@Wanda7771 About that, if you don't want to talk about it, you don't need to comment. You don't see me on a creationist channel or some body's church arguing about evolution; that suggests to me you were looking for an argument-and you found one.
LUCY IS ANOTHER FAKE! PILTDOWN MAN:FAKE:NEBRASKA MAN:FAKE!Ramapithecus: FAKE!CASTENEDOLO SKELETONS:FAKE! NARMADA MAN:FAKE! Kenneth A.R. Kennedy: "Homo-erectus never existed!" from Geotimes Oct. 1992, p11 CASE CLOSED!!!!
@Wanda7771 Yep, you keep coming up with isolated incidences. Let's just ignore the THOUSANDS of genuine transistional species so we can pretend magic man poofed everything into existance
@Wanda7771 ""The place of the australopithecine in human evolution:Grounds for Doubt? Nature, vol 258Dec.4, 1975,p389"
This article states that the Genus Homo is actually older than was previously thought. This finding would actually make creationism less true. Especially since it would have shown a form of bipedality that later failed proving that they weren't intelligently designed.
"At present, we have no grounds for thinking that there was anything distinctively human about australopithecine ecology and behavior..they are surprisingly ape-like in skull form, premolar dentition,limb proportions and morphology of joint surfaces, (etc) and they SPENT A LOT OF TIME IN THE TREES.fm."One Hundred Years of Paleoanthropology"American Scientist,Vol.74,July, 1986p.417.So that was a FAKE along with Piltdown Man.The whole field of evolution is pure fakery
@fringeelements If you're talking about my example at 1:15, I assure you I was NOT talking about races of humans. I was using the color on the gradient as being analagous to one species smoothly transitioning into another without any definitive point where one becomes the other.
I know. I'm just saying that YT atheists make the same kind of error by saying that because races are on a gradient, they're trivial, and that there's no clear line between one race and another. Now the creationist goes on to say this proves evolution didn't happen, while the YT atheist goes on to say this proves races don't exist, so the conclusions and scales are different, but they're both making a continuum fallacy.
@fringeelements Only YT atheists? Your weird racial theories have a constituency of one. The reason most people that understand evolution aren't racists is that we now know most humans have common ancestors that are very recent and coupled with our long lifespans we have comparatively few generations.
That is why science backs up the idea that people should be evaluated by their actions and not presorted based on some 19th century Lamarckian view of Evolution.
@Wanda7771 Again, an isolated incident. Further, it was doubted when Dawson *first* presented it at the Royal Geological Society. Yes, you can deceive people on first glance, but inevitably the scientific method will uncover any such fraud.
Source: 'Piltdown Man'; Oakley & Weiner; British Museum of Natural History & University of Oxford; reprinted American Scientist (1955)
@dj092768 "Darwin on Trial" has many such "isolated incidents"andwhen your gradual change wont work any more you invent a new theory,"punctuated equilibrium" to explain the prelevence of "stasis" in the fossil record
@Wanda7771 "to explain the prelevence of "stasis" in the fossil record"
WTF is prelevence.
""andwhen your gradual change wont work any more you invent a new theory,"punctuated equilibrium""
Since gradual doesn't mean constant and the punctuated equilibriums took much longer than what you think the age of the Earth is they are still gradual from a creatards point of view.
@Wanda7771 Nothing about punctuated equilibrium makes gradual change not work; it's more of a way of dividing the barriers between species for convenience than anything else. There is NO "stasis" in the fossil record-even if that were our primary source of evidence for evolution, which it isn't. Also, since fossilization is the exception rather than the rule, PE is a controversial side issue. Freeman&Herron (1998) *Evolutionary Analysis* Prentice-Hall
@Wanda7771 The author of Darwin on trial was/is a lawyer who misrepresented "every scientific source cited ... in ways ranging from simple misinterpretations and innuendos to the construction of what appears to be outright fiction." (Spitzer)
Spitzer,B (2002) *The Truth,The Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth*
book: "DARWIN ON TRIAL" by Phillip E. Johnson. More intelligent writing against evolution.reviewed by Michael Denton: "Unquestionably the best critique of Darwinism I have ever read." and Alvin Plantinga U of NotreDame:"Shows just how Darwinian evolution has become an IDOL." Phillip E Johnson is a graduate of Harvard, and is intelligent and perfectly capable of understanding and refuting the evolutionary "theory."btw, STONETOP, define Poe.Not the author I presume which INSULT is it?
@Wanda7771 A poe is someone who pretends to hold views s/he doesn't actually hold for the sake of argument. It is a subrogation of "poser". Normally, this constitutes a sub-type of troll.
@dj092768 dj092768, Then I am not a poe.If all your arguments consist of is a string of insults then you don't have a good argument.You cannot cover-up a weak argument by insulting your oponent or using profanity.Just proves how weak your brain really is
@Wanda7771 "You cannot cover-up a weak argument by insulting your oponent or using profanity"
No, you have to fake your sources and lie about books you haven't read. Oddly enough I found about half the creationist websites make the same error you did on the Sanford book. Thanks for the example of memetic mutation. If they had read the book they would have realized it was one and not two books. Then again creationists like other people to do their thinking for them.
@Wanda7771 "Poe" refers to "Poe's Law," which states that it is impossible for someone to do a parody of creationists that is more ridiculous than actual creationist claims. A "Poe" is therefore someone who attempts to do this.
Darwin was simply an athiest who set out to verify his own godless viewpoints so that he could feel better about them.So he concocted this ridiculous theory and other athiests jumped on his bandwagon for the same reasons
@Wanda7771 NO I didn't sleep 14 hours.Is that your level of logic? No wonder you're an evolutionist.I don't just get up and jump on U-Tube.I have other chores to do firstlol
OOO, A great example of how science works, and that if you were to prove evolution wrong you would be totally famous: The four humors. The idea that the body contained four humors: blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm. Its why they drained your blood when you had certain ailments because they believed that being sick was a result of the one of the four humors was out of balance. It was universally accepted and was disproved by Rudolf Virchow, who is famous beyond belief in medical history.
A few theories which were universally accepted in their day which have been disproved, sometimes with great difficulty and under scrutiny of a reluctant scientific community:
Spontaneous Generation
Phlogiston
Geocentric model (and as you know, the guy who disproved this is not famous at... all /sarcasm)
What degree did Charles Darwin have? Did he have a degree in evolution?NO.Did he have a degree in genetics?NO, Yet all of today's intelligencia swallow his THEORY like it was red meat.So strange.
@Wanda7771 Except there was no concept of evolution at the n'or was there genetics. He was, however, a naturalist who dedicated his life to the pursuit of KNOWLEDGE. And please, for the love of zeus acknowledge that you don't actually know what a theory is.
@jeans1515 Ok... self... you gotta slow down and write calmly. The creationists may be frightfully ignorant, but that's no excuse for poor grammar. (I'm replying to myself if YouTube does not show that)
@Wanda7771 Actually, Dr. Darwin was one of the first two naturalist of his day, which is *why* the crown paid for his expedition to the Galapagos Islands. He was a member (and a director) of the royal academy of sciences at the time. *OF COURSE* he didn't have a degree in evolution. Neither does Richard Dawkins. They both have/had degrees in *biology*; there's a distinct difference
@shanedk Well, sort of. It is possible to study cell structures or anatomy or endocrin systems w/o knowing about evolution. Very difficult, and you'll probably get all the above wrong w/o it; but it is *possible*.
@dj092768 ok, so Darwin can do his own original research 150 years ago but any modern creationists who does HIS own research is just an unqualified quack? oic
@Wanda7771 Absolutely! Because Darwin was there at the beginning, but now creationists have 150 years worth of scientific advancement to catch up on. Remember when Darwin was alive we didn't even know how to treat disease properly or even know if a medicine was effective--his doctors put him and his daughter through all sorts of quackery trying to cure them. It's thought that this may have even contributed to Annie Darwin's death!
Annie had scarlet fever (the same thing my daughter was cured of for $4, thanks in large part to science spawned by Darwin's theory), and she was "treated" with things like having cold water poured over her, and even mercury treatments which probably hastened her death!
But if you creationists are satisfied with that level of scientific advancement, go right ahead, enjoy yourselves...
@shanedk yes like i said, we are enjoying the 550% increase in cancer. maybe your daughter isn't going to die of the scarlet fever but im pretty sure there are billions of other things which weve created that aren't safe for her. where are you getting this idea that science has made our life a utopia compared to long ago? your argument is this, "hey, i got a cut and didn't die because i put anti-biotic ointment on. science!" yet cancer and disease are up since 100 yrs ago.
@shanedk wait, are you saying that all disease, war, famine, pestulance, evil deeds, crime, rape, have steadily decreased in the last 100 years? if you believe that then its obvious you are just going on your own opinion with no relation to real world facts. but hey, if you think that all those things mentioned are dwindling and will soon be eradicated... then bravo!! not even i could reduce my inteligence that low in order to live a happy care free life.
@tylerdurden666able The facts are on shane's side. Life expectancy has dramatically increased and deadly diseases HAVE declined. Cancer and other diseases OF THE AGED have increased because people live longer and don't die of other things. People live longer, are healthier, are more prosperous and live in a world with lower crime rates (statistically verified). And this has overwhelmingly been the result of science. From where comes your misplaced pessimism?
@FletchforFreedom so what you are saying is, we now live longer, all disease is on the decline, cancer and diseases only effects the old, we are all healthier than 100 years ago, we all have more money than long ago, and we live in a world with hardly any crime compared to 100 years ago? thanks for clarifying mr. scientist. wow you are right, what was i doing listening to the news when they tell me that the world is actually different than what you say. stupid news people!
@tylerdurden666able "so what you are saying is, we now live longer," Yes. "all disease is on the decline," Yes. "cancer and diseases only effects the old," No one said that, LIAR. "we are all healthier than 100 years ago," Yes. "we all have more money than long ago," Yes. "and we live in a world with hardly any crime compared to 100 years ago?" Yes! Now you're getting it.
the figures of life expectancy have very little to do with how long people liver per say and have a great deal to do with infant mortality rates decreasing sharply. i mean, if you were able to make it as a baby, chances were you would live a long life like many today. this is a distinction that must be pointed out.
@shanedk wow!! my god, i cant wait till ten more years to see how we are advancing! i mean, buy your estimates, utopia should be around the corner. wait a minute, what about... oh nevermind, you already explained to me that all bad things on earth are on a decline so whos to worry?
@tylerdurden666able Well lets see... disease (pestulance?) has clearly declined over the past 100 years (see the eradication of small pox, the near eradication of polio, etc). War is a different question... but I'm not sure if the case can be made that the amount of war is higher today then it was 100 years ago.
the same can be said of crime (like rape) is it really higher today the it was 100 years ago?
"maybe your daughter isn't going to die of the scarlet fever but im pretty sure there are billions of other things which weve created that aren't safe for her. "
Yes, not dying in childhood means you wil eventually die of something else decades later.
"where are you getting this idea that science has made our life a utopia compared to long ago?"
"Yes, not dying in childhood means you wil eventually die of something else decades later"
DUH! and what is that "something else" certainly it cant be anything but natural death right since science is a week away from irradicated all bad diseases according to you
"History"
umm, can you give me an example by a scientist that says cancer has declined since the early 1900's?? no, you cant so dont even respond to me thanks :)
@shanedk That's ridiculous.Creationists are not 150 years behind, after all, most of them went to the same university classes that the evolutionists attended.They just didn't agree with the dogma that was taught there.
@Wanda7771 "That's ridiculous.Creationists are not 150 years behind"
No, they're even MORE--we've known the Earth was more than 6,000 years old for over 300 years!
This is just more of your bogus assertions with NOTHING to back them up. So many creationists go into biology and physics classes and discover that YOU PEOPLE FUCKING LIED TO THEM.
@shanedk I cannot stand your superior attitude.If anyone is closed-minded its you and your ilk.You must spend all your time on this website defending evolution. GET A LIFE!
@Wanda7771 If this creationist *does* actual research, that's fine. What actually happens is Creationist makes up a conclusion and tries to make the evidence fit said conclusion. A legitimate researcher examines the evidence, forms a hypothesis, tests the hypothesis, has someone else test the hypothesis, and only if nothing about the hypothesis is contra-indicated is a conclusion reached
@dj092768 That's actually what evolutionists do, make up a conclusion first and then try to make "evidence" fit conclusion.That's what Darwin did and so did Haeckel with his fake embryo drawings.He was tried for fraud before the court of Jena University.I will quote from "Forbidden Archaeology"
@Wanda7771 "That's actually what evolutionists do, make up a conclusion first and then try to make "evidence" fit conclusion."
BULLSHIT. If that were the case, we would NEVER have had endosymbiotic theory, epigenetics, or most of the new concepts introduced in the last few decades in evolutionary biology.
I've warned you about false accusations before. This is your SECOND warning.
@Wanda7771 No they don't. You may find one (such as Haeckel) every once in a great while, but that's it. Darwin himself DISCREDITED a creationist fraudster at a debate at the Royal Society in 1863 (sorry, can't remember the gentleman's name). Ironically, Haeckel's assumption was shown to be essentially correct in 1954 by Cambridge University.
@dj092768"evolutionaryPRECONCEPTIONS impose unreasonable constraints onwhat evidence may be introduced into discussions of human origins and antiquityEvidence is excluded for no other reason than that it violates evolutionary expectations.If one were, however to give evenhanded treatment to all of the available evidence, then it would become impossible to coherently set forth any temporally sequential and physiologically progresssive path toHominid development.Only a ruthlessly selective, etc...
@dj092768 That quote is from "Forbidden Archaeology" by Michael Cremo and Richard L. Thompson.Cremo spent 8 years investigating a major scientific cover-up.Even tho neither is an "evolutionary scientists", they are highly educated and perfectly able to unstand the concepts put forth by "evolutionists", and NEITHER ONE IS A CREATIONIST, but they do a good job exposing this FRAUD.
@Wanda7771 Cremo is a Vedic creationist. His Ph.D is honorary. He believes the universe "has a pure consciousness or spirit". At most, all he does is espouse his religious views, never once discrediting Darwin.
@Wanda7771 By the way, just so we're clear: Darwin graduated Cambridge 10th out of 178 candidates. His student advisor, John Henslow, recommended Darwin to be the naturalist aboard the Beagle because of his intelligence and talents. He was highly intelligent and well-educated. The fact that he didn't have any degree in anything that didn't exist at the time--because he MADE THE DISCOVERIES THAT LED TO THEM--is desperate and pathetic.
@Wanda7771 it amazes me how stupid humans can be -_____- the theory was not "swallowed" they tried to tear it to pieces. They are still trying to tear it to pieces. All of the evidence backs up the theory though so it has held up for 150 years of constant scrutiny. If evolution was going to be destroyed the discovery of DNA would have done it... but DNA supports evolution and genetics supports common descent... There is very little difference between humans and other monkeys ^_^
@Wanda7771 "leo,DrJohnSanford, Cornel U., book "Genetic Entropy" and "Mystery of the Genome",is that relative, or not? One of many"
I see you are cuntpasting nonsense off a creationist website since this is one book, "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" which I bought for $0.50 at ARC.
In this book he misuses Kimuras Distribution of Mutations claiming to be surprised that there are no beneficial mutations when Kimura states he takes them all out on purpose.
@Wanda7771 Sanford also uses statistics by William Dembski that turn out to be false and he misused those. Claiming a ratio of general mutations to beneficial mutations was the same as harmful mutations to beneficial mutations. The vast majority of mutations do nothing. Also as they were talking about a giant E. Coli population this 1 in a million led to a 100% certainty of the end population having a beneficial mutation at the end of the study.
@Wanda7771 Then Stanford says mutations don't add information ( after claiming they could be harmful go figure) he only talks about simple point substitutions and single point insertions or deletions. He ignores other larger changes and even the small changes he talks about can lead to more "information" .
Shane has a video documenting this called Evolution can increase information.
@johnrainrules I confirm evolution does *increase* information. Biologically there is *no* difference between us and a chimp. Yet my combined second chromosome gives me an intellectual advantage. The thing is if evolution does insert a code because it thinks it's beneficial, then all codes after that point are altered.
A creationist book, you say? Because the assertion of "magic sky man done it" didn't fly in academia perhaps? Can I refute that with Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone? We've no shortage of magic men to claim done it with magic.
@Wanda7771 The problem with the entropic principle is that it applies only to a closed system. Since no known biological organism, or even earth itself is a closed system; it does not apply.
@Wanda7771 BUT YOU JUST inferred that you were right because so many disagree.... oh my how you standards are doubled. Regardless. A biologist who disproves evolution would be the most famous, most rich, most sought after mind in the history of science. He or she would be a hero to all scientists.
@dj092768 I know. They remind me of fly's trying to get through a window. thump thump thump thump against the wall. They know they are wrong, but the implications of their wrong-ness is too much for them to handle.
@Wanda7771 i will even go further, they are all in agreement because its based on actual evidence that can be observed, tested, and predicted. Not asserted blind assumptions used in creationism. Evolution is not complete but true. Gravity is a also a theory we find true, which can be tested, observed and predicted but also not fully understood.
SINISTAR,If evolution is such a proven science then why are there so many dissenting scientists?Leme name some speakers at upcomingCreationSymposium:Dr Johnathan Sarfati,physical chemist;DrJohnSanford,CornellUniv.Dr RobCarter,GENE Project.There are 14 imminent scientists to speak at the symposium this year
@Wanda7771 Are any of those guys biologists, id est, do any of them have relevant degrees? I don't care how good my my mechanic is at being a mechanic. If he says that he doesn't believe in fluoride, I'd rather trust my dentist with my dentistry.
Safarti is a chess master, former chemist, and not a biologist, who writes books instead of publishing peer-reviewed scientific papers. He appears to have published exactly zero papers.
Sanford is a former geneticist, who now writes books on creation instead of publishing in peer review.
Dr. Robert W. Carter appears to exist nowhere except his own resume at Creation Ministries and his own non-peer-reviewed creation articles.
It makes so much sense that I have a hard time understanding people who cant understand it. Ultimately, its a matter of a creationists unwillingness to admit that they are wrong, because that means the bible is a work of fiction and I guess they will no longer be able to tell right from wrong... or something.
LegiOnaire, There is no PROOF of evolution either, so's how's about we not teach either one in the public schools?We can teach biology FACTS.We don't need to teach evolution THEORY or creation.Religious schools should be able to teach whatever they want, since parents pay for and chose them.If you want YOUR kids to know evolution, send them to a private school or buy them a video disk. SIMPLE. PROBLEM SOLVED.
Stonetop, Its the evolutionary THEORY that is taught in ALL the public schools, NOT the creationist's.So who's pushing what?You got it exactly backwards dude
@Wanda7771 Do you know what a Theory is? Hint: It's an explanation of a *something* that is supported by all available evidence AND not contradicted by any of the available evidence. Evolution is a FACT, and will continue no matter our knowledge or opinion of it. The Theory of Evolution is our understanding of evolution, which is susceptible to updates and change.
@stonetop i take it you havn't checked your personal mail on youtube to see what i sent you. otherwise you wouldn't have written that. and if you said you praid to thor i wouldn't be surprised. at one point i would have prayed to anything. so, read your mail and get back to me.
@tylerdurden666able I did... and it was a reference to companies using taste receptors to test additives... not adding human tissue to a product that is consumed by people.
shanedk,WRONG, just look at the cockoach.They remain the same for billions, er uh, millions of years, right?Even tho they are found in just about every NICHE, climate, continent,filthy, clean, environment you can name, and by evolutionist's standards should have changed accordingly, yet they have remain basically the SAME forever.And to say that the ceolanehforms is as broad a term as carnivore is a bit of a stretch.BTW,why were evolutionists so shocked when a living ceolacanth was found?Wooops!
@Wanda7771 Uh, actually *no*. This is a point AronRa corrected me on like a year and a half ago. The cockroaches we have now *are not* the same as a billion years ago. The Homo Sapiens we have to day *are not* the same as 45,000 yrs ago.
@Wanda7771 Like coelacanths and carnivora, cockroaches are also an order, Blattaria or Blattodea, of approximately 4500 different species. Which cockroaches are you talking about?
You're right about one thing, although there have only been about 35% as many different species of coelacanths discovered as carnivora, with only approx 230 separate species, carnivora doesn't even COMPARE to how many different cockroaches there have been.
Here's a question for all the evolutionists:Why do you CARE so much whether or not people ACCEPT your THEORY?Its like a personal crusade on your part and GOD HELP ANYONE WHO CROSSES YOU!
@Wanda7771 I don't care if people don't accept evolution. I DO care if they tell LIES to other people. And if you don't see that as a bad thing, then you are an incredibly dishonest person!
@legi0naire yea because the world of science we live in right now is a perfect utopia right? how come theres still war, disease, famine, pestulance, and all the other bad things. let me give you an example. i just spent 3 months researching cancer and its prevalence in the world over the last 100 years. on average, cancer has risen about 500% since 100 years ago. and that does take into account all factors relating to percentages. explain this please.
Science does not overcome cancer overnight neither does praying, there so much more things casing cancer.
Science is also used to make things that are bad for us, causing cancer and other problems, and we are far far away from stopping it let alone curing it.
With cancer take few things into account, we live a lot longer, more pollution, more chemical and non natural substances, at least we have a chance to survive it in the last few decades.
@legi0naire my point was that science in all its glory, is actually increasing cancer as well as other damaging things for the human race. i see science as the evil force which tries and tries to "play god" and in return gives us cancer increase and war increase as well as making only a small percent of a percent of the population the most powerful. i do not see where science is progressing us forward when it seems we are getting worse the smarter we get. we need more morals, not science
Its not science is greed, overpopulation(with religion provokes) the hunger for power which clearly seen in science, abuse of religion is no different as abuse of science its all in name of greed or power.
You really think If we all lived like 2k years ago, there would be no greed or power hungry people, who would manipulate or even kill people, that there would be no problems? have you ever touched a history book or read the bible?
@legi0naire yes, religion is evil, organized religion that is. even the bible tells us that eventually evil men would claim to be jesus or be able to give you what god can give you. these men are the catholic church as well as the "charismatic" movement of christianity. these forces corrupt men, and it was warned about in the bible. i totally agree. jesus once told the devil that its not food that people hunger for, its the truth.
@legi0naire ... and that it was because of a few evil men that the world starves. so even in jesus's time he knew that it wasn't a problem of giving men what they need, because eventually evil would pervade mens hearts and cause them to take away from the rest of us. science is understanding this world, and in understanding this world, all we have managed to do is rape it. over and over again for money and power.
@tylerdurden666able "science is understanding this world, and in understanding this world, all we have managed to do is rape it. over and over again for money and power. "
Hmmm, that must be why there is 20% MORE forest land in North America than there was 100 years ago...
@tylerdurden666able Yes, because it's true. Trees get cut down when people need to farm to stay alive. The fewer people need to farm, the fewer trees cut. Oh, and they GROW BACK. Maybe you weren't aware of that...
@tylerdurden666able I'm fairly sure that the sum total is still better off... with things like clean water, safe food, antibiotics, vaccines, and such people are living longer and better lives (with an ever increasing number of cancer types being curable).
indeed it is a sign of how successful science is that people are living long enough to die of cancer.
@stonetop so you think people are better off today? you do realize cancer is up 600 percent right since 100 years ago, along with pretty much every other disease. science is making disease, not curing it. and yes, i believe the way my grandfather lived, with no medicine, just the food he grew in a garden, he was better off. you can keep your miraculous mcdonalds and mircrowaves.
@tylerdurden666able "i believe the way my grandfather lived, with no medicine, just the food he grew in a garden, he was better off. you can keep your miraculous mcdonalds and mircrowaves."
@shanedk i have a computer because i love it. its fucking awseome, even as it shoots radioactive waves into my head. yes, i am taking a chance because the technology is that awesome, despite currently shooting harmful radioactive waves at me.
There is a small electronic "wave" coming from every electrical device, can you tell me what radioactive waves comes from a computer? Just saying because I use a flat screen and not a ctr old screen. Just photons and electrons no x-rays or any "waves" of any other spectrum I can think of at the moment.
A overdose of electrons ore photons can be bad, can cause burns with photons or hallucinations with electrons(before you think your house is haunted check faulty wiring or broken electronics or power wires)
Just saying radioactive is a whole new level of bad, just considering this. our body is more resilience then electronics them-self to things like EMP, but does not make them immune. I get it even the smallest things affect us.
Wanda7771 has been blocked for multiple Rule 5 violations.
shanedk 1 week ago
I gotta get back to work, no I'm not running away.Some people have nothing to do but stupid talk on evolution all day
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 "500 characters remaining
Create a video response or Post
3 more comments since you started viewing. Show them.Update automatically
Disable automatic updates * " I gotta get back to work, no I'm not running away.Some people have nothing to do but stupid talk on evolution all day"
Irony alert. How about before posting again actually reading the articles you post.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 About that, if you don't want to talk about it, you don't need to comment. You don't see me on a creationist channel or some body's church arguing about evolution; that suggests to me you were looking for an argument-and you found one.
dj092768 1 week ago
evolutionists in here desparately grabbing for straws.
Wanda7771 1 week ago
LUCY IS ANOTHER FAKE! PILTDOWN MAN:FAKE:NEBRASKA MAN:FAKE!Ramapithecus: FAKE!CASTENEDOLO SKELETONS:FAKE! NARMADA MAN:FAKE! Kenneth A.R. Kennedy: "Homo-erectus never existed!" from Geotimes Oct. 1992, p11 CASE CLOSED!!!!
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Yep, you keep coming up with isolated incidences. Let's just ignore the THOUSANDS of genuine transistional species so we can pretend magic man poofed everything into existance
dj092768 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Lucy is NOT IN ANY WAY fake, and Nebraska Man was a mistake that EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTISTS corrected.
I warned you. MULTIPLE TIMES. Have fun in the bit-bucket; your LIES will never sully my channel again.
shanedk 1 week ago
"The place of the australopithecine in human evolution:Grounds for Doubt? Nature, vol 258Dec.4, 1975,p389
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 ""The place of the australopithecine in human evolution:Grounds for Doubt? Nature, vol 258Dec.4, 1975,p389"
This article states that the Genus Homo is actually older than was previously thought. This finding would actually make creationism less true. Especially since it would have shown a form of bipedality that later failed proving that they weren't intelligently designed.
Why don't you read the articles you post?
johnrainrules 1 week ago
"At present, we have no grounds for thinking that there was anything distinctively human about australopithecine ecology and behavior..they are surprisingly ape-like in skull form, premolar dentition,limb proportions and morphology of joint surfaces, (etc) and they SPENT A LOT OF TIME IN THE TREES.fm."One Hundred Years of Paleoanthropology"American Scientist,Vol.74,July, 1986p.417.So that was a FAKE along with Piltdown Man.The whole field of evolution is pure fakery
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 This article claims humans are descended from Australopithecine Gracile as opposed to Australopithecine Robustus.
Read the articles you post, don't just cuntpaste them from creationist websites.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
"The black species and white species"
Oh man, this is riotous.
fringeelements 1 week ago
@fringeelements Why?
shanedk 1 week ago
@shanedk Because these same arguments occur all the time regarding race, except the atheists take the creationist parallel.
fringeelements 1 week ago
@fringeelements If you're talking about my example at 1:15, I assure you I was NOT talking about races of humans. I was using the color on the gradient as being analagous to one species smoothly transitioning into another without any definitive point where one becomes the other.
shanedk 1 week ago
I know. I'm just saying that YT atheists make the same kind of error by saying that because races are on a gradient, they're trivial, and that there's no clear line between one race and another. Now the creationist goes on to say this proves evolution didn't happen, while the YT atheist goes on to say this proves races don't exist, so the conclusions and scales are different, but they're both making a continuum fallacy.
fringeelements 1 week ago
@fringeelements "and that there's no clear line between one race and another."
There isn't.
"Now the creationist goes on to say this proves evolution didn't happen"
It doesn't. Evolution PREDICTS this.
"but they're both making a continuum fallacy."
It's NOT a fallacy, because the continuum EXISTS!
shanedk 1 week ago
@fringeelements Only YT atheists? Your weird racial theories have a constituency of one. The reason most people that understand evolution aren't racists is that we now know most humans have common ancestors that are very recent and coupled with our long lifespans we have comparatively few generations.
That is why science backs up the idea that people should be evaluated by their actions and not presorted based on some 19th century Lamarckian view of Evolution.
johnrainrules 6 days ago
"Piltdown man", big evolutionist lie
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Again, an isolated incident. Further, it was doubted when Dawson *first* presented it at the Royal Geological Society. Yes, you can deceive people on first glance, but inevitably the scientific method will uncover any such fraud.
Source: 'Piltdown Man'; Oakley & Weiner; British Museum of Natural History & University of Oxford; reprinted American Scientist (1955)
dj092768 1 week ago
@dj092768 "Darwin on Trial" has many such "isolated incidents"andwhen your gradual change wont work any more you invent a new theory,"punctuated equilibrium" to explain the prelevence of "stasis" in the fossil record
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 "to explain the prelevence of "stasis" in the fossil record"
WTF is prelevence.
""andwhen your gradual change wont work any more you invent a new theory,"punctuated equilibrium""
Since gradual doesn't mean constant and the punctuated equilibriums took much longer than what you think the age of the Earth is they are still gradual from a creatards point of view.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Nothing about punctuated equilibrium makes gradual change not work; it's more of a way of dividing the barriers between species for convenience than anything else. There is NO "stasis" in the fossil record-even if that were our primary source of evidence for evolution, which it isn't. Also, since fossilization is the exception rather than the rule, PE is a controversial side issue. Freeman&Herron (1998) *Evolutionary Analysis* Prentice-Hall
dj092768 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 The author of Darwin on trial was/is a lawyer who misrepresented "every scientific source cited ... in ways ranging from simple misinterpretations and innuendos to the construction of what appears to be outright fiction." (Spitzer)
Spitzer,B (2002) *The Truth,The Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth*
dj092768 1 week ago
@dj092768 DJ, That's just one more evolutionist in denial.
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 No, big lie EXPOSED BY "evolutionists." /watch?v=LRtzB_nBaSY
shanedk 1 week ago
book: "DARWIN ON TRIAL" by Phillip E. Johnson. More intelligent writing against evolution.reviewed by Michael Denton: "Unquestionably the best critique of Darwinism I have ever read." and Alvin Plantinga U of NotreDame:"Shows just how Darwinian evolution has become an IDOL." Phillip E Johnson is a graduate of Harvard, and is intelligent and perfectly capable of understanding and refuting the evolutionary "theory."btw, STONETOP, define Poe.Not the author I presume which INSULT is it?
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 A poe is someone who pretends to hold views s/he doesn't actually hold for the sake of argument. It is a subrogation of "poser". Normally, this constitutes a sub-type of troll.
dj092768 1 week ago
@dj092768 dj092768, Then I am not a poe.If all your arguments consist of is a string of insults then you don't have a good argument.You cannot cover-up a weak argument by insulting your oponent or using profanity.Just proves how weak your brain really is
Wanda7771 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wanda7771 "You cannot cover-up a weak argument by insulting your oponent or using profanity"
No, you have to fake your sources and lie about books you haven't read. Oddly enough I found about half the creationist websites make the same error you did on the Sanford book. Thanks for the example of memetic mutation. If they had read the book they would have realized it was one and not two books. Then again creationists like other people to do their thinking for them.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Show me one time on here that I insulted you or used profanity. I've countered your arguments,which isn't the same thing.
dj092768 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 ""DARWIN ON TRIAL" by Phillip E. Johnson."
Again, LONG-debunked nonsense. Creationists have NOTHING NEW.
shanedk 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 "Poe" refers to "Poe's Law," which states that it is impossible for someone to do a parody of creationists that is more ridiculous than actual creationist claims. A "Poe" is therefore someone who attempts to do this.
shanedk 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Still citing books you've never read off of a creationist website. I already proved you were lying about several of them already.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
I vote that Wanda7771 is a skilled Poe
stonetop 1 week ago
Darwin was simply an athiest who set out to verify his own godless viewpoints so that he could feel better about them.So he concocted this ridiculous theory and other athiests jumped on his bandwagon for the same reasons
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 "Darwin was simply an athiest who set out to verify his own godless viewpoints"
Another FUCKING LIE. At the time he was on the Beagle, he was studying to be a CLERGYMAN.
ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS.
shanedk 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 I see you didn't have a response to the fact that I caught you lying about a source yesterday.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
jeans, I did not run off, I just got tired and went to bed.If that's ok with you
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 You slept for 14 hours?
shanedk 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 NO I didn't sleep 14 hours.Is that your level of logic? No wonder you're an evolutionist.I don't just get up and jump on U-Tube.I have other chores to do firstlol
Wanda7771 1 week ago
OOO, A great example of how science works, and that if you were to prove evolution wrong you would be totally famous: The four humors. The idea that the body contained four humors: blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm. Its why they drained your blood when you had certain ailments because they believed that being sick was a result of the one of the four humors was out of balance. It was universally accepted and was disproved by Rudolf Virchow, who is famous beyond belief in medical history.
jeans1515 1 week ago
Well it looks like the creationists have run off.
a) they couldn't handle logic
b) they decided they could use their energy trying to make the world better, or...
c) they went to read about why we are wrong, and in the process, discovered that THEY are wrong and have therefore, become atheist.
jeans1515 1 week ago
A few theories which were universally accepted in their day which have been disproved, sometimes with great difficulty and under scrutiny of a reluctant scientific community:
Spontaneous Generation
Phlogiston
Geocentric model (and as you know, the guy who disproved this is not famous at... all /sarcasm)
Alchemy
World Ice theory.
Wanda, your just wrong... just so, so wrong.
jeans1515 1 week ago
@jeans1515 Actually Alchemy is still a viable theory...except now its practicioners are called mixologist or bartenders. :)
dj092768 1 week ago 2
@dj092768 Hah. true... true
jeans1515 1 week ago
@dj092768
Or nuclear physicists. We have in fact turned lead into (radioactive) gold by shooting it with a few alpha particles and breaking a chunk off it.
rkyeun 1 week ago
What degree did Charles Darwin have? Did he have a degree in evolution?NO.Did he have a degree in genetics?NO, Yet all of today's intelligencia swallow his THEORY like it was red meat.So strange.
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Argument from Authority. Worthless.
shanedk 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Except there was no concept of evolution at the n'or was there genetics. He was, however, a naturalist who dedicated his life to the pursuit of KNOWLEDGE. And please, for the love of zeus acknowledge that you don't actually know what a theory is.
jeans1515 1 week ago
@jeans1515 Ok... self... you gotta slow down and write calmly. The creationists may be frightfully ignorant, but that's no excuse for poor grammar. (I'm replying to myself if YouTube does not show that)
jeans1515 1 week ago
@jeans1515 ....no concept of evolution at the time he wrote his books, n'ore was there a field of genetics, as they had not been discovered....
jeans1515 1 week ago
@jeans1515 What's a n'or?
dj092768 1 week ago
@dj092768 lol, I know... shush
jeans1515 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Did Albert Einstein have a degree in relativity?
stonetop 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Actually, Dr. Darwin was one of the first two naturalist of his day, which is *why* the crown paid for his expedition to the Galapagos Islands. He was a member (and a director) of the royal academy of sciences at the time. *OF COURSE* he didn't have a degree in evolution. Neither does Richard Dawkins. They both have/had degrees in *biology*; there's a distinct difference
dj092768 1 week ago
@dj092768 Actually, there's NOT a difference: biology IS evolution.
shanedk 1 week ago
@shanedk Well, sort of. It is possible to study cell structures or anatomy or endocrin systems w/o knowing about evolution. Very difficult, and you'll probably get all the above wrong w/o it; but it is *possible*.
dj092768 1 week ago
@dj092768 I guess if you're satisfied with the 1858 level of understanding, sure...
shanedk 1 week ago
@shanedk
Well, evolution is biology.
Let's get out subsets in the proper order. ;)
rkyeun 1 week ago
@rkyeun They're not subsets; they're equals.
shanedk 1 week ago
@dj092768 ok, so Darwin can do his own original research 150 years ago but any modern creationists who does HIS own research is just an unqualified quack? oic
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Absolutely! Because Darwin was there at the beginning, but now creationists have 150 years worth of scientific advancement to catch up on. Remember when Darwin was alive we didn't even know how to treat disease properly or even know if a medicine was effective--his doctors put him and his daughter through all sorts of quackery trying to cure them. It's thought that this may have even contributed to Annie Darwin's death!
shanedk 1 week ago
Annie had scarlet fever (the same thing my daughter was cured of for $4, thanks in large part to science spawned by Darwin's theory), and she was "treated" with things like having cold water poured over her, and even mercury treatments which probably hastened her death!
But if you creationists are satisfied with that level of scientific advancement, go right ahead, enjoy yourselves...
shanedk 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shanedk yes like i said, we are enjoying the 550% increase in cancer. maybe your daughter isn't going to die of the scarlet fever but im pretty sure there are billions of other things which weve created that aren't safe for her. where are you getting this idea that science has made our life a utopia compared to long ago? your argument is this, "hey, i got a cut and didn't die because i put anti-biotic ointment on. science!" yet cancer and disease are up since 100 yrs ago.
tylerdurden666able 1 week ago
@tylerdurden666able "yet cancer and disease are up since 100 yrs ago."
It has been explained to you NUMEROUS times why this is a bogus metric.
Did you know that Antarctic penguins get melanoma? How do humans cause THAT???
shanedk 1 week ago
@shanedk wait, are you saying that all disease, war, famine, pestulance, evil deeds, crime, rape, have steadily decreased in the last 100 years? if you believe that then its obvious you are just going on your own opinion with no relation to real world facts. but hey, if you think that all those things mentioned are dwindling and will soon be eradicated... then bravo!! not even i could reduce my inteligence that low in order to live a happy care free life.
tylerdurden666able 1 week ago
@tylerdurden666able The facts are on shane's side. Life expectancy has dramatically increased and deadly diseases HAVE declined. Cancer and other diseases OF THE AGED have increased because people live longer and don't die of other things. People live longer, are healthier, are more prosperous and live in a world with lower crime rates (statistically verified). And this has overwhelmingly been the result of science. From where comes your misplaced pessimism?
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
@FletchforFreedom so what you are saying is, we now live longer, all disease is on the decline, cancer and diseases only effects the old, we are all healthier than 100 years ago, we all have more money than long ago, and we live in a world with hardly any crime compared to 100 years ago? thanks for clarifying mr. scientist. wow you are right, what was i doing listening to the news when they tell me that the world is actually different than what you say. stupid news people!
tylerdurden666able 1 week ago
shanedk 1 week ago
@shanedk
the figures of life expectancy have very little to do with how long people liver per say and have a great deal to do with infant mortality rates decreasing sharply. i mean, if you were able to make it as a baby, chances were you would live a long life like many today. this is a distinction that must be pointed out.
treez78 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shanedk wow!! my god, i cant wait till ten more years to see how we are advancing! i mean, buy your estimates, utopia should be around the corner. wait a minute, what about... oh nevermind, you already explained to me that all bad things on earth are on a decline so whos to worry?
tylerdurden666able 1 week ago
@tylerdurden666able "what was i doing listening to the news when they tell me that the world is actually different than what you say."
You were not looking at the ACTUAL statistics.
shanedk 1 week ago
@tylerdurden666able A VERY roundabout way of avoiding answering the question. Thank you for behaving like a typical creationist.
shanedk 1 week ago
@tylerdurden666able Well lets see... disease (pestulance?) has clearly declined over the past 100 years (see the eradication of small pox, the near eradication of polio, etc). War is a different question... but I'm not sure if the case can be made that the amount of war is higher today then it was 100 years ago.
the same can be said of crime (like rape) is it really higher today the it was 100 years ago?
stonetop 1 week ago
@shanedk I much approve of the word "bogus". I intend to use it more in conversation.
Good vid btw. I like anything on logic.
2Jax 1 week ago
@tylerdurden666able "we are enjoying the 550% increase in cancer. "
uh, source?
"maybe your daughter isn't going to die of the scarlet fever but im pretty sure there are billions of other things which weve created that aren't safe for her. "
Yes, not dying in childhood means you wil eventually die of something else decades later.
"where are you getting this idea that science has made our life a utopia compared to long ago?"
History.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
@johnrainrules "uh, source?" uhhhh, your source?
"Yes, not dying in childhood means you wil eventually die of something else decades later"
DUH! and what is that "something else" certainly it cant be anything but natural death right since science is a week away from irradicated all bad diseases according to you
"History"
umm, can you give me an example by a scientist that says cancer has declined since the early 1900's?? no, you cant so dont even respond to me thanks :)
tylerdurden666able 1 week ago
@shanedk That's ridiculous.Creationists are not 150 years behind, after all, most of them went to the same university classes that the evolutionists attended.They just didn't agree with the dogma that was taught there.
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 "That's ridiculous.Creationists are not 150 years behind"
No, they're even MORE--we've known the Earth was more than 6,000 years old for over 300 years!
This is just more of your bogus assertions with NOTHING to back them up. So many creationists go into biology and physics classes and discover that YOU PEOPLE FUCKING LIED TO THEM.
shanedk 1 week ago
@shanedk I cannot stand your superior attitude.If anyone is closed-minded its you and your ilk.You must spend all your time on this website defending evolution. GET A LIFE!
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 So, you admit you have no response to the data.
shanedk 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 "You must spend all your time on this website defending evolution. GET A LIFE!"
Ironic from someone who spends all her time attacking it on someone elses.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 If this creationist *does* actual research, that's fine. What actually happens is Creationist makes up a conclusion and tries to make the evidence fit said conclusion. A legitimate researcher examines the evidence, forms a hypothesis, tests the hypothesis, has someone else test the hypothesis, and only if nothing about the hypothesis is contra-indicated is a conclusion reached
dj092768 1 week ago
@dj092768 That's actually what evolutionists do, make up a conclusion first and then try to make "evidence" fit conclusion.That's what Darwin did and so did Haeckel with his fake embryo drawings.He was tried for fraud before the court of Jena University.I will quote from "Forbidden Archaeology"
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 "That's actually what evolutionists do, make up a conclusion first and then try to make "evidence" fit conclusion."
BULLSHIT. If that were the case, we would NEVER have had endosymbiotic theory, epigenetics, or most of the new concepts introduced in the last few decades in evolutionary biology.
I've warned you about false accusations before. This is your SECOND warning.
shanedk 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 "That's what Darwin did"
No, NEVER. You're correct that Haeckel did, but nothing in evolutionary theory depends on Haeckel.
shanedk 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 No they don't. You may find one (such as Haeckel) every once in a great while, but that's it. Darwin himself DISCREDITED a creationist fraudster at a debate at the Royal Society in 1863 (sorry, can't remember the gentleman's name). Ironically, Haeckel's assumption was shown to be essentially correct in 1954 by Cambridge University.
dj092768 1 week ago
@dj092768"evolutionaryPRECONCEPTIONS impose unreasonable constraints onwhat evidence may be introduced into discussions of human origins and antiquityEvidence is excluded for no other reason than that it violates evolutionary expectations.If one were, however to give evenhanded treatment to all of the available evidence, then it would become impossible to coherently set forth any temporally sequential and physiologically progresssive path toHominid development.Only a ruthlessly selective, etc...
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 "Evidence is excluded for no other reason than that it violates evolutionary expectations."
Prove it or be blocked from this channel.
shanedk 1 week ago
@dj092768 That quote is from "Forbidden Archaeology" by Michael Cremo and Richard L. Thompson.Cremo spent 8 years investigating a major scientific cover-up.Even tho neither is an "evolutionary scientists", they are highly educated and perfectly able to unstand the concepts put forth by "evolutionists", and NEITHER ONE IS A CREATIONIST, but they do a good job exposing this FRAUD.
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Cremo is a Vedic creationist. His Ph.D is honorary. He believes the universe "has a pure consciousness or spirit". At most, all he does is espouse his religious views, never once discrediting Darwin.
source:arctube(dot)org/michael_cremo(dot)html
dj092768 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 "and NEITHER ONE IS A CREATIONIST"
Another LIE. They're both Vedic creationists. Cremo's PhD is honorary and Thompson's is a PhD in MATHEMATICS.
YOU ARE A LIAR.
shanedk 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 By the way, just so we're clear: Darwin graduated Cambridge 10th out of 178 candidates. His student advisor, John Henslow, recommended Darwin to be the naturalist aboard the Beagle because of his intelligence and talents. He was highly intelligent and well-educated. The fact that he didn't have any degree in anything that didn't exist at the time--because he MADE THE DISCOVERIES THAT LED TO THEM--is desperate and pathetic.
shanedk 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 it amazes me how stupid humans can be -_____- the theory was not "swallowed" they tried to tear it to pieces. They are still trying to tear it to pieces. All of the evidence backs up the theory though so it has held up for 150 years of constant scrutiny. If evolution was going to be destroyed the discovery of DNA would have done it... but DNA supports evolution and genetics supports common descent... There is very little difference between humans and other monkeys ^_^
PinkProgram 1 week ago
@PinkProgram lol, i find it very very funny when you call yourself stupid lol
tylerdurden666able 1 week ago
Jeans, no that's not true, he would be ostracized
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Nope, your an idiot. He would not be ostracized. Scientists who disprove an accepted theory have UNIVERSALLY been praised.
jeans1515 1 week ago
leo,DrJohnSanford, Cornel U., book "Genetic Entropy" and "Mystery of the Genome",is that relative, or not? One of many
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Yes, one of many long-debunked tomes of creationist garbage that no real scientist takes seriously.
shanedk 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 "leo,DrJohnSanford, Cornel U., book "Genetic Entropy" and "Mystery of the Genome",is that relative, or not? One of many"
I see you are cuntpasting nonsense off a creationist website since this is one book, "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" which I bought for $0.50 at ARC.
In this book he misuses Kimuras Distribution of Mutations claiming to be surprised that there are no beneficial mutations when Kimura states he takes them all out on purpose.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Sanford also uses statistics by William Dembski that turn out to be false and he misused those. Claiming a ratio of general mutations to beneficial mutations was the same as harmful mutations to beneficial mutations. The vast majority of mutations do nothing. Also as they were talking about a giant E. Coli population this 1 in a million led to a 100% certainty of the end population having a beneficial mutation at the end of the study.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Then Stanford says mutations don't add information ( after claiming they could be harmful go figure) he only talks about simple point substitutions and single point insertions or deletions. He ignores other larger changes and even the small changes he talks about can lead to more "information" .
Shane has a video documenting this called Evolution can increase information.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
@johnrainrules I confirm evolution does *increase* information. Biologically there is *no* difference between us and a chimp. Yet my combined second chromosome gives me an intellectual advantage. The thing is if evolution does insert a code because it thinks it's beneficial, then all codes after that point are altered.
dj092768 1 week ago
@dj092768 "The thing is if evolution does insert a code because it thinks it's beneficial, then all codes after that point are altered."
Evolution doesn't think. Anything that adds a reproductive advantage will tend to be represented more in the next generation. Rinse and repeat.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
@dj092768
"Biologically there is *no* difference between us and a chimp."
There is. That's why we don't look like chimps. Our genetics are very similar because we are very closely related, but not the same.
"The thing is if evolution does insert a code because it thinks it's beneficial,"
Evolution does not think.
"then all codes after that point are altered."
All codes until the next start/stop codon are altered. And if the gene is a duplicate then the original still works.
rkyeun 1 week ago
@Wanda7771
A creationist book, you say? Because the assertion of "magic sky man done it" didn't fly in academia perhaps? Can I refute that with Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone? We've no shortage of magic men to claim done it with magic.
rkyeun 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 The problem with the entropic principle is that it applies only to a closed system. Since no known biological organism, or even earth itself is a closed system; it does not apply.
dj092768 1 week ago
jeans1515,Not surprising,People tend to fall in line to keep tenure, jobs, prestige, money, government grants, etc.Not surprising at all.
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 It couldn't possibly be because that's what the evidence supports. :facepalm:
dj092768 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 BUT YOU JUST inferred that you were right because so many disagree.... oh my how you standards are doubled. Regardless. A biologist who disproves evolution would be the most famous, most rich, most sought after mind in the history of science. He or she would be a hero to all scientists.
jeans1515 1 week ago
pinkprogram, That just proves there was a common designer.
Wanda7771 1 week ago
Shanedk,Be specific
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 About what?
shanedk 1 week ago
shanedk, just because YOU say all scieintists are in agreement on this does not make it true
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Science is not democratic. It doesn't care how many people "believe" in it. Fact is fact and stupid is stupid.
jeans1515 1 week ago
@jeans1515 Yes, exactly. We may misunderstand the fact, but the fact IS the fact. (Where do these ppl come from?)
dj092768 1 week ago
@dj092768 I know. They remind me of fly's trying to get through a window. thump thump thump thump against the wall. They know they are wrong, but the implications of their wrong-ness is too much for them to handle.
jeans1515 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 No, the fact that they're actually in agreement makes it true.
shanedk 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 i will even go further, they are all in agreement because its based on actual evidence that can be observed, tested, and predicted. Not asserted blind assumptions used in creationism. Evolution is not complete but true. Gravity is a also a theory we find true, which can be tested, observed and predicted but also not fully understood.
chrisinsocalif 1 week ago
shanedk,Its NOT a lie
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Hit the "reply" button so we know what you're talking about instead of being a typical creationist COWARD.
shanedk 1 week ago
SINISTAR,If evolution is such a proven science then why are there so many dissenting scientists?Leme name some speakers at upcomingCreationSymposium:Dr Johnathan Sarfati,physical chemist;DrJohnSanford,CornellUniv.Dr RobCarter,GENE Project.There are 14 imminent scientists to speak at the symposium this year
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Less than 1% of scientist dissent from the prevailing evolutionary model
dj092768 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Are any of those guys biologists, id est, do any of them have relevant degrees? I don't care how good my my mechanic is at being a mechanic. If he says that he doesn't believe in fluoride, I'd rather trust my dentist with my dentistry.
leo16mmiv 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Have you read the list of the thousands (THOUSANDS) of scientists named Steve who support evolution. Your an idiot.
jeans1515 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 How many Steves do you have?
shanedk 1 week ago
@Wanda7771
Safarti is a chess master, former chemist, and not a biologist, who writes books instead of publishing peer-reviewed scientific papers. He appears to have published exactly zero papers.
Sanford is a former geneticist, who now writes books on creation instead of publishing in peer review.
Dr. Robert W. Carter appears to exist nowhere except his own resume at Creation Ministries and his own non-peer-reviewed creation articles.
---
I'm sorry, you said you had some scientists?
rkyeun 1 week ago
tylerdurden666able, false accusations are NOT allowed on this channel. Your comment was removed. First warning.
shanedk 1 week ago
It makes so much sense that I have a hard time understanding people who cant understand it. Ultimately, its a matter of a creationists unwillingness to admit that they are wrong, because that means the bible is a work of fiction and I guess they will no longer be able to tell right from wrong... or something.
jeans1515 1 week ago
LegiOnaire, There is no PROOF of evolution either, so's how's about we not teach either one in the public schools?We can teach biology FACTS.We don't need to teach evolution THEORY or creation.Religious schools should be able to teach whatever they want, since parents pay for and chose them.If you want YOUR kids to know evolution, send them to a private school or buy them a video disk. SIMPLE. PROBLEM SOLVED.
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 what about gravity... its a theory. So is the particle model. Um... so is thermodynamics, physics, chemistry etc...
jeans1515 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 There is more proof of evolution than there is of gravity. And Light, and motion and ....
dj092768 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 You've been given LOTS of proof, Wanda. Your only response has been to LIE about it.
Evolution IS A FACT. DEAL with it.
shanedk 1 week ago
Stonetop, Its the evolutionary THEORY that is taught in ALL the public schools, NOT the creationist's.So who's pushing what?You got it exactly backwards dude
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 The creationists who are trying to push the creationism into the classroom
stonetop 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Please define theory. I take it from your comment you have never actually read what a theory is.
jeans1515 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Do you know what a Theory is? Hint: It's an explanation of a *something* that is supported by all available evidence AND not contradicted by any of the available evidence. Evolution is a FACT, and will continue no matter our knowledge or opinion of it. The Theory of Evolution is our understanding of evolution, which is susceptible to updates and change.
dj092768 1 week ago
@dj092768 Right on. Science doesn't care if your stupid.
jeans1515 1 week ago
@tylerdurden666able I'd ask for some evidence regarding that claim.
What if I told you that I prayed to Thor and he told me that to make it to Vallhalla I had to drink one bottle of Coke a day.
stonetop 1 week ago
@stonetop i take it you havn't checked your personal mail on youtube to see what i sent you. otherwise you wouldn't have written that. and if you said you praid to thor i wouldn't be surprised. at one point i would have prayed to anything. so, read your mail and get back to me.
tylerdurden666able 1 week ago
@tylerdurden666able I did... and it was a reference to companies using taste receptors to test additives... not adding human tissue to a product that is consumed by people.
stonetop 1 week ago
shanedk,WRONG, just look at the cockoach.They remain the same for billions, er uh, millions of years, right?Even tho they are found in just about every NICHE, climate, continent,filthy, clean, environment you can name, and by evolutionist's standards should have changed accordingly, yet they have remain basically the SAME forever.And to say that the ceolanehforms is as broad a term as carnivore is a bit of a stretch.BTW,why were evolutionists so shocked when a living ceolacanth was found?Wooops!
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Uh, actually *no*. This is a point AronRa corrected me on like a year and a half ago. The cockroaches we have now *are not* the same as a billion years ago. The Homo Sapiens we have to day *are not* the same as 45,000 yrs ago.
dj092768 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 Like coelacanths and carnivora, cockroaches are also an order, Blattaria or Blattodea, of approximately 4500 different species. Which cockroaches are you talking about?
You're right about one thing, although there have only been about 35% as many different species of coelacanths discovered as carnivora, with only approx 230 separate species, carnivora doesn't even COMPARE to how many different cockroaches there have been.
leo16mmiv 1 week ago
Thank you shanedk - nicely done and informative. I believe it has been said that every fossil and living thing is a transitional form!
47mko 1 week ago
a little white, and little black is not gray. It is WHACK!!
abeismain 1 week ago
Here's a question for all the evolutionists:Why do you CARE so much whether or not people ACCEPT your THEORY?Its like a personal crusade on your part and GOD HELP ANYONE WHO CROSSES YOU!
Wanda7771 1 week ago
@Wanda7771 I don't care if people don't accept evolution. I DO care if they tell LIES to other people. And if you don't see that as a bad thing, then you are an incredibly dishonest person!
shanedk 1 week ago 2
@Wanda7771
Because religious people wants us to believe in magic and in a invisible farther.
Its proof that can be tested versus faith which you van have faith in.
Your post here is made possible with science which ignores faith to make it work.
Please ignore any technology and just use things you have faith in, the world would be a better place.
legi0naire 1 week ago
@legi0naire yea because the world of science we live in right now is a perfect utopia right? how come theres still war, disease, famine, pestulance, and all the other bad things. let me give you an example. i just spent 3 months researching cancer and its prevalence in the world over the last 100 years. on average, cancer has risen about 500% since 100 years ago. and that does take into account all factors relating to percentages. explain this please.
tylerdurden666able 1 week ago
@tylerdurden666able
Science does not overcome cancer overnight neither does praying, there so much more things casing cancer.
Science is also used to make things that are bad for us, causing cancer and other problems, and we are far far away from stopping it let alone curing it.
With cancer take few things into account, we live a lot longer, more pollution, more chemical and non natural substances, at least we have a chance to survive it in the last few decades.
legi0naire 1 week ago
@legi0naire my point was that science in all its glory, is actually increasing cancer as well as other damaging things for the human race. i see science as the evil force which tries and tries to "play god" and in return gives us cancer increase and war increase as well as making only a small percent of a percent of the population the most powerful. i do not see where science is progressing us forward when it seems we are getting worse the smarter we get. we need more morals, not science
tylerdurden666able 1 week ago
@tylerdurden666able
Its not science is greed, overpopulation(with religion provokes) the hunger for power which clearly seen in science, abuse of religion is no different as abuse of science its all in name of greed or power.
You really think If we all lived like 2k years ago, there would be no greed or power hungry people, who would manipulate or even kill people, that there would be no problems? have you ever touched a history book or read the bible?
legi0naire 1 week ago
@legi0naire yes, religion is evil, organized religion that is. even the bible tells us that eventually evil men would claim to be jesus or be able to give you what god can give you. these men are the catholic church as well as the "charismatic" movement of christianity. these forces corrupt men, and it was warned about in the bible. i totally agree. jesus once told the devil that its not food that people hunger for, its the truth.
tylerdurden666able 1 week ago
@legi0naire ... and that it was because of a few evil men that the world starves. so even in jesus's time he knew that it wasn't a problem of giving men what they need, because eventually evil would pervade mens hearts and cause them to take away from the rest of us. science is understanding this world, and in understanding this world, all we have managed to do is rape it. over and over again for money and power.
tylerdurden666able 1 week ago
@tylerdurden666able "science is understanding this world, and in understanding this world, all we have managed to do is rape it. over and over again for money and power. "
Hmmm, that must be why there is 20% MORE forest land in North America than there was 100 years ago...
shanedk 1 week ago
@shanedk lol yea you may have more trees in north america but in the rest of the world.... HAHAHA wait a minute, did you really just say that??? jaja
tylerdurden666able 1 week ago
@tylerdurden666able Yes, because it's true. Trees get cut down when people need to farm to stay alive. The fewer people need to farm, the fewer trees cut. Oh, and they GROW BACK. Maybe you weren't aware of that...
shanedk 1 week ago
@shanedk yes trees grow back, so i guess theres no danger is deforestation, my bad, what was i thinking?
tylerdurden666able 1 week ago
@tylerdurden666able I'm fairly sure that the sum total is still better off... with things like clean water, safe food, antibiotics, vaccines, and such people are living longer and better lives (with an ever increasing number of cancer types being curable).
indeed it is a sign of how successful science is that people are living long enough to die of cancer.
stonetop 1 week ago
@stonetop so you think people are better off today? you do realize cancer is up 600 percent right since 100 years ago, along with pretty much every other disease. science is making disease, not curing it. and yes, i believe the way my grandfather lived, with no medicine, just the food he grew in a garden, he was better off. you can keep your miraculous mcdonalds and mircrowaves.
tylerdurden666able 1 week ago
@tylerdurden666able "you do realize cancer is up 600 percent right since 100 years ago,"
I thought you said it was 500%? Make up your mind...
shanedk 1 week ago
@shanedk my bad, its around 550 percent so i bounce between the two. you can confirm this too with a little research.
tylerdurden666able 1 week ago
@tylerdurden666able "i believe the way my grandfather lived, with no medicine, just the food he grew in a garden, he was better off. you can keep your miraculous mcdonalds and mircrowaves."
So, why do you have a computer?
shanedk 1 week ago
@shanedk i have a computer because i love it. its fucking awseome, even as it shoots radioactive waves into my head. yes, i am taking a chance because the technology is that awesome, despite currently shooting harmful radioactive waves at me.
tylerdurden666able 1 week ago
@tylerdurden666able
There is a small electronic "wave" coming from every electrical device, can you tell me what radioactive waves comes from a computer? Just saying because I use a flat screen and not a ctr old screen. Just photons and electrons no x-rays or any "waves" of any other spectrum I can think of at the moment.
legi0naire 1 week ago
@legi0naire so there are no mircrowaves coming from your computer?? ok then you are safe :)
tylerdurden666able 1 week ago
@tylerdurden666able
A overdose of electrons ore photons can be bad, can cause burns with photons or hallucinations with electrons(before you think your house is haunted check faulty wiring or broken electronics or power wires)
Just saying radioactive is a whole new level of bad, just considering this. our body is more resilience then electronics them-self to things like EMP, but does not make them immune. I get it even the smallest things affect us.
legi0naire 1 week ago
@tylerdurden666able Microwaves aren't radioactive waves.
shanedk 1 week ago