Evolution - Should it be Taught Critically? ( Part 3)

[MaximusArurealius]

Eugenie, historically the consensus view is ALWAYS WRONG. Consensus is an ad populum argument. Science is about ONE investigator proving the consensus wrong. It's always been that way. AND WHEN a scientist finds some new discovery the consensus is always there to destroy him if they can. They are a lying, jealous bunch.

[MaximusArurealius]

Eugenie Scott, You're a liar. If the shoe were on the other foot you'd be yelling "academic freedom."

But here you are saying fairness is irrelevant in science. Of course, you don't want anyone questioning your dishonest speech on evolution of the eyeball. You're a typical lying Marxist. You are hereby,

EXPOSED AS A FRAUD

[simpsonmark]

Doctrine of Darwinism?? What is that? It is not a controversial theory unless you are a theocratic fundamentalist with an agenda to prove the literal 'truth' of the Bible.

[owensphil]

@simpsonmark

> It is not a controversial theory

The only thing that is not controversial about evolution among evolutionists is the conclusion that somehow, someway, it all evolved.I The science behind that statement of faith is very controversial. There are competing hypothesis on everything.

In the worzs, they take the scientific method, start with the conclusion and work their way backwards.It´s a complete bogus theory.

[daNDayati]

@owensphil hey, how are you doing? still trying to peddle the controversy? The grown-ups have already moved on and are using evolution in practical ways.. its about time you became a grown-up too...

[MaximusArurealius]

@daNDayati "The grown-ups have already moved on and are using evolution in practical ways.." What practical ways dummass? Does evolution help you change a tire on your car, cook a meal, take a crap? Tell oh Mr Science Genius just what are the practical ways. Even the medical field says evolution is of no use to medicine. You don't look up evolution to do surgery you stupid bastard. You come here insulting people so don't go crying to mommy when you get your dick slapped.

[daNDayati]

@owensphil and before I forget... have you got any other target theories on your religious hit parade? quantum mechanics? (not that is a slippery one..) I sure there is something godless and un-biblicable about that sneaky theory ..

[MaximusArurealius]

@daNDayati Dummass, learn how to properly use caps. OK dummass? OH and this "religious hit parade?" That's just another phony assed evotarded straw man. We know you have hit the limit of your ability to defend your childish asinine evotard theory when you pull out the religion card. You science is finished and NOW YOUR religion is kicking in. AND don't even tell me that atheism isn't a religion because I'll just have to pwn you on that too obnoxious retard.

[MaximusArurealius]

@daNDayati Tell me something asshole? IS your granny one of those blue-faced, red-assed buttpicker monkeys?

[MaximusArurealius]

@daNDayati I also noticed that you were completely unable to dig your way out of the pwnage to yourself over Abiogenesis so you decided to start an argument over the roundness of the Earth. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR You are a typical pinheaded pseudo intellectual pretend science stuffed shirt snob.

OWNED AND POWNED

[simpsonmark]

Those soft bodied fossils are very rare and very localised.

[simpsonmark]

Animals suddenly appearing. Err.... that's magic?? Is that what these people are arguing for??

[MrJohndl]

Religion rots the brain. American fundamentalist christians are complete nutjobs.

[csadler]

More IDiot creationism at work...

[owensphil]

@csadler

Another idiotic evolutionist remark.

[csadler]

@owensphil More good news just in yesterday! "Texas "intelligent design" bill dies" Bill 2454.

ID != Science. :-) The sound you here is me laughing.

[owensphil]

@csadler

LOL You obviously dont know teenagers. I remember as a teen being told that a particular book that told the truth about how the indians were dealt with in the US had been baned from the classroom. Well that was like telling us to run out and read that book which is exactly what many including myself did.

I personlally wouldnt want a teacher who has a bias against intelligent design being forced to teach it.

In the real word, Biology teachers sneak their 2 cents anyway. So big deal

[csadler]

@owensphil "against intelligent design being forced to teach it."

Cool, so what is the theory of ID? And of course using the term 'theory' as used in science. I've never had this answered yet, by anyone. And before you do I must warn you I will pull quotes from the kings of ID saying its not yet ready for the classroom. But then that does not matter for the ID crowd does it?

[owensphil]

@csadler

If you watch the video, you should already have the definition for the theory.

I agree that ID is not ready for the science classroom if it's going to be taught by Darwinian indoctrinated who have nothing to go on but their biases. If its going to be taught, it should be taught as an elective by someone who actually has a thorough knowledge of the theory.

[SamCoreJ]

Indoctrinated? Evolution is not something you get indoctrinated with. You can take it or leave it without any baggage. There are no ties with a belief system. There are no repercussions to not believing in evolution, like heaven or hell. You either take the evidence or leave it. The term "Darwinian indoctrinated" is simply a case of religious people using the same terminology against non religious people in an attempt to neutralise the fact kids are indoctrinated with the bible. Its desperate.

[owensphil]

@SamCoreJ

> Evolution is not something you get indoctrinated with.

Of course it is. There are more videos in youtube on this topic by ambassadors for Darwin than all of the other scientific topics combined.

> There are no repercussions to not believing in evolution,

There are plenty of academic repercussions i.e failure to get papers peer reviewed, funding cut, tenure taken away.

[SamCoreJ]

The problem here is because you reject the evidence for evolution, the points made by myself and others in the world don't connect with you. Ill reply anyway.

The reason there are academic repercussions is because if you don't believe in evolution you are academically incompetent in the twenty first century. If you don't stand up academically, of course you lose the respect of your peers. It is not the same as casting them to hell using fear to cloud their judgement.

[owensphil]

@SamCoreJ > The problem here is because you reject the evidence for evolution

You hide behind words. Please give me your best evidence for the bogus theory of evolution. Let´s start with just one. How´s that?

[wearestarstuffsagan]

@owensphil so you admit that evolution is a science theory? atavisms, ERV's, fossil record, 2nd chromosome,, geographic distribution etc etc etc

[owensphil]

@wearestarstuffsagan

> so you admit that evolution is a science theory

Yes, it is a BOGUS scientific theory. I´ll be happy to challenge anyone of those sorry excuses you just listed as "evidence". Pick one.

[wearestarstuffsagan]

@owensphil a theory is a model which explains a large body of facts and has no contradicting evidence, just like germ theory, so its not good on your part to admit that its a theory, learn what science is and how it works. atavisms, explain how they ALL fit a pattern which evolution completely fits with and is never out of place, like legs in snakes, whales, tails in humans, webbed feet and hands in humans, scales in mammals etc

[owensphil]

@wearestarstuffsagan

> a theory is a model which explains a large body of facts and has no contradicting evidence,

Then by your own definition, evolution is no longer a theory since evolutionists admit that morphological phylogenies tend to contradict molecular phylogenies. Gradualism contradicts punctuated equilibrium. There are numerous contradicting hypothesis on the origin of sexual reproduction. The cambrian explosion contradicts a bottom up concept of the fossil record.

[wearestarstuffsagan]

@owensphil the cambrian explosion does not contradict a bottom up fossil record, it supports it. hypothesis are not facts, so it doesnt matter if there are contradicting hypothesis about sexual reproduction, there are also contradicting hypothesis about how germs cause desease. also, sexual reproduction has been observed, its a fact. gradualism and PE do not contradict, they are two different things, sometimes PE happens and sometimes its gradualism. you are a fucking moron

[mcmanustony]

@owensphil

"evolutionists admit that morphological phylogenies tend to contradict molecular phylogenies"- do you have a source for this? can you name, say, 6 biologists who say this? or is it just another of your ignorant baseless assertions- things that civilised people correctly identify as lies.

[owensphil]

@mcmanustony

The father of molecular systematics Carl Woese found that conflicts in phylogenies are present not only at the base of the tree, saying, "[p]hylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, form its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves."

Woese C. The Universal Ancestor. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, June 1998, 95:6854-9859.

[owensphil]

@mcmanustony

de Jong noted that,"the wealth of competing morphological, as well as molecular proposals [of] the prevailing phylogenies of the mammalian orders would reduce [the mammalian tree] to an unresolved bush, the only consistent clade probably being the grouping of elephants and sea cows

De Jong, W. W. Molecules remodel the mammalian tree. Tree Vol 13, No 7, pg. 270-274 (July 7, 1998).

[owensphil]

@mcmanustony

Molecular biologist W. Ford Doolittle wrote, "[m]olecular phylogenists will have failed to find the 'true tree,' not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree."

Doolittle, W. F. Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree. Science, Vol 284:2124-2128 (June 25, 1999)

[daNDayati]

@owensphil citing dated stuff is deceitful... the phylogenetic tree (Darwin's tree was a good model for its time) best represents modern biosystematics and supports the study of the diversity of life.. "origins" is not a good site for up to date material.. its bias toward's anything, and I mean ANY THING, that can cast doubt (however insignificant) shows.. the research (and application) in favor of evolutionary theory is overwhelming.. drop your bible and get smart.. (do honest research).

[owensphil]

@daNDayati

> citing dated stuff is deceitful.

You´ll need to elaborate for this to have any meaning. You´ll also need to counter it with more recent data. I´m assuming though if you were able to do so you would have done so here. But you couldn´t so you move on and to the best you can to justify your position.

> its bias toward's anything, ,,,

As is Wikipedia, as is Talk Origin, Panda´s thumb etc. You aren´t going to find an objective site on evolution.

[MaximusArurealius]

@daNDayati "citing dated stuff is deceitful..." REALLY??? hahahaha THAT dated stuff messed you up didn't it?

"The earth is round." --Christopher Columbus 1492

"That's out of date." --dandayati

HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR

[daNDayati]

@MaximusArurealius round per se no.. it is an oblate spheroid, January 2005 Researchers at The University of Texas at Austin using NASA satellite data found that significant changes in the Earth's shape in the past 28 years may be linked to climate events such as the El Nino weather pattern. You are an idiot. Get treatment (or just enroll in college).. some of your idiocy is probably by reinforcement through association (stay away from bible school).. and good luck!

[MaximusArurealius]

@daNDayati "round per se no.. it is an oblate spheroid" HAR HAR HAR AND YOU call ME an idiot? HAR HAR HAR You fucking moron, have you ever seen pictures of the Earth? It's fucking ROUND you dummass. AND for YOU to go into a hissy over a minor point (red herring) having NOTHING to do with the discussion just proves 1. what an asshole you are 2. that you are a liar.

[owensphil]

@mcmanustony

Cao et al. found that molecular-based phylogenies conflicted sharply with previously established phylogenies of major mammal groups, such as ferungulates, rhodents, and primates.

Cao Y, Janke A, Waddell P, Westerman M, Takenaka O, Murata S, Okada N, Paabo S, Hasegawa M. Conflict Among Individual Mitochondrial Proteins in Resolving the Phylogeny of Eutherian Orders. J. Mol Evol, 47:307-22 (1998).

[owensphil]

@mcmanustony

Some studies have tried to analyze the general relationships between animals and vertebrate groups through molecular data. One study analyzed molecular data from 10 different vertebrates and found that using different mitochondrial genes, twenty different disagreeing phylogenetic trees were produced, which differed at both recent and ancient divergence points.

Cummings M, Otto S, Wakeley Biolical Bulletin, 196:345-50 (June 1999).

[owensphil]

@mcmanustony

Brown and Naylor found that trees based off of entire mitochondrial DNA genomes for 19 multicellular (metazoan) organsism did not match the previously accepted phylogeny for chordates, or within chordates, for vertebrates

. Gavin N, Brown W. Amphioxus Mitochondrial DNA, Chordate Phylogeny, and the Limits of Inference Based on Comparisons of Sequences. Syst. Biol. 1998;47(1):61-76.

[owensphil]

@mcmanustony

A recent study of the primate "family tree" found that the morphological evidence is irreconcilable with the molecular data, as a review article reported, "no matter how the computer analysis was run, the molecular and morphological trees could not be made to match."

Bones, Molecules or Both" by Trisha Gura in Nature vol 406, 230 - 233 (2000).

[owensphil]

@mcmanustony

> can you name, say, 6 biologists who say this? Gee was that six already?

[mcmanustony]

@owensphil

'Gee was that six already?"- no.

[owensphil]

@mcmanustony

Systematist Colin Patterson also did a review of congruence between trees generated by morphology and trees created by molecular data and found that "congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology."

Patterson, C., Williams, D. M., Humphries, C. J. "Congruence Between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies". Annual Review Ecology Systematics 24:153-88 (1993).

Now?

[mcmanustony]

@owensphil

can you answer honestly- how many of these papers have you actually read.

what is the next sentence in De Jong's paper?

[owensphil]

@mcmanustony

> can you answer honestly- how many of these papers have you actually read.

what is the next sentence in De Jong's paper?

Irrelevant, You asked me to name scientists confirrming the contradiction between molecular and morphologica trees. I did that. Now take your defeat like a man.

[mcmanustony]

@owensphil

quoting out of context from papers you've not read. well, it sure is easier than actually learning science.

what's a darwinist?

[owensphil]

@mcmanustony

> quoting out of context from papers you've not read. well, it sure is easier than actually learning science.

Show me that I quoted out of context. You are really embarrassing yourself here. At least try and show me that I quoted out of context. You won´t accomplish that by repeatedly asking me if I read the next sentence.

[mcmanustony]

@owensphil

the doolitle quote was entirely out of context. you cant quote the next sentence or any other sentence as you've not read the paper and you're too spineless and dishonest to admit that,

have you read the doolitle paper?

[owensphil]

@mcmanustony

> the doolitle quote was entirely out of context.

Then show HOW it is out of context. Just don´t assert it. You can´t do that can you.?

[mcmanustony]

@owensphil "However, taxonomies based on molecular sequences will remain indispensable, and understanding of the evolutionary process will ultimately be enriched, not impoverished"

[mcmanustony]

@owensphil recognise the words below.

I'll give you a clue- they directly follow one of the quotes you lifted. you'd recognise them if you'd read the paper. but you've not read the paper have you?

[owensphil]

@mcmanustony

Unless your next post explains how the quotes are taken out of context, any further comments by you are likely to be deleted. It´s like I´m talking to a little kid here.

[mcmanustony]

@owensphil

you've been given the doolittle example. and made no response

you can throw a hissy fit and censor if you like. you know what that will make you.

I think scienfic progress will survive your pathetic efforts.

it's nothing like talking to a child.

[owensphil]

@mcmanustony

>you've been given the doolittle example. and made no response

Sure I did, I told you to show me how it was taken out of contex.

[mcmanustony]

@owensphil

and you were shown, by having me quote a part of the paper you never bothered to read because you're not really interested in what it actually has to say.

[owensphil]

@mcmanustony

> and you were shown, by having me quote a part of the paper

I must have missed that. By all means post it again.

[mcmanustony]

@owensphil

what's the last sentence in this paper? or is your interest as selective as it is dishonest.

[owensphil]

@mcmanustony

> what's the last sentence in this paper?

Do the quotes indicate that I was right and you were wrong? Yes they do. That´s all that matters. If I know the next sentence of not. You still lose. Take it like a man.

[mcmanustony]

@owensphil

what's the last sentence in the paper? have you read it? be a man and tell the truth.

[mcmanustony]

@owensphil

Gura is a journalist specialising in eating disorders

you are a creationis liar for jesus specialising in quote mines.

are you capable of honestly answering if you've read any of the academic papers?

[owensphil]

@mcmanustony

Trisha Gura, PH.D Science/Medical Journalist

Northwestern University Chicago, Illinois 1986-1991

Ph.D., Molecular Biology Thesis: elucidated the mechanism of assembly for type I collagen from its three subunits and a chaperone protein

Does a PH.D in molecular biology count you dishonest Darwinian cheerleader?

[mcmanustony]

@owensphil

she does not work as a scientist. she works as a journalist.

my qualifications are in mathematics- does not make me a mathematician.

try actually reading the scientific literature. it's a more honest endevour than slectively quoting papers you've not read- to support claims rejected by the authors.

any luck finding your scottish opthalmologist? credentials say Glasgow University...Glasgow University doesn't appear to have heard of him- though Answers in Genesis has.

[owensphil]

@mcmanustony ´

1995-present, Freelance Science/Medical Writer

Sept 1990, 1997-1999, Instructor

Taught Biology-related courses to students, from high school freshman to graduate level at Laurel School, John Carroll University (Cleveland, Ohio) and Loyola University (Chicago, Illinois).

She is more than qualified to have addressed the topic of morphological vs. molecular trees. Give it up. You lost

[owensphil]

@mcmanustony

> try actually reading the scientific literature. it's a more honest endevour than slectively quoting papers you've not read- to support claims rejected by the authors

You do the honest thing and admit you were wrong. Molecular trees conflict with those based on morphology. Why aren´t you busy reading the papers to show me that I´m wrong ? Is it that you know the papers aren´t likely to contradict what was already stated?

[mcmanustony]

@owensphil

I'll take no lectures from the likes of you on honesty.

you are wrong and no amount of dishonest selective quoting of a handful of papers you've not read will make you any less wrong.

any luck finding mystery man marshall at Glasgow?

[owensphil]

@mcmanustony

> you are wrong and no amount of dishonest selective quoting

Show HOW those papers are a result of slective quoting. You can´t- You´re accusing me of not knowing what the papers say when it is obvious to everyone follwing your posts that you don´t know what the papers say. Otherwise you would have shown how I was taking the quotes out of context by now.

[mcmanustony]

@owensphil

you just cant bring yourself to admit that you've not read the papers you quote. you are too spineless and dishonest- simple as that.

[owensphil]

@mcmanustony

Hey let me know when you finish scraping all that Darwinian egg off your face (LOL)

[SamCoreJ]

As for indoctrination, again, since you reject the evidence for evolution we can't really connect. Religious indoctrination is the process of imparting doctrine in an uncritical way and with no evidence. You mistakenly put evolution on a par with this. Of course there is a wealth of physical, visual and biological evidence which you reject but is accepted by just about everyone bar a few in denial. This is why people like you and me cannot reconcile our views on this and will fail if we try.

[owensphil]

@SamCoreJ

> since you reject the evidence for evolution

I really would like to hear your best evidence for the evolution that has made you such a believer.

[SamCoreJ]

@owensphil

Its not 'my' evidence and I can't display it in a YouTube comment! The evidence is in vast fossil records, DNA research, biology of animals etc. Microevolution has even been observed and documented which is totally undeniable. Its a case of properly researching these things. As I said, you are part of a minute minority that reject the evidence. Or perhaps haven't even properly considered it in the first place, though no one would ever own up to that.

[owensphil]

@SamCoreJ

fossil record - refuted by lack of trnasitional stages, cambrian explosion, living fossils

DNA - original unknown. source for genetic inscrtuction unknown, useless without translation machinery

biology of animals - not evidence

> Microevolution has even been observed and documented which is totally undeniable

Small scale changes not part of the debate. Please familiarize yourself with the debate.

[wearestarstuffsagan]

@owensphil fossil record does have gaps, obviously it will since not every living thing will fossilize but there are many many transitional fossils, literally thousands upon thousands. the origin of DNA is no concern to evolution, you are purposely misrepresenting what evolution is about and i am willing to bet you dont care about the facts. yes, small scales changes dont prove speciation, however, the witnessed speciation events DO prove it

[owensphil]

@csadler

"Cool, so what is the theory of ID"

Watch this debate on Youtube. I'm sure this evolutionist will bring up anything you could possibly have to say against the theory.

(1) Biologist Loses Debate Against Intelligent Design??? Part 1 of 11

[csadler]

@owensphil Just as I figured. You *know* they don't even have a theory yet (but then those are the words of some of its proponents). So run and hide..... But hey - lets teach it in school anyway! LOL

[Goinglite]

@csadler Another Emotional God Hating Name Calling Atheist..

[csadler]

@Goinglite How typical of the theist mind. You have no clue as to my emotional state (1). (2) how can anyone hate something that does not exist? But, I will say what scares me is that people like you want creationism taught in school while China graduates more and more engineers. The writing is on the wall. The one that innovates the mode wins. China headed to the moon? The US closing down the shuttles all the while saying 'Praise Jesus'...

[owensphil]

@csadler " while China graduates more and more engineers. "

Even scarier than that is you think teaching creationism in school has anything to that! Although Im not for teaching it in public schools.

Hostilities with American Darwinists during a recent biological conference held in China prompted one Chinese scientist to remark, “In China we can question Darwin but we can’t question the government; in America, you can question the government but you can’t question Darwin.”

[csadler]

@owensphil Question Evolution all you want - that is the nature of science. But you and I know that places like the Discovery Institute are not looking at anything other than was spelled out in the Wedge Document. I hope you have read that. If you have, be honest as to the true goal of ID. Its not about science and it never has been.

[owensphil]

@csadler

What is the true goal of Dawkins when he states that " . Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" What is the true goal of Scott,Shermer who signed the humanist manifesto for an atheistic world order? Both sides can play the motif monegering game.

[SamCoreJ]

@owensphil

Is that quote by the scientist meant to make you think China has it the right way round? Firstly, its not about questioning Darwin. Its the evidence that you can't question, not Darwin. Secondly, fuck not being able to question the government.

[scarletharlot69]

> What other scientist has his own day and celebrated in Sunday morning service?

There is a monument to John Dalton, the Father of Atomic theory at Pardshaw Friends' Meeting House. Have a picture of it. It says 'he belongs not to an age but to the ages' He was of course educated in the schoolroom there.

> That should give you a clue.

a clue?

> Darwin´s bogus theory

bogus? how so?

[owensphil]

@scarletharlot69

¨There is a monument to John Dalton¨

Is he celebrated in church on Sunday morning? Is there a move to get pastors to celebrate him in their Sunday morning services across the U.S and other countries? Obviously there´s more to recognizing Darwin than just a ¨scientist¨

[scarletharlot69]

> Why is there a Darwin´s day?

why is Darwin on the back of a £10 note? Why is he burried in Westminister Abbey? 'Let us now sing the praises of famous men, our ancestors in their generations.' Sirach 44:1

> Why is it celebrated in numerous churches and not the founders of other theories?

back to my earlier question, why is evolutionary biology and indeed biology in general under attack from creationists/fundamentalists? in a way that no other science is?

[owensphil]

@scarletharlot69

What other scientist has his own day and celebrated in Sunday morning service? That should give you a clue.

Darwin´s bogus theory is not just under attack from creationists or ID theorists but by secular scientists as well. Both theories intelligent design and evolution both have far reaching implications with respect to how we see and define ourselves, how we view morality and spirituality.

[scarletharlot69]

@owensphil > Darwin´s bogus theory

bogus? how so?

> is not just under attack from creationists or ID theorists

ID theorists are creationists pure and simple see Kitzmiller v Dover

It is just under attack from creationists.

> but by secular scientists as well.

got any evidence for creationism? no. Put up or shut up!

[owensphil]

@scarletharlot69

¨bogus how so?¨

Watch the video parts 1 - 3. Also my videos on ¨Biologist exposes lie of overwhelming evidence for evolution. ¨ID theorists are creationists¨pure and simple¨

Not all ID theorists even believe in a God so that´s just plain blatant ignorance on your part.

¨See Kitzmiller v Dover¨

You mean where a lone judge tells us what he thinks? Get real!

¨Got any evidence for creationism¨

See my videos 1 - 12 Evidence for creation - You couldn´t be more clueless ! 

[scarletharlot69]

Should atomic theory be taught critically? should the scientific evidence against it be taught?

[owensphil]

@scarletharlot69

¨Should atomic theory be taught critically? should the scientific evidence against it be taught?¨

Obviously the atomic theory doesn´t have the same far reaching implications that either the theory of evolution or the theory of intelligent design have. These two theories effect how we see ourselves and others, how we view morality and how we view spirituality. Why is there a Darwin´s day? Why is it celebrated in numerous churches and not the founders of other theories?

[scarletharlot69]

@owensphil > Obviously the atomic theory doesn´t have the same far reaching implications

oh really?

> that either the theory of evolution or the theory of intelligent design have.

'Intelligent Design' is not a scientific theory, it is not science, it is not 'emergent science' it is creationism pure and simple as is 'critical teaching of evolution' 'academic freedom' 'teach the controversy' or whatever other misleading label you wish to put on it.

[owensphil]

@scarletharlot69

Intelligent Design is very much a scientific theory. Principles of design already form the basis of several other scientific disciplines such as archaeology,forensic science, computer science, SETI. Not knowing  the designer is doesn´t mean evolution dunnit by default. Implying who the designer is doesn´t invalidate the design either.

[scarletharlot69]

@owensphil you didn't answer my question.... and you are muddying the waters now, or trying to. The theory of evolution is no more bogus than atomic theory, germ theory of disease, the theory of relativity, quantum theory.. creationism is psudoscienc rooted in fundamentalist 'christianity' it does not form the basis of several other scientific disciplines.

[owensphil]

@scarletharlot69

¨You didn´t answer my question¨ Well then you should have restated it.

¨The theory of evolution is no more bogus¨

Independent of how bogus you think those scientific theories are, the fact remains that the theory of evolution is a bogus theory given that it attempts to explain large scale changes base on OBSERVABLE small scale changes with nothing more than assumptions.

[scarletharlot69]

@owensphil none of the theories I listed are bogus. If there can be a small observable change over a short period of time there can be a cumulative large change over time. The fossil record is full of change over time. There are no non-avian dinosaurs today. Seriously dude how can you say that the theory of evolution is bogus? it makes testable predictions. A century and a half on it has withstood critical testing. Case closed. Stop disparaging science.

[owensphil]

@scarletharlot69

¨If there can be a small observable change over a short period of time there can be a cumulative large change over time.¨

No, there tons of examples of bounded/cyclical variation ie. bacteria, finch beaks, peppered moths, fruit flies.

¨The fossil record is full of change over time¨

Wrong again. The Cambrian explosion indicates just the opposite. Give me one unequivocal example of the fossils showing change over time.

[scarletharlot69]

@owensphil what do you mean no? are you saying that change is not possible over time or that it has not happened? the cambrian explosion does not indicate that there has not been change over time. The cambrian ended 488 million years ago. ergo the cambrian explosion can hardly prevent change over time in say the permian...

[owensphil]

@scarletharlot69

¨Creationism is pseudo-scientific¨

Before you can make that claim you first have to educate yourself on the scientific claims made by creationists. That is what do they allege as science? And if you say the Bible then you aren´t prepared to discuss this matter any further. You first need to educate yourself.

[scarletharlot69]

@owensphil bit of a non sequiter dude. where did you get the videos?

[scarletharlot69]

@owensphil so what scientific claims do creationists of any variety make?

[owensphil]

@scarletharlot69

¨so what scientific claims do creationists of any variety make?¨

Thanks for backing up from your conclusion and admitting your ignorance to their claims.

I uploaded 12 videos on that very topic. You could save the both of us a lot of time if you first inform yourself on the matter. Simply click on my name and you will see them.

[scarletharlot69]

@owensphil so you don't know?

[owensphil]

@scarletharlot69

Yes I am aware of the content contained in the videos that I uploaded.

[scarletharlot69]

@owensphil no kidding? care to give me the best you have? 3 scientific claims made by creationism? Or just 1? If i slog my way through said videos will I find any scientific claims? Testable predictions that is? Really do need to call it a nite. Are these videos of some entertainment value? I could do with a laugh.

[owensphil]

@scarletharlot69

Yes, unlike your millions of unobservable, non testable evidence for large scale evidence you will find testable evidence. Watch any video first, inform yourself so I don´t have to waste time repeating things already explained in the videos.

[csadler]

@owensphil Its not that you don't have time.... its you can't. Please - tell us. Just what is the 'Theory of Intelligent Design'. Not Hypothesis - but the Theory.....

[TheScienceFoundation]

Considering there are no valid objections to it, no.

[owensphil]

@TheScienceFoundation

You're obviously someone who could benefit from taking such a course.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@owensphil So what objections would you teach to evolution?

[owensphil]

@TheScienceFoundation

Well for starters, all of the objections mention in the three part video

[TheScienceFoundation]

@owensphil You think you could give a specific example?

[owensphil]

@TheScienceFoundation

Start with any of the numerous examples provided in parts 1 - 3

[TheScienceFoundation]

@owensphil So you won't give a specific example?

[owensphil]

@TheScienceFoundation

What´s wrong with the specific examples presented in the video{?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@owensphil What's wrong with you bringing up one to discuss? It's your video, you know which you consider particularly apt.

[owensphil]

@TheScienceFoundation

Feel free to comment on any of the challenges brought up in the video and point out why you disagree.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@owensphil Feel free to bring up a specific example of what you consider a legitimate objection to evolution as opposed to a third party wading through nearly an hour of video.

[owensphil]

@TheScienceFoundation

Each part of the video is about 16 minutes or less. You should be able to find at least one example in each part. Some examples not mentioned however are the simultaneous evolution of compatible human male and female reproductive systems both anatomically and biochemically, or photosynthesis

[TheScienceFoundation]

@owensphil 'simultaneous evolution of compatible human male and female reproductive systems'

Are you under the impression that they supposedly evolved independently from one another up until the point we were humans?

[owensphil]

@TheScienceFoundation

No. Are you under the impression that they supposedly evolved simultaneously at any point?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@owensphil They evolved simultaneously throughout the history of sexual reproduction, not sure how you think evolution actually works but any two adjoined generations are not any more genetically dissimilar than you and your parents.

[owensphil]

@TheScienceFoundation

Not sure how YOU think evolution works or why you just think just stating it somehow happened is any kind of explanation. You need to explain HOW two compatible male and female sexual reproductive organs evolved simultaneously without any planning or foresight before the particular species died off. Obviously any partially developed reproductive system would have no evolutionary value and would be selected against.

[scarletharlot69]

@TheScienceFoundation absolutely! I coulnd't have put it better myself.