Crap. I just watched this again, after few hours... in 500 years, a group of monks mis-wrote Don Quixote into War and Pece? And that you find analogous to biological evolution? Really, reeealllyyy...?
Just had to emphasize what a crude and bad argument this is.. christ.. :p
This might be one of the worst claims by Berlinski. First of, a horse will never evolve into a chicken. This has been refuted many times over and it is stupid to argue thus.
Second: To make DNA copying and book copying similar, we would be talking about millions of copies over hundreds of thousand years.. Well, Don Quixote might translate into War and Peace, but no one will know and it will happen in so many years it is almost unimaginable. Life might even arise _again_ in the meantime...
The truth is not determined by how many scientist agree on something, that's not very good science in my book..... if evolution is true then so be it.... if it's not then so be it..... but at least let's ask some hard questions.... This Dr. is great and he is right, he's not even claiming to know the answers, he just wants honest science.
Mathematically, if you want to write a book by pressing randomly on a type writer then from the start of the universe until today you would not be able to create any of Shakespeares dramas. The same could be argued about any genetic code if you start out with randomly mixed molecules.
@Tripockets Answer what scientist? Mr. Butinski is not a scientist, never had a job as a scientist. He is paid to BS by the Discovery Institute. He has no answers, he makes it look like there is a problem with evolution but of course he doesn't even uderstand it.
Ramdom mutations? Darwin didn't even know about mutations and showed how evolution works.
No one listens to ''Darwin' anyway, he is dead, his ideas 150 years out of date.
@Tripockets There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists.
As ½ of humanity withers and founders from malnourishment, parasites & filth—a small percentage of the other ½ contracts horrifying insults to their visages via scalpels & silicon & subcutaneously-administered botulism
I cannot abide by the novel notion that an unborn child's dismemberment by vacuum tube and forceps is righteous. All that we can hope for, in these darkening days is, that our bowel movements be timely and local.
OK, the creotards think you can have a 100's of millions of years+ of plate tectonics and all of the energies involved in those movements (uplifting, subduction and associated seismic - volcanic activity, floor spreading being filled in by magma, etc) all done in less than a year. OK, they are stupider than I thought possible. In fact, they are off the stupid scale. The bible is like crack to these people. It makes them incoherent in a logical/scientific sense.
I have heard stupid people try to explain scientific processes. It does not disprove those processes. Similarly, the fact that some creationists are less intellectually gifted or have questionable ideas does not refute the existence of a creator.
I find it funny that you go behind my back 1 month after I've given you an answer and you ignore what I said 2 months ago that answers this whole paragraph of information you objected with. If you want an intellectual conversation in hopes of settling this dispute, then I'm right here, ready and willing. But don't wait to go behind my back a month later to call me stupid, hoping I wont see it, when I've already answered your objections. I'm certain you don't want to be viewed that way.
Mr. Berlinski is very popular with the ignorant and the pretentious. He's highly educated in math, and easily shows that he is not a scientist and doesn't know much about the causes of the emergence of species. That annoys those who really study Biology and know a lot more than the general public realizes.
"Is this video questioning evolution? Have creationist been attacking it for 150 years?
Get real, evolution is the most attacked theory in science."
Yes and no. Darwinism has been attacked for 150 years, and for good reason. It does not fit the evidence. Creationism only emerged in the 1970's and what a boon that was for Darwinism. Now, anyone who dares to question the theory, no matter how legitimate his objection, can be dismissed as a religious nut. Perfectly insolated from critisism.
@Hannodb1961 Darwinism is a theory that explains how evolution works. Evolution the process has been proven to have happened.
If you want to prove Darwin wrong, you will need to come up with a better theory as to how the fossil record got there, and why you are classified as an ape / primate / mammal / tetrapod / vertebrate / ...
Creationism is a religious story, every religion has one. Is your God the slow weak one, took 6 days and had to rest?
Really? Because you seem to have given up on explaining it to me. You see, Greg, you've been backed into a corner to prove your theory, you've given your evidence to which I have refuted and you know it, but you ignore my rebuttals because you don't like them. So either I'm right, or you're in denial, either way, you're not looking so well. I'm surprised you still defend this theory when I've shown you how unreliable and faulty it is.
@PFC33 Yes, I give up on explaining it to you. You are too uneducated on the subject of science to understand. You will just quote some Kent Hovind bull shit back at me without ever looking at the evidence.
You probibly think there was a flood 4400 years ago even though there is absolutly no evidence for one.
Yes, you can't refute my arguments, so I must be uneducated. Court's ruling? Doesn't hold up.
Again, you're not dealing with Hovind, you're dealing with me. Stop bringing him up and deal with my explanations, not his. If you have a problem with him, take it up with him.
I've given you plenty of evidence, you just deny it even though everything you bring up to refute it has been rebutted. If you've got something I can't refute, then bring it to the table and shut me up.
I'll gladly give you evidence and refute what you give, but you seem to think that I "have" to prove you wrong. No, Greg, as I've pointed out, I don't have to prove you're wrong, you have to prove you're right.
"YES, AND HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS? 99% OF ALL SPECIES OVER THE LAST 550,000,000 YEARS ARE EXTINCT. WHAT IS YOUR THEORY AS TO HOW EVOLUTION HAPPENED?"
Again, what evidence is there that these species are related, and they evolved into each other? I'd rather plead ignorance, than to stubbernly hold on to a stupid theory that is at odds with the facts. Why should we have a better theory before disgarding one that we KNOW is wrong? Such theories only lead us into fruitless research programs
@gregrutz "All the facts support evolution. It is not wrong, it has been proven, observered in the lab and in nature." There you go again, mindlessly repeating dogma. You're like that little kid that think he can win an argument by shutting his ears, screaming "YOU ARE WRONG!" over and over again. Nothing of Darwinism has been proved. No other science contains as many just-so stories as Darwinism. No other science claim so much with so little evidence.
@Hannodb1961 OK I will type slower so you get it. Some uneducated people who have never opened a science book think silly crap, like ''Nothing of Darwinism has been proved. No other science contains as many just-so stories as Darwinism. No other science claim so much with so little evidence. ''
So I try to educate and inform them. So for all of you who don't know>>
.
"All the mountains of evidence supports evolution. It has been proven, observered in the lab and in nature. It happened.
I have teaspoons in a pattern leading up to regular spoons, to ladles, to pans, and finally cooking pots. "IT SHOWS LIFE CHANGING," as you put it. No it doesn't, it shows a pattern, maybe, but all patterns have been shown to prove that there's an intelligence behind making the pattern. That doesn't prove your theory, it helps prove mine.
@PFC33 You think the only evidence for evolution is some fossils lined up. LOL That just shows your lack of knowlege of the subject.
Why do dinosaurs have feathers? Why is a chimp closer to humans than gorillas? Why were there only small marine creatures in the Cambrian Period? Why did dinosaur die out after ruling the earth for 160,000,000 years?
Did I ever say that? No, but you keep bringing it up constantly as if it's the strongest evidence, so apparently I need to focus on it. I'm glad to see you have implied that there is no refutation to my argument other than assertions and denial.
1) That's how God made them
2) Mice are closer in relation to us than chimps, what's that prove?
3) They couldn't handle the flood as well as larger creatures
4) Your question implies an evolutionary answer. Find a neutral question and I'll answer you.
2)Chimps are out closest living relitives, not mice.
Chimps are closer to us than they are to a gorilla.
Closer that a horse is to a zebra.
3) Fossils are not sorted by size
4)Why can't you answer the questions?
Why do dinosaurs have feathers? Why is a chimp closer to humans than gorillas? Why were there only small marine creatures in the Cambrian Period? Why did dinosaur die out after ruling the earth for 160,000,000 years?
1) There is no "which" god. There's only 1 God. If you're referring to the Trinity, I've already explained it to you. If you have a problem with it, explain.
2) You're free to believe that, but there's actually closer relation with mice than chimps in comparison to humans. I can get the source this weekend or next.
3) Never said they were.
4) I did, you just don't like my answers so you ignore them without logical reason.
@PFC33 You're waisting your time with gregrutz. He simply keeps repeating the same old assertions, and he blindly accept the dogma of Darwinist "authorities", regardless how idiotic the proposals. He's knowledge of evolution is clearly no more than high school level, yet he believes he can defend the theory. Good luck.
@Hannodb1961 Oh I know, I've been working on him for at least 3 weeks. I'll eventually stop, but for now I'm simply following him, video to video, because every time I corner him, he stops answering me, he goes to another video to defend his religious ideals all over again. I'm not giving him that opportunity. He can be a child all he wants, but he's going to have to grow up sooner or later. I'm just giving him a nudge. ;)
@PFC33 Some people take the oposition seriously enough to learn from them.Others, such as greg,are so dogmatically inclined that they never learn anything new,always believe they're right, always repeating the same old dogma without understanding.You are quite right: greg wants Darwinism to be true,because that fits in his metaphysical preference, which is materialism. (aka atheism) Never let the facts spoil a good theory, right? I can respect a Darwinist who can think for himself. Greg, well...
@PFC33 OK Creatard, prove evolution wrong. All you IDiots do is bull shit. Call science a religion and say gawd dun it. You have never show any evidence against evolution. Claim you did and I can't answer???LOL You can't explain dinosaurs with feathers. You can't explain the geology of the earth which shows no evidence of a flood.
We've been through this, Greg. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you're right. Pay attention.
I've explained dinosaurs with feathers about 4 times now. If you have a problem with my answer, explain how it's faulty, otherwise I see no need to disregard it for your response of "you're stupid."
We've also explained the flood in your personal messages box. Feel free to skim through it.
@Hannodb1961 The theory has been proven. You IDiots don't accept it because you are brainwashed by religion. Keep trying to prove it wrong, crationist have been trying for 150 years.
Translation: "I have nothing that concretely supports my theory so I'm just going to assert and throw insults as if it warps the reality of truth itself."
Keep trying, Greg. I actually think you may dent it judging how hard you're trying.
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists.
Fossils prove evolution, DNA markers prove Evolution. the fact that you are an ape proves Evolution.
Translation: "The majority of everyone believes it so that makes it true!"
No it doesn't. The majority thought heavy objects fall faster than smaller objects and the earth was the center of everything. They were wrong, so can the majority of people today.
I've been falsifying every argument you make, I wouldn't say that it's yet to be refuted.
I've faulted fossils, you've yet to clarify DNA markers so I can fault that, maybe it's because it's all you have left, and I'm a human being, not an ape.
1) Doesn't matter, you're still appealing to the "majority dictates truth" ideology.
2) They might have gotten that from "misinterpretation" of the Bible, because that's not what it says, but regardless, my point was the fact that majority doesn't dictate truth. I've proven that with evidence backing it up. What do you have to contend?
3) I've explained that, I'm not explaining it again.
4) I agree. Dogs make dogs, apes make apes, so by your logic, humans make humans. You're a creationist, Greg.
@PFC33 The people who study fossils, geology and biology all say one thing, religious people won't accept the facts. And you think this is 'majority dictates truth'' LOL
The people who wrote the bible thought the earth was flat, read the first page again.
Do you think the dinosaurs walked half way up the hill? You have not idea what the fossil record shows. There are no human or bird fossils in old rocks. There are no dinosaur fossils in young rock.
1) Again, you keep implying that the majority (of scientists) means it's true. It doesn't. If you have something to defend it against my refutation then give it, but until then, it's a childish case of "I'm right, you're wrong" here.
2) Provide the evidence of your claim and I'll review it, but so far, every claim you've made regarding a flat earth has been refuted. So be on your toes.
@PFC33 my evidence? What scientists have discovered, geology, biology, the fact you are classified as an ape. The fossil record and the geologic column. Oh wait, deny fossils, you studied every one and proved they don't exist.
No you haven't. You keep "asserting" that it never happened. That's not proof or evidence of anything. If anyone could just say something and it was true, then I should be able to say I'm a billionaire and have billions of dollars right now. Where's your evidence? Not your word, your evidence.
Yes, because we know if it's taught in schools then it must be true. So if they teach colors are numbers, that makes it fact. Great logic.
Something you should realize is that the Mosaic Law was to show people that they were incapable of keeping it. This is what called for a savior so they would be justified by faith rather than the upholding of the law. Everything you stated (Falling in the Old Testament) has been fulfilled through Jesus' resurrection and there's no reason to follow the Mosaic Law when we are justified by faith in Christ (Galatians 2:16).
Regarding 1 Timothy, that was his preference to run his church. Throughout 1 Timothy 2 he says "I want..." showing that he prefers it to be a certain way, not that it "must" or "should" be exactly his way through all churches everywhere. Something you should keep in mind, the Bible doesn't approve of everything it records.
As for Titus, it explains what we're doing today. We must be subservient to those in authority over us (Like your supervisor or God, for example). Nothing too new about that.
Good, so now we've come to which god is real. Well, lets look.
First, a creation is always greater or equal to it's creator in complexity. This is why nothing humans have made has surpassed the complexity of the brain. Far beyond that, we've never built anything more complex than a paramecium.
This being said, whatever created the universe must be more complex or equally complex. One example is that we have unity in diversity, therefore, the creator must have this as well (e.g. The Trinity).
@PFC33 I did not say god was real, I pointed out your claim that there was one god is wrong. There are many religions, they all have a one true god and a creation story, you are brainwashed to think yours is right. If you were born in the middle east you would be telling me allah is the one true god.
Which I answered, but I'll humor you. Based on the evidence I've provided in the previous post above, we can conclusively say that the God of the Bible is the creator of the universe based on the evidence that we gather. So, based on this, the Bible must be true, and in Isaiah 44:8 and Deuteronomy 32:39 He states "there is no God beside me," denying the existence of any other god.
This is all based on science and evidence, Greg, not just stories. If you disagree, then point out where it's not.
@PFC33 You need to take a logic lesson. The evidence shows there was no global flood, proving the bible story wrong. Early Egyptian and the Chinese did not die in a flood. Bible story wrong again.
You can't prove there is a god or you are better than all previous 'thinkers' who failed.
You have never studied the evidence, you get your 'stories' and quotes from the bible.
"Humans make humans' so who was Jesus's father? a human.
@PFC33 All dating metheds show the earth and civilization is old, again you just deny the evidence.
By 6000 BC Egyptians in the SW corner of Egypt were herding cattle and constructing large buildings. Subsistence in organized and permanent settlements in predynastic Egypt by the middle of the 6th millennium BC centered predominantly on cereal and animal agriculture. Metal objects replaced prior ones of stone. Tanning of animal skins, pottery and weaving are common. Wikipedia
All dating methods have also shown living creatures to be thousands of years old. I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume they don't give accurate results to believe blindly.
@gregrutz An absolutely false statement... they often get results differing in tens of millions of years using the same dating method and they definitely don't correlate well between the differing dating methods. Don't just make of lies... do some real research.... you can find hundreds of statements from militant evolutionists showing the problem with dating methods if you try.
Exactly, they had no way of dating it, but yet they somehow knew these dates? I know you may not believe in the actual God, but you're putting your faith in something that requires belief without evidence. You're more spiritual than you realize, Greg.
Then they came out with dating methods and they magically fit their guesses? That's not coincidence, that's force-fitting.
@PFC33 force-fitting?? why do you believe in a global flood with no evidence.
Why do you believe in Adam and Eve with no evidence.
Science is based on evidence, you call it assumptions[radioactive decay is the same as in the past, uniformatarianism] and deny the rest [dinosaurs with feathers, the fossil record].
Dating methods have 3 assumptions (which I've already listed) that can throw off it's results, that alone can nullify it, but to add onto it, things like carbon dating show living creatures to be thousands of years old. They are not reliable.
They cross check with each other because they keep dating it, getting random dates, until they get one that fits an old earth.
Funny how scientists FORCE their theory into the results instead of vice versa. Are you blonde?
@PFC33 You mean 'radiometric dating' has 3 assumptions. What about all the other dating methods? Carbon 14 showed snails were old. Creationists quote mine from a publication showing why it does not work on animals that don't get there C14 from the air. Nice try.
C14 dating is radiometric and if all living things didn't have C14, then what's the point of the dating method? That's just simple logic, Greg, but to go beyond that, yes, animals do get C14 in them. Plants absorb the C14, animals eat the plants, and we eat the animals as well as the plants. All living things contain C14 by some way.
At least he's given information that defends your theory, and I'll give you that, this is quite understandable and can tamper results if what he's saying is true. However, there's still a problem with carbon dating and it most certainly is not accurate to 60,000 years, because the C14 production has not nearly reached an equilibrium point which is said to take about 30,000 years from the beginning of the creation of the atmosphere. It's constantly changing which will throw off results.
@PFC33 Yes, all dating methods must be wrong becasue the ALL show the earth is old. All of these radiometric dating methods must be wrong too. argon-argon (Ar-Ar) iodine-xenon (I-Xe) lanthanum-barium (La-Ba) lead-lead (Pb-Pb) lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf) neon-neon (Ne-Ne) rhenium-osmium (Re-Os) uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He) uranium-uranium (U-U)
Tree ring dating makes the same assumptions as bioluminesis dating makes the same assumptions as ice core samples makes the same assumtions as geology, get a life. NAME ONE !
I've listed 3 already, just because you don't care to pay attention to remember it or read it doesn't mean I should jump through hoops and write it all out every time you dismiss it from your mind.
You don't even need to go to tree rings for dating, just look at the trees going through several layers before and that'll give you a "date."
I'm interested in bioluminesis dating, what do you have to offer on that?
I've explained ice cores. Another thing I've explained that you continually dismiss.
@PFC33 No, you did not explain Ice Cores, you make up some stupid excuse why you won't accept them.
Yes trees go through several layers, but you can't date the layers, dating does not work, remember. Scientists don't say the layers were put down millions of years apart, creationists do. Nice try.
I will admit that I may not have explained it 100% completely, but I most certainly did not dismiss it or make excuses.
So let me get this straight. You can't date the layers (which begs the question, how did people get ages for the old earth before dating methods?), and layers aren't millions of years old? Yet the earth is billions of years old, so how young exactly are those layers? You'd have to have them all at about 1-5 years apart to make sense with trees standing up through so many.
@PFC33 The tree were covered quickly, months not years. They were covered by several layers. That is all you can tell. The number of layers or their thickness has nothing to do with how long it took. Scientists don't say it took millions of years, crationist lie and say they do.
Really? They were covered quickly you say? Well that sounds more like the flood of the creation theory rather than the millions of years of geologic layering.
You're right, the number and thickness has absolutely nothing to do with it, yet they said they were millions of years old before dating methods? Brilliant.
That's exactly my point. Why should I compromise my beliefs, which have never been wrong, with your theory which can't get it's facts straight. First they think something is one thing, then it's something else later.
That doesn't explain why your theory would be right over mine. So, again, why should I compromise my beliefs, which have never been wrong, with your theory which can't get it's facts straight?
You've said that several times, but I've yet to see you give any concrete evidence for it, leaving it as an asserted idea rather than fact.
You also have still not answered my question that you've avoided answering twice now. Why should I compromise my beliefs, which have never been wrong, with your theory which can't get it's facts straight?
@PFC33 so how did the flood make the Grand Canyon? Why isn't there Grand Canyons all over the world? Why didn't the salt water fish die in the fresh flood water? Where did 29000 feet of water go?
Chinese history goes back more than 4400 years, explain why they did not die.
Simple. When the flood waters receded, they left behind several lakes (Like the Great Lakes). One was near the future canyon which kept filling with more water and overflowed, washing out the area known today as the Grand Canyon. It was able to do this due to the fact that it was still muddy instead of hard rock and ever since it has been a runoff.
Aren't you assuming everything was salt water?
First, where'd you get 29,000 feet from? Second, it's the entire ocean.
You "think" chinese history goes back that far, but as I've proven with Egypt, your dating methods for determining it's age is faulty and until you have a decent one to accurately date something, any data is useless and unable to be relied upon as evidence for anything.
I've asked you to clarify everything about DNA markers at least 3 times now. Until you explain yourself, it's evidence of nothing.
Have I ever once given you a video to look at? No, I've always typed out information for you. If you've got something to communicate to me then you can type it out just like I can, but I'm tired of this dance you do where you can't answer me so you direct me elsewhere to find the answer somewhere in the shadows so the attention is off you. It's like when you bring up Hovind in everything. Drop it and move on.
If you have something to prove me wrong or prove you're right, then I'll gladly read it
@PFC33 DNA shows a tree of life through it's markers, erv's and code. It shows common decent. It is easy to show in a chart, I can't draw a chart here.
So just close your eyes and say LA LA LA real loud and the evidence will go away.
And what is your prefered method for dating things?
Oh no, I agree with your evidence, I just disagree with the interpretation. Sure, it may prove common ancestor, but it can also prove common designer. Who's right? Well, we can't rely on this alone, we need more evidence.
@PFC33 I can't argue with ''god dun it'' When you want to talk about science let me know. Again, watch the video and learn something. watch?v=J3yDOp8Dv8Y
1. No, tree rings are accurate to within one year.
2. you think radiometric dating makes assumptions, so all dating methods are wrong. What assumption do geologists make when the study the Grand Canyon rocks.
3. there is more to patters in the fossils record, there are dinosaurs with feathers, fish with necks, land animals with whales ears.
4 Ice cores go back 100,000 years, prove them wrong
5 you have no evidence for a flood. Name the flood mud layer with all the dead bodies.
1) When you observe them, yes. When others observe them, there's a different interpretation. Exactly as I said. Drop it.
2) All dating methods make assumptions, so therefore, any result cannot be taken as accurate. It doesn't mean it's wrong, it means it cannot be validated as right. As for the Grand Canyon, one big assumption is that river made the canyon even though it would have to travel uphill to do that.
3) And connections between teaspoons and cooking pots. That proves it!
1) Tree ring growth can get all kinds of dates. That's why they're different depending on the person who interprets the evidence. That's why it's controversial.
2) One that doesn't have assumptions or faulty methods to determine something.
Yes, that's the layers the flood produced. It's expected. You on the other hand have a problem. How did the river that carved the canyon flow uphill if it came by naturalistically?
3) Good, you agree your theory is absurd by the evidence you use to support it.
1) We can go back and forth on this until the Millennial Kingdom comes and by doing so you're just showing how controversial the issue is. Yes, you have one answer, I have another. The difference is I don't agree with mine even though it fits my theory because the factors used to determine it are faulty. I hope you come to the same conclusion soon.
2) C14 itself hasn't stabilized in the atmosphere which is said to take 30,000 years (and it's only 1/3 through the cycle) I think that's good enough
3) But you admit there's a pattern, period. I see patterns and progression through knives, spoons, sporks, and forks as well as teaspoons to spoons to ladles and cooking pots. Does that prove they evolved like organic life?
4) I've faulted dating methods, it doesn't matter if it matches ice cores other than the fact that your dates cannot be validated.
You're right, the atmosphere was different in the past, I agree. That works with my theory as well.
How did I not prove anything? If we've found patterns throughout the world and there's an intelligence behind them, then doesn't that direct us to the conclusion of an intelligence behind the creation of patterns in fossils?
5) When have I ever said it was one mud layer? I didn't. You keep saying that. I've said continually that it created what you know as the geologic column to which you readily deny regardless of the fact that your refutations (when and if you give any) are faulty.
5. The geologic column contain ash, corals, lava. In case you didn't know, there are 3 kinds of rock and all sedimentary rock is not water made. You are proven wrong.
Floods don't make different kinds of rock, Not limestone, Not ash. Not distinct layers with time gaps between them.
Good. Now let's find out how old Greenland really is before we go any further with ice cores. WWII data is the key to finding the age here. 46 years ago, fighter planes were covered in ice 260 feet deep. If you do the math you'll see on average, 5.65 feet of ice is made each year. Greenland is 2 miles thick (10,560 feet). So with simple math you will come to a number showing that Greenland is less than 2,000 years old. This is simple and definite math. Your dating method is a probability.
@PFC33 The planes were on a moving glacier. You just proved the glaciers is 2000 years old, not Greenland. Greenland is rock. Try again. TOO MANY ASSUMPTION LOL
How does the hydroplate theory not match the evidence? Explain.
I'm not the "some" that you're referring to. Just like whenever you bring up Hovind all the time, I'm going to tell you I'm not him and I'm not "them." I'm "me." If you have a problem with other's evidence, then take it up with them, if there's a problem with my evidence, then that's when you should say something. Otherwise, keep your opinions of others to yourself, don't direct it at me since it doesn't apply.
I've named several to which you haven't responded back to, and you've proven yourself time and time again to not listen to what I say. Why don't you name "ONE" reason I should even answer any question you have if you've shown to not even remember or refute the answer I give?
@PFC33 I know Floods can do everything. except make mud.
Floods make sandstone with desert fossils in them.
Floods make salt water fish, plankton and corals die.
Water just comes from under rocks and then just goes away. Magic !
Which of Noah's pure noble family members had crabs, herpes, syphilis and Chlamydia since most human diseases including STDs can't survive outside the human body?
There's canyons all over the world, the fact that the Grand Canyon is so popular is the fact that it's "Grand." It's the biggest of them all. It had the greatest lake after the dispersion of the flood waters which filled up more and more, as the spillways from current day spillways still show, and overflowed, washing out all the mud and sediments contained in Grand Canyon today.
@PFC33 I did not ask how the canyon was carved, I ask how did the 5000 feet of different kinds of rock get piled up, mostly in a shallow sea, and then get elevated to 7000 feet above sea level. How did the tilted layer get under the level layers, The Super Group. Hint- they were laid down flat, block faulted into mountains, worn flat and then 5000 feet of sediments laid down over them. Must of taken a week or two. too bad we can't date them. No fucking idea how long mountains take to erode
1) They got piled up because the flood layered them. Naturally, they pile up.
2) Through tectonic plate movement, it created mountains, valleys and basins. The basins are where the water is now today at a certain height to which has since been classified as "sea level."
3) The tilted layer also was a result of tectonic plate movement. Tectonics pushed it and therefore tilted them, waters washed over it making a horizontal cut, then laid down more layers.
@PFC33 LOL! You just hung yourself on your creationist website 'understanding" of plate tectonics. And you are too scientifically illiterate to understand what you have done. Plate tectonic theory requires that plates move in terms of centimeters a year. You have put all of the movement essentially within a year.Except the energies involved in accelerating and decelerating the plates make no sense in terms of geopraphy and physics. Massive fail. Try again.
You're trying to combine your theory with mine and coming to an obviously ridiculous conclusion. Yes, I'm aware they move very slowly today. Yes, I'm also aware they move by natural means, but the evidence of a cataclysmic event overrides the natural. That's why it's called "cataclysm." It changes the current naturalistic happenings.
I'm not saying tectonic plates moved suddenly by natural means (If anything that's an oxymoron). I'm saying a cataclysmic event overrode the naturalistic pattern.
the difference is there is no selection pressure in the example of the novels (i.e. no reason to prefer one copy over a slightly different copy)
Last time I checked, the theory of evolution posits 2 major driving forces of evolution: mutation and natural selection
Leaving one of them out when making an analogy is just total intellectual dishonesty.
Criticizing evolutionary theory is all well and good, but at least don't make paper thin obviously poor arguments. Berlinski should be ashamed.
AntiTheocracy 3 months ago
That is one the best explanation for weak hypothesis of evolution!
drshamast 3 months ago
Crap. I just watched this again, after few hours... in 500 years, a group of monks mis-wrote Don Quixote into War and Pece? And that you find analogous to biological evolution? Really, reeealllyyy...?
Just had to emphasize what a crude and bad argument this is.. christ.. :p
ttcmp0 4 months ago
This might be one of the worst claims by Berlinski. First of, a horse will never evolve into a chicken. This has been refuted many times over and it is stupid to argue thus.
Second: To make DNA copying and book copying similar, we would be talking about millions of copies over hundreds of thousand years.. Well, Don Quixote might translate into War and Peace, but no one will know and it will happen in so many years it is almost unimaginable. Life might even arise _again_ in the meantime...
ttcmp0 4 months ago
The truth is not determined by how many scientist agree on something, that's not very good science in my book..... if evolution is true then so be it.... if it's not then so be it..... but at least let's ask some hard questions.... This Dr. is great and he is right, he's not even claiming to know the answers, he just wants honest science.
reubengonz 4 months ago
Mathematically, if you want to write a book by pressing randomly on a type writer then from the start of the universe until today you would not be able to create any of Shakespeares dramas. The same could be argued about any genetic code if you start out with randomly mixed molecules.
rmir2 6 months ago
@Tripockets The answer is The Theory of Evolution, it explains how evolution, the process and a fact, happens.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@Tripockets Answer what scientist? Mr. Butinski is not a scientist, never had a job as a scientist. He is paid to BS by the Discovery Institute. He has no answers, he makes it look like there is a problem with evolution but of course he doesn't even uderstand it.
Ramdom mutations? Darwin didn't even know about mutations and showed how evolution works.
No one listens to ''Darwin' anyway, he is dead, his ideas 150 years out of date.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@Tripockets Science does not care about argument from authority. All scientists think they are right so it does not carry much weight.
Mr. Butinski is paid to make up stupid questions.
Natural Selection is what powers evolution. If you accept Natural selection and adaptation that IS evolution.
Darwin's Evolution is 150 years out of date, proving him wrong won't prove evolution wrong.
Religious people are sheeple and follow what they are told. People study science it is not accepted on BS
gregrutz 8 months ago
@Tripockets There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@Tripockets He is paid to lie. He does not even understand evolution.
gregrutz 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As ½ of humanity withers and founders from malnourishment, parasites & filth—a small percentage of the other ½ contracts horrifying insults to their visages via scalpels & silicon & subcutaneously-administered botulism
TheWorldFarOff 10 months ago
I cannot abide by the novel notion that an unborn child's dismemberment by vacuum tube and forceps is righteous. All that we can hope for, in these darkening days is, that our bowel movements be timely and local.
procommenter 10 months ago
Fuel your stove with cardboard, newspapers, phone bills, I.R.S. summonses and love-letters.
procommenter 10 months ago
Cops keep a low profile so that they can secretly protect us. This is why they are camera-shy.
procommenter 10 months ago
@procommenter Get help.
gregrutz 8 months ago
OK, the creotards think you can have a 100's of millions of years+ of plate tectonics and all of the energies involved in those movements (uplifting, subduction and associated seismic - volcanic activity, floor spreading being filled in by magma, etc) all done in less than a year. OK, they are stupider than I thought possible. In fact, they are off the stupid scale. The bible is like crack to these people. It makes them incoherent in a logical/scientific sense.
TerrencePhillip66 1 year ago
@TerrencePhillip66
I have heard stupid people try to explain scientific processes. It does not disprove those processes. Similarly, the fact that some creationists are less intellectually gifted or have questionable ideas does not refute the existence of a creator.
Ad homenims solve nothing.
dragknuckle 1 year ago
I find it funny that you go behind my back 1 month after I've given you an answer and you ignore what I said 2 months ago that answers this whole paragraph of information you objected with. If you want an intellectual conversation in hopes of settling this dispute, then I'm right here, ready and willing. But don't wait to go behind my back a month later to call me stupid, hoping I wont see it, when I've already answered your objections. I'm certain you don't want to be viewed that way.
PFC33 1 year ago
Floods don't make distinct layers of different kinds of rock.
Watch watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY for the proof.
If you don't want to look at the facts, there is not point in talking to you.
gregrutz 1 year ago
I've already faulted that video, Greg. It's in your personal messages.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 No, you saw the truth and deny it.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Where did I deny it?
PFC33 1 year ago
Come on Greg, where did I deny truth in that video? Here's your chance to show me evidence of something.
PFC33 1 year ago
Evolution did not come about from copy errors. Strawman argument.
It is more complicated than a math teacher can figure out.
gregrutz 1 year ago
You can lead a creationist to evidence, but you can't make them think.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This happens every time a DR. of philosophy who only studied Math talks about BIOLOGY.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Mr. Berlinski is very popular with the ignorant and the pretentious. He's highly educated in math, and easily shows that he is not a scientist and doesn't know much about the causes of the emergence of species. That annoys those who really study Biology and know a lot more than the general public realizes.
gregrutz 1 year ago
"Is this video questioning evolution? Have creationist been attacking it for 150 years?
Get real, evolution is the most attacked theory in science."
Yes and no. Darwinism has been attacked for 150 years, and for good reason. It does not fit the evidence. Creationism only emerged in the 1970's and what a boon that was for Darwinism. Now, anyone who dares to question the theory, no matter how legitimate his objection, can be dismissed as a religious nut. Perfectly insolated from critisism.
Hannodb1961 1 year ago
@Hannodb1961 Darwinism is a theory that explains how evolution works. Evolution the process has been proven to have happened.
If you want to prove Darwin wrong, you will need to come up with a better theory as to how the fossil record got there, and why you are classified as an ape / primate / mammal / tetrapod / vertebrate / ...
Creationism is a religious story, every religion has one. Is your God the slow weak one, took 6 days and had to rest?
gregrutz 1 year ago
Really? Because you seem to have given up on explaining it to me. You see, Greg, you've been backed into a corner to prove your theory, you've given your evidence to which I have refuted and you know it, but you ignore my rebuttals because you don't like them. So either I'm right, or you're in denial, either way, you're not looking so well. I'm surprised you still defend this theory when I've shown you how unreliable and faulty it is.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 Yes, I give up on explaining it to you. You are too uneducated on the subject of science to understand. You will just quote some Kent Hovind bull shit back at me without ever looking at the evidence.
You probibly think there was a flood 4400 years ago even though there is absolutly no evidence for one.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Yes, you can't refute my arguments, so I must be uneducated. Court's ruling? Doesn't hold up.
Again, you're not dealing with Hovind, you're dealing with me. Stop bringing him up and deal with my explanations, not his. If you have a problem with him, take it up with him.
I've given you plenty of evidence, you just deny it even though everything you bring up to refute it has been rebutted. If you've got something I can't refute, then bring it to the table and shut me up.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 I don't remember you showing any evidence.
Give me one reason evolution is wrong.
gregrutz 1 year ago
You had a good post, but then you lost me.
I'll gladly give you evidence and refute what you give, but you seem to think that I "have" to prove you wrong. No, Greg, as I've pointed out, I don't have to prove you're wrong, you have to prove you're right.
PFC33 1 year ago
"YES, AND HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS? 99% OF ALL SPECIES OVER THE LAST 550,000,000 YEARS ARE EXTINCT. WHAT IS YOUR THEORY AS TO HOW EVOLUTION HAPPENED?"
Again, what evidence is there that these species are related, and they evolved into each other? I'd rather plead ignorance, than to stubbernly hold on to a stupid theory that is at odds with the facts. Why should we have a better theory before disgarding one that we KNOW is wrong? Such theories only lead us into fruitless research programs
Hannodb1961 1 year ago
@Hannodb1961 what evidence is there that these species are related, and they evolved into each other? >>>DNA and transitional species.
All the facts support evolution. It is not wrong, it has been proven, observered in the lab and in nature.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "All the facts support evolution. It is not wrong, it has been proven, observered in the lab and in nature." There you go again, mindlessly repeating dogma. You're like that little kid that think he can win an argument by shutting his ears, screaming "YOU ARE WRONG!" over and over again. Nothing of Darwinism has been proved. No other science contains as many just-so stories as Darwinism. No other science claim so much with so little evidence.
Hannodb1961 1 year ago
@Hannodb1961 OK I will type slower so you get it. Some uneducated people who have never opened a science book think silly crap, like ''Nothing of Darwinism has been proved. No other science contains as many just-so stories as Darwinism. No other science claim so much with so little evidence. ''
So I try to educate and inform them. So for all of you who don't know>>
.
"All the mountains of evidence supports evolution. It has been proven, observered in the lab and in nature. It happened.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@Hannodb1961 Please tell me something.
We have fossils, Paleontologists study them. We have a theory that tries to explain the fossils.
IF YOU WANT TO PROVE THE THEORY WRONG, WHY DON'T YOU STUDY THE FOSSILS SO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?
gregrutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz "All the facts support evolution. It is not wrong, it has been proven, observered in the lab and in nature."
Where is the evidence that mutations can actually produce new, functional and benificial genetic information?
Tip: Here's the part where you quote Richard Dawkin's silly little "METHINKITSAWEASEL" experiment. LOL.. Oh wait. You DO know about that, don't you?
Hannodb1961 1 year ago
@Hannodb1961 ''what evidence is there that these species are related''
DNA FOR ONE.
AND THE FOSSIL RECORD, IT SHOWS LIFE CHANGING, FROM THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION, TO LAND ANIMALS, TO DINOSAUR / BIRDS
gregrutz 1 year ago
I have teaspoons in a pattern leading up to regular spoons, to ladles, to pans, and finally cooking pots. "IT SHOWS LIFE CHANGING," as you put it. No it doesn't, it shows a pattern, maybe, but all patterns have been shown to prove that there's an intelligence behind making the pattern. That doesn't prove your theory, it helps prove mine.
Try again Greg.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 You think the only evidence for evolution is some fossils lined up. LOL That just shows your lack of knowlege of the subject.
Why do dinosaurs have feathers? Why is a chimp closer to humans than gorillas? Why were there only small marine creatures in the Cambrian Period? Why did dinosaur die out after ruling the earth for 160,000,000 years?
gregrutz 1 year ago
Did I ever say that? No, but you keep bringing it up constantly as if it's the strongest evidence, so apparently I need to focus on it. I'm glad to see you have implied that there is no refutation to my argument other than assertions and denial.
1) That's how God made them
2) Mice are closer in relation to us than chimps, what's that prove?
3) They couldn't handle the flood as well as larger creatures
4) Your question implies an evolutionary answer. Find a neutral question and I'll answer you.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33
1) Which god made what?
2)Chimps are out closest living relitives, not mice.
Chimps are closer to us than they are to a gorilla.
Closer that a horse is to a zebra.
3) Fossils are not sorted by size
4)Why can't you answer the questions?
Why do dinosaurs have feathers? Why is a chimp closer to humans than gorillas? Why were there only small marine creatures in the Cambrian Period? Why did dinosaur die out after ruling the earth for 160,000,000 years?
gregrutz 1 year ago
1) There is no "which" god. There's only 1 God. If you're referring to the Trinity, I've already explained it to you. If you have a problem with it, explain.
2) You're free to believe that, but there's actually closer relation with mice than chimps in comparison to humans. I can get the source this weekend or next.
3) Never said they were.
4) I did, you just don't like my answers so you ignore them without logical reason.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 You're waisting your time with gregrutz. He simply keeps repeating the same old assertions, and he blindly accept the dogma of Darwinist "authorities", regardless how idiotic the proposals. He's knowledge of evolution is clearly no more than high school level, yet he believes he can defend the theory. Good luck.
Hannodb1961 1 year ago
@Hannodb1961 Oh I know, I've been working on him for at least 3 weeks. I'll eventually stop, but for now I'm simply following him, video to video, because every time I corner him, he stops answering me, he goes to another video to defend his religious ideals all over again. I'm not giving him that opportunity. He can be a child all he wants, but he's going to have to grow up sooner or later. I'm just giving him a nudge. ;)
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 Some people take the oposition seriously enough to learn from them.Others, such as greg,are so dogmatically inclined that they never learn anything new,always believe they're right, always repeating the same old dogma without understanding.You are quite right: greg wants Darwinism to be true,because that fits in his metaphysical preference, which is materialism. (aka atheism) Never let the facts spoil a good theory, right? I can respect a Darwinist who can think for himself. Greg, well...
Hannodb1961 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hannodb1961 You talk like you don't know Evolution has been proven. A FACT.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Then I'd love to see it proven. Go ahead.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 OK Creatard, prove evolution wrong. All you IDiots do is bull shit. Call science a religion and say gawd dun it. You have never show any evidence against evolution. Claim you did and I can't answer???LOL You can't explain dinosaurs with feathers. You can't explain the geology of the earth which shows no evidence of a flood.
gregrutz 1 year ago
We've been through this, Greg. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you're right. Pay attention.
I've explained dinosaurs with feathers about 4 times now. If you have a problem with my answer, explain how it's faulty, otherwise I see no need to disregard it for your response of "you're stupid."
We've also explained the flood in your personal messages box. Feel free to skim through it.
PFC33 1 year ago
@Hannodb1961 The theory has been proven. You IDiots don't accept it because you are brainwashed by religion. Keep trying to prove it wrong, crationist have been trying for 150 years.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Translation: "I have nothing that concretely supports my theory so I'm just going to assert and throw insults as if it warps the reality of truth itself."
Keep trying, Greg. I actually think you may dent it judging how hard you're trying.
PFC33 1 year ago
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists.
Fossils prove evolution, DNA markers prove Evolution. the fact that you are an ape proves Evolution.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Translation: "The majority of everyone believes it so that makes it true!"
No it doesn't. The majority thought heavy objects fall faster than smaller objects and the earth was the center of everything. They were wrong, so can the majority of people today.
I've been falsifying every argument you make, I wouldn't say that it's yet to be refuted.
I've faulted fossils, you've yet to clarify DNA markers so I can fault that, maybe it's because it's all you have left, and I'm a human being, not an ape.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 No, the people who accually study fossils, biology, geology, etc. are all in agrement, that evolution happened.
The catholic church said the earth was the center of the universe, based on the bible.
Why don't we find bunny fossils with the dinosaurs?
Dogs make dogs, apes make apes, you can't out grow your ancestry, you are still a primate.
gregrutz 1 year ago
1) Doesn't matter, you're still appealing to the "majority dictates truth" ideology.
2) They might have gotten that from "misinterpretation" of the Bible, because that's not what it says, but regardless, my point was the fact that majority doesn't dictate truth. I've proven that with evidence backing it up. What do you have to contend?
3) I've explained that, I'm not explaining it again.
4) I agree. Dogs make dogs, apes make apes, so by your logic, humans make humans. You're a creationist, Greg.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 The people who study fossils, geology and biology all say one thing, religious people won't accept the facts. And you think this is 'majority dictates truth'' LOL
The people who wrote the bible thought the earth was flat, read the first page again.
Do you think the dinosaurs walked half way up the hill? You have not idea what the fossil record shows. There are no human or bird fossils in old rocks. There are no dinosaur fossils in young rock.
The older rocks are on the bottom.
gregrutz 1 year ago
1) Again, you keep implying that the majority (of scientists) means it's true. It doesn't. If you have something to defend it against my refutation then give it, but until then, it's a childish case of "I'm right, you're wrong" here.
2) Provide the evidence of your claim and I'll review it, but so far, every claim you've made regarding a flat earth has been refuted. So be on your toes.
3) No, you think I said that.
4) Not necessarily.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 Go tell a muslim your book is right and his book is wrong and see how far you get.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Its not a case of "I'm right, you're wrong" as you make it out to be. Its a amatter of, "I have evidence to back up my beliefs, where's yours?"
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 my evidence? What scientists have discovered, geology, biology, the fact you are classified as an ape. The fossil record and the geologic column. Oh wait, deny fossils, you studied every one and proved they don't exist.
And the geologic column exists everywhere.
gregrutz 1 year ago
That's not what I meant when I said "my evidence against yours." Regardless, I've disproven everything you listed.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 And I proved there was no flood and the bible is wrong. You make up excuses and ignore the evidence.
Let me know when they stop teaching evolution as fact in schools, until then, you lost.
gregrutz 1 year ago
No you haven't. You keep "asserting" that it never happened. That's not proof or evidence of anything. If anyone could just say something and it was true, then I should be able to say I'm a billionaire and have billions of dollars right now. Where's your evidence? Not your word, your evidence.
Yes, because we know if it's taught in schools then it must be true. So if they teach colors are numbers, that makes it fact. Great logic.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 What is the name of the flood mud layer with all the dead bodies?
gregrutz 1 year ago
There isn't one, the flood created multiple layers as I've said many times. I'm sorry you don't like it.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 Floods don't make different kinds of rock, like ash layers.
Floods don't sort fossils, read a geology book so you don't look so silly.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Sure they do, as long as the material is there, it can make anything into layers.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 Watch why floods don't make different kinds of rock or distinct layers.
watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY
gregrutz 1 year ago
The last video you gave me had more faulty assumptions than actual answers. What should make this any different?
Also, why should I believe a video you throw at me if you can't even explain it in the month you've been chatting in circles?
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 You assume the bible is correct ! Name an assumption the video made. You never show any facts, just more BS.
gregrutz 1 year ago
No I don't, I simply don't find any fault with it so I logically conclude its right. I don't "assume" it is.
Where have I not presented facts? And in turn, where have you presented facts that I've yet to refute?
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 Let's look at some of God's morals, as written in the bible:
- If you work on a Sabbath, you should be killed [Exodus 31:15]
- If your son disobeys you, murder him [Deut 21:18 -21]
- Sell your daughter into slavery to pay the bills [Exodus 21:7]
- If your children curse you, kill them [Lev. 20:9]
- Women are subservient, they must remain silent [1 Tim 2:11-12]
- Slaves must perform any act you wish [Titus 2:9]
And you say evolution means no morals. LOL
gregrutz 1 year ago
Something you should realize is that the Mosaic Law was to show people that they were incapable of keeping it. This is what called for a savior so they would be justified by faith rather than the upholding of the law. Everything you stated (Falling in the Old Testament) has been fulfilled through Jesus' resurrection and there's no reason to follow the Mosaic Law when we are justified by faith in Christ (Galatians 2:16).
PFC33 1 year ago
Regarding 1 Timothy, that was his preference to run his church. Throughout 1 Timothy 2 he says "I want..." showing that he prefers it to be a certain way, not that it "must" or "should" be exactly his way through all churches everywhere. Something you should keep in mind, the Bible doesn't approve of everything it records.
As for Titus, it explains what we're doing today. We must be subservient to those in authority over us (Like your supervisor or God, for example). Nothing too new about that.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 1. Zues 2. Ra 3. allah , one god? better open you eyes
Chimps are our closest relitives, closer to us than to gorillas, Read a science book.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Good, so now we've come to which god is real. Well, lets look.
First, a creation is always greater or equal to it's creator in complexity. This is why nothing humans have made has surpassed the complexity of the brain. Far beyond that, we've never built anything more complex than a paramecium.
This being said, whatever created the universe must be more complex or equally complex. One example is that we have unity in diversity, therefore, the creator must have this as well (e.g. The Trinity).
PFC33 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PFC33 I did not say god was real, I pointed out your claim that there was one god is wrong. There are many religions, they all have a one true god and a creation story, you are brainwashed to think yours is right. If you were born in the middle east you would be telling me allah is the one true god.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Which I answered, but I'll humor you. Based on the evidence I've provided in the previous post above, we can conclusively say that the God of the Bible is the creator of the universe based on the evidence that we gather. So, based on this, the Bible must be true, and in Isaiah 44:8 and Deuteronomy 32:39 He states "there is no God beside me," denying the existence of any other god.
This is all based on science and evidence, Greg, not just stories. If you disagree, then point out where it's not.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 You need to take a logic lesson. The evidence shows there was no global flood, proving the bible story wrong. Early Egyptian and the Chinese did not die in a flood. Bible story wrong again.
You can't prove there is a god or you are better than all previous 'thinkers' who failed.
You have never studied the evidence, you get your 'stories' and quotes from the bible.
"Humans make humans' so who was Jesus's father? a human.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Great, where's your evidence against mine that says it couldn't happen? Egypt and China were not there yet, try again.
No, I have most certainly proven that. You simply can't refute it, nor understand God so you reject him altogether.
How have I not studied the evidence? Explain.
Jesus was not "all" man. He was half man, half deity.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 See, I show you evidence, early man lived more than 4400 years ago, and all you do is say. ''Egypt and China were not there yet''
Yes, they were, read a history book. or just deny, deny, deny.
Why do you keep talking about God? Was Jesus a transitional species?
gregrutz 1 year ago
No you didn't, you asserted it. That's not evidence, that's your word against mine which is worthless.
The timeline of Egypt can fit with the Bible. Dating methods for Egypt can be quite faulty.
News flash, Greg, you brought up God first.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 All dating metheds show the earth and civilization is old, again you just deny the evidence.
By 6000 BC Egyptians in the SW corner of Egypt were herding cattle and constructing large buildings. Subsistence in organized and permanent settlements in predynastic Egypt by the middle of the 6th millennium BC centered predominantly on cereal and animal agriculture. Metal objects replaced prior ones of stone. Tanning of animal skins, pottery and weaving are common. Wikipedia
gregrutz 1 year ago
All dating methods have also shown living creatures to be thousands of years old. I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume they don't give accurate results to believe blindly.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 U-Pb dating shows living creatures to be thousands of years old? LOL
You don't know anything about dating methods. Tree rings, ice cores, ocean sedimements, chalk layers, a dozen radiometric methods>>
And they all cross check with each other, Not one show a young earth.
Funny how they are ALL wrong. Are you home schooled?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz An absolutely false statement... they often get results differing in tens of millions of years using the same dating method and they definitely don't correlate well between the differing dating methods. Don't just make of lies... do some real research.... you can find hundreds of statements from militant evolutionists showing the problem with dating methods if you try.
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844 Geologists knew the earth was millions of years old before radiometric dating was invented.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Exactly, they had no way of dating it, but yet they somehow knew these dates? I know you may not believe in the actual God, but you're putting your faith in something that requires belief without evidence. You're more spiritual than you realize, Greg.
Then they came out with dating methods and they magically fit their guesses? That's not coincidence, that's force-fitting.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 force-fitting?? why do you believe in a global flood with no evidence.
Why do you believe in Adam and Eve with no evidence.
Science is based on evidence, you call it assumptions[radioactive decay is the same as in the past, uniformatarianism] and deny the rest [dinosaurs with feathers, the fossil record].
gregrutz 1 year ago
Dating methods have 3 assumptions (which I've already listed) that can throw off it's results, that alone can nullify it, but to add onto it, things like carbon dating show living creatures to be thousands of years old. They are not reliable.
They cross check with each other because they keep dating it, getting random dates, until they get one that fits an old earth.
Funny how scientists FORCE their theory into the results instead of vice versa. Are you blonde?
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 You mean 'radiometric dating' has 3 assumptions. What about all the other dating methods? Carbon 14 showed snails were old. Creationists quote mine from a publication showing why it does not work on animals that don't get there C14 from the air. Nice try.
gregrutz 1 year ago
C14 dating is radiometric and if all living things didn't have C14, then what's the point of the dating method? That's just simple logic, Greg, but to go beyond that, yes, animals do get C14 in them. Plants absorb the C14, animals eat the plants, and we eat the animals as well as the plants. All living things contain C14 by some way.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 Yes, and C14 dating works well on most living things. It does not work on some animals like snails, and scientists know that.
It can date Egyptians to 6000 BC and Neanderthals to 30,000 years ago.
Other methods date ash layers above and below fossils to accurately date them.
Do you think trilobites got to the bottom of the Grand Canyon in 4000 years !???
Buried under 5000 feet of 22 different kinds of rock, open your eyes.
gregrutz 1 year ago
First, it doesn't have to work on snails. Many other creatures have been tested and shown a similar error.
Second, why couldn't it work on snails? I'm interested.
Not until you prove it's reliable can you use any data it gives as evidence of anything.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 Why can't it work on snails? Watch watch?v=QbvMB57evy4
gregrutz 1 year ago
At least he's given information that defends your theory, and I'll give you that, this is quite understandable and can tamper results if what he's saying is true. However, there's still a problem with carbon dating and it most certainly is not accurate to 60,000 years, because the C14 production has not nearly reached an equilibrium point which is said to take about 30,000 years from the beginning of the creation of the atmosphere. It's constantly changing which will throw off results.
PFC33 1 year ago
gregrutz 1 year ago
They all make the exact same assumptions, so yes, chances are likely they will all get the wrong answer.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 They all make the exact same assumptions
WHAT ASSUMPTIONS ???????????????
Tree ring dating makes the same assumptions as bioluminesis dating makes the same assumptions as ice core samples makes the same assumtions as geology, get a life. NAME ONE !
gregrutz 1 year ago
I've listed 3 already, just because you don't care to pay attention to remember it or read it doesn't mean I should jump through hoops and write it all out every time you dismiss it from your mind.
You don't even need to go to tree rings for dating, just look at the trees going through several layers before and that'll give you a "date."
I'm interested in bioluminesis dating, what do you have to offer on that?
I've explained ice cores. Another thing I've explained that you continually dismiss.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 No, you did not explain Ice Cores, you make up some stupid excuse why you won't accept them.
Yes trees go through several layers, but you can't date the layers, dating does not work, remember. Scientists don't say the layers were put down millions of years apart, creationists do. Nice try.
gregrutz 1 year ago
I will admit that I may not have explained it 100% completely, but I most certainly did not dismiss it or make excuses.
So let me get this straight. You can't date the layers (which begs the question, how did people get ages for the old earth before dating methods?), and layers aren't millions of years old? Yet the earth is billions of years old, so how young exactly are those layers? You'd have to have them all at about 1-5 years apart to make sense with trees standing up through so many.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 The tree were covered quickly, months not years. They were covered by several layers. That is all you can tell. The number of layers or their thickness has nothing to do with how long it took. Scientists don't say it took millions of years, crationist lie and say they do.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Really? They were covered quickly you say? Well that sounds more like the flood of the creation theory rather than the millions of years of geologic layering.
You're right, the number and thickness has absolutely nothing to do with it, yet they said they were millions of years old before dating methods? Brilliant.
PFC33 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PFC33 how did people get ages for the old earth before dating methods
LOOK AT THE GEOLOGY OF THE EARTH. OLD REEFS. CHALK LAYERS. THE GRAND CANYON. UNCONFORMITIES>the tilted layers under the Grand Canyon.
Of course they were way off, they only thought the earth was 20 million years old when they first looked. 250 years ago. try and keep up.
gregrutz 1 year ago
That's exactly my point. Why should I compromise my beliefs, which have never been wrong, with your theory which can't get it's facts straight. First they think something is one thing, then it's something else later.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 It's called gaining knowledge, that is what science does.
Believe what you want, the world goes on without you.
gregrutz 1 year ago
That doesn't explain why your theory would be right over mine. So, again, why should I compromise my beliefs, which have never been wrong, with your theory which can't get it's facts straight?
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 Evolution has been proven, they are just adding facts to the theory that explains how it happens.
gregrutz 1 year ago
You've said that several times, but I've yet to see you give any concrete evidence for it, leaving it as an asserted idea rather than fact.
You also have still not answered my question that you've avoided answering twice now. Why should I compromise my beliefs, which have never been wrong, with your theory which can't get it's facts straight?
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 What question?
gregrutz 1 year ago
...You can't be serious...
I just restated it right after I said that. Read the whole post before responding lest you make yourself look as badly as you do now.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 I don't give a shit about your ''beliefs''. I was talking about facts.
Geology that proves the earth is old and there was no flood.
Biology that proves we are Great Apes.
Fossils that you won't look at.
Chinese or Egyptian history that shows no flood.
You can believe anything you want if you don't look at the facts.
gregrutz 1 year ago
I can not care about your beliefs either, it doesn't mean they're right or wrong.
Geology proves exactly that. That a flood did happen. You simply put a different interpretation on the same evidence.
You've yet to clarify your information on biology, so until you do, you can't use that as evidence of anything.
I've faulted fossils. Either rebut it or don't, but currently, you've lost.
They were after the flood. The primary history is going to be from Noah.
As can you, but who's right? You or me?
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 so how did the flood make the Grand Canyon? Why isn't there Grand Canyons all over the world? Why didn't the salt water fish die in the fresh flood water? Where did 29000 feet of water go?
Chinese history goes back more than 4400 years, explain why they did not die.
DNA markers match Darwin's tree of life. WHY?
gregrutz 1 year ago
Simple. When the flood waters receded, they left behind several lakes (Like the Great Lakes). One was near the future canyon which kept filling with more water and overflowed, washing out the area known today as the Grand Canyon. It was able to do this due to the fact that it was still muddy instead of hard rock and ever since it has been a runoff.
Aren't you assuming everything was salt water?
First, where'd you get 29,000 feet from? Second, it's the entire ocean.
PFC33 1 year ago
You "think" chinese history goes back that far, but as I've proven with Egypt, your dating methods for determining it's age is faulty and until you have a decent one to accurately date something, any data is useless and unable to be relied upon as evidence for anything.
I've asked you to clarify everything about DNA markers at least 3 times now. Until you explain yourself, it's evidence of nothing.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 Tell me what would be a good dating method?
DNA proof > watch?v=J3yDOp8Dv8Y
start at 5:40 on this video if you don't want to watch the whole thing.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Have I ever once given you a video to look at? No, I've always typed out information for you. If you've got something to communicate to me then you can type it out just like I can, but I'm tired of this dance you do where you can't answer me so you direct me elsewhere to find the answer somewhere in the shadows so the attention is off you. It's like when you bring up Hovind in everything. Drop it and move on.
If you have something to prove me wrong or prove you're right, then I'll gladly read it
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 DNA shows a tree of life through it's markers, erv's and code. It shows common decent. It is easy to show in a chart, I can't draw a chart here.
So just close your eyes and say LA LA LA real loud and the evidence will go away.
And what is your prefered method for dating things?
gregrutz 1 year ago
Oh no, I agree with your evidence, I just disagree with the interpretation. Sure, it may prove common ancestor, but it can also prove common designer. Who's right? Well, we can't rely on this alone, we need more evidence.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 I can't argue with ''god dun it'' When you want to talk about science let me know. Again, watch the video and learn something. watch?v=J3yDOp8Dv8Y
gregrutz 1 year ago
So let me get this straight, if God is involved, its not science? No wonder you're thinking is so mind-set and closed.
I can direct you to video after video saying I'm right too, but if you can't explain it then why should I believe someone else can?
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 No you can't prove you are right. All you do is discount evidence without really studying it.
I will study tree rings in 3 years
Dating methods make assumptions
Fossils prove nothing
Ice cores don't count
Chinese history is wrong
We all have the same evidence
Go read your 2000 year old book and stay in the Dark Ages.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Sure I can, I think you're confusing me with yourself. I study all evidence.
1) do we, or do we not get differing dates of trees? Yes, yet there's many factors as to why but most are controversial.
2) You haven't denied it
3) Because patterns prove nothing other than my theory.
4) Would you like me to explain in depth about ice cores?
5) You haven't refuted my evidence
6) How is that relevant?
Explain yourself.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33
1. No, tree rings are accurate to within one year.
2. you think radiometric dating makes assumptions, so all dating methods are wrong. What assumption do geologists make when the study the Grand Canyon rocks.
3. there is more to patters in the fossils record, there are dinosaurs with feathers, fish with necks, land animals with whales ears.
4 Ice cores go back 100,000 years, prove them wrong
5 you have no evidence for a flood. Name the flood mud layer with all the dead bodies.
gregrutz 1 year ago
1) When you observe them, yes. When others observe them, there's a different interpretation. Exactly as I said. Drop it.
2) All dating methods make assumptions, so therefore, any result cannot be taken as accurate. It doesn't mean it's wrong, it means it cannot be validated as right. As for the Grand Canyon, one big assumption is that river made the canyon even though it would have to travel uphill to do that.
3) And connections between teaspoons and cooking pots. That proves it!
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33
1. they can't count rings?
2.what dating method do you accept?
Don't look at the river or the canyon, look at all the rocks it exposes.
How did a mile of different kind of rock get there. some are wind blown sand.
3. yes, spoons evolved too, what is your point. Explain dinosaurs with feathers.
gregrutz 1 year ago
1) Tree ring growth can get all kinds of dates. That's why they're different depending on the person who interprets the evidence. That's why it's controversial.
2) One that doesn't have assumptions or faulty methods to determine something.
Yes, that's the layers the flood produced. It's expected. You on the other hand have a problem. How did the river that carved the canyon flow uphill if it came by naturalistically?
3) Good, you agree your theory is absurd by the evidence you use to support it.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33
1. sorry to hear creationists can't count. you say you have never studied tree rings but you know they are wrong. you are brainwashed.
2. Still waiting. Oh, you can't find one that shows a young earth. I wonder why??
3. I never used fossils lined up in order of the layers they were found to prove evolution. How do you explain the progression that the fossils show??
4. Ice core dates match all other dating methods, they know history of the air on earth from trapped air.
gregrutz 1 year ago
1) We can go back and forth on this until the Millennial Kingdom comes and by doing so you're just showing how controversial the issue is. Yes, you have one answer, I have another. The difference is I don't agree with mine even though it fits my theory because the factors used to determine it are faulty. I hope you come to the same conclusion soon.
2) C14 itself hasn't stabilized in the atmosphere which is said to take 30,000 years (and it's only 1/3 through the cycle) I think that's good enough
PFC33 1 year ago
3) But you admit there's a pattern, period. I see patterns and progression through knives, spoons, sporks, and forks as well as teaspoons to spoons to ladles and cooking pots. Does that prove they evolved like organic life?
4) I've faulted dating methods, it doesn't matter if it matches ice cores other than the fact that your dates cannot be validated.
You're right, the atmosphere was different in the past, I agree. That works with my theory as well.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 You are the one who say fossils mean nothing because you can see a pattern in spoons and forks. you prove nothing.
How did you prove ice cores wrong?
gregrutz 1 year ago
How did I not prove anything? If we've found patterns throughout the world and there's an intelligence behind them, then doesn't that direct us to the conclusion of an intelligence behind the creation of patterns in fossils?
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 What intelligence behind what patterens. What patterns in fossils?
Why won't you explain the 20 different dinosaurs with feathers?
Why can't you find one dating method the shows a young earth?
Why can't you find any evidece for a flood? I can show you evidence of an Ice Age 13,000 years ago, that is what shaped the northern US.
gregrutz 1 year ago
4) And how are you dating the ice cores exactly?
5) When have I ever said it was one mud layer? I didn't. You keep saying that. I've said continually that it created what you know as the geologic column to which you readily deny regardless of the fact that your refutations (when and if you give any) are faulty.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 4. They can count.
5. The geologic column contain ash, corals, lava. In case you didn't know, there are 3 kinds of rock and all sedimentary rock is not water made. You are proven wrong.
Floods don't make different kinds of rock, Not limestone, Not ash. Not distinct layers with time gaps between them.
gregrutz 1 year ago
4) I can count too, does that mean my theory is right? So, to restate my question, how exactly are you dating the ice cores?
5) Yes, it does contain all those things, does that mean they can't be layered?
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 4 they count the seasons by looking at the cores.
5 pay attention I am getting tired of telling you
FLOODS DON'T MAKE DISTINCT LAYERS OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF ROCKS.
READ A GEOLOGY BOOK SO YOU CAN STOP BEING SO STUPID.
gregrutz 1 year ago
4) Interesting, which seasons would that be?
5) I'm getting tired of telling you as well, but I'll stay as long as I'm needed.
Sure they do, floods do exactly that. If you've got a problem against it or evidence refuting it then I'd love to see it.
If I could tell you to go find the evidence yourself then I could be just as right as you, but that's not why we're here.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 There are only 2 seasons in Greenland, summer and winter.
''evidence refuting it then I'd love to see it.''
It is called Geology, they study rocks.
I could show you a video that proves it but you would love to see it....not.
I have seen all the hydroplate theory videos and hydrologic sorting video and they don't do a good job of matching the evicence.
Some Idiots think dinosaurs walked half way up the hill and stopped, they is why they are only in the middle layers.. LOL
gregrutz 1 year ago
Good. Now let's find out how old Greenland really is before we go any further with ice cores. WWII data is the key to finding the age here. 46 years ago, fighter planes were covered in ice 260 feet deep. If you do the math you'll see on average, 5.65 feet of ice is made each year. Greenland is 2 miles thick (10,560 feet). So with simple math you will come to a number showing that Greenland is less than 2,000 years old. This is simple and definite math. Your dating method is a probability.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 The planes were on a moving glacier. You just proved the glaciers is 2000 years old, not Greenland. Greenland is rock. Try again. TOO MANY ASSUMPTION LOL
gregrutz 1 year ago
We're only looking at the ice, Greg. If the ice on Greenland is less thick then it's even younger.
PFC33 1 year ago
How does the hydroplate theory not match the evidence? Explain.
I'm not the "some" that you're referring to. Just like whenever you bring up Hovind all the time, I'm going to tell you I'm not him and I'm not "them." I'm "me." If you have a problem with other's evidence, then take it up with them, if there's a problem with my evidence, then that's when you should say something. Otherwise, keep your opinions of others to yourself, don't direct it at me since it doesn't apply.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 Name ONE thing you have show as evidence !
spoons and forks lined up? a mud layer? a pattern, like snowflakes?
gregrutz 1 year ago
I've named several to which you haven't responded back to, and you've proven yourself time and time again to not listen to what I say. Why don't you name "ONE" reason I should even answer any question you have if you've shown to not even remember or refute the answer I give?
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 The Coconino Sandstone, the third layer down in the Grand Canyon, is from wind blown, desert sands.
We know this from the fossils in it. There are 44 distinct layers of DIFFERENT KINDS OF ROCK.
Some are slow growing corals.
Floods don’t do that.
gregrutz 1 year ago
It can be "from" desert sand, that's not a problem. The flood can layer that.
Floods do exactly all of that.
PFC33 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PFC33 I know Floods can do everything. except make mud.
Floods make sandstone with desert fossils in them.
Floods make salt water fish, plankton and corals die.
Water just comes from under rocks and then just goes away. Magic !
Which of Noah's pure noble family members had crabs, herpes, syphilis and Chlamydia since most human diseases including STDs can't survive outside the human body?
gregrutz 1 year ago
1) Floods make mud too, Greg. I hope you're being sarcastic because otherwise... just, wow.
2) Yes.
3) You've yet to answer my question regarding salt water fish. Until then, you have no leverage in using it.
4) I've answered you at least 2 times on that, if you can't remember, that's not my fault.
5) I've answered that already as well. Whenever you decide to pay attention and read my comments, I'll gladly explain your misunderstandings.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 Please show me a V shaped valley or canyon that Does Not have the river that made it at the bottom. There must be many like the Grand Canyon.
gregrutz 1 year ago
There's canyons all over the world, the fact that the Grand Canyon is so popular is the fact that it's "Grand." It's the biggest of them all. It had the greatest lake after the dispersion of the flood waters which filled up more and more, as the spillways from current day spillways still show, and overflowed, washing out all the mud and sediments contained in Grand Canyon today.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 I did not ask how the canyon was carved, I ask how did the 5000 feet of different kinds of rock get piled up, mostly in a shallow sea, and then get elevated to 7000 feet above sea level. How did the tilted layer get under the level layers, The Super Group. Hint- they were laid down flat, block faulted into mountains, worn flat and then 5000 feet of sediments laid down over them. Must of taken a week or two. too bad we can't date them. No fucking idea how long mountains take to erode
gregrutz 1 year ago
1) They got piled up because the flood layered them. Naturally, they pile up.
2) Through tectonic plate movement, it created mountains, valleys and basins. The basins are where the water is now today at a certain height to which has since been classified as "sea level."
3) The tilted layer also was a result of tectonic plate movement. Tectonics pushed it and therefore tilted them, waters washed over it making a horizontal cut, then laid down more layers.
Doesn't take long if they're still moist.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 LOL! You just hung yourself on your creationist website 'understanding" of plate tectonics. And you are too scientifically illiterate to understand what you have done. Plate tectonic theory requires that plates move in terms of centimeters a year. You have put all of the movement essentially within a year.Except the energies involved in accelerating and decelerating the plates make no sense in terms of geopraphy and physics. Massive fail. Try again.
TerrencePhillip66 1 year ago
You're trying to combine your theory with mine and coming to an obviously ridiculous conclusion. Yes, I'm aware they move very slowly today. Yes, I'm also aware they move by natural means, but the evidence of a cataclysmic event overrides the natural. That's why it's called "cataclysm." It changes the current naturalistic happenings.
I'm not saying tectonic plates moved suddenly by natural means (If anything that's an oxymoron). I'm saying a cataclysmic event overrode the naturalistic pattern.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 Massive plates 'pile up' in a year, because of a flood? Please put some physics and geology into to that bizarre statement.
TerrencePhillip66 1 year ago
@PFC33 common design = common designer
different design = different designer
gregrutz 1 year ago
So, the conclusion you come to is there is a designer? Good.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 Yes a designer, my next door neighbot might have done it, she is a designer.
gregrutz 1 year ago
You're a creationist my friend. :)
Congratulations.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 You are an IDiot. Congratulations.
gregrutz 1 year ago
The difference is I have evidence to call you a creationist, you have nothing. :)
PFC33 1 year ago