive. All of these could not just pop up at the same time randomly. Then you also have the nerve system.
"Who said quantum physics are fairytales"
Take gravity and the discussion of it being stylized. Some dude made a theory about it would be the same in every alternate universe whatever if gravity value changed, then the rest would follow.
StianDaMan 1 year ago
statement*
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
and worms feel a sensation not necessaily pain in their brains when being penetrated by a hook.
StianDaMan 1 year ago
Yep, the primitive workings of an early warning system.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
"Now you're just shifting the irreducibly complex goalposts" Wrong -->
? I merely repeat myself becuase you keep avoiding answering me how these things can all randomly "evolve" at the same time. A primitive brain is still a brain. A worm has a brain, a heart and a nervesystem.
Regarding Gravity his theory is by no means proven it is merely that people use this as a fact which is very common by atheist. Use something that is highly debateable as a fact.
StianDaMan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Who said that any of it evolved randomly? If you warp the definition enough, any reactionary biological system could be called a brain.
Theories aren't formulated to be proven, theories are logical frameworks that explain facts.
"very common by atheist. Use something that is highly debateable as a fact. "
A few fundamentalists lacking understanding of basic science does not constitute a debate.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I like everything this guy does. Yep, he gauls the evolutionists, and he does it with wit and humor.
Some creationists think they are the people of faith, but the BLIND FAITH AWARD has to go to those espousing natural selection and random mutations.
JoeJohnstonMail 2 years ago
Comment removed
JoeJohnstonMail 2 years ago
Hmmmm. Good point.
Of course, this also means that creationists can't claim that the body is "Well designed."
After all, until they build a human body themselves, they are horribly unqualified to say if it's well designed.
Similarly, creationists can't use the 'Poorly evolved' argument. Until they can make an animal 'evolve' and know from experience, they can't say that structures are poorly evolved or 'well evolved'.
But, having said that, this does simplify the field a little.
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
Hmm ian when did you make the vid hehe you made it at akron fossils i know that much lol i see the pompous grass i moved etc last summer lol
xnovaflarex 2 years ago
You're a moron. It doesn't matter if I can make a human or not, stupidity is stupidity and it's easily recognizable. That our hearts have no collateral blood flow is stupid, among thousands of other stupidities in every form of life on the planet.
I did make a human body: I grew from a single cell and developed into the being you see today, not to mention the false premise of your statement. It's designed the way it is because it was shaped by evolution and NOT an omniscient being.
LordSlag 2 years ago 3
Stupidity is stupidity I agree. False confidence used to cover ignorance and feeble mindedness is one common side effect of stupidity.
If your arguments are the height of evolutionary argumentation then the future is looking bright indeed for creationism. You would be laughed out of academia with that drivel.
weissengel86 2 years ago
Spoiler; creationism, as anything other than antiquated belief, is already dead.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
If it was dead than why is it growing? I find this the most interesting of all. Creationism is gaining major strides. The belief in evolution is actually a minority position now in the american public. The ratio of creationist/ID vs evolutionist in science is growing and not towards evolution. The medical field has the highest percentage of believers in intelligent design or creationism and who strangely enough would know best about "bad design". Check the numbers yourself.
weissengel86 2 years ago
No, it's not even growing as a belief, non belief is the only demographic to have increased in every state every year for the past 19 years. The ratio of evolutionist to creationists in science is 100% to 0, because creationism is not, nor has it ever been science.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Hah! Thats not even close. Are you still in high school or something? As your arguments are about that level of comprehension. Creationism and ID has been growing while belief in evolution is stagnating. Merely one third of the populace believes in evolution. It was not nearly that low before. 1/3 of doctors reject darwinism and fully 2/3rds are skeptical of it. You can cover your ears and go nananana all you want but it wont make them go away.
weissengel86 2 years ago
No, creationism and ID are still only belief, and it's hard to get higher than a 100% consensus in the biologically literate community. I'd definitely like a source on the doctors claim
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Look it up yourself. Just use google or whatever I cant give you the link. It isnt hard to find.
Also evolution is also a "belief". So is everything else. you are either using belief incorrectly or simply remain ignorant.
weissengel86 2 years ago
The only source I can find for that is the discovery institute, which is known to be blatantly dishonest, particularly regarding people and their affinity for ID, check out a video by DonExodus2 on the debunking of the dissent from Darwin paper.
Belief in the sense that 'I believe if i drop a rock it's going to hit the ground' yes.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Believe means holding to a idea or thought or opinion. Whether right or wrong stupid or not has zero relevance. You can find it outside of the discovery institute. Obviously your google-fu is weak.
Your assertion on the discovery institute is empty. DonExodus is a joke. His credibility is zero. His "refutations" are worthless.
weissengel86 2 years ago
It wouldn't matter where it was found outside the DI, DI were the ones who did the 'survey' so it would just link back there.
No, my assertion on the DI is full, because creationists wanting DonExodus to be a joke is meaningless, as he actually provides sources for his claims.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Why are you even looking at the Discovery Institute? I never did. You also fail to realize more then one survey can be done. You have not given a reason as to the likely falsity of the DIs survey either simply claiming bias is easy proving it isnt reliable is another thing altogether. Wishful thinking doesnt change the reality
weissengel86 2 years ago
That's the only source for any '1/3 doctors rejection evolution' survey in the first 30 results on google. If you have a different source, provide it. They provided no names, no contact information whatsoever, just one blog with the claim that '1/3 of doctors favor ID'
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Do you have any competence in using search engines? Apparently not. Its too bad I cant link damn site will never let me do so every time I tried. One thing though DI never did the poll at all it was another group DI just reported on it. So your claim of bias is worthless considering pro evolution uses it despite a full 1/3 of doctors believing in ID.
weissengel86 2 years ago
Since you seem to be down to nothing but fallacy, ad populums followed by ad hominem. I'm hitting the sack. Though the former was really my fault, leading you on as if it mattered if 99% of the planet rejected it.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Or as if the majority believed in evolution :)
weissengel86 2 years ago
Except I never made the claim that percentage of people who accepted one or rejected the other was relevant at all.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Nor did I. My claim was that considering more doctors than many other fields accept Intelligent Design whose profession would put them in the best position to judge bad design it makes the relevance of bad design far less convincing.
Bad design means nothing I can make a crappy badly designed house but what relevance does that have to whether or not I designed it?
I may mean I suck at carpentry and dont know much about architecture but it doesnt make the doghouse a natural product of time.
weissengel86 2 years ago
It doesn't make the doghouse subject to replication or mutation either.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Nor does mutation or replication have any relevance to bad design. They obviously matter in the case of evolution as a whole but they still have no relevance to whether or not bad design matters at all either.
weissengel86 2 years ago
Nor does ID have any relevance to science.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Nor does an assertion become true simply because one wants it to be true.
weissengel86 2 years ago
Now you're getting it.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
For one check Zogby, Gallup and Harris. They show that unequivocally more americans are believers in a form of intelligent design than not from YEC to OEC to ID.
weissengel86 2 years ago
An argumentum ad populum, in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
My confidence is not false, as you vainly hope, nor does it cover a feeble mind.
My arguments are evidence based, unassailable, unarguable and rational. I cant help but notice that you don't offer evidence for your position or attempt to falsify my positions. Instead you insult me, which shows the vacuousness of your position, and make unsupported assertions as though they're self evident fact. Present evidence for your position or shut up.
LordSlag 2 years ago
unassailable and unarguable? Those two words right there prove your false confidence and pathetic arguments.
Self evident fact? Funny thats not how science has ever operated. Proves you dont have to be religious to be a close minded fundamentalist.
weissengel86 2 years ago
Again, you merely insult me. Yes, the mountainous, giant pile of evidence that proves evolution and nothing else spans from horizon to horizon and up beyond the blue of the sky. To stand in opposition to it is the height of willfully ignorant arrogance. Yes, some facts are self evident: The sky is blue, for example. You're so dumb, you don't even know you're stupid: I'm close minded because I accept evidence? Ask your doctor if a 5th grade education is right for you!
LordSlag 2 years ago
How pathetic. Of course I insult you. The only thing "self-evident" is just how lame and irrelevant you are and how meaningless your arguments are.
The only time people use exaggerated descriptions like yours is to compensate for ignorance or inability to justify their assertions. I have no wish to further discuss this as you clearly are just a troll.
weissengel86 2 years ago
More insults, no falsifications, and no definable position from you whatsoever. Looks like a slam dunk win for rationalism then, and if you wish to leave it at that, I'm fine with it.
LordSlag 2 years ago
Babies! Babies! Babies!
JPO1618 2 years ago
This is a very poor argument. I have never built a car from scratch. Not once nor would I want to. But I can tell you when a car is poorly made and is a pile of junk. To do so I dont need a mechanics license. Same goes for a shitty painting and a shitty movie even though I have never made either of those things.
tinylittlegnat2 2 years ago
Keep up the good work!
paulhumber 2 years ago
Good video !!
krisv001 2 years ago
I warned you about voting comments down just because you can't refute them.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Yes... Thank you for this. Even if somehow you don't convince a single person to open their hearts and minds to the truth, you strengthen the knowledge and faith of us who love the LORD.
YMCAPersonalTrainer 2 years ago
Very funny
VyckRo 2 years ago
Thank you for this.
RJL738 2 years ago
So you would compare the all powerful designer of everything - including the physical laws themselves - to a wacky internet creationist that designs robots?
When you claim a being can do anything and has supernatural power its a fail to assume said god had to work in the confines of what some loon creotard had to work with while assembling his robots.
but then im nothing so lofty as a robotics engineer with a mensa membership and a bullshit creation "museum"
BallzDeep4Jeebus 2 years ago 3
Sadly ironic that you rag people about 'qualifications' in this video yet dodge the question and say that sausage4mash was guilty of an ad hom in your last video
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Creationists, do NOT start thumbing comments down just because you can't refute them, if you do, I promise you that my vote-fu is stronger than your vote-fu.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
By your logic of 'The human body is complex therefore we know its designed" the designer would necessarily be more complex and necessitate and even more complex designer. I know you're going to begin the circular logic of 'if god required a designer he wouldn't be god' but thats not an actual reason why he would be exempt from your own causal chain.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
"They think they know better than the original designer" If noone ever thought that, we would still be throwing rocks at mountain lions and dying of old age in fear at 24. Yes the human body is complex, it's also the product of accumulated change and differential reproductive success for a period beyond ordinary human comprehension. No, you don't 'know' that life was intelligently designed, you believe it based on invalid comparisons. By your logic of 'The human body is
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Basically the position taken in the video is that you're going to assume humans are designed until humans are designed. Fully functioning human bodies are produced by the hundreds of thousands daily, all by completely natural and explicable processes, no magical intervention from space necessary. No, if you evolve a human body over the course of ~3.8by you'll find out why it fits perfectly in the nested hierarchies of genetics comparative anatomy embryology etc. without exception.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
"Horribly underqualified to make such statements" borderline ad hominem/appeal to authority. Irrelevant anyway as many prominent geneticists and cell biologists such as Ken Miller, have commented on the backwardness and occasional hazard of the 'design' of the human body IE eating and breathing through the same tube.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
So the crux of this video is: when we think we see "bad" design, it's because god made it that way and we shouldn't question the creator?
TheRichDarkEarth 2 years ago
Nice how u are are avoiding the argument all together. The human body can be designed. Wazooloo, try keeping up on modern science. For when it becomes possible to genetically alter ourselves in the near future, we can design ourselves better, or else create a clone of a human and genetically advance it. So how come we aren't designed correctly?
zgbrotherhood 2 years ago 2
Nice how you make ludicrous statements as fact and completely miss the point! First, you say we CAN design a human body (which is ludicrous - you betray your ignorance with such silly statements), then you admit it and say "In the future we can design ourselves." Your comments betray that you obviously know nothing about the subject of "poor design" - you are unqualified, but nevertheless, tell me: in what way is the human body not "designed correctly?" hmmm?
wazooloo 2 years ago
U aren't even qualified yourself to make a rebuttal according to your logic. First statement to bad design is the human eye. Google "why is the eye a bad design" Take your christian bullshit logic else where because u haven't even taken the time to listen to scientist who studies such areas. Richard Dawkins discusses this matter with other scientist that thoroughly explains why the human eye is a crap design. Cool, you are a robotics engineer. Meet the mechanical eng. smart ass.
zgbrotherhood 2 years ago 2
As I suspected, you simply cite the same old nonsense that's already been proven wrong a long time ago - see
trueorigin(dot)org/retina(dot)asp
So as a mechanical engineer, you're trying to claim that the human eye - which blows the doors off of any camera we could ever possibly design as far as resolution, colour contrast, weight and power consumption - is a "poor design?" What about television cameras? Are they designed?
wazooloo 2 years ago
What about television cameras, do they replicate with variation?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago 2
No, SciFound, TV cameras don't replicate and can't adapt to their environment. That puts one more mark in the column of the human body (with its amazing eyes) having a better design than any kind of camera designed by a human.
HeMadeYouSpecial 2 years ago
Wait, are you really trying to say that because the human body can evolve that that's evidence of design?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
: ) Nice one, SF. But evolution and adaptation are totally different. God programmed the DNA of every creature with many different variations. But none of us creatures will ever exceed the parameters of His original programming.
HeMadeYouSpecial 2 years ago
No, it's not, evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population, aka adaptation. What ARE these supposed parameters, what useful predictions can be made to test them?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
"God programmed the DNA of every creature"
oh get out of here , you are moving the goal posts in the light of real science .
sausage4mash 2 years ago
sounds like moving the goal posts to define creationism out of the game. redefine science everytime evolution is threatened only appeals to the ignorance in the general public and does nothing but to soothe the cognitive dissonance of evolutionists.
weissengel86 2 years ago
Since creationism is never explicitly defined by most of the people supporting it, that objection even if true would be meaningless.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Since when is it not explicitly defined? Do you even bother to just skim creationist material (up-to-date material that is)? Or do you just simply argue against what you assume creationism is? I find it funny you are defending your ignorance by claiming caricatures and straw men arguments are the same as the real thing.
The only person you are convincing is yourself. Your admission of lack of comprehension only makes you out to be a fool.
weissengel86 2 years ago
So define it, what is your position exactly?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Well position as to what? Evolution? I would be a Young Earth Creationist. I believe the Earth is from 6k to 10k years old. I am also a Presuppositionalist. I personally consider the age of the earth not quite as important though. I believe it is possible that the earth is old as is commonly accepted but I find that the more I learn the more I lean towards young earth as the old earth "evidences" are often just smoke and mirrors based off of a projection of false confidence.
weissengel86 2 years ago
And what are these evidences you consider smoke and mirrors?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Well for one repeating over and over again that something is obvious and mountains of evidence exists is just pure BS and is clearly smoke and mirrors. Saying no evidence exists to the contrary is also childish argumentation. It only serves to make the person appear like and ignorant fool. Hardly convincing when no substance in their arguments can be found.
Science that is not.
weissengel86 2 years ago
You know what actually makes a person sound foolish? When they say something to the effect of 'old earth evidence is smoke and mirrors' and then when asked for a single example of smoke, or even a mirror, they simply change the subject and ad hominem the person who asked for the example.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
No I gave exactly what was smoke and mirrors if you cant read then so be it. What is smoke an mirrors is people giving assertions as if mere assertion was evidence.
The other "evidences" such as radiometric dating is both dubious and based on faulty assumptions. The basis for long ages from people like lyell and others is based on pure bias and little to no evidence just wishful thinking. Or lets take cosmology most of those assertions are even worse. The Big Bang cant explain many faults of its
weissengel86 2 years ago
You're narrowing it down some now, in what way is radiometric dating dubious and on what faulty assumptions is it based? What are these 'worse assertions' in cosmology?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Well for one the idea dates can be derived at a reasonable accuracy is not likely. For one how do they know what the starting conditions are? They dont they dont know for certain the rats of all variable involved and in fact they cant without some other verification (highly unlikely given the dates they use). Plus to top it off they get contradictory dates and arbitrarily pick the one best suited to fit evolution a priori.
weissengel86 2 years ago
They know modern decay rates, and they know that the only plausible natural environmental change, for example, to uranium-lead is lead leeching caused by heat, which gives for a YOUNGER dating. Also, zircon completely rejects the integration of lead, meaning any lead found in zircon is from uranium decay. If modern rates of decay were to have been accelerated in the past to give the appearance of 4.6 billion years of aging in only 10,000 years, it would've sterilized the surface of the earth
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Finally an assertion that isn't completely meaningless. While I disagree at least this has meaning.
weissengel86 2 years ago
@TheScienceFoundation To date an event or thing that preceded written records, one must assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clocks initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid.
ALL dating methods are based on unproven asumptions PERIOD
biggbaddjohn 2 years ago
Radiometric dates are consistently concordant with several non radiometric dating methods, The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot. Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
past rates of movement are NOT observable. you operate under the uniformitarian assumptions of Charles Lyell .
also, the worlds oldest dated rocks at 4 billion yrs old were based on 150 samples. only one was used. why is that ? manipulate the data much ???
procession is only a 2600 year cycle, how much good is that with a "billion year" old rock ??
biggbaddjohn 2 years ago
Past rates of gravitational acceleration are NOT observable, you operate under the assumptions of Newton and Einstein.
zircon continually dates at over 4.5byo
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
@TheScienceFoundation a decline in the speed of light was observed, that's peer reviewed science. the problem is that you do not take catastrophe into consideration. plenty of evidence for catastrophe.
do you not agree that it is possible to be consistently wrong ?
My point still remains. ALL dating methods are based on assumptions
biggbaddjohn 2 years ago
The speed of light has never been observed to decrease in a vacuum, even if it had, this would mean the universe is OLDER than we think it is.
In that sense existence is based on assumption, you assume that everything outside of your own cognition exists, that can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
@TheScienceFoundation
The speed of light (yes, in a vacuum) HAS been observed to be faster in the past
ldolphin(.)org / cdkgal(.)html
If my thoughts ARE the universe, than i wrote all the works of Beethoven, Bach, Mozart & Led Zepplin. Painted all the classic art , wrote all the works of shakesphere and plato. I created Bugs Bunny & all the Looney Toons. I Wrote and directed (and created the score for) Star Wars... DANG !!!! I'm a SUPERGENIUS!!!
biggbaddjohn 2 years ago
Out of 11 tests, 3 of which they admit were adversely affected by water vapor.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
oooppps, mistyped procession cycle, 25,625 yrs. the point however still remains
biggbaddjohn 2 years ago
what has a precession got to do with anything? All that is is a change in orientation of the earth on its axis
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
@TheScienceFoundation you are the one who brought up procession
biggbaddjohn 2 years ago
I said nothing about the precession.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
@TheScienceFoundation oooppps, my bad
biggbaddjohn 2 years ago
Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method, if you want more examples or references, I'll be happy to supply them
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Measurements have recently been taken with a calibrated photometer .... These measurements show a rapid reduction in the transmission of sunlight from a value of 97% on a clear day to the lower level of approximately 80% during the early stages of heavy aerosol operations.
Forest M. Mims III, Sun and Sky Monitoring Station and Manual, Radio Shack, 2003
biggbaddjohn 2 years ago
A reduction of the rate of storage in the lattices of crystals would actually mean they were OLDER than we think, because it would've taken longer at the reduced rate to produce the same effect.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
@TheScienceFoundation not if you assume that todays rates are the standard
biggbaddjohn 2 years ago
You have yet to show anything that would falsely give for an older reading.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
@TheScienceFoundation Since the speed of light was faster in the past, all radiometric dating methods are in fact skewed to look much older.
What's worse is that we measure the speed of light today with atomic clocks, which are directly effected by c . this makes it impossible to accurately measure c . It's like having a scale that calibrates itself down 5lbs every time you gain 5 lbs.
biggbaddjohn 2 years ago
Most radiometric dating methods have nothing to do with the speed of light, and modern measuring methods use the fact that light is a form of electromagnetic wave. The speed of any wave is the product of its frequency and its wavelength.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago 2
@TheScienceFoundation "Most" ????
I challenge that assertion anyway. are you saying speed of light has nothing to do with atomic mass ??? are you saying atomic mass dosen't affect the atomic clock ??
Finally are you conceding that c was faster in the past ?
biggbaddjohn 2 years ago
I'm saying the speed of light has nothing to do with the decay of uranium into lead, potassium into argon etc.
No, all you've presented is one article with admitted flaws in 1/4 of the testing
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
setterfield(.)org/report/report(.)html
biggbaddjohn 2 years ago
bipm(.)org/utils/common/pdf/si_brochure_8_en(.)pdf
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
@TheScienceFoundation besides, light is not purely a wave
biggbaddjohn 2 years ago