@TheoryIsSpeculation This is exactly why it is proving evolution. The way it changes is the path of evolution. Obviously statements like this might confuse someone who has no idea what evolution really means (apart from the lies they heard from their religious "friends").
Please do your own research, do not rely on opinions you heard from other people. If you think something is not true why don't you disprove it with facts?
You can't see how irrational you are. On one hand you level personal abuse at others then (incorrectly) complain about ad hominem fallacies. You claim freedom of speech but that sentence is preceded and followed by sentences telling me to shut up.
You are delusional and paranoid. Unfortunately you won't get the help you need because your fundamentalist religion tells you that you are in fact right, and the rest of the world is wrong.
Support the National Center for Scientific Education (NCSE).
Thirty Five bucks a year is a small price to pay to be part of the solution to the religious retardation that the fundamentalist creationists are foisting on America's youth.
@TheoryIsSpeculation Your fundamental religious beliefs preclude you from accepting things that you think are contrary to it. Unfortunately you don't have the intellectual capability to make any valid assessment of those things.
@TheoryIsSpeculation "There's 2 ways to view the world" Trust a fundamentalist to have such a black and white view of the world. People don't "worship Darwinism", they support evolution, just like people support germ theory or the theory of relativity because the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of it. Evolution is also not a philosphy, its science.
"this wicked system is going to genocide billions of ppl" Fearmongering nonsense.
@TheoryIsSpeculation I know that self awareness is not one of your strong points but it is certainly very hypocritical to accuse others of exactly what you were doing yourself. In addition to ad hominem, you've made many logical fallacies: ad lapidem, ad ignorantiam, proof by assertion, special pleading, ad nauseam - you're a poster boy for bad arguments.
@TheoryIsSpeculation If there were 700 fossils of dogs, anyone with even a bit of education would recognise that isn't evolution - they are all the same species and their skeleton is the same just varying in size.
Canadian education standards are obviously higher than American standards. I was taught extensively about evolution starting in 7th grade, and I sure know more about it than a lot of these people I'm reading from. How can the american public be so badly misinformed? So ignorant and backward? Now, I've seen intelligent comments here, but not enough.
@mimarp478 Yes, the ordered functions that hydrogen and most of the most common elements have obeying a preexisting word written in and with the functions that the elements were made to have is the evidence that our Maker is all knowing, all powerful and able to stretch out the fabric of time and space so that the elements are universally interchangeable working parts inside of us.
Our Maker is the Maker of all matter and there is evidence of no other Maker.
@JungleJargon Do you have some kind of word document that you copy&paste your comments from? I have seen your comments on all the videos in this series and they are worded exactly the same.
ROUGH NIGHTS DIAPERED—In the end Elvis was reduced to being diapered as the prescribed anesthetics & tranquilizers delivered orally & intravenously by Dr. Nick (George Nichopoulos) precluded controlled (voluntary) excretions.
FAITH. A massive 100-yr.-old oak tree is cleaved by lightning. Although the tree remains standing it no longer attracts picnickers who had once sought shade beneath her canopy. Why? The faith that people once had in this tree's structural integrity has been challenged. PARANOIA. Long before the 100-yr.-old oak was compromised by a lightning-strike one man would not venture within a thousand feet of the tree as he was in mortal fear that it would topple. The MORAL: A lack of faith = paranoia.
The metaphysical world is fantastical to humans and humanoids with 3-pound brains, as 3-pound brains aren't brains enough to measure infinity. Apes are humanoids; men are not simians. Large chunks of ancient ape parts should be fossilized en masse like the woolly mammoths and the minor & major king lizards what fill the cavernous museums of Western societies. There are realms beyond human perception.
The educational system has not failed to teach evolution... it has been doing that for quite some time. This is easily observed by the moral decline in our schools. If you look at the statistics since prayer was removed from school you will clearly see that evolutionary indoctrination is working! So, stop being so hard on yourself, feeling like you are a failure, you really are making a difference in the world. Kids are acting more like animals and less like a child of God with each passing day!
@callingheyzeus Yeah, what I meant is that none of what you said is actually true. Maybe, there is some decline in the behaviour of children in school, but think that maybe there are other factors, for example, a couple decades ago it was ok to hit children in schools (at least in europe) and that would make children behave better. There should not be prayer in schools, because there are not only christian kids, there are also atheists, buddhists, muslims, hindus etc.
You like science. Good. Me too. Here is some evidence you can check out.
whatyouknowmightnotbeso(dot)com/graphs(dot)html
I especially like the one on SAT scores. If what defines us as human is that we live under a moral code then we are becoming less human (and apparently less intelligent as well). We are eroding the very foundation that true freedom is resting on. Perhaps we could pray to get back what was forfeited by all for the the self-interests of a few.
@callingheyzeus Times change. The world is becoming less "moral", so what? It has nothing to do with prayer in schools. It is unlawful to force a belief in a classroom.
What is it to obey mans laws and ignore God's Law? Is that freedom? Some say we are only truly free when we are free to sin. But I say those who sin become slaves to sin and anyone who is a slave to sin will never be truly free.
@callingheyzeus "What is it to obey mans laws and ignore God's Law?" You BELIEVE that your god has put laws, but other people do not. Is it really so hard to understand? there should not be prayer in schools because there are not only christian kids, period. And the whole other thing about sin and freedom has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
You say that there should not be prayer in schools. I say there should not just be atheism in schools. Historically it was not this way in the US. There was formal prayer in schools until 1962. The very first textbook used in the classroom was the Bible and education was a RIGHT so that we could actually READ it. The Christian-phobia denies our traditions, our history, and the lives sacrificed to ensure the freedom of religious expression including, but not limited to, Christians.
@callingheyzeus There is not atheism in schools. It is impossible for atheism to be in schools since it is not a religion and it doesn't have rituals, sacred texts, customs and dogmas. What I want is a secular school, where everybody is equal.
It is not so hard for me to understand why you would feel that way. I used to think very much like that. But then I started to see miracles after I asked God to show me He was real if He did exist. I was a hard core drug addict when I challenged God to prove Himself to me. But I did not find God until I reached the end of myself. And if you have not arrived there yet, you will. And when you open your heart to Jesus Christ He will transform it. Then you will know Him.
@callingheyzeus So, you are an ex drug addict than converted to christianity when you were blind of marijuana, heroine and cocaine that is supposed to make me feel as if it is some ind of miracle? I rather trust the intellectuals that studied for decades on the subject of evolution
The biggest barrier to truth is thinking that you already have it.
Evolution is the only scientific theory that needs to have civil laws to protect it.
Scientific theories cannot be proved, only disproved. If scientists were worth their salt, they would be trying to disprove evolution. Spontaneous generation has been repeatedly disproved. To insist otherwise is unsupported dogma, not science.
@callingheyzeus And the teaching of evolution does NOT in any way make children act like animals, that is completely false. Evolution is a well established scientific fact. Kids should not be forced to learn something that is based on the religious beliefs of others. I am not against teaching children about the bible, but it should NOT be in a science class, never.
I personally never look at the video rating, I look at what the comments are and how people have thumbed them, that tells me more than the video rating :P
Yeah, I was astonished at the number of votes and low rating. These videos are very informative and well put together. It just shows how paranoid the people in our society are of ideas they don't agree with or understand.
It will depend of what level of science you talk about, and wich fields. You have CSI popularising applied science to solve crimes, and the consepts behind their methods branch most of science. I remember many specific times where characters say "It's not my case to judge, i'm just the scientist collecting the evidence". You also have Numbers trying to popularise applied math, but i don't know how well that is doing. And of cause, you have mythbusters, but they rather do experiments.
And for fear of spamming this video - which inexplicably had 2 stars when I arrived - the guy who says that scientists need to get out there to the public, and into schools is spot on. How many of us can say that various religious kooks got access to their schools during their time there. I know I can. Where were the scientific communicators? That onus rests on ourselves. We have to get off our ass, give monetary support to initiatives that work, and speak up.
DNA explains how digital information is passed through generations of living things. However DNA is too complicated to explain the origin of life. Creationists point to this and say 'Evolution is wrong - that's it, stop thinking'. Scientists study the problem and look at simpler replicators, such as RNA, PNA and GNA. Scientists also study the possibilities of how metabolism can arise before living cells, and how genetic information is shared between living things.
Our understanding of the chemical processes that gave rise to life are necessarily incomplete. However the anti-intellectual movement likes to seize upon any flaw, and then say the whole is wrong, and they say the whole intellectual exercise is futile. These are people who drive cars.
Too right the problem is in the US. Out of major industrialised countries only Turkey is more backward - but they are at least working on it.
DNA isn't too complicated, humans just aren't smart enough yet. (1 strand of DNA is f-ing huge) Our brains just can't 1) remember all of it, and 2) make the connections.....yet. (lol, wouldn't creationists love if everyone would just turn off their brain)
@Freeze01 DNA would have to form through undirected processes in order to form life. If we do the math we get a probability of one chance in 10 to the 100,000,000,000th power for the simplest cell to have all the proteins it needs. A chemical reaction that requires a probability of 10 to the 67th power is statistically imposable. There are 10 to the 80th atoms in the observable universe. Darwin did not know this so I will cut him some slack but what is our excuse? Faith?
Go pick up a book other than creationist propaganda and learn something. The explanation can't be given in 500 words. And gaining knowledge should be an activity not passive listening. So go to your local library or university.
Random chance couldn't produce a pizza let alone a protozoa but just try to push that out of your head and pretend like it doesn't exist. I was acting like a right handed amino acid in a protein chain full of lefties. Sorry I kicked your golden calf over and spoiled all your fun. I would ask for your forgiveness now but that would be pointless in a world of moral relativism. Methinks it is like a weasel. Methinks it is like a weasel. Methinks it is like a weasel. Methinks it is like a
:) well how nice of you to show your true creationist bumpkin colors... now never try to claim having learned anything about biology again... now do everyone a pleasure and crawl back under your rock of ignorance or go to a library or university and LEARN!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Darwinism and Evolution,treats as fact the origins of life. If anyone takes an objective view on the theory of Evolution and does some investigating of their own, Darwinism is being discredited, even by prominent scientists, one reason is what we know about DNA. In Darwin's defence he didn't have the equipment to study DNA as we do now. My point is, why embrace Darwinism so fervently when it is being continually refuted?
For one thing, even most high schoolers can tell you that darwin's theory of evolution says NOTHING about the origin of life, it's simply about evolution. When you say something as ignorant as that, people tend to ignore everything else you have to say.
To my knowledge Darwin's theories have never been refuted, only confirmed and expanded. When Darwin was writing a lot of the mechanisms that gave the effects he observed were not known. Since then our knowledge of geology, biology and in particular chemistry has advanced massively. Darwin's observations still hold, and fit right in with other areas, for example continental drift and plate tectonics. ATBINTC's whole paragraph is more than faintly ridiculous.
Then explain why in this video it matters how many people believe it? If you believe it, most scientist believe it: Why does it matter that only 50% of Americans believe it? The science is the tools used to investigate the crime scene: The crime scene isn't the science. Microscopes advances science, macroscopes in years past were called Crystal Balls. I agree with the science, but not all your interpretation of the evidence, so what: The world going to stop spinning for you?
When a country refuses to accept a scientific theory with a tremendous amount of evidence supporting it based solely on the fact that it conflicts with their religious dogma, then that says something about it. I don't give a flying fuck that people don't accept certain theories--evolution, string theory, the big bang, abiogenesis--that doesn't mean that you're suppose to lie or make shit up about it in order to persuade politicians or whatever to outlaw it or make it unavailable somehow.
Circumstantial evidence that is millions of years old. 1) No transitional species has ever been confirmed in the past, and none has ever been witnessed to have occurred. Even Dawkin's admits that much. 2) No proof that all life began from a single cell! 3) Where is the tremendous amount of evidence? Hard evidence, not circumstantial evidence: But hard empirical in the lab proof? Skepticism is a good thing. Do you believe everything scientist have said over the years?
There ARE transitional fossils asshole--tiktaalik, archaeopteryx, ambulocetus natans, etc. Technically, all living organism is a "transitional" fossil, asshole. There is evidence that supports common descent, asshole--you can find certain similarities from viruses and bacterias that encoded its own genome into ours--many species share this similarity, asshole; therefore, we could rule out "coincidence."
Have you EVER opened a college-levelled biology textbook? Have you ever done any independant research rather than sit there with your thumb up your ass? Do your fucking homework--you will find a plethora of evidence; that is, unless you DENY all the evidence and claim that it is some kind of atheistic science conspiracy. Asshole.
And if you haven't noticed: There are plenty who are skeptical who do not have a strong faith, and certainly not in Christianity. It's isn't always about religious belief, but logical questions as to the method by which we say "Science" when the fact is, it's more to do with ideology. It's political, or else it wouldn't matter who accepted it, as long as your elite group of scientist accepts it; so be it! Don't force your views on others because you think it's science.
I don't follow science blindly like some dogmatic religion, asshole. I make sure that I understand what the theory says--a step that creationists often ignore--and then I search for evidence on the intertubes or a textbook--whatever is easier.
I always make sure that what the theory says is logical, and that is what evolutionary theory is--it is a logical and well-supported scientific theory, asshole. I don't think it's science, asshole--the evidence speaks for itself.
Why should it matter if 50, 60, or 70% reject science? How is that going to effect anything? Maybe we would be further along if scientist spent less time trying to convert Christians to their atheistic teaching. Evolution has nothing to do with advancements in science. Trying to tell people of faith there is no God, seems to be the real agenda; otherwise they wouldn't be so bent on the forcing the issue. It has everything to do with a secular humanistic agenda; not science!
Science IGNORES religion. It's actually pretty sad if 70% of the nation rejects science--which brought them clean water, plenty of food, computers, entertainment, medicine, and leisure.
Science is merely explaining the natural world using testable observatinos and experimentation. Because educated people know that the world can be explained naturally, a lot of them don't need God.
Who's forcing the issue? What scientists are trying to do is keep non-science out of science classes.
That was a typo: intended to say evolution, not science. The point was: "Evolution" is a study of the origin of life: A lot of folks, and even many non Christian scientist reject elements of Macro Evolution. Trying to force that aspect of the issue on folks that just don't buy it. How is it going to further science if more people accept your understanding of evolution? It's not going to cure cancer. There is a motive why they are bent on forcing people to accept it as absolutes. It's a theory!
There is NO difference between microevolution and macroevolution other than timescale, moron. I dunno, the majority of the people who reject "macroevolution" are the same people who read about evolution on creationist propaganda sites, asshole.
You don't have to accept evolution--just don't go overzealous and become a stupid asshole creationist who wants non-science to be taught along side with it. Dumbass.
Evolution is not going to cure cancer anymore than physics would--so why teach physics? Evolution is a valid scientific theory despite the fact that you don't have to learn it to succeed in life, asshole. String theory, astronomy, quantum mechanics, etc. are all valid scientific theories despite its little use in everyday life. Who cares about calabi-yau manifolds, stars, or Heisenberg uncertainty principle?
"It's just a theory." Learn what a scientific theory is, dumbass.
Didn't say don't teach it: Teach it, believe it, that is your choice: Why act like its the end of the world of everybody doesn't accept it: The reason debunked material is still in your text books is it's has nothing to do with science, its become a political agenda. Neither side can take the biased preconceived notions out of it, only looking and forcing the evidence to fit the notion. Otherwise you'd be able to prove it without your lying debunked material.
I don't care if you don't think evolution is a scientific theory supported by overwhelming evidence--just don't say that we need to balance its teachnigs with some form of creationism shit.
There are NO debunked material in science textbooks other than for its historical signifigance. What you learn it a modern biology textbook has a scientific consensus.
If you assume that every piece of evidence is false only because it doesn't fit your bible, then it is YOU who's an asshole.
I didn't say teach the Bible in school: I don't want it taught in school. The origin of life is not something that should be taught in school. I don't care if you believe life started from a single cell: But you can't prove that: So why teach it? And I don't care about your insults, it's a common descent among atheist to defend their racist prophet: Charles Darwin!
The origins of life is not taught in any public schools that I know of. It only skims the surface saying something along the line "After life appeared on Earth, blah blah blah." In higher education classes, like in universities, then probably the different theories and models are discussed--this is were critical thinking, observations, and evidence comes in.
I insult every creationist asshole, so don't take it personally, asshole.
Racist prophet? Reasonable people dont have prophets.
Anyway,
Evolution is a theory, that is true. However, to even make the status of theory is quite an achievement. Think of evolution as a 10,000 pc puzzle. Sure theres about 130 pcs missing, but if you step back and look at the big picture you can see what it is. You cant try to "jam" in a piece that has the finger of God on it.
In "The Descent Of Man" Darwin "PREDICTED" racial wars that would be beneficial to the evolution of mankind.
Your big picture has no beginning, no real purpose, no direction, no law and order, no right, no wrong; it is merely a means to define a natural cause for all that exist. If there is no God, then killing off all that propose a threat to the higher order becomes permissible and perhaps even necessary for the preservation of the more advanced. Sound familiar?
Just because someone "predicts" something doesnt make them a prophet.
The evolution theory does not adress the issue of beginnings, right vs wrong, etc. Nor does it imply a Godless universe. It merely draws a very viable account of what most likely takes place. Why dont you argue the theory of gravity while you're at it.
Gravity is observable, macro evolution is not. Mutations are not observed increasing in new information. While some may be beneficial, most in fact are not. You can't get from a single cell to scales, feathers etc. without new information added to the system. How would the eye evolve without foreknowledge of it's benefit? Feathers for wings with out knowing it's aerodynamic benefits? Just happened, isn't a scientific answer!
Its not that it just happened ... it adapted to suit its needs. I find it ironic how religion tries to debunk evolution when religion itself has had to "evolve" so it can change and "adapt" to survive. I really dont think Christianity would be around if we still adhered to the teachings in Laviticus or Exodus.
The Mosaic law and grace is clearly explained in the text: they both point to Jesus and the cross, death and resurrection.
I could point out a thousand types and foreshadows of that historic event in the old Test: Christianity has survived despite the many false branches, and atheistic attempts to destroy it.
You still didn't answer how random mutations could foretell beneficial results of an eye prior to it's evolution, or an observable example of new information in mutations?
random mutations dont always work, in fact most dont. when they do its not because they "foresee" a better way, its that they "discover" a better way of doing things.
Theres an old saying "Find out what it is you dont do well then, dont do that."
They observe new mutations in science all the time. Bird flu was discovered to be the cause of the 1917 flu epidemic. Thru dna data taken from that time and compared to the recent outbreak, they found the strand had mutated. Cont...
But no mutation has ever shown an increase in new information. They are simply a mutation within a already existing code: As you mention, the bird flu is not a new evolved epidemic but rather a mutation of an old stain. The eye would require an uninterrupted sequencing over thousands of minute mutations to have any benefit: Did the eye evolve over night. It would take a tremendous amount of positive uninterrupted mutations to have any real benefit to survival, and a lot of new information!
3rd "Christianity has survived despite the many false branches and atheistic attempts to destroy it" What are these false branches? Protestants? Judahism? Islamic? Mormonism? Jo. Witness, Catholisism? the United Church? Anglican? Pentacostal? Prespiterian? Mennonite? Sikh? What is your absolute belief and what makes your interpretation about something youve been taught make you so self righteous?
The cross is a historic event, rather you believe Jesus is Lord or not. One would have to be blind not to see the foreshadow of the death and resurrection foretold in the stories in the Old Testament. There are over a thousand examples! Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness is just one. Daniel in the lions den : A type of baptism, Noah in the Ark. The passover and Exodus from Egypt. Joseph in the well! Too many examples to list. But it's always consistent.
Further more, the Bible teaches there will be many false Christ, and false teachers. All cannot be true branches if they teach a different Gospel than the one taught in scripture. If you want to understand the old law and grace: Read the first 7 chapters of Romans: Paul did a pretty good job explaining it. My absolute belief is in the word, not man made denomination as listed above. Let God be true and every man a liar.
Perhaps not as main stream in Europe but it exist the world over. Where do you get your information from. I know from your own list, such as; the Church of Christ, Pentecostal, Baptist etc.. all have branches throughout Europe. Guess what, traditional Country music is more popular in Europe than the US. I bet you think it only plays south of the Mason Dixon Line.
I could ask as well of what makes you so self righteous in your world view THAT YOU'VE BEEN TAUGHT. To pretend that your world view is not based on an ideology and often blind faith is to totally ignore reality. Remember Dawkins words: "Evolution is real, it's just no one has ever seen it while it's happening" Blind faith!
Again. The theory of evolution doesnt state "just happened". Most mutations dont work. Certain species die off, some become stagnant (e.g. primates) But occassionally mutations do work and become a successful piece that is passed on in an evolutionary line. There is no need for "foreknowledge"
Evolution does not point out how life started but rather how it evolved. You should get your facts straight before you try and conspirisize something.
I never mentioned how life began: However, It is fair to say a single cell doesn't have eyes. In order for eyes to evolve, it would require a vast amount of new information; undirected mutations without foreknowledge of the benefits is a ridiculous hypothesis, rather it be feathers, wings, eyes etc..
There are no observable mutation that shows new information that is not already available in the DNA code. Yes we can adapt, but using the code that is already written.
"Yes we can adapt, but using the code that is already written."
You contradict yourself. You imply here that evolution takes place but with a predetermined blueprint. So what youre saying is that God created evolution. Congradulations ... youre coming around.
I don't know of anyone who doesn't believe in adaptation within a "Kind" This does not prove all life evolved from primordial mud or share a common ancestor as taught in evolution. The Bible say: Let the waters bring forth life after their kind, let the earth bring forth life after their kind. But life was created fully developed as shown in the fossil record and the so called Cambrian explosion. As even Richard Dawkins has said: It appears life just sprang forth quickly with no transitions.
There is a big difference in micro, and macro: Micro is observable, macro isn't: All scientist agree on micro: There are thousands of none Christian scientist that don't agree on macro: Its not a law as is gravity. It is a theory, and weak one at that: 150 yeas later and you still can't prove it. It's an atheistic attempt to remove God from the conscience: Has to do with your socialist atheistic views, nothing to do with science. Still have debunked material in your text books. Why?
Microevolution is the small changes in a population from generation to generation--macroevolution is the compounded effects of microevolution over geological periods of times, asshole. A theory is HIGHER in science than a law or fact, asshole. A theory is a framework that incorporates laws and facts, asshole.
"An atheistic attempt to remove God from the conscience?" Evolution does not say that there is no God, asshole--it doesn't say there's no Zeus or Odin or Flying Spaghetti Monster, either. Scientific theories do not comment on the supernatural, asshole, because supernatural explanations are outside the realms of science.
So if a scientific theory is out to remove supernaturality from the conscience, then it's considered non-science and a poor atheistic attempt? asshole.
I don't consider macro evolution a theory. I rather see it as a silly hypothesis at best. Even Richard Dawkin's has said: Evolution is real, but no one has ever seen it while it is happening. Let see: You can't test it in a lab, see it, smell it, hear it, feel it: but you know that it's real. Sounds like a pretty big leap of faith for a so called scientific theory.
Wrong! Evolution is not the study of the origin of life. It studies HOW life adapts, changes and evolves thru natural selection. If you're going to debate, make sure you know your opponent.
1) No one disagrees with adaptation within a kind or species. Being able to adapt is written within our DNA, our DNA does not require new information to adapt. Saying Eyes evolved over x amount of time via random mutations with no evidence of intermediate benefit to survival is found in your mind, never in a lab.
Doesn't matter how old the Earth is; could be a trillion years for all I care. Time to a eternal God has no value; it's merely for human perception: Thought it wasn't about origin?
First, give your example: But keep in mind, if natural selection via random mutations is the rule, then we should find examples in all living things.
And the point was: What was the benefit to the various stages of the eye prior to it's final visual capabilities? Are we to believe the first eye was mere blind luck, seeing that prior to it's finale stage it would have absolutely no use whatsoever for survival, or anything else? I like to think it was created for with a, and on purpose
You say there are many examples, but you avoid giving a single one. Remember, random mutations have no purpose or foresight; but rather evolving and discarding what works and what doesn't, what doesn't dies out. The question is: How long do you think it took for proteins to randomly work together to form the first eye? And what was it's use prior to it's visual capability? Reality suggest you believe in blind luck, and a blind faith!
"How long do you think it took for proteins to randomly work together to form the first eye?"
There are single celled organisms that are photosensitive, this ability could easily have come about in the several billion years before multicellular life. Remember, ignorance is not an argument it is simply ignorance.
They DIDN'T you creationist fucktard. What have I been saying this whole time? The eye is the end product of a multi-stage process that started with simple light sensitive cells. YOU DON'T START WITH A FULLY FORMED EYE YOU FUCKTARD. But go ahead and continue with this strawman it only demonstrates you're ignorance.
You represent you side well with the insults. Seems to be endemic to the evolutions world view. But that is my point, the eye according to you developed over God only knows how long of a period of time. What benefit was the different stages of this process prior to the fully developed eye? How is light sensitivity beneficial to survival? What came first the optic nerve, or the photo lens. A camera that doesn't have a lens is a worthless paper weight at best; so is your argument!
And if you had taken the time to notice every single one of them was beside a complete refutation of one of your arguments. A note for the ignorant: it's not ad hominem if I defeat your argument first.
"Seems to be endemic to the evolutions world view."
This however, is ad hominem as you use it to avoid actually having to contend with my points.
You haven't refuted anything, or made a point: Watching a video is not refuting anything. I could give you a website to make my argument, but I thought you wanted to debate in your own words.You have avoided the question: How did the eye evolve, and what was the benefit prior to the finale stage?
I have not copied anything: In fact, I've never read a creationist view on it. I heard a evolutionist trying to explain how it evolved, and saw how much he struggled trying to explain it. Then I spent sometime pondering how it could have evolved via natural selection. You are the one relying on others work to make your argument; I choose to think and reply for myself with my own thoughts.
"I have not copied anything: In fact, I've never read a creationist view on it."
My bad I mixed you up with another creationist I was arguing with yesterday. Your just the one who's improperly citing logical fallacies while using fallacious logic (such as your current appeals to ignorance) at the same time.
What is the fallacious logic in asking what benefit is a pupil without a lens? A optic nerve without a retina? Each part has to have some purpose in and of itself, or else you are back to blind luck: To argue that these parts evolved, then merged together to form a complex visual apparatus is a fallacious argument unless each part has a benefit in and of itself. That is the question: Explain the parts, and there individual benefit to survival.
"What is the fallacious logic in asking what benefit is a pupil without a lens?"
It's an appeal to ignorance and personal incredulity (look them up fucktard I'm not here to teach you about logic). You are arguing that a lack of answer disproves evolution when it would not (even though the answer is there if you would take the time to look and comprehend).
1st: You are unable to defend your position or else you would. If your video answers the question, you would debate it rather than run from it. You just prove you do not have the ability to defend what you say you believe in.
2nd: I never said it disproves evolution: I just pointed out natural selection can't explain it.
"2nd: I never said it disproves evolution: I just pointed out natural selection can't explain it. "
IF that were true (which it's not) would that mean that the answer is automatically a magic man? You are yet again making an appeal to ignorance, and personal incredulity as well as falling victim to a false dichotomy.
Yeah I appealed to an ignorant fool to answer a simple question. You are without a doubt the worst proponent for evolution I have ever encountered. Richard Dawkins should have you drawn and quartered for your inability to defend his DOCTRINE as he calls it! I'm done wasting my time with you.
"Yeah I appealed to an ignorant fool to answer a simple question."
Obviously you don't know what an appeal to ignorance is. Before making yourself look even more foolish you should look it up and avoid using such fallacious logic.
I know what it means: But using your rules, you can hide behind that argument for anything that you can't fit into your little black box!
And don't pretend evolutionist don't like to point out things when creationist speculate or offer a hypothesis for something that can't prove. The bottom line is, you can't prove there wasn't a designer, and I can't prove there was. The point is, your theory is based on faith that things just happened, so here we are. I believe life has a purpose.
I'm not complaining, I don't have a problem with how God created the eye. You have a problem with your lucky charm hypothesis on how everything came about by random chance.
Remember how I was talking about your use of straw men and how they only serve to demonstrate your ignorance of the subject at hand? Well yeah, case in point.
It's based on random chance: That's not a straw man. That is what your theory teaches! If nothing gives it direction, if life is explained by random mutations, then not only do the strongest, but the luckiest survive, the weak and not so lucky die off. You call it what you like: It's chance!
"It's based on random chance: That's not a straw man."
Variations that are beneficial have a tendency to increase in frequency is random chance? Yes your argument is a straw man because evolution relies on natural selection and natural selection is anything but random.
"then not only do the strongest, but the luckiest survive, the weak and not so lucky die off."
You seem to have a very week understanding of what 'fit' means in a biological context. It does NOT mean 'strongest', 'smartest' or 'fastest' it simply means those who are best able to survive and reproduce. Large size and strength can be detrimental as they would require increased energy intake to survive.
"but the luckiest survive, the weak and not so lucky die off. You call it what you like: It's chance!"
Statistics always have exceptions, but statistically speaking trends will always go in a certain direction. This is hardly 'random chance' as you put it. You are ignoring the statistic probability of survival because it is convenient for you.
Demonstrate that a deity exists in the first place then demonstrate a method by which it interacts with life. We know how evolution works and all of the necessary mechanisms have been directly observed.
Demonstrate he doesn't! And no you have never seen macro evolution observed. You assume it by minute random changes built into our code. You can't point to new information in the code! As mentioned before, you can't go from a single cell to human, for instance, without a tremendous amount of new information. Where is this observed?
Ah yes, another macro vs micro creotard. I bet you can't come up with an accurate objective definition of the difference between 'macro' and 'micro' evolution that doesn't immediately defeat your argument either. I have given this challenge to countless creationists all have failed. Thus the argument of 'macro' is invalid.
So you in all of your scientific accurate methods have posed a question to several people and since those people didn't have an answer an entire argument is invalid? Classic!
"So you in all of your scientific accurate methods have posed a question to several people and since those people didn't have an answer an entire argument is invalid? Classic!"
No, Creationists as a whole refuse to objectively define their terms. They intentionally choose ambiguous terms so that when they are demonstrated to be incorrect they can easily change the goalpost. If they do not objectively define their terms then they cannot use them in argument.
How do you objectively define 'new information' so that one can determine if it is in fact new? If you can't give an answer then this is a non-argument.
"you can't go from a single cell to human"
Of course not, there are a great many steps in between.
I wanted to comment on your Marco Vs Micro statements. I think, as you do, that that argument is meaningless. I mean it's the micro changes (changes in Genes) that lead to the 'macro' changes (changes in the organism). So when people say that macro evolution can't happen, but the admit that micro evolution can. Well, that's one large non sequitur. Since it's the micro changes that lead to the macro changes. It's hard to believe that in the 21st Century, people can still be so fucking stupid
Well, it's not so hard to believe, given that America is so religious.
I don't mean to say that all Christians are anti-evolution; far from it. The Catholic Church has accepted it for years.
What I mean is that in America, there is a trend that strongly supports Christianity of all kinds; however, this leaves open the door for all kinds of charlatans (as well as misguided Biblical literalists) with little to no understanding of science to teach their congregations that evolution is false.
Although, the catholic church has accepted evolution, Christians for the most part haven't.Even though both are two sides of the same coin. The problem with religion, all religion, is that people talk to God, but God never talks back. This leaves the door open for interpreting scripture in many ways. And since people have their own agendas and biases, they no doubt bring them into their interpretations.Its best to separate theology from science.Better yet,just get rid of religion all together.
I'd like to think that if there were only Catholics, rather than thousands of sects, that a larger proportion of Christians would support evolution.
It's strange though, since the Christians here in Canada, and in the other "Christian nations" accept evolution at much higher rates than Americans do. I think there's more to it than the fact that religious thinking is involved; I think there is a toxic strain of thinking prevalent in America today, based on anti-intellectualism.
The 'toxic stain' on America stems from religion. I also have met many Christians in Toronot (where I live) that don't believe in Evolution. However, in Canada we aren't as crazy about religion as America is. Also, America has produced some of the best science, music and movies. However, those days have been replaced by the 'reality TV mentality'. America worships stupidity and ignorance. It's sad because that country produced Star Wars, Star Trek and Dream Theater (I love DT).
It's sad to admit this, but many Americans seem to live in a culture that often values sincere mediocrity over talent and genius. Sarah Palin, John McCain, and George W. Bush (or comedy, history, and tragedy as I call them) exemplify this trend. All were reliably academic underachievers.
The election of Obama is a good start, but America still has a long way to go before this trend is countered in any long-term or meaningful way.
Hey, I found your context! No, I don't have to disprove your deity as you have no evidence for it's existence. That which can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence. The same goes for Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, the boogeyman, leprechauns, unicorns, and the thousands of gods/goddesses invented by humanity throughout history. You are making yet another appeal to ignorance.
"And don't pretend evolutionist don't like to point out things when creationist speculate or offer a hypothesis"
There is a difference, we have evidence to substantiate our claims. That you wish to ignore the evidence (as previously demonstrated) is not an argument.
It's an assumption, you can't prove the eye evolved based on "this is how it could have evolved" You can't show it in a lab, because there is no transitional evidence to support your claim.
Thank you for yet again demonstrating your ignorance of the scientific method. I do so love it when people refute their own arguments. If you can't see what's wrong with your statement then read my earlier comments.
"offer a hypothesis for something that can't prove."
YES! Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance of the scientific method for all to see. Nothing is EVER 'proven' in science ALL theories are tentative. Science works solely on modus tollens. What you are talking about would be a logical fallacy (affirming the consequent). A theory is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested and makes accurate predictions. What accurate falsifiable predictions does your idea make?
Correction on that. No scientific theory is ever proven to be true, but any scientific theory (by definition) has the potential to be proven false through modus tollens.
Evolution isn't science: Richard Dawkins: Evolution is real, it's just no one has ever seen it while it's happening" That is a quote by one of your so called intellectuals.
How has evolution been tested? Have you seen it in action? Richard Dawkins hasn't, but he believes it anyway. And Random mutations can predict nothing. Going back and fitting pieces discovered into your puzzle isn't a prediction. A prediction is telling what will happen in the future. Like: So called junk DNA will be proven to have function: That was predicted by creationist. And it's being verified by recent discoveries.
I want this video on my A1018s phone.
alenblake38g 1 week ago
I am around the weird part of Youtube yet again.
oshuabailey38j 1 month ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation This is exactly why it is proving evolution. The way it changes is the path of evolution. Obviously statements like this might confuse someone who has no idea what evolution really means (apart from the lies they heard from their religious "friends").
Please do your own research, do not rely on opinions you heard from other people. If you think something is not true why don't you disprove it with facts?
lanthasmj 2 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation
You are a disturbed mind.
You can't see how irrational you are. On one hand you level personal abuse at others then (incorrectly) complain about ad hominem fallacies. You claim freedom of speech but that sentence is preceded and followed by sentences telling me to shut up.
You are delusional and paranoid. Unfortunately you won't get the help you need because your fundamentalist religion tells you that you are in fact right, and the rest of the world is wrong.
spoddie 3 months ago
Support the National Center for Scientific Education (NCSE).
Thirty Five bucks a year is a small price to pay to be part of the solution to the religious retardation that the fundamentalist creationists are foisting on America's youth.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation Your fundamental religious beliefs preclude you from accepting things that you think are contrary to it. Unfortunately you don't have the intellectual capability to make any valid assessment of those things.
spoddie 3 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation "There's 2 ways to view the world" Trust a fundamentalist to have such a black and white view of the world. People don't "worship Darwinism", they support evolution, just like people support germ theory or the theory of relativity because the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of it. Evolution is also not a philosphy, its science.
"this wicked system is going to genocide billions of ppl" Fearmongering nonsense.
ArcanaKnight 3 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation You obviously don't understand "plurium interrogationum" and "ad hominem", add those to your list of things to study.
Here's a quiz:
Which of the following is an ad hominem fallacy?
A. Your argument is stupid, therefore you are stupid
B. You are stupid, therefore your argument is stupid.
C. Both of the above.
D. Neither of the above.
spoddie 3 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation I know that self awareness is not one of your strong points but it is certainly very hypocritical to accuse others of exactly what you were doing yourself. In addition to ad hominem, you've made many logical fallacies: ad lapidem, ad ignorantiam, proof by assertion, special pleading, ad nauseam - you're a poster boy for bad arguments.
And you're stupid.
spoddie 3 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation Thinking is what normal people do. What you do is hallucinate.
spoddie 3 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation The point is that you have no idea what you are talking about. Your analogy is stupid and makes no sense.
spoddie 3 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation If there were 700 fossils of dogs, anyone with even a bit of education would recognise that isn't evolution - they are all the same species and their skeleton is the same just varying in size.
spoddie 3 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation i made that comment almost a month ago toke long enough
mimarp478 3 months ago
Canadian education standards are obviously higher than American standards. I was taught extensively about evolution starting in 7th grade, and I sure know more about it than a lot of these people I'm reading from. How can the american public be so badly misinformed? So ignorant and backward? Now, I've seen intelligent comments here, but not enough.
nancy6ify 3 months ago
the worshipers and members of the evolution cult has a lot of faith in their religion.
ikawpipa 4 months ago
Creation is science.
Evolution is not science.
There is no evidence supporting evolution because all of the evidence supports Creation.
You cannot teach what does not happen and evolution does not happen.
You cannot teach fantasy. You have to teach what the facts are.
Science supports Creation. Mutations do not work together to order anything.
You don't have a case to make!
watch?v=lEledPONpkQ
JungleJargon 5 months ago 2
@JungleJargon and their is evidence supporting creation if so please tell me
mimarp478 5 months ago
@mimarp478 Yes, the ordered functions that hydrogen and most of the most common elements have obeying a preexisting word written in and with the functions that the elements were made to have is the evidence that our Maker is all knowing, all powerful and able to stretch out the fabric of time and space so that the elements are universally interchangeable working parts inside of us.
Our Maker is the Maker of all matter and there is evidence of no other Maker.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon Do you have some kind of word document that you copy&paste your comments from? I have seen your comments on all the videos in this series and they are worded exactly the same.
cause4reason 4 months ago
Comment removed
JungleJargon 5 months ago
ROUGH NIGHTS DIAPERED—In the end Elvis was reduced to being diapered as the prescribed anesthetics & tranquilizers delivered orally & intravenously by Dr. Nick (George Nichopoulos) precluded controlled (voluntary) excretions.
UTubeOfficialSite 7 months ago
FAITH. A massive 100-yr.-old oak tree is cleaved by lightning. Although the tree remains standing it no longer attracts picnickers who had once sought shade beneath her canopy. Why? The faith that people once had in this tree's structural integrity has been challenged. PARANOIA. Long before the 100-yr.-old oak was compromised by a lightning-strike one man would not venture within a thousand feet of the tree as he was in mortal fear that it would topple. The MORAL: A lack of faith = paranoia.
UTubeOfficialSite 1 year ago
@UTubeOfficialSite just plain retarded
MrKGatl 8 months ago
The metaphysical world is fantastical to humans and humanoids with 3-pound brains, as 3-pound brains aren't brains enough to measure infinity. Apes are humanoids; men are not simians. Large chunks of ancient ape parts should be fossilized en masse like the woolly mammoths and the minor & major king lizards what fill the cavernous museums of Western societies. There are realms beyond human perception.
UTubeOfficialSite 7 months ago
The educational system has not failed to teach evolution... it has been doing that for quite some time. This is easily observed by the moral decline in our schools. If you look at the statistics since prayer was removed from school you will clearly see that evolutionary indoctrination is working! So, stop being so hard on yourself, feeling like you are a failure, you really are making a difference in the world. Kids are acting more like animals and less like a child of God with each passing day!
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
@callingheyzeus You fail buddy.
JUANMO94 1 year ago
@JUANMO94
Doesn't everyone?
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
@callingheyzeus Yeah, what I meant is that none of what you said is actually true. Maybe, there is some decline in the behaviour of children in school, but think that maybe there are other factors, for example, a couple decades ago it was ok to hit children in schools (at least in europe) and that would make children behave better. There should not be prayer in schools, because there are not only christian kids, there are also atheists, buddhists, muslims, hindus etc.
JUANMO94 1 year ago
@JUANMO94
You like science. Good. Me too. Here is some evidence you can check out.
whatyouknowmightnotbeso(dot)com/graphs(dot)html
I especially like the one on SAT scores. If what defines us as human is that we live under a moral code then we are becoming less human (and apparently less intelligent as well). We are eroding the very foundation that true freedom is resting on. Perhaps we could pray to get back what was forfeited by all for the the self-interests of a few.
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
@callingheyzeus Times change. The world is becoming less "moral", so what? It has nothing to do with prayer in schools. It is unlawful to force a belief in a classroom.
JUANMO94 1 year ago
@JUANMO94
What is it to obey mans laws and ignore God's Law? Is that freedom? Some say we are only truly free when we are free to sin. But I say those who sin become slaves to sin and anyone who is a slave to sin will never be truly free.
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
@callingheyzeus "What is it to obey mans laws and ignore God's Law?" You BELIEVE that your god has put laws, but other people do not. Is it really so hard to understand? there should not be prayer in schools because there are not only christian kids, period. And the whole other thing about sin and freedom has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
JUANMO94 1 year ago
@JUANMO94
You say that there should not be prayer in schools. I say there should not just be atheism in schools. Historically it was not this way in the US. There was formal prayer in schools until 1962. The very first textbook used in the classroom was the Bible and education was a RIGHT so that we could actually READ it. The Christian-phobia denies our traditions, our history, and the lives sacrificed to ensure the freedom of religious expression including, but not limited to, Christians.
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
@callingheyzeus There is not atheism in schools. It is impossible for atheism to be in schools since it is not a religion and it doesn't have rituals, sacred texts, customs and dogmas. What I want is a secular school, where everybody is equal.
JUANMO94 1 year ago
@JUANMO94
What kind of school does God want? How does God view atheism? What happens when we succeed in removing God from everything?
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
@callingheyzeus GOD DOES NOT EXIST! Is it really so hard to understand?
JUANMO94 1 year ago
@JUANMO94
It is not so hard for me to understand why you would feel that way. I used to think very much like that. But then I started to see miracles after I asked God to show me He was real if He did exist. I was a hard core drug addict when I challenged God to prove Himself to me. But I did not find God until I reached the end of myself. And if you have not arrived there yet, you will. And when you open your heart to Jesus Christ He will transform it. Then you will know Him.
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
@callingheyzeus So, you are an ex drug addict than converted to christianity when you were blind of marijuana, heroine and cocaine that is supposed to make me feel as if it is some ind of miracle? I rather trust the intellectuals that studied for decades on the subject of evolution
JUANMO94 1 year ago
@JUANMO94
I am certified and used to teach evolution. So, believe whatever you want.
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
The biggest barrier to truth is thinking that you already have it.
Evolution is the only scientific theory that needs to have civil laws to protect it.
Scientific theories cannot be proved, only disproved. If scientists were worth their salt, they would be trying to disprove evolution. Spontaneous generation has been repeatedly disproved. To insist otherwise is unsupported dogma, not science.
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
@callingheyzeus you trollin?
OpRedDawn 1 year ago
@OpRedDawn
I wasn't trying to troll. I was just trying to provoke people to think.
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
@callingheyzeus You used to teach Evolution and were a hard-core drug addict. HA!!!!!
atheistram 5 months ago
@atheistram Yes. I've been sober for 10 years now and will be begin teaching again this fall.
callingheyzeus 5 months ago
@callingheyzeus And I assume you're not gonna teach the creationist drivel you've been spewing on here?
atheistram 5 months ago
@callingheyzeus And the teaching of evolution does NOT in any way make children act like animals, that is completely false. Evolution is a well established scientific fact. Kids should not be forced to learn something that is based on the religious beliefs of others. I am not against teaching children about the bible, but it should NOT be in a science class, never.
JUANMO94 1 year ago
I personally never look at the video rating, I look at what the comments are and how people have thumbed them, that tells me more than the video rating :P
ninjatoothpaste 2 years ago
Creationist votebots have hit these videos.
baudiirocz 2 years ago 13
@baudiirocz
Yeah, I was astonished at the number of votes and low rating. These videos are very informative and well put together. It just shows how paranoid the people in our society are of ideas they don't agree with or understand.
Dustin8872 2 years ago
Miller's right. Science hasn't been "cool" since the time of Mr. Wizard and Bill Nye.
We need more shows like that on TV.
bdragon660 2 years ago 11
It will depend of what level of science you talk about, and wich fields. You have CSI popularising applied science to solve crimes, and the consepts behind their methods branch most of science. I remember many specific times where characters say "It's not my case to judge, i'm just the scientist collecting the evidence". You also have Numbers trying to popularise applied math, but i don't know how well that is doing. And of cause, you have mythbusters, but they rather do experiments.
gulllars 2 years ago 3
I bet a creationist's bot has rated these videos low. I saw them a while ago and had a high rating. Please rate to stop these clowns.
cperez1000 2 years ago 25
How else would it get so low?
Creationists actions speaks louder than their words.
kentekent 2 years ago 3
And for fear of spamming this video - which inexplicably had 2 stars when I arrived - the guy who says that scientists need to get out there to the public, and into schools is spot on. How many of us can say that various religious kooks got access to their schools during their time there. I know I can. Where were the scientific communicators? That onus rests on ourselves. We have to get off our ass, give monetary support to initiatives that work, and speak up.
stevebritgimp 3 years ago 5
How does DNA disprove evolution??? If anything it has been the greatest support for it!
Also, there is no such thing as Darwinism that is a word invented by creation believers.
Freeze01 3 years ago 26
DNA explains how digital information is passed through generations of living things. However DNA is too complicated to explain the origin of life. Creationists point to this and say 'Evolution is wrong - that's it, stop thinking'. Scientists study the problem and look at simpler replicators, such as RNA, PNA and GNA. Scientists also study the possibilities of how metabolism can arise before living cells, and how genetic information is shared between living things.
stevebritgimp 3 years ago 5
Our understanding of the chemical processes that gave rise to life are necessarily incomplete. However the anti-intellectual movement likes to seize upon any flaw, and then say the whole is wrong, and they say the whole intellectual exercise is futile. These are people who drive cars.
Too right the problem is in the US. Out of major industrialised countries only Turkey is more backward - but they are at least working on it.
stevebritgimp 3 years ago 5
DNA isn't too complicated, humans just aren't smart enough yet. (1 strand of DNA is f-ing huge) Our brains just can't 1) remember all of it, and 2) make the connections.....yet. (lol, wouldn't creationists love if everyone would just turn off their brain)
raptor797 3 years ago 4
@Freeze01 DNA would have to form through undirected processes in order to form life. If we do the math we get a probability of one chance in 10 to the 100,000,000,000th power for the simplest cell to have all the proteins it needs. A chemical reaction that requires a probability of 10 to the 67th power is statistically imposable. There are 10 to the 80th atoms in the observable universe. Darwin did not know this so I will cut him some slack but what is our excuse? Faith?
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
@callingheyzeus
Go pick up a book other than creationist propaganda and learn something. The explanation can't be given in 500 words. And gaining knowledge should be an activity not passive listening. So go to your local library or university.
Freeze01 1 year ago
@Freeze01
I got a degree in Biology and graduated at the top of my class. And I used to teach evolution.
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
@callingheyzeus
Sure........... that is why you parrot creationist propaganda.
Freeze01 1 year ago
@Freeze01
Random chance couldn't produce a pizza let alone a protozoa but just try to push that out of your head and pretend like it doesn't exist. I was acting like a right handed amino acid in a protein chain full of lefties. Sorry I kicked your golden calf over and spoiled all your fun. I would ask for your forgiveness now but that would be pointless in a world of moral relativism. Methinks it is like a weasel. Methinks it is like a weasel. Methinks it is like a weasel. Methinks it is like a
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
@callingheyzeus
:) well how nice of you to show your true creationist bumpkin colors... now never try to claim having learned anything about biology again... now do everyone a pleasure and crawl back under your rock of ignorance or go to a library or university and LEARN!
You are sooo laughable.
Freeze01 1 year ago
@Freeze01
Is that self replicating RNA in your pocket or are you just happy to mock someone.
callingheyzeus 1 year ago
@callingheyzeus Yeah right... you used to teach evolution and now you're a parrot for creationist propaganda. HAHA!!!
atheistram 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Darwinism and Evolution,treats as fact the origins of life. If anyone takes an objective view on the theory of Evolution and does some investigating of their own, Darwinism is being discredited, even by prominent scientists, one reason is what we know about DNA. In Darwin's defence he didn't have the equipment to study DNA as we do now. My point is, why embrace Darwinism so fervently when it is being continually refuted?
The EVOLUTION MYTH DEBUNKED by NATURE! on YouTube
ATBINTC 3 years ago
For one thing, even most high schoolers can tell you that darwin's theory of evolution says NOTHING about the origin of life, it's simply about evolution. When you say something as ignorant as that, people tend to ignore everything else you have to say.
AnonTbomb 3 years ago 5
To my knowledge Darwin's theories have never been refuted, only confirmed and expanded. When Darwin was writing a lot of the mechanisms that gave the effects he observed were not known. Since then our knowledge of geology, biology and in particular chemistry has advanced massively. Darwin's observations still hold, and fit right in with other areas, for example continental drift and plate tectonics. ATBINTC's whole paragraph is more than faintly ridiculous.
stevebritgimp 3 years ago 9
fuck creotards
mortemdei 3 years ago 4
god is fake ..prove me wrong
parrella000 3 years ago
Hmm, looks like the creationazis are marking these clips down too.
0lord0kinbote0 3 years ago
Then explain why in this video it matters how many people believe it? If you believe it, most scientist believe it: Why does it matter that only 50% of Americans believe it? The science is the tools used to investigate the crime scene: The crime scene isn't the science. Microscopes advances science, macroscopes in years past were called Crystal Balls. I agree with the science, but not all your interpretation of the evidence, so what: The world going to stop spinning for you?
Krydan2167 3 years ago
When a country refuses to accept a scientific theory with a tremendous amount of evidence supporting it based solely on the fact that it conflicts with their religious dogma, then that says something about it. I don't give a flying fuck that people don't accept certain theories--evolution, string theory, the big bang, abiogenesis--that doesn't mean that you're suppose to lie or make shit up about it in order to persuade politicians or whatever to outlaw it or make it unavailable somehow.
DeadFishFactory 3 years ago
Circumstantial evidence that is millions of years old. 1) No transitional species has ever been confirmed in the past, and none has ever been witnessed to have occurred. Even Dawkin's admits that much. 2) No proof that all life began from a single cell! 3) Where is the tremendous amount of evidence? Hard evidence, not circumstantial evidence: But hard empirical in the lab proof? Skepticism is a good thing. Do you believe everything scientist have said over the years?
Krydan2167 3 years ago
There ARE transitional fossils asshole--tiktaalik, archaeopteryx, ambulocetus natans, etc. Technically, all living organism is a "transitional" fossil, asshole. There is evidence that supports common descent, asshole--you can find certain similarities from viruses and bacterias that encoded its own genome into ours--many species share this similarity, asshole; therefore, we could rule out "coincidence."
DeadFishFactory 3 years ago
Have you EVER opened a college-levelled biology textbook? Have you ever done any independant research rather than sit there with your thumb up your ass? Do your fucking homework--you will find a plethora of evidence; that is, unless you DENY all the evidence and claim that it is some kind of atheistic science conspiracy. Asshole.
DeadFishFactory 3 years ago
And where is your hard biblical evidence? In the bible? lol, please.
drfunk444 3 years ago
And if you haven't noticed: There are plenty who are skeptical who do not have a strong faith, and certainly not in Christianity. It's isn't always about religious belief, but logical questions as to the method by which we say "Science" when the fact is, it's more to do with ideology. It's political, or else it wouldn't matter who accepted it, as long as your elite group of scientist accepts it; so be it! Don't force your views on others because you think it's science.
Krydan2167 3 years ago
I don't follow science blindly like some dogmatic religion, asshole. I make sure that I understand what the theory says--a step that creationists often ignore--and then I search for evidence on the intertubes or a textbook--whatever is easier.
I always make sure that what the theory says is logical, and that is what evolutionary theory is--it is a logical and well-supported scientific theory, asshole. I don't think it's science, asshole--the evidence speaks for itself.
DeadFishFactory 3 years ago
Why should it matter if 50, 60, or 70% reject science? How is that going to effect anything? Maybe we would be further along if scientist spent less time trying to convert Christians to their atheistic teaching. Evolution has nothing to do with advancements in science. Trying to tell people of faith there is no God, seems to be the real agenda; otherwise they wouldn't be so bent on the forcing the issue. It has everything to do with a secular humanistic agenda; not science!
Krydan2167 3 years ago
Science IGNORES religion. It's actually pretty sad if 70% of the nation rejects science--which brought them clean water, plenty of food, computers, entertainment, medicine, and leisure.
Science is merely explaining the natural world using testable observatinos and experimentation. Because educated people know that the world can be explained naturally, a lot of them don't need God.
Who's forcing the issue? What scientists are trying to do is keep non-science out of science classes.
DeadFishFactory 3 years ago
That was a typo: intended to say evolution, not science. The point was: "Evolution" is a study of the origin of life: A lot of folks, and even many non Christian scientist reject elements of Macro Evolution. Trying to force that aspect of the issue on folks that just don't buy it. How is it going to further science if more people accept your understanding of evolution? It's not going to cure cancer. There is a motive why they are bent on forcing people to accept it as absolutes. It's a theory!
Krydan2167 3 years ago
There is NO difference between microevolution and macroevolution other than timescale, moron. I dunno, the majority of the people who reject "macroevolution" are the same people who read about evolution on creationist propaganda sites, asshole.
You don't have to accept evolution--just don't go overzealous and become a stupid asshole creationist who wants non-science to be taught along side with it. Dumbass.
DeadFishFactory 3 years ago
Evolution is not going to cure cancer anymore than physics would--so why teach physics? Evolution is a valid scientific theory despite the fact that you don't have to learn it to succeed in life, asshole. String theory, astronomy, quantum mechanics, etc. are all valid scientific theories despite its little use in everyday life. Who cares about calabi-yau manifolds, stars, or Heisenberg uncertainty principle?
"It's just a theory." Learn what a scientific theory is, dumbass.
DeadFishFactory 3 years ago
Didn't say don't teach it: Teach it, believe it, that is your choice: Why act like its the end of the world of everybody doesn't accept it: The reason debunked material is still in your text books is it's has nothing to do with science, its become a political agenda. Neither side can take the biased preconceived notions out of it, only looking and forcing the evidence to fit the notion. Otherwise you'd be able to prove it without your lying debunked material.
Krydan2167 3 years ago
I don't care if you don't think evolution is a scientific theory supported by overwhelming evidence--just don't say that we need to balance its teachnigs with some form of creationism shit.
There are NO debunked material in science textbooks other than for its historical signifigance. What you learn it a modern biology textbook has a scientific consensus.
If you assume that every piece of evidence is false only because it doesn't fit your bible, then it is YOU who's an asshole.
DeadFishFactory 3 years ago
I didn't say teach the Bible in school: I don't want it taught in school. The origin of life is not something that should be taught in school. I don't care if you believe life started from a single cell: But you can't prove that: So why teach it? And I don't care about your insults, it's a common descent among atheist to defend their racist prophet: Charles Darwin!
Krydan2167 3 years ago
The origins of life is not taught in any public schools that I know of. It only skims the surface saying something along the line "After life appeared on Earth, blah blah blah." In higher education classes, like in universities, then probably the different theories and models are discussed--this is were critical thinking, observations, and evidence comes in.
I insult every creationist asshole, so don't take it personally, asshole.
DeadFishFactory 3 years ago
Racist prophet? Reasonable people dont have prophets.
Anyway,
Evolution is a theory, that is true. However, to even make the status of theory is quite an achievement. Think of evolution as a 10,000 pc puzzle. Sure theres about 130 pcs missing, but if you step back and look at the big picture you can see what it is. You cant try to "jam" in a piece that has the finger of God on it.
drfunk444 3 years ago
In "The Descent Of Man" Darwin "PREDICTED" racial wars that would be beneficial to the evolution of mankind.
Your big picture has no beginning, no real purpose, no direction, no law and order, no right, no wrong; it is merely a means to define a natural cause for all that exist. If there is no God, then killing off all that propose a threat to the higher order becomes permissible and perhaps even necessary for the preservation of the more advanced. Sound familiar?
Krydan2167 3 years ago
Just because someone "predicts" something doesnt make them a prophet.
The evolution theory does not adress the issue of beginnings, right vs wrong, etc. Nor does it imply a Godless universe. It merely draws a very viable account of what most likely takes place. Why dont you argue the theory of gravity while you're at it.
drfunk444 3 years ago
Gravity is observable, macro evolution is not. Mutations are not observed increasing in new information. While some may be beneficial, most in fact are not. You can't get from a single cell to scales, feathers etc. without new information added to the system. How would the eye evolve without foreknowledge of it's benefit? Feathers for wings with out knowing it's aerodynamic benefits? Just happened, isn't a scientific answer!
Krydan2167 3 years ago
Its not that it just happened ... it adapted to suit its needs. I find it ironic how religion tries to debunk evolution when religion itself has had to "evolve" so it can change and "adapt" to survive. I really dont think Christianity would be around if we still adhered to the teachings in Laviticus or Exodus.
drfunk444 3 years ago
The Mosaic law and grace is clearly explained in the text: they both point to Jesus and the cross, death and resurrection.
I could point out a thousand types and foreshadows of that historic event in the old Test: Christianity has survived despite the many false branches, and atheistic attempts to destroy it.
You still didn't answer how random mutations could foretell beneficial results of an eye prior to it's evolution, or an observable example of new information in mutations?
Krydan2167 3 years ago
random mutations dont always work, in fact most dont. when they do its not because they "foresee" a better way, its that they "discover" a better way of doing things.
Theres an old saying "Find out what it is you dont do well then, dont do that."
They observe new mutations in science all the time. Bird flu was discovered to be the cause of the 1917 flu epidemic. Thru dna data taken from that time and compared to the recent outbreak, they found the strand had mutated. Cont...
drfunk444 3 years ago
because laws of chemistry are constant (unless otherwise proven different) these mutations take many forms and happen all the time.
drfunk444 3 years ago
But no mutation has ever shown an increase in new information. They are simply a mutation within a already existing code: As you mention, the bird flu is not a new evolved epidemic but rather a mutation of an old stain. The eye would require an uninterrupted sequencing over thousands of minute mutations to have any benefit: Did the eye evolve over night. It would take a tremendous amount of positive uninterrupted mutations to have any real benefit to survival, and a lot of new information!
Krydan2167 3 years ago
1st What is the mosaic law and grace?
2nd What historic event?
3rd "Christianity has survived despite the many false branches and atheistic attempts to destroy it" What are these false branches? Protestants? Judahism? Islamic? Mormonism? Jo. Witness, Catholisism? the United Church? Anglican? Pentacostal? Prespiterian? Mennonite? Sikh? What is your absolute belief and what makes your interpretation about something youve been taught make you so self righteous?
drfunk444 3 years ago
The cross is a historic event, rather you believe Jesus is Lord or not. One would have to be blind not to see the foreshadow of the death and resurrection foretold in the stories in the Old Testament. There are over a thousand examples! Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness is just one. Daniel in the lions den : A type of baptism, Noah in the Ark. The passover and Exodus from Egypt. Joseph in the well! Too many examples to list. But it's always consistent.
Krydan2167 3 years ago
Further more, the Bible teaches there will be many false Christ, and false teachers. All cannot be true branches if they teach a different Gospel than the one taught in scripture. If you want to understand the old law and grace: Read the first 7 chapters of Romans: Paul did a pretty good job explaining it. My absolute belief is in the word, not man made denomination as listed above. Let God be true and every man a liar.
Krydan2167 3 years ago
Evangelical Fundamentalism is purely a Western civilization phenomenon. Isnt it interesting that it doesnt exist in Europe?
drfunk444 3 years ago
Perhaps not as main stream in Europe but it exist the world over. Where do you get your information from. I know from your own list, such as; the Church of Christ, Pentecostal, Baptist etc.. all have branches throughout Europe. Guess what, traditional Country music is more popular in Europe than the US. I bet you think it only plays south of the Mason Dixon Line.
Krydan2167 3 years ago
I could ask as well of what makes you so self righteous in your world view THAT YOU'VE BEEN TAUGHT. To pretend that your world view is not based on an ideology and often blind faith is to totally ignore reality. Remember Dawkins words: "Evolution is real, it's just no one has ever seen it while it's happening" Blind faith!
Krydan2167 3 years ago
Again. The theory of evolution doesnt state "just happened". Most mutations dont work. Certain species die off, some become stagnant (e.g. primates) But occassionally mutations do work and become a successful piece that is passed on in an evolutionary line. There is no need for "foreknowledge"
drfunk444 3 years ago
Evolution does not point out how life started but rather how it evolved. You should get your facts straight before you try and conspirisize something.
drfunk444 3 years ago
I never mentioned how life began: However, It is fair to say a single cell doesn't have eyes. In order for eyes to evolve, it would require a vast amount of new information; undirected mutations without foreknowledge of the benefits is a ridiculous hypothesis, rather it be feathers, wings, eyes etc..
There are no observable mutation that shows new information that is not already available in the DNA code. Yes we can adapt, but using the code that is already written.
Krydan2167 3 years ago
"Yes we can adapt, but using the code that is already written."
You contradict yourself. You imply here that evolution takes place but with a predetermined blueprint. So what youre saying is that God created evolution. Congradulations ... youre coming around.
drfunk444 3 years ago
I don't know of anyone who doesn't believe in adaptation within a "Kind" This does not prove all life evolved from primordial mud or share a common ancestor as taught in evolution. The Bible say: Let the waters bring forth life after their kind, let the earth bring forth life after their kind. But life was created fully developed as shown in the fossil record and the so called Cambrian explosion. As even Richard Dawkins has said: It appears life just sprang forth quickly with no transitions.
Krydan2167 3 years ago
There is a big difference in micro, and macro: Micro is observable, macro isn't: All scientist agree on micro: There are thousands of none Christian scientist that don't agree on macro: Its not a law as is gravity. It is a theory, and weak one at that: 150 yeas later and you still can't prove it. It's an atheistic attempt to remove God from the conscience: Has to do with your socialist atheistic views, nothing to do with science. Still have debunked material in your text books. Why?
Krydan2167 3 years ago
Microevolution is the small changes in a population from generation to generation--macroevolution is the compounded effects of microevolution over geological periods of times, asshole. A theory is HIGHER in science than a law or fact, asshole. A theory is a framework that incorporates laws and facts, asshole.
DeadFishFactory 3 years ago
"An atheistic attempt to remove God from the conscience?" Evolution does not say that there is no God, asshole--it doesn't say there's no Zeus or Odin or Flying Spaghetti Monster, either. Scientific theories do not comment on the supernatural, asshole, because supernatural explanations are outside the realms of science.
So if a scientific theory is out to remove supernaturality from the conscience, then it's considered non-science and a poor atheistic attempt? asshole.
DeadFishFactory 3 years ago
Gravity is still considered a theory, sorry.
drfunk444 3 years ago
I don't consider macro evolution a theory. I rather see it as a silly hypothesis at best. Even Richard Dawkin's has said: Evolution is real, but no one has ever seen it while it is happening. Let see: You can't test it in a lab, see it, smell it, hear it, feel it: but you know that it's real. Sounds like a pretty big leap of faith for a so called scientific theory.
Krydan2167 3 years ago
Wrong! Evolution is not the study of the origin of life. It studies HOW life adapts, changes and evolves thru natural selection. If you're going to debate, make sure you know your opponent.
Secondly, How old is the Earth Krydan?
Thirdly, How old is the universe?
drfunk444 3 years ago
1) No one disagrees with adaptation within a kind or species. Being able to adapt is written within our DNA, our DNA does not require new information to adapt. Saying Eyes evolved over x amount of time via random mutations with no evidence of intermediate benefit to survival is found in your mind, never in a lab.
Doesn't matter how old the Earth is; could be a trillion years for all I care. Time to a eternal God has no value; it's merely for human perception: Thought it wasn't about origin?
Krydan2167 3 years ago
Your arguments are scattered and contradict themselves.
I am moving on. Good day to you and God bless
drfunk444 3 years ago
"Being able to adapt is written within our DNA, our DNA does not require new information to adapt."
If I were to give you an example of a new mutation that developed an entirely new and useful feature would you retract that statement?
"no evidence of intermediate benefit"
Even though we have living examples of mollusks with such intermediate forms that obviously function.
Onithyr 3 years ago
First, give your example: But keep in mind, if natural selection via random mutations is the rule, then we should find examples in all living things.
And the point was: What was the benefit to the various stages of the eye prior to it's final visual capabilities? Are we to believe the first eye was mere blind luck, seeing that prior to it's finale stage it would have absolutely no use whatsoever for survival, or anything else? I like to think it was created for with a, and on purpose
Krydan2167 3 years ago
"First, give your example"
watch?v=fOtP7HEuDYA
it demonstrates several.
"But keep in mind, if natural selection via random mutations is the rule, then we should find examples in all living things."
Nope, not if they died out, and especially not if it developed before the diversification of the particular clade.
"What was the benefit to the various stages of the eye prior to it's final visual capabilities?"
They all have various levels of visual capabilities.
Onithyr 3 years ago
"Are we to believe the first eye was mere blind luck,"
there are actually single cell organisms that are photo sensitive.
"seeing that prior to it's finale stage it would have absolutely no use whatsoever"
Even though there are many examples of simpler versions, really your argument falls on its face.
"I like to think it was created"
Good for you, reality however suggests otherwise.
Onithyr 3 years ago
You say there are many examples, but you avoid giving a single one. Remember, random mutations have no purpose or foresight; but rather evolving and discarding what works and what doesn't, what doesn't dies out. The question is: How long do you think it took for proteins to randomly work together to form the first eye? And what was it's use prior to it's visual capability? Reality suggest you believe in blind luck, and a blind faith!
Krydan2167 3 years ago
"You say there are many examples, but you avoid giving a single one."
That's right just ignore the examples in the video I linked you to. Ignoring evidence is a common creationist pastime.
"Remember, random mutations have no purpose or foresight"
Fucking DUH! Why is it that creationists cant get the idea that it's natural selection that provides guidance NOT mutation?
Onithyr 3 years ago
"How long do you think it took for proteins to randomly work together to form the first eye?"
There are single celled organisms that are photosensitive, this ability could easily have come about in the several billion years before multicellular life. Remember, ignorance is not an argument it is simply ignorance.
Onithyr 3 years ago
"randomly work together to form the first eye"
They DIDN'T you creationist fucktard. What have I been saying this whole time? The eye is the end product of a multi-stage process that started with simple light sensitive cells. YOU DON'T START WITH A FULLY FORMED EYE YOU FUCKTARD. But go ahead and continue with this strawman it only demonstrates you're ignorance.
Onithyr 3 years ago
You represent you side well with the insults. Seems to be endemic to the evolutions world view. But that is my point, the eye according to you developed over God only knows how long of a period of time. What benefit was the different stages of this process prior to the fully developed eye? How is light sensitivity beneficial to survival? What came first the optic nerve, or the photo lens. A camera that doesn't have a lens is a worthless paper weight at best; so is your argument!
Krydan2167 3 years ago
"You represent you side well with the insults"
And if you had taken the time to notice every single one of them was beside a complete refutation of one of your arguments. A note for the ignorant: it's not ad hominem if I defeat your argument first.
"Seems to be endemic to the evolutions world view."
This however, is ad hominem as you use it to avoid actually having to contend with my points.
Onithyr 3 years ago
You haven't refuted anything, or made a point: Watching a video is not refuting anything. I could give you a website to make my argument, but I thought you wanted to debate in your own words.You have avoided the question: How did the eye evolve, and what was the benefit prior to the finale stage?
Krydan2167 3 years ago
"Watching a video is not refuting anything"
The video contains the information that you are looking for. Ignoring the information is not an argument.
"I could give you a website to make my argument"
You mean like the arguments that you have already copy-pasted from creationist sites?
Onithyr 3 years ago
I have not copied anything: In fact, I've never read a creationist view on it. I heard a evolutionist trying to explain how it evolved, and saw how much he struggled trying to explain it. Then I spent sometime pondering how it could have evolved via natural selection. You are the one relying on others work to make your argument; I choose to think and reply for myself with my own thoughts.
Krydan2167 3 years ago
"I have not copied anything: In fact, I've never read a creationist view on it."
My bad I mixed you up with another creationist I was arguing with yesterday. Your just the one who's improperly citing logical fallacies while using fallacious logic (such as your current appeals to ignorance) at the same time.
Onithyr 3 years ago
No problem!
What is the fallacious logic in asking what benefit is a pupil without a lens? A optic nerve without a retina? Each part has to have some purpose in and of itself, or else you are back to blind luck: To argue that these parts evolved, then merged together to form a complex visual apparatus is a fallacious argument unless each part has a benefit in and of itself. That is the question: Explain the parts, and there individual benefit to survival.
Krydan2167 3 years ago
"What is the fallacious logic in asking what benefit is a pupil without a lens?"
It's an appeal to ignorance and personal incredulity (look them up fucktard I'm not here to teach you about logic). You are arguing that a lack of answer disproves evolution when it would not (even though the answer is there if you would take the time to look and comprehend).
Onithyr 3 years ago
1st: You are unable to defend your position or else you would. If your video answers the question, you would debate it rather than run from it. You just prove you do not have the ability to defend what you say you believe in.
2nd: I never said it disproves evolution: I just pointed out natural selection can't explain it.
Krydan2167 3 years ago
"2nd: I never said it disproves evolution: I just pointed out natural selection can't explain it. "
IF that were true (which it's not) would that mean that the answer is automatically a magic man? You are yet again making an appeal to ignorance, and personal incredulity as well as falling victim to a false dichotomy.
Onithyr 3 years ago
Yeah I appealed to an ignorant fool to answer a simple question. You are without a doubt the worst proponent for evolution I have ever encountered. Richard Dawkins should have you drawn and quartered for your inability to defend his DOCTRINE as he calls it! I'm done wasting my time with you.
Krydan2167 3 years ago
"Yeah I appealed to an ignorant fool to answer a simple question."
Obviously you don't know what an appeal to ignorance is. Before making yourself look even more foolish you should look it up and avoid using such fallacious logic.
Onithyr 3 years ago
I know what it means: But using your rules, you can hide behind that argument for anything that you can't fit into your little black box!
And don't pretend evolutionist don't like to point out things when creationist speculate or offer a hypothesis for something that can't prove. The bottom line is, you can't prove there wasn't a designer, and I can't prove there was. The point is, your theory is based on faith that things just happened, so here we are. I believe life has a purpose.
Krydan2167 3 years ago
"I know what it means:"
Context please, you know what what means?
"But using your rules, you can hide behind that argument for anything that you can't fit into your little black box!"
In other words you can't come up with a valid argument so you want to complain.
Onithyr 3 years ago
I'm not complaining, I don't have a problem with how God created the eye. You have a problem with your lucky charm hypothesis on how everything came about by random chance.
Krydan2167 3 years ago
"everything came about by random chance."
Remember how I was talking about your use of straw men and how they only serve to demonstrate your ignorance of the subject at hand? Well yeah, case in point.
Onithyr 3 years ago
It's based on random chance: That's not a straw man. That is what your theory teaches! If nothing gives it direction, if life is explained by random mutations, then not only do the strongest, but the luckiest survive, the weak and not so lucky die off. You call it what you like: It's chance!
Krydan2167 3 years ago
"It's based on random chance: That's not a straw man."
Variations that are beneficial have a tendency to increase in frequency is random chance? Yes your argument is a straw man because evolution relies on natural selection and natural selection is anything but random.
Onithyr 3 years ago
"then not only do the strongest, but the luckiest survive, the weak and not so lucky die off."
You seem to have a very week understanding of what 'fit' means in a biological context. It does NOT mean 'strongest', 'smartest' or 'fastest' it simply means those who are best able to survive and reproduce. Large size and strength can be detrimental as they would require increased energy intake to survive.
Onithyr 3 years ago 2
"but the luckiest survive, the weak and not so lucky die off. You call it what you like: It's chance!"
Statistics always have exceptions, but statistically speaking trends will always go in a certain direction. This is hardly 'random chance' as you put it. You are ignoring the statistic probability of survival because it is convenient for you.
Onithyr 3 years ago 4
"God created the eye."
Demonstrate that a deity exists in the first place then demonstrate a method by which it interacts with life. We know how evolution works and all of the necessary mechanisms have been directly observed.
Onithyr 3 years ago
Demonstrate he doesn't! And no you have never seen macro evolution observed. You assume it by minute random changes built into our code. You can't point to new information in the code! As mentioned before, you can't go from a single cell to human, for instance, without a tremendous amount of new information. Where is this observed?
Krydan2167 3 years ago
"Demonstrate he doesn't!"
He doesn't WHAT? CONTEXT MOTHERFUCKER!
"macro evolution"
Ah yes, another macro vs micro creotard. I bet you can't come up with an accurate objective definition of the difference between 'macro' and 'micro' evolution that doesn't immediately defeat your argument either. I have given this challenge to countless creationists all have failed. Thus the argument of 'macro' is invalid.
Onithyr 3 years ago
"Thus the argument of 'macro' is invalid."
So you in all of your scientific accurate methods have posed a question to several people and since those people didn't have an answer an entire argument is invalid? Classic!
FlushMeJ 3 years ago
"So you in all of your scientific accurate methods have posed a question to several people and since those people didn't have an answer an entire argument is invalid? Classic!"
No, Creationists as a whole refuse to objectively define their terms. They intentionally choose ambiguous terms so that when they are demonstrated to be incorrect they can easily change the goalpost. If they do not objectively define their terms then they cannot use them in argument.
Onithyr 3 years ago
"creotard" XD hahahaha, great word !!! but don't argue with creotards, just fucking taze them!
mortemdei 3 years ago
"new information"
How do you objectively define 'new information' so that one can determine if it is in fact new? If you can't give an answer then this is a non-argument.
"you can't go from a single cell to human"
Of course not, there are a great many steps in between.
Onithyr 3 years ago 3
I wanted to comment on your Marco Vs Micro statements. I think, as you do, that that argument is meaningless. I mean it's the micro changes (changes in Genes) that lead to the 'macro' changes (changes in the organism). So when people say that macro evolution can't happen, but the admit that micro evolution can. Well, that's one large non sequitur. Since it's the micro changes that lead to the macro changes. It's hard to believe that in the 21st Century, people can still be so fucking stupid
crazykb 3 years ago
Well, it's not so hard to believe, given that America is so religious.
I don't mean to say that all Christians are anti-evolution; far from it. The Catholic Church has accepted it for years.
What I mean is that in America, there is a trend that strongly supports Christianity of all kinds; however, this leaves open the door for all kinds of charlatans (as well as misguided Biblical literalists) with little to no understanding of science to teach their congregations that evolution is false.
Toocold 3 years ago
Although, the catholic church has accepted evolution, Christians for the most part haven't.Even though both are two sides of the same coin. The problem with religion, all religion, is that people talk to God, but God never talks back. This leaves the door open for interpreting scripture in many ways. And since people have their own agendas and biases, they no doubt bring them into their interpretations.Its best to separate theology from science.Better yet,just get rid of religion all together.
crazykb 3 years ago
I'd like to think that if there were only Catholics, rather than thousands of sects, that a larger proportion of Christians would support evolution.
It's strange though, since the Christians here in Canada, and in the other "Christian nations" accept evolution at much higher rates than Americans do. I think there's more to it than the fact that religious thinking is involved; I think there is a toxic strain of thinking prevalent in America today, based on anti-intellectualism.
Toocold 3 years ago
The 'toxic stain' on America stems from religion. I also have met many Christians in Toronot (where I live) that don't believe in Evolution. However, in Canada we aren't as crazy about religion as America is. Also, America has produced some of the best science, music and movies. However, those days have been replaced by the 'reality TV mentality'. America worships stupidity and ignorance. It's sad because that country produced Star Wars, Star Trek and Dream Theater (I love DT).
crazykb 3 years ago
It's sad to admit this, but many Americans seem to live in a culture that often values sincere mediocrity over talent and genius. Sarah Palin, John McCain, and George W. Bush (or comedy, history, and tragedy as I call them) exemplify this trend. All were reliably academic underachievers.
The election of Obama is a good start, but America still has a long way to go before this trend is countered in any long-term or meaningful way.
Toocold 3 years ago 3
As far as Obama is concerned. Time will tell if he's a true leader. Or just another 'politician'.
crazykb 3 years ago
"Demonstrate he doesn't!"
Hey, I found your context! No, I don't have to disprove your deity as you have no evidence for it's existence. That which can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence. The same goes for Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, the boogeyman, leprechauns, unicorns, and the thousands of gods/goddesses invented by humanity throughout history. You are making yet another appeal to ignorance.
Onithyr 3 years ago
"And don't pretend evolutionist don't like to point out things when creationist speculate or offer a hypothesis"
There is a difference, we have evidence to substantiate our claims. That you wish to ignore the evidence (as previously demonstrated) is not an argument.
Onithyr 3 years ago
It's an assumption, you can't prove the eye evolved based on "this is how it could have evolved" You can't show it in a lab, because there is no transitional evidence to support your claim.
Krydan2167 3 years ago
"you can't prove the eye evolved"
Thank you for yet again demonstrating your ignorance of the scientific method. I do so love it when people refute their own arguments. If you can't see what's wrong with your statement then read my earlier comments.
Onithyr 3 years ago
"offer a hypothesis for something that can't prove."
YES! Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance of the scientific method for all to see. Nothing is EVER 'proven' in science ALL theories are tentative. Science works solely on modus tollens. What you are talking about would be a logical fallacy (affirming the consequent). A theory is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested and makes accurate predictions. What accurate falsifiable predictions does your idea make?
Onithyr 3 years ago
"Nothing is EVER 'proven' in science"
Correction on that. No scientific theory is ever proven to be true, but any scientific theory (by definition) has the potential to be proven false through modus tollens.
Onithyr 3 years ago
Evolution isn't science: Richard Dawkins: Evolution is real, it's just no one has ever seen it while it's happening" That is a quote by one of your so called intellectuals.
Krydan2167 3 years ago
"Evolution isn't science"
Yeah, even though it makes accurate testable falsifiable predictions, and is supported by mountains of evidence and fits all evidence.
"That is a quote by one of your so called intellectuals."
Yes, it's called a quote-mine yet another fallacy (and demonstration of dishonesty) that you should look up.
Onithyr 3 years ago
How has evolution been tested? Have you seen it in action? Richard Dawkins hasn't, but he believes it anyway. And Random mutations can predict nothing. Going back and fitting pieces discovered into your puzzle isn't a prediction. A prediction is telling what will happen in the future. Like: So called junk DNA will be proven to have function: That was predicted by creationist. And it's being verified by recent discoveries.
Krydan2167 3 years ago