Atheist, Richard Dawkins' "Evolution" DECEPTION !!!!

[kevlarunderware]

It seems to me that evolution is becoming a religion all it's own

[Corbsoup]

Argh, it's so frustrating to view videos like this. I came here hoping for a valid argument and point of discussion by a creationist, and it started so promisingly with an attempt to define terms but then collapsed like a big souffle. I'll make it easy for you: 'Evolution' is change in allele frequencies between generations. The 'Theory of Evolution' states that this process + time accounts for the observed diversity of life. What's the problem?

[theist77]

@Corbsoup You do know that Creationists accept the small scale evolution that we see. It is the extraopolation out to account for specified complexities where creationists say, nonsense...just like the example I gave about my son at the end. Natural selection selecting tiny iterations to the end that there would be a wing is silly...natural selection is too weak to bring this about.

[Corbsoup]

@theist77 I've heard the 'micro' vs 'macro' assertion before and it's never made sense to me. You're literally comparing the same process between two lengths of time. What makes it stop working?

[theist77]

@Corbsoup Natural selection's weakness of choosing a developing trait toward a goal when the iterations between the beginning of development and the goal are not advantageous or are indifferent. The fossil record is very much lacking as well.

[Corbsoup]

@theist77 Hmm, you do realize you're completely misrepresenting evolution right? Is it deliberate?

[theist77]

@Corbsoup No, I am not...not at all. But I have been amused by the just-so stories of evolutionists trying to concoct a way for wings to have been finely engineered on multiple occasions. It is cute.

[theist77]

@Corbsoup Oops...I deleted your post that asserted that I misunderstand evolution...you did not explain why so I will just leave it at that. I have read enough about evolution to know what I am talking about and have talked to a myriad of evolutionists. They have the same understanding that I have.

[theist77]

@Corbsoup An added point...Stephen Jay Gould understood the problem as a top evolutionist and postulated something like punctuated equilibrium to account for large jumps in evolution. I have a feeling you are about to either get into semantics (which is normal) or just plain tell a series of fibs. The only thing you have done so far is tell me that I am wrong two times in a row without really saying anything. That is a good indication of the credibility of your next post.

[Corbsoup]

@theist77 So you deleted my post because you didn't agree with my point? I thought I was making myself clear but here are the two false assertions you made: 1) Evolution is a directed process. 2) Independent evolutionary steps are not advantageous. Neither of these are claimed by the theory of evolution and you're falsely attributing them.

[theist77]

@Corbsoup Okay...to your first comment - it stains YOUR credibility since I clearly deleted by mistake and invited you to continue the conversation. You did not make these assertions clear in your post. HOWEVER, I understand quite clearly the fundamental laws...BUT...in the case of the wing, advantages are not at all understood going from no wing to a fully engineered wing. SO...although I understand your point, it cannot be realized as to what advantage 1/32 of a wing is.

[theist77]

@Corbsoup Evolution is a directed process, is it not...changes that are acted upon by natural selection? The problem is that it is merely random until something WORTH selecting is selected by random evironmental pressures.

[Corbsoup]

@theist77 The only guiding principle to natural selection is that some traits are better suited to environmental conditions than others. These traits are more likely to be passed on to the next generation, it's neither random nor does it have a specific goal in mind. You could argue that the environment directs evolution but that's not what you're claiming, and this is your fundamental misunderstanding: The intermediate steps to wings doesn't have the goal of wings. 1/32 wing has no meaning

[theist77]

@Corbsoup Environment guides evolution (an obvious fact) but, as I said, it is powerless to make 1/32 of a wing into a fully engineered wing on a creature that is actually ABLE to fly (light enough, etc.). The last part of your post is right on...which is why evolution on the grand scale is ludicrous. The intermediate steps to wings mean nothing - so the wing is an accident. Laughable. Bye

[MeBeMat]

Wow, before the 1 minute mark you've managed to pull some phony definition of evolution out of your arse and demonstrated a total misunderstanding of evolution in it's most basic form. Why should anyone take you seriously when you're clearly so oblivious to the topic you're talking about?

But, to your credit, you did a lovely job burning your strawman.

[Orenotter]

That's not evolution. That's population shift.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Re defs:

Your quoted definition of evolution was wrong; Dawkins' was correct (I've mainly seen "evolution is a change in a population's allele distribution"). "Evolution" is also often used as a shorthand for "the theory of evolution", which is biology's understanding of evolution's mechanisms & history (natural selection, founder effects, mutations, tree of life, etc).

The position that life originated from non-life (central to your wrong def of evolution) is "abiogenesis", which is different

[vadimcream]

Dawkins was not equivocating, he was giving a specific example of what evolution is on the most basic level. It's analogous to saying one person saying reproduction is the phenomena of creatures creating offspring, and another person getting more in depth and explaining on the cellular level what happens at the moment of conception. Dawkins is fleshing out the definition, not redefining it as you seem to be suggesting here.

[theist77]

@vadimcream I would say the appilcation of his "holocaust denial" charge would be based on the basic level definition. But, "Amoeba to Man" evolution is far from holocaust denial when one takes issue with it. Therefore, my synopsis stands and the extrapolation from the basic level definition to the large scale definition remains ludicrous to say the least.

[vadimcream]

@theist77

Well whether or not you accept it is separate from whether or not Dawkins is equivocating here. You seem to accept that changes do take place over time. All "ameoba to man" evolution (as you call it) is, is just that same pattern of changes over an extraordinarily long period of time. So I still say your charge of equivocation is groundless.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

You quoted a terrible definition of evolution by someone unknonw to me, and contrasted it with the correct definition given by an esteemed evolutionary biologist - concluding that "they" are equivocating. You finish with "Boy, talk about holocaust deniers." You're unbelievable. "Equivocation... continually seen by Creationists in Prof Dawkins and his cronies." How about giving a SINGLE example of Dawkins equivocating - I mean, he does it "continually". How do you look at yourself in the mirror?

[theist77]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo You are pointing toward semantics.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

@theist77

You accused Prof Dawkins of continually equivocating, but only showed him giving the correct definition of evolution. You even brought up Holocaust denial. So yeah, it's about semantics - words have meanings, and it would be nice if you respected them. Since you have the cheek to accuse an Oxford professor of equivocating about the core definition of his speciality, you might want to - I dunno - produce an example where he equivocates. Do you really not understand what's wrong here?

[theist77]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo I would say the appilcation of his "holocaust denial" charge would be based on the basic level definition. But, "Amoeba to Man" evolution is far from holocaust denial when one takes issue with it. Therefore, my synopsis stands and the extrapolation from the basic level definition to the large scale definition remains ludicrous to say the least.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

@theist77

(See my definitions comment.) Your "basic level definition" *is* the definition of evolution. Witness a change in a population's genetic distribution, and you've witnessed evolution - by definition. Your "Amoeba to Man" evolution refers to biologist's understanding of the means & history of evolution, i.e. the theory of evolution. That's often shorthanded as "evolution", as in "By bird evolution, we know...", "Evolution says...", etc.. That's not equivocating, as the context is clear.

[theist77]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo See ya...this is a waster of time.

[gr8vibes2]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo Step through your bird evolution process step by step and you'll find your theory of evolution fairy tale to be a complete joke, as smart people do.

[theist77]

@gr8vibes2 Amen!

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

@gr8vibes2

Re: "Step through your bird evolution process step by step and you'll find your theory of evolution fairy tale to be a complete joke, as smart people do."

When a denier of evolution *frames* the issue along the axis of what the smart people believe, I have to assume that they're a troll. If you're not a troll, then you've at least won my pity. Either way, a serious rebuttal to your comment would be pointless.

[MalakaiJ]

That was a short break ;) Back to pwning Evos after such a short time. God bless you brother :)

[CarpetShark2010]

"if I.. notice.. more skin.. I'm not gonna say he's a common ancestor to.. the flying human millions of years down the road"

What if you were hybernated, and temporarily thawed at every birth of your descendents, until the age of the flying humans? Would you still NOT accept that humans had evolved?

[theist77]

@CarpetShark2010 "What if" questions are fruitless.

[CarpetShark2010]

@theist77 "'What if' questions are fruitless"

You're wrong, 'what if' questions is what powers progress. A famous one: "what if the speed of light is constant in all references?" and now we have Einstein's Relativity.

Let's go back to my original question: Would you still NOT accept that humans had evolved?

[theist77]

@CarpetShark2010 Fair enough, I would have to admit it. It is still meaningless.

[CarpetShark2010]

@theist77

Now imagine they thaw you every 100 generations. You see bigger changes, and in order to show you that you're still looking at human beings they provide other data, eg genetic. If they skip 10,000 they provide even more data, eg radiometric, geologic etc.

This is like the BASIS of theory of evolution: incomplete independent data that matches to indicate differentiation over time. The proposed mechanisms provide a reasonable explanation of how that happened + they are seen to occur.

[theist77]

@CarpetShark2010 That is what it takes...imagination to fill in a failing fossil record which corroborrates with mechanisms that fail as well. Your bias is what props up the failing theory.

[CarpetShark2010]

@theist77 You can repeat "fail" many times, but it doesn't make it true. As a silly example, look up "Project Steve".

To accept evolution as correct, we only need to disregard one chapter of a book written 2000 years ago.

To accept creationism as correct, we need to toss ALL that we learned (and still learn) in physics, chemistry, geology, etc, plus accept that Yaweh is a big deceiver because of that.

The former is more likely.

[gr8vibes2]

@CarpetShark2010 "To accept creationism as correct, we need to toss ALL that we learned"

Just because you learn something, don't make what you learn 100% fact. And it's all YOU've learned. Don't put words in everyone's mouth.

[fettkatt87]

I wonder whats the greatest lie in the world is? Could is be the lie that God dont exist????

[theist77]

@fettkatt87 I suggest the book, The Greatest Hoax on Earth by Jonathan Sarfati. It is a response to Dawkins' book, The Greatest Show on Earth.

[baldurus1]

Talking about strawmen arguments. :)

Evolution only happens AFTER life began, the beginning of life(abiogenesis) has got nothing whatsoever to do with evolution!

Get your facts straight!

And appeals to authority is also lame, so stop it.

Here's the punchline, show me evidence that a god created life.

p.s. disproving something does not prove something else, bear that in mind.

[theist77]

@baldurus1 Abiogenesis is in the textbooks along with evolution...Miller and Urey should ring a bell. Same concept. You have all the evidence you need but you are running from Him.

[baldurus1]

@theist77 As i thought.

So a car being assembled from parts is by your definition evolution.

I'm not running anywhere, i'm sitting right here. If the evidence is there you shouldn't need to avoid the question, you should be able to answer it with ease.

[AuntyMabele]

@baldurus1 There is no evidence that (macro) evolution or abiogenesis can even happen.

[grimgay123]

Evolution: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Abiogenesis: a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.

[HolyRevelation]

There's about 6 types of evolution, the only one being scientific is micro-evolution.

Macro-evolution is a zombie that doesn't know it's dead.

[AtheistTalk99]

@HolyRevelation

Wonderful, how about you publish a paper on that. I'm sure the scientific community can't wait to hear that the thousands of scientists working in biology are all wrong. Let me know as soon you submit your work.

LOL.

[HolyRevelation]

@AtheistTalk99 Evolution occurs after the earliest life forms abiogenesis into life via natural selection. Scientists are never wrong and Biology couldn't exist without evolution, lol.

How about you publish a paper on why something exists rather than nothing, how nature created itself for no reason, why random, accidents explains creation better than intentional design, how order, logic and morality came from random chaos?

Let me know as soon you submit your work.

[AtheistTalk99]

@HolyRevelation

What the hell are you talking about? You are trying, rather foolishly, to shift the burden here. You claimed evolution by natural selection was wrong so I suggest, if you are so sure and it's so obvious, that you publish a paper to that effect in a scientifically peer reviewed biology publication.

You then try to change the subject... I wonder why.

LOL. I'll trust the scientists thanks, they know they can be wrong, that's what makes them so marvelous.

[HolyRevelation]

@AtheistTalk99 If scientists were wrong, it would a first.

You place your trust in strangers you never met, believing in scientific theories that you can never verify based on the majority in authority.

The old appeal to the majority in authority=truth logical fallacy: Evolution is true because the majority of scientists in authority believe it to be true.

If the majority of the scientific community claimed that the first living biological machines were simple, would you believe them?

[AtheistTalk99]

@HolyRevelation

No one can verify everything in existance. For example, have you ever been to the north pole? Then why believe it exits? Have you ever circles the globe from space? They why believe the earth is round? Ever seen an atom? Why think they exists?

We use science, and other methods of inquiry, to come to the best conclusions possible about reality.

Noone cares what you think. Science works :)

[xamot27]

@HolyRevelation some ironic quotes coming from a religious person "You place your trust in strangers you never met, believing in scientific theories that you can never verify based on the majority in authority." change scientific with religious, make the claims centuries older and made by people removed by decades."The old appeal to the majority in authority=truth logical fallacy" these phrases explain faith almost to a tee. yet it seems you used these terms as a negation. hmmm

[HolyRevelation]

Why are you foolishly trying to change the subject and shift the burden of proof off yourself and onto me? Don't burden me with proving what I believe, I have no burden of proof, I only argue against what others believe.

You'll trust the scientists:

I don't just base my hypothesis on science, I also use, logic, history, philosophy, the Bible and life experience. If science is the best method of determining truth from fallacy then what scientific method did you use to reach that conclusion?

[AtheistTalk99]

@HolyRevelation

Nice try at a trick question. All inquiries into the world rely on axioms. For example you can't use logic to prove logic or use math to prove math or use the bible to prove the bible. That's circular reasoning and a bad way to understand truth.

Science has proven itself as not only reliable (see your computer, car, medicine and health as examples) but it's self correcting and self critical. That is why it's trusted.

Shame you are too lazy to read.

[TheAnGryPOolMaN]

@AtheistTalk99 i think the problem that we are having is that they act like something is a fact when there is no possible way that you can verify it. at very best you have to take it on faith.

[AtheistTalk99]

@TheAnGryPOolMaN

Evolution is a fact. Evolution requires no faith. I assume you are joking here right?

[TheAnGryPOolMaN]

@AtheistTalk99 no i am not joking.. how can you say its a fact when there is no possible way to verify it? i dont understand.

[AtheistTalk99]

@TheAnGryPOolMaN

Of course we can verify it. Why would science use the theory, teach the theory, test the theory and employ thousands of scientists if it could not be verified?

Evolution not only explains what we see it makes predictions on what we should find. It's perhaps the best explored and tested theory in all of science and supported by fields outside of biology.

[AtheistTalk99]

@TheAnGryPOolMaN

Remember, science is not constrained by the idea that we have to personally witness all events in order to draw conclusions about said event. No more then we have to observe a forest fire burning in order to deduce a fire occurred (via the smoke, ash and burnt wood).

[AtheistTalk99]

Next.

"Gene: a discrete unit of hereditary information consisting of a specific nucleotide sequence in DNA". - Biology 7th Edition.

Had you actually read a biology book you would realize that Darwin, in his day, had no idea what drove variation in a population, just that is occurred. So the definition of evolution has been updated as we've gotten better understanding of the process.

Why the hell do people like you try this dishonest nonsense instead of just READING A BOOK?

[AtheistTalk99]

No. Seriously dude? No.

"Evolutionary change on it's smallest scale is change in the genetic makeup of a population from generation to generation" - Biology 7th Edition Campbell and Reece

Evolution does not deal with how life first evolved, that is abiogenesis. As soon as the earliest life forms were replicating with variation then evolution via natural selection was occurring.

[HolyRevelation]

Darwinism is idealism cloaked in science and pseudo scientific rhetoric.

Evolution is nothing more than a form of eastern, Hindu, mistasisum disguised as science.

[AtheistTalk99]

@HolyRevelation

Yea, that's why it's being used in labs around the world, accepted throughout the scientific community and called, by scientists, perhaps the most important theory within the whole of biology.

Yea, must be your idea.

[indignant99]

@HolyRevelation Mysticism. Your spelling is as bad as your thinking.

[Mcfly88]

the holocaust never happened, all those jews got on a boat and moved to Long island

[MereChristianLogic]

Oh boy, more incoming entertainment on the main page news feed. God bless.

[theist77]

@MereChristianLogic A glutton for incomng...I'm just going to watch from the sideline on this one.