@machinedean100 So basically what you're saying is that for no reason at all, you're going to assume what I'm saying is wrong?
Try actually looking into it first *then* making a conclusion. The article Ian cited says the diametric opposite of what he claims it does and dishonesty is the only possible explanation because the contradiction to his quote mine was the very next line of the article.
@TheScienceFoundation Well not for no reason. I have 2 reasons thus far. One you are actually on the forum accusing the man of being liar and our not blocked. Two this statement that you made is pure bs "The point is no one that is actually literate in biology is claiming 'one animal transforms into another". Which you actually sought it out and re thumbed up after I thumbed it down. Your probably the second thumb up also. Why it is elementary my dear Watson a trail of bs usually leads to bs.
@machinedean100 Not only is it not bs, the very source you seem so keen on ignoring shows that he was being willfully dishonest and 2: Thumbing my comment down doesn't change the fact that creationists have a horrific misconception of evolution, thinking it means 'one animal transforms into another'
You've addressed none of my points, only tried to invent nonsense to ignore it all the while having no idea what constitutes bs. If you did you wouldn't be a creationist.
Truth? You want some truth? How about this? Your god murders babies. Noah's Flood, 10th Plague of Egypt. Now defend global infanticide proving that you're just as evil and monstrous as I think you are. I predict you will eventually censor me because you can't handle facts.
Correct, things Always produce their own Kind, dogs make dogs, apes make apes, mammals make mammals. That is why humans are still apes, still mammals, still cordates and still animals. You can't outgrow your ancestry.
@gregrutz That might be more than useless if 'kind' were actually a defined term. For instance in your 'X make X' spiel you go from species to order to class.
No one is claiming anything is supposedly outgrowing its ancestry, that alone shows you have zero understanding of evolutionary theory.
@TheScienceFoundation Yes, but remember who we are talking to. The point is one kind of animal does not transform into another kind of animal which is what creationists think evolution is supposed to do but can't. I should have just said Humans are Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Primates, Hominidae, Hominini, Homo, Homo sapiens.
@TheScienceFoundation Creationists think the first dog evolved from millions of years and then had to find a female that by chance evolved to be a dog too.
''Evolution acts upon populations'' would be a giant leap forward in their understanding of TOE
@TheScienceFoundation No, I wasn't lying and you still haven't answered my question that if you're gonna simply wink out of existence, why do you give a shit anyway?
@TheScienceFoundation lol No doubt. I kind of assumed creationists understood evolution correctly but just rejected it. lol (perfect example of why you shouldn't assume) I guess a proper understanding of evolution is harder for them to refute.
@TheScienceFoundation if no one in biology claims that one animal transforms into another. Then are all the biologists creationist. I am sure I can find a ton of biologists that claim this. You call your self the science foundation.
@machinedean100 No, no one literate in biology claims that evolution is one animal transforming into another. Evolution is the continual accrual of genetic changes.
Just for a refresher, the very line after the one Ian quoted from the article he cites reads
"Given that the concentration of U in crustal rocks as well as the N concentration in organic materials are both highly variable, it is not implausible that much if not most of the 14C variability observed in C samples that ought to be 14C dead can be accounted for in this manner also"
wow... just wow... BRAVO Ian... I'm so happy you finally got thepseudosciencefoundation and called him out for the idiot he is. I will watch this video again multiple times! I'm lovin it mwehehwhehe
@alcolyte76 Heh, you actually took what Ian said in this video at face value. That's kind of sad actually. He employed one of the most egregious quote mines I've ever seen.
/watch?v=cE79i1VCTUs
Instead of watching this video several times, go learn real science.
@TheScienceFoundation why don't you disclose your source instead of just giving a quote and expect us to believe you dude? you been on every single video I have watched and done nothing but troll! why dont you go do some science of your own and work on proving your theories to upgrade them from theory instead of trying to bash science you dont agree with lmao... funny thing is, it's still facts even IF you disagree... tbh I dont think you have any clue what you just read on your vid
@alcolyte76 It's from the very article Ian cited. No, I've been on every single video and had to correct massive amounts of fallacy from Ian and other creationists.
'bash science you dont agree with
There is no science here to agree with, Ian is demonstrably wrong and almost beyond any doubt being dishonest here.
"I dont think you have any clue what you just read on your vid"
@TheScienceFoundation All it means is that Neanderthal is completely man. What are you trying to imply? That Neanderthal and non-Africans evolved from a common ancestor, but Africans didn't? That Africans are less man than non-Africans and Neanderthals? If so....ROFL! You share a lot in common with your racist friend Darwin who lumped Africans into the same group as apes. Evolution fails.
@TheScienceFoundation Yes, Neanderthals were not part of any initial human population. They are a branch on the tree of humanity just like any other race which originated from Adam and Eve. This is micro evolution. Neanderthal (along with Cro-Magnon and many other "missing links") have been considered fully man even by evolutionists for a long time. I really don't get what point you're trying to make.
@ubermechazillatron No, there was no Adam and Eve that was the point. If everyone, Neanderthals included, shared common ancestry then everyone and not just non-Africans would share genetic markers with them. They don't.
They were a hominid, they just weren't modern humans. I've made my point, you just don't seem to understand it.
@TheScienceFoundation That's not true at all. If Neanderthal genetics were represented by AB and non-Africans were represented by BC you could see how they share genetics. Africans would have CD meaning they share genetics with non-Africans (which is true), but not with Neanderthals. All this means is that Adam and Eve would have ABCD genetics. Therefore, Neanderthals and Africans are still related and come from a common ancestor.
@ubermechazillatron That is what is known as an ad hoc rationalization, you're making up one unsupported story to try to support your other unsupported story.
@TheScienceFoundation LOL! It's completely supported. Ever hear about the deterioration of the genome? Or the presence of compressed and hidden information in the genome? Or how about the fact that genomes are not static? Any of these could be possible explanations for how Neanderthals and non-Africans are related. Unless you still want to argue that Africans do not share a common ancestor with non-Africans. If so...ROFL!
@ubermechazillatron No, it's not and in fact would go against absolutely everything we know about genetics. The exact markers that non-Africans share with Neanderthals would have to be perfectly and entirely removed from every single African after your imagined divergence.
At this point I see you've returned to your strawman. This does not invalidate African common ancestry, it simply shows that Neanderthals only interbred with the populations that left Africa.
@TheScienceFoundation Neanderthal's name was even changed from Homo neanderthalensis to Homo sapiens neanderthalensis because even evolutionists know it's 100% man. You're merely envoking that Neaderthal evolved separate from Homo sapien from some sort of ape ancestor, and I'm claiming it wasn't an ape but just a human. You merely assume macro is true, which it's not. My claim is far more valid and what I claimed doesn't conflict with true genetics. Again, evolution fails.
@ubermechazillatron In case you didn't notice, that name is still a separate classification. And no, they're not modern humans, Ian's own facts demonstrate that by the fact that only non-Africans share genetic markers with them.
Your claim has zero validity and a basic understanding of the genetics attests to this.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Yeah, and it's silly that the evos named them that. Evos have a hard time admitting that they're wrong so they had to change the name to something that showed they were humans, but also not humans so they didn't have to say sowwy.
Speciation =/= Macro. Dogs producing more dogs is not macro, it's micro. Macro requires morphological changes and new information appearing in the genome.
@MomoTheBellyDancer The stars must have been aligned to have two separate species evolve separately to the point where they could not only produce offspring, but fertile offspring. There are certain breeds of rabbits who cannot produce offspring because their gametes are incompatible and they would be much closer related. I call bull.
Morphology is the base structure of an animal. We don't see bones magically forming in fossils. I don't think you understand macro evolution.
"The stars must have been aligned to have two separate species evolve separately"
Really, you could have found a less roundabout way of stating that you haven't got the foggiest idea what you're talking about. Delve into the subject, do some research, and then get back. This is just pathetic.
"We don't see bones magically forming in fossils."
Macroevolution has been observed many times, you can easily find the papers online, it is an observable fact. Your only criticism can possibly be that macroevolution did not happen in the past, but DOES happen today. That is a strange conclusion of course, but it really is your only option.
And also what defines a species is not always as simple as whether they can interbreed, e.g. dingo is a species but can interbreed with many other dogs.
@TheScienceFoundation What are you talking about?! He didn't say that Neanderthal DNA was found only in non-Africans! His point is that it is found in BOTH Africans and non-Africans alike, proving they are the same! Way to go trying to twist the truth out of context... something you Atheist Evo's are really good at! Well... not that good.
@BloodOfRayne Either you're lying or you didn't even watch the video, the 'point' he was trying to make is that non-Africans only share genetic markers with Neanderthals.
@TheScienceFoundation Where in this video did he specify this because I must have missed it. Surely you will know since you're the one with a massive hard-on for this guy!
@TheScienceFoundation You are going to die when you rot away, right? Why then do you give a f**k about evolution or whatever.... what exactly IS your point? No-one is going to learn anything new about evolution in your short life-span.... and even if they did... you're still fucked! So I ask you again... what's your point?!
@BloodOfRayne I've answered your question twice, I want the world to be a better place than when I found it. That's certainly not going to happen by letting idiocy from people like you and Ian go unchecked.
@TheScienceFoundation Is this a joke?! You WANT the world to be a better place when you won't even exist to know there WAS ever a world! Are you taking the piss?! So all this time, while you were alive you wasted time hoping the world (in which YOU won't exist in anymore) whould be a better place! The most famous atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche would have laughed his arse off at you! His point was there is no point in ANYTHING! But, here you are! lol
@TheScienceFoundation What an inconclusive answer! So... other people exist... is that your answer? What does it matter if other people exist; I'm a theist; you're the atheist... with all the science you've thrown around you're now going emotional?! Science isn't about emotions; science is about what is, and was is not... ! So without using emotion, answer the fucking question!
@TheScienceFoundation No... this is where you fail... I'll ask again; and forget family and friends, that's subjective... you're being totally emotional... science is not about emotions, you know this... on your atheistic view, do you agree there is no ultimate point to life from the individual's view? Dawkins has already conceded this so stop trying to use emotion; you are only science so agian... answer the fucking question!
@BloodOfRayne Your entire question has been a fallacious appeal to emotion and consequence. The fact that some may find the fact that we're going to return to a state of non-consciousness after we're unappealing doesn't change that this is what everything we know indicates happens.
If you're going to rag someone for giving an emotion based answer, make sure you're not being a hypocrite with an emotional question.
@TheScienceFoundation Fuck entire bullshit, answer the fucking question... yes or no! You're life (apart from trolling this guy) is ultimately pointess, right?
@BloodOfRayne You're equivocating temporary with pointless. The case for the opposite could be just as easily, if not better made. If the next life is eternal, then nothing we do here matters.
Though as it stands, there's still nothing to support the idea of an afterlife.
@TheScienceFoundation Just say "yes" and I'll respect you as an atheist which is really hard for me to do.... fuck science... you gonna stop existing, and yet you think there's a point to life!I wanna know what the ultimate point of life is if I'm gonna die like you and not know I ever had a life!
@BloodOfRayne Why is it hard for you to grasp that life is important & people work to make things better even though there's no afterlife? I may be missing your point but it seems to me you feel being kind to people & just being a descent human is for you to get some kind of heavenly afterlife. To us, as an individual, after we die our lives are pointless in that we don't get any reward but it's not pointless to be part of a culture that makes advances & improves others lives that come after us.
@shananagans5 If you really believe that then you completely miss the point of Christianity! I'll be honest... yes, I sometimes think if I do something great, then maybe God will except me. But you miss the fundamental point... I'm a BAD Christian, but that doesn't mean that I can't wish the best for you I MAY go to hell, but that dosen't mean I WANT you too reguarless of my personal ambitions! You don't understand... I may be lost... I don't want YOU to be!
@BloodOfRayne That's my concern about religion. You feel you have to do something great for god to accept you. You don't. You don't need to live up to anyones expectations but your own. Ask yourself honestly if your religion makes you feel better or does it make you feel guilty or not good enough. You, as a human. are not my enemy in any way. I just think religion is responsible for lots of the ills in the world including making people feel guilty for a big part of their wild ride on this earth
@shananagans5 So you see Christianity as Christians having to "live up Christ"? As slaves in some way, following laws? Well yes... we ARE following laws. Let me give you an example... a Priest once said that he couldn't love discusting people like... drunks lying in their pool of piss for example. But... this Priest realized that God wouldn't ask of him what was impossible for him to do as a human but.... through an act of love... he helped him! Charity!
@BloodOfRayne It's simple acts like that, is Christianity.... not slavery, but simply that we show acts of love to those that would otherwise sicken us...? Faith for Christ isn't an act of faith as much as simply acts of love!
@BloodOfRayne You see, I do that for a living. I am a forensic psychologist. About 50% of my work is directly helping people that have really messed up their lives. That's what I wanted to do. I don't need a god to tell me or motivate me to help.
@shananagans5 Really? Then we better forensic pychologist's! WTF is a forenic pyschologist?! FUCK OFF MAN!!! You're no more a forenic twat than I'm the ice-cream man of N.Walse!
@BloodOfRayne lol You seriously don't know what a forensic psychologist is? I establish peoples mental state at the time they commit a crime. I also deal with psych emergencies in the jail.
@shananagans5 No! You don't do it for the reasons you say, you do it so you get paid! How many of your patients roll away from you each day because you couldn't give a fuck? And don't say you haven't felt this way! I would never come to a paid prick like you who see people's emotions as as next weeks mortgage payments! You are exactly the piece of shite in America that doesn't really give a shit if your next patient throws themselves out of the next window!
@BloodOfRayne The truth is that assholes like you are making money off peoples' emotions let have been dealt with through millions of years of evolution?! Now our troubles keep you and your asshole family in the comfy home while those who suffer you leech off! You're nothing but a fucking leech in a suit and be glad you ain't met me cos I'd fucking knock you flat and leave your aftershave smellin' body for the crows!
@BloodOfRayne Anger is a defensive mechanisim that activates when someone feels threatened. Ad hominem is a fallacy of attacking the person rather than their argument. Death threats are illegal in most the modern world. Bad grammar, insults, threats, and anger are all signs of low intelligence. Have a nice day :)
@BloodOfRayne To me, your point seems pretty selfish. You wouldn't care if the world is a better place if you didn't have an afterlife to see it or if you don't get some kind of ultimate personal reward? If I cured cancer it would reduce the suffering of millions but there would be no point in doing that if I am just gone when I die? Your reasoning makes no sense to me. To me it seems you only treat others well & do things to improve the world for 100% selfish reasons. So YOU get into heaven
@shananagans5 Ohhh... you got me all wrong my friend! You say I'm selfish even though I'm trying to convince you that you are a creation of God that he wants back! You say I'm selfish because I care enough about you to want the spiritual best for you! That makes me selfish? To be with you in spiritual happiness makes me selfish? The fact that you want me to just DIE without you and become worm food I'd say was selfish! I wanna meet you in the paradise!
@TheScienceFoundation You're a fucking joke! You don't even know what real ATHEISM means! If you did, you would know that the only reason you troll Ian is because it one of the few things in your life that actually gives your existence meaning.... oh, wait...
Instead, let's use our time wisely and go on youtube and comment on videos because everyone wants to hear what we have to say. Clearly. It feels good to know that we're all doing such a great service. In the process we are definitely helping to shape the minds of others with our aggressive and hostile approach! :) We are positive that everyone is taking what we have to say seriously and are changing their own beliefs right now! isn't that great?
Let's all get really worked up about this video because we're scared that he might be right, we don't want to be wrong or to have other people thinking we're wrong. We KNOW our THEORY is the one and only explanation. So, why try to work together to find the truth when we can tell people what to think? Why listen to other intellectual beings when we have it all figured out? That would be stupid.
@lindseyjean22 Trust me, you don't have to worry about Ian being right. It seems he invests hours into making sure he's demonstrably wrong about everything.
@onceforgivennowfree Firstly he states that Neanderthals are human. This can be falsified just by studying their skeletons. There is the famous forehead ridge, their rib cages were much wider then ours, their craniums actually had a larger brain capacity then ours, their noses were wider, on average they were about 5 feet tall, and in general their bone density was higher then ours. And scientists have studied their genome which shows more difference then would be expected from the same species
@Spocktacular96, I saw a man at Chick-fil-A two or three weeks ago who fit this description. Seriously. He was well-groomed & seemed intelligent, and he had a forehead ridge, wider ribcage, somewhat wide nose, was about 5', maybe 5'5" tops. I can't attest to his cranium size or bone density, sorry. But I took notice of him b/c I had just been learning more about Neanderthals. There are definitely genes that produce these traits within the human gene pool. Neanderthals were & ARE human.
@HeMadeYouSpecial I can think of a couple explanations as to why humans can resemble neanderthals. 1 We share a common ancestor, therefore certain genetic traits as well. 2 they did interbreed with humans, but only because the two species were only beggining to divulge far enough. In either case, no matter what yours or Ian's opinion, Neanderthals are still going to be classified as another species. Because they were
@onceforgivennowfree Then he talks about the fig tree and wasp. He says that because they havent change much in 34 million years it is proof of creation. Well what about before the fossil formed? He admits they are 34 million years old, so when where they created together? He also assumes that because the are codependant now, they have always been that way. It is possible to evolve together, an example would be Hummingbirds and certain long-necked flowers.
@Spocktacular96 The flowers evolve longer necks to protect the nectar and only the Hummingbirds with the longest beaks can reach the nectar, meaning the ones with shorter beaks die out
Atheism will reduce a man to absurdity. As Christians we can account for the laws of logic and the laws of nature. An atheist has a serious problem because he can't account for either, especially the laws of logic that they so highly esteem themselves as following.
Peace to you Brother in the name of Jesus Christ our Saviour :)
@NateWardawg 'As Christians we can account for the laws of logic and the laws of nature'
No, you can't. You have an ad hoc rationalization which is indistinguishable from the invocation of magic. You also don't seem to be aware of the fact that the laws of nature and logic are descriptive, not prescriptive. That means they're our expression of the function of reality.
@NateWardawg Remember brother, Pi is exactly equal to 3, exactly what the bible tells us. Don't be fooled by these atheists, they have been brainwashed by the NWO
As I have mentioned before, Ian has provided ALL the references you need -- commenters have been FAR more gracious and generous to you than you deserve, when YOU are the one launching personal attacks, day in and day out! I don't think you comprehended what you were hearing -- or you twisted things around in your mind to mean something Ian never said. Why don't you approach things honestly? Your unthinking verbal assaults are getting old.
@taratorah As I've mentioned before, the incredibly rare times creationists do cite references they either have absolutely nothing to do with the topic or completely contradict what the creationist claims they say, such as Ian and his 14C in diamonds article in this video here.
Also, I know many autistic people, due to having one in my family.....they obsess about irrational, nonsensical, and imaginary issues in much the same way you do!! Interesting.
@taratorah I like the part where you tried to completely change the subject with an ad hominem, then tried to imply that you haven't made just as many responses as I have.
That question again was;
Would you swear to your god that the paper Ian cites says exactly what he claims it says?
Now, now. Just because YOU skip from one point to the next when your illogic is exposed, and just because YOU attack people for their "ignorance" does NOT mean that everyone behaves like you. You apply new and inappropriate meanings to terms such as "ad hominem", "straw man",and "fallacy", and then fling them at people who are only trying to help you understand. If you really believe Ian is "lying", why not just go your way and feel superior?
@taratorah The only illogical behavior exposed here was on the part of creationists. Not only illogical, but outright deceptive. It's not a matter of believing he's lying, he's demonstrably lying;
How many times do I have to tell you? There is NO moral imperative that requires me to do your homework for you! I don't CARE what you believe! You have already chosen to believe what you prefer to believe, and you have shown the YT community that anyone who kindly shares information with you that doesn't suit your worldview only earns your disrespect. Why would I or anyone else want to bother to "present evidence" for such disrespect?
@TheScienceFoundation WOW! Ian and GMH completely destroyed you in this video, You should just terminate your YT account and create a new one because your reputation has been destroyed! Your fans must be so disappointed.
@TheScienceFoundation You havent shown anything accept your ignorance and futile attempts to prove him wrong. Ian already showed that you missed the point he was making anyway,NTM you accused him of lying and he refuted that also. Hence your video was worthless.
@RaytownSoClassof2010 Which part of that video showing that Ian lied regarding the conclusion of the 14C paper are you having trouble comprehending? Because here, in reality, it says the exact opposite of what he claimed it said. The only thing he showed was his desperate further attempt to cover up his dishonesty with more dishonesty by implying that the paper said something about rapid decay of 14C.
@RaytownSoClassof2010 He specifically quote mined part of the conclusion that supports his fallacious claim. The conclusion in its entirety completely contradicts what he claimed, as I've pointed out to you directly three times
/watch?v=cE79i1VCTUs
^His egregiously dishonest quote mine is exposed in that video.
@fractalfires Don't do it for me brah, you gotta chill for jesus or jah rastafari. Gotta relax a bit before the end, u know what i'm saying? Gotta be less negative aye, chuck on a bob marley record or somthing. I'm sure jesus would have done that before his crucifiction. That man was the essence of positive vibes aye.
@fractalfires My goodness, your panties are in a wad. Despite your cries of anguish, Ian remains merely an amiable grifter spewing nonsense for people who crave only nonsense. Enjoy!
@fractalfires I simply pointed out the patently obvious fact that Ian is a scientifically illiterate buffoon. If imagining that Ian is otherwise is crucial to your happiness, then your lot in life is indeed pitiable.
@Orenotter Yes they do. Simply because we interbred to a very minimal extent does not make us one species. There are numerous examples of plant and animal species that can interbreed both in the wild or in captivity and produce fertile offspring, yet the parents are considered separate species. Neanderthals are morphologically very distinct and the both of us evolved in an entirely different environment from two geographically separate populations (European and African) of H.heidelbergensis.
1) Indivduals within breeding populations vary; 2) the variants most successful in survivng in their environment have a better chance of passing on their DNA; 3) there is norhing in evolution that says the most succesful variant figs and wasps couldn't remain largely unchanged for 34 million years; and 4) symbiotic relationships need to arise suddenly and completely in a single generation. An increasingly symbiotic relationship could evolve over time.
@fractalfires They are not human. They have a different brain shape, smaller parietal and temporal lobes, a distinct middle ear, extremely different mitochondrial DNA, taurodontism of the teeth, and a faster growth rate. Their tools are not as advanced, and they had different cultural and social behaviors. Their postcranial skeletons are generally far more robust as well.
@TheScienceFoundation Ian also neglected to mention that it isn't only-non African whites that share Neanderthal DNA. It's Asians as well. They've tested individuals from China and Papua New Guinea. Humans and Neanderthals also share the same two point mutation of the FOXP2 gene which is associated with language, suggesting the mutation occurred in Homo heidelbergensis prior to the split of our two lineages. You are completely right in pointing out Ian has made few, if any, valid statements.
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20
Excellent video again Ian! It amazes me that atheistic evolutionists have the audacity to judge a person's intellect on whether or not, they have a degree. Your knowledge of Science is superior to most if not all of those here, including myself. It is unfortunate that debate can't be made here by evolutionists, without them resorting to ad hominem attacks and filthy insults. I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man than a fool in the eyes of God!
@JesuismyKing "Your knowledge of Science is superior to most if not all of those here"
Hahaha, he wasn't even aware that markers from Neanderthals only being in non-African whites is evidence that they WEREN'T initially part of the human population.
Sorry to break it to you, Ian is not terribly bright.
Oh, I beg your pardon! I obviously touched a nerve stating Ian Juby was more knowledgeable than your great self. I suspect, however, that there are many things that you don't know much about, which judging by most of your comments here includes real Science. According to the "pro evolution" National Research Council of the US, who set their standards for the critera that defines Science, evolution comes no where close to being science, but a religion!
@JesuismyKing I looked, and it doesn't appear that the National Research Council said such things, the Creation Research Institute does however. As I was looking, I found that the National Academy of Sciences does accept evolution.
Looking at your page, I've discovered that you're just another one of those dickheads who plasters irrelevant science over his page to make himself seem informed. Sadly your nothing of the sort.
Clearly you can't comprehend a simple statement in plain English! I never said that's what the NRC, (PRO EVOLUTION DUH!! stipulated. Do your research and you'll catch my drift, idiot.
@JesuismyKing Your statement is pretty clear champ, and it would take a creationist like yourself to misinterpret it (as they so often do with scientific data, it's a crying shame). Re-read it yourself before you make another silly comment.
He knows this! Notice in his response -- he has defined a person who has no right to "judge understanding of science" as a person who thinks Ian "is intelligent and has actually made valid points"! I'd like to find that in a college textbook somewhere. Wow -- talk about rewriting the rules of logic! XD
I will not be bothering to answer your "questions", as they are merely opportunities for you to invent new definitions, new "scientific facts", and new ways to belittle and mock people who actually bother to do their own homework. You seem to believe I owe you something.
You've already written me off as stupid and ignorant, so why even bother? You are not able to throw me off balance, or gain any type of control.
@taratorah You think asking you to support your position is part of some sort of conspiracy? You don't think people should expect you to support your claims with evidence?
Can you support your claims with evidence? Yes or no.
I can support my "claims" all day and all night, but I do not owe you ANYTHING! You should consider just going your way, and assuming that I won't provide you with evidence because YOU have already decided that I "don't have any". So, all you need to comprehend here is that there is no moral imperative for me to obey your demands. Off you go!
@TheScienceFoundation Ignorant ? liar? Ian made you look bad, so you insult. It means he beat you on the merit of his claims. All the books in the world can't make you a good person. You world view does.
'It means he beat you on the merit of his claims'
hahaha I've already exposed him ; /watch?v=cE79i1VCTUs
The MOST that could be said for Ian is that he's so incompetent that he couldn't read or comprehend the entire conclusion of the article he himself cited.
Comment removed
machinedean100 1 month ago
You rock dog!
machinedean100 1 month ago
@machinedean100 You have that backwards, my reply to this video demonstrates how Ian flatout lied regarding his source /watch?v=cE79i1VCTUs
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation Do you really want me to? Do you!
machinedean100 1 month ago
@machinedean100 Yes, I want you to see exactly how Ian lied.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation OK I will look into it. Ya know though I have the strangest feeling after seeing your comment it. That what ever it is, is bs.
machinedean100 1 month ago
@machinedean100 So basically what you're saying is that for no reason at all, you're going to assume what I'm saying is wrong?
Try actually looking into it first *then* making a conclusion. The article Ian cited says the diametric opposite of what he claims it does and dishonesty is the only possible explanation because the contradiction to his quote mine was the very next line of the article.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation Well not for no reason. I have 2 reasons thus far. One you are actually on the forum accusing the man of being liar and our not blocked. Two this statement that you made is pure bs "The point is no one that is actually literate in biology is claiming 'one animal transforms into another". Which you actually sought it out and re thumbed up after I thumbed it down. Your probably the second thumb up also. Why it is elementary my dear Watson a trail of bs usually leads to bs.
machinedean100 1 month ago
@machinedean100 Not only is it not bs, the very source you seem so keen on ignoring shows that he was being willfully dishonest and 2: Thumbing my comment down doesn't change the fact that creationists have a horrific misconception of evolution, thinking it means 'one animal transforms into another'
You've addressed none of my points, only tried to invent nonsense to ignore it all the while having no idea what constitutes bs. If you did you wouldn't be a creationist.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
Go wazooloo you rock!
machinedean100 1 month ago
@machinedean100 Again, no, it's been shown that Ian is willfully dishonest.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation You were just willfully dishonest.
machinedean100 1 month ago
Lol I love your videos man. Keep stick in it to em.
machinedean100 1 month ago
@machinedean100 He's already been shown to be a liar.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation This is hopeless.
machinedean100 1 month ago
My only conclusion from this is that Ian Juby is not an evolved being.
pezzamange 1 month ago in playlist Genesis Week
Truth? You want some truth? How about this? Your god murders babies. Noah's Flood, 10th Plague of Egypt. Now defend global infanticide proving that you're just as evil and monstrous as I think you are. I predict you will eventually censor me because you can't handle facts.
LordSlag 2 months ago
Correct, things Always produce their own Kind, dogs make dogs, apes make apes, mammals make mammals. That is why humans are still apes, still mammals, still cordates and still animals. You can't outgrow your ancestry.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz That might be more than useless if 'kind' were actually a defined term. For instance in your 'X make X' spiel you go from species to order to class.
No one is claiming anything is supposedly outgrowing its ancestry, that alone shows you have zero understanding of evolutionary theory.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Yes, but remember who we are talking to. The point is one kind of animal does not transform into another kind of animal which is what creationists think evolution is supposed to do but can't. I should have just said Humans are Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Primates, Hominidae, Hominini, Homo, Homo sapiens.
Is that better?
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz The point is no one that is actually literate in biology is claiming 'one animal transforms into another'
There's your problem, It's what creationists think of how evolution acts upon populations.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago 2
@TheScienceFoundation Creationists think the first dog evolved from millions of years and then had to find a female that by chance evolved to be a dog too.
''Evolution acts upon populations'' would be a giant leap forward in their understanding of TOE
gregrutz 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation No, I wasn't lying and you still haven't answered my question that if you're gonna simply wink out of existence, why do you give a shit anyway?
BloodOfRayne 1 month ago
@BloodOfRayne Then you were ignorant. Because this is all we get, I don't want it screwed up by a bunch of fundamentalists.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation lol No doubt. I kind of assumed creationists understood evolution correctly but just rejected it. lol (perfect example of why you shouldn't assume) I guess a proper understanding of evolution is harder for them to refute.
shananagans5 1 month ago in playlist More videos from wazooloo
@TheScienceFoundation if no one in biology claims that one animal transforms into another. Then are all the biologists creationist. I am sure I can find a ton of biologists that claim this. You call your self the science foundation.
machinedean100 1 month ago
@machinedean100 No, no one literate in biology claims that evolution is one animal transforming into another. Evolution is the continual accrual of genetic changes.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
Just for a refresher, the very line after the one Ian quoted from the article he cites reads
"Given that the concentration of U in crustal rocks as well as the N concentration in organic materials are both highly variable, it is not implausible that much if not most of the 14C variability observed in C samples that ought to be 14C dead can be accounted for in this manner also"
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
wow... just wow... BRAVO Ian... I'm so happy you finally got thepseudosciencefoundation and called him out for the idiot he is. I will watch this video again multiple times! I'm lovin it mwehehwhehe
alcolyte76 4 months ago in playlist crevo rant
@alcolyte76 Heh, you actually took what Ian said in this video at face value. That's kind of sad actually. He employed one of the most egregious quote mines I've ever seen.
/watch?v=cE79i1VCTUs
Instead of watching this video several times, go learn real science.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation why don't you disclose your source instead of just giving a quote and expect us to believe you dude? you been on every single video I have watched and done nothing but troll! why dont you go do some science of your own and work on proving your theories to upgrade them from theory instead of trying to bash science you dont agree with lmao... funny thing is, it's still facts even IF you disagree... tbh I dont think you have any clue what you just read on your vid
alcolyte76 4 months ago
@alcolyte76 It's from the very article Ian cited. No, I've been on every single video and had to correct massive amounts of fallacy from Ian and other creationists.
'bash science you dont agree with
There is no science here to agree with, Ian is demonstrably wrong and almost beyond any doubt being dishonest here.
"I dont think you have any clue what you just read on your vid"
You should read up on psychological projection.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
It still cracks me up that Ian thinks Neanderthal DNA being found only in non-Africans is somehow evidence of an original all human population.
It means the exact opposite.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago 4
@TheScienceFoundation All it means is that Neanderthal is completely man. What are you trying to imply? That Neanderthal and non-Africans evolved from a common ancestor, but Africans didn't? That Africans are less man than non-Africans and Neanderthals? If so....ROFL! You share a lot in common with your racist friend Darwin who lumped Africans into the same group as apes. Evolution fails.
ubermechazillatron 2 months ago
@ubermechazillatron No, that means that Neanderthals were *not* part of any initial human population and genetically could not have been.
You're resorting to strawmanning and personal attack now. If you can't stick with an actual conversation on genetics, just say so.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Yes, Neanderthals were not part of any initial human population. They are a branch on the tree of humanity just like any other race which originated from Adam and Eve. This is micro evolution. Neanderthal (along with Cro-Magnon and many other "missing links") have been considered fully man even by evolutionists for a long time. I really don't get what point you're trying to make.
ubermechazillatron 2 months ago
@ubermechazillatron No, there was no Adam and Eve that was the point. If everyone, Neanderthals included, shared common ancestry then everyone and not just non-Africans would share genetic markers with them. They don't.
They were a hominid, they just weren't modern humans. I've made my point, you just don't seem to understand it.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation That's not true at all. If Neanderthal genetics were represented by AB and non-Africans were represented by BC you could see how they share genetics. Africans would have CD meaning they share genetics with non-Africans (which is true), but not with Neanderthals. All this means is that Adam and Eve would have ABCD genetics. Therefore, Neanderthals and Africans are still related and come from a common ancestor.
ubermechazillatron 2 months ago
@ubermechazillatron That is what is known as an ad hoc rationalization, you're making up one unsupported story to try to support your other unsupported story.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation LOL! It's completely supported. Ever hear about the deterioration of the genome? Or the presence of compressed and hidden information in the genome? Or how about the fact that genomes are not static? Any of these could be possible explanations for how Neanderthals and non-Africans are related. Unless you still want to argue that Africans do not share a common ancestor with non-Africans. If so...ROFL!
ubermechazillatron 2 months ago
@ubermechazillatron No, it's not and in fact would go against absolutely everything we know about genetics. The exact markers that non-Africans share with Neanderthals would have to be perfectly and entirely removed from every single African after your imagined divergence.
At this point I see you've returned to your strawman. This does not invalidate African common ancestry, it simply shows that Neanderthals only interbred with the populations that left Africa.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Neanderthal's name was even changed from Homo neanderthalensis to Homo sapiens neanderthalensis because even evolutionists know it's 100% man. You're merely envoking that Neaderthal evolved separate from Homo sapien from some sort of ape ancestor, and I'm claiming it wasn't an ape but just a human. You merely assume macro is true, which it's not. My claim is far more valid and what I claimed doesn't conflict with true genetics. Again, evolution fails.
ubermechazillatron 2 months ago
@ubermechazillatron In case you didn't notice, that name is still a separate classification. And no, they're not modern humans, Ian's own facts demonstrate that by the fact that only non-Africans share genetic markers with them.
Your claim has zero validity and a basic understanding of the genetics attests to this.
TheScienceFoundation 2 months ago
@ubermechazillatron
"Homo sapiens neanderthalensis"
Yes, and not Homo sapiens sapiens.
"You merely assume macro is true, which it's not."
We have seen speciation happen, booth in the lab and in the wild.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Yeah, and it's silly that the evos named them that. Evos have a hard time admitting that they're wrong so they had to change the name to something that showed they were humans, but also not humans so they didn't have to say sowwy.
Speciation =/= Macro. Dogs producing more dogs is not macro, it's micro. Macro requires morphological changes and new information appearing in the genome.
ubermechazillatron 2 months ago
@ubermechazillatron
"Evos have a hard time admitting that they're wrong"
And why should they admit that, seeing how there is a massive amount of evidence for evolution?
"something that showed they were humans"
It shows that there were highly related to us, but not the same. They were a different species, but still close enough to interbreed with.
"Speciation =/= Macro. "
Huh? That's a new one.
"Macro requires morphological changes "
And that's exactly what we see.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer The stars must have been aligned to have two separate species evolve separately to the point where they could not only produce offspring, but fertile offspring. There are certain breeds of rabbits who cannot produce offspring because their gametes are incompatible and they would be much closer related. I call bull.
Morphology is the base structure of an animal. We don't see bones magically forming in fossils. I don't think you understand macro evolution.
ubermechazillatron 2 months ago
@ubermechazillatron
"The stars must have been aligned to have two separate species evolve separately"
Really, you could have found a less roundabout way of stating that you haven't got the foggiest idea what you're talking about. Delve into the subject, do some research, and then get back. This is just pathetic.
"We don't see bones magically forming in fossils."
Of course not. Magic is the realm of YOU people.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago
@ubermechazillatron
Macroevolution has been observed many times, you can easily find the papers online, it is an observable fact. Your only criticism can possibly be that macroevolution did not happen in the past, but DOES happen today. That is a strange conclusion of course, but it really is your only option.
And also what defines a species is not always as simple as whether they can interbreed, e.g. dingo is a species but can interbreed with many other dogs.
pezzamange 1 month ago in playlist Genesis Week
@TheScienceFoundation What are you talking about?! He didn't say that Neanderthal DNA was found only in non-Africans! His point is that it is found in BOTH Africans and non-Africans alike, proving they are the same! Way to go trying to twist the truth out of context... something you Atheist Evo's are really good at! Well... not that good.
BloodOfRayne 1 month ago
@BloodOfRayne Either you're lying or you didn't even watch the video, the 'point' he was trying to make is that non-Africans only share genetic markers with Neanderthals.
news.discovery(.)com/human/genetics-neanderthal-110718.html
"All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm"
Try actually learning before posting, maybe you won't look like an idiot.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation Where in this video did he specify this because I must have missed it. Surely you will know since you're the one with a massive hard-on for this guy!
BloodOfRayne 1 month ago
@BloodOfRayne It's even in the description; 'Non-african Neanderthal'
What part would make you even think he was implying that Neanderthals shared markers with Africans?
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation You haven't answered my question....on your veiw, death is your full stop, so tell me why you care!
BloodOfRayne 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation You are going to die when you rot away, right? Why then do you give a f**k about evolution or whatever.... what exactly IS your point? No-one is going to learn anything new about evolution in your short life-span.... and even if they did... you're still fucked! So I ask you again... what's your point?!
BloodOfRayne 1 month ago
@BloodOfRayne I've answered your question twice, I want the world to be a better place than when I found it. That's certainly not going to happen by letting idiocy from people like you and Ian go unchecked.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation Is this a joke?! You WANT the world to be a better place when you won't even exist to know there WAS ever a world! Are you taking the piss?! So all this time, while you were alive you wasted time hoping the world (in which YOU won't exist in anymore) whould be a better place! The most famous atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche would have laughed his arse off at you! His point was there is no point in ANYTHING! But, here you are! lol
BloodOfRayne 1 month ago
@BloodOfRayne So all you're concerned about is your well being while you're here?
Not sure if you're aware, but other people exist, and will exist.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation What an inconclusive answer! So... other people exist... is that your answer? What does it matter if other people exist; I'm a theist; you're the atheist... with all the science you've thrown around you're now going emotional?! Science isn't about emotions; science is about what is, and was is not... ! So without using emotion, answer the fucking question!
BloodOfRayne 1 month ago
@BloodOfRayne Now you're getting it, I take the well being of others into consideration in my decision making.
I couldn't imagine being so shortsighted as to not do so.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation No... this is where you fail... I'll ask again; and forget family and friends, that's subjective... you're being totally emotional... science is not about emotions, you know this... on your atheistic view, do you agree there is no ultimate point to life from the individual's view? Dawkins has already conceded this so stop trying to use emotion; you are only science so agian... answer the fucking question!
BloodOfRayne 1 month ago
@BloodOfRayne Your entire question has been a fallacious appeal to emotion and consequence. The fact that some may find the fact that we're going to return to a state of non-consciousness after we're unappealing doesn't change that this is what everything we know indicates happens.
If you're going to rag someone for giving an emotion based answer, make sure you're not being a hypocrite with an emotional question.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation Fuck entire bullshit, answer the fucking question... yes or no! You're life (apart from trolling this guy) is ultimately pointess, right?
BloodOfRayne 1 month ago
@BloodOfRayne You're equivocating temporary with pointless. The case for the opposite could be just as easily, if not better made. If the next life is eternal, then nothing we do here matters.
Though as it stands, there's still nothing to support the idea of an afterlife.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation Just say "yes" and I'll respect you as an atheist which is really hard for me to do.... fuck science... you gonna stop existing, and yet you think there's a point to life!I wanna know what the ultimate point of life is if I'm gonna die like you and not know I ever had a life!
BloodOfRayne 1 month ago
@BloodOfRayne Why is it hard for you to grasp that life is important & people work to make things better even though there's no afterlife? I may be missing your point but it seems to me you feel being kind to people & just being a descent human is for you to get some kind of heavenly afterlife. To us, as an individual, after we die our lives are pointless in that we don't get any reward but it's not pointless to be part of a culture that makes advances & improves others lives that come after us.
shananagans5 1 month ago in playlist More videos from wazooloo
@shananagans5 If you really believe that then you completely miss the point of Christianity! I'll be honest... yes, I sometimes think if I do something great, then maybe God will except me. But you miss the fundamental point... I'm a BAD Christian, but that doesn't mean that I can't wish the best for you I MAY go to hell, but that dosen't mean I WANT you too reguarless of my personal ambitions! You don't understand... I may be lost... I don't want YOU to be!
BloodOfRayne 1 month ago
@BloodOfRayne That's my concern about religion. You feel you have to do something great for god to accept you. You don't. You don't need to live up to anyones expectations but your own. Ask yourself honestly if your religion makes you feel better or does it make you feel guilty or not good enough. You, as a human. are not my enemy in any way. I just think religion is responsible for lots of the ills in the world including making people feel guilty for a big part of their wild ride on this earth
shananagans5 1 month ago
@shananagans5 So you see Christianity as Christians having to "live up Christ"? As slaves in some way, following laws? Well yes... we ARE following laws. Let me give you an example... a Priest once said that he couldn't love discusting people like... drunks lying in their pool of piss for example. But... this Priest realized that God wouldn't ask of him what was impossible for him to do as a human but.... through an act of love... he helped him! Charity!
BloodOfRayne 1 month ago
Comment removed
BloodOfRayne 1 month ago
@BloodOfRayne It's simple acts like that, is Christianity.... not slavery, but simply that we show acts of love to those that would otherwise sicken us...? Faith for Christ isn't an act of faith as much as simply acts of love!
BloodOfRayne 1 month ago
Comment removed
BloodOfRayne 1 month ago
@BloodOfRayne You see, I do that for a living. I am a forensic psychologist. About 50% of my work is directly helping people that have really messed up their lives. That's what I wanted to do. I don't need a god to tell me or motivate me to help.
shananagans5 1 month ago
@shananagans5 Really? Then we better forensic pychologist's! WTF is a forenic pyschologist?! FUCK OFF MAN!!! You're no more a forenic twat than I'm the ice-cream man of N.Walse!
BloodOfRayne 1 month ago
@BloodOfRayne lol You seriously don't know what a forensic psychologist is? I establish peoples mental state at the time they commit a crime. I also deal with psych emergencies in the jail.
shananagans5 1 month ago
@shananagans5 I know what one is... I just know you ain't one! If you are... then God help us!
BloodOfRayne 1 month ago
@shananagans5 No! You don't do it for the reasons you say, you do it so you get paid! How many of your patients roll away from you each day because you couldn't give a fuck? And don't say you haven't felt this way! I would never come to a paid prick like you who see people's emotions as as next weeks mortgage payments! You are exactly the piece of shite in America that doesn't really give a shit if your next patient throws themselves out of the next window!
BloodOfRayne 1 month ago
@BloodOfRayne The truth is that assholes like you are making money off peoples' emotions let have been dealt with through millions of years of evolution?! Now our troubles keep you and your asshole family in the comfy home while those who suffer you leech off! You're nothing but a fucking leech in a suit and be glad you ain't met me cos I'd fucking knock you flat and leave your aftershave smellin' body for the crows!
BloodOfRayne 1 month ago
@BloodOfRayne Anger is a defensive mechanisim that activates when someone feels threatened. Ad hominem is a fallacy of attacking the person rather than their argument. Death threats are illegal in most the modern world. Bad grammar, insults, threats, and anger are all signs of low intelligence. Have a nice day :)
BenWalburn 3 days ago
@BloodOfRayne To me, your point seems pretty selfish. You wouldn't care if the world is a better place if you didn't have an afterlife to see it or if you don't get some kind of ultimate personal reward? If I cured cancer it would reduce the suffering of millions but there would be no point in doing that if I am just gone when I die? Your reasoning makes no sense to me. To me it seems you only treat others well & do things to improve the world for 100% selfish reasons. So YOU get into heaven
shananagans5 1 month ago in playlist More videos from wazooloo
@shananagans5 Ohhh... you got me all wrong my friend! You say I'm selfish even though I'm trying to convince you that you are a creation of God that he wants back! You say I'm selfish because I care enough about you to want the spiritual best for you! That makes me selfish? To be with you in spiritual happiness makes me selfish? The fact that you want me to just DIE without you and become worm food I'd say was selfish! I wanna meet you in the paradise!
BloodOfRayne 1 month ago
Comment removed
BloodOfRayne 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation You're a fucking joke! You don't even know what real ATHEISM means! If you did, you would know that the only reason you troll Ian is because it one of the few things in your life that actually gives your existence meaning.... oh, wait...
BloodOfRayne 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wazooloo i've dealth with the"science"foundation b4; eventually his claims became so overwhelming, that i had to make a video about it.
sit back and secure urself lest u fall down laughing; here's part 1
watch?v=Fiizg3PSQUM
leviMichealathan 6 months ago
Comment removed
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
Instead, let's use our time wisely and go on youtube and comment on videos because everyone wants to hear what we have to say. Clearly. It feels good to know that we're all doing such a great service. In the process we are definitely helping to shape the minds of others with our aggressive and hostile approach! :) We are positive that everyone is taking what we have to say seriously and are changing their own beliefs right now! isn't that great?
lindseyjean22 6 months ago
Let's all get really worked up about this video because we're scared that he might be right, we don't want to be wrong or to have other people thinking we're wrong. We KNOW our THEORY is the one and only explanation. So, why try to work together to find the truth when we can tell people what to think? Why listen to other intellectual beings when we have it all figured out? That would be stupid.
lindseyjean22 6 months ago
@lindseyjean22 Trust me, you don't have to worry about Ian being right. It seems he invests hours into making sure he's demonstrably wrong about everything.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@lindseyjean22 You think this guy is intellectual?
Cactarpus 6 months ago
This guy is utterly stupid.
odinata 6 months ago
He talks like he does not know Evolution was accepted 150 years ago ?!?
gregrutz 6 months ago
They found another fossil and now there are 2 gaps. !!
IDiots.
No they did not date Mt. St Helens rock incorrectly.
Radiometric dating works fine.
Geologists knew the earth was old before radiometric dating was invented.
gregrutz 6 months ago
You're full of shit. I'm sorry but you just can't be serious
Spocktacular96 6 months ago
@Spocktacular96
troll....come back when you have arguments!
onceforgivennowfree 6 months ago
@onceforgivennowfree Here's one
The conclusion of the article Ian cited says the exact opposite of what he claimed
/watch?v=cE79i1VCTUs
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago 4
@onceforgivennowfree Firstly he states that Neanderthals are human. This can be falsified just by studying their skeletons. There is the famous forehead ridge, their rib cages were much wider then ours, their craniums actually had a larger brain capacity then ours, their noses were wider, on average they were about 5 feet tall, and in general their bone density was higher then ours. And scientists have studied their genome which shows more difference then would be expected from the same species
Spocktacular96 6 months ago
@Spocktacular96, I saw a man at Chick-fil-A two or three weeks ago who fit this description. Seriously. He was well-groomed & seemed intelligent, and he had a forehead ridge, wider ribcage, somewhat wide nose, was about 5', maybe 5'5" tops. I can't attest to his cranium size or bone density, sorry. But I took notice of him b/c I had just been learning more about Neanderthals. There are definitely genes that produce these traits within the human gene pool. Neanderthals were & ARE human.
HeMadeYouSpecial 6 months ago
@HeMadeYouSpecial I can think of a couple explanations as to why humans can resemble neanderthals. 1 We share a common ancestor, therefore certain genetic traits as well. 2 they did interbreed with humans, but only because the two species were only beggining to divulge far enough. In either case, no matter what yours or Ian's opinion, Neanderthals are still going to be classified as another species. Because they were
Spocktacular96 6 months ago
@onceforgivennowfree Then he talks about the fig tree and wasp. He says that because they havent change much in 34 million years it is proof of creation. Well what about before the fossil formed? He admits they are 34 million years old, so when where they created together? He also assumes that because the are codependant now, they have always been that way. It is possible to evolve together, an example would be Hummingbirds and certain long-necked flowers.
Spocktacular96 6 months ago
@Spocktacular96 The flowers evolve longer necks to protect the nectar and only the Hummingbirds with the longest beaks can reach the nectar, meaning the ones with shorter beaks die out
Spocktacular96 6 months ago
@onceforgivennowfree Does everyone call "troll" when they have no arguments of their own?
mrfrenik 6 months ago
Some interesting arguments!
VyckRo 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Excellent !
God bless.
14dicken 6 months ago
It's so sad to see how many people have fallen under the impression that Ian is somehow intelligent.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
Thanks for the video(s) Ian.
Atheism will reduce a man to absurdity. As Christians we can account for the laws of logic and the laws of nature. An atheist has a serious problem because he can't account for either, especially the laws of logic that they so highly esteem themselves as following.
Peace to you Brother in the name of Jesus Christ our Saviour :)
NateWardawg 6 months ago
@NateWardawg 'As Christians we can account for the laws of logic and the laws of nature'
No, you can't. You have an ad hoc rationalization which is indistinguishable from the invocation of magic. You also don't seem to be aware of the fact that the laws of nature and logic are descriptive, not prescriptive. That means they're our expression of the function of reality.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@NateWardawg Remember brother, Pi is exactly equal to 3, exactly what the bible tells us. Don't be fooled by these atheists, they have been brainwashed by the NWO
HumanTargetAus 6 months ago
Here they are! The comments from the clueless who cry foul, whine "liar", and can't provide a cohesive, coherent response. Ian, FTW!
taratorah 6 months ago
This is one of the BEST vids yet!
taratorah 6 months ago
@taratorah Would you swear to your god that the paper Ian cites says exactly what he claims it says?
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
So.....this is your full-time job? ;)
taratorah 6 months ago
@taratorah I like the part where you dodged my question and resorted to a vague personal attack
To remind you of the question you dodged;
Would you swear to your god that the paper Ian cites says exactly what he claims it says?
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
As I have mentioned before, Ian has provided ALL the references you need -- commenters have been FAR more gracious and generous to you than you deserve, when YOU are the one launching personal attacks, day in and day out! I don't think you comprehended what you were hearing -- or you twisted things around in your mind to mean something Ian never said. Why don't you approach things honestly? Your unthinking verbal assaults are getting old.
taratorah 6 months ago
@taratorah As I've mentioned before, the incredibly rare times creationists do cite references they either have absolutely nothing to do with the topic or completely contradict what the creationist claims they say, such as Ian and his 14C in diamonds article in this video here.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Also, I know many autistic people, due to having one in my family.....they obsess about irrational, nonsensical, and imaginary issues in much the same way you do!! Interesting.
taratorah 6 months ago
@taratorah I like the part where you tried to completely change the subject with an ad hominem, then tried to imply that you haven't made just as many responses as I have.
That question again was;
Would you swear to your god that the paper Ian cites says exactly what he claims it says?
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Now, now. Just because YOU skip from one point to the next when your illogic is exposed, and just because YOU attack people for their "ignorance" does NOT mean that everyone behaves like you. You apply new and inappropriate meanings to terms such as "ad hominem", "straw man",and "fallacy", and then fling them at people who are only trying to help you understand. If you really believe Ian is "lying", why not just go your way and feel superior?
taratorah 6 months ago
@taratorah The only illogical behavior exposed here was on the part of creationists. Not only illogical, but outright deceptive. It's not a matter of believing he's lying, he's demonstrably lying;
watch?v=cE79i1VCTUs
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
*sigh*
Do you always wing it? Wait -- don't answer that. Your agenda is showing!
taratorah 6 months ago
@taratorah So then you should easily be able to present a single piece of positive evidence for creationism.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
How many times do I have to tell you? There is NO moral imperative that requires me to do your homework for you! I don't CARE what you believe! You have already chosen to believe what you prefer to believe, and you have shown the YT community that anyone who kindly shares information with you that doesn't suit your worldview only earns your disrespect. Why would I or anyone else want to bother to "present evidence" for such disrespect?
taratorah 6 months ago
@taratorah It's not you doing my homework for me, it's you supporting your claim. Which is how science works.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation WOW! Ian and GMH completely destroyed you in this video, You should just terminate your YT account and create a new one because your reputation has been destroyed! Your fans must be so disappointed.
RaytownSoClassof2010 6 months ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 Hahahaha, I like how you implied that I haven't already shown Ian to be a liar regarding the 14C paper
/watch?v=cE79i1VCTUs
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation You havent shown anything accept your ignorance and futile attempts to prove him wrong. Ian already showed that you missed the point he was making anyway,NTM you accused him of lying and he refuted that also. Hence your video was worthless.
RaytownSoClassof2010 6 months ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 Which part of that video showing that Ian lied regarding the conclusion of the 14C paper are you having trouble comprehending? Because here, in reality, it says the exact opposite of what he claimed it said. The only thing he showed was his desperate further attempt to cover up his dishonesty with more dishonesty by implying that the paper said something about rapid decay of 14C.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation Haha Ian specifically read the paper to you and you still keep on with your lies, I feel sorry for you.
RaytownSoClassof2010 6 months ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 He specifically quote mined part of the conclusion that supports his fallacious claim. The conclusion in its entirety completely contradicts what he claimed, as I've pointed out to you directly three times
/watch?v=cE79i1VCTUs
^His egregiously dishonest quote mine is exposed in that video.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation HAHAHA!
KnowledgeAddicted 6 months ago
@taratorah We cry foul because he demonstrably lied. The conclusion of the paper he cited says the exact opposite of what he claimed it does.
'and can't provide a cohesive, coherent response'
/watch?v=cE79i1VCTUs
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
What, no Wikipedia page??! XD
taratorah 6 months ago
@taratorah Actually in this case the refutation to Ian's garbage was in the very paper Ian cited.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@fractalfires Don't do it for me brah, you gotta chill for jesus or jah rastafari. Gotta relax a bit before the end, u know what i'm saying? Gotta be less negative aye, chuck on a bob marley record or somthing. I'm sure jesus would have done that before his crucifiction. That man was the essence of positive vibes aye.
Peace dreaddy
HumanTargetAus 6 months ago
It's worth reminding folks that Ian demonstrably lied in this video regarding his reading from the conclusion of the paper about 14C in diamonds.
/watch?v=cE79i1VCTUs
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@fractalfires u mad brah? Chill, its teh interwebs!!!1!1
HumanTargetAus 6 months ago
@fractalfires My goodness, your panties are in a wad. Despite your cries of anguish, Ian remains merely an amiable grifter spewing nonsense for people who crave only nonsense. Enjoy!
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
@fractalfires I simply pointed out the patently obvious fact that Ian is a scientifically illiterate buffoon. If imagining that Ian is otherwise is crucial to your happiness, then your lot in life is indeed pitiable.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
@Orenotter Yes they do. Simply because we interbred to a very minimal extent does not make us one species. There are numerous examples of plant and animal species that can interbreed both in the wild or in captivity and produce fertile offspring, yet the parents are considered separate species. Neanderthals are morphologically very distinct and the both of us evolved in an entirely different environment from two geographically separate populations (European and African) of H.heidelbergensis.
Vegavis 6 months ago
@fractalfires Ian's sense of humor is passable; Ian's "science" is unadulterated excrement.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
1) Indivduals within breeding populations vary; 2) the variants most successful in survivng in their environment have a better chance of passing on their DNA; 3) there is norhing in evolution that says the most succesful variant figs and wasps couldn't remain largely unchanged for 34 million years; and 4) symbiotic relationships need to arise suddenly and completely in a single generation. An increasingly symbiotic relationship could evolve over time.
WildwoodClaire1 6 months ago
@fractalfires They are not human. They have a different brain shape, smaller parietal and temporal lobes, a distinct middle ear, extremely different mitochondrial DNA, taurodontism of the teeth, and a faster growth rate. Their tools are not as advanced, and they had different cultural and social behaviors. Their postcranial skeletons are generally far more robust as well.
Vegavis 6 months ago
@Vegavis
None of these things you mention make neandethals inhuman.
Orenotter 6 months ago
Comment removed
Vegavis 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Ian also neglected to mention that it isn't only-non African whites that share Neanderthal DNA. It's Asians as well. They've tested individuals from China and Papua New Guinea. Humans and Neanderthals also share the same two point mutation of the FOXP2 gene which is associated with language, suggesting the mutation occurred in Homo heidelbergensis prior to the split of our two lineages. You are completely right in pointing out Ian has made few, if any, valid statements.
Vegavis 7 months ago
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20
JesuismyKing 7 months ago
Excellent video again Ian! It amazes me that atheistic evolutionists have the audacity to judge a person's intellect on whether or not, they have a degree. Your knowledge of Science is superior to most if not all of those here, including myself. It is unfortunate that debate can't be made here by evolutionists, without them resorting to ad hominem attacks and filthy insults. I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man than a fool in the eyes of God!
JesuismyKing 7 months ago
Comment removed
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@JesuismyKing "Your knowledge of Science is superior to most if not all of those here"
Hahaha, he wasn't even aware that markers from Neanderthals only being in non-African whites is evidence that they WEREN'T initially part of the human population.
Sorry to break it to you, Ian is not terribly bright.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Oh, I beg your pardon! I obviously touched a nerve stating Ian Juby was more knowledgeable than your great self. I suspect, however, that there are many things that you don't know much about, which judging by most of your comments here includes real Science. According to the "pro evolution" National Research Council of the US, who set their standards for the critera that defines Science, evolution comes no where close to being science, but a religion!
JesuismyKing 7 months ago 2
@JesuismyKing Yeah, my funny bone.
Given that you think Ian is intelligent and has actually made valid points in this video, you're not really one to judge understanding of science.
TheScienceFoundation 7 months ago
@JesuismyKing I looked, and it doesn't appear that the National Research Council said such things, the Creation Research Institute does however. As I was looking, I found that the National Academy of Sciences does accept evolution.
Looking at your page, I've discovered that you're just another one of those dickheads who plasters irrelevant science over his page to make himself seem informed. Sadly your nothing of the sort.
HumanTargetAus 7 months ago
@HumanTargetAus
Clearly you can't comprehend a simple statement in plain English! I never said that's what the NRC, (PRO EVOLUTION DUH!! stipulated. Do your research and you'll catch my drift, idiot.
JesuismyKing 6 months ago
@JesuismyKing Your statement is pretty clear champ, and it would take a creationist like yourself to misinterpret it (as they so often do with scientific data, it's a crying shame). Re-read it yourself before you make another silly comment.
HumanTargetAus 6 months ago
@JesuismyKing
He knows this! Notice in his response -- he has defined a person who has no right to "judge understanding of science" as a person who thinks Ian "is intelligent and has actually made valid points"! I'd like to find that in a college textbook somewhere. Wow -- talk about rewriting the rules of logic! XD
taratorah 6 months ago
@taratorah Probably something to do with the fact that Ian is both demonstrably illiterate of science and willfully deceptive.
You never answered my initial question.
Would you swear to your god that the paper Ian cites concluded exactly what he claimed it did?
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
I will not be bothering to answer your "questions", as they are merely opportunities for you to invent new definitions, new "scientific facts", and new ways to belittle and mock people who actually bother to do their own homework. You seem to believe I owe you something.
You've already written me off as stupid and ignorant, so why even bother? You are not able to throw me off balance, or gain any type of control.
taratorah 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@taratorah You think asking you to support your position is part of some sort of conspiracy? You don't think people should expect you to support your claims with evidence?
Can you support your claims with evidence? Yes or no.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
I can support my "claims" all day and all night, but I do not owe you ANYTHING! You should consider just going your way, and assuming that I won't provide you with evidence because YOU have already decided that I "don't have any". So, all you need to comprehend here is that there is no moral imperative for me to obey your demands. Off you go!
taratorah 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@taratorah Can you support your claims with evidence? Yes or no.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Ignorant ? liar? Ian made you look bad, so you insult. It means he beat you on the merit of his claims. All the books in the world can't make you a good person. You world view does.
easymoney4ever 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@easymoney4ever Yes ignorant, yes liar.
'It means he beat you on the merit of his claims'
hahaha I've already exposed him ; /watch?v=cE79i1VCTUs
The MOST that could be said for Ian is that he's so incompetent that he couldn't read or comprehend the entire conclusion of the article he himself cited.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
Comment removed
JesuismyKing 7 months ago