i seriously think that VFX is purposely lying and being dishonest...I don't think that there's any WAY someone could misunderstand a response that thoroughly...I think he's doing what many lawyers do...distort the evidence and quote mine and make it look like the valid point is ridiculous. It's truly a shame...half of the US is still in the Dark Ages, scientifically. *shakes head in disappointment*
If the bible were admissable as evidence, I'd have to accept all kinds of other evidence with similer attributes. Like the Koran and evidence as well.
Heck even Journey to the West has a creation story. I'd have a hell of a time telling truth fron fiction if I thought the bible were 100% true.
Here's my take on the common theist diatribe. They can make the most logical case for any of their claims, they can convince people that on the basis of their reasoning that their claims are true.
But that's not the case. Evidence is required in order to declare a claim true or not.
I have said many time before and will again now, asserting things, no matter how logical they might be, is mental masturbation at best without evidence to support them.
I completely agree. You can make convincing philosophical arguments with various logical falacies, but it really does come down to evidence, and of that, there is none.
Well pointed. Pascal worked with the assumption that there were only two ways to be - Roman Catholic, or atheist.
With a somewhat less finite number of theologies relating to God, all of which have an equal probability of being right, your odds of getting into heaven simply by sticking by the wager and adhering to just one of them is not good. It's a ridiculous notion in a modern world with so much uncertainty.
My biggest thing with natral selection is this. If it is a servival of the fittest then why are there so many differant plants and animals? Now I know your gonna say over millions of years..... But how do we even really know the earth is MIllions of years old? where is the PROOF of that? and please don't say carbon 14 (thats a joke all in its own)
C'mon dude. I don't want to get into any more evolution debates. This video is about how and where VFX misrepresents.
Your first problem is a common misunderstanding. You can find really detailed explanations in the "blind watchmaker". It's not a light read, but very rewading.
There are great answers on the web for the age of the earth. Just google it!
//how do we even really know the earth is MIllions of years old?//
There is excellent agreement on about 4.5 billion years, between several meteorites and by several different dating methods. I sent you a PM for a link so that you can study the evidence for yourself.
@davecline1975 Evidence is always a joke to a fool who jokes of reality :D Sorry my ignoramous friend, but Carbon dating is not a joke. Despite what biased christians who do not want to believe the truth will tell you. Furthermore, not only is carbon dating accurate, but other forms of isotope dating will collaborate various items date as well as the date of earth. If it's NOT accurate, why don't we EVER find animals dated from an earlier date in the rock layers found to be younger?
This is called an assertion without evidence. Unless you use evidence, your claim has no meaning.
You can believe whatever you want to believe. But I believe there is a right and wrong. and VFX is using WRONG deceptive techniques to prove his points. If his position is so strong, why does he need to use deception?
Well, all of it, I don't get what you are saying that is not honest. VFX states something but all you do is state something else as if you are refuting him as being dishonest but it's as if you are confused or lost or something. I mean I have to wonder did you even pay attention to what VFX was saying in his videos?
In VFX videos shown here VFX was participating in quote mining against G0at. Quote mining is a dishonest act and is usually used to make hasty generalizations or to have proof by authority (both of which are logical fallacies.)
Quote mining is done by taking a few sentences (however many is needed) of a whole body of what a person said in order to make them seem to support something they don't, or be something they're not.
Well, first make sure you watch the 4 original videos for context.
Take the first example:
G0at was talking about two seperate subjects: Mutation and Evolution. VFX cut out the subjects so it looked like g0at was contridicting himself, as though g0at couldn't make up his mind.
I then showed a clip from the g0at's original video with the entire quote in context to show what VFX cut out.
In short: VFX cut out important parts in order to trick his audience.
Sounds like you just tried to say that since VFX didn't quote him fully and state the entire scaffold of evolution that he was being dishonest. I don't agree, what VFX stated was a refutation to just the main notion of random mutation and natural selection not every single crazy evolutionary ideal or statement by g0at. Just because you have an excuse or reason doesn't justify the claim.
I have no problem cutting out useless bits. But he cut out the subject of a sentence! When you do that you can make anyone say almost anything.
For example, if you said "Apples, they are delicious"
And I took out the subject "apples" I could then say: "ChildOL had this to said this about babies "they are delicious""
That's EXACTLY what VFX did. He cut out the subject "evolution" and used context to imply "mutation" It's not as incriminating as the baby example, but still a lie.
The fact that you are interpreting the word's of those who are arguing is misleading the people watching your video. You are obviously being one sided in this argument, and not looking at it objectively. Leave the people to decide their opinion by hearing the words of both speakers and not your interpretations of their words.
Why is it misleading? Everyone knows I'm interpreting what they say. Heck I put a clip of what they really say right before it.
The only different is that I offer my deconstruction of what of what I think was really meant in the hopes that it becomes lucid. This is my attempt to cut through the bullshit.
It's called an editorial piece. And I think it's pretty obvious that VFX is lying. Disagree? Tell me why! Agree? Let me know!
Who cares if people are less educated in rhetoric or logic. If they watched both videos, they can decide for themselves if they are being mislead or not. If they watch both, you don't need to be educated in rhetoric to know if there is information being skewed or not. You can hear the words out of both arguers and decide if information is being skewed. The only unbiased words are those that come straight out of the speakers mouth.
I care. I encourage them to watch all 4 videos. This video is supplimentory. Sometimes you do need to be educated in rhetoric to notice it, it wouldn't be rhetorical otherwise. I don't know why you're acting like I want people to use this as asubstitute for the origional videos, This is mearly to draw attention to PARTICULAR PARTS of the originals so you pay attention when VFX misrepresents.
I understand your intent of trying to clear up misinterpretations, but please stop posting these nonsense video's. By interpreting the misinterpretations your blurring the pictures even more. Both of VFX and Goat's videos are online. Just have people watch both and let them choose for themselves as to who is right and who is wrong. This video doesn't add to anything. This is just propaganda for people to support Goat's views. Let the people decide for themselves.
This is not propaganda because I'm merely pointing out the truth. If you or anyone think I got a part wrong, let me know exactly where and how and why, and I'll change it.
What I do bring to the table are exact markers in the videos in which VFX is lying so people can know where to look.
This video is meant as a helper guide for those who aren't educated in rhetoric or logic. It's hard for some people to tell exactly where and how they're being mislead.
And you are misleading them more. These arguments cannot stand by themselves. You have to look at the whole arguments for each person, then pair their whole argument with the other person's whole argument, you cant segment it like this. Also, the fact that you are saying that this is to help those who are less educated screams "propaganda". The fact that you are trying to point out the "truth" to the people is propaganda. Dictators used mediums to "guide" the less educated to a truth thats false
Yes I can segment it, because my intention is to draw attention to the exact locations where VFX is lying about g0at's position and where he uses deceptive editing techniques.
And this isn't propiganda because I don't use any deception or lies, just evidence. This is within the framework of the other videos, so I'm not hiding evidence. I even link them in my description box.
The text is obviously my opinion, but I believe that it's 95% correct, and no one has corrected me yet
Hmm, I think I must not've been clear. My first two clips were from the opening montague where he cut out the important bits to make it look like he and g0at were talking about the same thing, when in the oroginal videos they were talking about different things.
He did use the quote in it's entirety in a different video but he cut it short in his 4th video.
exactly there would be selection against eyes that see above water because it would need more resources then simpler eyes there for you get a state in where selection favor the current form. ( call it perfection ).
only if enivorment changes will selection favor a mutation vs the current state again.
so no mutation has not stop and the way g0at put it could be misunderstood for the stopping of mutation ( evolution whit a goal )
Correct! For change to occur requires a certain adaptation to it's environment. If no further adaptation is needed, then it doesn't gain further mutations to change it. It doesn't stop sort of say, but more or less waits for any change of environment to begin again.
One could see VFX making an honest mistake, but judging by his character and pervious misquotes one can also see VFX purpously twisting g0at's words to suit his own agenda.
[Quote] Correct! For change to occur requires a certain adaptation to it's environment. If no further adaptation is needed, then it doesn't gain further mutations to change it [EndQuote]
Agreed, but that's the problem. Science can only verify these mutations happening among the same species. How do you jump from that (Micro) to a philosophical assumption (Macro) when there simply is no empirical data to confirm otherwise?
It's not exactly a "jump" from Micro to Macro. It's the exact same thing except of time scale. A lot of slight variations will sooner or later result in a larger variation which is Macro Evolution. There is plenty of empirical data to confirm these findings via comparing DNA, Transitional Fossils and chemistry.
Two groups of the same species can mate over and over in seperate environments until one group has changed so much that they cannot mate with the second. They become two seperate species
Again it's a MAJOR jump to conclude that just because Micro is true automatically proves Macro.
A good analogy is this.
1 x 1 = 1 - Over a few hundred years, although we may have various sizes and colors the result is ALWAYS one (Micro)
1 x 1 = 2 - Over millions of years, again this is an illogical position. A species can ONLY evolve within it's OWN kind. There are LIMITS to these mutations; the reason why we don't get animals the size of texas or roaches resistant to sledgehammers.
OK, KKF go wikipedia mutations. There it describes the different kinds of mutations. You'll see that there's a mutation called "ampliflications" that douplicate genetic material. Those duplicated genes can then mutate to do more stuff.
So a better analogy would be this
1x1.000001 = 1.000001/year So over a few hundred years you wouldn't notice that big a change (1.000321), but one is happening. After a million years it does become 2.
Also, are you going to reply to my PM, so I can rebut?
I stated before that there are LIMITS to these mutations. So 1.00001 will STOP at 1.00036 (Just an Example). It CAN'T go any further than that; hence the reason why we don't have monsterous animals the size of texas walking around or bugs that become resistant to falling objects.
You're point is crystal clear, but it's not supported by evidence that I kow of. I have seen the fossils (or pictures of them, rather) of transitional forms of a prehistoric mammel evolving into a whale, and many other fossils like those ones.
Ok, the texas sized animal is just a scale limit. See as animals increase in size the ratio of body mass to supporting structure changes drastically. If they get over a certain size, their bones simply wouldn't be able to support their body mass and they would shatter under their own weight.
Bones have physical limits to strength, too. So we can't just see bones infinately getting stronger.
That's fine than don't you think bones could also evolve into larger quantities? Look at the T-Rex, obviously it had huge bones. Why haven't they expanded into large trunks like Sequoia Trees and scaled the size of Texas in order to support the rest of the body?
Again, because there are limits. You don't need any scientific proof to verify this. You can literally see it with your own eyes: Dogs create various types of dogs, cats create various types of cats.. It stops there..
Ok, look at a sphere, the larger you make the sphere the larger the ratio of VOLUME to SURFACE AREA becomes. Se even if the bones multiply and expand, they're going to eventually bump into the physical limits of the material that creates them, this is simple math. The bones are made of Calcium which IS stong but not invincible.
So there ARE physical limits to chemical bonds in materials yes, but those are completely unrelated to DNA limitations. You're talking about two different things.
again. if there are limits on a larger scale. We can conclude that there are limits on a miniature scale. Besides, DNA also rely on these same bonds. Even though necessarily they may contain various properties. The bonds themselves still exist in both. DNA contain the genetic information that make up for your bones, skin, etc.. So to say that bones have limits is EQUAL as saying DNA does.
Of course DNA has limitations! I.E. It can't use iron to make bones.
However, you were trying to imply that the physical limitations of calcium and other DNA-based building blocks were indicative of some intrinsic genetic roadblock that prevents one animal from evolving into another.
Fossils prove that no such roadblock exists! There's tons of transitional fossils! For example: a land dwelling creature turning into a whale.
I think you were lied to by the Kent Hovind videos..Damn Him!
Kent Hovind! haha. I should equally include Richard Dawkins for that matter because that fellow is all sorts of failure.
but anywho, the fossils show ZERO transitions only VARIATIONS. Show me a fossil record that displays ACTUAL transitions from a land creature into a whale or vice-versa.
I did not mean to make the Hovind argument offensively, that's just the first source of the Gould quote mine that fooled so many people into thinking there were no transitional forms.
If you wiki "Evolution of cetaceans" You'll see several transitional forms all the way from Packacetus to modern whales. There are many fossils of each. In them, they observe a smooth gradient from nostrils to blow hole and inner ear adjustments from air to underwater hearing.
Whenever an animal has a mutation it will pass down to the offspring provided that animal is able to mate. So, if it's a really bad mutation the animal will die. If it's good the animal will thrive and successfully mate. The reason why you don't see animals that big is because it is unnecessary and probably has more disadvantages than advantages when compared to smaller sized animals. Not to mention there are some scientific laws that will prevent that sort of thing.
A dog can't made with a wolf. A tiger can't mate with a lion... why is this? They all have common traits, and the fossil records shows signs of common ancestory, so why can't they breed within each species? It's because they have gone from one species to another.
This is what happened for the great apes and human. They're all primates, and we all shared a common ancestor, but somewhere along the lines we changed so much that we could not breed with the other groups, making us a new species.
Wrong. Look up Dog Wolf Hybrid in Wikipedia. They are from the SAME species.
[A tiger can't mate with a lion]
Wrong again. Ever watch Napoleon Dynamite picture of a Liger? Yeah that's actually a real hybrid. Check that out ALSO on wikipedia. It's possible. Why? Because again. they are of the SAME species.
Lastly, common traits do NOT mean a common ancestry from ALL species. That is EQUALLY as valid as evidence for a common creator.
I know for certain that a lion and tiger are not the same species. A lion and tiger combination are able to have offspring because they share enough genetic characteristics to do so. However, although they may produce a liger there will be many problems ahead for it to try and mate successfully with anything. I believe that ligers are actually sterile or something to that effect, much like mules.
Agreed. However this isn't evidence lions and tigers came from a rock, goo, a fish, or a frog. To say they come from a common ancestry could be EQUALLY concluded that they came from a common creator.
Lastly, this still ignores the notion that there are still LIMITS to the entire process of evolution.
No one is saying that lions and tigers came from a rock, goo, a fish, or a frog. Anyone who believes this is a fool and anyone who believes that that's what evolution is is an even bigger fool. And although there could be a creator, evolution proves that that's just unnecessary. Life can function and adapt perfectly fine on it's own without another being interrupting.
OK let me rephrase, because obviously you are not getting the logic that I am implying. Lions and tigers "evolved" from a rock, goo, a fish, and a frog over millions and millions of years ago.
Look it up in your textbooks. This is exactly what they teach in schools.
Here, I'll provide you with a sources:
"Biology the Unity and Diversity of Life - Wadsworth 1992 p. 301"
Life can ADAPT... NOT create... hence you'll NEED an intelligence to do that for you (a.k.a God)
Evolution is all about adaption, not creation. But evolution in no way states that modern day fishes and frogs evolved into tigers and lions.
Abiogenesis doesn't even state that life developed from rocks. And nothing states that a whole multi-celled organism just came about randomly walking out of goo.
What's really interesting is that if this were true then evolution would be incorrect and we probably would have something else to talk about.
Crap. I keep confusing my arguments with you and Sedalb. I totally agree with you about Evolution having a tie to Adaptation. In fact if would argue that we should just call it Adaptation instead and leave the notion of Evolution to the process of species evolving into a completely different species.
Why should we leave the notion of Evolution? Just because you don't believe it exists doesn't mean it doesn't. We have proof of it otherwise.
PS: It'd be nice if you responded to my questions instead of only a select few. I've answered all of yours, I'd be pleased as punch if you'd answer mine.
lol Sedalb. I'm pretty much done bro. But just to question your question. If Evolution is false.. than what exactly would you consider the alternative to be?
*sigh* thanks for answering my questiong with a question. I'll answer you though. The scientific method can't just rule out two explanations. If we take two suggestions, and one is proven false doesn't grant the other correct by default. I don't know what the alternative would be because we have so much evidence for Evolution while other suggestions are simply "ideas" or pusdo science.
If you can't prove Creation then don't consider it as science.
Oh, please, you didn't even try to answer the question. Just prove creationism with the proper evidence that you have. Since it's so true it shouldn't be that hard at all.
To answer your question, though, to be honest if we take out all the evidence that proves evolution as a fact then the only other alternative is creationism. And in this instance (and only this instance) creationism is debatable. But for right now this isn't the case as the evidence for evolution is clear.
[To answer your question, though, to be honest if we take out all the evidence that proves evolution as a fact then the only other alternative is creationism.]
Sedalb, I'm currently in a few other debates and it's hard trying to keep track of everything. But if there is an argument that you would like me to specifically talk about. I'd be more than glad to. Just point it out for me that way we can discuss.
A Liger isn't a combination of lions mating with tigers. It's a trait of two lions mating, then the baby carrying certain traits of the tiger, and vice versa.
There's a family in south america that had children with thick fur on their bodies. It's a common trait of the common ancestor of years pats. It's not because the mother mated with a gorilla, but activated previous genes of generations past.
With that said. Let's see the cross breeding between a human and an ape. Their DNA is only a 2% difference anyway correct? So we should get at least some breeds possible. Perhaps a Humape or Apan hybrids.
lol
point being.. If you can't breed two species together, the chances are they are of a different kind of species. Not the same.
Horses and Zebras are of the same line of species. Dogs and Wolves - Same. Boars and Pigs - Same. Camel and Llamas - Same.
[A Liger isn't a combination of lions mating with tigers. It's a trait of two lions mating, then the baby carrying certain traits of the tiger, and vice versa.]
Wrong. A liger is the cross breeding of a male lion and a female tiger. They are NOT between to lions.
Same with Tigons or Tigrons (Cross breed between a Male Tiger and Female Lion)
These aren't accidents. They are coded with the same information, thus can produce offspring.
There's no evidence that I know of that says DNA has an intrinsic limit preventing it from mutation too fram from it's mother population. If there IS evidence to think that, let me know what it is. Your monsterous animal and tough cockroach examples only show Physical limits to materials like calcium and carotin. They don't demonstrate any intrinsic DNA limitation.
DNA is a structured code. The limits are already installed in it's program (mRNA - Genetic Information). It cannot CREATE a new code. Only use the SAME code it ALREADY has to develop various structures. This goes back to my math analogy. Every different species is some how installed with it's OWN code that develops its parts. Re-arranging the code and multiplying it will only produce various outcomes (Micro-Evolution). However the code CANNOT evolve into a completely different code.
DNA is not a perfect sequence and it is because of this break in sequence that DNA is so wonderful.
"It cannot CREATE a new code. Only use the SAME code it ALREADY has to develop various structures."
No one has even suggested that something new is created. No one who seriously understands genetics even says that. Mutations are a result of an "accident" in the "genetic code" which is usually influenced by something in the environment but can also come about seemingly random.
[Mutations are a result of an "accident" in the "genetic code" ]
Agreed, but again this uses a code that is previously installed. A fish and a human are made up of an entirely different code. With that said, multiplying a fish over millions of years will only generate the SAME code but in various different ways. It will NOT generate a brand new code.
If I multiply fish all I get is the same fish. It's not going to change color or size. It's just going to be the same exact fish with the same exact scales placed in exactly the same order.
Actually, if I take your words literally it doesn't even make sense.
6000000*fish=?
You can't multiply something by fish. It's impossible.
Think of an alphabet with only 4 letters: A, O, E, D. Now it's possible that you can spell various different words with these letters, like "Do" "Add" "Odd". Now event though you can re-arrange these words in specific orders to make sense (adaptation). You CANNOT create new words or arranged orders without new letters (Limits). Multiplying only generates more of the same words that can be re-arranged into different orders (Micro). It doesn't CREATE new ones (Macro).
What on earth are you talking about? Evolution is not anything like that and especially not DNA. Maybe if you expand on your idea a little more it would make a lot more sense (though it might not be in your favor.) Maybe study a little bit on how evolution works.
No. Specifically speaking, the bonds that make these pairs up and codes that create them (RNA/mRNA). In other words, the genetic information that categorize these pairs to create the diversity of life.
They are all provided with information that is limited to it's specific development.
So in your model of the DNA molecule there is a code that is programmed into some empty unknown space that orders the base pairs to be in a specific order at all times which determines how a species looks, acts, etc. in the environment.
How about some evidence to support your hypothesis? It does sound interesting and I'd like to learn more from a genius such as yourself.
I never implied that I was a genius. I'm only stating things using simple logic. There's no deep intellectual factors being applied, which is why I am surprised you can't understand it. Perhaps I am just bad with my vocabulary? Or horrible at tieing analogies to my arguments. Nevertheless, suck at trying to reason.
I still don't understand your analogy. Are you saying that DNA cannot create new groups of letters that encode different amino acids? In terms of DNA, what sort of process would you consider "Macro"?
Specifically speaking "Genome's - the hereditary information encoded into DNA" RNA is also another good example. Here we have SPECIFIC instructions that are LIMITED to only it's creation or species. So while we may have similar traits of information as another species have (like eyes, nose, ears, etc.) we are still separated by these specific instructions; hence the reason why dogs make dogs and humans make humans.
Macro implies given the expansive amount of time, this information can improve
I think our issue is the defining of DNA. With that said the understanding I have is that DNA, being a nucleic acid, contains genetic information that make-up the development and functioning of every living organism with an exception to some viruses.
Now DNA has a set of blueprints or a code that contain the instructions needed to construct other components of cells.
These blueprints or codes are LIMITED to the instructions they currently have in DNA. They CANNOT be enhanced or improved.
So when I refer to these codes and blueprints as having limits. I am also referring to DNA. It's the same for both. DNA is LIMITED in the sense that the instructions it currently has are.
So you're saying that if the "instructions that form cell components" part of DNA were to be "enhanced or improved" That would constitute a macro change?
Do I have your position right?
Are there any other DNA changes that you would consider macro changes?
Indeed. If we can have just a few macro changes in DNA than I believe it is possible to have a wide variety of changes in the overall organism.
After all, Apes and Humans only have a 2% difference and yet look at the MAJOR separation. Bananas and Humans are at a 50% difference - yet another major difference.
SO again, if we can test, repeat, and verify macro changes in DNA I believe we have substantial evidence for Macro Evolution.
OK, I almost have your position down. What DNA roadblock is there between an ape and a human that would prevent it from evolving into somtheing like us, with a large brain?
It can't be the cell component thing because we have the exact same cell components as apes, just in different proportions. I.E. The same brain and neuron structure, just more of it.
Lastly, I'd like to add that Natural Selection actually removes from this gene pool of DNA. In other words, information becomes lost after generations. This is a good explanation as to why we have separate looking species even though they are essentially the same (Horses/Zebras); hence the environment they were in, eventually killed off some of their genetic information that had been originally stored. This also fits with the Laws of Thermodynamics perfectly.
So why do you think macro evolution is an impossibility? Don't you think that over time all these little changes will eventually add up to one big change? It wouldn't make sense for it not to.
And I'd just like to note that not all validated theories are based on experiments that can be tested and repeated. A lot of it has to do with observation such as the theory of gravity and atomic theory.
Simko084. The answer is NO. Why? Because these changes have LIMITS to them. They cannot branch out to form something ENTIRELY different from itself. You can't have primitive fish like frog evolve into a human over billions of years. It has limits and will always have them. This is the reason why we don't see animals the size of Texas or bugs that become resistant to falling objects. I've already gone over this with Paul.
And you apparently never learn ANYTHING because I've already explaned how these physical material limits have NOTHING TO DO with whether a fish can evolve to a human or not. They don't Okay? Understand? Your example DOES NOT PROVE that fish DNA cannot evolve to Human DNA! It's unrelated!
I'm done here. Thanks Paul for the wonderful debate... Really, I tried understanding your position and provided rebuttal's with the most clearest details/analogies as I could give them.
If I have frustrated you than I am sorry. I do not mean to come off as smug or preachy with my arguments. And if you feel offended by them than I truly understand.
This is not a good explanation for why we have a Zebra because it has more DNA changes between it and a horse then we do with with apes. Are you implying that apes "devolved" from us?
And PLEASE don't invoke thermodymanics. Not a single intelligent person believes that bullocks anymore. Evolution no more violates thermodynamics then a baby maturing to adult-hood does.
No apes are a COMPLETELY separate species. I stated this to Simko084. We humans are actually ALL "devolved" from a more perfect human being (arguably Adam/Eve) into various races (African, Caucasian, Mexican, etc..) Apes "devolved" from a more perfect ancient like ape. As Natural Selection takes from DNA, the information splits and makes varieties of the SAME species using the ORIGINAL code. It does NOT improve the code.
Lastly, adults eventually become old too and die - Thermodynamics.
You are going against yourself because you defines MACRO evolutionary DNA change in a way that didn't apply a barrier to humans/apes! Therefore, based on what YOU SAID, there's no reason to believe that apes didn't come from humans or vice versa.
And seriously, if you continue to persue the thermodynamic argument, you make yourself look like a fool. Even ID'ers and creationsists don't use that one anymore, because it so obviously doesn't apply.
Wow, that's the most bigoted comment I've ever heard someone say. You have no idea how humans first came about so stop pretending like you do. I'm not saying I don't either which is my point; nobody knows where humans came from for certain. But I have a pretty damn good guess that isn't just a random story that has no proof what-so-ever. Saying we all came from a set of perfect human beings is worse than saying we evolved from a primitive life form.
No Simko084. I PROFESS that MY BELIEF is RELIGIOUS. I was empirically NOT there to see it all happen so I can't tell you that these are FACTS. I am only giving you a reasonable assumption based off the evidence we currently have.
The REAL problem is YOU DON'T believe your views are RELIGIOUS rather base them as SCIENTIFIC FACTS. That is a lie.
So now we're debating on which one requires faith? Is that what's going on? What makes your view any more truer than mine?
I honestly don't think you have any right to try and tell me that evolution is a lie when you have no understanding of the scientific process and continue to ignore the mountains -- no, worlds of evidence!
I'm trying to be nice and state everything in a way that you can understand it. But it's gotten to a point where you simply don't listen at all! I'm talking about a baby developing from an embryo to maturity, which SHOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE if your bizarre definition of thermodynamics is correct. and you simply IGNORE THAT and say "OH, but they get old eventually don't they?" This is a BLATEND dodge that just proves you don't even WANT to learn or have an intelligent discussion at all!
It just boggles my mind that you'd start a debate, yet just intellectually sidestep everything. It makes me question your motive behind ever starting a debate in the first place? Did you not want to learn? If you did want to learn then why don't you listen and answer points directly instead of sidestepping and bringing up new points. Especially considering the number of replies! Observe the number you've posted! You make up almost half of the replies on this video.
If side-stepping is how you see it that's fine. But like I said before, I tried answering to the best of my ability in the most simplest way I could explain it. If you do not agree or do not understand than I am sorry. There is nothing more I can do.
Since you're busting out equations, lets do this.
x = micro
X = macro
10x = X
So, if we have a change, it stays as "x" and shows as a slight change. If we have yet another change, it's two changes from the original state, therefore it's 2x.
The changes keep piling on, furthering itself from the original state that eventually, it becomes macro evolution. Hope this equation helps your understanding.
I urge you to please not use your idea of taking an item or basic mathematical proof and saying "over billions of years _____ may change color but it will not become a new _____!" For your own benefit please don't use anything like that. That is a straw man you would be constructing.
Really, the difference between micro and macro is time. If you have a lot of micro evolution than you're bound to have to call that whole set of micro evolutions one macro evolution.
Is it just me or does Paulmarko NOT realize that we can watch these ENTIRE videos on youtube OURSELVES if we want a clearer picture?
Having to post them together in one LOOONG video is not necessary... You are wasting your time trying to prove a point that has already been proven: Goat lost the debate... Get over it
Excuse me? G0at lost the debate? Are you uneducated about debates or are you just very biased?
Here's the thing. VFX started off this whole thing with a straw man argument for his video. He also lied a few times to support his argument. In his next three videos all he did was quote mining with more lying. VFX had no real debate going and still doesn't.
G0at has yet to make a real ad hominem attack and all of his statements still stand.
Well Simko084, I guess if you call distorting the position of your opponent winning then you are correct. However venomfangx just distorted goat's position and took him out of context.
Yes I've watched them numerous times and I tried finding faults in VFX video's but he's right. The full videos just paint a BIGGER picture of what VFX was just trying to show in a short argument...
Nevertheless his points are valid and therefore I conclude Goat lost the debate horribly....
I've concluded that you're really biased. I've seen a lot of your posts all around youtube and basically all you do is cover your ears and scream "LA LA LA" until people stop talking to you realizing that you're just a waste of time. You have no understanding of the scientific process nor do you care to understand it in the slightest. Your logic makes no sense at all. You're just another blind follower of intelligent design.
VFX is lying and if you can't see that, then there is something wrong.
By "LA LA LA" I think you are refering to 1ProudFemaleAtheist... She's really good at that.
Also, if that is your best defense for me being biased than I think you'd better find another because it's a horrible one at most.
Lastly, I love how you directly insult my intelligence without even trying to prompt a debate, if you really think telling me I know NOTHING is going to validate your claims, you clearly are dilusional
These "debates" you try to start just end up in you saying macro-evolution doesn't exist. Sometimes that evolution isn't science or at least it isn't real science, you say. You even say that because the theory of evolution supposedly changes then it must be wrong. I don't see how any of these points you try to make is right. I'd love to see you try to use one of your flawed analogies again to support your points. You may think you're being smart about this; honestly, I have to strongly disagree.
VFX's entire argument in his forth video rests on the assumption that MUTATION is not occuring today and his ONLY evidence for this is that g0at said "it stopped there"
However, g0at NEVER said that mutation stopped. He said that the octopus's eye stopped short of developing human eye-features. So VFX's argument is based on a misunderstanding.
Mutations DO happen today. and there's so much evidence for it it's undeniable. If you want more information I'll happily PM you!
Point 1: VFX stated that you can't have things with ORDER, STRUCTURE, or INTELLIGENCE come into existence by NON-INTELLIGENCE (a.k.a Unguided/Random Processes)
Point 2: Evolution is based on a RANDOM process (Trial and Error)
Conclusion: Therefore things we see and can verify that have structure, order, and intelligence are the direct result FROM intelligence hence Evolution is less likely probable
Mix a bottle of salt and pepper together, shake it, and try and COMPLETELY separate the two substances.
Here's another: take a watch, break it into hundreds of pieces. Now stick the pieces in a bag and shake the bag. What are your chances that you can repair the watch give or take a million years?
My point? You can't, randomization doesn't create structure and order, yet alone intelligence.
//take a watch, break it into hundreds of pieces. Now stick the pieces in a bag and shake the bag. What are your chances that you can repair the watch give or take a million years?//
What? The chances of that happening is unbelievably small, and your point is? Why are watches in this arguement? They're not an organic life form that requires chemistry to work, they can't even reproduce to make Evolution possible.
You DO know what evolution is right? It's not at all random, the chemistry guiding it are all very controlled. It takes into account so many different forces of natural selection and variation mixed with environment and chemistry that we can't predict, thus random.
You do understand that Evolution has various degrees in it's meaning correct? Even if watches aren't organic, you still have to account for where the first organic mechanism derived from... Obviously you're left with non-organic material, hence the explanation of Abiogenesis. So my analogy perfectly aligns with my argument.
You have to account for where this guiding chemistry evolved from and what exactly is behind the "controlling" factor of it.
Chemistry is what happens when atoms exchange energy. Energy so far cannot be created nor distroyed, so there had to have been something. The notion that "Nothing" caused the big bang... not sure where it came from and it was not what I heard.
The watch cannot reproduce, and it doesn't adapt to it's environment (except rust). It can't be used in an arguement in evolution as it just doesn't fit within the evolutionary standpoint. Perhaps your version of evolution, but not science's.
Your arguement basically says "If I smash an orange in millions of pecies, and an apple tree doesn't grow, I conclude that apples are a lie".
Silly isn't it, but you need to realise the falsehoods in your statements. Evolution requires certain things. Metals and certain parts of engineering are a different science, leave the watches there and discuss organic life.
Furthermore, even if by some chance you proved Evolution to be false, it does not make Creation true. A simple misunderstanding.
Tell me something Sedalb. Did these forces (Chemical, Natural Selection, etc...) know what they were creating when they started off with the first organism to what we see today? Or was it all by accident? Did the earth know exactly how to align with the sun in order to support life or was that too an accident? Did the universe know what it was doing when it came into existence or was it again all by accident?
Does a coin "know" where to fall once released? Was a canyon told to erode or a dimond told to be pressurized? What you're debating here is the origin of these forces such as gravity, chemisty etc. Honest answer, I don't know where they came from, but neither do you.
I suppose this is the opportune momment to say "Well it had to be designed". Sorry, but the lack of understanding of something does not mean that it was designed. It's either created or accident huh? Narrow choice wouldn't you say?
[Quote]Your arguement basically says "If I smash an orange in millions of pecies, and an apple tree doesn't grow, I conclude that apples are a lie".[EndQuote]
Clearly you do NOT understand my analogy. That's ok though, evolutionists are usually hard minded when it comes to simple logic.
I understood it perfectly, clearly you just can't come to terms of how rediculous it is. Using a mechanized object to prove something that acts on living organisms to function doesn't give any point but your lack of knowledge on the subject.
It's apples and oranges, two different things. Please try and understand.
explain how the analogy is apt at all. Nothing is random about chemical evolution aside from the diversity, but what survives is not. Stop pretending humans poofed into existence on both sides, we actually have a gradual explanation, not some shake n bake and wow humans. You know that too, so don't strawman it to make yourself feel better. If you analogy actually covered things other than...salt, then planets wouldn't exist. Too bad there's gravity; too bad there's natural selection.
You can laugh and make fun by the use of words like "shake'n'bake" all you want but in the end you're the stupid one who believes we all came from nothing BY nothing and than call that science.
So, in the words, I'll dodge that question. Nobody ever said it was nothing, so you lose there, You're the one using special pleading and saying "everything needs a beginning;god doesn't need a beginning" It's then by the way, and don't make me ask you to define science and laugh at the failure. Address my post, don't just go "oh well you can call it silly but it's not" then attack my position, and do a poor job of it.
Great vid. Happy I found it. Thx.
ILYIAB 3 years ago
i seriously think that VFX is purposely lying and being dishonest...I don't think that there's any WAY someone could misunderstand a response that thoroughly...I think he's doing what many lawyers do...distort the evidence and quote mine and make it look like the valid point is ridiculous. It's truly a shame...half of the US is still in the Dark Ages, scientifically. *shakes head in disappointment*
softy1000 3 years ago 5
RAmen
thespurginator 3 years ago
He's lying for "truth."
VenonnFang 2 years ago
VFX is such a horrible guy. He is just disgusting
Jobbothenonbeliever 2 years ago 2
I wonder how crazy the new guy, geerup is going to get...I hope he at least doesn't do any illegal shit.
softy1000 2 years ago
this song is so familar what film is it from?
AzureKakashi 3 years ago
It's Phillip Glass. It's from the Truman show. (Also Powasquatsi)
paulmarko 3 years ago
This is completely irrelevent to this video.
If the bible were admissable as evidence, I'd have to accept all kinds of other evidence with similer attributes. Like the Koran and evidence as well.
Heck even Journey to the West has a creation story. I'd have a hell of a time telling truth fron fiction if I thought the bible were 100% true.
But I'm a thinking man. Therin lies the rub.
paulmarko 3 years ago
Here's my take on the common theist diatribe. They can make the most logical case for any of their claims, they can convince people that on the basis of their reasoning that their claims are true.
But that's not the case. Evidence is required in order to declare a claim true or not.
I have said many time before and will again now, asserting things, no matter how logical they might be, is mental masturbation at best without evidence to support them.
wynd2007 3 years ago
I completely agree. You can make convincing philosophical arguments with various logical falacies, but it really does come down to evidence, and of that, there is none.
paulmarko 3 years ago
just gonna say thx for pointing that out. great job on seeing what i didn't too.
-Danger
dangerwolf1 3 years ago
And it has been said that we will all find out the TRUTH in the end. Well if I'm on Gods side and I'm wrong,well then, what have I really lost????
davecline1975 3 years ago
You just used "Pascal's wager" You can google it to find out why you're really no better off than anyone if you believe in the christian god.
paulmarko 3 years ago
Well pointed. Pascal worked with the assumption that there were only two ways to be - Roman Catholic, or atheist.
With a somewhat less finite number of theologies relating to God, all of which have an equal probability of being right, your odds of getting into heaven simply by sticking by the wager and adhering to just one of them is not good. It's a ridiculous notion in a modern world with so much uncertainty.
TheNeognostic 3 years ago
my favorite rebuttal
---there are over 20,00 gods to piss off. Most of them don't care about non-believers, but none of them take to kindly to "false prophets"
thespurginator 3 years ago
My biggest thing with natral selection is this. If it is a servival of the fittest then why are there so many differant plants and animals? Now I know your gonna say over millions of years..... But how do we even really know the earth is MIllions of years old? where is the PROOF of that? and please don't say carbon 14 (thats a joke all in its own)
davecline1975 3 years ago
C'mon dude. I don't want to get into any more evolution debates. This video is about how and where VFX misrepresents.
Your first problem is a common misunderstanding. You can find really detailed explanations in the "blind watchmaker". It's not a light read, but very rewading.
There are great answers on the web for the age of the earth. Just google it!
paulmarko 3 years ago
//how do we even really know the earth is MIllions of years old?//
There is excellent agreement on about 4.5 billion years, between several meteorites and by several different dating methods. I sent you a PM for a link so that you can study the evidence for yourself.
mirandansa 3 years ago
@davecline1975 Evidence is always a joke to a fool who jokes of reality :D Sorry my ignoramous friend, but Carbon dating is not a joke. Despite what biased christians who do not want to believe the truth will tell you. Furthermore, not only is carbon dating accurate, but other forms of isotope dating will collaborate various items date as well as the date of earth. If it's NOT accurate, why don't we EVER find animals dated from an earlier date in the rock layers found to be younger?
Lipitorforall 1 year ago
This is called an assertion without evidence. Unless you use evidence, your claim has no meaning.
You can believe whatever you want to believe. But I believe there is a right and wrong. and VFX is using WRONG deceptive techniques to prove his points. If his position is so strong, why does he need to use deception?
paulmarko 3 years ago
I'm sorry, but this video is total junk, and nothing but a ruse and distraction for those who want to believe whatever just because.
ChildOL 3 years ago
I'm sorry, but I just don't see the point in this video. I don't see any dishonesty in VFX's video replies.
ChildOL 3 years ago
I admit, it is a bit confusing.
Which parts exactly don't you understand? I'd be happy to elaborate.
paulmarko 3 years ago
Well, all of it, I don't get what you are saying that is not honest. VFX states something but all you do is state something else as if you are refuting him as being dishonest but it's as if you are confused or lost or something. I mean I have to wonder did you even pay attention to what VFX was saying in his videos?
ChildOL 3 years ago
In VFX videos shown here VFX was participating in quote mining against G0at. Quote mining is a dishonest act and is usually used to make hasty generalizations or to have proof by authority (both of which are logical fallacies.)
Quote mining is done by taking a few sentences (however many is needed) of a whole body of what a person said in order to make them seem to support something they don't, or be something they're not.
Simko084 3 years ago
Well, first make sure you watch the 4 original videos for context.
Take the first example:
G0at was talking about two seperate subjects: Mutation and Evolution. VFX cut out the subjects so it looked like g0at was contridicting himself, as though g0at couldn't make up his mind.
I then showed a clip from the g0at's original video with the entire quote in context to show what VFX cut out.
In short: VFX cut out important parts in order to trick his audience.
Make Sense? Disagree?
paulmarko 3 years ago
Sounds like you just tried to say that since VFX didn't quote him fully and state the entire scaffold of evolution that he was being dishonest. I don't agree, what VFX stated was a refutation to just the main notion of random mutation and natural selection not every single crazy evolutionary ideal or statement by g0at. Just because you have an excuse or reason doesn't justify the claim.
ChildOL 3 years ago
I have no problem cutting out useless bits. But he cut out the subject of a sentence! When you do that you can make anyone say almost anything.
For example, if you said "Apples, they are delicious"
And I took out the subject "apples" I could then say: "ChildOL had this to said this about babies "they are delicious""
That's EXACTLY what VFX did. He cut out the subject "evolution" and used context to imply "mutation" It's not as incriminating as the baby example, but still a lie.
paulmarko 3 years ago
The fact that you are interpreting the word's of those who are arguing is misleading the people watching your video. You are obviously being one sided in this argument, and not looking at it objectively. Leave the people to decide their opinion by hearing the words of both speakers and not your interpretations of their words.
Karasu192 3 years ago
Why is it misleading? Everyone knows I'm interpreting what they say. Heck I put a clip of what they really say right before it.
The only different is that I offer my deconstruction of what of what I think was really meant in the hopes that it becomes lucid. This is my attempt to cut through the bullshit.
It's called an editorial piece. And I think it's pretty obvious that VFX is lying. Disagree? Tell me why! Agree? Let me know!
paulmarko 3 years ago
Who cares if people are less educated in rhetoric or logic. If they watched both videos, they can decide for themselves if they are being mislead or not. If they watch both, you don't need to be educated in rhetoric to know if there is information being skewed or not. You can hear the words out of both arguers and decide if information is being skewed. The only unbiased words are those that come straight out of the speakers mouth.
Karasu192 3 years ago
I care. I encourage them to watch all 4 videos. This video is supplimentory. Sometimes you do need to be educated in rhetoric to notice it, it wouldn't be rhetorical otherwise. I don't know why you're acting like I want people to use this as asubstitute for the origional videos, This is mearly to draw attention to PARTICULAR PARTS of the originals so you pay attention when VFX misrepresents.
paulmarko 3 years ago
I understand your intent of trying to clear up misinterpretations, but please stop posting these nonsense video's. By interpreting the misinterpretations your blurring the pictures even more. Both of VFX and Goat's videos are online. Just have people watch both and let them choose for themselves as to who is right and who is wrong. This video doesn't add to anything. This is just propaganda for people to support Goat's views. Let the people decide for themselves.
Karasu192 3 years ago
This is not propaganda because I'm merely pointing out the truth. If you or anyone think I got a part wrong, let me know exactly where and how and why, and I'll change it.
What I do bring to the table are exact markers in the videos in which VFX is lying so people can know where to look.
This video is meant as a helper guide for those who aren't educated in rhetoric or logic. It's hard for some people to tell exactly where and how they're being mislead.
paulmarko 3 years ago
And you are misleading them more. These arguments cannot stand by themselves. You have to look at the whole arguments for each person, then pair their whole argument with the other person's whole argument, you cant segment it like this. Also, the fact that you are saying that this is to help those who are less educated screams "propaganda". The fact that you are trying to point out the "truth" to the people is propaganda. Dictators used mediums to "guide" the less educated to a truth thats false
Karasu192 3 years ago
Yes I can segment it, because my intention is to draw attention to the exact locations where VFX is lying about g0at's position and where he uses deceptive editing techniques.
And this isn't propiganda because I don't use any deception or lies, just evidence. This is within the framework of the other videos, so I'm not hiding evidence. I even link them in my description box.
The text is obviously my opinion, but I believe that it's 95% correct, and no one has corrected me yet
paulmarko 3 years ago
he still said the the octopus randomly mutated to where it is today
i saw the original video
this video fails
dumbcube69 3 years ago
Hmm, I think I must not've been clear. My first two clips were from the opening montague where he cut out the important bits to make it look like he and g0at were talking about the same thing, when in the oroginal videos they were talking about different things.
He did use the quote in it's entirety in a different video but he cut it short in his 4th video.
I should've been clearer on that.
paulmarko 3 years ago
some people are so blind they make me laugh
yuksh 3 years ago
//Things can't make them selves.//
Nature forms things. 'Designs' like snow crystals are naturally formed.
//Science is a lie from stain.//
You have just used scientific products in posting that message.
mirandansa 3 years ago
exactly there would be selection against eyes that see above water because it would need more resources then simpler eyes there for you get a state in where selection favor the current form. ( call it perfection ).
only if enivorment changes will selection favor a mutation vs the current state again.
so no mutation has not stop and the way g0at put it could be misunderstood for the stopping of mutation ( evolution whit a goal )
pagangeek 3 years ago
Correct! For change to occur requires a certain adaptation to it's environment. If no further adaptation is needed, then it doesn't gain further mutations to change it. It doesn't stop sort of say, but more or less waits for any change of environment to begin again.
One could see VFX making an honest mistake, but judging by his character and pervious misquotes one can also see VFX purpously twisting g0at's words to suit his own agenda.
Sedalb 3 years ago
[Quote] Correct! For change to occur requires a certain adaptation to it's environment. If no further adaptation is needed, then it doesn't gain further mutations to change it [EndQuote]
Agreed, but that's the problem. Science can only verify these mutations happening among the same species. How do you jump from that (Micro) to a philosophical assumption (Macro) when there simply is no empirical data to confirm otherwise?
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
It's not exactly a "jump" from Micro to Macro. It's the exact same thing except of time scale. A lot of slight variations will sooner or later result in a larger variation which is Macro Evolution. There is plenty of empirical data to confirm these findings via comparing DNA, Transitional Fossils and chemistry.
Two groups of the same species can mate over and over in seperate environments until one group has changed so much that they cannot mate with the second. They become two seperate species
Sedalb 3 years ago
Again it's a MAJOR jump to conclude that just because Micro is true automatically proves Macro.
A good analogy is this.
1 x 1 = 1 - Over a few hundred years, although we may have various sizes and colors the result is ALWAYS one (Micro)
1 x 1 = 2 - Over millions of years, again this is an illogical position. A species can ONLY evolve within it's OWN kind. There are LIMITS to these mutations; the reason why we don't get animals the size of texas or roaches resistant to sledgehammers.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
OK, KKF go wikipedia mutations. There it describes the different kinds of mutations. You'll see that there's a mutation called "ampliflications" that douplicate genetic material. Those duplicated genes can then mutate to do more stuff.
So a better analogy would be this
1x1.000001 = 1.000001/year So over a few hundred years you wouldn't notice that big a change (1.000321), but one is happening. After a million years it does become 2.
Also, are you going to reply to my PM, so I can rebut?
paulmarko 3 years ago
It's not letting me reply to your messages. Are they on confirmation for some reason?
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
Hmm, I don't believe so. I got your last one ok.
paulmarko 3 years ago
I stated before that there are LIMITS to these mutations. So 1.00001 will STOP at 1.00036 (Just an Example). It CAN'T go any further than that; hence the reason why we don't have monsterous animals the size of texas walking around or bugs that become resistant to falling objects.
Am I clear?
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
You're point is crystal clear, but it's not supported by evidence that I kow of. I have seen the fossils (or pictures of them, rather) of transitional forms of a prehistoric mammel evolving into a whale, and many other fossils like those ones.
paulmarko 3 years ago
Ok, the texas sized animal is just a scale limit. See as animals increase in size the ratio of body mass to supporting structure changes drastically. If they get over a certain size, their bones simply wouldn't be able to support their body mass and they would shatter under their own weight.
Bones have physical limits to strength, too. So we can't just see bones infinately getting stronger.
paulmarko 3 years ago
That's fine than don't you think bones could also evolve into larger quantities? Look at the T-Rex, obviously it had huge bones. Why haven't they expanded into large trunks like Sequoia Trees and scaled the size of Texas in order to support the rest of the body?
Again, because there are limits. You don't need any scientific proof to verify this. You can literally see it with your own eyes: Dogs create various types of dogs, cats create various types of cats.. It stops there..
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
Ok, look at a sphere, the larger you make the sphere the larger the ratio of VOLUME to SURFACE AREA becomes. Se even if the bones multiply and expand, they're going to eventually bump into the physical limits of the material that creates them, this is simple math. The bones are made of Calcium which IS stong but not invincible.
So there ARE physical limits to chemical bonds in materials yes, but those are completely unrelated to DNA limitations. You're talking about two different things.
paulmarko 3 years ago
again. if there are limits on a larger scale. We can conclude that there are limits on a miniature scale. Besides, DNA also rely on these same bonds. Even though necessarily they may contain various properties. The bonds themselves still exist in both. DNA contain the genetic information that make up for your bones, skin, etc.. So to say that bones have limits is EQUAL as saying DNA does.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
Of course DNA has limitations! I.E. It can't use iron to make bones.
However, you were trying to imply that the physical limitations of calcium and other DNA-based building blocks were indicative of some intrinsic genetic roadblock that prevents one animal from evolving into another.
Fossils prove that no such roadblock exists! There's tons of transitional fossils! For example: a land dwelling creature turning into a whale.
I think you were lied to by the Kent Hovind videos..Damn Him!
paulmarko 3 years ago
Kent Hovind! haha. I should equally include Richard Dawkins for that matter because that fellow is all sorts of failure.
but anywho, the fossils show ZERO transitions only VARIATIONS. Show me a fossil record that displays ACTUAL transitions from a land creature into a whale or vice-versa.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
I did not mean to make the Hovind argument offensively, that's just the first source of the Gould quote mine that fooled so many people into thinking there were no transitional forms.
If you wiki "Evolution of cetaceans" You'll see several transitional forms all the way from Packacetus to modern whales. There are many fossils of each. In them, they observe a smooth gradient from nostrils to blow hole and inner ear adjustments from air to underwater hearing.
paulmarko 3 years ago
Whenever an animal has a mutation it will pass down to the offspring provided that animal is able to mate. So, if it's a really bad mutation the animal will die. If it's good the animal will thrive and successfully mate. The reason why you don't see animals that big is because it is unnecessary and probably has more disadvantages than advantages when compared to smaller sized animals. Not to mention there are some scientific laws that will prevent that sort of thing.
Simko084 3 years ago
A dog can't made with a wolf. A tiger can't mate with a lion... why is this? They all have common traits, and the fossil records shows signs of common ancestory, so why can't they breed within each species? It's because they have gone from one species to another.
This is what happened for the great apes and human. They're all primates, and we all shared a common ancestor, but somewhere along the lines we changed so much that we could not breed with the other groups, making us a new species.
Sedalb 3 years ago
[A dog can't "mate" with a wolf]
Wrong. Look up Dog Wolf Hybrid in Wikipedia. They are from the SAME species.
[A tiger can't mate with a lion]
Wrong again. Ever watch Napoleon Dynamite picture of a Liger? Yeah that's actually a real hybrid. Check that out ALSO on wikipedia. It's possible. Why? Because again. they are of the SAME species.
Lastly, common traits do NOT mean a common ancestry from ALL species. That is EQUALLY as valid as evidence for a common creator.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
I know for certain that a lion and tiger are not the same species. A lion and tiger combination are able to have offspring because they share enough genetic characteristics to do so. However, although they may produce a liger there will be many problems ahead for it to try and mate successfully with anything. I believe that ligers are actually sterile or something to that effect, much like mules.
Simko084 3 years ago
Agreed. However this isn't evidence lions and tigers came from a rock, goo, a fish, or a frog. To say they come from a common ancestry could be EQUALLY concluded that they came from a common creator.
Lastly, this still ignores the notion that there are still LIMITS to the entire process of evolution.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
No one is saying that lions and tigers came from a rock, goo, a fish, or a frog. Anyone who believes this is a fool and anyone who believes that that's what evolution is is an even bigger fool. And although there could be a creator, evolution proves that that's just unnecessary. Life can function and adapt perfectly fine on it's own without another being interrupting.
Simko084 3 years ago
OK let me rephrase, because obviously you are not getting the logic that I am implying. Lions and tigers "evolved" from a rock, goo, a fish, and a frog over millions and millions of years ago.
Look it up in your textbooks. This is exactly what they teach in schools.
Here, I'll provide you with a sources:
"Biology the Unity and Diversity of Life - Wadsworth 1992 p. 301"
Life can ADAPT... NOT create... hence you'll NEED an intelligence to do that for you (a.k.a God)
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
Evolution is all about adaption, not creation. But evolution in no way states that modern day fishes and frogs evolved into tigers and lions.
Abiogenesis doesn't even state that life developed from rocks. And nothing states that a whole multi-celled organism just came about randomly walking out of goo.
What's really interesting is that if this were true then evolution would be incorrect and we probably would have something else to talk about.
Simko084 3 years ago
Crap. I keep confusing my arguments with you and Sedalb. I totally agree with you about Evolution having a tie to Adaptation. In fact if would argue that we should just call it Adaptation instead and leave the notion of Evolution to the process of species evolving into a completely different species.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
Why should we leave the notion of Evolution? Just because you don't believe it exists doesn't mean it doesn't. We have proof of it otherwise.
PS: It'd be nice if you responded to my questions instead of only a select few. I've answered all of yours, I'd be pleased as punch if you'd answer mine.
Sedalb 3 years ago
To say Dogs and Wolves are two different species is like saying Africans and Caucasians are different species.....
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
Um... no.
Sedalb 3 years ago
I don't want to overload you, so lets start with this one.
"For the sake of arguement, lets say Evolution is false
Now prove Creationism..."
Sedalb 3 years ago
lol Sedalb. I'm pretty much done bro. But just to question your question. If Evolution is false.. than what exactly would you consider the alternative to be?
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
*sigh* thanks for answering my questiong with a question. I'll answer you though. The scientific method can't just rule out two explanations. If we take two suggestions, and one is proven false doesn't grant the other correct by default. I don't know what the alternative would be because we have so much evidence for Evolution while other suggestions are simply "ideas" or pusdo science.
If you can't prove Creation then don't consider it as science.
Sedalb 3 years ago
Oh, please, you didn't even try to answer the question. Just prove creationism with the proper evidence that you have. Since it's so true it shouldn't be that hard at all.
To answer your question, though, to be honest if we take out all the evidence that proves evolution as a fact then the only other alternative is creationism. And in this instance (and only this instance) creationism is debatable. But for right now this isn't the case as the evidence for evolution is clear.
Simko084 3 years ago 2
[To answer your question, though, to be honest if we take out all the evidence that proves evolution as a fact then the only other alternative is creationism.]
Exactly!
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
And what exactly does that prove, Kuma? Elaborate, please.
Simko084 3 years ago
I'll let you sit on it for awhile. I'm done here. Thanks for the debate Simko
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
There's nothing to sit on here. All you did was take me quote and say "exactly!" as though that was the answer to everything.
Your question is like asking if water didn't exist what would be the alternative? Or if atoms didn't exist what would be the alternative?
Other Examples:
If if oxygen gas didn't exist what would you consider the alternative to be?
If horses didn't exist what would you consider the alternative to be?
If mathematics are false what would you consider the alternative be?
Simko084 3 years ago
[If horses didn't exist what would you consider the alternative to be?]
Unicorns duh! LOL!
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
Sedalb, I'm currently in a few other debates and it's hard trying to keep track of everything. But if there is an argument that you would like me to specifically talk about. I'd be more than glad to. Just point it out for me that way we can discuss.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
A Liger isn't a combination of lions mating with tigers. It's a trait of two lions mating, then the baby carrying certain traits of the tiger, and vice versa.
There's a family in south america that had children with thick fur on their bodies. It's a common trait of the common ancestor of years pats. It's not because the mother mated with a gorilla, but activated previous genes of generations past.
Sedalb 3 years ago
A liger is a combination (or hybrid). These sort of things are possible. It doesn't mean the hybrid offspring will be able to mate successfully.
Simko084 3 years ago
With that said. Let's see the cross breeding between a human and an ape. Their DNA is only a 2% difference anyway correct? So we should get at least some breeds possible. Perhaps a Humape or Apan hybrids.
lol
point being.. If you can't breed two species together, the chances are they are of a different kind of species. Not the same.
Horses and Zebras are of the same line of species. Dogs and Wolves - Same. Boars and Pigs - Same. Camel and Llamas - Same.
Humans and Apes - NOT the Same.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
[A Liger isn't a combination of lions mating with tigers. It's a trait of two lions mating, then the baby carrying certain traits of the tiger, and vice versa.]
Wrong. A liger is the cross breeding of a male lion and a female tiger. They are NOT between to lions.
Same with Tigons or Tigrons (Cross breed between a Male Tiger and Female Lion)
These aren't accidents. They are coded with the same information, thus can produce offspring.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
There's no evidence that I know of that says DNA has an intrinsic limit preventing it from mutation too fram from it's mother population. If there IS evidence to think that, let me know what it is. Your monsterous animal and tough cockroach examples only show Physical limits to materials like calcium and carotin. They don't demonstrate any intrinsic DNA limitation.
paulmarko 3 years ago
DNA is a structured code. The limits are already installed in it's program (mRNA - Genetic Information). It cannot CREATE a new code. Only use the SAME code it ALREADY has to develop various structures. This goes back to my math analogy. Every different species is some how installed with it's OWN code that develops its parts. Re-arranging the code and multiplying it will only produce various outcomes (Micro-Evolution). However the code CANNOT evolve into a completely different code.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
DNA is not a perfect sequence and it is because of this break in sequence that DNA is so wonderful.
"It cannot CREATE a new code. Only use the SAME code it ALREADY has to develop various structures."
No one has even suggested that something new is created. No one who seriously understands genetics even says that. Mutations are a result of an "accident" in the "genetic code" which is usually influenced by something in the environment but can also come about seemingly random.
Simko084 3 years ago
[Mutations are a result of an "accident" in the "genetic code" ]
Agreed, but again this uses a code that is previously installed. A fish and a human are made up of an entirely different code. With that said, multiplying a fish over millions of years will only generate the SAME code but in various different ways. It will NOT generate a brand new code.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
If I multiply fish over millions of years I'd just get a lot of fish. So much I'd probably be sick of the stuff!
Simko084 3 years ago
[If I multiply fish over millions of years I'd just get a lot of fish. So much I'd probably be sick of the stuff!]
EXACTLY! You may get bigger fish or smaller ones or fish with various colors. But the result will ALWAYS be a fish.
Now tell me how do human common ancestry fit into the equation?
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
If I multiply fish all I get is the same fish. It's not going to change color or size. It's just going to be the same exact fish with the same exact scales placed in exactly the same order.
Actually, if I take your words literally it doesn't even make sense.
6000000*fish=?
You can't multiply something by fish. It's impossible.
Simko084 3 years ago
Not only that but what you said about DNA doesn't really make sense.
"Re-arranging the code and multiplying it will only produce various outcomes"
"the code CANNOT evolve into a completely different code"
Why is it that you disagree with what you just said? Your first statement above must be false if the second one is true.
Simko084 3 years ago
Think of an alphabet with only 4 letters: A, O, E, D. Now it's possible that you can spell various different words with these letters, like "Do" "Add" "Odd". Now event though you can re-arrange these words in specific orders to make sense (adaptation). You CANNOT create new words or arranged orders without new letters (Limits). Multiplying only generates more of the same words that can be re-arranged into different orders (Micro). It doesn't CREATE new ones (Macro).
Is that clear?
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
What on earth are you talking about? Evolution is not anything like that and especially not DNA. Maybe if you expand on your idea a little more it would make a lot more sense (though it might not be in your favor.) Maybe study a little bit on how evolution works.
Simko084 3 years ago
Are implying that you define macro evolution as DNA aquiring additional types of base pairs other then the usual A-T and C-G?
paulmarko 3 years ago
No. Specifically speaking, the bonds that make these pairs up and codes that create them (RNA/mRNA). In other words, the genetic information that categorize these pairs to create the diversity of life.
They are all provided with information that is limited to it's specific development.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
So in your model of the DNA molecule there is a code that is programmed into some empty unknown space that orders the base pairs to be in a specific order at all times which determines how a species looks, acts, etc. in the environment.
How about some evidence to support your hypothesis? It does sound interesting and I'd like to learn more from a genius such as yourself.
Simko084 3 years ago
I never implied that I was a genius. I'm only stating things using simple logic. There's no deep intellectual factors being applied, which is why I am surprised you can't understand it. Perhaps I am just bad with my vocabulary? Or horrible at tieing analogies to my arguments. Nevertheless, suck at trying to reason.
='(
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
I still don't understand your analogy. Are you saying that DNA cannot create new groups of letters that encode different amino acids? In terms of DNA, what sort of process would you consider "Macro"?
paulmarko 3 years ago
Specifically speaking "Genome's - the hereditary information encoded into DNA" RNA is also another good example. Here we have SPECIFIC instructions that are LIMITED to only it's creation or species. So while we may have similar traits of information as another species have (like eyes, nose, ears, etc.) we are still separated by these specific instructions; hence the reason why dogs make dogs and humans make humans.
Macro implies given the expansive amount of time, this information can improve
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
I don't think you understand my question.
My question is
" What operation to the DNA itself would you consider a macro operation? "
By this I mean, an addition, insertion, fuzing, deletion, duplication, etc...
Basically, what DNA function doesn't exist that would be required to go from one mammel to another?
See if there's a limit, it must be on the DNA level because all life and variation is on the DNA level.
Understand?
So what is that limit? Think DNA here.
paulmarko 3 years ago
I think our issue is the defining of DNA. With that said the understanding I have is that DNA, being a nucleic acid, contains genetic information that make-up the development and functioning of every living organism with an exception to some viruses.
Now DNA has a set of blueprints or a code that contain the instructions needed to construct other components of cells.
These blueprints or codes are LIMITED to the instructions they currently have in DNA. They CANNOT be enhanced or improved.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
So when I refer to these codes and blueprints as having limits. I am also referring to DNA. It's the same for both. DNA is LIMITED in the sense that the instructions it currently has are.
Is that clear?
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
So you're saying that if the "instructions that form cell components" part of DNA were to be "enhanced or improved" That would constitute a macro change?
Do I have your position right?
Are there any other DNA changes that you would consider macro changes?
paulmarko 3 years ago
Indeed. If we can have just a few macro changes in DNA than I believe it is possible to have a wide variety of changes in the overall organism.
After all, Apes and Humans only have a 2% difference and yet look at the MAJOR separation. Bananas and Humans are at a 50% difference - yet another major difference.
SO again, if we can test, repeat, and verify macro changes in DNA I believe we have substantial evidence for Macro Evolution.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
OK, I almost have your position down. What DNA roadblock is there between an ape and a human that would prevent it from evolving into somtheing like us, with a large brain?
It can't be the cell component thing because we have the exact same cell components as apes, just in different proportions. I.E. The same brain and neuron structure, just more of it.
paulmarko 3 years ago
Lastly, I'd like to add that Natural Selection actually removes from this gene pool of DNA. In other words, information becomes lost after generations. This is a good explanation as to why we have separate looking species even though they are essentially the same (Horses/Zebras); hence the environment they were in, eventually killed off some of their genetic information that had been originally stored. This also fits with the Laws of Thermodynamics perfectly.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
So why do you think macro evolution is an impossibility? Don't you think that over time all these little changes will eventually add up to one big change? It wouldn't make sense for it not to.
And I'd just like to note that not all validated theories are based on experiments that can be tested and repeated. A lot of it has to do with observation such as the theory of gravity and atomic theory.
Simko084 3 years ago
Wait, now I'm not making any sense. All observations come from experiments.
Simko084 3 years ago
Simko084. The answer is NO. Why? Because these changes have LIMITS to them. They cannot branch out to form something ENTIRELY different from itself. You can't have primitive fish like frog evolve into a human over billions of years. It has limits and will always have them. This is the reason why we don't see animals the size of Texas or bugs that become resistant to falling objects. I've already gone over this with Paul.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
And you apparently never learn ANYTHING because I've already explaned how these physical material limits have NOTHING TO DO with whether a fish can evolve to a human or not. They don't Okay? Understand? Your example DOES NOT PROVE that fish DNA cannot evolve to Human DNA! It's unrelated!
paulmarko 3 years ago
I'm done here. Thanks Paul for the wonderful debate... Really, I tried understanding your position and provided rebuttal's with the most clearest details/analogies as I could give them.
If I have frustrated you than I am sorry. I do not mean to come off as smug or preachy with my arguments. And if you feel offended by them than I truly understand.
='(
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
This is not a good explanation for why we have a Zebra because it has more DNA changes between it and a horse then we do with with apes. Are you implying that apes "devolved" from us?
And PLEASE don't invoke thermodymanics. Not a single intelligent person believes that bullocks anymore. Evolution no more violates thermodynamics then a baby maturing to adult-hood does.
paulmarko 3 years ago
No apes are a COMPLETELY separate species. I stated this to Simko084. We humans are actually ALL "devolved" from a more perfect human being (arguably Adam/Eve) into various races (African, Caucasian, Mexican, etc..) Apes "devolved" from a more perfect ancient like ape. As Natural Selection takes from DNA, the information splits and makes varieties of the SAME species using the ORIGINAL code. It does NOT improve the code.
Lastly, adults eventually become old too and die - Thermodynamics.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
You are going against yourself because you defines MACRO evolutionary DNA change in a way that didn't apply a barrier to humans/apes! Therefore, based on what YOU SAID, there's no reason to believe that apes didn't come from humans or vice versa.
And seriously, if you continue to persue the thermodynamic argument, you make yourself look like a fool. Even ID'ers and creationsists don't use that one anymore, because it so obviously doesn't apply.
paulmarko 3 years ago
Wow, that's the most bigoted comment I've ever heard someone say. You have no idea how humans first came about so stop pretending like you do. I'm not saying I don't either which is my point; nobody knows where humans came from for certain. But I have a pretty damn good guess that isn't just a random story that has no proof what-so-ever. Saying we all came from a set of perfect human beings is worse than saying we evolved from a primitive life form.
Simko084 3 years ago
No Simko084. I PROFESS that MY BELIEF is RELIGIOUS. I was empirically NOT there to see it all happen so I can't tell you that these are FACTS. I am only giving you a reasonable assumption based off the evidence we currently have.
The REAL problem is YOU DON'T believe your views are RELIGIOUS rather base them as SCIENTIFIC FACTS. That is a lie.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
So now we're debating on which one requires faith? Is that what's going on? What makes your view any more truer than mine?
I honestly don't think you have any right to try and tell me that evolution is a lie when you have no understanding of the scientific process and continue to ignore the mountains -- no, worlds of evidence!
Simko084 3 years ago
Simko084. I'm done bro. Thanks for the debate
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
I'm trying to be nice and state everything in a way that you can understand it. But it's gotten to a point where you simply don't listen at all! I'm talking about a baby developing from an embryo to maturity, which SHOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE if your bizarre definition of thermodynamics is correct. and you simply IGNORE THAT and say "OH, but they get old eventually don't they?" This is a BLATEND dodge that just proves you don't even WANT to learn or have an intelligent discussion at all!
paulmarko 3 years ago
lol Paul. I think we are getting a little out of hand here.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
It just boggles my mind that you'd start a debate, yet just intellectually sidestep everything. It makes me question your motive behind ever starting a debate in the first place? Did you not want to learn? If you did want to learn then why don't you listen and answer points directly instead of sidestepping and bringing up new points. Especially considering the number of replies! Observe the number you've posted! You make up almost half of the replies on this video.
paulmarko 3 years ago
If side-stepping is how you see it that's fine. But like I said before, I tried answering to the best of my ability in the most simplest way I could explain it. If you do not agree or do not understand than I am sorry. There is nothing more I can do.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
When I say A baby growing disrupts your concept of thermodynamics, saying "an old person ages because of thermodynamics" is an intellectual side-step.
Topic: Thermodynamics
Subject:Baby
You changed the subject to: Old Man.
Changing the subject is an diversionary tactic. This is basic english. Any native speaker should be able to see that.
I'm sorry, but if you don't even realize that you're side-stepping then It's impossible to actually have a debate with you.
paulmarko 3 years ago
You misinterpret, not a good idea.
Since you're busting out equations, lets do this.
x = micro
X = macro
10x = X
So, if we have a change, it stays as "x" and shows as a slight change. If we have yet another change, it's two changes from the original state, therefore it's 2x.
The changes keep piling on, furthering itself from the original state that eventually, it becomes macro evolution. Hope this equation helps your understanding.
Sedalb 3 years ago
I urge you to please not use your idea of taking an item or basic mathematical proof and saying "over billions of years _____ may change color but it will not become a new _____!" For your own benefit please don't use anything like that. That is a straw man you would be constructing.
Really, the difference between micro and macro is time. If you have a lot of micro evolution than you're bound to have to call that whole set of micro evolutions one macro evolution.
Simko084 3 years ago 2
this video is great
battim 3 years ago
Dude, your a fucking idiot.
Lookatmeimdriving5 3 years ago 2
Is it just me or does Paulmarko NOT realize that we can watch these ENTIRE videos on youtube OURSELVES if we want a clearer picture?
Having to post them together in one LOOONG video is not necessary... You are wasting your time trying to prove a point that has already been proven: Goat lost the debate... Get over it
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
Excuse me? G0at lost the debate? Are you uneducated about debates or are you just very biased?
Here's the thing. VFX started off this whole thing with a straw man argument for his video. He also lied a few times to support his argument. In his next three videos all he did was quote mining with more lying. VFX had no real debate going and still doesn't.
G0at has yet to make a real ad hominem attack and all of his statements still stand.
Please, Kuma, tell me you're joking.
Simko084 3 years ago
Well Simko084, I guess if you call distorting the position of your opponent winning then you are correct. However venomfangx just distorted goat's position and took him out of context.
all22787 3 years ago
I hope you do watch the videos in their entirety. The clips I used are just so you can spot exactly where the lies are taking place.
You should watch it again, because you apparently didn't notice that VFX's entire argument was loosely pinned on a single misrepresentation.
If you need more help understanding. I'd be happy to PM you with a more detailed explanation to help clarify.
paulmarko 3 years ago
Yes I've watched them numerous times and I tried finding faults in VFX video's but he's right. The full videos just paint a BIGGER picture of what VFX was just trying to show in a short argument...
Nevertheless his points are valid and therefore I conclude Goat lost the debate horribly....
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
I've concluded that you're really biased. I've seen a lot of your posts all around youtube and basically all you do is cover your ears and scream "LA LA LA" until people stop talking to you realizing that you're just a waste of time. You have no understanding of the scientific process nor do you care to understand it in the slightest. Your logic makes no sense at all. You're just another blind follower of intelligent design.
VFX is lying and if you can't see that, then there is something wrong.
Simko084 3 years ago
By "LA LA LA" I think you are refering to 1ProudFemaleAtheist... She's really good at that.
Also, if that is your best defense for me being biased than I think you'd better find another because it's a horrible one at most.
Lastly, I love how you directly insult my intelligence without even trying to prompt a debate, if you really think telling me I know NOTHING is going to validate your claims, you clearly are dilusional
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
These "debates" you try to start just end up in you saying macro-evolution doesn't exist. Sometimes that evolution isn't science or at least it isn't real science, you say. You even say that because the theory of evolution supposedly changes then it must be wrong. I don't see how any of these points you try to make is right. I'd love to see you try to use one of your flawed analogies again to support your points. You may think you're being smart about this; honestly, I have to strongly disagree.
Simko084 3 years ago
KingKumaForever, I love how you appeal to ridicule, change the subject, and make up claims without evidence.
all22787 3 years ago
VFX is lying? haha suuuree I guess every creationist lies, but NO not evolutionists they ALWAYS tell the truth
;-P
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
People lie constantly. That's why we have open inquiry and criticism to weed out the lies.
Lies can ONLY persist in an environment of squelched criticism and inquiry, such as VFX's channel.
paulmarko 3 years ago
It's simple.
VFX's entire argument in his forth video rests on the assumption that MUTATION is not occuring today and his ONLY evidence for this is that g0at said "it stopped there"
However, g0at NEVER said that mutation stopped. He said that the octopus's eye stopped short of developing human eye-features. So VFX's argument is based on a misunderstanding.
Mutations DO happen today. and there's so much evidence for it it's undeniable. If you want more information I'll happily PM you!
paulmarko 3 years ago
Also, could you please specify exactly which point or points of VFX's you thought were valid? Because, to me, they seemed invalid.
paulmarko 3 years ago
Point 1: VFX stated that you can't have things with ORDER, STRUCTURE, or INTELLIGENCE come into existence by NON-INTELLIGENCE (a.k.a Unguided/Random Processes)
Point 2: Evolution is based on a RANDOM process (Trial and Error)
Conclusion: Therefore things we see and can verify that have structure, order, and intelligence are the direct result FROM intelligence hence Evolution is less likely probable
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
Dumbest ass ever.
y318 3 years ago
By dumbest, if you are referring to Goat's use of ad-hominem attacks on VFX... than yes I totally agree
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
Prove point 1.
Spalg 3 years ago
Mix a bottle of salt and pepper together, shake it, and try and COMPLETELY separate the two substances.
Here's another: take a watch, break it into hundreds of pieces. Now stick the pieces in a bag and shake the bag. What are your chances that you can repair the watch give or take a million years?
My point? You can't, randomization doesn't create structure and order, yet alone intelligence.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
//You can't, randomization doesn't create structure and order, yet alone intelligence.//
Abiogenesis is not about randomization:
watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
mirandansa 3 years ago
//take a watch, break it into hundreds of pieces. Now stick the pieces in a bag and shake the bag. What are your chances that you can repair the watch give or take a million years?//
watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
mirandansa 3 years ago
What? The chances of that happening is unbelievably small, and your point is? Why are watches in this arguement? They're not an organic life form that requires chemistry to work, they can't even reproduce to make Evolution possible.
You DO know what evolution is right? It's not at all random, the chemistry guiding it are all very controlled. It takes into account so many different forces of natural selection and variation mixed with environment and chemistry that we can't predict, thus random.
Sedalb 3 years ago
You do understand that Evolution has various degrees in it's meaning correct? Even if watches aren't organic, you still have to account for where the first organic mechanism derived from... Obviously you're left with non-organic material, hence the explanation of Abiogenesis. So my analogy perfectly aligns with my argument.
You have to account for where this guiding chemistry evolved from and what exactly is behind the "controlling" factor of it.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
Chemistry is what happens when atoms exchange energy. Energy so far cannot be created nor distroyed, so there had to have been something. The notion that "Nothing" caused the big bang... not sure where it came from and it was not what I heard.
The watch cannot reproduce, and it doesn't adapt to it's environment (except rust). It can't be used in an arguement in evolution as it just doesn't fit within the evolutionary standpoint. Perhaps your version of evolution, but not science's.
Sedalb 3 years ago
Your arguement basically says "If I smash an orange in millions of pecies, and an apple tree doesn't grow, I conclude that apples are a lie".
Silly isn't it, but you need to realise the falsehoods in your statements. Evolution requires certain things. Metals and certain parts of engineering are a different science, leave the watches there and discuss organic life.
Furthermore, even if by some chance you proved Evolution to be false, it does not make Creation true. A simple misunderstanding.
Sedalb 3 years ago
Tell me something Sedalb. Did these forces (Chemical, Natural Selection, etc...) know what they were creating when they started off with the first organism to what we see today? Or was it all by accident? Did the earth know exactly how to align with the sun in order to support life or was that too an accident? Did the universe know what it was doing when it came into existence or was it again all by accident?
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
Does a coin "know" where to fall once released? Was a canyon told to erode or a dimond told to be pressurized? What you're debating here is the origin of these forces such as gravity, chemisty etc. Honest answer, I don't know where they came from, but neither do you.
I suppose this is the opportune momment to say "Well it had to be designed". Sorry, but the lack of understanding of something does not mean that it was designed. It's either created or accident huh? Narrow choice wouldn't you say?
Sedalb 3 years ago
[Quote]
Furthermore, even if by some chance you proved Evolution to be false, it does not make Creation true. A simple misunderstanding. [EndQuote]
Actually it does, hence the reason why the stupid theory has survived this long. People just don't like the alternative.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
Alright, for the sake of arguement Evolution is now false....
Now prove Creationism.
Sedalb 3 years ago
[Quote]Your arguement basically says "If I smash an orange in millions of pecies, and an apple tree doesn't grow, I conclude that apples are a lie".[EndQuote]
Clearly you do NOT understand my analogy. That's ok though, evolutionists are usually hard minded when it comes to simple logic.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
I understood it perfectly, clearly you just can't come to terms of how rediculous it is. Using a mechanized object to prove something that acts on living organisms to function doesn't give any point but your lack of knowledge on the subject.
It's apples and oranges, two different things. Please try and understand.
Sedalb 3 years ago
explain how the analogy is apt at all. Nothing is random about chemical evolution aside from the diversity, but what survives is not. Stop pretending humans poofed into existence on both sides, we actually have a gradual explanation, not some shake n bake and wow humans. You know that too, so don't strawman it to make yourself feel better. If you analogy actually covered things other than...salt, then planets wouldn't exist. Too bad there's gravity; too bad there's natural selection.
Spalg 3 years ago
You can laugh and make fun by the use of words like "shake'n'bake" all you want but in the end you're the stupid one who believes we all came from nothing BY nothing and than call that science.
KingKumaForever 3 years ago
... who said Evolution is nothing coming by nothing?
Sedalb 3 years ago
So, in the words, I'll dodge that question. Nobody ever said it was nothing, so you lose there, You're the one using special pleading and saying "everything needs a beginning;god doesn't need a beginning" It's then by the way, and don't make me ask you to define science and laugh at the failure. Address my post, don't just go "oh well you can call it silly but it's not" then attack my position, and do a poor job of it.
Spalg 3 years ago
A little late there buddy. We finished this debate a looong time ago... I can't even remember who you are or what you asked. lol.
Sorry
=(
KingKumaForever 3 years ago