This jackass remarks at around 4 minutes that Science does not work by majority vote but points out often in his presentation that most biologists believe in it as authority for it's legitimacy. Evolutionists are liars, I bet this guy believes that the human embryo has gills at early stages and that Whales have a vestigial pelvis too, Proven frauds and lies.... Why this theory has needed so many lies an hoaxes throughout the decades to hold it up should be obvious to any thinking person...
@shanedk Actually Haeckel's fraudulent drawings, put forth in 1892, where he tried to show that the human embryo went through all it's former evolutionary stages, a process called the Biogenetic Law or "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was proven a fraud shortly after he produced the fraudulent pictures, yet the diagram is still in many textbooks today, along with many other lies, like the one where they claim Whales have a vestigial pelvis and snake vestigial legs lol ridiculous lies.
I intended to wait to qualify it, because my expectation, based on all creationists being liars, is he knows no recent biology textbooks and is lying.
I would qualify it if the argument even got that far.
You might want to look up the definition of vestigial. Here's one from the World English Dictionary.
vestigial (vɛˈstɪdʒɪəl)
—adj
1. of, relating to, or being a vestige
2. (of certain organs or parts of organisms) having attained a simple structure and reduced size and function during the evolution of the species: the vestigial pelvic girdle of a snake.
Here's one from the American Heritage Science Dictionary:
Relating to a body part that has become small and lost its use because of evolutionary change. Whales, for example, have small bones located in the muscles of their body walls that are vestigial bones of hips and hind limbs.
Science is not a majority vote, it is a tyranny of evidence. No amount of voting made the geocentric system remain incumbent when a single man proposed and proved the heliocentric theory with evidence.
The pharyngeal pouches of human embryos are homologous to the gills in fish embryos.
Whales do have vestigial pelvises.
You declaring something a hoax does not make it so. You actually have to prove that.
Your arguments are atrocious and the facts presented in this video are incorrect. Whales did not have 40 million years to evolve. Recent findings of ancient whale bones in Antarctica have cut the time available for evolution to a significantly shorter period of time.
Only a fool could believe that random processes could transform a wolf like creature into a whale in the time available for macro-evolution to occur.
It´s absolutely safety to say that if you meet someone who believe that a wolf like creature very slowly evolved into whales, that person is ignorant or his cognitive process have a serious problem...let alone when there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a ludicrous claim...and yes, you´re absolutely right, only a fool can believe it...unfortunatelly those kind of fools don´t even realize of it, and deffend this claim with religious fervor
Thanks for screwing up the video with your inanne rediculous nonesense poster. I wanted to see something interesting instead i listen to someone bitching that someone disagrees with evolution. Thats called dogma, and you just made a religion out of science
There is no evidence for evolutionism, I wish scientists would quit refuting something that has no evidence for. There are no dating methods, no new information, no new kinds, no geological column, no abiogenesis evidence.
@warriorprince1010 Just curious. Are you a creationist who believes that all creatures appeared on Earth fully formed? Or is there something else you believe?
"probably it lived in shallow waters, and caught its prey the way crocodiles do." if only we didn't have to assume and we wouldn't have to say "probably"....im not saying believers in Intelligent Design don't assume or even christians for that matter, but we atleast admit it.
It's not an assumption! They found it by looking in the deltas--they KNEW IN ADVANCE where to find it! How is it an assumption if you know in advance where to go looking for it?
Only fools, idiots, and the deluded seek 100% certainty.
@ValRoyD They can NEVER know for sure. You will ALWAYS have people being misdiagnosed--told they have cancer when they don't, told they don't have cancer when they do.
"What about if you owe the IRS money?" SERIOUSLY? You can look through the tax code and tell me there's ANYTHING certain about that? According to the IRS's own survey, 60% of their own agents give people the wrong answers to questions!
ANYONE who asserts 100% certainty is a food, an idiot, or deluded.
@shanedk "ANYONE who asserts 100% certainty is a fool, an idiot, or deluded."
I guess this means that all of you evolutionist are fools, idiots, or deluded, huh?
Are you sure evolution is 100% correct? (I'm sure you will choose not to answer this question as well, for it makes you out to be an idiot either way you answer, LMAO)
@ValRoyD It might, if evolution implied 100% certainty. Shane has a video on this subject titled "are we 100% certain" that directly addresses your comments. Watch that then come back.
Here, von Neumann presupposed the type of information system necessary to support self-replication in the cell.. He didn't have access to details concerning the structure of DNA, but his analysis of the necessities of such a system was precient.
Berlinski and scientists who don't believe in evolution vs majority.
I think irrelevant is correct - majority assent doesn't validate a theory or position in science -neither does agument based on authority - both of which seem to have been the main supports for your contention in that segment and points the Berlinski addresses repeatedly in various bits of his commentary...
It seems to me your defense is based on the rhetorical / argumentative errors that you attribute to Berlinski...
@59arkady Absolutely not! My points are based on the ACTUAL EVIDENCE, and if you can't see that, then you need to watch the video again WITHOUT the filters of your own bias.
@shanedk I can see both sides of it...have been on both sides. However, I was addressing your mode of argument and think you are committing the type of rhetorical errors you charge to Dr. Berlinski. Dr. Berlinski seems to have a grasp of broader issues in the debate. I think he's mentioned valid challenges to Darwinian orthodoxy. I don't believe those challenges were addressed in this defense of that orthodoxy. It looked to me a defence based upon authority and consensus.
@59arkady "Dr. Berlinski seems to have a grasp of broader issues in the debate."
Berlinski doesn't have a grasp of ANYTHING in the debate! He does bogus things like come up with his list of 50,000 changes, yet when pressed he can't even tell anyone what even ONE of those changes would be!
"I think he's mentioned valid challenges to Darwinian orthodoxy."
1) The fact that you used the term "Darwinian orthodoxy" just shows your bias. 2) What challenges are you talking about, specifically?
@shanedk Wow, not one? - he started with a list of examples of exactly what those changes would have to be:
mammary glands, morphology of epidermis, visual system, ech-olocation, legs to flukes, respiratory variances, feeding habits...etc - I think that is more than one -and I'm going from memory vs reveiw.
Orthodoxy is mild regarding my current views on some propoents of Darwinism - Prehaps reflexsivly dogmatic would be a better term to use. (I used to be just like this...)
@59arkady That is NOT a list of changes. How did the mammary glands change? How many changes are required to go from the mammaries of Indohyus to those of a whale? And what happened in each change, before and after?
You just spouted out vague categories, not specific changes.
And it's NOT dogmatic when it's based on the EVIDENCE, and CERTAINLY not when it's the best supported theory in all science--better even than GRAVITY!
@shanedk One challenge would be to provide a mathmatical model to get from point a in just one of the genotypic modifications to point B, from the mamary system of a land dwelling decsecdant to the unique one in aquatic mammals, one showing how random mutation can account for such changes at the level of DNA. Have you considered the hippo? Been 'round a while, spends lot's of time in the water. Doesn't seem to be mutating along a predictable Darwinian tradjectory...
@shanedk This is where evolution is a tautology. But, what pressures would cause a land-dwelling mammal to become a fully adapted sea dwelling mammel, how do they differ from pressures a hippopatamus would encounter? Anyone can speculate anything - and it will always be "true" because the fact that it changed (if it did) is because there were "pressures: How do we know there were pressures - because is changed. Of course the hippo didn't -no pressures, how do we know? No change.
@shanedk Recalling the scenario related to cetation evolution - started in shallow water? Yes. I would expect the hippo to be on it's way by now - deep water later, like the ambulocetus maybe. These are extrapolations of interpretation.
Tautology: a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because the statements depend on the assumption that they are already correct.
@59arkady "I would expect the hippo to be on it's way by now - deep water later,"
Where does it get that deep, where the hippo lives?
Ambulocetus evolved the way it did because it was an ambush predator. Hippos are vegetarians.
And nice Wikipedia quote-mine. How about the part where tautologies are always valid logic? And what about its use in propositional and predicate logic?
@shanedk More tautologies, really. The reasoning supports its conclusion independant of evidences. In reversed circustances, would apply equally. (quote mining follows)
Britanica: tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied without inconsistency...
The statement cannot but be true because it asserts every possible state of affairs: it is true whichsoever of its constituents are true, and it is also true whichsoever are false.
@shanedk Circular or not, the reasoning is flexible in that will always yeild the same outcome regardless of circumstances. The nature of the selection pressure, or lack of thereof' doesn't really matter: Predator, herbavore, omnivore, deep water, shallow water, it's all the same. The outcome is explained by its antecedant - the theory. Evidence is irrelavant if it's pointed in the wrong direction. When we get what we don't expect, it's always exactly what was expected all along.
@shanedk In other words: "Evolution’s theoretical core is creation by natural means. The particular details don’t so much matter. Selection can be replaced by drift, gradualism can be replaced by saltationism, random mutation can be replaced by pre programmed adaptation, the evolutionary tree can be replaced by a web, even common descent can be replaced. But naturalism cannot be replaced. So when a prediction goes bad, it is the fault of the sub hypothesis, not the theoretical core."
@shanedk And as is typical: "In this case, the marshalling of Horizontal Gene Transfers as the explanation for biology’s patterns and success raises the question of where these complex mechanisms came from in the first place. According to evolutionary theory, evolution created the incredibly complex HGTs which then facilitated, yes, evolution."
@shanedk Drosophila. The little buggars've been subjected to as much mutation and selection pressure as could be asked for, millions of years worth, maybe. The result? Degradation, damage, death - but, flies - Drosophila to boot. Same with bacteria - lots of studies on e-coli, aureus, too, always being e-coli, or aureus at end. So, when it's not going the expected direction? The answer will always preserve the Darwinian presupposition -falsification is just not an option.
@shanedk Flies from the start? Never anything but flies? No proto-fly, intermediate, common ancestor, or transitional phase - fully preserved flies, always flies? Conserved through selection pressures -as flies? The final fly, being very much like the first fly? Please, that's a prediction of creationism - variation and selection within kind in order to preseve it. (After their own kind...)
@shanedk Oh no, second warning, I'm really scared. Who said anything ubiquitous, I certainly didn't. Again, I am not an octopus, when someone can show, using the human eye with the rest of the human body and brain, a better design than what we have now, then you will have an argument, until then you have nothing except for the fact that my God does know how to make a perfect eye. The octopus is proof that God is very smart, thanks.
@ValRoyD Greetings - look at PNAS paper (Müller cells are living optical fibers in the vertebrate retina...). Very instructive - the vertebrate eye made well - better than imagined....the "bad eye" argument was premature....and desparate!
@shanedk Read the paper - search for issue regarding metabolic need of light sensitive cells and UV exposure to them - the "backwards" is practical and is compensated for by Muller cells (which are not "light sensitive" - something else.) It's a PNAS, peer reviewed paper. The implications are enlightening to the open mind. It will take some research to get at the UV / metabolism bits. "Bad" design isn't the case here - " equisite" would be a more accurate word.
@ValRoyD I don't need to; I know what a badly-made piece of crap it is. Why do you think we need to develop this huge visual cortex just to clean up the cruddy, horrible, low-resolution images our eye sends us?
@shanedk "I don't need to" ------ Just goes to show what a ignorant fool you are! People like you choose to remain ignorant so that they don't have to face reality. Great Job!
@Virgil0211 He said I was ignorant because I wouldn't read his idiotic paper when he can't even give me basic answers to very important questions.
FDAthe1st said I was ignorant because I wouldn't watch his bullshit video when he couldn't even give you and me basic answers to very important questions.
@shanedk True, but I find their actions a bit more annoying for some reason. With ValRoyD, it seems more like par for the course. I'ono. Maybe that's just the early-morning haze screwing with my head.
@Virgil0211@shanedk Watching you converse with your own sockpuppet is pretty pathetic. It's not my paper and I'm not even the one that mentioned that you should read it. If you want to know what it says, why don't you read it? Way to go virgule for ignoring the comment! Go ahead and ignore my comment shanedk, you just know that either answer is the wrong answer and the only reason that can be is if the statement before hand is so stupidly and wrongfully opinionated.
@ValRoyD Take a good look at my profile, little boy. Do I look like a sockpuppet to you?
You're the one who ignored the relevant aspects of the comment. If a paper attempts to claim that the sky is black at 12:00 noon, one needn't read the paper to contradict the claim. I'm sorry if this ruffles your feathers, but you really need to try a little harder next time.
@Virgil0211 I asked you a question as to what you were referring to, little girl. I cannot answer you if I don't know what you are talking about. I already have looked at you profile, little girl; I'm not the only one that thinks you are a sockpuppet. I can see what a moron you are. If a paper attempts to claim that the sky is black at 12:00 noon, I'm going to keep reading to see why it was black at 12:00 noon. It's called educating yourself, something little girls like you don't know how to do.
@ValRoyD Is there a point in that block of insipid rambling?
And if, by the admission of the person presenting the paper, the paper itself makes no attempt to account for its own lack of evidence or reasoning, will you really waste your time with it? Perhaps you will next claim that the moon is composed of swiss cheese and carried through the sky by invisible unicorns?
Did you find that diagnostic method/tool that can determine the presence of cancer with 100% accuracy yet?
@Virgil0211 Wow! Talk about rambling! How can I know what the paper says if I don't read it. The moon is not made out of swiss cheese, it's made out of green cheese, moron. And it's not carried through the sky by invisible unicorns. If you get a really good telescope you can actually see the unicorns....they are black, so that makes them really hard to see.
@Virgil0211 You are just a typical YouTube idiot that uses insults insults as a way to discredit someone instead of knowledge and logic. You still haven't told me as to what comment I am ignoring which means that you are the one ignoring comments, not me.
@ValRoyD You ignored the part of the comment that addresses your paper. If the paper cannot account for all of the things that point to how badly designed the eye is, then it doesn't have anything worthwhile. You ignored this and instead chose to misquote your opponent.
@Virgil0211 Again, it is not my paper nor am I the one that brought it to shanedk's attention. The paper does talk about what you call bad design. If you or shanddk had bothered to read it, then you would know this information. Now, how did I misquote "my opponent"?
@ValRoyD You attempted to make it appear as if he were dismissing your source out of hand, rather than quoting the part where he stated WHY he was dismissing your source. I compared it to a paper that attempted to claim that the sky was black at noon or that the moon was composed of swiss cheese.
@Virgil0211 "You attempted to make it appear as if he were dismissing your source out of hand"
He was dismissing the source out of hand when he said he didn't have to read when he already knew it was a piece of crap design. To say your not going to read something that refutes what you are saying because you already know is called dismissing things out of hand. The whole paper is about how the eye is not poorly designed. Why don't you read it for yourself and see what it says?
@Virgil0211 Why are you talking for shanedk anyway? You are only sending me to info from him, which proves my point more that you don't know anything. Great Job!
@ValRoyD Virgil has been established as his own unique user for quite a long time, and false accusations of sockpuppetry violate Rule #5 of this channel. First warning.
@shanedk And to say that you can't be 100% sure if one has cancer or not is beyond one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. I've said it once and I'll say it again, you are a complete idiot.
@ValRoyD Fine, point to any diagnostic method or tool that can determine the presence of cancer with 100% accuracy. Not close to, but full 100% accuracy.
@Virgil0211 While there is no single diagnostic method to determine cancer with 100% accuracy, that does not mean that one cannot be 100% sure one has cancer or not. If this were the case, no doctor would do surgery to remove the cancer they weren't sure was 100% there to begin with.
@shanedk I didn't say that, idiot, way to put words in my mouth though, and virgil is not an established user to me, I just found out he exists and you saying he is....well, I'm sure you can figure out the rest of that sentence. How are Creationist political cultists? It would seem to me that Evolutionist are the ones with the agenda. And just for the record, moron, that is the third warning in all my time here, so do what you have to do, I'm sure you would love to block me, so go ahead.
@ValRoyD YES YOU DID, LIAR!!! In the VERY LAST POST, YOU said, AND I QUOTE: "no doctor would do surgery to remove the cancer they weren't sure was 100% there to begin with." BULLSHIT! They do surgeries all the time when they're not sure--and a lot of times the tumor comes back as being benign!
So now you're a LIAR. Congratulations: you're officially a creationist!
@ValRoyD Oh, and the third warning is your FINAL. Pull one more piece of crap like that and you WILL be blocked!
Whereupon you'll probably just run whining to your creationist friends about how the bad man blocked you because he was afraid of the truth, like all pathetic LIARS do...
@shanedk I guess you think that some tumors are ok to have, huh? So, if a tumor is benign, doctors should just let them sit there in your body? Is this really what you are saying?
@ValRoyD "I guess you think that some tumors are ok to have, huh?"
Many tumors are benign. Even larger ones that are known to be benign are often left in because there's no reason to take them out. That's what "benign" means.
@shanedk If you want to block me, block me, I've told you already, I really don't care. You've been wanting to block me for some time, I'm sure; you just haven't had a 'good enough' excuse. You break your own rules all the time especially #5 and #6, and now you are breaking rule #3 by threatening me. You need to block yourself you fucking lying hypocrite. Way to go you're officially an evolutard.
@ValRoyD It's not about me "wanting" to block you. It's about you behaving in a way that gets in the way of rational discussion. That's what the rules are for. Comply with them and you'll be OK.
Except that now you've done it AGAIN. If you can quote me violating either #5 or #6 I won't block you, but if your VERY NEXT POST does not contain such a quote, or a retraction of your claim, YOU WILL BE BLOCKED.
@shanedk #5 No libel or character assassination: You have called me Idiot, a liar, a hypocrite, and more stuff too.
#6 No bigoted comments: You classify all Creationist as idiot's, liars, hypocrites, and other stuff too. Even the first sentence in the video above shows your bigotedness toward Creationist.
If you are going to make rules that say no character assassinations, then you should refrain from remarks that put people down, no matter what they say or what you disagree with, yes?
@ValRoyD 1) Name-calling is NOT libel, and I established the reasons for calling you those things; I didn't just do so will-he nil-he.
2) Because THEY LIE. Their lies--and yours--have been established by me and many others. Telling the truth is NOT bigotry. The ONLY way creationism can be maintained is BY LYING.
So give me ONE GOOD REASON why I shouldn't block you; ONE GOOD REASON why your despicable behavior here is NOT an attempt to subvert discussion with bullshit false accusations. ONE.
@shanedk "It's not about me "wanting" to block you. It's about you behaving in a way that gets in the way of rational discussion."
You are one of the rudest, irrational people on YouTube. You constantly put people down just because they believe differently than you do. And then you have enough gall to tell other people to behave themselves, you're a real winner, a real piece of work.
@ValRoyD No, I put people down because they lie and engage in sloppy thinking to support their delusions and refuse to listen to the evidence and arguments showing them for the delusions they are. Your problem is that your ego will not allow you to separate an attack against your argument from an attack on YOU. When (if) you grow up you'll realize they are NOT the same thing.
@shanedk They only leave tumors in people if trying to take them out is more harmful than not. To say that some tumors are cool to have in your body is irrational thinking so that you don't have to concede a point. It's the reason you never learn anything. The same reason you won't read the journal about the eye, you don't ever want to be wrong and you will do anything in your power to protect you beliefs no matter how fucked up they are, real mature.
@ValRoyD "They only leave tumors in people if trying to take them out is more harmful than not."
Which means they do NOT take out tumors they believe to be benign. This is in compete contradiction of YOUR assertion: "I guess you think that some tumors are ok to have, huh? So, if a tumor is benign, doctors should just let them sit there in your body? Is this really what you are saying?"
So, not only are you backpedalling, you're acting like I'M the one who didn't know that!
@shanedk Go fuck yourself. You are a lying sack of shit without the decency to own up to when you are wrong. You constantly assign your lack of maturity to other people. Doctors take benign tumors out all of the time jackass. You are a complete waste of time. Like I said already, GO FUCK YOURSELF! Go ahead and block me asshole. You're a bigot and an idiot and I want nothing else to do you with. Take your sockpuppets and stick them up your ass, I know you like stuff rammed up there. FUCK YOU!
@ValRoyD Did the paper cover the hideous image quality due to the light-sensitive cells being put in the wrong way? Did it cover the need to have an enormous visual cortex to clean up the image? If not, then I don't need to read the paper to know that it's a bunch of delusional religious apologetic CRAP!
@shanedk Müller cells are living optical fibers in the vertebrate retina...
PNAS paper - kinda hard on the "bad eye design" thing. There are metabolic, and uv considerations, too. Point being this example may show more of ingenious engineering forthought than anyone using it as a bludgeon against dissent could have imagined....
I must believe in something? I must nothing :p It's not because i extrapolate theories, or entertain speculative ideas, that i can not at the same time calculate the chances of it being true. belief doesn't bring me anything tbh. appart from false hope that is.
@srexob715 My question: So what's your excuse?" Your answer: "Still showing the world that he's a coward! LOL" Let's see ... you won't identify whether you are a male or female; you won't give your age or your educational background. I'd say that's pretty cowardly, for a start. Then popping in to emit low-grade epithets instead of entering a discussion with regard to the points made. That's also cowardly.
I guess your answer makes some sense. Nothing that a little courage wouldn't help.
shanedk, your such an idiot, your detracting the focus from the points that berlinski makes to form your own circular reason by doing nothing but quoting other darwinist propaganda. go back to school please.
@ayitsjory You're kidding right :p berlinski makes no points, he asks a question, takes a part of the answer and applies it to his false logic. I mean, stop trolling already ^^
A little spooky to think,,,,,,,,,Dr. Berlinski and other Christian extremists might devise a plan to carry out the disciplinary actions in the HOLY BIBLE and carry out GENOCIDE onto nonbelievers such as SCIENTISTS who are a threat to the beliefs of Jesus and the Bible,,,just as the Bible describes in the Old Testament.
@MorganMarvinson He RUNS again to make his god proud! STupidity is your strong suit, so dont let anyone take that from you. ITS YOURS! WHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
@vspqbd I get the point, though the term you have put forth isn't a term of common use. If it were, a physicist might only use the term if asked whether he is a gravityist or an anti-gravitist. To contrast one's belief system from the opposing one is why a person would designate himself as either an evolutionist or a creationist. It clarifies his worldview for most people.
@MorganMarvinson He runs like a girl, then LIES and says he doesn't run. Its how we KNOW the religious CULTS are not able to accept the truth. It hurts them, so they lie!
@MorganMarvinson "Evolutionist" ISN'T in general use, except by creationists. And it's a term that exists SOLELY to disparage the theory of evolution and the scientists who work with it.
(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) a person who believes in a theory of evolution, esp Darwin's theory of the evolution of plant and animal species
You may be sensitive to being labeled by one of your beliefs, but there is nothing in this definition that disparages anyone unless you think there is something disparaging about believing in the theory of evolution.
@MorganMarvinson It's not a belief, IDIOT. It's a scientific theory. You don't "believe in" it, you just accept it until the evidence shows something else.
1/2@shanedk If you wish to use the epithet IDIOT, you are free to use it on yourself, but it most certainly does not fit me. I am not an idiot. Belief in evolution MOST CERTAINLY did--and does--precede the scientific evidence. One by one Darwin's original "scientific" proofs for evolution have been abandoned. Despite this abandonment, it has been believed. I was just reading about the difficulties about the evolutionary "tree of life" and the optimism that accompanied belief before the evidence.
@vspqbd How does the "best game in town fallacy" rebut his statement? Even if to play devil's advocate, you've got to offer something better than that.
"No it doesn't." I've already shown how it does.
"References to peer ... lit." Neo-Darwinism retains one point out of Darwinism, NS. The rest violates the anti-Lamarkian stance of modern science and basic genetics. It was theory and the metaphor of animal husbandry that sold Darwinian evolution--not scientific evidence.
@vspqbd "I hope you aren't one of those close-minded arrogant types who only jumps into a dialog to say something insulting and isn't willing to reconsider his position."
2/2@shanedk "Five years ago we were very confident and arrogant in our ignorance," said Dr. Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. "Now we are starting to see the true complexity of life." Biologists can draw up family trees based on other genes besides the ribosomal RNA gene that provided the original map. And the trees based on other genes show different maps that do not agree with the ribosomal RNA map. "Each picture is different, so there is tremendous confusion."
@shanedk The first half of your epithet is true, but we weren't discussing that subject. As to the second half, how does copying an obvious quote make one a liar?
Say something thoughtful for a change in this conversation, won't you. It's really refreshing when you do.
@shanedk The post marked 2/2 is all a quotation, not just the part in quotation marks. I was limited by the 50 word YouTube limit so I just used the marks as in the original text. If your epithet of "liar" is based on a reaction to the part outside quotation marks, then it is not I you are calling a liar. If you agree with the unmarked text, then what basis do you have for calling me a liar in relation to that post?
@shanedk Mined some more for you from the same article (which is the one I was looking for in the first place):
"Despite the quagmire in which their present efforts have landed them, biologists have not in any way despaired of confirming the conventional thesis, that life evolved on earth from natural chemical processes. But a ferment of rethinking and regrouping is under way."
A thesis looking for evidence--not the reverse. Belief precedes the gathering of evidence.
@MorganMarvinson I love how you used a quote that even taken at face value would invalidate your own creationist beliefs. You kind of remind me of the car salesman in the first season of Dexter who would skate from one lie to the next and hope every one would forget his original lie because he wasn't being at all consistent.
@johnrainrules John, I prefaced my quoting of this by saying that belief precedes evidence. I only quoted 50 words of one of the documents I was reading on the subject. Over and over these science writers are saying: What we thought was true of the tree of life isn't. We based our belief on what we thought was true; evidence undermines our prior thinking.
This tells me that it isn't a careful examination of the evidence that leads to affirmation of evolution.
@MorganMarvinson I think you're projecting the methodology of your religion on to science. Do you think a careful examination of the evidence leads to an affirmation of the Earth being roughly spherical? That contradicts your bible too. In fact instead of referring to people as Evolutionists on this channel, you should instead refer to us as spherical Earthists.
@johnrainrules You're wasting both of our time, John. "Spherical Earthists" wouldn't distinguish your belief from mine (since I believe in one too) or from the Bible's description of the "circle of the earth."
@MorganMarvinson What about the part where Jesus sees all the Kingdoms of the Earth from a very tall mountain. Only possible on a much smaller, flatter Earth.
@johnrainrules I think you've been reading somebody's goofy oversimplification. People of the ancient world knew that you couldn't see all the kingdoms of the earth from ANY mountain. It's an insult to their intelligence.
@MorganMarvinson I read it in the actual bible, Matthew 4:7-9. And yes the "ancients" knew that. It turns out that the bible isn't just behind our times, but behind the science of its own time.
lol, good point, 5:52 , evolution is not taught or learned, how stupid to even think such a thing.
abeismain 1 hour ago
This is so stupid it has to be a Poe......
csadler 5 hours ago
This jackass remarks at around 4 minutes that Science does not work by majority vote but points out often in his presentation that most biologists believe in it as authority for it's legitimacy. Evolutionists are liars, I bet this guy believes that the human embryo has gills at early stages and that Whales have a vestigial pelvis too, Proven frauds and lies.... Why this theory has needed so many lies an hoaxes throughout the decades to hold it up should be obvious to any thinking person...
AbandonedPanda 1 week ago
@AbandonedPanda "but points out often in his presentation that most biologists believe in it as authority for it's legitimacy."
I do NO SUCH THING.
"Evolutionists are liars"
No, YOU are.
"I bet this guy believes that the human embryo has gills at early stages"
NO ONE believes this. YOU JUST LIED.
ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS. And then they accuse US of lying! Pathetic.
shanedk 1 week ago
@shanedk Actually Haeckel's fraudulent drawings, put forth in 1892, where he tried to show that the human embryo went through all it's former evolutionary stages, a process called the Biogenetic Law or "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was proven a fraud shortly after he produced the fraudulent pictures, yet the diagram is still in many textbooks today, along with many other lies, like the one where they claim Whales have a vestigial pelvis and snake vestigial legs lol ridiculous lies.
AbandonedPanda 13 hours ago
@AbandonedPanda Another OUTRIGHT LIE. The textbooks use ACTUAL PICTURES OF ACTUAL EMBRYOS. NO textbook supports Haeckel's Biogenetic Law.
ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS.
shanedk 7 hours ago
@AbandonedPanda
What is the most recently published biology textbook you know of that has Haeckel's drawings in it?
Whales do have vestigial pelvises.
Snakes do have vestigial spurs where their legs used to be.
rkyeun 5 hours ago
@rkyeun "What is the most recently published biology textbook you know of that has Haeckel's drawings in it?"
Qualify that: that uses them in anything other than a historical context.
shanedk 4 hours ago
@shanedk
I intended to wait to qualify it, because my expectation, based on all creationists being liars, is he knows no recent biology textbooks and is lying.
I would qualify it if the argument even got that far.
rkyeun 4 hours ago
@AbandonedPanda
You might want to look up the definition of vestigial. Here's one from the World English Dictionary.
vestigial (vɛˈstɪdʒɪəl)
—adj
1. of, relating to, or being a vestige
2. (of certain organs or parts of organisms) having attained a simple structure and reduced size and function during the evolution of the species: the vestigial pelvic girdle of a snake.
rkyeun 5 hours ago
@AbandonedPanda
Here's one from the American Heritage Science Dictionary:
Relating to a body part that has become small and lost its use because of evolutionary change. Whales, for example, have small bones located in the muscles of their body walls that are vestigial bones of hips and hind limbs.
rkyeun 4 hours ago
@AbandonedPanda
Science is not a majority vote, it is a tyranny of evidence. No amount of voting made the geocentric system remain incumbent when a single man proposed and proved the heliocentric theory with evidence.
The pharyngeal pouches of human embryos are homologous to the gills in fish embryos.
Whales do have vestigial pelvises.
You declaring something a hoax does not make it so. You actually have to prove that.
rkyeun 5 hours ago
Why do you sound like Pee-Wee Herman?
BlongBlarble 3 weeks ago
Your arguments are atrocious and the facts presented in this video are incorrect. Whales did not have 40 million years to evolve. Recent findings of ancient whale bones in Antarctica have cut the time available for evolution to a significantly shorter period of time.
Only a fool could believe that random processes could transform a wolf like creature into a whale in the time available for macro-evolution to occur.
wgbutler777 1 month ago
@wgbutler777
It´s absolutely safety to say that if you meet someone who believe that a wolf like creature very slowly evolved into whales, that person is ignorant or his cognitive process have a serious problem...let alone when there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a ludicrous claim...and yes, you´re absolutely right, only a fool can believe it...unfortunatelly those kind of fools don´t even realize of it, and deffend this claim with religious fervor
realhomosapiens 4 weeks ago
Thanks for screwing up the video with your inanne rediculous nonesense poster. I wanted to see something interesting instead i listen to someone bitching that someone disagrees with evolution. Thats called dogma, and you just made a religion out of science
MagnusCattus 1 month ago
There is no evidence for evolutionism, I wish scientists would quit refuting something that has no evidence for. There are no dating methods, no new information, no new kinds, no geological column, no abiogenesis evidence.
warriorprince1010 1 month ago
@warriorprince1010 Just curious. Are you a creationist who believes that all creatures appeared on Earth fully formed? Or is there something else you believe?
McPrfctday 6 hours ago
@McPrfctday Sounded like a Poe to me.
shanedk 5 hours ago
I like your voice - It's very cartoony (and you say "wh" words properly!)
smokingm0nkeys 2 months ago
Berlinski is a hired gun whose powder is wet.
Upstreamswimmer 4 months ago
Thanks again Shane, Your videos have helped me greatly in shaking off the shackles of religious biggotory.
dirtydonki 4 months ago
why do you have so many dislikes?
WonderfulDenmark 5 months ago
@WonderfulDenmark Creationist vote-bot.
shanedk 5 months ago
"probably it lived in shallow waters, and caught its prey the way crocodiles do." if only we didn't have to assume and we wouldn't have to say "probably"....im not saying believers in Intelligent Design don't assume or even christians for that matter, but we atleast admit it.
drumnbass411 5 months ago in playlist Anti-Creationism
@drumnbass411 "if only we didn't have to assume"
It's not an assumption! They found it by looking in the deltas--they KNEW IN ADVANCE where to find it! How is it an assumption if you know in advance where to go looking for it?
Only fools, idiots, and the deluded seek 100% certainty.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk So everyone that wants to know for sure or not if they have cancer is a fool, idiots, and deluded?
What about if you owe the IRS money? Or how about, if your mom died, are these people fool, idiots, and deluded too?
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@ValRoyD They can NEVER know for sure. You will ALWAYS have people being misdiagnosed--told they have cancer when they don't, told they don't have cancer when they do.
"What about if you owe the IRS money?" SERIOUSLY? You can look through the tax code and tell me there's ANYTHING certain about that? According to the IRS's own survey, 60% of their own agents give people the wrong answers to questions!
ANYONE who asserts 100% certainty is a food, an idiot, or deluded.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk And are you 100% certain that you are correct?
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@ValRoyD I'm going to ignore that pathetic bit of trollage...come back when you grow the fuck up and want to have a mature conversation.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk "ANYONE who asserts 100% certainty is a fool, an idiot, or deluded."
I guess this means that all of you evolutionist are fools, idiots, or deluded, huh?
Are you sure evolution is 100% correct? (I'm sure you will choose not to answer this question as well, for it makes you out to be an idiot either way you answer, LMAO)
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@ValRoyD It might, if evolution implied 100% certainty. Shane has a video on this subject titled "are we 100% certain" that directly addresses your comments. Watch that then come back.
Virgil0211 5 months ago
naturalselection dot 0catch dot com /Files/humaneye dot html
A review of bad eye design....
59arkady 6 months ago
To any interested parties: Uncommon Descent
10 September 2009
John von Neumann, an IDer ante litteram
Here, von Neumann presupposed the type of information system necessary to support self-replication in the cell.. He didn't have access to details concerning the structure of DNA, but his analysis of the necessities of such a system was precient.
59arkady 6 months ago
@59arkady And what about it in any way refutes evolution or says that von Neumann in any way doubted it?
shanedk 6 months ago
Berlinski and scientists who don't believe in evolution vs majority.
I think irrelevant is correct - majority assent doesn't validate a theory or position in science -neither does agument based on authority - both of which seem to have been the main supports for your contention in that segment and points the Berlinski addresses repeatedly in various bits of his commentary...
It seems to me your defense is based on the rhetorical / argumentative errors that you attribute to Berlinski...
59arkady 6 months ago
@59arkady Absolutely not! My points are based on the ACTUAL EVIDENCE, and if you can't see that, then you need to watch the video again WITHOUT the filters of your own bias.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk I can see both sides of it...have been on both sides. However, I was addressing your mode of argument and think you are committing the type of rhetorical errors you charge to Dr. Berlinski. Dr. Berlinski seems to have a grasp of broader issues in the debate. I think he's mentioned valid challenges to Darwinian orthodoxy. I don't believe those challenges were addressed in this defense of that orthodoxy. It looked to me a defence based upon authority and consensus.
59arkady 6 months ago
@59arkady "Dr. Berlinski seems to have a grasp of broader issues in the debate."
Berlinski doesn't have a grasp of ANYTHING in the debate! He does bogus things like come up with his list of 50,000 changes, yet when pressed he can't even tell anyone what even ONE of those changes would be!
"I think he's mentioned valid challenges to Darwinian orthodoxy."
1) The fact that you used the term "Darwinian orthodoxy" just shows your bias. 2) What challenges are you talking about, specifically?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Wow, not one? - he started with a list of examples of exactly what those changes would have to be:
mammary glands, morphology of epidermis, visual system, ech-olocation, legs to flukes, respiratory variances, feeding habits...etc - I think that is more than one -and I'm going from memory vs reveiw.
Orthodoxy is mild regarding my current views on some propoents of Darwinism - Prehaps reflexsivly dogmatic would be a better term to use. (I used to be just like this...)
59arkady 6 months ago
@59arkady That is NOT a list of changes. How did the mammary glands change? How many changes are required to go from the mammaries of Indohyus to those of a whale? And what happened in each change, before and after?
You just spouted out vague categories, not specific changes.
And it's NOT dogmatic when it's based on the EVIDENCE, and CERTAINLY not when it's the best supported theory in all science--better even than GRAVITY!
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk One challenge would be to provide a mathmatical model to get from point a in just one of the genotypic modifications to point B, from the mamary system of a land dwelling decsecdant to the unique one in aquatic mammals, one showing how random mutation can account for such changes at the level of DNA. Have you considered the hippo? Been 'round a while, spends lot's of time in the water. Doesn't seem to be mutating along a predictable Darwinian tradjectory...
59arkady 6 months ago
@59arkady Because the hippo is well-adapted to those conditions, and there's no evolutionary pressure to become any more aquatic in its environment.
Do you understand ANYTHING about evolution?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk This is where evolution is a tautology. But, what pressures would cause a land-dwelling mammal to become a fully adapted sea dwelling mammel, how do they differ from pressures a hippopatamus would encounter? Anyone can speculate anything - and it will always be "true" because the fact that it changed (if it did) is because there were "pressures: How do we know there were pressures - because is changed. Of course the hippo didn't -no pressures, how do we know? No change.
59arkady 6 months ago
@59arkady "This is where evolution is a tautology."
Well, since in order for it to be a tautology, it must be true, then I guess congratulations on accepting that evolution is true.
"what pressures would cause a land-dwelling mammal to become a fully adapted sea dwelling mammel,"
It's very well established: having to move out into deeper and deeper water.
"how do they differ from pressures a hippopatamus would encounter?"
Because a hippopotamus doesn't have to live in deep water. DUH!
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Recalling the scenario related to cetation evolution - started in shallow water? Yes. I would expect the hippo to be on it's way by now - deep water later, like the ambulocetus maybe. These are extrapolations of interpretation.
Tautology: a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because the statements depend on the assumption that they are already correct.
59arkady 6 months ago
@59arkady "I would expect the hippo to be on it's way by now - deep water later,"
Where does it get that deep, where the hippo lives?
Ambulocetus evolved the way it did because it was an ambush predator. Hippos are vegetarians.
And nice Wikipedia quote-mine. How about the part where tautologies are always valid logic? And what about its use in propositional and predicate logic?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk More tautologies, really. The reasoning supports its conclusion independant of evidences. In reversed circustances, would apply equally. (quote mining follows)
Britanica: tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied without inconsistency...
The statement cannot but be true because it asserts every possible state of affairs: it is true whichsoever of its constituents are true, and it is also true whichsoever are false.
59arkady 6 months ago
@59arkady A tautology is NOT circular reasoning. You don't seem to understand the difference.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Circular or not, the reasoning is flexible in that will always yeild the same outcome regardless of circumstances. The nature of the selection pressure, or lack of thereof' doesn't really matter: Predator, herbavore, omnivore, deep water, shallow water, it's all the same. The outcome is explained by its antecedant - the theory. Evidence is irrelavant if it's pointed in the wrong direction. When we get what we don't expect, it's always exactly what was expected all along.
59arkady 6 months ago
@59arkady If I say "things fall down because gravity pulls them down," that's a tautology. It will always yield the same outcome BECAUSE IT'S TRUE.
And there have been NUMEROUS times when the evidence could have falsified evolution and didn't. You're just grasping at straws.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk The correct analogy would be: gravity pulls things up, or down- because it pulls them up, or down.
59arkady 6 months ago
@shanedk In other words: "Evolution’s theoretical core is creation by natural means. The particular details don’t so much matter. Selection can be replaced by drift, gradualism can be replaced by saltationism, random mutation can be replaced by pre programmed adaptation, the evolutionary tree can be replaced by a web, even common descent can be replaced. But naturalism cannot be replaced. So when a prediction goes bad, it is the fault of the sub hypothesis, not the theoretical core."
59arkady 6 months ago
@shanedk And as is typical: "In this case, the marshalling of Horizontal Gene Transfers as the explanation for biology’s patterns and success raises the question of where these complex mechanisms came from in the first place. According to evolutionary theory, evolution created the incredibly complex HGTs which then facilitated, yes, evolution."
59arkady 6 months ago
@shanedk Drosophila. The little buggars've been subjected to as much mutation and selection pressure as could be asked for, millions of years worth, maybe. The result? Degradation, damage, death - but, flies - Drosophila to boot. Same with bacteria - lots of studies on e-coli, aureus, too, always being e-coli, or aureus at end. So, when it's not going the expected direction? The answer will always preserve the Darwinian presupposition -falsification is just not an option.
59arkady 6 months ago
@59arkady If they were EVER anything other than flies, that would FALSIFY EVOLUTION!!!
Why don't you idiot creationists get that???
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Flies from the start? Never anything but flies? No proto-fly, intermediate, common ancestor, or transitional phase - fully preserved flies, always flies? Conserved through selection pressures -as flies? The final fly, being very much like the first fly? Please, that's a prediction of creationism - variation and selection within kind in order to preseve it. (After their own kind...)
59arkady 6 months ago
@59arkady No, the creationist prediction is falsified by ring species. Evolution isn't.
shanedk 6 months ago
idiot
Johnandvanessa 7 months ago
don't feed the trolls ^^
devilzown11 7 months ago
@ValRoyD SECOND warning.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk Oh no, second warning, I'm really scared. Who said anything ubiquitous, I certainly didn't. Again, I am not an octopus, when someone can show, using the human eye with the rest of the human body and brain, a better design than what we have now, then you will have an argument, until then you have nothing except for the fact that my God does know how to make a perfect eye. The octopus is proof that God is very smart, thanks.
ValRoyD 7 months ago
@ValRoyD "my God does know how to make a perfect eye" Then why didn't he do it?
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk He did! The octopus is living proof!
ValRoyD 7 months ago
@ValRoyD Maybe one day you'll learn why everyone who passed the third grade knows why that argument is incredibly dumb!
shanedk 7 months ago
@ValRoyD Greetings - look at PNAS paper (Müller cells are living optical fibers in the vertebrate retina...). Very instructive - the vertebrate eye made well - better than imagined....the "bad eye" argument was premature....and desparate!
59arkady 6 months ago
@59arkady So they're light-sensitive cells. So what? THEY'RE PUT IN BACKWARDS!!!
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Read the paper - search for issue regarding metabolic need of light sensitive cells and UV exposure to them - the "backwards" is practical and is compensated for by Muller cells (which are not "light sensitive" - something else.) It's a PNAS, peer reviewed paper. The implications are enlightening to the open mind. It will take some research to get at the UV / metabolism bits. "Bad" design isn't the case here - " equisite" would be a more accurate word.
59arkady 6 months ago
@shanedk I'll bet you didn't read the paper about how wonderfully made the eye is, huh?
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@ValRoyD I don't need to; I know what a badly-made piece of crap it is. Why do you think we need to develop this huge visual cortex just to clean up the cruddy, horrible, low-resolution images our eye sends us?
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk "I don't need to" ------ Just goes to show what a ignorant fool you are! People like you choose to remain ignorant so that they don't have to face reality. Great Job!
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@ValRoyD Interesting how you focus on that and ignore the rest of the comment.
Virgil0211 5 months ago
@Virgil0211 And which comment would you be referring too?
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@Virgil0211 @Virgil0211 And which comment would you be referring too?
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@Virgil0211 Hey, isn't this guy doing exactly what FSAthe1st and Nightmare060 are?
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk I guess... in the same way one could compare a single black cat to the Hiroshima bomb. :-P
Virgil0211 5 months ago
@Virgil0211 He said I was ignorant because I wouldn't read his idiotic paper when he can't even give me basic answers to very important questions.
FDAthe1st said I was ignorant because I wouldn't watch his bullshit video when he couldn't even give you and me basic answers to very important questions.
Sounds like two peas in a pod to me.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk True, but I find their actions a bit more annoying for some reason. With ValRoyD, it seems more like par for the course. I'ono. Maybe that's just the early-morning haze screwing with my head.
Virgil0211 5 months ago
@Virgil0211 @shanedk Watching you converse with your own sockpuppet is pretty pathetic. It's not my paper and I'm not even the one that mentioned that you should read it. If you want to know what it says, why don't you read it? Way to go virgule for ignoring the comment! Go ahead and ignore my comment shanedk, you just know that either answer is the wrong answer and the only reason that can be is if the statement before hand is so stupidly and wrongfully opinionated.
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@ValRoyD Take a good look at my profile, little boy. Do I look like a sockpuppet to you?
You're the one who ignored the relevant aspects of the comment. If a paper attempts to claim that the sky is black at 12:00 noon, one needn't read the paper to contradict the claim. I'm sorry if this ruffles your feathers, but you really need to try a little harder next time.
Virgil0211 5 months ago
@Virgil0211 I asked you a question as to what you were referring to, little girl. I cannot answer you if I don't know what you are talking about. I already have looked at you profile, little girl; I'm not the only one that thinks you are a sockpuppet. I can see what a moron you are. If a paper attempts to claim that the sky is black at 12:00 noon, I'm going to keep reading to see why it was black at 12:00 noon. It's called educating yourself, something little girls like you don't know how to do.
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@ValRoyD Is there a point in that block of insipid rambling?
And if, by the admission of the person presenting the paper, the paper itself makes no attempt to account for its own lack of evidence or reasoning, will you really waste your time with it? Perhaps you will next claim that the moon is composed of swiss cheese and carried through the sky by invisible unicorns?
Did you find that diagnostic method/tool that can determine the presence of cancer with 100% accuracy yet?
Virgil0211 5 months ago
@Virgil0211 Wow! Talk about rambling! How can I know what the paper says if I don't read it. The moon is not made out of swiss cheese, it's made out of green cheese, moron. And it's not carried through the sky by invisible unicorns. If you get a really good telescope you can actually see the unicorns....they are black, so that makes them really hard to see.
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@Virgil0211 You are just a typical YouTube idiot that uses insults insults as a way to discredit someone instead of knowledge and logic. You still haven't told me as to what comment I am ignoring which means that you are the one ignoring comments, not me.
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@ValRoyD You ignored the part of the comment that addresses your paper. If the paper cannot account for all of the things that point to how badly designed the eye is, then it doesn't have anything worthwhile. You ignored this and instead chose to misquote your opponent.
Virgil0211 5 months ago
@Virgil0211 Again, it is not my paper nor am I the one that brought it to shanedk's attention. The paper does talk about what you call bad design. If you or shanddk had bothered to read it, then you would know this information. Now, how did I misquote "my opponent"?
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@ValRoyD You attempted to make it appear as if he were dismissing your source out of hand, rather than quoting the part where he stated WHY he was dismissing your source. I compared it to a paper that attempted to claim that the sky was black at noon or that the moon was composed of swiss cheese.
Virgil0211 5 months ago
@Virgil0211 "You attempted to make it appear as if he were dismissing your source out of hand"
He was dismissing the source out of hand when he said he didn't have to read when he already knew it was a piece of crap design. To say your not going to read something that refutes what you are saying because you already know is called dismissing things out of hand. The whole paper is about how the eye is not poorly designed. Why don't you read it for yourself and see what it says?
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@Virgil0211 Why are you talking for shanedk anyway? You are only sending me to info from him, which proves my point more that you don't know anything. Great Job!
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@ValRoyD At what point did I talk for anyone?
Even if that were true, how does that prove your point? Could you clarify your reasoning, please?
Virgil0211 5 months ago
@Virgil0211 "At what point did I talk for anyone?"
Because it was to shanedk that I was talking to about cancer and it was shanedk that said no one could know 100% if they had cancer or not.
"how does that prove your point?"
It doesn't prove a point, idiot; nor does it try to prove a point. It was a question designed to obtain knowledge.
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@ValRoyD Virgil has been established as his own unique user for quite a long time, and false accusations of sockpuppetry violate Rule #5 of this channel. First warning.
shanedk 5 months ago
@Virgil0211 He's a typical creationist, they're typical political cultists. No real difference that I can see.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk And to say that you can't be 100% sure if one has cancer or not is beyond one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. I've said it once and I'll say it again, you are a complete idiot.
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@ValRoyD Fine, point to any diagnostic method or tool that can determine the presence of cancer with 100% accuracy. Not close to, but full 100% accuracy.
We're waiting...
Virgil0211 5 months ago
@Virgil0211 While there is no single diagnostic method to determine cancer with 100% accuracy, that does not mean that one cannot be 100% sure one has cancer or not. If this were the case, no doctor would do surgery to remove the cancer they weren't sure was 100% there to begin with.
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@ValRoyD Really? Surgeons have NEVER EVER EVER removed tumors that turned out to be benign after testing?
Sounds like YOU'RE the idiot, not me!
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk I didn't say that, idiot, way to put words in my mouth though, and virgil is not an established user to me, I just found out he exists and you saying he is....well, I'm sure you can figure out the rest of that sentence. How are Creationist political cultists? It would seem to me that Evolutionist are the ones with the agenda. And just for the record, moron, that is the third warning in all my time here, so do what you have to do, I'm sure you would love to block me, so go ahead.
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@ValRoyD YES YOU DID, LIAR!!! In the VERY LAST POST, YOU said, AND I QUOTE: "no doctor would do surgery to remove the cancer they weren't sure was 100% there to begin with." BULLSHIT! They do surgeries all the time when they're not sure--and a lot of times the tumor comes back as being benign!
So now you're a LIAR. Congratulations: you're officially a creationist!
shanedk 5 months ago
@ValRoyD Oh, and the third warning is your FINAL. Pull one more piece of crap like that and you WILL be blocked!
Whereupon you'll probably just run whining to your creationist friends about how the bad man blocked you because he was afraid of the truth, like all pathetic LIARS do...
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk I guess you think that some tumors are ok to have, huh? So, if a tumor is benign, doctors should just let them sit there in your body? Is this really what you are saying?
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@ValRoyD "I guess you think that some tumors are ok to have, huh?"
Many tumors are benign. Even larger ones that are known to be benign are often left in because there's no reason to take them out. That's what "benign" means.
Your ignorance knows no bounds.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk If you want to block me, block me, I've told you already, I really don't care. You've been wanting to block me for some time, I'm sure; you just haven't had a 'good enough' excuse. You break your own rules all the time especially #5 and #6, and now you are breaking rule #3 by threatening me. You need to block yourself you fucking lying hypocrite. Way to go you're officially an evolutard.
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@ValRoyD It's not about me "wanting" to block you. It's about you behaving in a way that gets in the way of rational discussion. That's what the rules are for. Comply with them and you'll be OK.
Except that now you've done it AGAIN. If you can quote me violating either #5 or #6 I won't block you, but if your VERY NEXT POST does not contain such a quote, or a retraction of your claim, YOU WILL BE BLOCKED.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk #5 No libel or character assassination: You have called me Idiot, a liar, a hypocrite, and more stuff too.
#6 No bigoted comments: You classify all Creationist as idiot's, liars, hypocrites, and other stuff too. Even the first sentence in the video above shows your bigotedness toward Creationist.
If you are going to make rules that say no character assassinations, then you should refrain from remarks that put people down, no matter what they say or what you disagree with, yes?
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@ValRoyD 1) Name-calling is NOT libel, and I established the reasons for calling you those things; I didn't just do so will-he nil-he.
2) Because THEY LIE. Their lies--and yours--have been established by me and many others. Telling the truth is NOT bigotry. The ONLY way creationism can be maintained is BY LYING.
So give me ONE GOOD REASON why I shouldn't block you; ONE GOOD REASON why your despicable behavior here is NOT an attempt to subvert discussion with bullshit false accusations. ONE.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk "It's not about me "wanting" to block you. It's about you behaving in a way that gets in the way of rational discussion."
You are one of the rudest, irrational people on YouTube. You constantly put people down just because they believe differently than you do. And then you have enough gall to tell other people to behave themselves, you're a real winner, a real piece of work.
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@ValRoyD No, I put people down because they lie and engage in sloppy thinking to support their delusions and refuse to listen to the evidence and arguments showing them for the delusions they are. Your problem is that your ego will not allow you to separate an attack against your argument from an attack on YOU. When (if) you grow up you'll realize they are NOT the same thing.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk They only leave tumors in people if trying to take them out is more harmful than not. To say that some tumors are cool to have in your body is irrational thinking so that you don't have to concede a point. It's the reason you never learn anything. The same reason you won't read the journal about the eye, you don't ever want to be wrong and you will do anything in your power to protect you beliefs no matter how fucked up they are, real mature.
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@ValRoyD "They only leave tumors in people if trying to take them out is more harmful than not."
Which means they do NOT take out tumors they believe to be benign. This is in compete contradiction of YOUR assertion: "I guess you think that some tumors are ok to have, huh? So, if a tumor is benign, doctors should just let them sit there in your body? Is this really what you are saying?"
So, not only are you backpedalling, you're acting like I'M the one who didn't know that!
YOU ARE A LIAR!
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk Go fuck yourself. You are a lying sack of shit without the decency to own up to when you are wrong. You constantly assign your lack of maturity to other people. Doctors take benign tumors out all of the time jackass. You are a complete waste of time. Like I said already, GO FUCK YOURSELF! Go ahead and block me asshole. You're a bigot and an idiot and I want nothing else to do you with. Take your sockpuppets and stick them up your ass, I know you like stuff rammed up there. FUCK YOU!
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@ValRoyD And THAT comment gets you blocked. Good-bye, asshole, and thanks for showing everyone your true colors.
shanedk 5 months ago
@ValRoyD Did the paper cover the hideous image quality due to the light-sensitive cells being put in the wrong way? Did it cover the need to have an enormous visual cortex to clean up the image? If not, then I don't need to read the paper to know that it's a bunch of delusional religious apologetic CRAP!
shanedk 5 months ago
@59arkady I'll check it out, thanks.
ValRoyD 5 months ago
@shanedk Müller cells are living optical fibers in the vertebrate retina...
PNAS paper - kinda hard on the "bad eye design" thing. There are metabolic, and uv considerations, too. Point being this example may show more of ingenious engineering forthought than anyone using it as a bludgeon against dissent could have imagined....
59arkady 6 months ago
I must believe in something? I must nothing :p It's not because i extrapolate theories, or entertain speculative ideas, that i can not at the same time calculate the chances of it being true. belief doesn't bring me anything tbh. appart from false hope that is.
devilzown11 7 months ago
@srexob715 "Some people are willing to learn, others are SCARED of their god" So what's your excuse?
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Still showing the world that he's a COWARD! LOL
srexob715 7 months ago
@srexob715 My question: So what's your excuse?" Your answer: "Still showing the world that he's a coward! LOL" Let's see ... you won't identify whether you are a male or female; you won't give your age or your educational background. I'd say that's pretty cowardly, for a start. Then popping in to emit low-grade epithets instead of entering a discussion with regard to the points made. That's also cowardly.
I guess your answer makes some sense. Nothing that a little courage wouldn't help.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson See? He's still running away because he's a coward. Reality proves I am right!
srexob715 7 months ago
Oh Shane, You're hilarious!!
ironman197268 7 months ago
Berlinski just doesn't know enough to know that he knows nothin' .
Drweavil 8 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Coward! lol
srexob715 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Commentary by an actual mathematician and computer scientist:
recursed.blogspot.com/2008/04/david-berlinski-king-of-poseurs.html
NEUoJBh1Ngtj 9 months ago
shanedk, your such an idiot, your detracting the focus from the points that berlinski makes to form your own circular reason by doing nothing but quoting other darwinist propaganda. go back to school please.
ayitsjory 9 months ago
@ayitsjory You're kidding right :p berlinski makes no points, he asks a question, takes a part of the answer and applies it to his false logic. I mean, stop trolling already ^^
devilzown11 7 months ago
Q: What are the chances 211 people cant let go of their myths?
A: 100% #FAIL
HighPoweredLasers 9 months ago
@HighPoweredLasers Not liking production value or the grating of shane's voice as nothing to do with myths.
ValRoyD 7 months ago
A little spooky to think,,,,,,,,,Dr. Berlinski and other Christian extremists might devise a plan to carry out the disciplinary actions in the HOLY BIBLE and carry out GENOCIDE onto nonbelievers such as SCIENTISTS who are a threat to the beliefs of Jesus and the Bible,,,just as the Bible describes in the Old Testament.
retro99ify 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson "Yes, he does. It's his own title."
Yep, you're lying.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk "Yep, you're lying." Which goes to show how much you know--and how willing you are to throw out charges when you are absolutely wrong.
"It is his own title" means, that is how he describes himself, but when I was trying to fit what I said in 50 words, I had to say it that way.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson He RUNS again to make his god proud! STupidity is your strong suit, so dont let anyone take that from you. ITS YOURS! WHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
srexob715 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Biologists DO NOT use the word "evolutionist" to describe themselves. The word itself is an absurdity. You're making up this crap.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk Why make such an awkward argument? He describes himself as an "evolutionist" as opposed to calling himself a "creationist," which he is not.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson
Probably for the same reason a physicist doesn't call himself a "gravity-ist".
vspqbd 9 months ago
@vspqbd I get the point, though the term you have put forth isn't a term of common use. If it were, a physicist might only use the term if asked whether he is a gravityist or an anti-gravitist. To contrast one's belief system from the opposing one is why a person would designate himself as either an evolutionist or a creationist. It clarifies his worldview for most people.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson "a physicist might only use the term if asked whether he is a gravityist or an anti-gravitist."
No, a physicist would tell you why that's such a stupid term.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk Only if he were as non-accommodating as you are. Of course, it isn't a term that is in general use like "evolutionist" or "creationist."
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Keep RUNNING! It makes your god very proud that you are not willing to learn and would rather LIE!
FOOL!
srexob715 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson He runs like a girl, then LIES and says he doesn't run. Its how we KNOW the religious CULTS are not able to accept the truth. It hurts them, so they lie!
FOOL!
srexob715 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson "Evolutionist" ISN'T in general use, except by creationists. And it's a term that exists SOLELY to disparage the theory of evolution and the scientists who work with it.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk evolutionist.
(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) a person who believes in a theory of evolution, esp Darwin's theory of the evolution of plant and animal species
You may be sensitive to being labeled by one of your beliefs, but there is nothing in this definition that disparages anyone unless you think there is something disparaging about believing in the theory of evolution.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson It's not a belief, IDIOT. It's a scientific theory. You don't "believe in" it, you just accept it until the evidence shows something else.
You know NOTHING about how this actually works.
shanedk 9 months ago
1/2@shanedk If you wish to use the epithet IDIOT, you are free to use it on yourself, but it most certainly does not fit me. I am not an idiot. Belief in evolution MOST CERTAINLY did--and does--precede the scientific evidence. One by one Darwin's original "scientific" proofs for evolution have been abandoned. Despite this abandonment, it has been believed. I was just reading about the difficulties about the evolutionary "tree of life" and the optimism that accompanied belief before the evidence.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson "Belief in evolution MOST CERTAINLY did--and does--precede the scientific evidence."
No, it doesn't, LIAR. Not in ANY way, shape, or form.
"One by one Darwin's original "scientific" proofs for evolution have been abandoned"
References to peer-reviewed scientific literature or it didn't happen.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk Whatever.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson
Such an eloquent, well thought out and cogent rebuttal that was...not.
vspqbd 9 months ago
@vspqbd If you don't like that rebuttal, then let's hear yours.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson
I ain't a creationist, so I won't be trying to refute evolution, dude. :P
vspqbd 9 months ago
@vspqbd Then "whatever" is fully adequate as compared to yours--especially when it's addressing an adolescent negation.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson
Best game in town fallacy.
vspqbd 9 months ago
@vspqbd How does the "best game in town fallacy" rebut his statement? Even if to play devil's advocate, you've got to offer something better than that.
"No it doesn't." I've already shown how it does.
"References to peer ... lit." Neo-Darwinism retains one point out of Darwinism, NS. The rest violates the anti-Lamarkian stance of modern science and basic genetics. It was theory and the metaphor of animal husbandry that sold Darwinian evolution--not scientific evidence.
Whatever ...
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson
"Whatever"
And repeating the PoS reply doesn't make it better.
Try again, Mac.
vspqbd 9 months ago
@vspqbd Apparently you are that kind.
Have a nice nite.
Morgan
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson
Coming from the guy who's done nothing but lie, quote mine, twist words and play the victim, I'll take that as a compliment. :=p
Have a nice life.
Flying Spaghetti Monster Bless :P
vspqbd 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vspqbd "I hope you aren't one of those close-minded arrogant types who only jumps into a dialog to say something insulting and isn't willing to reconsider his position."
Apparently you are that kind.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
2/2@shanedk "Five years ago we were very confident and arrogant in our ignorance," said Dr. Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. "Now we are starting to see the true complexity of life." Biologists can draw up family trees based on other genes besides the ribosomal RNA gene that provided the original map. And the trees based on other genes show different maps that do not agree with the ribosomal RNA map. "Each picture is different, so there is tremendous confusion."
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson Oh, joy. Quote mines.
You're a fucking liar.
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk The first half of your epithet is true, but we weren't discussing that subject. As to the second half, how does copying an obvious quote make one a liar?
Say something thoughtful for a change in this conversation, won't you. It's really refreshing when you do.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@shanedk The post marked 2/2 is all a quotation, not just the part in quotation marks. I was limited by the 50 word YouTube limit so I just used the marks as in the original text. If your epithet of "liar" is based on a reaction to the part outside quotation marks, then it is not I you are calling a liar. If you agree with the unmarked text, then what basis do you have for calling me a liar in relation to that post?
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@shanedk Mined some more for you from the same article (which is the one I was looking for in the first place):
"Despite the quagmire in which their present efforts have landed them, biologists have not in any way despaired of confirming the conventional thesis, that life evolved on earth from natural chemical processes. But a ferment of rethinking and regrouping is under way."
A thesis looking for evidence--not the reverse. Belief precedes the gathering of evidence.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson You complete moron--he's CLEARLY talking about abiogenesis, NOT evolution!
shanedk 9 months ago
@shanedk There's no use answering such an intelligent comment. ;)
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson I love how you used a quote that even taken at face value would invalidate your own creationist beliefs. You kind of remind me of the car salesman in the first season of Dexter who would skate from one lie to the next and hope every one would forget his original lie because he wasn't being at all consistent.
johnrainrules 9 months ago
@johnrainrules John, I prefaced my quoting of this by saying that belief precedes evidence. I only quoted 50 words of one of the documents I was reading on the subject. Over and over these science writers are saying: What we thought was true of the tree of life isn't. We based our belief on what we thought was true; evidence undermines our prior thinking.
This tells me that it isn't a careful examination of the evidence that leads to affirmation of evolution.
(I don't sell cars.)
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson I think you're projecting the methodology of your religion on to science. Do you think a careful examination of the evidence leads to an affirmation of the Earth being roughly spherical? That contradicts your bible too. In fact instead of referring to people as Evolutionists on this channel, you should instead refer to us as spherical Earthists.
johnrainrules 9 months ago
@johnrainrules You're wasting both of our time, John. "Spherical Earthists" wouldn't distinguish your belief from mine (since I believe in one too) or from the Bible's description of the "circle of the earth."
No time for more silly discussion.
Have a good night!
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson What about the part where Jesus sees all the Kingdoms of the Earth from a very tall mountain. Only possible on a much smaller, flatter Earth.
johnrainrules 9 months ago
@johnrainrules I think you've been reading somebody's goofy oversimplification. People of the ancient world knew that you couldn't see all the kingdoms of the earth from ANY mountain. It's an insult to their intelligence.
No more silly stuff, OK.
Have a good night.
MorganMarvinson 9 months ago
@MorganMarvinson I read it in the actual bible, Matthew 4:7-9. And yes the "ancients" knew that. It turns out that the bible isn't just behind our times, but behind the science of its own time.
johnrainrules 9 months ago