Fair enough(they do look cool and what with you being a lecturer and stuff I did not think it was 100% beyond the realm of possibility.)
I'm interested in most wings of science but particularly psychology and some of the reality deniers on Youtube would make wonderful case studies!(that said they do quickly become tiresome,although I maintain that many of their replies are utterly priceless!)
You are right though. Strictly by the definition of "contemporaneous" Josephus does not qualify. Off the top of my head i cannot think of any...except ALL the apostles of the new testament and all the eye witnesses of the new testament. These in my opinion are valid. You might not agree with their theology about who jesus was but you must accept them as real people who were eye witness accounts.
there is an unbroken chain of transmission from the apostles eyewitness to the oldest manuscripts of the gospels we have today. Scribes were exemplary in regards to accuracy of handwritten copies. Differences between thousands of copies is practically non existent. Something huge happened that created this massive groundswell of religious adherence. There is alot to cover in THAT discussion. Based upon this there is very strong evidence that jesus was a real historical figure.
Youre original comment in your video was that there isnt a single shred of evidence that jesus even existed THEN you change to "contempraneous" evidence. Thats fine. But to the former i say, you go too far by saying there isnt a single shred of evidence. Even circumstantial evidence is admissible and used in courts of law to convict and process criminals. While there are no original autophraphs of the apostles nevertheless there is an unbroken chain of transmission from the....continued....
@thesongtowoody "THEN you change to "contempraneous" evidence."
Yes but this is all about standards of evidence, for some people the feeling of a personal relationship with Jesus is more than sufficient, while for others the fact that the gospels are written a whole generation after the events they claim to detail is sufficient to totally reject them as a reliable account of anything other than the existence of a christian tradition.
The big problem here is that absence of evidence does...
2) not equate to evidence of absence, since most lives in that period would have been lived without a shred of documentary evidence.
So we are forced then to examine the quality of evidence presented in the gospels, so we can weigh their historical accuracy. Not only do they contradict each other on many points, (an issue which could be explained largely be the honest reporting of different versions of the story as passed along by word of mouth) but they contradict known history in several..
3) places. For example the 'census' that had Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem simply didn't happen. Furthermore whenever there was a census there was never a requirement to travel to ones home town to be recorded, it simply didn't happen.
Furthermore verses like Matthew 27:52-53 describe events so monumental that one would have to doubt that this could ever have happened without being recoded by anyone.
The contradictions and mistakes in the bible are many and well known, so we...
Perhaps I should rephrase my original statement, 'there isnt a single shred of evidence for the existence of christ that would meet the required standards of evidence for any skeptical inquirer'
Regardless of the effectiveness of its reporting something must have happened to start the christian tradition, and that something is most likely the existence of Jesus (with magic powers added in the retelling)
@KennyTew2 There is plenty of evidence, ie, the new testament writers and accounts. The new testament accounts are not merely mythical stories (unlike greek myths) rather it is a historical account, that has its setting in a real period in history, in a real place with historical figures, testable even by secular sources. The new testament seems to crossover into stories only when perceived through the lens that cannot accept a reality that could include the miraculous.
@KennyTew2 I would encourage you to read some of the comments of simon greenleaf , a part founder of the harvard school of law. He is very well received by his peers and his profession is to understand, law and the criteria of what constitutes as evidence or not. He examined the gospel accounts from the inside out. Looking at the motives and character of the persons involved. He searched for consistencies and inconcistencies and obviously is someone who cannot be easily hoodwinked into b fables.
@KennyTew2 I have explored the subject of contradictions in the bible and i have heard this complaint before but in my examination from genesis to revelation, which is a huge body of literary work i have only seen maybe 1 at the most 2, bona fide contradictions which seem impossible to deny or refute, (though new info might resolve those (though i dont know how)) other than those 1 or 2, it is to my study of the subject 99.9 percent contradiction free. That is extremely good. Can you present 1?
@thesongtowoody There are many many contradictions, for a single clear example how about the death of Judas, Mathew 27, 3-8 includes "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."
while Acts 1, 18-19 includes this, "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out"
here we see two contradictions in just a few passages, in the first the silver..
2) is left in the temple and in the second it is used to buy a field. In the first he hangs himslef and in the second he falls over and dies.
There are over a hundred of these and I have seen some serious christian contortionism in an attempt to ignore the obvious. For an amusing take on the matter watch the youtube video, "Quiz Show (Bible Contradictions)"
@KennyTew2 I watched a bit of the "quiz show(bible contradictions". Honestly? I thought that it must have been put together by someone who hasnt done his homework, doesn't understand the law of non-contradiction, especially the latter part as i mentioned previously and who takes scriptures always and in every instance in a wooden literal fashion, with no thought given to context or which literary form or tool is used. I am sure the unaware gobbled up that video as blowing the lid off bible lies!
I would not want a layman to defend me in the court of law if he is not skilled in the meaning and interpretation of those laws. He is unskilled and doesnt understand "law" . Lawyers are skilled at interpreting what the law SAYS. So too with the bible. I see alot of people pretending to know what a passage is saying when really they have no background,experience or skill in its proper interpretation. Remember people go to universities for scripture.
@KennyTew2 Here's my favorite Author, teacher , philosopher and theologian. I enjoy his sober approach in everything he says and does and he has a good sense of humour. Since you suggested a youtube link, i will post the name of his site where you can hear him speak on many topics. It is Ligonier.org. His name is RC Sproul (not jr.) By the way. I just want to say that i do have some doubts about my christian faith. I have looked at the arguments for evolution and some of them have some merit.
@KennyTew2 My current conflicts/problems are the Noah account, (the logistics of it), the interpretation of fossil evidence and the age of the earth. The first two are to my mind the bigger challenges than the latter.
I like to joke that i am about 60 percent christian, 30 percent agnostic and 10 percent atheist. (smile)
Overall, after weighing all the evidence and the arguments and the possibility of errors on both sides, i would say the preponderance of the evidence points to theism.(smile)
@KennyTew2 I'd like to explore the evidences for evolution from the perspective of fossils and bones and the interpretation of what and why certain bone features mean this or that to see how strong those arguments are or are not.
What features does one look for in bones to decide if a animal was bipedal or not or had the capacity for high cognition or not? Is there a site that goes deeply, with great detail into this subject? ie, "why this bone feature = this or that AND why"?
@KennyTew2 Hi Kenny, Yeah i am somewhat familiar with this one. I believe the things to take into account are language syntax, greek to english translations, what type of book the bible is and how individuals place different importance on different details of the same event. This together is a place to start to begin to understand these apparent contradictory events. There is a high degree of synergy in the overall telling of the meaning of the text. That is, there was a betrayal. There was....
@thesongtowoody There was money exchanged in the betrayal. The man judas and the characters are right. There was a suicide. etc etc. The passages for one are not a official coroners report rather they are 1 or 2 short sentences from a religious book given by two different reports. Short pithy statements. How large was the tree that judas hung himself from? How tall was it? How long was he left to hang there? Who would have cared to bring him down? Did he want to die instantly by .....
@thesongtowoody Did he want to die instantly by falling from a very high branch to gain momentum to snap his neck instantly? Did he lose control of his bowels and defecate? Did he decompose over many days, weeks? while hanging in hot israeli temperatures which cause his body cavity to expand and explode? Here is a MD's comments about interpreting time of death. D.P Lyle M.D.
Body Decomposition: At death, the body begins to decompose. Bacteria go to work on the tissues and by 24 to 36 hours the smell of rotting flesh appears and the skin takes on a progressive greenish-red color. By 3 days, gas forms in the body cavities and beneath the skin, which may leak fluid and split. From there, things get worse. Add to this, predation by animals and insects and the body can become completely skeletonized before long.
@thesongtowoody If one account said he died of leprosy in his bed, in greece while another account said he hung himself out of guilt that to me would constitute a contradiction. So, it is possible one report focused on naming the method specifically while the other focused on the actions and results of that method. It is not unreasonable, nor a stretch. As for the silver, no one is claiming judas himself bought the land at the land registry rather that, indirectly he purchased it....
@thesongtowoody Indirectly ,he "purchased it", since nobody wanted to lay claim to money that was used to betray this person who claimed to be the son of God. Everyone was washing their hands of his dirty money. Nobody wanted to be a part of what he was guilty of so...it was his land, his money, not mine! so ta speak. That is the intent trying to be conveyed through the literary form utilized. We have to make some room for the reasons i state at the very beginning and not be so rigid, i think.
@thesongtowoody Hi Kenny, I see that you posted before i felt i had really made my arguments. Did anything else i posted give you any new thoughts? thanks.
@thesongtowoody Let me make this really simple, each story contains a few key facts, can you honestly say that presented with only the following information you would conclude that the same event is being described.
A man returns money he earned grassing and commits suicide.
A man buys a field with money he earned grassing, falls over and dies.
@KennyTew2 Judas places a noose around his neck and ties the end to a branch that is 40 feet from the ground. He stands up leaps "headlong" and drops 30 feet before the rope jerks. He either defecated himself immediately or his body cavity burst after hanging for 4 days in hot 40 Celsius. Part of the "gossip" of his suicide becomes that he swelled and popped open in the middle. Because the details of the "headlong" account are rather vague, not fine, it cant constitute as a contradiction.
@KennyTew2 Doesn't hanging yourself involve throwing yourself in some instances? If one account detailed that he fell headlong and had in fact included that he was dashed upon the rocks below, that could constitute as a contradiction. But in fact there is no mention of rocks, a cliff, so based strictly on the words utilized there is no ...A equals non A , at the same time and IN THE SAME RELATIONSHIP statements. Therefore there is no contradiction , only an apparent contradiction.
@thesongtowoody I dont understand, do you accept this clear example of a contradiction or not? You aren't seriously trying to say these are two descriptions of the same event are you? They share nothing in common.
@KennyTew2 So, if you relax the definition of the law of non-contradiction and you add extraneous info about what the use of the word "headlong" means and doesn't mean, then it will cross a threshold so as to constitute a contradiction but if you do the opposite of this and are honest you are forced to admit there is no actual contradiction. But being dogmatic that headlong means and ONLY can mean "jumping off a cliff", you are reading INTO the text something that in reality is not there?
@KennyTew2 Kenny, Following the strict definition of The law of non-contradiction and strictly only using the words utilized, those passages do not constitute a contradiction. The casual reader must not attach external scenario's to the word "headlong". If he does then he is adding something that is in fact not stated and therefore he will swear a contradiction but ultimately that contradiction is based on extraneous info which is not good science. No wonder he will swear...contradiction.
@KennyTew2 I disagree that they contradict each other. I would submit that your contradictions are only apparent contradictions not true contradictions. Here is how i define contradiction. A cannot equal NON-A at the same time and in the same relationship if it does then it is in fact a contradiction. I would emphasize the importance of the latter part of the definition. This is the important part to apprehend and is vital to certifying whether something is a true contradiction.
Wiki quote: "Josephus writes of a Jewish sect led by James the Just, whom he calls the brother of Jesus. Josephus' history includes sections on John the Baptist, the High Priest Annas, Pontius Pilate, and Jesus called the Messiah."
I have borrowed flavius josephus's writings from the local library and read them myself. It is a large book but there are several small paragraphs where he does in fact speak of the above mentioned people. Anyone else could borrow the book and verify this. Thanks.
@thesongtowoody Josephus was not contemporaneous with Jesus, not even close. He refers to the existence of christians and, from memory, covers some of the biblical players, but his report only shows that christians believed in jesus, not that Jesus existed. He could not possibly be considered a witness to the existence of jesus since jesus (if he existed at all) would have been dead before Josephus was even born.
Im looking for something contemporaneous, but your efforts are appreciated.
2) I almost forgot, some of Josephus's writings on the subject are widely believed to be later additions. However, I freely admit that this is not my area and as such I can not evaluate the claims of authenticity or otherwise. But as stated even if every word it genuine this can in no way be taken as evidence for the existence of christ.
By the way, I am not of the conviction that jesus didn't exist, more that we can not know with any degree of certianty either way due to the lack of evidence.
Hi, first of all thanks for your response. You are obviously very well educated well and far beyond me and i appreciate your comments.
You are right. My comment does not have anything to do with evolution but to clarify i was simply responding to one of your comments that you made in your response to griff. Here is a cut n paste from wiki about flavius josephus a 1st century historian.(see next post for quote)
kenny you say in your video there is not a shred of evidence jesus existed. I was just wondering if you can tell the readers of this post what kind of work and investigations you have engaged in and give us a figure in terms of how many hours you devoted to this investigation when you say there is no evidence he existed. So please post a figure for us. Read "evidence that demands a verdict" book 1in its entirety. Jesus was a real flesh and blood person. How many hrs?
kenny you say in your video there is not a shred of evidence jesus existed. I was just wondering if you can tell the readers of this post what kind of work and investigations you have engaged in and give us a figure in terms of how many hours you devoted to this investigation when you say there is no evidence he existed. So please post a figure for us. Read "evidence that demands a verdict" book 1in its entirety. Jesus was a real flesh and blood person. How many hrs?
@thesongtowoody I wonder what makes you think the time I have spent researching the subject is even remotely relevant, however, without ever tracking the time spent it must be well over 50 hours as a minimum. However the key points can be covered in a few short minuets.
1) There isn't a single contemporaneous account of jesus
2) The first written records of jesus appear a whole generation after his supposed death
If you have a single piece of evidence that he actually existed please share it.
@jewishcrimenetwork You can believe whatever you think the evidence shows, but evolution remains a fact whether or not you choose to accept it. Your question refers to the origin of life which is an area of science known as abiogenisis. Evolution is the study of how life changes and diversifies through time, it does not deal with how life began. Look up abiogenesis, there are some good videos on the subject here on YouTube. Sorry I can't help more, but I have not studied abiogenisis much.
I used to believe in evolution until I read a book by Francis Crick (nobel prize winner for DNA structure) explaining the amazing complexitiy to makr rna from dna.
I realized all that wouldn't come by "change" not even in milions and millions of centuries. No way.
Years later I realized that the key for evolution would be a mechanism to create genes out of a necessity. No mechanism found no faith in evolution.
@jewishcrimenetwork Im afraid your logic makes no sense at all. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life and the fact of evolution remains even if DNA could not exist without magic.
Evolution creates new genes all the time through mutation, not only does the mechanism exist it is well understood and documented.
Your logic amounts to the following. Gravity explains how matter acts once it exists, however since it does not explain the origins of matter I refuse to accept gravity.
@KennyTew2 You makeno sense. You say "Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life". Wow. Amazing contradiction.
You say "Evolution creates new genes all the time through mutation" That's not creation but modification. How were the genes created in the 1st place? No answer.
Lol good vid, but please don't quote science over religion. They are both forms of belief . God and science shouldn't be divided. There both ways for humans to understand the universe. All the science in the world can't understand how everything came from nothing nor can it disprove or prove God. In my view religion has it's own logic, it guesses the answer without the proof, just as a child eats without looking for the instructions,
@MikDonsen It can be hard to ignore the evils of the bible especially when creationists seem to think that science leads to atheism and atheism to evil. However you are correct science and religion are quite distinct and many people of faith find it possible to retain their faith without attempting to drag us back into the dark ages.
religion only exists because people had know idea where we came a long time ago so they started making up these lies of a God or Creator and the Devil wooooooooo only complete retards who dont do there research still believe this today then science came along and started exposing these lies and people think your a bigot lol
Absolute great work. I hope you do some work along the same line to explain some of the basics that I can use for the kids to watch so they have the evidence when they counter with the creationist theotards (courtesy to calpurnpiso, check his video out)
Not so much funny as sad really. Still at least it helps get the truth out there, especially considering the number of creationist videos telling lies about evolution.
Of course you've heard about he puddle who reveled in how the hole he resided in seemed to have been created with the express purpose of fitting his shape. Of course the world we live in is the right distance; were it not we'd be speaking from Mars or Venus, or some other planet that was the right distance.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
stop being a bigot you put all you faith and dreams and spread the word of the big bang father of evolution around sounds like a....religion,lol, if evolution is true god started it there is a such thing as good and evil ive seen it u athiest are out to destroy religion,makes me sick,the greatest inventors,scientist,politicians,musicians founding fathers,that got us to were we are today belived in a higher power,many humans have felt and are feeling somthing greater than them is there
The second half of your post has disappeared, I think I might have accidentally clicked the remove button instead of the reply button. This second post was as full of idiotic nonsense as the first, take this for example,
"if god would come and make things better evey time somthing went wrong if would take away free will"
So god created malaria to give us free will, how kind of him.
You clearly do not understand what a bigot is, look it up and let me know how and where i have been bigoted.
riedel1982 - The big bang happened, I don´t understand why you religious people have a problem with it. Every galaxy has a redshift, proving that they are flying away from the same point. It doesn´t harm your religious beliefs, if you want to think God started it, fine.
Why do you have a problem with Kenny pointing out somebodies inaccuracies? How is that bigoted?
i ask some questions of him who has created all things like why do i have a natural desire to sin but in the end i trust him, and you may not bow now but you will bow kenny
Seriously? You actually want to do bad things? Perhaps there is something wrong with you conscience.
"you may not bow now but you will bow kenny"
I told you that your god is a genocidal monster and I will never willingly bow before him. Of course if he is real he can make me, his propensity for cruelty to humans is well documented in the bible.
If you found out that your God was real, although not actually a god, but a super intelligent alien with powers that made him look like a God to us, would bow and scrape to him just the same?
im glad to see such smart people talking about if we evolved or not ,but even simple people can see evidence of the creator all around us,the matter is blindness, moreover every knee will bow and every tounge will confess jesus christ is lord even u kenny hope u can see before u die
Why? Your god is supposed to be a god of love, so there's no way he would ever do anything as monstrously evil as send me for eternal torment just because I didn't spend my time telling him how great he is.
Why doesn't he just speak hell out of existence then? Why doesn't he just let me die when I die then?
Your god has choices and he chooses to torture those who do not worship him for eternity.
Even if I thought your god was real I would not bow before him. He has committed several acts of genocide, forced people to sacrifice their children to him and given evil laws.
He is beneath my morality and I do not bow to evil.
Human evolutionary THEORY has many things going for it: tax-funded grants; college arts departments to create monkeyed men of chicken wire & plaster; colored illustrations of proto-simian/humanoid blends spearing mastodons...and so forth.
Meaningless. The proof of human evolutionary THEORY is incumbent upon the claimant. It has nothing to do with the religions of Christianity, Darwinism or the tarot. You people who make these wild extrapolations that turn voles into behemoths (given countless eons) are up against the wall. Put up or shut up.
Once more you post unscientific nonsense, but if you want some evidence to discuss lets go with this,
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
WELKIN E. JOHNSON AND JOHN M. COFFIN 1999
Or if you would prefer we could discuss the claim that heidelbergensis, erectus, ergaster and the Neanderthals were only racial variations of modern humans.
One might compare the similarities betwixt any line of long-extinct critters after assigning to them Latin designations. These things remain as conjecture. Evolution remains unobserved. The hoax involves clouding the distinction between adapting & evolving. Darwin's plagiarized suppositions are useless as they've done nothing to advance Man's quest for improvement. Fanciful charts & mock-ups of mythical human ancestral relics is child's play. Why not end the playacting & do some honest research?
I offered two pieces of evidence up for debate, you have ignored both, what a surprise another creationist that is too lazy to even bother to read the evidence.
"These things remain as conjecture. "
No they don't the ERV study I pointed you too is one of many pieces of conclusive proof of common ancestry, which you would know if you had bothered to read it before dismissing it.
If you want to dismiss the evidence the only honest approach is to read it and then refute it.
Microbial variances don't support the radicalization forwarded by messiah Darwin. Ev. THEORY is not sci. by definition. It is supposition, conjecture, postulation, etc. Science comes from the Latin verb "scire" meaning "to know" and nothing more. Men learn fr. observation & analysis, not fr. dreaming into existence phantom races. Because many tenured "professors" agree on something doesn't make it true. If you're interested in science then you should enroll in remedial classes. Take anatomy.
"Because many tenured "professors" agree on something doesn't make it true"
No, but then again when there are hundreds of thousands of papers all presenting evidence supportting the same conclusion and not a single piece of evidence that refutes it, what possible scientific grounds could you have for denying it?
Oh hang on I know how you do it, you just ignore all of the evidence.
"Take anatomy."
If you would like me to teach you a lesson or two on anatomy we can discuss the hominin fossils.
Oh by the way I was amused by the way you boldly order me to, 'put up or shut up' only to run away from dealing with the actual evidence and disappear into a whole slew of stupid ill-informed baseless assertions.
"Men learn fr. observation & analysis, not fr. dreaming into existence phantom races"
Tell me, did they observe and analyze the fossils, or dream them into existence?
You grovel before laboratorians. Are you a man or something other? Millions of papers have been written about cancer--all wrong. Cancer is a chronic metabolic disease--a fact known since 1902. Malignant cells {errant healing cells} are identical to trophoblasts {the cells that form babies}. The substance that cancer patients lack is Amygdalin {vitamin B17}. Amygdalin contains hydrogen cyanide that is dumped ONLY on cancerous cells. Why are you wasting your time proliferating a pseudo-science?
I don't grovel before anyone or anything, because I have dignity. So if you don't mind I'll leave the groveling to the religious for whom it is an essential part of daily life.
However, I note that you have still ignored the evidence, what is your problem? If this evidence supports a pseudoscience it should be relatively easy to refute right?
In fact not only should you be able to refute it with ease, but you should have a mountain of scientific evidence...
2) that clearly supports your creation belief, after all it was the evidence that led you to creationism and not some half baked personal experience with someone who died 2000 years ago right?
It is my contention that evolution is supported by every single piece of relevant scientific evidence that has ever been discovered, and not a single piece has ever refuted it,
If I am wrong it should be easy to point to the evidence,
3) , show me some of the evidence that convinced you that evolution is wrong or show me some evidence that it was a 'magic man in the sky wot dun it'.
Look at all those options, but I bet you don't choose any of these and instead choose to go on about worshiping at the alter of Darwin or some other irrelevant idiotic nonsense.
Science proceeds on the basis of evidence, so stop playing games and deal with the evidence.
Conjecture isn't evidence. Your religion requires extraordinary Faith in face of the evidence that refutes it. As a religionist you must seek congregants as your religion can survive no other way. That's why you deliver sermons, create martyrs and denounce heretics. Anyone who questions the tenets of this maddening orthodoxy is ignorant & unscientific. Perhaps re-education camps, modeled after Stalin's gulags, are needed?
Which is why I offered a scientific study examining ERV's. If you think there is something wrong with the conclusions drawn from the evidence please explain your objection.
"Your religion requires extraordinary Faith in face of the evidence that refutes it."
After reading scientific journals for years I have yet to see a piece of evidence that refutes evolution, but you should easily be able to guide me to the paper.
"Anyone who questions the tenets of this maddening orthodoxy is ignorant & unscientific"
To question a well established fact without a shred of evidence is just plain stupid.
Refute my paper, produce one of your own or prepare for the Nazi death camps! Oh no sorry, the Nazi's were christian weren't they, I mean the gulag, Oh but Stalin didn't believe in evolution either. ummm inquisition? Bollocks, ... I know a crusade of re-education.... damn.
["We are all ignorant depending on the subject." -- Mark Twain.] Bully for you--you've been reading scientific journals for years. Refutation of Darwin's suppositions, & those of his lickspittles, isn't difficult for those who have been reading for years. Surely you are aware of the 33,500 ceramic figurines {many in excess of 4,000- yr.-old} unearthed at Acambero, Mex. since 1945 depicting, amongst other things, people interacting with dinosaurs?
It's always interesting to see what sort of evidence creationists will accept a valid, especially considering their extreme skepticism regarding verified repeatable scientific facts, but this one truly is special!
I would have to agree that the first half of your Russian saying is absolutely spot on in this case, but beyond that what you have offered is a laughable collection of frauds which were uncovered as such as long ago as 1952,
studied Julsruds collection, and observed two excavators at work. He concluded that the figurines were indeed fakes: their surfaces displayed no signs of age; no dirt was packed into their crevices; and though some figurines were broken, no pieces were missing and no broken surfaces were worn. Furthermore, the excavations stratigraphy clearly showed that the artifacts were placed in a recently dug hole filled with a mixture of the surrounding archaeological layers."
"One might compare the similarities betwixt any line of long extinct critters after assigning them Latin designations."
But we're not just talking about a random bunch of similarities, we're talking about a nested hierarchy of features.
I recommend you watch the following videos so you know what you're arguing against, rather than arguing against something that we're not even arguing in favour of.
Dubois never initially claimed that the skull was a gibbon. He initially claimed it was a human ancestor, but was under so much fire from the rest of the academic and religious world that he went clinically insane (read his diary) and claimed that the skull was a large gibbon's to try to escape more criticism.
shit dude some good fact comeing out the mouth of a normal human. lol. i enjoyed your vid and i think that you have a solid and understanding mind m8. id love a chat with you a normal thinking man as on the internet and in our times it is rare. i love your vid and it is one of a few that hold water in this time we call our best so keep em comein dude
hi m8 i am highly interested in evolution and id love to get my hands on some casts of scull cases like the sculls you show on this vid. could you tell me where i could get some and ideas on the cost?
Sure, I get them from the 'boneclones' website, under their hominids section. They vary in cost but since you are in the UK you can expect to add around £50-100 for shipping and tax, oh and the stands cost extra as well. My latest, Peking man, cost just shy of £300 all told, but he's at the more expensive end of the spectrum.
"Explain if you are smart enough the giants of before and those of today. D`ont forget to dig some up from the many graveyards.All have names. "
What Giants? Please refer me to a specimen held in a museum, or a reference to a scientific article where these bones have been reported and I will offer my opinion.
Ken if im not mistaken Spoors the person who you say agrees with you, also used the word faculative, please dont acuse me of being decietful, ive been more than honest about my perspective. If you believe that this ape with faculative bipedal loco motion is overwelming proof of macro evolution, then more power to you. Thats your bussiness. After hearing your interpretation of the Nature study and Dons vid, it doesnt surprise me, I underatand how u think now, however I require more evidence.
Fair enough, there is more coming out of the ground every day, so I won't give up hope. I didn't see this post when I posted my last few, but I hope they will suffice.
ken I appriceat having the oppurtunity to talk about his subject I think its very important, thanks for the engagment i believe ive learned something from you, and hope that you have learned a least a little from me take care. but you guys still talk funny.
Ken one last thing before you go,, when you get a chance someday check out Cambrian Explosion Bigger Problem For Darwin, by thwonk and Visualization of DNA, by tristmulus, im not asking you to believe anything, just check it out and maybe even smoke a big fatty while your watching, you dont need to reply back.
Thanks for clarifying what you meant by neutral sciences, and dumb little old me thought you were talking about genetics/biology you know.... the things that only qualified crittics of the theory have the authority to comment on. your starting to worry me Ken maybe there a heat wave over yonder. but great question anyway sure why not. The discussion is still evolution right?
Yes, I'm still waiting for you to present some evidence that afarensis was not a biped.
But you have dropped a little bit of a clanger. Scientific theories don't get promoted to laws, since they are already a higher level of scientific understanding.
You seem to think that someone can carry out legitimate scientific work when they begin with conclusions that are unshakable regardless of the evidence. This is idocy.
"The DIK-1-1 skeleton confirms the functional dichotomy of the body plan of A. afarensis: a more derived lower body adapted for bipedal locomotion, combined with an upper body that is, in many respects, ape-like."
I posted this quote earlier, yet you chose to ignore it and play with the ambiguity of the term facultative instead of accepting the evidence.
You have no evidence and face a mountain to the contrary yet you do not accept reality. This is irrational behavior.
Ive answered your question about afarensis several times and in several different ways ive went into great detail, it wasnt the anwer that you wanted to hear but it was answered many times. This is just getting silly Ken, I never said anything about promoting theories again you added your own conjecture, ive chosen my words very carefully you dont seem to understand the difference between empirical testable science and the historical sciences. ive been searching for twenty years for all...
I never said anything about promoting theories again you added your own conjecture
Looking4coffee wrote, Theory of gravity seems ok
You replied with, Let me remind you gravity is observable, repeatable, it can pass the test of empirical evidence and is no longer considered only a theory but a physical law
This suggests to me a promotion from theory to law, but perhaps I could have expressed it better.
If you remember Ben you originally challenge my claim in the video that the every expert was in complete agreement that Lucy was a biped and they only debates surround how much time she spent on the ground and the importance of the knuckle walking adaptations of the wrist. I was correct about the agreement of the experts.
Other than that Ben I hope you will agree that we have had an interesting debate and apart from us both being a little silly and personal at the beginning we have largely...
...represented our worldviews in a civilised manner, which is an achievement in itself, particularly for youtube. I feel that if we carry on much longer this may not remain the case, as we are both getting frustrated with each other, which would be a pity.
I hope you agree that we are pretty much done as I'm not sure I can commit this much time much longer, (My kids hardly recognize me any more). Warmest regards Kenny.
This suggest a promotion to me.....im sure it does and again it doesent surprise me, Its also called trying to piggy back a historical non testable non repeatable non empirical theory on to one that is. The point is theres nothing called the law of evolution. Unlike Don I dont believe scientist around the world would waste there time signing a list that says we should be skeptical of gravity. Im not saying you agree with don on this point, because I dont know, only trying to prove a point.
Let me remind you gravity is observable, repeatable, it can pass the test of empirical evidence and is no longer considered only a theory but a physical law/ Newtonian Physics gravity, the third law, etc. and we know that atomic theory works because its also testable and repeatable. By the way, there has always been controversy in cosmology and evolutionary processes even by non religious people.
I dont know what you mean by bible neutral science. Francesco Redi and later Pasteur proved empiricaly the fundemental principle of biology, that state living things only come from other living things. The German monk Gregory Mendels principles of heriditary are the modern synthesis of genetics, not Darwins hypothetical theory of pangenes wich was disproven by his own cousin, by the way macro evolution mutation theory does not conform to proven Mendelian genetics.
Well from my limited experience as a non scientist it seems fundamental religious people have issues with 2 things. Evolution and Cosmology. In that both suggest that the life and the universe are billions of years old and that they formed naturally.
Example, I rarely see religious people attacking atomic theory. It seems bible neutral. Theory of gravity seems ok, no biblical problem there. See how some scientific theories rarely draw religious attention?
Thats actually a great question, I think I have an answer but I just want to verify a couple of things ill let you know, PS I wish you could be as crittical and at least as contestable against darwinian evolution as Darwin himself advocated, in fact he dedicated a whole chapter in Origins of Species on contestability of the theory, but im sure you already knew that. I believe his book implies a creator/ theistic evolutionary model but he could could have been trying to avoid religious backlash.
"I believe his book implies a creator/ theistic evolutionary model but he could could have been trying to avoid religious backlash."
Darwin gradually changed his position throughout his life and eventually ended up an atheist. But there is a difference between theistic evolution and creationism. I have no problem with a theistic evolution model.
Why should I doubt evolution? It is proven and I have seen the proof. Should I doubt the spherical status of the earth?
cont..before there even read. If u believe that Eugenie Scott has the right to say that Christian doctrin/metaphysics is compatible with evolutionary theory, then I agree, she has the right, but personely I think its bad for science as well as religion, but I dont think the question of good science versus bad science can be left to judges who are probably less knowledgable about the subject than you or I. Theories take decades or more to get accepted ID has only been around for 2 decades.
cont..honesty and reasoning regardless of opinion. Im not asking you to care about the list, but you offered exoduses vid as a refutation, if you had said no comment instead I would have respected your decision. Ken there is one thing we do agree on, and that is the way science determins what is a valid theory even if it is sometimes administered by fallible humans/us. People like Behe, Denton, Thaxton,Kenyon,Dembski and others have written papers wich are many times ridiculed before there...
One thing that confuses me about ID is what exactly it does. I mean I've read about the flagellum and irriducibile complexity. I've read about how evolution could account for these.
Yet, evolution seems to make predictions about what we will and will not find. I.D. says 'there is a designer because this element of life seems too complex to explain with evolution". So who is the designer? When did they design? How? Where else? What distinguishes something from design and evolution?
CONT.. Institutes list. This is clearly a double standard, especially since you have not been able to demonstrate scientifically that religious afiliation has anything to do with scientific reasoning, ala Mendel,Newton,Fermi,Pastuer and many others, My belief is that ignorance exist in all beliefs, Christian as well as secular. In fact I will readily admit that there are a lot of so called christians that are full of shit, as there are a lot of Brights, I only ask for intellectual...
"you have not been able to demonstrate scientifically that religious afiliation has anything to do with scientific reasoning"
I never said that it did. Good science is good science. I dont care who does it. There are some examples of creationists producing good work, (obviously only in Bible neutral fields). You asked me for some stats, and I provided them. The stats I offered clearly show an inverse correlation between religiosity and good science, but I dont care.
I didnt ask you for stats on how many scientist were atheist, and you know that! you are adding your own personel conjecture. If you tryed to prove that religious people were some how unable to become members of NAS you have failed, no evidence is sited in study, or even implied, niether have you been able to prove that the small percentage of religious people in NAS were any less productive, prolific or derilect in any way, as the reverse was stated by the president of the organization....
"If you tryed to prove that religious people were some how unable to become members of NAS you have failed,"
I wasn't trying to prove anything, but a simple statistical analysis of the figures shows that atheists are between 100 and 200 times more likely to become members of NAS than theists, depending on the atheism stats you use.
I don't know about you, but I would say that being a hundred times more likely to be a great scientist demonstrates a greater propensity.
cont..What I feel is so puzzling about your logic, is that while your Nature study actually makes my point by documenting that Bruce Albert went on record as saying that 'there were outstanding members that are very religious' of whats regarded as greater scientist, again the study clearly admits that there were at least some believers, when the NAS is comprised of proffesors,graduate students,and administrators and even has less of a percentage of earth scientist than the Discovery Instiutes
cont.. I have made no attempt to offer this list as proof of anything, im not that dumb only to say that this is clear message that its not just the fanatics who are speaking of the major problems with the theory in terms of empirical evidence.The thing that really surprises me is your willingness to side with exodus view that only biology relate fields are qualified to responsibly crittique the theory, when the truth is most scientist in general are not in the field of evolutionary biochem..
No I am clarifying the position since you did not understand the application of the term within its context. I could have said that you were willfully distorting the meaning of the scientists, but chose to offer the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you had not understood. From there I decided to use Spoors own external references to uncover the nature of the, substantial postural component to the facultative bipedalism of afarensis...
2) ...in the hope that this will demonstrate clearly, one way or the other, whether he is referring to anatomical features that offer the same level of adaptation to bipedalism as is currently found in modern apes, or, if he is referring to clear anatomical adaptations to bipedalism that go beyond those available to modern apes. We both already know the answer, but I will spend the two hours necessary none the less.
You do know that I dont care about the list dont you?
If someone thinks they have a valid scientific argument against evolution I suggest they do some research, write a paper and get it published in the scientific literature. This is how science works and as yet no such paper exists, which means that the list is nothing more than the unsubstantiated opinion (if honestly obtained which I have good reason to doubt) of a tiny fraction of 1% of those qualified to comment.
The old, change the goal post strategy. Ill get back to that latter, cont.. except for one person who believed to much baggage came with having his name on the list, and not for any other reason .U cant blame him, furthermore the list has grown to apromimatly 2000 signatories world wide, its hard to believe that all of these University educated people could be that gullible especially since there are some very prominent people on the list, lets keep reason in the discussion. I have made ...
Its hard to believe that an intelligent person like u, who posses the ability to utilize skeptism,could buy the snake oil that Don Exodus offers,with arbitrarily defining words like common decent wich has different meanings to different people, man and ape or man and molecue. He decided that only biology related fields count,Howell and Spoors dont even qualify,he never attemps to mention the names of these unknown angry people who were asked to be taken off, and doesnt say why,except for...
IM Having a problem threading just in case, ill repeat, if your apeaking human like agile bipedism NO if your speaking faculative bipedism YES apes have this abillity, if your interested on the serious flaws of your argument let me know ive wriitten them down, and also the gorrilla question im not goning to waste my time though if you have already changed the channel and tuned out, but maybe its just my computer not working properly.
Im not getting angry, why should I? All the evidence supports my case and none of it supports yours.
if your speaking faculative bipedism YES apes have this abillity,
So you are claiming that the bipedal abilities of afarensis are no more well developed than those of modern apes despite the clear anatomical differences that prove the bipedal status to every anatomist that has ever studied them.
While the term facultative can legitimately be used to refer to the bipedal locomotion of modern apes, it is clear that this is not what the scientists are referring too and worse still, you continue to ignore/distort/fail to understand the work of the professionals. So for the sake of clarity I shall modify the question, please provide evidence of a single expert who has studied the evidence and concluded that the locomotor abilities of afarensis were no more advanced than those of modern apes.
Ben, I am currently tracking down the references given by Spoor that he used to support his view of facultative bipedalism since I agree that, at least to those unfamiliar with the use of the term in the context, it may seem unclear. Currently I have access to neither article and so I will need to visit the citys central library where I know they hold at least one of them so I can make a copy to demonstrate my case.
Don Exodus is nut, he and I have danced before and he's not a very good debater one on one, and his vids are c grade at best, wich I will talk about very shortly. Ken there are some serious flaws in your argument that I will point out later, there almost as bad as my spelling, but right now I have to eat dinner and get my American Idol on, its a great show except for that Simon guy who talks funny.
"Ken there are some serious flaws in your argument that I will point out later,"
No there are serious flaws in your argument. You have begun with a conclusion, 'afarensis was not a biped' and have trawled the literature for any quote that even superficially appears to agree with your case.
You have ignored even the findings of the papers you have quoted and at the end of the day you have failed to substantiate your case. Worse than this though, you have not acknowledged this fact and instead..
2) ...of adopting a scientific approach and accepting the inevitable conclusions that the anatomy of afarensis is that of a biped, you simply ignore it an move on to something else.
I don't care about how many people have been tricked into signing some creationist list, I care about the proven mechanism of evolution. That proof won't disappear no matter how many people are brainwashed by creationism.
Please find an expert who agrees with you or accept the bipedal status of afarensis.
Ken ive written a few things that arent threading im not sure why. If you dont apriceate my opinion I can live with that. Thats what usually happens with this subject. I can see your getting angry.
It's called English, I believe you Americans are loosely familiar with the language. Still I'm glad that prick is over there instead of invading my TV.
It is sad that Christians think they need to make everything in the bible fit reality. The bible is simply a collection of books written over a long period of time but many different authors, some of it is based on the truth as they saw it and some is based on their personal beliefs. Does it matter if there are mistakes in the bible? If Christians took a scientific approach to the bible they would see that there were mistakes made and that based on new evidence corrections are required, (a lot).
Ben, you do realize that I gave you the atheism and science stats because you asked for them, not because I was interested in either them or debating them. As far as the creationist list of scientists goes, Donexodus was able to contact 18 of the biologists on the list, (The only scientists with relevant training for their qualifications to make their opinion more valid than that of the lay person) and 16 of 18 accepted both natural selection and common descent,...
sorry for asking a bit of a semi-pointless question but are all of those skulls(apart from the human one)real or just models?(just curious.)
RandomVortex 2 months ago
@RandomVortex Alas they are replicas. I got them from boneclones.
KennyTew2 2 months ago
@KennyTew2
Fair enough(they do look cool and what with you being a lecturer and stuff I did not think it was 100% beyond the realm of possibility.)
I'm interested in most wings of science but particularly psychology and some of the reality deniers on Youtube would make wonderful case studies!(that said they do quickly become tiresome,although I maintain that many of their replies are utterly priceless!)
Anyway all the best!
RandomVortex 2 months ago
You are right though. Strictly by the definition of "contemporaneous" Josephus does not qualify. Off the top of my head i cannot think of any...except ALL the apostles of the new testament and all the eye witnesses of the new testament. These in my opinion are valid. You might not agree with their theology about who jesus was but you must accept them as real people who were eye witness accounts.
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
there is an unbroken chain of transmission from the apostles eyewitness to the oldest manuscripts of the gospels we have today. Scribes were exemplary in regards to accuracy of handwritten copies. Differences between thousands of copies is practically non existent. Something huge happened that created this massive groundswell of religious adherence. There is alot to cover in THAT discussion. Based upon this there is very strong evidence that jesus was a real historical figure.
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
Youre original comment in your video was that there isnt a single shred of evidence that jesus even existed THEN you change to "contempraneous" evidence. Thats fine. But to the former i say, you go too far by saying there isnt a single shred of evidence. Even circumstantial evidence is admissible and used in courts of law to convict and process criminals. While there are no original autophraphs of the apostles nevertheless there is an unbroken chain of transmission from the....continued....
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
@thesongtowoody "THEN you change to "contempraneous" evidence."
Yes but this is all about standards of evidence, for some people the feeling of a personal relationship with Jesus is more than sufficient, while for others the fact that the gospels are written a whole generation after the events they claim to detail is sufficient to totally reject them as a reliable account of anything other than the existence of a christian tradition.
The big problem here is that absence of evidence does...
KennyTew2 6 months ago
2) not equate to evidence of absence, since most lives in that period would have been lived without a shred of documentary evidence.
So we are forced then to examine the quality of evidence presented in the gospels, so we can weigh their historical accuracy. Not only do they contradict each other on many points, (an issue which could be explained largely be the honest reporting of different versions of the story as passed along by word of mouth) but they contradict known history in several..
KennyTew2 6 months ago
3) places. For example the 'census' that had Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem simply didn't happen. Furthermore whenever there was a census there was never a requirement to travel to ones home town to be recorded, it simply didn't happen.
Furthermore verses like Matthew 27:52-53 describe events so monumental that one would have to doubt that this could ever have happened without being recoded by anyone.
The contradictions and mistakes in the bible are many and well known, so we...
KennyTew2 6 months ago
4) dont need to go into them here.
Perhaps I should rephrase my original statement, 'there isnt a single shred of evidence for the existence of christ that would meet the required standards of evidence for any skeptical inquirer'
Regardless of the effectiveness of its reporting something must have happened to start the christian tradition, and that something is most likely the existence of Jesus (with magic powers added in the retelling)
KennyTew2 6 months ago
@KennyTew2 There is plenty of evidence, ie, the new testament writers and accounts. The new testament accounts are not merely mythical stories (unlike greek myths) rather it is a historical account, that has its setting in a real period in history, in a real place with historical figures, testable even by secular sources. The new testament seems to crossover into stories only when perceived through the lens that cannot accept a reality that could include the miraculous.
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
@KennyTew2 I would encourage you to read some of the comments of simon greenleaf , a part founder of the harvard school of law. He is very well received by his peers and his profession is to understand, law and the criteria of what constitutes as evidence or not. He examined the gospel accounts from the inside out. Looking at the motives and character of the persons involved. He searched for consistencies and inconcistencies and obviously is someone who cannot be easily hoodwinked into b fables.
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
@KennyTew2 I have explored the subject of contradictions in the bible and i have heard this complaint before but in my examination from genesis to revelation, which is a huge body of literary work i have only seen maybe 1 at the most 2, bona fide contradictions which seem impossible to deny or refute, (though new info might resolve those (though i dont know how)) other than those 1 or 2, it is to my study of the subject 99.9 percent contradiction free. That is extremely good. Can you present 1?
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
@thesongtowoody There are many many contradictions, for a single clear example how about the death of Judas, Mathew 27, 3-8 includes "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."
while Acts 1, 18-19 includes this, "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out"
here we see two contradictions in just a few passages, in the first the silver..
KennyTew2 6 months ago
2) is left in the temple and in the second it is used to buy a field. In the first he hangs himslef and in the second he falls over and dies.
There are over a hundred of these and I have seen some serious christian contortionism in an attempt to ignore the obvious. For an amusing take on the matter watch the youtube video, "Quiz Show (Bible Contradictions)"
KennyTew2 6 months ago
@KennyTew2 I watched a bit of the "quiz show(bible contradictions". Honestly? I thought that it must have been put together by someone who hasnt done his homework, doesn't understand the law of non-contradiction, especially the latter part as i mentioned previously and who takes scriptures always and in every instance in a wooden literal fashion, with no thought given to context or which literary form or tool is used. I am sure the unaware gobbled up that video as blowing the lid off bible lies!
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
@KennyTew2 RE: quiz show(bible contradictions
I would not want a layman to defend me in the court of law if he is not skilled in the meaning and interpretation of those laws. He is unskilled and doesnt understand "law" . Lawyers are skilled at interpreting what the law SAYS. So too with the bible. I see alot of people pretending to know what a passage is saying when really they have no background,experience or skill in its proper interpretation. Remember people go to universities for scripture.
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
@KennyTew2 Here's my favorite Author, teacher , philosopher and theologian. I enjoy his sober approach in everything he says and does and he has a good sense of humour. Since you suggested a youtube link, i will post the name of his site where you can hear him speak on many topics. It is Ligonier.org. His name is RC Sproul (not jr.) By the way. I just want to say that i do have some doubts about my christian faith. I have looked at the arguments for evolution and some of them have some merit.
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
@KennyTew2 My current conflicts/problems are the Noah account, (the logistics of it), the interpretation of fossil evidence and the age of the earth. The first two are to my mind the bigger challenges than the latter.
I like to joke that i am about 60 percent christian, 30 percent agnostic and 10 percent atheist. (smile)
Overall, after weighing all the evidence and the arguments and the possibility of errors on both sides, i would say the preponderance of the evidence points to theism.(smile)
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
@KennyTew2 I'd like to explore the evidences for evolution from the perspective of fossils and bones and the interpretation of what and why certain bone features mean this or that to see how strong those arguments are or are not.
What features does one look for in bones to decide if a animal was bipedal or not or had the capacity for high cognition or not? Is there a site that goes deeply, with great detail into this subject? ie, "why this bone feature = this or that AND why"?
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
@KennyTew2 Hi Kenny, Yeah i am somewhat familiar with this one. I believe the things to take into account are language syntax, greek to english translations, what type of book the bible is and how individuals place different importance on different details of the same event. This together is a place to start to begin to understand these apparent contradictory events. There is a high degree of synergy in the overall telling of the meaning of the text. That is, there was a betrayal. There was....
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
@thesongtowoody There was money exchanged in the betrayal. The man judas and the characters are right. There was a suicide. etc etc. The passages for one are not a official coroners report rather they are 1 or 2 short sentences from a religious book given by two different reports. Short pithy statements. How large was the tree that judas hung himself from? How tall was it? How long was he left to hang there? Who would have cared to bring him down? Did he want to die instantly by .....
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
@thesongtowoody Did he want to die instantly by falling from a very high branch to gain momentum to snap his neck instantly? Did he lose control of his bowels and defecate? Did he decompose over many days, weeks? while hanging in hot israeli temperatures which cause his body cavity to expand and explode? Here is a MD's comments about interpreting time of death. D.P Lyle M.D.
.....
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
@thesongtowoody
Body Decomposition: At death, the body begins to decompose. Bacteria go to work on the tissues and by 24 to 36 hours the smell of rotting flesh appears and the skin takes on a progressive greenish-red color. By 3 days, gas forms in the body cavities and beneath the skin, which may leak fluid and split. From there, things get worse. Add to this, predation by animals and insects and the body can become completely skeletonized before long.
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
@thesongtowoody If one account said he died of leprosy in his bed, in greece while another account said he hung himself out of guilt that to me would constitute a contradiction. So, it is possible one report focused on naming the method specifically while the other focused on the actions and results of that method. It is not unreasonable, nor a stretch. As for the silver, no one is claiming judas himself bought the land at the land registry rather that, indirectly he purchased it....
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
@thesongtowoody Indirectly ,he "purchased it", since nobody wanted to lay claim to money that was used to betray this person who claimed to be the son of God. Everyone was washing their hands of his dirty money. Nobody wanted to be a part of what he was guilty of so...it was his land, his money, not mine! so ta speak. That is the intent trying to be conveyed through the literary form utilized. We have to make some room for the reasons i state at the very beginning and not be so rigid, i think.
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
@thesongtowoody Hi Kenny, I see that you posted before i felt i had really made my arguments. Did anything else i posted give you any new thoughts? thanks.
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
@thesongtowoody Let me make this really simple, each story contains a few key facts, can you honestly say that presented with only the following information you would conclude that the same event is being described.
A man returns money he earned grassing and commits suicide.
A man buys a field with money he earned grassing, falls over and dies.
Come on, this really isn't difficult.
KennyTew2 6 months ago
If that isnt a contradiction then the word itself is without meaning.
KennyTew2 6 months ago
@KennyTew2 Judas places a noose around his neck and ties the end to a branch that is 40 feet from the ground. He stands up leaps "headlong" and drops 30 feet before the rope jerks. He either defecated himself immediately or his body cavity burst after hanging for 4 days in hot 40 Celsius. Part of the "gossip" of his suicide becomes that he swelled and popped open in the middle. Because the details of the "headlong" account are rather vague, not fine, it cant constitute as a contradiction.
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
@KennyTew2 Doesn't hanging yourself involve throwing yourself in some instances? If one account detailed that he fell headlong and had in fact included that he was dashed upon the rocks below, that could constitute as a contradiction. But in fact there is no mention of rocks, a cliff, so based strictly on the words utilized there is no ...A equals non A , at the same time and IN THE SAME RELATIONSHIP statements. Therefore there is no contradiction , only an apparent contradiction.
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
@thesongtowoody I dont understand, do you accept this clear example of a contradiction or not? You aren't seriously trying to say these are two descriptions of the same event are you? They share nothing in common.
KennyTew2 6 months ago
@KennyTew2 So, if you relax the definition of the law of non-contradiction and you add extraneous info about what the use of the word "headlong" means and doesn't mean, then it will cross a threshold so as to constitute a contradiction but if you do the opposite of this and are honest you are forced to admit there is no actual contradiction. But being dogmatic that headlong means and ONLY can mean "jumping off a cliff", you are reading INTO the text something that in reality is not there?
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
@KennyTew2 Kenny, Following the strict definition of The law of non-contradiction and strictly only using the words utilized, those passages do not constitute a contradiction. The casual reader must not attach external scenario's to the word "headlong". If he does then he is adding something that is in fact not stated and therefore he will swear a contradiction but ultimately that contradiction is based on extraneous info which is not good science. No wonder he will swear...contradiction.
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
@KennyTew2 I disagree that they contradict each other. I would submit that your contradictions are only apparent contradictions not true contradictions. Here is how i define contradiction. A cannot equal NON-A at the same time and in the same relationship if it does then it is in fact a contradiction. I would emphasize the importance of the latter part of the definition. This is the important part to apprehend and is vital to certifying whether something is a true contradiction.
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
Wiki quote: "Josephus writes of a Jewish sect led by James the Just, whom he calls the brother of Jesus. Josephus' history includes sections on John the Baptist, the High Priest Annas, Pontius Pilate, and Jesus called the Messiah."
I have borrowed flavius josephus's writings from the local library and read them myself. It is a large book but there are several small paragraphs where he does in fact speak of the above mentioned people. Anyone else could borrow the book and verify this. Thanks.
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
@thesongtowoody Josephus was not contemporaneous with Jesus, not even close. He refers to the existence of christians and, from memory, covers some of the biblical players, but his report only shows that christians believed in jesus, not that Jesus existed. He could not possibly be considered a witness to the existence of jesus since jesus (if he existed at all) would have been dead before Josephus was even born.
Im looking for something contemporaneous, but your efforts are appreciated.
KennyTew2 6 months ago
2) I almost forgot, some of Josephus's writings on the subject are widely believed to be later additions. However, I freely admit that this is not my area and as such I can not evaluate the claims of authenticity or otherwise. But as stated even if every word it genuine this can in no way be taken as evidence for the existence of christ.
By the way, I am not of the conviction that jesus didn't exist, more that we can not know with any degree of certianty either way due to the lack of evidence.
KennyTew2 6 months ago
Kenny,
Hi, first of all thanks for your response. You are obviously very well educated well and far beyond me and i appreciate your comments.
You are right. My comment does not have anything to do with evolution but to clarify i was simply responding to one of your comments that you made in your response to griff. Here is a cut n paste from wiki about flavius josephus a 1st century historian.(see next post for quote)
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
kenny you say in your video there is not a shred of evidence jesus existed. I was just wondering if you can tell the readers of this post what kind of work and investigations you have engaged in and give us a figure in terms of how many hours you devoted to this investigation when you say there is no evidence he existed. So please post a figure for us. Read "evidence that demands a verdict" book 1in its entirety. Jesus was a real flesh and blood person. How many hrs?
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
kenny you say in your video there is not a shred of evidence jesus existed. I was just wondering if you can tell the readers of this post what kind of work and investigations you have engaged in and give us a figure in terms of how many hours you devoted to this investigation when you say there is no evidence he existed. So please post a figure for us. Read "evidence that demands a verdict" book 1in its entirety. Jesus was a real flesh and blood person. How many hrs?
thesongtowoody 6 months ago
@thesongtowoody I wonder what makes you think the time I have spent researching the subject is even remotely relevant, however, without ever tracking the time spent it must be well over 50 hours as a minimum. However the key points can be covered in a few short minuets.
1) There isn't a single contemporaneous account of jesus
2) The first written records of jesus appear a whole generation after his supposed death
If you have a single piece of evidence that he actually existed please share it.
KennyTew2 6 months ago
Where can you purchase those casting of skulls? Were they terribly expensive?
fisherguzzi 7 months ago
@fisherguzzi They come from boneclones. they aren't cheep, but they are the best I have found.
KennyTew2 7 months ago
Hands up whose ever met a creationist with an intellectual conscience.
MrDavidFitzgerald 10 months ago
@MrDavidFitzgerald I'm not sure they would even understand what you meant.
KennyTew2 10 months ago
Do you want me to believe in evolution? Show me the mechanism that creates genes.
No mechanism to go from no cell to multicell creatures no science of evolution
jewishcrimenetwork 1 year ago
@jewishcrimenetwork You can believe whatever you think the evidence shows, but evolution remains a fact whether or not you choose to accept it. Your question refers to the origin of life which is an area of science known as abiogenisis. Evolution is the study of how life changes and diversifies through time, it does not deal with how life began. Look up abiogenesis, there are some good videos on the subject here on YouTube. Sorry I can't help more, but I have not studied abiogenisis much.
KennyTew2 1 year ago
@KennyTew2 @KennyTew2 I am not d efending creation. I am defending intelligence.
I used to believe in evolution until I read a book by Francis Crick (nobel prize winner for DNA structure) explaining the amazing complexitiy to makr rna from dna.
I realized all that wouldn't come by "change" not even in milions and millions of centuries. No way.
Years later I realized that the key for evolution would be a mechanism to create genes out of a necessity. No mechanism found no faith in evolution.
jewishcrimenetwork 1 year ago
@jewishcrimenetwork Im afraid your logic makes no sense at all. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life and the fact of evolution remains even if DNA could not exist without magic.
Evolution creates new genes all the time through mutation, not only does the mechanism exist it is well understood and documented.
Your logic amounts to the following. Gravity explains how matter acts once it exists, however since it does not explain the origins of matter I refuse to accept gravity.
KennyTew2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KennyTew2 You makeno sense. You say "Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life". Wow. Amazing contradiction.
You say "Evolution creates new genes all the time through mutation" That's not creation but modification. How were the genes created in the 1st place? No answer.
jewishcrimenetwork 1 year ago
Lol good vid, but please don't quote science over religion. They are both forms of belief . God and science shouldn't be divided. There both ways for humans to understand the universe. All the science in the world can't understand how everything came from nothing nor can it disprove or prove God. In my view religion has it's own logic, it guesses the answer without the proof, just as a child eats without looking for the instructions,
MikDonsen 1 year ago
@MikDonsen It can be hard to ignore the evils of the bible especially when creationists seem to think that science leads to atheism and atheism to evil. However you are correct science and religion are quite distinct and many people of faith find it possible to retain their faith without attempting to drag us back into the dark ages.
KennyTew2 1 year ago
Kenny. My favourite thing about your vid is that it contains more factual truth than all of the crazy creationist rubbish put together.
Where did you get the skulls please?
stratocaster539 1 year ago
@stratocaster539 Thanks for the compliment. The vast majority of my skulls are from boneclones which make the best replicas that I have found.
KennyTew2 1 year ago
religion only exists because people had know idea where we came a long time ago so they started making up these lies of a God or Creator and the Devil wooooooooo only complete retards who dont do there research still believe this today then science came along and started exposing these lies and people think your a bigot lol
Embasolkilluminati 1 year ago
lol great vid
Embasolkilluminati 1 year ago
Absolute great work. I hope you do some work along the same line to explain some of the basics that I can use for the kids to watch so they have the evidence when they counter with the creationist theotards (courtesy to calpurnpiso, check his video out)
tociph 2 years ago
I think it's funny how you try to reason with ceationists as thought they have any interest in truth and reason.
chansetwo 2 years ago
Not so much funny as sad really. Still at least it helps get the truth out there, especially considering the number of creationist videos telling lies about evolution.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
and being a bigot torward religius people is............. caveman like lol bye kenny
riedel1982 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
and we are the right dist from the sun any more further or closer it would not have works
riedel1982 2 years ago
Of course you've heard about he puddle who reveled in how the hole he resided in seemed to have been created with the express purpose of fitting his shape. Of course the world we live in is the right distance; were it not we'd be speaking from Mars or Venus, or some other planet that was the right distance.
puncheex 2 years ago
There's actually a relatively wide berth in the Goldilocks zone.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think mars is just slightly outside of it.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger yeh its hundreds of thousands of miles wide
patrickledford420 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
stop being a bigot you put all you faith and dreams and spread the word of the big bang father of evolution around sounds like a....religion,lol, if evolution is true god started it there is a such thing as good and evil ive seen it u athiest are out to destroy religion,makes me sick,the greatest inventors,scientist,politicians,musicians founding fathers,that got us to were we are today belived in a higher power,many humans have felt and are feeling somthing greater than them is there
riedel1982 2 years ago
"stop being a bigot you put all you faith and dreams and spread the word of the big bang father of evolution around sounds like a....religion,lol,"
Well I guess the findings of science might seem like a religion to the ignorant.
"u athiest are out to destroy religion,makes me sick"
This is not true, all I have done in this video is highlight the lies of creationists. Perhaps you think it is OK to lie for God?
KennyTew2 2 years ago
The second half of your post has disappeared, I think I might have accidentally clicked the remove button instead of the reply button. This second post was as full of idiotic nonsense as the first, take this for example,
"if god would come and make things better evey time somthing went wrong if would take away free will"
So god created malaria to give us free will, how kind of him.
You clearly do not understand what a bigot is, look it up and let me know how and where i have been bigoted.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
riedel1982 - The big bang happened, I don´t understand why you religious people have a problem with it. Every galaxy has a redshift, proving that they are flying away from the same point. It doesn´t harm your religious beliefs, if you want to think God started it, fine.
Why do you have a problem with Kenny pointing out somebodies inaccuracies? How is that bigoted?
"...there is a such thing as good and evil..."
How does that prove God exists?
JohnnyKubark 2 years ago 2
the greatest inventors,scientist,politician s,musicians founding fathers...belived in a higher power
and most of them liked milk and cheese as well, which means that anybody who is lactose intolerant is damned to hell.
1n354a 2 years ago
@1n354a ok this is on evolution god is possible but we did evolve
patrickledford420 1 year ago
i ask some questions of him who has created all things like why do i have a natural desire to sin but in the end i trust him, and you may not bow now but you will bow kenny
xxchicaxxx 2 years ago
"why do i have a natural desire to sin"
Seriously? You actually want to do bad things? Perhaps there is something wrong with you conscience.
"you may not bow now but you will bow kenny"
I told you that your god is a genocidal monster and I will never willingly bow before him. Of course if he is real he can make me, his propensity for cruelty to humans is well documented in the bible.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
If you found out that your God was real, although not actually a god, but a super intelligent alien with powers that made him look like a God to us, would bow and scrape to him just the same?
Minttzz 2 years ago
im glad to see such smart people talking about if we evolved or not ,but even simple people can see evidence of the creator all around us,the matter is blindness, moreover every knee will bow and every tounge will confess jesus christ is lord even u kenny hope u can see before u die
xxchicaxxx 2 years ago
"kenny hope u can see before u die"
Why? Your god is supposed to be a god of love, so there's no way he would ever do anything as monstrously evil as send me for eternal torment just because I didn't spend my time telling him how great he is.
A god of love would never do such a thing. Right?
KennyTew2 2 years ago
he doesnt want you to go to hell but by you rejecting him you are u will be seperated from him. so god isnt doing it u are, its not going to be fun
xxchicaxxx 2 years ago
"he doesnt want you to go to hell"
Why doesn't he just speak hell out of existence then? Why doesn't he just let me die when I die then?
Your god has choices and he chooses to torture those who do not worship him for eternity.
Even if I thought your god was real I would not bow before him. He has committed several acts of genocide, forced people to sacrifice their children to him and given evil laws.
He is beneath my morality and I do not bow to evil.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
Human evolutionary THEORY has many things going for it: tax-funded grants; college arts departments to create monkeyed men of chicken wire & plaster; colored illustrations of proto-simian/humanoid blends spearing mastodons...and so forth.
EasingDifficulties 2 years ago
Yet another creationist throwing slanderous nonsense. Are you going to attempt to engage with the evidence or simply igore it and throw insults?
KennyTew2 2 years ago
Meaningless. The proof of human evolutionary THEORY is incumbent upon the claimant. It has nothing to do with the religions of Christianity, Darwinism or the tarot. You people who make these wild extrapolations that turn voles into behemoths (given countless eons) are up against the wall. Put up or shut up.
EasingDifficulties 2 years ago
Once more you post unscientific nonsense, but if you want some evidence to discuss lets go with this,
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
WELKIN E. JOHNSON AND JOHN M. COFFIN 1999
Or if you would prefer we could discuss the claim that heidelbergensis, erectus, ergaster and the Neanderthals were only racial variations of modern humans.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
One might compare the similarities betwixt any line of long-extinct critters after assigning to them Latin designations. These things remain as conjecture. Evolution remains unobserved. The hoax involves clouding the distinction between adapting & evolving. Darwin's plagiarized suppositions are useless as they've done nothing to advance Man's quest for improvement. Fanciful charts & mock-ups of mythical human ancestral relics is child's play. Why not end the playacting & do some honest research?
EasingDifficulties 2 years ago
I offered two pieces of evidence up for debate, you have ignored both, what a surprise another creationist that is too lazy to even bother to read the evidence.
"These things remain as conjecture. "
No they don't the ERV study I pointed you too is one of many pieces of conclusive proof of common ancestry, which you would know if you had bothered to read it before dismissing it.
If you want to dismiss the evidence the only honest approach is to read it and then refute it.
Good luck!
KennyTew2 2 years ago
Microbial variances don't support the radicalization forwarded by messiah Darwin. Ev. THEORY is not sci. by definition. It is supposition, conjecture, postulation, etc. Science comes from the Latin verb "scire" meaning "to know" and nothing more. Men learn fr. observation & analysis, not fr. dreaming into existence phantom races. Because many tenured "professors" agree on something doesn't make it true. If you're interested in science then you should enroll in remedial classes. Take anatomy.
EasingDifficulties 2 years ago
"Because many tenured "professors" agree on something doesn't make it true"
No, but then again when there are hundreds of thousands of papers all presenting evidence supportting the same conclusion and not a single piece of evidence that refutes it, what possible scientific grounds could you have for denying it?
Oh hang on I know how you do it, you just ignore all of the evidence.
"Take anatomy."
If you would like me to teach you a lesson or two on anatomy we can discuss the hominin fossils.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
Oh by the way I was amused by the way you boldly order me to, 'put up or shut up' only to run away from dealing with the actual evidence and disappear into a whole slew of stupid ill-informed baseless assertions.
"Men learn fr. observation & analysis, not fr. dreaming into existence phantom races"
Tell me, did they observe and analyze the fossils, or dream them into existence?
KennyTew2 2 years ago
You grovel before laboratorians. Are you a man or something other? Millions of papers have been written about cancer--all wrong. Cancer is a chronic metabolic disease--a fact known since 1902. Malignant cells {errant healing cells} are identical to trophoblasts {the cells that form babies}. The substance that cancer patients lack is Amygdalin {vitamin B17}. Amygdalin contains hydrogen cyanide that is dumped ONLY on cancerous cells. Why are you wasting your time proliferating a pseudo-science?
EasingDifficulties 2 years ago
"You grovel before laboratorians."
I don't grovel before anyone or anything, because I have dignity. So if you don't mind I'll leave the groveling to the religious for whom it is an essential part of daily life.
However, I note that you have still ignored the evidence, what is your problem? If this evidence supports a pseudoscience it should be relatively easy to refute right?
In fact not only should you be able to refute it with ease, but you should have a mountain of scientific evidence...
KennyTew2 2 years ago
2) that clearly supports your creation belief, after all it was the evidence that led you to creationism and not some half baked personal experience with someone who died 2000 years ago right?
It is my contention that evolution is supported by every single piece of relevant scientific evidence that has ever been discovered, and not a single piece has ever refuted it,
If I am wrong it should be easy to point to the evidence,
So Put up or shut up!
You can refute the evidence I have given you..
KennyTew2 2 years ago
3) , show me some of the evidence that convinced you that evolution is wrong or show me some evidence that it was a 'magic man in the sky wot dun it'.
Look at all those options, but I bet you don't choose any of these and instead choose to go on about worshiping at the alter of Darwin or some other irrelevant idiotic nonsense.
Science proceeds on the basis of evidence, so stop playing games and deal with the evidence.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
Conjecture isn't evidence. Your religion requires extraordinary Faith in face of the evidence that refutes it. As a religionist you must seek congregants as your religion can survive no other way. That's why you deliver sermons, create martyrs and denounce heretics. Anyone who questions the tenets of this maddening orthodoxy is ignorant & unscientific. Perhaps re-education camps, modeled after Stalin's gulags, are needed?
EasingDifficulties 2 years ago
"Conjecture isn't evidence"
Which is why I offered a scientific study examining ERV's. If you think there is something wrong with the conclusions drawn from the evidence please explain your objection.
"Your religion requires extraordinary Faith in face of the evidence that refutes it."
After reading scientific journals for years I have yet to see a piece of evidence that refutes evolution, but you should easily be able to guide me to the paper.
Don't just keep posting unscientific rants.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
"Anyone who questions the tenets of this maddening orthodoxy is ignorant & unscientific"
To question a well established fact without a shred of evidence is just plain stupid.
Refute my paper, produce one of your own or prepare for the Nazi death camps! Oh no sorry, the Nazi's were christian weren't they, I mean the gulag, Oh but Stalin didn't believe in evolution either. ummm inquisition? Bollocks, ... I know a crusade of re-education.... damn.
Evidence please.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
["We are all ignorant depending on the subject." -- Mark Twain.] Bully for you--you've been reading scientific journals for years. Refutation of Darwin's suppositions, & those of his lickspittles, isn't difficult for those who have been reading for years. Surely you are aware of the 33,500 ceramic figurines {many in excess of 4,000- yr.-old} unearthed at Acambero, Mex. since 1945 depicting, amongst other things, people interacting with dinosaurs?
EasingDifficulties 2 years ago
As the old Russian saying goes:
"He lies like an eyewitness."
EasingDifficulties 2 years ago
It's always interesting to see what sort of evidence creationists will accept a valid, especially considering their extreme skepticism regarding verified repeatable scientific facts, but this one truly is special!
I would have to agree that the first half of your Russian saying is absolutely spot on in this case, but beyond that what you have offered is a laughable collection of frauds which were uncovered as such as long ago as 1952,
"Charles DiPeso (or Di Peso),.. visited Acámbaro,
KennyTew2 2 years ago
studied Julsruds collection, and observed two excavators at work. He concluded that the figurines were indeed fakes: their surfaces displayed no signs of age; no dirt was packed into their crevices; and though some figurines were broken, no pieces were missing and no broken surfaces were worn. Furthermore, the excavations stratigraphy clearly showed that the artifacts were placed in a recently dug hole filled with a mixture of the surrounding archaeological layers."
Mystery at Acámbaro,Mexico
KennyTew2 2 years ago
So there we have it, fakes and bad ones at that. The article 'from the archives Mystery at Acámbaro,Mexico"
Also deals with the discovery of the culprits and the dodgy dating, perhaps you should read it.
However, thanks for the laugh, these little monster statues (Hardly dinosaurs in any case) were so bad they were funny.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
"One might compare the similarities betwixt any line of long extinct critters after assigning them Latin designations."
But we're not just talking about a random bunch of similarities, we're talking about a nested hierarchy of features.
I recommend you watch the following videos so you know what you're arguing against, rather than arguing against something that we're not even arguing in favour of.
watch?v=5Ev-2jN6MRU
watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc
Minttzz 2 years ago
speaking of heat... i would love some air conditioning. at least there is no humidity here...other than my sweat.
ultimategoobah 2 years ago
Those replicas are fucking awesome. Where is one able to get these from?
gimpygimpness 2 years ago
boneclones
KennyTew2 2 years ago
I noticed that you have 'The Structure of Evolutionary Theory' on your book-shelf. Rock on!
KilVall 2 years ago
Dubois never initially claimed that the skull was a gibbon. He initially claimed it was a human ancestor, but was under so much fire from the rest of the academic and religious world that he went clinically insane (read his diary) and claimed that the skull was a large gibbon's to try to escape more criticism.
KilVall 2 years ago
well done!
anmathur 2 years ago
Thanks.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
shit dude some good fact comeing out the mouth of a normal human. lol. i enjoyed your vid and i think that you have a solid and understanding mind m8. id love a chat with you a normal thinking man as on the internet and in our times it is rare. i love your vid and it is one of a few that hold water in this time we call our best so keep em comein dude
mastainventa 2 years ago
Thanks for your kind words, I'm always up for discussion.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
Those are nice skulls. Do you order them from a website?
XXL2oo 2 years ago
Yes, I use Boneclones.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
hi m8 i am highly interested in evolution and id love to get my hands on some casts of scull cases like the sculls you show on this vid. could you tell me where i could get some and ideas on the cost?
mastainventa 2 years ago
Sure, I get them from the 'boneclones' website, under their hominids section. They vary in cost but since you are in the UK you can expect to add around £50-100 for shipping and tax, oh and the stands cost extra as well. My latest, Peking man, cost just shy of £300 all told, but he's at the more expensive end of the spectrum.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
Explain if you are smart enough the giants of before and those of today. D`ont forget to dig some up from the many graveyards.All have names.
hellodoll007 2 years ago
"Explain if you are smart enough the giants of before and those of today. D`ont forget to dig some up from the many graveyards.All have names. "
What Giants? Please refer me to a specimen held in a museum, or a reference to a scientific article where these bones have been reported and I will offer my opinion.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
Ken if im not mistaken Spoors the person who you say agrees with you, also used the word faculative, please dont acuse me of being decietful, ive been more than honest about my perspective. If you believe that this ape with faculative bipedal loco motion is overwelming proof of macro evolution, then more power to you. Thats your bussiness. After hearing your interpretation of the Nature study and Dons vid, it doesnt surprise me, I underatand how u think now, however I require more evidence.
benthemiester 2 years ago
"however I require more evidence"
Fair enough, there is more coming out of the ground every day, so I won't give up hope. I didn't see this post when I posted my last few, but I hope they will suffice.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
ken I appriceat having the oppurtunity to talk about his subject I think its very important, thanks for the engagment i believe ive learned something from you, and hope that you have learned a least a little from me take care. but you guys still talk funny.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Ken one last thing before you go,, when you get a chance someday check out Cambrian Explosion Bigger Problem For Darwin, by thwonk and Visualization of DNA, by tristmulus, im not asking you to believe anything, just check it out and maybe even smoke a big fatty while your watching, you dont need to reply back.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Thanks for clarifying what you meant by neutral sciences, and dumb little old me thought you were talking about genetics/biology you know.... the things that only qualified crittics of the theory have the authority to comment on. your starting to worry me Ken maybe there a heat wave over yonder. but great question anyway sure why not. The discussion is still evolution right?
benthemiester 2 years ago
"The discussion is still evolution right?"
Yes, I'm still waiting for you to present some evidence that afarensis was not a biped.
But you have dropped a little bit of a clanger. Scientific theories don't get promoted to laws, since they are already a higher level of scientific understanding.
You seem to think that someone can carry out legitimate scientific work when they begin with conclusions that are unshakable regardless of the evidence. This is idocy.
Anyway, patiently waiting.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
Spoor,
"The DIK-1-1 skeleton confirms the functional dichotomy of the body plan of A. afarensis: a more derived lower body adapted for bipedal locomotion, combined with an upper body that is, in many respects, ape-like."
I posted this quote earlier, yet you chose to ignore it and play with the ambiguity of the term facultative instead of accepting the evidence.
You have no evidence and face a mountain to the contrary yet you do not accept reality. This is irrational behavior.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
Ive answered your question about afarensis several times and in several different ways ive went into great detail, it wasnt the anwer that you wanted to hear but it was answered many times. This is just getting silly Ken, I never said anything about promoting theories again you added your own conjecture, ive chosen my words very carefully you dont seem to understand the difference between empirical testable science and the historical sciences. ive been searching for twenty years for all...
benthemiester 2 years ago
I never said anything about promoting theories again you added your own conjecture
Looking4coffee wrote, Theory of gravity seems ok
You replied with, Let me remind you gravity is observable, repeatable, it can pass the test of empirical evidence and is no longer considered only a theory but a physical law
This suggests to me a promotion from theory to law, but perhaps I could have expressed it better.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
If you remember Ben you originally challenge my claim in the video that the every expert was in complete agreement that Lucy was a biped and they only debates surround how much time she spent on the ground and the importance of the knuckle walking adaptations of the wrist. I was correct about the agreement of the experts.
Other than that Ben I hope you will agree that we have had an interesting debate and apart from us both being a little silly and personal at the beginning we have largely...
KennyTew2 2 years ago
...represented our worldviews in a civilised manner, which is an achievement in itself, particularly for youtube. I feel that if we carry on much longer this may not remain the case, as we are both getting frustrated with each other, which would be a pity.
I hope you agree that we are pretty much done as I'm not sure I can commit this much time much longer, (My kids hardly recognize me any more). Warmest regards Kenny.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
This suggest a promotion to me.....im sure it does and again it doesent surprise me, Its also called trying to piggy back a historical non testable non repeatable non empirical theory on to one that is. The point is theres nothing called the law of evolution. Unlike Don I dont believe scientist around the world would waste there time signing a list that says we should be skeptical of gravity. Im not saying you agree with don on this point, because I dont know, only trying to prove a point.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Let me remind you gravity is observable, repeatable, it can pass the test of empirical evidence and is no longer considered only a theory but a physical law/ Newtonian Physics gravity, the third law, etc. and we know that atomic theory works because its also testable and repeatable. By the way, there has always been controversy in cosmology and evolutionary processes even by non religious people.
benthemiester 2 years ago
I dont know what you mean by bible neutral science. Francesco Redi and later Pasteur proved empiricaly the fundemental principle of biology, that state living things only come from other living things. The German monk Gregory Mendels principles of heriditary are the modern synthesis of genetics, not Darwins hypothetical theory of pangenes wich was disproven by his own cousin, by the way macro evolution mutation theory does not conform to proven Mendelian genetics.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Well from my limited experience as a non scientist it seems fundamental religious people have issues with 2 things. Evolution and Cosmology. In that both suggest that the life and the universe are billions of years old and that they formed naturally.
Example, I rarely see religious people attacking atomic theory. It seems bible neutral. Theory of gravity seems ok, no biblical problem there. See how some scientific theories rarely draw religious attention?
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
"I dont know what you mean by bible neutral science."
How could a creationist ever honestly research the age of the earth when all of the evidence flatly contradicts their pre-drawn conclusions?
KennyTew2 2 years ago
Thats actually a great question, I think I have an answer but I just want to verify a couple of things ill let you know, PS I wish you could be as crittical and at least as contestable against darwinian evolution as Darwin himself advocated, in fact he dedicated a whole chapter in Origins of Species on contestability of the theory, but im sure you already knew that. I believe his book implies a creator/ theistic evolutionary model but he could could have been trying to avoid religious backlash.
benthemiester 2 years ago
"I believe his book implies a creator/ theistic evolutionary model but he could could have been trying to avoid religious backlash."
Darwin gradually changed his position throughout his life and eventually ended up an atheist. But there is a difference between theistic evolution and creationism. I have no problem with a theistic evolution model.
Why should I doubt evolution? It is proven and I have seen the proof. Should I doubt the spherical status of the earth?
KennyTew2 2 years ago
CONT I believe the word used by the president of NAS was outstanding, Your Flaundering here, I know your smarter than that.
benthemiester 2 years ago
cont..before there even read. If u believe that Eugenie Scott has the right to say that Christian doctrin/metaphysics is compatible with evolutionary theory, then I agree, she has the right, but personely I think its bad for science as well as religion, but I dont think the question of good science versus bad science can be left to judges who are probably less knowledgable about the subject than you or I. Theories take decades or more to get accepted ID has only been around for 2 decades.
benthemiester 2 years ago
cont..honesty and reasoning regardless of opinion. Im not asking you to care about the list, but you offered exoduses vid as a refutation, if you had said no comment instead I would have respected your decision. Ken there is one thing we do agree on, and that is the way science determins what is a valid theory even if it is sometimes administered by fallible humans/us. People like Behe, Denton, Thaxton,Kenyon,Dembski and others have written papers wich are many times ridiculed before there...
benthemiester 2 years ago
One thing that confuses me about ID is what exactly it does. I mean I've read about the flagellum and irriducibile complexity. I've read about how evolution could account for these.
Yet, evolution seems to make predictions about what we will and will not find. I.D. says 'there is a designer because this element of life seems too complex to explain with evolution". So who is the designer? When did they design? How? Where else? What distinguishes something from design and evolution?
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
CONT.. Institutes list. This is clearly a double standard, especially since you have not been able to demonstrate scientifically that religious afiliation has anything to do with scientific reasoning, ala Mendel,Newton,Fermi,Pastuer and many others, My belief is that ignorance exist in all beliefs, Christian as well as secular. In fact I will readily admit that there are a lot of so called christians that are full of shit, as there are a lot of Brights, I only ask for intellectual...
benthemiester 2 years ago
"you have not been able to demonstrate scientifically that religious afiliation has anything to do with scientific reasoning"
I never said that it did. Good science is good science. I dont care who does it. There are some examples of creationists producing good work, (obviously only in Bible neutral fields). You asked me for some stats, and I provided them. The stats I offered clearly show an inverse correlation between religiosity and good science, but I dont care.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
I didnt ask you for stats on how many scientist were atheist, and you know that! you are adding your own personel conjecture. If you tryed to prove that religious people were some how unable to become members of NAS you have failed, no evidence is sited in study, or even implied, niether have you been able to prove that the small percentage of religious people in NAS were any less productive, prolific or derilect in any way, as the reverse was stated by the president of the organization....
benthemiester 2 years ago
"If you tryed to prove that religious people were some how unable to become members of NAS you have failed,"
I wasn't trying to prove anything, but a simple statistical analysis of the figures shows that atheists are between 100 and 200 times more likely to become members of NAS than theists, depending on the atheism stats you use.
I don't know about you, but I would say that being a hundred times more likely to be a great scientist demonstrates a greater propensity.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
cont..What I feel is so puzzling about your logic, is that while your Nature study actually makes my point by documenting that Bruce Albert went on record as saying that 'there were outstanding members that are very religious' of whats regarded as greater scientist, again the study clearly admits that there were at least some believers, when the NAS is comprised of proffesors,graduate students,and administrators and even has less of a percentage of earth scientist than the Discovery Instiutes
benthemiester 2 years ago
cont.. I have made no attempt to offer this list as proof of anything, im not that dumb only to say that this is clear message that its not just the fanatics who are speaking of the major problems with the theory in terms of empirical evidence.The thing that really surprises me is your willingness to side with exodus view that only biology relate fields are qualified to responsibly crittique the theory, when the truth is most scientist in general are not in the field of evolutionary biochem..
benthemiester 2 years ago
The old, change the goal post strategy.
No I am clarifying the position since you did not understand the application of the term within its context. I could have said that you were willfully distorting the meaning of the scientists, but chose to offer the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you had not understood. From there I decided to use Spoors own external references to uncover the nature of the, substantial postural component to the facultative bipedalism of afarensis...
KennyTew2 2 years ago
2) ...in the hope that this will demonstrate clearly, one way or the other, whether he is referring to anatomical features that offer the same level of adaptation to bipedalism as is currently found in modern apes, or, if he is referring to clear anatomical adaptations to bipedalism that go beyond those available to modern apes. We both already know the answer, but I will spend the two hours necessary none the less.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
You do know that I dont care about the list dont you?
If someone thinks they have a valid scientific argument against evolution I suggest they do some research, write a paper and get it published in the scientific literature. This is how science works and as yet no such paper exists, which means that the list is nothing more than the unsubstantiated opinion (if honestly obtained which I have good reason to doubt) of a tiny fraction of 1% of those qualified to comment.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
The old, change the goal post strategy. Ill get back to that latter, cont.. except for one person who believed to much baggage came with having his name on the list, and not for any other reason .U cant blame him, furthermore the list has grown to apromimatly 2000 signatories world wide, its hard to believe that all of these University educated people could be that gullible especially since there are some very prominent people on the list, lets keep reason in the discussion. I have made ...
benthemiester 2 years ago
Its hard to believe that an intelligent person like u, who posses the ability to utilize skeptism,could buy the snake oil that Don Exodus offers,with arbitrarily defining words like common decent wich has different meanings to different people, man and ape or man and molecue. He decided that only biology related fields count,Howell and Spoors dont even qualify,he never attemps to mention the names of these unknown angry people who were asked to be taken off, and doesnt say why,except for...
benthemiester 2 years ago
IM Having a problem threading just in case, ill repeat, if your apeaking human like agile bipedism NO if your speaking faculative bipedism YES apes have this abillity, if your interested on the serious flaws of your argument let me know ive wriitten them down, and also the gorrilla question im not goning to waste my time though if you have already changed the channel and tuned out, but maybe its just my computer not working properly.
benthemiester 2 years ago
I can see your getting angry.
Im not getting angry, why should I? All the evidence supports my case and none of it supports yours.
if your speaking faculative bipedism YES apes have this abillity,
So you are claiming that the bipedal abilities of afarensis are no more well developed than those of modern apes despite the clear anatomical differences that prove the bipedal status to every anatomist that has ever studied them.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
While the term facultative can legitimately be used to refer to the bipedal locomotion of modern apes, it is clear that this is not what the scientists are referring too and worse still, you continue to ignore/distort/fail to understand the work of the professionals. So for the sake of clarity I shall modify the question, please provide evidence of a single expert who has studied the evidence and concluded that the locomotor abilities of afarensis were no more advanced than those of modern apes.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
Ben, I am currently tracking down the references given by Spoor that he used to support his view of facultative bipedalism since I agree that, at least to those unfamiliar with the use of the term in the context, it may seem unclear. Currently I have access to neither article and so I will need to visit the citys central library where I know they hold at least one of them so I can make a copy to demonstrate my case.
I hope to do this today.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
testing
benthemiester 2 years ago
Don Exodus is nut, he and I have danced before and he's not a very good debater one on one, and his vids are c grade at best, wich I will talk about very shortly. Ken there are some serious flaws in your argument that I will point out later, there almost as bad as my spelling, but right now I have to eat dinner and get my American Idol on, its a great show except for that Simon guy who talks funny.
benthemiester 2 years ago
"Ken there are some serious flaws in your argument that I will point out later,"
No there are serious flaws in your argument. You have begun with a conclusion, 'afarensis was not a biped' and have trawled the literature for any quote that even superficially appears to agree with your case.
You have ignored even the findings of the papers you have quoted and at the end of the day you have failed to substantiate your case. Worse than this though, you have not acknowledged this fact and instead..
KennyTew2 2 years ago
2) ...of adopting a scientific approach and accepting the inevitable conclusions that the anatomy of afarensis is that of a biped, you simply ignore it an move on to something else.
I don't care about how many people have been tricked into signing some creationist list, I care about the proven mechanism of evolution. That proof won't disappear no matter how many people are brainwashed by creationism.
Please find an expert who agrees with you or accept the bipedal status of afarensis.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
Ken ive written a few things that arent threading im not sure why. If you dont apriceate my opinion I can live with that. Thats what usually happens with this subject. I can see your getting angry.
benthemiester 2 years ago
"except for that Simon guy who talks funny."
It's called English, I believe you Americans are loosely familiar with the language. Still I'm glad that prick is over there instead of invading my TV.
KennyTew2 2 years ago
It is sad that Christians think they need to make everything in the bible fit reality. The bible is simply a collection of books written over a long period of time but many different authors, some of it is based on the truth as they saw it and some is based on their personal beliefs. Does it matter if there are mistakes in the bible? If Christians took a scientific approach to the bible they would see that there were mistakes made and that based on new evidence corrections are required, (a lot).
NZwingtamer 2 years ago
Ben, you do realize that I gave you the atheism and science stats because you asked for them, not because I was interested in either them or debating them. As far as the creationist list of scientists goes, Donexodus was able to contact 18 of the biologists on the list, (The only scientists with relevant training for their qualifications to make their opinion more valid than that of the lay person) and 16 of 18 accepted both natural selection and common descent,...
KennyTew2 2 years ago