Integrity and intellectual honesty? Thats sweet. Hey DPR, I have some beach front property in Arizona for sale. Ill give you the best deal in town. Or how about a bridge in brooklyn?
Aronra made the video two days after the news of IDA not being a missing link had already been released to the press. He still maintains it was a prediction after I called him on it. Aronra is not God, take my word on this one. I can prove what I said about his so called bogus prediction. How can you congratulate someone for admitting IDA was bogus after the press had already reported it? Unbelievable.
Evolution has the capability of creating useful changes. In fact you can do an experiment that proves this. if you get a media plate that has been treated with an antibiotic, and then plate it with bacteria that are not resistant to that anti bacteria, some of the bacteria will survive. The surviving bacteria have a MUTATION that allows them to be resistant to the antibiotic.
@arsjth Its kind of hard when you give me a life time, a hundred years at best, when evolution took billions of years. It would be like giving someone one minute to show that the earth goes around the sun. Evolutionist have shown the concept, but with not enough time its impossible to large changes in phenotype. There are simultions that show how the changes we see in a generations can lead to the maassive changes you are looking for. Evolution takes an extremely long time.
"Its kind of hard when you give me a life time, a hundred years at best, when evolution took billions of years."
yes i understand the difficulty of proving your theory and the difficulty in disproving it. This is where it diverges from real sciences that are testable and observable.
Where tests can be run that eliminate biases.
how do you eliminate the bias of the observer in evolutionary biology so that the results are undeniable & not the result of the bias of the tester?
@arsjth Commen ancestry makes prediction. Genome similarities among all organisms is very strong evidence for common ancestory. You can even find similarities between humans and unicellular organisms. Common ancestry can not be proven, be we can know it to a reasonable degree of certainty.
"Commen ancestry makes prediction. Genome similarities among all organisms is very strong evidence for common ancestory."
common ancestry is a prediction. Genome similarities is a prediction of common design & common designer so if the evidence supports two opposing theories then what does it really say about the evidence?
Is that the best prediction that the theory of evolution has?
@arsjth The common designer doesn't hold up, that is unless he/she was trying to make it look like evolution. Why are there telomeres in the center of human chromosome 2? And would you stop quote mining me. I said its hard to show the entirety of evolution, scientists have more than shown the concept, and if you take that data and extrapolate to the age of the earth you see common ancestry.
. I have personally witnessed the a particular strain of yeast population gaining the ability to synthesize the amino acid Isoleucine. Or the ability of a species of flavobacterium to metabolize nylon. This is significant as this evolved soon after the development of nylon. There is a example of Italian lizards that were moved to an island in the southern Adriatic sea. In only 36 years their ancestors could no longer mate with lizards still in Italy.
How about applauding the many creation scientists who also knew the Ida promotion was a scam and produced articles pointing out that the paper didnt actually claim what they appeared to claim in the media hype.
how about a scolding for Sir David Attenborough (non scientist) who claimed it was "THE MISSING LINK"?
how about those that said neanderthal was a human no different in variation to modern man?
When evolutionists thru their biased world view claimed it was a primitive man.
of course design theorists just tend more often to be right. Evolutionists make claims based on their beliefs & twist the evidence to say what they want it to but truth is revealed over time.
when u have digested that one i have more for you.
You are not understanding the way science works. When people make claims there are other scientists there to check there methods and facts. It does happen occasionally that some scientists make mistakes or even distort or break the truth for personal gain. But the vast majority of the time there are found out, and expelled from scientific discussion. But the fact of the matter is that the VAST majority of scientists are searching for the truth and follow the evidence where it leads.
No i totally understand that is the way science works. Apparently creation scientists & ID scientists are not allowed that luxury.
If they make a hypothesis that is not confirmed it is because they are liars who misrepresent the facts....but if evolutionists make gross errors due to flawed evolutionary thinking...."its the process of science".
can you see the hypocrisy of the position?
U assume that creationists should be 100% accurate in everything they say or they r debunked?
Errors aside, you can not escape the fact that the data supports evolution. There is overwhelming evidence to support evolution through natural selection. The fact of the matter is this isn't a debate. Looking at the evidence, it is simply not possible that god created all of the species. Watch Aronra's fundamental falsehoods of creationism.
no creationist denies the change that occurs thru the mating of diff individuals who then have offspring.This 'evolution' happens quickly&is observable.
The extrapolation that all creatures came into being from a chemical reaction is fanciful wishful thinking.
There are plenty of evolutionists who acknowledge the wishful thinking that goes on in 'science' today.
sometimes u just have2 say u dont know how that hapnd
Evolution is the slow genetic mutations in the genome of all species which causes speciation, and is responsible for the diversity of life. What you were describing was abiogensis not evolution. While abiogenisis is a solid hypothesis for the emergence of life from nonliving matter. While is supported and is very probable, it has not been proven and thus is not a theory. If this debate is going to continue, you will need to start providing more specific criticisms of evolution.
"Evolution is the slow genetic mutations in the genome of all species which causes speciation"
"Lyn Margulis has pronounced neo-Darwinism "dead", since there's no adequate evidence in the literature that random mutations result in new species."
could u please explain why Lyn Margulis (Symbiogeneticist who was awarded the US Presidential Medal for Science in 1999) disagrees with your definition.
Have you got a definition on which all scientists agree?
@arsjth I don't play the name drop game. I don't care who thinks evolution is right or wrong. We can sit here all day and say this scientists believes in evolution and this obscure one doesn't. The vast majority of scientists do believe in evolution, but for this debate, the point is moot. The point i am arguing is that the evidence shows that gradual mutations in the gene pool causes changes in populations. The summation of these changes is responsible for speciation and life's diversity.
"I don't care who thinks evolution is right or wrong."
well you should. that sounds like a religious position not a scientific one.
are u saying Lyn Margulius is an obscure scientist? She still does believe in evolution but the point she makes is a valid one...its just that you dont like it because you have been taught that random mutations have caused the changes in species.
Margulis says there is no adequate evidence that it does.
@arsjth I don't think you understand how this works. I don't care about individuals. If you want to parrot her arguments that would be acceptable, and i would welcome it. But I will not get into the game where since one scientist disagrees with the theory so it must be wrong. One persons beliefs don't undermine over a hundred years of research and evidence, unless she finds real problems with the evidence. If you think she does please explain them to me, and i would be happy to discuss them
"If u see any problem in the evidence I would be happy to discuss it."
its full of problems yet when i quoted an evolutionist who points that out you deny it.
Richard lewontin
True& sufficient explanations of particular examples of evolution r extremely hard to arrive at because we do not have world enough and time. The cytogeneticist Jakov Krivshenko used to dismiss merely plausible explanations, in a strong Russian accent that lent it greater derisive force, as “idel specoolations.”
perhaps you start by backing up what you have claimed that mutations are 1. gradual & 2.cause changes in the gene pools.
for such a statement as this you would need overwhelming evidence & i would be disturbed if you could not provide it. It might be a bit like clutching at straws.
dont get me wrong mutations can cause changes but u would have to ask yourself y margulis says what she says & doesnt say its overwhelming & obvious???
@arsjth Calm down I will be happy to provide evidence, i was simply asking for clarification on which evidence you were requesting. Give me a few hours so i can find specific examples. I must state that because evolution is a gradual process there have only been a few examples of speciation that have occurred in the last century. That does not mean that there have not been any.
" But the fact of the matter is that the VAST majority of scientists are searching for the truth and follow the evidence where it leads."
the problem here is that you are ignoring the initial indoctrination. Evolution is inconsequential as it is a useless theory & it matters not to science if u believe it or not.
I could believe that humans spontaneously errupted from the mud & it wont change anything.
That right there is why no one takes creation "scientists" seriously. You just change the subject when you can't respond. I'm not defending global warming, I haven't studied it and i don't have enough background in the subject to defend it. Evolution has been shown through the fossil record, genetically, and has even been seen in present day. If creation is right why is there telomere in the middle of human chromosome 2? They only exist on the ends of chromosomes.
How has the view that there is some link between man& pes benefited mankind?What scientific advancement has come from such belief?
I see plenty of error from evolutionary thinking.vestigial organs so labelled& removed needlessly,backs treated improperly based on the belief we were apes & designed to walk on knuckles, Neanderthals labelled primitive apemen, Junk DNA labelled junk.
when evolutionists dont understand they blame evolution in a worse way than u accuse creationists of blaming God
"You are not understanding the way science works. When people make claims there are other scientists there to check there methods and facts."
yes i am. this is exactly how it works. When scientists see flaws in the work of others they speak out. Margulis is no dill and she doesnt agree that random mutations account for the creation of new species.
rather than talk talk....all u need to do is show me where she is wrong. could i have the paper that was peer reviewed that proved it?
@arsjth I would be happy to do so if you would just tell me what she says that is so convincing. I am not going to research her because I know that what ever I find and then discuss will not be the point that you find so convincing. If you would find evidence she has or how she attempts to debunk the scientific evidence i will talk about it. So please pick a few points at a time and we can slowly go through as much as you want, but you need to pick what is important, so I don't waste my time.
@jofoatminn Scientists do debate evolution, its true. But they argue about the means in which it does or certain details. Lynn thinks mutations are not the only means of evolution, which is a valid argument. She does not say that mutations do not account for any speciations. This discussion should be continued, but in no way does it undermine evolution.
@arsjth Thats just not true. I am open to any idea that does not contradict the observed. The extent to which evolution relies on mutations can be debated. What i will not except is that evolution does not occur, as it has been observed and makes lots of predictions about the natural world which have been true. I will also not accept that some invisible man made everything in its present form 6 to 10 thousand years ago. Scientists are open to debate as long as there are facts to back it up.
" I will also not accept that some invisible man made everything in its present form 6 to 10 thousand years ago."
This is the biggest strawman argument going around about creationists and hence you are arguing against nothing....this argument doesnt exist.
I guess this argument/strawman allows you to easily categorize creationists as nuts who believe that every single species of bird was created separately 6000 yrs ago.
@arsjth First of all that is not a straw man, that is what many creationists believe. If that is not what believe then i wont argue it. I would like to know what position i am arguing against. So far all you have put forth is that one biologist disagrees with some of the detail of evolution. I really don't think you want to argue this, as both positions argue that evolution happens and results in speciation, only how genetic variability comes about. Please tell me YOUR beliefs!
"First of all that is not a straw man, that is what many creationists believe"
No, its a strawman & you would struggle to find any creation scientist who espouses that everything was created in its present form.
Its a little embarrassing that you think they do.
Most creationists would hold to a polyphyletic version of evolution. That God created initially certain creatures & then you have the normal forces of selection, mutation which is generally a break down not a creative force
So far i have put forth one biologists view who disagrees on the mechanism that is claimed as proven fact. There are many more holes in the theory than this.
I would ask u why u see the holes in the theory as being of no interest or consequence?
“Sermonti describes biology which contradicts Darwinian expectations:leaf insects appearing in th fossil record b4 leaves,insects b4 plants, & biological forms that reflect abstract mathematical expressions"
i am not sure what 'beliefs' have to do with this topic.
Only what can be proven is important.
Also what cannot be proven is important.
Most of the theory of common ancestry is built upon such things.
Really where the discussion should take place is about how can chemicals come together thru accident to create the enormous amount of information we find in the cell?
The intelligence within the language of the cell is plain to see.
@arsjith I don't even know your stance on evolution. Are you a creationist or an evolutionist. Its a bit hard to debate if you don't pick a side. If your only point was that science makes mistakes at times I will agree. The scientific process isn't perfect, but over time those mistakes are corrected as new evidence comes along and there are new people to examine it. There may be details about evolution that are wrong, but the from common ancestry has an enormous amount of evidence.
"Are you a creationist or an evolutionist. Its a bit hard to debate if you don't pick a side."
This is the problem. Y do you have to pick a side? Is it so you can better pigeon hole people? Is it so u can argue against strawmen of your own making?
The term creationist is not even clearly defined as there are YEC's OEC's ID Theistic evolutionists etc.
It is not essential to have a side or a fixed opinion to see error in logic or science.
@arsjth I am letting you define yourself however you want. You don't have to define yourself as a term, you can describe exactly what you think is responsible for the diversity of life. But if you don't want to at least find a flaw with the widely accepted theory of evolution. All you have done is brought up an topic of discussion on the specifics of evolution, either wayits still evolution. There has never been any real evidence to suggest that evolution didn't/doesn't happen.
@arsjth Hold on! You just switched from common ancestor to abiogensis. These are different arguments, of which abiogensis has less evidence. If you look at any multicellular organism, it is riddled with genomic evidence of its ancestry. And I will admit there may be some flaw in evolution, but that doesn't debunk the theory. It is a very complex and comprehensive theory, and is bound to a few errors but in no way does that undermine the theory as a hole.
the atheistic undertones of biology are not mirrored in real sciences like physics & they are much more open to the concept of 'God', one would have to ask y?
To explain the anthropocentric nature of our universe they have comenced theorizing about multiple universes despite there being 'no evidence'.
Only in evolutionary biology may one not theorize about the existence of anything that cannot be proven immediately.
Common ancestry doesnt have an enormous amount of evidence
@arsjth It doesn't matter what you see. When I look at something i see an object not trillions upon trillions of atoms with electrons wizzing around a t near light speed. The fact is you can't just look at a scence and give you first impress you need to look beyond that, and look at the things you can't see. There is hundred of years of evidence for evolution, and you haven't provided one sentence to find a single flaw.
"The fact is you can't just look at a scence and give you first impress you need to look beyond that, and look at the things you can't see."
why would i look at things i cant see?
are you arguing i should look to an intelligent force for which i have no evidence & cant see?
U guys get confused...u claim that God doesnt exist because u havent seen him then u claim evolution is factual when u havent seen a whale evolve from its ancestor.Scientists havent seen multiverses yet believ
@arsjth By see all i meant was see with your naked eye. You need to see beyond the plainly visible and you aids. All of my claims come from evidence. And multiverses is just a new idea. The evidence is heading in that direction, but it is no where near a theory. No scientists believes as you put it. We are simply compelled by evidence. The stronger the evidence the stronger we are compelled. Evolution has WAY more evidence than multiverse at this point, and thus is WAY more compelling.
"here is100years of evidence for evolution, & u haven't provided one sentence to find a single flaw."
of course i have pointed out many but u ignore any contrary evidence becos u r a true believer, a man of faith. what evidence would cast doubt on the theory for u?
i know....none!
when we find soft tissue of dinosaurs casting doubt on the alleged millions of years of age, we have to question either the age of the dinosaurs or the proven science that says soft tissue doenst last that long
@arsjth If you are going to say there are flaws, please link me to some sort of scientific article, so i can review that findings and methods. It is impossible to argue against something where I have nothing more to go on than what you say was found.
@arsjth If you show me or link me to a site with the evidence you are talking about i would be more than happy to consider it. But right now all you are doing is saying that some scientist has a differing view. SHOW ME HER EVIDENCE. Just saying she has it won't persuade me. Like i have already said, i know and so do all other biologists that evolution occurs because of more than just mutation. Just look at the integration of mitochondria, its in tons of bio books, its not some hidden fact.
@arsjth I have researched her, and have not found the evidence you see, show me, i would be glad to look at it, a scientific journal would be appreciated. You can't just say its out there, be honest and show me what you've found. Why do you think science is a conspiracy, biologists follow the same rules that all science follows, the same science that made your computer. If it was such a conspiracy why would there be so many nobel prizes for people who went against popular scientific belief?
i think they are afraid that if ID is given any credence or air time that the completely stupid students studying would fall for the arguments & somehow funding would stop.
the fear of people being exposed to the real arguments for ID and creation leading to a halt on research is ofc nonsense in the extreme.
@arsjth ID scientists try to debate scientists quite frequently, but they get destroyed by scientists that demand evidence. Show one ioda of evidence for ID, and people will take you seriously. But as of now you might as well say that a wizard made everything, because there is just as much evidence for that.
"ID scientists try to debate scientists quite frequently, but they get destroyed by scientists that demand evidence."
This is where you are mistaken. It is the weakness of the evolutionist scientists debate. The evidence is very poor & is really all about how you interpret the evidence not about the indisputable nature of the evidence itself.
If we can look at evidence & i can interpret it differently then its not empirical is it?
"Show one ioda of evidence for ID, and people will take you seriously."
the word is iota not ioda but i know english is not your 1st language.
If i understand you correctly, you are stating that a scientist is incapable of establishing whether intelligence was involved in the design of anything?
Unless u witness it yourself ....its impossible??? Right?
@arsjth So your arguments come down to correcting my spelling and semantics. You claim to have read all these articles that claim that evolution through natural selection has flaws. LETS SEE THEM! Show me one article that shows reasoned evidence that mutation is not a primary means of evolution. Or one that shows how evidence that could not be explained through common ancestry. By the way when scientists have arguments they don't resort to personal attacks, lets stay on point.
@arsjth There is a reason you can't find any scientific journal articles providing evidence that evolution is wrong, and that because it isn't. And don't play that whole scientific conspiracy to cover it. If a scientist could find good evidence that disproves evolution, that stood up in the scientific community they would be awarded the nobel prize and would have enough research grands until the end of their days.
@arsjth I am not seeing the hole you are seeing. The amount of speciation that is a result of mutation is a topic of discussion not a hole. No evolutionist will say that mutation is the ONLY way genetic variability comes about.
Under you definition of evolution, how do you account for dinosaurs, transitional fossils (and don't give me that crap about there not being any because there are thousands), junk DNA that encodes for things found in an organisms evolutionary ancestry, vestigial organs
@arsjth Of course Margulis says there is no arguement, she has picked a side. Until she can show beyond a reasonable doubt that here view is right, using evidence, there is a debate. And i accept her arguement because she uses evidence that needs examinging. She does not say that some all powerful all knowing god that has not been seen and form whom there is no evidence, did it. You might as well say invisible pixies made everything.
Margulis makes it clear that there is no evidence that mutations caused new species. Yet this is the evidence quoted by thousands of brainwashed students that state that the theory of evolution is proved true by a mechanism of natural selection & mutations.
So they are quoting as facts that which Margulis says theres no evidence for.
i see in u an overwhelming need to have the answers which u do not. becos your best argument for evolution is that there is no proof of God doing it.
@arsjth Ok so I read a lot about Lynn Margulis. To be clear Lynn does think evolution occurs and is the cause of life's diversity. Her argument is that random mutations are not the ONLY cause for genetic variability. She argues that genetic variability is also a result of gene transfer between microorganisms. This is widely accepted throughout the biological community. Examples include the emergence of mitochondria. The argument is the extent to mutations account for speciation.
Welcome to the bizarre, mentally challenged, and hilariously contradictory magic and faerie pixie dust filled world of Andy Jack, aka:AronRaHAHAHA, aka: QAndyRa, aka: QQOQQ, the winner of Potholer54's prestigious Defiance in Ignorance Award, or the Cock Award.
He is the very definition of Creationist stupidity, dishonesty, ignorance and the obstinate Strawman argument.
Warning:
Feeding the Troll will only result in an fostering an unhealthy obsession in him.
You're the one who's been lied to. And you will do everything in your power to justify this lie. It's the height of hypocrisy to accuse someone else of being the liar in your situation and given your "arguments", I think it's safe to say that you are a joke.
You and I are essentially talking about different realities. You believe evolution is less likely than magic. And you discount evolution b.c you believe it's more believable that a supreme being is responsible for creation. You count on an infallible man existing and creating the earth and then creating humans. I cannot provide evidence to you for the simple fact that you cannot be inclined to be cognizant of the basis of reality.
We can't look outside of our universe and see anything. Why? I'll let you figure this out yourself. I don't dismiss the spiritual. I dismiss the idea that spiritual explanations should replace scientific evidence as a basis for understanding. The basis for evolution comes from observing the known universe. Believing in a god comes from NOT observing the known universe. You don't get it. Therefore you assume a magic creator is responsible.
Most people can't see clearly of our own universe, yourself included... and you want to go outside of that to make a basis for the explanation of the diversity of life? Yea, good luck with that. This is for people who have no understanding of the mechanics of the actual universe that we are currently living in, and thus try to provide a MAGIC explanation to make up for the losses...
You want evidence from me but you don't need it to believe in a make believe creation theory. Why is that?
The definition of magic is: Making something appear when it is obvious is can't", if matter can not be created how did it get here, you have no explanation! You are stuck! Matter is unable to be created but you say (like Aron) "it has always been present" that's a dumb ass statement to make.
I ask you this physical question, how did matter get here, if you can give me the answer I will be all ears, if not, then please fuck off like a good little boy..
The argument that, "God exists b.c you can't tell me where matter comes from" is the rationale of a child. But you appear to be a grown man. Thoughts?
I didn't bring up matter as a means to explain any of my arguments. But you assume I wouldn't catch this? lol
I've not stated my belief regarding the origin of the universe. You've superimposed your interpretation onto my view in order to further yours. Are you aware of straw? It appears you might be composed of it.
There is no scientific evidence to back up evolution, trust me, evolution is only real in the text books and in the minds of warped individuals.
It's your excuse to try and get rid of the Creator, and I must say, evolution is a pretty pathetic out dated method, surely you could have thought of something a little less childish than evolution by now.
I like looking at all the evolution video's, it's better than going to a comedy club, and it gives me a bloody good laugh, please make lot's more!
@ AronRaHAHAHA Please stop wasting space with your inane comments. You seem to have some strange fixation with AronRa, who is clearly your intellectual superior. You have shown a complete lack of understanding of what science is with you video posts, so you comment on AronRas scientific capabilities are worthless. As a scientist myself, I can assert he is a first rate scientist, and is a gentleman, something you most certainly are not!
Over the past several months I have shown Aron and co the evidence for a global flood, why do you think we see masses of fossils in certain areas all across the earth? Huge pitts of fossils in rock layers all over the earth, it would take a world wide flood to get these fossils and its evidence.
We see fossils in certain bands of rock because they have been conducive to fossilisation. The flood cannot explain why you find them in discrete layers and in certain orders all over the earth.
Furthermore you can date those fossils using various techniques and they all are far older than the supposed flood.
I gave you the link before about the rock&sediment layers, do you not remember?
The dating tech's have problems, they are all made on certain assumptions.
Also please go check out how a fossils has to be made, it needs 3 ingredience.
1. It needs no 02
2. It has to be buried in a dark place.
3. It has to be left undisturbed.
The only thing which could have done this is a global flood, how do we know it was flood, b,cos the Bible tells us and we can see the evidence with the fossils we find.
Nope, these requirements can be meet in much more simple ways. Bottom of a lake, stuck in mud flats etc.
If we had the flood there would be one layer, the same depth the world over which had all species in it. Like a kids basket full of jumbled toys, instead we find an orderly progression through the geological time in the exact order we can predict thanks to evolution.
Listen, if it were at the bottom of a lake it would be scavenged.
There are many layers as ALL the mud dirt rocks sediments were moved and churned up, and were relaid by hydrological sorting with billkions of dead things layed down by water in rock layers all over the earth.
If the flood laid deposit down on all of the earth all the fossils would be in one band, but they aren't.
Hydrological sorting? Please - 40 days and nights of rain, well the large dinosaur would probably still be floating due to the gasses in their bodies from the bacterial decomp.
Just imagine a huge flood which churned up all the soil and rocks, and mixed in with the mud and rocks are all living and just dead animals, the bigger heavier animals would be in the lower rock layers ie stones and rocks then others depending on wight will be in the lighter rock silt gravel and sand layers..
@AronRaHAHAHA Andy - if the flood happened you would get the heavy rocks at the bottom and lighter on top - this is what I said in a previous post. However this is not the layering we see in the earth, we can see discrete bands
It seems to have a ridge and inside the ridge there's a dip, lave/basalt would have spewed from it and forced the continant (pangea) apart, as the ridge is almost bang smack in the middle of the Atlantic ocean..
Is it 7 k a day, then yes it did this for probably a year then it slowly settled down and has been moving apart since then, probably 4400 yrs ago was the initial impact via a comet which broke up the earths crust and started the process.
Well that peninsula is between the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, however I presume you re referring to the Chicxulub Crater. This is dated to 65 million years ago. Now explain your evidence that this is less that 6000 years old.
Ohh, you going for the scientific conspiracy angle now are you? Think about this, the first scientist who can prove, in a peer reviewed journal, that all dating methods are false - will win a noble price - about $1 million dollars.
Science is self correcting, if I could prove any dating method is wrong I would have my name used in reports, books and papers all over the world for years to come.
A website thats talks thruth is not a daft website.
No, these people knew that dating methods were faulty, so they sent several items to be tested and the results came back just as they thought, if this doesn't scream out dating problem then what else will change your mind?
Carbon14 is made in the upper atmosphere, taken in by plants, which are eaten by animals, who use it in their bodies.
However the sea can trap this C14 for many more years, so C14 doesn't work for sea based animals/plants or creatures that feed on that food chain. So anything in the sea or that eats lots of food from it. This includes seals, penguins etc.
If you prefer a more easy to understand example - tree rings. Dendrochronology.
Sun light is the normal cause of C14, this is how it is created. The reason we use C14 dating is because it stops being added to the tissues of an animal when they die.
@Cade57 Letting off nuclear test's adds c14 to the atmosphere which is then absorbed by plants trees rocks etc.
Any how so we agree that c14 is always being added, and in the past sunlight may have been different giving the wood/item a boost in c14, they do not know for sure that the conditions have always been the same, if this is the case how can we get a true reading?
You're batshit crazy. How the hell would the continents move the fast without basically killing everything on them? How would those same continents then slow down to the current rate?
Ignoring for the moment your bullshit about noah. Preasure from what? The type of preasure you are talking about would fracture the earth in ways the would probably destory it.
A catastrophe like a flood would have buried these animals quickly, or else they would have been scavenge and there bones eaten by other dinosaurs and animals.
"If it were at the bottom of a lake it would be scavenged"
By what? Whatever it was would have to not only eat the flesh but the bones to. To my knowledge most bottom feeders strip the flesh off animals and leave the bones alone. Which in no way would prevent fossilization.
And I'm pretty sure you're enjoying the trip. I've lost count of how many times I've watched his Fundamental Falsehood of Creationism series and I still learn from each viewing. Long life to the "God" AronRa!
Integrity and intellectual honesty? Thats sweet. Hey DPR, I have some beach front property in Arizona for sale. Ill give you the best deal in town. Or how about a bridge in brooklyn?
benthemiester 6 months ago in playlist aronra
O.o parrot
ryan4144 11 months ago
... personalities working together to protect the one real vehicle have to a more and more survivable future: Our collective intelligence.
RCRhythm 1 year ago
I spoke with a guy at the NCSE not too long ago, and he actually knows AronRa. Needless to say, I'm thankful that we have these great minds and
RCRhythm 1 year ago
Aronra is a great man!
TelegramZero 1 year ago
Aronra made the video two days after the news of IDA not being a missing link had already been released to the press. He still maintains it was a prediction after I called him on it. Aronra is not God, take my word on this one. I can prove what I said about his so called bogus prediction. How can you congratulate someone for admitting IDA was bogus after the press had already reported it? Unbelievable.
benthemiester 1 year ago
Evolution has the capability of creating useful changes. In fact you can do an experiment that proves this. if you get a media plate that has been treated with an antibiotic, and then plate it with bacteria that are not resistant to that anti bacteria, some of the bacteria will survive. The surviving bacteria have a MUTATION that allows them to be resistant to the antibiotic.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
"Evolution has the capability of creating useful changes."
you talk as though creationists think that creatures dont change.
the problem for your side is that at the end of your experiment the bacteria is bacteria and not something different.
give me a call when you get the bacteria to change into something new that can no longer be defined as bacteria.
Change in creatures is not debated...its observable, testable.
common ancestry is not testable.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth Its kind of hard when you give me a life time, a hundred years at best, when evolution took billions of years. It would be like giving someone one minute to show that the earth goes around the sun. Evolutionist have shown the concept, but with not enough time its impossible to large changes in phenotype. There are simultions that show how the changes we see in a generations can lead to the maassive changes you are looking for. Evolution takes an extremely long time.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
"Its kind of hard when you give me a life time, a hundred years at best, when evolution took billions of years."
yes i understand the difficulty of proving your theory and the difficulty in disproving it. This is where it diverges from real sciences that are testable and observable.
Where tests can be run that eliminate biases.
how do you eliminate the bias of the observer in evolutionary biology so that the results are undeniable & not the result of the bias of the tester?
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth Commen ancestry makes prediction. Genome similarities among all organisms is very strong evidence for common ancestory. You can even find similarities between humans and unicellular organisms. Common ancestry can not be proven, be we can know it to a reasonable degree of certainty.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
"Commen ancestry makes prediction. Genome similarities among all organisms is very strong evidence for common ancestory."
common ancestry is a prediction. Genome similarities is a prediction of common design & common designer so if the evidence supports two opposing theories then what does it really say about the evidence?
Is that the best prediction that the theory of evolution has?
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth The common designer doesn't hold up, that is unless he/she was trying to make it look like evolution. Why are there telomeres in the center of human chromosome 2? And would you stop quote mining me. I said its hard to show the entirety of evolution, scientists have more than shown the concept, and if you take that data and extrapolate to the age of the earth you see common ancestry.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
. I have personally witnessed the a particular strain of yeast population gaining the ability to synthesize the amino acid Isoleucine. Or the ability of a species of flavobacterium to metabolize nylon. This is significant as this evolved soon after the development of nylon. There is a example of Italian lizards that were moved to an island in the southern Adriatic sea. In only 36 years their ancestors could no longer mate with lizards still in Italy.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
You sound like Richard Dawkins.
GoblinKnightLeo 1 year ago
How about applauding the many creation scientists who also knew the Ida promotion was a scam and produced articles pointing out that the paper didnt actually claim what they appeared to claim in the media hype.
how about a scolding for Sir David Attenborough (non scientist) who claimed it was "THE MISSING LINK"?
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
how about those that said neanderthal was a human no different in variation to modern man?
When evolutionists thru their biased world view claimed it was a primitive man.
of course design theorists just tend more often to be right. Evolutionists make claims based on their beliefs & twist the evidence to say what they want it to but truth is revealed over time.
when u have digested that one i have more for you.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth
You are not understanding the way science works. When people make claims there are other scientists there to check there methods and facts. It does happen occasionally that some scientists make mistakes or even distort or break the truth for personal gain. But the vast majority of the time there are found out, and expelled from scientific discussion. But the fact of the matter is that the VAST majority of scientists are searching for the truth and follow the evidence where it leads.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
No i totally understand that is the way science works. Apparently creation scientists & ID scientists are not allowed that luxury.
If they make a hypothesis that is not confirmed it is because they are liars who misrepresent the facts....but if evolutionists make gross errors due to flawed evolutionary thinking...."its the process of science".
can you see the hypocrisy of the position?
U assume that creationists should be 100% accurate in everything they say or they r debunked?
arsjth 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
" It does happen occasionally that some scientists make mistakes or even distort or break the truth for personal gain."
yes indeed & its becoming more prolific as grants & fame depend on the importance of your discovery. Book sales are affected by your fame as well.
it would be a foolish person who ignored the workings of the evolution industry.
Scientists are not the noblemen of our modern society.
Doctors & dentists that rape patients, teachers who molest children all happen.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth
Errors aside, you can not escape the fact that the data supports evolution. There is overwhelming evidence to support evolution through natural selection. The fact of the matter is this isn't a debate. Looking at the evidence, it is simply not possible that god created all of the species. Watch Aronra's fundamental falsehoods of creationism.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jof
u need to define evolution.
u r doing what they all do&that is equivocating.
no creationist denies the change that occurs thru the mating of diff individuals who then have offspring.This 'evolution' happens quickly&is observable.
The extrapolation that all creatures came into being from a chemical reaction is fanciful wishful thinking.
There are plenty of evolutionists who acknowledge the wishful thinking that goes on in 'science' today.
sometimes u just have2 say u dont know how that hapnd
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth
Evolution is the slow genetic mutations in the genome of all species which causes speciation, and is responsible for the diversity of life. What you were describing was abiogensis not evolution. While abiogenisis is a solid hypothesis for the emergence of life from nonliving matter. While is supported and is very probable, it has not been proven and thus is not a theory. If this debate is going to continue, you will need to start providing more specific criticisms of evolution.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
"Evolution is the slow genetic mutations in the genome of all species which causes speciation"
"Lyn Margulis has pronounced neo-Darwinism "dead", since there's no adequate evidence in the literature that random mutations result in new species."
could u please explain why Lyn Margulis (Symbiogeneticist who was awarded the US Presidential Medal for Science in 1999) disagrees with your definition.
Have you got a definition on which all scientists agree?
i need this b4 i can go further
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth I don't play the name drop game. I don't care who thinks evolution is right or wrong. We can sit here all day and say this scientists believes in evolution and this obscure one doesn't. The vast majority of scientists do believe in evolution, but for this debate, the point is moot. The point i am arguing is that the evidence shows that gradual mutations in the gene pool causes changes in populations. The summation of these changes is responsible for speciation and life's diversity.
jofoatminn 1 year ago 21
@jofoatminn
"I don't care who thinks evolution is right or wrong."
well you should. that sounds like a religious position not a scientific one.
are u saying Lyn Margulius is an obscure scientist? She still does believe in evolution but the point she makes is a valid one...its just that you dont like it because you have been taught that random mutations have caused the changes in species.
Margulis says there is no adequate evidence that it does.
is she a lying creationist?
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth I don't think you understand how this works. I don't care about individuals. If you want to parrot her arguments that would be acceptable, and i would welcome it. But I will not get into the game where since one scientist disagrees with the theory so it must be wrong. One persons beliefs don't undermine over a hundred years of research and evidence, unless she finds real problems with the evidence. If you think she does please explain them to me, and i would be happy to discuss them
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@arsjth If you see any problem in the evidence I would be happy to discuss it.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofo
"If u see any problem in the evidence I would be happy to discuss it."
its full of problems yet when i quoted an evolutionist who points that out you deny it.
Richard lewontin
True& sufficient explanations of particular examples of evolution r extremely hard to arrive at because we do not have world enough and time. The cytogeneticist Jakov Krivshenko used to dismiss merely plausible explanations, in a strong Russian accent that lent it greater derisive force, as “idel specoolations.”
arsjth 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
perhaps you start by backing up what you have claimed that mutations are 1. gradual & 2.cause changes in the gene pools.
for such a statement as this you would need overwhelming evidence & i would be disturbed if you could not provide it. It might be a bit like clutching at straws.
dont get me wrong mutations can cause changes but u would have to ask yourself y margulis says what she says & doesnt say its overwhelming & obvious???
why is she unaware of the evidence that u know?
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth
I am a bit confused on what you are asking. Are you asking me to show evidence of:
1. The fact that mutations happen or
2. The fact that mutations change the gene pool or
3. That mutations can provide beneficial changes
I will not address why someone else isn't aware of certain evidence. I will only be discussing evidence.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
bravo...that is the usual way of avoiding the issue. Most atheist evolutionists refuse to enter into these discussions.
i suggested u needed overwhelming evidence 4 your points &of course u must have it or u wouldnt believe it would u?
Dont be put off by Lyn Margulis who says that " there's no adequate evidence in the literature that random mutations result in new species."
she is just a scientist who was awarded the presidential medal.
its normal to avoid conflicting evidence
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth Calm down I will be happy to provide evidence, i was simply asking for clarification on which evidence you were requesting. Give me a few hours so i can find specific examples. I must state that because evolution is a gradual process there have only been a few examples of speciation that have occurred in the last century. That does not mean that there have not been any.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
" But the fact of the matter is that the VAST majority of scientists are searching for the truth and follow the evidence where it leads."
the problem here is that you are ignoring the initial indoctrination. Evolution is inconsequential as it is a useless theory & it matters not to science if u believe it or not.
I could believe that humans spontaneously errupted from the mud & it wont change anything.
So u tend to believe what u have been taught.
schools have taught ev for 50+yrs
arsjth 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
"VAST majority of scientists are searching for the truth and follow the evidence where it leads."
if this were true then the scientists in Galileo's time would have embraced his theory willingly & been inquisitive & tested it at the very least.
Right now a good example is global warming.
It seems there are sides with very intense feelings one way or the other. where is the consensus view where they all work together to find the truth?
Some actively fought against sharing the data
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth
That right there is why no one takes creation "scientists" seriously. You just change the subject when you can't respond. I'm not defending global warming, I haven't studied it and i don't have enough background in the subject to defend it. Evolution has been shown through the fossil record, genetically, and has even been seen in present day. If creation is right why is there telomere in the middle of human chromosome 2? They only exist on the ends of chromosomes.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jof
How has the view that there is some link between man& pes benefited mankind?What scientific advancement has come from such belief?
I see plenty of error from evolutionary thinking.vestigial organs so labelled& removed needlessly,backs treated improperly based on the belief we were apes & designed to walk on knuckles, Neanderthals labelled primitive apemen, Junk DNA labelled junk.
when evolutionists dont understand they blame evolution in a worse way than u accuse creationists of blaming God
arsjth 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
"You are not understanding the way science works. When people make claims there are other scientists there to check there methods and facts."
yes i am. this is exactly how it works. When scientists see flaws in the work of others they speak out. Margulis is no dill and she doesnt agree that random mutations account for the creation of new species.
rather than talk talk....all u need to do is show me where she is wrong. could i have the paper that was peer reviewed that proved it?
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth I would be happy to do so if you would just tell me what she says that is so convincing. I am not going to research her because I know that what ever I find and then discuss will not be the point that you find so convincing. If you would find evidence she has or how she attempts to debunk the scientific evidence i will talk about it. So please pick a few points at a time and we can slowly go through as much as you want, but you need to pick what is important, so I don't waste my time.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofoatminn Scientists do debate evolution, its true. But they argue about the means in which it does or certain details. Lynn thinks mutations are not the only means of evolution, which is a valid argument. She does not say that mutations do not account for any speciations. This discussion should be continued, but in no way does it undermine evolution.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
"Scientists do debate evolution, its true. But they argue about the means in which it does or certain details."
and religious leaders do debate religion & the truth of certain facts.
and creationists also debate evolution and the levels at which evolution affects life and what it can and cant account for.
The point is that you dont question the basic paradigm just the ways in which you may be right.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth Thats just not true. I am open to any idea that does not contradict the observed. The extent to which evolution relies on mutations can be debated. What i will not except is that evolution does not occur, as it has been observed and makes lots of predictions about the natural world which have been true. I will also not accept that some invisible man made everything in its present form 6 to 10 thousand years ago. Scientists are open to debate as long as there are facts to back it up.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
i repeat my post from below for your benefit.
"To be clear Lynn does think evolution occurs and is the cause of life's diversity."
To be clear....so do i.
To be clear so does every decent creationist and Intelligent Design advocate that i know of.
"The argument is the extent to mutations account for speciation."
indeed. & she says there is none.
So why is she oblivious to the abundance of evidence that it does?
arsjth 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
" I will also not accept that some invisible man made everything in its present form 6 to 10 thousand years ago."
This is the biggest strawman argument going around about creationists and hence you are arguing against nothing....this argument doesnt exist.
I guess this argument/strawman allows you to easily categorize creationists as nuts who believe that every single species of bird was created separately 6000 yrs ago.
of course there are none that believe that.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth First of all that is not a straw man, that is what many creationists believe. If that is not what believe then i wont argue it. I would like to know what position i am arguing against. So far all you have put forth is that one biologist disagrees with some of the detail of evolution. I really don't think you want to argue this, as both positions argue that evolution happens and results in speciation, only how genetic variability comes about. Please tell me YOUR beliefs!
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
"First of all that is not a straw man, that is what many creationists believe"
No, its a strawman & you would struggle to find any creation scientist who espouses that everything was created in its present form.
Its a little embarrassing that you think they do.
Most creationists would hold to a polyphyletic version of evolution. That God created initially certain creatures & then you have the normal forces of selection, mutation which is generally a break down not a creative force
arsjth 1 year ago
... variability of species comes from there.
So far i have put forth one biologists view who disagrees on the mechanism that is claimed as proven fact. There are many more holes in the theory than this.
I would ask u why u see the holes in the theory as being of no interest or consequence?
“Sermonti describes biology which contradicts Darwinian expectations:leaf insects appearing in th fossil record b4 leaves,insects b4 plants, & biological forms that reflect abstract mathematical expressions"
arsjth 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
"Please tell me YOUR beliefs!"
i am not sure what 'beliefs' have to do with this topic.
Only what can be proven is important.
Also what cannot be proven is important.
Most of the theory of common ancestry is built upon such things.
Really where the discussion should take place is about how can chemicals come together thru accident to create the enormous amount of information we find in the cell?
The intelligence within the language of the cell is plain to see.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjith I don't even know your stance on evolution. Are you a creationist or an evolutionist. Its a bit hard to debate if you don't pick a side. If your only point was that science makes mistakes at times I will agree. The scientific process isn't perfect, but over time those mistakes are corrected as new evidence comes along and there are new people to examine it. There may be details about evolution that are wrong, but the from common ancestry has an enormous amount of evidence.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
"Are you a creationist or an evolutionist. Its a bit hard to debate if you don't pick a side."
This is the problem. Y do you have to pick a side? Is it so you can better pigeon hole people? Is it so u can argue against strawmen of your own making?
The term creationist is not even clearly defined as there are YEC's OEC's ID Theistic evolutionists etc.
It is not essential to have a side or a fixed opinion to see error in logic or science.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth I am letting you define yourself however you want. You don't have to define yourself as a term, you can describe exactly what you think is responsible for the diversity of life. But if you don't want to at least find a flaw with the widely accepted theory of evolution. All you have done is brought up an topic of discussion on the specifics of evolution, either wayits still evolution. There has never been any real evidence to suggest that evolution didn't/doesn't happen.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofo
"Theres never been any real evidence to suggest that evolution didn't/doesn't happen."
this is why i said define the word.
u refused to.
now u equivocate on its meaning.
i told u that no creationist denies evolution happens. change is all around us. thats all evolution means.
Now if u want to claim that all creatures came from a single ancestor & claim that ancestor came from a primordial soup then u need some proof.
just make it undeniable, not evidence that a skeptic doesnt have2accept
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth Hold on! You just switched from common ancestor to abiogensis. These are different arguments, of which abiogensis has less evidence. If you look at any multicellular organism, it is riddled with genomic evidence of its ancestry. And I will admit there may be some flaw in evolution, but that doesn't debunk the theory. It is a very complex and comprehensive theory, and is bound to a few errors but in no way does that undermine the theory as a hole.
jofoatminn 1 year ago 5
@jofoatminn
You said "the theory as a hole". Freudian slip much?
ToxicPaintsworks 6 months ago
@ToxicPaintsworks Haha... touche!
jofoatminn 6 months ago
@jofoatminn
the atheistic undertones of biology are not mirrored in real sciences like physics & they are much more open to the concept of 'God', one would have to ask y?
To explain the anthropocentric nature of our universe they have comenced theorizing about multiple universes despite there being 'no evidence'.
Only in evolutionary biology may one not theorize about the existence of anything that cannot be proven immediately.
Common ancestry doesnt have an enormous amount of evidence
arsjth 1 year ago
@jofo
Common ancestry is accepted by evolutionists as the only logical naturalistic explanation.
If u eliminate intelligent design or creation as a starting point i dont see what else you would believe but common ancestry.
But of course its not necessary2 commit to a belief about these things & should only b done so when the evidence is overwhelming.
A few transitions between similar creatures & massive gaps between others is not overwhelming to a skeptic.
David Berlinski is a skeptic i like.
arsjth 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
Sometimes the right answer is 'we just dont know'.
and to accept a substandard explanation with little scientific validity is not the right solution.
U have to ask yourself how is it that two scientists can look at the same evidence & conclude 2 different things?
Its because the evidence is not conclusive and that the conclusion is subject to your existing paradigm.
Personally i see design. i see nothing in nature today that makes it obvious we descended from a common ancestor.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth It doesn't matter what you see. When I look at something i see an object not trillions upon trillions of atoms with electrons wizzing around a t near light speed. The fact is you can't just look at a scence and give you first impress you need to look beyond that, and look at the things you can't see. There is hundred of years of evidence for evolution, and you haven't provided one sentence to find a single flaw.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
"The fact is you can't just look at a scence and give you first impress you need to look beyond that, and look at the things you can't see."
why would i look at things i cant see?
are you arguing i should look to an intelligent force for which i have no evidence & cant see?
U guys get confused...u claim that God doesnt exist because u havent seen him then u claim evolution is factual when u havent seen a whale evolve from its ancestor.Scientists havent seen multiverses yet believ
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth By see all i meant was see with your naked eye. You need to see beyond the plainly visible and you aids. All of my claims come from evidence. And multiverses is just a new idea. The evidence is heading in that direction, but it is no where near a theory. No scientists believes as you put it. We are simply compelled by evidence. The stronger the evidence the stronger we are compelled. Evolution has WAY more evidence than multiverse at this point, and thus is WAY more compelling.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofo
"here is100years of evidence for evolution, & u haven't provided one sentence to find a single flaw."
of course i have pointed out many but u ignore any contrary evidence becos u r a true believer, a man of faith. what evidence would cast doubt on the theory for u?
i know....none!
when we find soft tissue of dinosaurs casting doubt on the alleged millions of years of age, we have to question either the age of the dinosaurs or the proven science that says soft tissue doenst last that long
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth If you are going to say there are flaws, please link me to some sort of scientific article, so i can review that findings and methods. It is impossible to argue against something where I have nothing more to go on than what you say was found.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofo
well which do u think will be questioned? established science or a theory of unprovable long ages?
So here lies a flaw that will be explained away so that u can state boldly not one flaw in the theory.
how about Margulis' denial of 1 of the basic mechanisms of evolution?
not a flaw?
just a debate abt how it happened...with 1 group claiming like this & the other saying theres no evidence...who tells the truth?
how about the lack of a mechanism to start life in the first place? another flaw
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth If you show me or link me to a site with the evidence you are talking about i would be more than happy to consider it. But right now all you are doing is saying that some scientist has a differing view. SHOW ME HER EVIDENCE. Just saying she has it won't persuade me. Like i have already said, i know and so do all other biologists that evolution occurs because of more than just mutation. Just look at the integration of mitochondria, its in tons of bio books, its not some hidden fact.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
Lyn Margulis' opinions and views are freely available. If u want to know u will research her. I dont imagine i will convince u of anything.
however the evidence has convinced many such as dean kenyon & michael behe & others. Atheism is most strong in evolutionary biology & not in physics.
they know that there has to be more than just this universe, hence the multiverse theory.
Biologists are indoctrinated & their funding relies on evolution being true.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth I have researched her, and have not found the evidence you see, show me, i would be glad to look at it, a scientific journal would be appreciated. You can't just say its out there, be honest and show me what you've found. Why do you think science is a conspiracy, biologists follow the same rules that all science follows, the same science that made your computer. If it was such a conspiracy why would there be so many nobel prizes for people who went against popular scientific belief?
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
i think they are afraid that if ID is given any credence or air time that the completely stupid students studying would fall for the arguments & somehow funding would stop.
the fear of people being exposed to the real arguments for ID and creation leading to a halt on research is ofc nonsense in the extreme.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth ID scientists try to debate scientists quite frequently, but they get destroyed by scientists that demand evidence. Show one ioda of evidence for ID, and people will take you seriously. But as of now you might as well say that a wizard made everything, because there is just as much evidence for that.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jofoatminn
"ID scientists try to debate scientists quite frequently, but they get destroyed by scientists that demand evidence."
This is where you are mistaken. It is the weakness of the evolutionist scientists debate. The evidence is very poor & is really all about how you interpret the evidence not about the indisputable nature of the evidence itself.
If we can look at evidence & i can interpret it differently then its not empirical is it?
arsjth 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
"Show one ioda of evidence for ID, and people will take you seriously."
the word is iota not ioda but i know english is not your 1st language.
If i understand you correctly, you are stating that a scientist is incapable of establishing whether intelligence was involved in the design of anything?
Unless u witness it yourself ....its impossible??? Right?
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth So your arguments come down to correcting my spelling and semantics. You claim to have read all these articles that claim that evolution through natural selection has flaws. LETS SEE THEM! Show me one article that shows reasoned evidence that mutation is not a primary means of evolution. Or one that shows how evidence that could not be explained through common ancestry. By the way when scientists have arguments they don't resort to personal attacks, lets stay on point.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@arsjth There is a reason you can't find any scientific journal articles providing evidence that evolution is wrong, and that because it isn't. And don't play that whole scientific conspiracy to cover it. If a scientist could find good evidence that disproves evolution, that stood up in the scientific community they would be awarded the nobel prize and would have enough research grands until the end of their days.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
"There is a reason you can't find any scientific journal articles providing evidence that evolution is wrong"
such a ridiculous statement. "evolution" what does it mean?
u can make it mean what you want. it actually means change....would i find an article that 'change' is wrong?
Plainly ridiculous.
Do i find any articles that claim that Darwinian evolution cant explain everything we see? Yes.
Do i find articles that dispute the mechanisms of the change? Yes.
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth I am not seeing the hole you are seeing. The amount of speciation that is a result of mutation is a topic of discussion not a hole. No evolutionist will say that mutation is the ONLY way genetic variability comes about.
Under you definition of evolution, how do you account for dinosaurs, transitional fossils (and don't give me that crap about there not being any because there are thousands), junk DNA that encodes for things found in an organisms evolutionary ancestry, vestigial organs
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
"The amount of speciation that is a result of mutation is a topic of discussion"
interesting discussion. Margulis says there is none. Amazing how ignorant she is isnt it?
If u think it thru Margulis is saying it happened another way...u guys are wrong. But u accept it cos she is not arguing any divine intervention.
"Under you definition of evolution, how do you account for dinosaurs, transitional fossils"
You believe there are thousands of transitional fossils for the T-rex?
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth Of course Margulis says there is no arguement, she has picked a side. Until she can show beyond a reasonable doubt that here view is right, using evidence, there is a debate. And i accept her arguement because she uses evidence that needs examinging. She does not say that some all powerful all knowing god that has not been seen and form whom there is no evidence, did it. You might as well say invisible pixies made everything.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
Margulis makes it clear that there is no evidence that mutations caused new species. Yet this is the evidence quoted by thousands of brainwashed students that state that the theory of evolution is proved true by a mechanism of natural selection & mutations.
So they are quoting as facts that which Margulis says theres no evidence for.
i see in u an overwhelming need to have the answers which u do not. becos your best argument for evolution is that there is no proof of God doing it.
arsjth 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@arsjth How old is the earth?
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
"I am not going to research her because I know that what ever I find and then discuss will not be the point that you find so convincing."
novel excuse for not educating yourself.
" If you would find evidence she has or how she attempts to debunk the scientific evidence i will talk about it."
the point is she says there isnt any pointing to mutations causing new species.
i find it strange that someone who hangs their hat on it being a slam dunk point wouldnt want to know why?
arsjth 1 year ago
@arsjth Ok so I read a lot about Lynn Margulis. To be clear Lynn does think evolution occurs and is the cause of life's diversity. Her argument is that random mutations are not the ONLY cause for genetic variability. She argues that genetic variability is also a result of gene transfer between microorganisms. This is widely accepted throughout the biological community. Examples include the emergence of mitochondria. The argument is the extent to mutations account for speciation.
jofoatminn 1 year ago
@jofoatminn
"To be clear Lynn does think evolution occurs and is the cause of life's diversity."
To be clear....so do i.
To be clear so does every decent creationist and Intelligent Design advocate that i know of.
"The argument is the extent to mutations account for speciation."
indeed. & she says there is none.
So why is she oblivious to the abundance of evidence that it does?
arsjth 1 year ago
dprjones wants AronRa
PatRibsey 1 year ago
ARon Ra is on top of the game. because of him critical thinking is a must!
armarjaleo 1 year ago
he looks like the undertaker
xXshirenuXx 2 years ago
dprjones Channel:
Welcome to the bizarre, mentally challenged, and hilariously contradictory magic and faerie pixie dust filled world of Andy Jack, aka:AronRaHAHAHA, aka: QAndyRa, aka: QQOQQ, the winner of Potholer54's prestigious Defiance in Ignorance Award, or the Cock Award.
He is the very definition of Creationist stupidity, dishonesty, ignorance and the obstinate Strawman argument.
Warning:
Feeding the Troll will only result in an fostering an unhealthy obsession in him.
That is all.
Foxhound606 2 years ago 2
No feeding this so called "troll" will get you away from the lie...
AronRaHAHAHA 2 years ago
@AronRaHAHAHA
You're the one who's been lied to. And you will do everything in your power to justify this lie. It's the height of hypocrisy to accuse someone else of being the liar in your situation and given your "arguments", I think it's safe to say that you are a joke.
RainMan34 1 year ago
What evidence do you have to say "I have been lied to"? There is not on dot of evidence for (macro) evolution.
The odds of evolution being the means of all life is something like: 1 chance in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.
If your a betting man I don't fancy your odds, it's safe to say that evolution is the pill you have swallowed.
Keep swallowing sucker!
AronRaHAHAHA 1 year ago
What evidence have I? Simply, your thoughts.
You and I are essentially talking about different realities. You believe evolution is less likely than magic. And you discount evolution b.c you believe it's more believable that a supreme being is responsible for creation. You count on an infallible man existing and creating the earth and then creating humans. I cannot provide evidence to you for the simple fact that you cannot be inclined to be cognizant of the basis of reality.
RainMan34 1 year ago
If I told you matter has always been here before time began what would you think? Nut case!? That's what Mr Ra thinks.
Do you know how matter was formed? Your answer should be no,.
There is no natural system present that is able to make matter, we then have to look outside what is physical and rely on the what is supernatural,.
You rely on the physical & dismiss the spiritual, this is where you and your kind fall apart, God made matter as this is the only explanation.
Keep taking the pills!
AronRaHAHAHA 1 year ago
We can't look outside of our universe and see anything. Why? I'll let you figure this out yourself. I don't dismiss the spiritual. I dismiss the idea that spiritual explanations should replace scientific evidence as a basis for understanding. The basis for evolution comes from observing the known universe. Believing in a god comes from NOT observing the known universe. You don't get it. Therefore you assume a magic creator is responsible.
RainMan34 1 year ago
Most people can't see clearly of our own universe, yourself included... and you want to go outside of that to make a basis for the explanation of the diversity of life? Yea, good luck with that. This is for people who have no understanding of the mechanics of the actual universe that we are currently living in, and thus try to provide a MAGIC explanation to make up for the losses...
You want evidence from me but you don't need it to believe in a make believe creation theory. Why is that?
RainMan34 1 year ago
The definition of magic is: Making something appear when it is obvious is can't", if matter can not be created how did it get here, you have no explanation! You are stuck! Matter is unable to be created but you say (like Aron) "it has always been present" that's a dumb ass statement to make.
I ask you this physical question, how did matter get here, if you can give me the answer I will be all ears, if not, then please fuck off like a good little boy..
AronRaHAHAHA 1 year ago
The argument that, "God exists b.c you can't tell me where matter comes from" is the rationale of a child. But you appear to be a grown man. Thoughts?
I didn't bring up matter as a means to explain any of my arguments. But you assume I wouldn't catch this? lol
I've not stated my belief regarding the origin of the universe. You've superimposed your interpretation onto my view in order to further yours. Are you aware of straw? It appears you might be composed of it.
RainMan34 1 year ago
There is no scientific evidence to back up evolution, trust me, evolution is only real in the text books and in the minds of warped individuals.
It's your excuse to try and get rid of the Creator, and I must say, evolution is a pretty pathetic out dated method, surely you could have thought of something a little less childish than evolution by now.
I like looking at all the evolution video's, it's better than going to a comedy club, and it gives me a bloody good laugh, please make lot's more!
AronRaHAHAHA 1 year ago
@ AronRaHAHAHA Please stop wasting space with your inane comments. You seem to have some strange fixation with AronRa, who is clearly your intellectual superior. You have shown a complete lack of understanding of what science is with you video posts, so you comment on AronRas scientific capabilities are worthless. As a scientist myself, I can assert he is a first rate scientist, and is a gentleman, something you most certainly are not!
MrPharmaboy1 2 years ago 2
AronRa is no scientist..
AronRaHAHAHA 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
AronRa is deluded and is a deciever..
AronRaHAHAHA 2 years ago
Deceived you into wasting your time making an account honoring his name.
BusinessIDBAI 2 years ago
He's a joke a minute...
Can you honestly say you believe what he's saying?
AronRaHAHAHA 2 years ago
You're a joke a minute, if you can't refute what he's saying, why take YOU seriously?
BusinessIDBAI 2 years ago
Ohh, you're that QQQQ guy aren't you? No wonder you're mad at him, he kicked your ass.
BusinessIDBAI 2 years ago 5
@AronRaHAHAHA You don't get it Andy, you present no evidence for your argument.
You simply fail.
Cade57 2 years ago
Over the past several months I have shown Aron and co the evidence for a global flood, why do you think we see masses of fossils in certain areas all across the earth? Huge pitts of fossils in rock layers all over the earth, it would take a world wide flood to get these fossils and its evidence.
AronRaHAHAHA 2 years ago
@AronRaHAHAHA
We see fossils in certain bands of rock because they have been conducive to fossilisation. The flood cannot explain why you find them in discrete layers and in certain orders all over the earth.
Furthermore you can date those fossils using various techniques and they all are far older than the supposed flood.
I gave you the link before about the rock&sediment layers, do you not remember?
Cade57 2 years ago
The dating tech's have problems, they are all made on certain assumptions.
Also please go check out how a fossils has to be made, it needs 3 ingredience.
1. It needs no 02
2. It has to be buried in a dark place.
3. It has to be left undisturbed.
The only thing which could have done this is a global flood, how do we know it was flood, b,cos the Bible tells us and we can see the evidence with the fossils we find.
AronRaHAHAHA 2 years ago
@AronRaHAHAHA
Nope, these requirements can be meet in much more simple ways. Bottom of a lake, stuck in mud flats etc.
If we had the flood there would be one layer, the same depth the world over which had all species in it. Like a kids basket full of jumbled toys, instead we find an orderly progression through the geological time in the exact order we can predict thanks to evolution.
Cade57 2 years ago
Nope you dope.
Listen, if it were at the bottom of a lake it would be scavenged.
There are many layers as ALL the mud dirt rocks sediments were moved and churned up, and were relaid by hydrological sorting with billkions of dead things layed down by water in rock layers all over the earth.
AronRaHAHAHA 2 years ago
@AronRaHAHAHA
If the flood laid deposit down on all of the earth all the fossils would be in one band, but they aren't.
Hydrological sorting? Please - 40 days and nights of rain, well the large dinosaur would probably still be floating due to the gasses in their bodies from the bacterial decomp.
Cade57 2 years ago
No they would not.
Just imagine a huge flood which churned up all the soil and rocks, and mixed in with the mud and rocks are all living and just dead animals, the bigger heavier animals would be in the lower rock layers ie stones and rocks then others depending on wight will be in the lighter rock silt gravel and sand layers..
AronRaHAHAHA 2 years ago
@AronRaHAHAHA Andy - if the flood happened you would get the heavy rocks at the bottom and lighter on top - this is what I said in a previous post. However this is not the layering we see in the earth, we can see discrete bands
Cade57 2 years ago
@Cade57
Not always, as we do see tectonic activity and glaciers move huge rocks from place to place.
The bands of sand gravel clay was layed down by hydo water sorting, with the heavier elements at the bottom most of the time..
AronRaHAHAHA 2 years ago
@AronRaHAHAHA
Well if you accept tectonic activity how do you deny the time scale it takes to work?
Cade57 2 years ago
@Cade57
It probably took less than a year for the continants to drift aprt.
As we can see evidence for this.
1. Stretch marks at the bottom of the oceans.
2. If it were a long process we should see a thick layer of mud on the Atlantic ocean floors as rivers leach mud into oceans.
AronRaHAHAHA 2 years ago
@AronRaHAHAHA
Holy shit, less than a year? Stretch marks?
You do know that the centre of the Atlantic is a big rift don't you?
Cade57 2 years ago
@Cade57
It seems to have a ridge and inside the ridge there's a dip, lave/basalt would have spewed from it and forced the continant (pangea) apart, as the ridge is almost bang smack in the middle of the Atlantic ocean..
AronRaHAHAHA 2 years ago
@AronRaHAHAHA
So you honestly think those two continents moved apart at 7km a day?
Cade57 2 years ago
@Cade57
Is it 7 k a day, then yes it did this for probably a year then it slowly settled down and has been moving apart since then, probably 4400 yrs ago was the initial impact via a comet which broke up the earths crust and started the process.
AronRaHAHAHA 2 years ago
@AronRaHAHAHA
So 7km a day, then just settled down. If a comet 4.4K years ago started it, where is the impact crater?
Cade57 2 years ago
@Cade57
Atlantic side of Mexico..
AronRaHAHAHA 2 years ago
@AronRaHAHAHA and where is the impact crater, exactly.
Cade57 2 years ago
@Cade57 Mexico's Yucatán Peninsula.
AronRaHAHAHA 2 years ago
@AronRaHAHAHA
Well that peninsula is between the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, however I presume you re referring to the Chicxulub Crater. This is dated to 65 million years ago. Now explain your evidence that this is less that 6000 years old.
Cade57 2 years ago
What dating method was used?
Dating methods are horendously in accurate, as they rely on preset presumptions..
And these presumptions are inacurate.
AronRaHAHAHA 2 years ago
@AronRaHAHAHA
Many dating methods confirm each other, what evidence have you that they are inaccurate?
Cade57 2 years ago
@Cade57
The only dating methods which confirm each other are the one's they want you to see and print.
AronRaHAHAHA 2 years ago
@AronRaHAHAHA
Ohh, you going for the scientific conspiracy angle now are you? Think about this, the first scientist who can prove, in a peer reviewed journal, that all dating methods are false - will win a noble price - about $1 million dollars.
Science is self correcting, if I could prove any dating method is wrong I would have my name used in reports, books and papers all over the world for years to come.
Cade57 2 years ago
@Cade57
Scientist' get it wrong, the honest one's don't.
AronRaHAHAHA 2 years ago
The ones honestly lying for Yahweh?
sanechipmunks 2 years ago
@AronRaHAHAHA
okay that website was a bit daft. To test something you use the correct test. C14 testing is good for recent, non-sea dwelling life forms.
To drive in a nail you use a hammer, to put in a screw a screwdriver, the haul a heavy load you use a lorry with a low gear ratio.
Attempting to discredit scientist using the correct test, hmm, do these people try to discredit doctors when they use the correct test?
Cade57 2 years ago
@Cade57
A website thats talks thruth is not a daft website.
No, these people knew that dating methods were faulty, so they sent several items to be tested and the results came back just as they thought, if this doesn't scream out dating problem then what else will change your mind?
AronRaHAHAHA 2 years ago
@AronRaHAHAHA
Carbon14 is made in the upper atmosphere, taken in by plants, which are eaten by animals, who use it in their bodies.
However the sea can trap this C14 for many more years, so C14 doesn't work for sea based animals/plants or creatures that feed on that food chain. So anything in the sea or that eats lots of food from it. This includes seals, penguins etc.
If you prefer a more easy to understand example - tree rings. Dendrochronology.
Cade57 2 years ago
@Cade57
C14 is atomic weight 12, see I'm brainy.
Also sun light and nuclear blasts give of excess c14 and this is added to rocks plants everything which takes on c14.
This will distort the reading which we will get as half life of c14 is 5730 yrs, if c14 is always being added there will be an incorrect reading.
AronRaHAHAHA 2 years ago
@AronRaHAHAHA
C14 has the atomic weight of 14, normal C is C12.
Sun light is the normal cause of C14, this is how it is created. The reason we use C14 dating is because it stops being added to the tissues of an animal when they die.
Cade57 2 years ago
@Cade57 Letting off nuclear test's adds c14 to the atmosphere which is then absorbed by plants trees rocks etc.
Any how so we agree that c14 is always being added, and in the past sunlight may have been different giving the wood/item a boost in c14, they do not know for sure that the conditions have always been the same, if this is the case how can we get a true reading?
AronRaHAHAHA 2 years ago
@AronRaHAHAHA
Well nuclear formation of C14 only started when the US tested the first atomic bomb, so it doesn't apply to things we dig up.
The laws of physics say the sun stays in the same. However if you have evidence that the laws of physics were different, prepare for your noble prize.
Cade57 2 years ago
Don't you understand that if someone could show them to be false that someone would be a scientific rockstar within the week?
It's not a conspiracy that every single line of evidence contradicts your bronze-age fables.
sanechipmunks 2 years ago
@AronRaHAHAHA
Wait. You're serious? Less than a year? Wow. Just wow.
rrward 2 years ago
@rrward
Today its moving apart by about the same rate as your fingernails grow..
AronRaHAHAHA 2 years ago
You're batshit crazy. How the hell would the continents move the fast without basically killing everything on them? How would those same continents then slow down to the current rate?
TrueMetis 2 years ago
Everything was dead anyway, remember God saved all but 8 (noah)
The velocity of water and basalt/lava slowed because the pressure wouldhave droped eventualy, same reason why volcanoes stop erupting..
AronRaHAHAHA 2 years ago
Ignoring for the moment your bullshit about noah. Preasure from what? The type of preasure you are talking about would fracture the earth in ways the would probably destory it.
TrueMetis 2 years ago
The pressure as in techtonic movement..
The earth is shattered, and we have the evidence to prove it..
The fault lines.
AronRaHAHAHA 2 years ago
A catastrophe like a flood would have buried these animals quickly, or else they would have been scavenge and there bones eaten by other dinosaurs and animals.
But we see them fully intact.
AronRaHAHAHA 2 years ago
"If it were at the bottom of a lake it would be scavenged"
By what? Whatever it was would have to not only eat the flesh but the bones to. To my knowledge most bottom feeders strip the flesh off animals and leave the bones alone. Which in no way would prevent fossilization.
TrueMetis 2 years ago
AronRa is a legend.
Skindoggiedog 2 years ago 9
All fundamentalists should be locked up in a room with Pat Condell and Aron Ra, and be made to cry.
Antiks72 2 years ago 15
Aron Ra is half klingon too.
Antiks72 2 years ago 4
Aronra is awesome I do agree indeed....but hey, so are you! :)
HisTruthbeUNKOWN 2 years ago
The amount of time you spent on the parrot was hilarious hahah
Bogie3Flare 2 years ago
Intellectual Honesty FTW.
LuskinsConscience 2 years ago
Awesome video! AronRa rules teh intarnets!!
brainfoodlunch 2 years ago
I lawled at the parrot joke.
pyxlated 2 years ago 2
pyxlated
Who said it was a joke?
Parrots are delishous!
SkyDoginthetube 2 years ago 3
Oh yeah? What do they taste like?
skinnyjohnsen 2 years ago
pidgeon.
TheCaptainLulz 2 years ago
Totally sweet vid! I just discovered AronRa this evening and have been sitting here for hours watching all his stuff.
killeryoga 2 years ago 3
And I'm pretty sure you're enjoying the trip. I've lost count of how many times I've watched his Fundamental Falsehood of Creationism series and I still learn from each viewing. Long life to the "God" AronRa!
montrealpsycho 2 years ago 2
Aronra is god?
I think Aron Ra might resent being represented as a lesser being.
RainMan34 2 years ago 38