not enough evidence to make evolution a fact!?! more evidence for everything being created in 6 days!?! this is the kind of thing that makes me glad i don't live in America
Flag me all you want, it really does not concern me and shows me im hitting a nerve. It is sad that both sides would suggest the other lacks intelligence.What should happen is that people should tone down their attacks, sit down and simply look at the facts, not the clutter of speculation around the facts which is falsely presented as facts and evidence.The reality of course is, that once the clutter is removed, new clutter will be created, its human nature.
@llewellleo "people should tone down their attacks, sit down and simply look at the facts,"
You got the facts (and your ass, I should add) handed to you on a silver platter. You decided to ignore every single one of them.
You know that thing your lot does... asking for evidence, ignoring it, rewinding the tape and asking once again for evidence, telling others they should look at the evidence... well sometimes it gets annoying. It's also dishonest or retarded (pick one).
You guys here need to stop flagging creationist's comments here. There is nothing to hide, let people see that they don't know the first thing about biology, and how easy it is to expose the few things they care to copy from creationist sources for what they are: fraud.
Pinker should be smart enough to know that while bacterial resistance to antibiotics does entail natural selection it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
@smarthandsomeguy people are being born without wisdom teeth. There.. i just proved evolution is a working theory, you can all thank me later. Allele OOP.
@SuperDelusionist wisdom teeth are vestigial structures. The work in the same way that only some people can wiggle their ears. Your reasons for objection are incorrect.
@bax2684 you, are an idiot... the fat that people are being born WITHOUT wisdom teeth shows the EVOLUTION of the lack of NEED to actually have them... thsi is the same for people born WITHOUT their appendix. while this does NOT compare to EVOLUTION of our species, it remains EVOLUTION non the less.
wiggling ears and being born without WISDOM teeth is NOT the same thing AT ALL you moron.
I googled the Lenski results and fully agree with his findings except it is on a microbal level and is in my opinion an intelligent biological reaction. I would expect that. I do not think it as big a blow to intelligent design as you imagine, in fact how could this happen witout an intelligent mechanism.
No, it's chemistry as played out by the laws of nature. No intelligence involved.
>"how could this happen witout an intelligent mechanism"
Evolution by natural selection. How can you look at genetic mutations, which get fixed in a population through natural selection, and still claim intelligence? Those are the laws of nature at work. It's like gravity creating solar systems. No magic.
Btw: the mechanism is indeed sophisticated. The general principle is easy: change and selection. But this principle as implemented in the DNA of modern life forms is of course highly sophisticated. Have in mind: the oldest life forms that can be reliably dated are more than 3 billion years old.
What is your biggest problem with evolutionary biology? The mechanism? Common descent? Speciation?
Where did a cell come from? Athiest believe in evolution, but they cant answer that simple question. A cell just doesnt appear, if you believe that than whats wrong with believing in a God that created man.Think about it, lets go way back into history when the first animals where born, there must of been a female and a male to start with correct, and they just apeared out of know where? Also if you look it up the Big Bang was finally seen as flawed, so what makes you believe in science?
@smarthandsomeguy What has happened is that we can explore on levels that we could not dream of before with this exploration comes questions and you did not respond to my statement on chirality which is sure evidence that evolution as many view it is not by random mutations but by design or by comet dust, lol. This is not from creationist web sites and note ,as I stated before, that I do not have much time for their points either except I can verify the data.
@llewellleo >"you did not respond to my statement on chirality"
It's a bit hard to follow - some of your posts are flagged as spam, and youtube does not send me all your replies as emails. I hate it when people misuse the spam button for censorship!
I just wrote something short about chirality before seeing this post. Since I now see that you specifically asked me, I will write one more post dedicated to that.
1) The argument based on chirality is not a topic of evolutionary theory. It's a very old straw man argument that seems to work for people who did not even read the wikipedia article about evolution. That's really all there is to say. If we had solid evidence tomorrow, that space aliens seeded the planet with DNA, evolutionary theory would remain as well supported as today - without a scratch.
Abiognesis is concerned with the origins of life. No kidding.
2) Let's anyway have a look. Firstly: it's was argument from ignorance. In the olden days, scientists had not much of a clue, how homochirality originated. So creationists do what they always do: pointing to a gap and claiming that a current lack of understanding somehow implies that evolution must be wrong. You might as well argue: "We don't know the why the big bang happened, therefore God did it."
That's bad science AND bad theology. More on part 3)
3) Chirality is considered a problem ONLY by creationists, as a quick google search reveals. It's easy to find more peer reviewed and published papers on the topic than I care to look at.
Since it's chemistry, and not evolution I can't really say much:
- left-handedness seems to be preferred under many conditions
- left-handed amino acids are indeed found in meteorites (which does not mean we come from space, but that homochirality occurs even in freaking space)
@llewellleo >"chirality which is sure evidence that evolution as many view it is not by random mutations"
You don't understand. Amino acids - the famous "building blocks of life" - occur left handed and right handed. Life on earth uses (almost) exclusively left handed amino acids
BUT: that has NOTHING to do with mutations. Mutations happen in DNA. Homochirality was in place WAY before DNA entered the scene.
As I said - it's a topic of chemistry - and has nothing to do with evolution.
@llewellleo >"This is not from creationist web sites"
I doubt that. If you would follow the sources, it would almost certainly go to some creationist website in the end. Or to the watchtower. As far as I know, an article from 1985 is an early source of the claim.
@smarthandsomeguy He has a PHD and that is meaningfull, I think the joke is how credible responses are degraded by men who clearly miss the point and who imagine they are making a good point.
All his work life, he spent in an entirely unrelated area of chemistry, and then he wrote a single ARTICLE in a BROCHURE.
That has to be contrasted with many, many other PhD research scientists, who actually did experiments in that area, and published MANY peer reviewed scientific papers, who describe how homochirality can be achieved.
Plus: a surplus of left-handed amino acids can be found in freaking meteorites.
@smarthandsomeguy I do not believe the earh is 6000 years old, data points to a much older date but I believe in logic and sad that men have dispensed with it to defend a failing theory. I am better equiped than you imagine because I approach this with an open mind and have not eliminated evolution completely but evidence clearly shows it is not the source of diversity, rather intelligent mechanisms.
@llewellleo >"I do not believe the earh is 6000 years old"
That's great! Let's go on then.
>"I am better equiped than you imagine "
Sorry, if I insulted. The examples you gave, came from the least credible sources out there. The phd chemist mentioned in the ppsimmons video about chirality for example: He's the only guy making that claim. His patents (I looked them up) are in an unrelated field, and his chirality paper is a joke, and published in a brochure, not peer a reviewed magazine.
>"men have dispensed with [logic] to defend a failing theory"
What is your evidence for evolution being wrong?
Creationist biologists don't have positive evidence. Intelligent Design? That's negative evidence - all they do is point to gaps.
Just as you did when pointing to whale evolution. Even if there was NO transitional whale fossil, that would not refute all the positive evidence for common ancestry that is there.
@llewellleo >"evolutionist conveniently ignore are the differences between the species"
Quite the opposite. It's the similarities and differences TOGETHER that allow to create a tree of life just from genetics.
That tree is identical to the tree you can make based on paleontology. And the specimen from that tree are all found in distinct layers, always in order, without a single exception. It would be so easy to refute evolution.
That and much, much more draws a clear picture. Doesn't it?
You are missing the point here. It's not just about similarities. If humans and dogs would share viral DNA at the same insertion points, but not chimps, it would be a similarity, but be strong evidence against evolution.
Creationism is a joke. Religion deserves every form of mockery imaginable for keeping people ignorant! My Atheist friends will enjoy, "Religious Fanatic debates Atheist" on my channel.
Its not a proven reality, show me the evidence to support your bold claim. Everything screams evolution? How do you come to such a conclusion when the simple evidence shows otherwise, that evolution is not as grand as you imagine it to be nor as prominent in the development of life. You want to tell others they live in a fantasy but it is very much you who do. You should start thinking for yourselves and not juts be spoon fed by those who support this bogus belief.
"Show me the evidence to support your bold claim"... Hmm....Transitional fossils, artificial selection, the empirical observation of the evolution of bacterial and yeast cells across generations in laboratories, the emergence of "super bugs" whose descendents survived exposure to antibiotics.
Your turn: Show me the evidence of the theory that all humans on Earth descend from 2 people from 8000 years ago that were tricked by a talking into eating a magic fruit.
@MisterChartreuse "Transitional fossils" is not evidence for evolution seeing that it is based on presumptions and guesswork. For the whale for instance there are more than one model presenting so called transitional species. But what really kills this are the missing links or holes in the fossil record. That means that between assumed transitional forms no intermediary forms have been found, not one.
And as for the fossil record, why don't species that are observed to exist presently have fossils resembling them from geological eras from millions of years ago? No transitional fossils? Now you're just starting to sound like a troll. Try going to a museum of natural history instead of the "Creation "science" museum". (Notice how I have quotations around the word "science" in that context.
@llewellleo >""Transitional fossils" is not evidence for evolution seeing that it is based on presumptions and guesswork"
If we only had fossils, you might have a point. The reason why evolution is accepted among 99% of experts is, because multiple lines of independent evidence lead to the same tree, and predictions can be made (like where a certain transitional fossil is to be expected and then dug up).
Paleontology, genomics, biochemistry etc all produce the same tree - independently.
Plus: Morphological, vestigial, embryological, geochemical, paleoenvironmental, paleobiogeographic, chronological evidence pile up to draw the EXACT same picture.
No fossils? You are without excuse, if I may borrow that line. Besides: Gaps are to be expected. The more transitional fossils, the more gaps.
Try to disprove you position, not reaffirm it. Creation website will lie to you.
@llewellleo >"based on presumptions and guesswork"
Boy are you ill informed, it's saddening. You rather dismiss: literally hundreds of thousands of scientific papers, entire sub disciplines of biology, medicine and psychology, advances in engineering (just so happens, that evolutionary algorithms are used to solve design problems too hard for humans), than to criticize a personal conviction.
You have no idea how arrogant that looks. It's shameful to see someone so wrong and proud of it.
@smarthandsomeguy How am I wrong to question a theory which is not a proven fact as some suggest it is. What you fellows love to do when someone raises real and legitimate points is to attack the person and make every effort to demean and degrade that individual, why, because its all a crock and you well know it. IF evolution was a proven fact there would be very few gaps but od, that is not the case, in fact the opposite. Not a single intermediary form has been found, why?
You brought up whale evolution. I did what you could have done yourself before writing in public: Looking up the intermediate fossils. They are: Sinonyx, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon
Most of them dug up in the last 20 years. And whale evolution is not even a good example for someone who doubts evolution.
You obviously watched creationist videos on youtube, I can tell from the points you raise. Well, they lied to you.
@llewellleo >"IF evolution was a proven fact there would be very few gaps"
The more fossils are found, the more gaps there are. Also, genetics 100% confirmed evolutionary theory. From bodies alone biologists concluded that we are related to chimps.
Now that the genome of humans and chimps are sequenced, there is just no doubt. We can calculate, how many generations ago we had a common ancestor.
If you reject that, you have to reject DNA evidence in court and fatherhood tests as well.
@smarthandsomeguy Emphasis on concluded but not proven. A conclusion does not equate a solid fact.It is a reasoned deduction or inference. Also the term "believed to be' is used when speaking of animals who scientists conclude have a common ancestor.
- nothing in science is ever 'proven'. Proofs are for math. We have nothing but working models. Like gravity. Or atomic theory. They make sense of the facts and allow for predictions. The predictions allow for falsification (testing). If a theory is tested many times and never falsified, it's a good working model.
- a theory is of a higher order than a fact. A theory is based on multiple lines of tested facts, a theory makes sense of the facts
@llewellleo Btw: I checked your channel. Did you known that shock's original channel "Shockawenow" got deleted, because he set up a phishing trap? Shock is famous on YT.
If you get your infos from sources like that, you will be lied to. Ie. in the video you favorited, shock quotes from a newspaper article about research from Dr. Justin L. Barrett.
How come, shock fails to mention, that Barrett's research is about the evolution of belief? Barrett is a evolutionary psychologist. Ironic, isn't it?
@llewellleo >"Emphasis on concluded but not proven"
Sure - as I said: from bodies alone one can conclude common descent, but there was a lot of doubt. Darwin was ridiculed by most contemporaries.
But since then, we have a thousand times more fossils. And we never ever found bunnies in the same layers as dinosaurs. The fossils are neatly separated by layers, just as one would expect.
When DNA was discovered and looked at, that really nailed it. It was a 100% confirmation.
Did you know, that most mammals produce their own Vitamin C? An evolutionary prediction would be to say: We should be able to produce Vitamin C. But none of the great apes (including us) can. Interestingly, we do have broken genes for Vitamin C synthesis in our genomes. All the other apes and we, broken at the same place.
Guinea pigs also can't produce Vitamin C, but their genes are mutated at a different locus.
@smarthandsomeguy I recommend that you view Evolution Debunked which discusses chirality . Interesting with the emergence of this that some scientists now suggest that chirality was possibly formed in comet dust. Chemistry certainly does not support evolution, nor biochemistry.
@llewellleo ppsimmons. Oh goodie. Why do you point me to a ppsimmons video? Why not to some peer reviewed published scientific paper? Because there are none.
First of all, I have seen that clip. And I have watched all of Kent Hovind. I even visit AiG every now and then. I watch "debunking evolution" videos on a daily basis.
@llewellleo >"I recommend that you view Evolution Debunked"
Maybe you can answer my earlier questions:
1) You said there are NO transitional fossils regarding whale evolution. I gave you half a dozen. Did that in any way influence your thinking?
2) What kind of evidence would convince you, that evolution as in common descent is true?
Show me well documented genetic evidence (like: several viral DNA insertions at identical loci in dogs and humans but not chimps), and I will reconsider.
@llewellleo I have to make a broader point here. Let's face it: You are not well equipped to discuss evolution. No problem, but let's be honest. Your motivation to reject evolution is not based on scientific insight, but religious beliefs.
How do I know? The best you came up with to make a case was to type: "evolution debunked" in the YT search bar. You simply clicked on the first video, and did not even realize, that it was not about evolution but abiogenesis.
Because, I know ppsimmons and shock and nephilim, Hovind, the Discovery Institute and so on. They are confusers and deceivers, not educators. I don't need you to point me to their recycled stuff. I watch that anyway, probably more than you.
If you have honest doubts, why don't you discuss them? Or, on a scientific level: point me to good research, I mean published papers.
@llewellleo >"attack the person and make every effort to demean and degrade that individual"
Well, I first gave you the names of the transitional species you claimed do not exist, then pointed out that it's quite arrogant to wipe away whole branches of science while being obviously ignorant and misinformed by religious propaganda.
What would you say to somebody who writes in public forums, that the earth being round is really an just unproven "theory".
@smarthandsomeguy Although these animals were very real there is no verifiable evidence that they are indeed transitional species except the word of scientists who state that they are.
I know the earth is round and its a proven fact, in fact spherical would be the correct term but to compare that to evolution which is based on assumptions is dishonest.
That's an empty allegation. Evidence for evolution: the convergence of entire sub fields of biology, a known mechanism predicted and found (genetics), shown in the lab, used in medicine, biology, psychology, computer science end engineering.
Hundreds of thousands of papers, 99.9% of the experts agreeing.
May I ask: what evidence would you need to consider that 99.9% of the experts might actually be right?
@MisterChartreuse Artificial selection is where man intervenes, its intelligent and in no way evidence for evolution. Germs and viral entities adapt, its a survival mechanism but they do not evolve into lizards or insects, they essentially remain microscopic and germs and viruses so do not see how this is evidence to support evolution as you see it.
@llewellleo >"Germs and viral entities adapt, its a survival mechanism but they do not evolve into lizards or insects"
If they would, that would actually be a strong argument against evolution. They are well adapted to their single cell niche, and until new niches open, they will not change.
But for example yeast has been evolved into multicellular organisms in the lab - where the niche was not preoccupied, just so you know.
I don't get why evolution is even debated, especially in a first world nation. It's been shown to be true again and again. There is overwhelming evidence pointing to it. The process plays a major part in medical research. Everything we observe SCREAMS evolution. Creationists and theists just cannot bring themselves to accept it as a proven reality. It's like watching people arguing that the earth is not spherical.
@gat0rgirl13 Well, I hope so. But you guys do seem to have zero atheist candidates and all too many fundamentalist christians running for president etc.
Palin nearly made it there... that would've been bad. And it shows the issues with US politics. Can you imagine if Palin had inherited the presidency? She is a retard! She should never have even been in the running.
And it doesn't look like the rest are any better.
@DaToNyOyO there's a good possibility there are atheists in congress, just "in the closet". An open atheist cant be president yet bc not enough people would vote for him. But all the polls show that nonreligious people are the fastest growing "religion". Atheists/agnostics/secularists are the largest minority with ~14%. The reason we have so many fundamentalists is bc they know they can use faith to propel their campaign. unfortunately faith is still considered a good thing here (not for long!)
@DaToNyOyO An open atheist cant be president yet but all the polls show that nonreligious people are the fastest growing "religion". Atheists/agnostics/secularists are the largest minority with ~14%. The reason we have so many fundamentalists is bc they know they can use faith to propel their campaign, they still think faith is a good thing. But if you look at the polls you'll see that the most conservative republican candidate will have the hardest time defeating obama in 2012.
@DaToNyOyO if you look at rick santorum you'll see him getting ripped for his beliefs especially his stance on gay marriage. he's one of the right wing nuts
Finally! I found a clip of people in the news having an intelligent and intellectual discussion about evolution without having to continually invoke "God" every ten seconds!
The reason there is a debate is because the theory is flawed, simple. I see extremists on both sides of the isle with a few in the center who see it as it is, incomplete and needing some serious adjustment to come in line with simple and clear evidence and in line with logic.People should never lose the right to question and to correct something when it is framed incorrectly as it seems evolutionists wish to do and some religionists have done in the past.
The only reason why there is a debate is because the religious see evolution as a threat. Had they not so publicly tried to discredit evolution and offered such idiotic alternatives such as creationism then scientists and atheists would not even bother discussing it. Unfortunately when you have politicians trying to prove how "American" they are by the strength of their faith you effectively have people who are willing to disregard truth for power.
Evolution is not up for debate and it hasn't been for over a hundred years. Even the Vatican accepted evolution in light of the abundance of evidence. Why do American Christians think that this is even a discussion to be had? Regardless of whether you believe in evolution or not, it is still a bona fide fact. It's not an assault on religion anymore than the discovery of radio waves is. It's theory turned fact by supporting evidence. It's not hard.
@foxymrfox The implication is that much of the world is natural and what appears designed could not be. It also goes against a personal God acting and weaving the design of humanity in some perfect plan not to mention it goes against a literalist interpretation of the Bible. It doesn't disprove God, but it opens the possibility for non-belief.
Evolution, which is pushed by what I would describe as a non structured or semi structured religion which does not believe in a God but in theoretical science which supposedly answers all questions of life, created by man and thus flawed as man is,should also not be forced. I believe students should have freedom which neither religionists in the extreme nor evolutionists normally pushing for the destruction of religion and freedom should be able to remove.
@llewellleo Yes! While we're at it, lets teach alternative theories to Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, or teach our kids Holocaust Denial, Scientology, The Stork theory, geocentrism.
BOY OUR KIDS MUST LOVE FREEDOM
Science hasn't answered all the questions in life, nor does it claim it, about 60% of my Biomedical course all believe in God, yet don't believe in Creationism. Atheism and Evolution are not synonymous, if you think otherwise, don't join a school board committee.
@TheAsymmetrical I did not say science which is a very broad term but specifically focused on one area which claims to have the answers for the complexity of life , is pushed by those who blindly believe in it as a so called proven fact and is adopted by atheists who see it as a tool to undermine religion and freedom of though, the right to question,explore and thus discover the truth. I have presented evidence here that shows evolution is not as scientific as many falsely claim
I actually believe in God but I agree with the scientist. I think our children should have the right to study evolution and have an understanding of science. I am a firm supporter of separation of church and state. I could just imagine how terrible things will be if these people succeed in obliterating the line between church and state! We would have a modern day inquisition!! We would have no right and would be put in prison or killed 'secretly' for having different views.
I believe Logic cannot so easily be discredited and sad that folk would suggest that logic and practical thinking should have no place in science, sure seems to be that way considering your response and also from others who have responded here. Spiritual realm,? I have seen some very interesting phenomenon which has been recorded and which is being studied but we do not fully understand it. Shadowy human like figures have been recorded all over the world. Should I ignore this fact?
On point number 2 of your last post I disagree with you completely simply because It will need a chain of events beginning with an intelligent being putting the forces needed to create the complexity found in a single cell in motion. I would say the the ods should be impossible for it to happen otherwise. For a motor to run a spark is needed which ignites the gas in the engine and sets it in motion. For that spark to fire a switch needs to be turned and this does not happen by itself.?!
Logic states that without intelligence nothing can function and that intelligence can neither create itself or be created by some random event, the ods against that happening being astronomical. Intelligence is the key to life and without it there can be no life.Evolution in my mind is an intelligent mechanism designed and put in place by an intelligent Being.I know without my hard drive and the relevant software my machine cannot function, nor can it without the other relative parts.
@llewellleo "some random event, the ods against that happening being astronomical."
1st, quantum physics seriously challenges your / our feeble classical understanding of causation and the idea of something from nothing. Logic is out the window in the quantum world. You can't have such a dogmatic view of these things.
2: If a random event can possibly happen, given enough time, it will, no matter how small the odds.
@llewellleo "the ods against that happening being astronomical."
So, you're saying that you can't believe in something happening with astronomically small odds, yet you're willing to believe that a dead man resurrected and came back to life?
Who's being illogical? This thinking violates the "law of consistency" in terms of logic and critical thinking.
Give up sir, for you it's not what's logical that matters, it's what you want to believe and the hell with science or logic where it conflicts.
@llewellleo "Evolution in my mind is an intelligent mechanism put in place by an intelligent Being."
I do want to give you some credit here, at least you realize that evolution is a fact, I hope. However, to postulate an "intelligent being" God, as a causative mechanism, simply introduces an infinitely more complex factor to the whole equation.
It's okay for us to say, "we just don't know yet how the universe or life got its start."
But you just can't give up your cherished belief in God.
Science is meant to help advance the human race but to some it is a tool to push their disbelief through dishonest means, let me ad that many creationists fall in the same category, manipulating data to suit their point of view. I believe in evidence and logic, not creating a false view by endless speculation. Of course on many a point we can but just speculate but when such opinions or interpretations are viewed as factual then how can one claim that to be science.?!
Oh, so you admit that it is a lie that the fossil record supports the theory as you well know it does not! DNA proves evolution? From what Ive read on studies done in Japan on viral DNA we are growing weaker, more plagued by illness, not evolving. A scary thought really but a reality. DNA itself, a complex device is truelly no evidence for evolution at all, in fact evolution can create nothing of the sort because it is not intelligent
@CynicalSkeptic1 Oh pardon, I did not realize you were ignorant concerning the fact that the fossil record does not support evolution. Sure seemed like you knew the facts, guess I overestimated your knowledge about this fact. I love reality and clear evidence, as I stated before , the very reason why i do not support evolution as atheists see it, nor as creationists in general see it. I supplied links as well, recommend you take a look
What Hartwell discovered is that mutations in the gene that regulates proper cell division is a cause of some cancers. Truelly brilliant work but what I see , and unintentionally,is a debunking of evolution and one has to be awake to see it, simply, mutations are not beneficial to most species of course excluding and what I call the environmental adaptive intelligent mechanism. Would love to understand how cancer caused by mutations in genes supports evolution.
For anyone interested in science there is a video on You Tube(Evolution Debunked) I recommend you watch it and see that evolutionists do not depend on science as they always claim but in fact the opposite, they ignore relevant facts and any evidence that shows evolution to be a fraud and sadly many who propose it as well.
@llewellleo 'that your whole argument hinges on pure luck creating complexity and then creating balance'. What are you dribbling on about? Balance? Luck? Go away, read a science book.
@llewellleo shall I repeat the same answers to you that everyone with half a brain has been repeating to people like you for years? But you don't listen. I can't have a discussion with someone who thinks the evolutionary process hinges on 'luck' - another fallacy - nor is there any point in talking to someone who STILL does not know the difference between the diversification of species (as evidenced by evolution) and the research into the origin of life, which is a completely different field.
@arseymcpherson Ive seen the evidence and sadly you are only fooling yourself but that is the case with men in general when it come to this subject. I know the difference but one is very much dependent to the other and it is relevant to any discussion on this especially when it come to intelligent design and mechanisms opposed to random and unpredictable events.
Question is do you believe that a cell can be created by unintelligent forces and luck? Could other forces in combination create more complex structures like a car for instance? Your logic is illogical.
@M0rdH0rst You know that people in Afghanistan laughed when American troops told them that men had walked on the moon and imagine a primitive culture discovering a laptop, it would seem magical to them but to someone who has used one and understands it its far from magical. The first step is relevant. If God designed and created the first cell then evolution is an unlikely path for diversity and its frankly impossible for a complex structure like a cell to be created by sheer luck.
@llewellleo People in Afghanistan would probably laugh too, if they hear that two persons thousands of miles appart are able to have a discussion like this. It seems impossible to them.
As you think it is impossible for a cell to form under the right conditions. Luck may have been a factor but the chemistry is known, as stated in the movie.
@M0rdH0rst So you mention a few fraudsters and evangelists(fanatics in my opinion) and imagine you have a slam dunk but how does this disprove intelligent design or show that evolution is beyond doubt as a presumed fact? Once again no real data which is not a surprise at all. It seems all you have developed is the ability spew out juvenile insults and then presume you have shown brilliance and proven your point, come on show some intelligence in your responses. Supply meaningfull data.
@M0rdH0rst You know its not always liars who get banned as history so clearly shows, often it is those who see it as it is but who upset those set in their ways. So how does denying evidence and logic help you? Science is a tool, that is all it is. Men can distort and interpret as they see fit. Science cannot speak, it is not a living entity, nor does it have an intellect and will. Its clear you have created your own God.
@M0rdH0rst Lovely subject which illustrates my point that science is very much dependent on the men who use it sensibly or are simply frauds. A famous fraud must most certainly be Piltdown man brought to life by Charles Dawson. Archaeoraptor.So many dead and defunct theories left on the trash heap of assumption. Look up superseded theories including on evolution which seems to be evolving as new data emerges.
@llewellleo Funny, I was using the creationist-style to argue and you call it juvenile :)
The piltdown man has been debunked in 1953. Only creatards are still using it.
Archeoraptor has been assembled from 2 different fossiles which still do have some value. The front part is an almost complete Yanornis Martini and the tail belongs to a microraptor.
I forgot to mention M. Behe, who failed miserably at the Kitzmiller v. Dover testemony.
@M0rdH0rst It is very much a fanatical evolutionist slash fanatical creationist style and I fall in neither of these two categories. Seeing that you used a fanatical creationist style as you call it should I presume that you are a fanatic on the other side of the fence? Did you look at superseded theories at all?
@llewellleo I just tried it. Sometimes I pretend to be a pagan who believes in Odin. The replies are very interesting ;)
Yes I've looked up some superseded theories. A lot of them were "Rendered obsolete by Darwinian evolution" or the germ theory of deseases or genetic theory.
There are a lot of theories which became obsolete with growing knowledge. If there is a better explanation, why keep the old one.
As may people say: "The Better is the enemy of the Good"
This “fraud” took place 100 years ago and was perpetrated by a man trying to make a name for himself. He, unfortunately duped much of the scientific community into thinking it was “the missing link”.
As early as 1913 however, David Waterston of King's College London published in Nature his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull. Likewise, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the same thing in 1915.
1923 Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they were of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth. Weidenreich, being an anatomist, had easily exposed the hoax for what it was.
The validity of the specimen has always been questioned. In the 1940s, more advanced dating technologies, such as the fluorine absorption test, scientifically proved that this skull was actually a fraud.
The hoax is often cited (along with Nebraska Man) by creationists as an example of the dishonesty or credulity of biologists that study human evolution, despite the fact that evolutionary biologists had exposed the hoax themselves.
It is unfortunate that a few people try to perpetrate frauds for their own gain, but for you to bring this up as if the entire scientific community willingly attempted a conspiracy, and in so doing attempt to refute all of evolution science, is nothing but a strawman argument and you should be ashamed of yourself. You’re going to have to better than this.
If you want to talk about fraud, we need look no further than your own religion. We can start with the "Shroud of Turin". Did "the Church" police itself and expose this as a fraud? No! The Church protected and hence perpetrated this hoax for 700 years by protecting the Shroud from critical inquiry. If was in fact scientist who exposed the Shroud for the hoax that it is, yet many Christians still try to claim the Shroud is genuine.
@llewellleo "So many dead and defunct theories left on the trash heap of assumption."
There are less "dead and defunct theories" than what you might think. Scientific understanding evolves and builds on earlier theories and understandings. Rarely, in modern science is a theory completely overturned.
But that's the beauty of the scientific method, it's open to peer review and falsification. It has a self correcting mechanism. Religion is well.... just religion.
@llewellleo Science, with whatever flaws it may have, also happens to be the best way we have to objectively evaluate the reality of the natural universe. Without science we have no understanding at all. So, whether the theories are right or wrong in the end, our "faith" needs to be with what mainstream science knows. That means when new information and knowledge is learned through science, we change our understanding with it.
The ancient skeptics called this "acquiesce to appearances".
@burkerow I love science, did since I was a child. I agree with you but I would love to see a debate where there is still room to explore an idea, study it, find the faults and if its incorrect search for the right answer. Atheists generally believe the case is closed on the subject but I disagree, new information, gathered through science which is but a tool, brings some question marks on the subject and sad that so called intellectuals have shut their minds to the new evidence.
@llewellleo "but I would love to see a debate where there is still room to explore an idea, study it, find the faults and if its incorrect search for the right answer"
You see this happening all the time in science. "Cold Fusion" was one idea that was debated, but unfortunately data was forged and the experiment could not be repeated. Now we have the CERN particle accelerator observe quarks that seem to move faster than light. We may need to rethink some of what we know about physics.
@llewellleo Quarks: The September announcement of the finding, backed up last week after new studies, caused a furor in the scientific world as it seemed to suggest Albert Einstein's ideas on relativity, and much of modern physics, were based on a mistaken premise.
An international team of scientists in Italy studying the same neutrino particles colleagues say appear to have travelled faster than light rejected the startling finding this weekend, saying their tests had shown it must be wrong.
@burkerow I love the theory of relativity.Had a brilliant scientists explain it to me and to some degree it makes perfect sense. It truelly is a beautiful piece of thinking but I personally saw flaws in it as well.
@llewellleo Quarks: So you see, this is how science works. BUT, ID is not science, and here's why.
The late Steven Jay Gould said that religion and science have "Nonoverlapping Magisteria" NOMA. In other words, religion deals with the spirit realm (IF one exist) and science deals with the realm of nature. Gould is correct except when religion makes claims that the spiritual realm influences the natural realm, such as miracles, Noaic Flood or creation stories.
@llewellleo The scope and ken of science is to understand our universe from a natural mechanism and causation. As soon as someone attempts to invoke a supernatural causation to explain the natural world, then science has nothing to say except to look for a natural cause. Historically, whenever we have wondered if a natural observation was cause by the supernatural, it has always turned out to be a natural cause when we use science to answer the question.
@llewellleo "Atheists generally believe the case is closed on the subject but I disagree,"
I disagree with your statement. Most, or all atheist are also naturalist, so we will choose to look to science for "natural" explanations to our questions about life and the universe.
We put our "faith" in science. Science does not have all the answers yet and will never have all the answers, but that's okay. To postulate a God as an answer for the unknown is a logical fallacy called ad ignorantium.
@llewellleo "new information gathered through science... a tool, brings some questions on the subject and sad that so called intellectuals have shut their minds to the new evidence."
You are incorrect on several accounts, but this just seems like an ad hoc argument.
1. What new "evidence" has brought questions? Please support your assertion.
2. Yes science is a tool, but it's nevertheless a good tool and the BEST we have for understanding nature.
@llewellleo "intellectuals shut their minds to new evidence."
You might me mistaking a skeptical peer review process with a closed mind. This is a mistake most believers make when talking about skeptics.
The Greek term skeptikos means "inquirer" or "investigator".
It is the job of scientists to be skeptical when presented with "new evidence", to be critical, meaning to investigate the veracity of new evidential claims. That's peer review and the scientific method.
Yom, the Hebrew word from which day has been translated, has more than one meaning when it comes to time and the very reason Peter later makes an effort to clarify that word in the scripture which was clearly corrupted or rather simply mistranslated. Hebrew is not as complex as the English language with nearly half a million words.Yom can mean a day, a week, a month, old age or an old age.Like many educated on this I know the Bible is not 100% correctly translated as many falsely believe it is.
The Bible holds up very well if one looks at the scientific evidence and better so than evolution which in fact is nothing original in part and kept alive not because it has any real value to human progress but because it gives atheists what they desire,an excuse. Well its a poor excuse. I trust science, evidence, logic not something clearly dis-proven.
@arseymcpherson I think you overestimate the importance of evolution.Part of it is very relevant to science, the other is protected by a gang of old men desperate to not end up looking like fools and e they would gladly throw a spanner in the works if they could. Are they any different to those who opposed Galileo? It all about blind indoctrination, pride and power, not science and exploration.
@arseymcpherson lol Sense is jibberish to evolutionists. One has to be awake to know that evolution itself is just a load of crock and drunk to believe it is not.
@llewellleo Sir, allow me to assist with your edification. EVOLUTION is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a DAILY basis by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalize observed data and prepare applications.
@llewellleo Excerpt: James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combatting cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of EVOLUTIONARY theory.
Scientists don't win Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology based on a theory that doesn't actually exist.
@CynicalSkeptic1As I clearly stated below there is a part of it that is very valid ending with one species becoming another which cannot scientifically be verified and which is not supported by the fossil record either.A theory that does not exist, that is a strange statement.The theory exists because of observation and interpretation but is not a fact.Darwin's theory of evolution and the modern version is not exactly the same for instance black folk being considered lower evolutionary mutations
@llewellleo What you described is euphemistically defined by Creationists as "Macro-evolution". "Micro-evolution" and "Macro-evolution" are not recognized as sub-groups of evolution by the biological scientific community...there is only "evolution". PubMed(dot)gov reports that there are 179 publications on "Macro-E", 341 publications on "Micro-E" and 247,308 publications on "evolution". Even the "Platypus" has 414 publications, so there are more articles about one animal than Micro-E or Macro-E.
fuck creationists
Eliot12391 6 days ago 3
not enough evidence to make evolution a fact!?! more evidence for everything being created in 6 days!?! this is the kind of thing that makes me glad i don't live in America
taylan637 1 week ago 5
Comment removed
llewellleo 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Flag me all you want, it really does not concern me and shows me im hitting a nerve. It is sad that both sides would suggest the other lacks intelligence.What should happen is that people should tone down their attacks, sit down and simply look at the facts, not the clutter of speculation around the facts which is falsely presented as facts and evidence.The reality of course is, that once the clutter is removed, new clutter will be created, its human nature.
llewellleo 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@llewellleo "people should tone down their attacks, sit down and simply look at the facts,"
You got the facts (and your ass, I should add) handed to you on a silver platter. You decided to ignore every single one of them.
You know that thing your lot does... asking for evidence, ignoring it, rewinding the tape and asking once again for evidence, telling others they should look at the evidence... well sometimes it gets annoying. It's also dishonest or retarded (pick one).
Meurglys33 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
llewellleo 2 weeks ago
You guys here need to stop flagging creationist's comments here. There is nothing to hide, let people see that they don't know the first thing about biology, and how easy it is to expose the few things they care to copy from creationist sources for what they are: fraud.
smarthandsomeguy 2 weeks ago
Thank you for posting this, YOURINQUIRER.
writersblock26 2 weeks ago
Pinker should be smart enough to know that while bacterial resistance to antibiotics does entail natural selection it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
bestvalue 3 weeks ago
@bestvalue >"absolutely nothing to do with evolution"
Evolution is the change of allele frequencies in a population over time.
smarthandsomeguy 2 weeks ago
@smarthandsomeguy people are being born without wisdom teeth. There.. i just proved evolution is a working theory, you can all thank me later. Allele OOP.
SuperDelusionist 2 weeks ago
@SuperDelusionist >"Allele OOP"
Object oriented programming?
smarthandsomeguy 2 weeks ago
@smarthandsomeguy nope... oooh oooh poopoo. :P
SuperDelusionist 2 weeks ago
@SuperDelusionist wisdom teeth are vestigial structures. The work in the same way that only some people can wiggle their ears. Your reasons for objection are incorrect.
bax2684 1 week ago
@bax2684 you, are an idiot... the fat that people are being born WITHOUT wisdom teeth shows the EVOLUTION of the lack of NEED to actually have them... thsi is the same for people born WITHOUT their appendix. while this does NOT compare to EVOLUTION of our species, it remains EVOLUTION non the less.
wiggling ears and being born without WISDOM teeth is NOT the same thing AT ALL you moron.
SuperDelusionist 1 week ago
@bestvalue Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. You can have it without the other.
blobvision 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I googled the Lenski results and fully agree with his findings except it is on a microbal level and is in my opinion an intelligent biological reaction. I would expect that. I do not think it as big a blow to intelligent design as you imagine, in fact how could this happen witout an intelligent mechanism.
llewellleo 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@llewellleo >"it is on a microbial level"
Well - it's on a genetic level.
>"intelligent biological reaction"
No, it's chemistry as played out by the laws of nature. No intelligence involved.
>"how could this happen witout an intelligent mechanism"
Evolution by natural selection. How can you look at genetic mutations, which get fixed in a population through natural selection, and still claim intelligence? Those are the laws of nature at work. It's like gravity creating solar systems. No magic.
smarthandsomeguy 2 weeks ago
@llewellleo >"intelligent mechanism"
Btw: the mechanism is indeed sophisticated. The general principle is easy: change and selection. But this principle as implemented in the DNA of modern life forms is of course highly sophisticated. Have in mind: the oldest life forms that can be reliably dated are more than 3 billion years old.
What is your biggest problem with evolutionary biology? The mechanism? Common descent? Speciation?
smarthandsomeguy 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Where did a cell come from? Athiest believe in evolution, but they cant answer that simple question. A cell just doesnt appear, if you believe that than whats wrong with believing in a God that created man.Think about it, lets go way back into history when the first animals where born, there must of been a female and a male to start with correct, and they just apeared out of know where? Also if you look it up the Big Bang was finally seen as flawed, so what makes you believe in science?
PrayMyFriend 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PrayMyFriend >"Athiest believe in evolution"
Not all. And 99% of biologists who are religious accept evolution as well.
>"A cell just doesnt appear, if you believe that"
Nobody believes that.
>"there must of been a female and a male to start with"
Maybe you google "evolution of sexual reproduction" before posting in public forums next time.
>"Big Bang was finally seen as flawed"
You have been lied to. It's well supported and the big picture is undisputed among experts.
smarthandsomeguy 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
llewellleo 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@smarthandsomeguy What has happened is that we can explore on levels that we could not dream of before with this exploration comes questions and you did not respond to my statement on chirality which is sure evidence that evolution as many view it is not by random mutations but by design or by comet dust, lol. This is not from creationist web sites and note ,as I stated before, that I do not have much time for their points either except I can verify the data.
llewellleo 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@llewellleo >"you did not respond to my statement on chirality"
It's a bit hard to follow - some of your posts are flagged as spam, and youtube does not send me all your replies as emails. I hate it when people misuse the spam button for censorship!
I just wrote something short about chirality before seeing this post. Since I now see that you specifically asked me, I will write one more post dedicated to that.
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo >"chirality"
1) The argument based on chirality is not a topic of evolutionary theory. It's a very old straw man argument that seems to work for people who did not even read the wikipedia article about evolution. That's really all there is to say. If we had solid evidence tomorrow, that space aliens seeded the planet with DNA, evolutionary theory would remain as well supported as today - without a scratch.
Abiognesis is concerned with the origins of life. No kidding.
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo >"chirality"
2) Let's anyway have a look. Firstly: it's was argument from ignorance. In the olden days, scientists had not much of a clue, how homochirality originated. So creationists do what they always do: pointing to a gap and claiming that a current lack of understanding somehow implies that evolution must be wrong. You might as well argue: "We don't know the why the big bang happened, therefore God did it."
That's bad science AND bad theology. More on part 3)
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo >"chirality"
3) Chirality is considered a problem ONLY by creationists, as a quick google search reveals. It's easy to find more peer reviewed and published papers on the topic than I care to look at.
Since it's chemistry, and not evolution I can't really say much:
- left-handedness seems to be preferred under many conditions
- left-handed amino acids are indeed found in meteorites (which does not mean we come from space, but that homochirality occurs even in freaking space)
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@llewellleo >"chirality which is sure evidence that evolution as many view it is not by random mutations"
You don't understand. Amino acids - the famous "building blocks of life" - occur left handed and right handed. Life on earth uses (almost) exclusively left handed amino acids
BUT: that has NOTHING to do with mutations. Mutations happen in DNA. Homochirality was in place WAY before DNA entered the scene.
As I said - it's a topic of chemistry - and has nothing to do with evolution.
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo >"This is not from creationist web sites"
I doubt that. If you would follow the sources, it would almost certainly go to some creationist website in the end. Or to the watchtower. As far as I know, an article from 1985 is an early source of the claim.
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
@smarthandsomeguy He has a PHD and that is meaningfull, I think the joke is how credible responses are degraded by men who clearly miss the point and who imagine they are making a good point.
llewellleo 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo >"He has a PHD"
All his work life, he spent in an entirely unrelated area of chemistry, and then he wrote a single ARTICLE in a BROCHURE.
That has to be contrasted with many, many other PhD research scientists, who actually did experiments in that area, and published MANY peer reviewed scientific papers, who describe how homochirality can be achieved.
Plus: a surplus of left-handed amino acids can be found in freaking meteorites.
PLUS: it's not a topic of evolution to begin with
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
@smarthandsomeguy I do not believe the earh is 6000 years old, data points to a much older date but I believe in logic and sad that men have dispensed with it to defend a failing theory. I am better equiped than you imagine because I approach this with an open mind and have not eliminated evolution completely but evidence clearly shows it is not the source of diversity, rather intelligent mechanisms.
llewellleo 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo >"I do not believe the earh is 6000 years old"
That's great! Let's go on then.
>"I am better equiped than you imagine "
Sorry, if I insulted. The examples you gave, came from the least credible sources out there. The phd chemist mentioned in the ppsimmons video about chirality for example: He's the only guy making that claim. His patents (I looked them up) are in an unrelated field, and his chirality paper is a joke, and published in a brochure, not peer a reviewed magazine.
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo >"I approach this with an open mind"
Let's continue then.
>"men have dispensed with [logic] to defend a failing theory"
What is your evidence for evolution being wrong?
Creationist biologists don't have positive evidence. Intelligent Design? That's negative evidence - all they do is point to gaps.
Just as you did when pointing to whale evolution. Even if there was NO transitional whale fossil, that would not refute all the positive evidence for common ancestry that is there.
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
llewellleo 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo >"evolutionist conveniently ignore are the differences between the species"
Quite the opposite. It's the similarities and differences TOGETHER that allow to create a tree of life just from genetics.
That tree is identical to the tree you can make based on paleontology. And the specimen from that tree are all found in distinct layers, always in order, without a single exception. It would be so easy to refute evolution.
That and much, much more draws a clear picture. Doesn't it?
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo >"we share certain similarities"
You are missing the point here. It's not just about similarities. If humans and dogs would share viral DNA at the same insertion points, but not chimps, it would be a similarity, but be strong evidence against evolution.
Get the point?
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
llewellleo 3 weeks ago
Creationism is a joke. Religion deserves every form of mockery imaginable for keeping people ignorant! My Atheist friends will enjoy, "Religious Fanatic debates Atheist" on my channel.
Sweence 3 weeks ago
Its not a proven reality, show me the evidence to support your bold claim. Everything screams evolution? How do you come to such a conclusion when the simple evidence shows otherwise, that evolution is not as grand as you imagine it to be nor as prominent in the development of life. You want to tell others they live in a fantasy but it is very much you who do. You should start thinking for yourselves and not juts be spoon fed by those who support this bogus belief.
llewellleo 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo Keep lying to kids - why not? the pope endorses it.
stratocaster539 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo
"Show me the evidence to support your bold claim"... Hmm....Transitional fossils, artificial selection, the empirical observation of the evolution of bacterial and yeast cells across generations in laboratories, the emergence of "super bugs" whose descendents survived exposure to antibiotics.
Your turn: Show me the evidence of the theory that all humans on Earth descend from 2 people from 8000 years ago that were tricked by a talking into eating a magic fruit.
MisterChartreuse 3 weeks ago
@MisterChartreuse "Transitional fossils" is not evidence for evolution seeing that it is based on presumptions and guesswork. For the whale for instance there are more than one model presenting so called transitional species. But what really kills this are the missing links or holes in the fossil record. That means that between assumed transitional forms no intermediary forms have been found, not one.
llewellleo 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo
And as for the fossil record, why don't species that are observed to exist presently have fossils resembling them from geological eras from millions of years ago? No transitional fossils? Now you're just starting to sound like a troll. Try going to a museum of natural history instead of the "Creation "science" museum". (Notice how I have quotations around the word "science" in that context.
MisterChartreuse 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo >""Transitional fossils" is not evidence for evolution seeing that it is based on presumptions and guesswork"
If we only had fossils, you might have a point. The reason why evolution is accepted among 99% of experts is, because multiple lines of independent evidence lead to the same tree, and predictions can be made (like where a certain transitional fossil is to be expected and then dug up).
Paleontology, genomics, biochemistry etc all produce the same tree - independently.
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo >"For the whale for instance"
Sinonyx, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon
Plus: Morphological, vestigial, embryological, geochemical, paleoenvironmental, paleobiogeographic, chronological evidence pile up to draw the EXACT same picture.
No fossils? You are without excuse, if I may borrow that line. Besides: Gaps are to be expected. The more transitional fossils, the more gaps.
Try to disprove you position, not reaffirm it. Creation website will lie to you.
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo >"based on presumptions and guesswork"
Boy are you ill informed, it's saddening. You rather dismiss: literally hundreds of thousands of scientific papers, entire sub disciplines of biology, medicine and psychology, advances in engineering (just so happens, that evolutionary algorithms are used to solve design problems too hard for humans), than to criticize a personal conviction.
You have no idea how arrogant that looks. It's shameful to see someone so wrong and proud of it.
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
@smarthandsomeguy How am I wrong to question a theory which is not a proven fact as some suggest it is. What you fellows love to do when someone raises real and legitimate points is to attack the person and make every effort to demean and degrade that individual, why, because its all a crock and you well know it. IF evolution was a proven fact there would be very few gaps but od, that is not the case, in fact the opposite. Not a single intermediary form has been found, why?
llewellleo 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo >"Not a single intermediary form"
You brought up whale evolution. I did what you could have done yourself before writing in public: Looking up the intermediate fossils. They are: Sinonyx, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon
Most of them dug up in the last 20 years. And whale evolution is not even a good example for someone who doubts evolution.
You obviously watched creationist videos on youtube, I can tell from the points you raise. Well, they lied to you.
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo >"IF evolution was a proven fact there would be very few gaps"
The more fossils are found, the more gaps there are. Also, genetics 100% confirmed evolutionary theory. From bodies alone biologists concluded that we are related to chimps.
Now that the genome of humans and chimps are sequenced, there is just no doubt. We can calculate, how many generations ago we had a common ancestor.
If you reject that, you have to reject DNA evidence in court and fatherhood tests as well.
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
@smarthandsomeguy Emphasis on concluded but not proven. A conclusion does not equate a solid fact.It is a reasoned deduction or inference. Also the term "believed to be' is used when speaking of animals who scientists conclude have a common ancestor.
llewellleo 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo Dear llewellleo.
- nothing in science is ever 'proven'. Proofs are for math. We have nothing but working models. Like gravity. Or atomic theory. They make sense of the facts and allow for predictions. The predictions allow for falsification (testing). If a theory is tested many times and never falsified, it's a good working model.
- a theory is of a higher order than a fact. A theory is based on multiple lines of tested facts, a theory makes sense of the facts
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo Btw: I checked your channel. Did you known that shock's original channel "Shockawenow" got deleted, because he set up a phishing trap? Shock is famous on YT.
If you get your infos from sources like that, you will be lied to. Ie. in the video you favorited, shock quotes from a newspaper article about research from Dr. Justin L. Barrett.
How come, shock fails to mention, that Barrett's research is about the evolution of belief? Barrett is a evolutionary psychologist. Ironic, isn't it?
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@llewellleo >"Emphasis on concluded but not proven"
Sure - as I said: from bodies alone one can conclude common descent, but there was a lot of doubt. Darwin was ridiculed by most contemporaries.
But since then, we have a thousand times more fossils. And we never ever found bunnies in the same layers as dinosaurs. The fossils are neatly separated by layers, just as one would expect.
When DNA was discovered and looked at, that really nailed it. It was a 100% confirmation.
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo >"believed to be"
That's true. If DNA is available, you can nail ancestry to an extremely high degree.
But DNA does not last long, so for older fossils we are less certain if a given specimen is a direct ancestor, or on a side branch that died out.
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo >"speaking of animals"
Did you know, that most mammals produce their own Vitamin C? An evolutionary prediction would be to say: We should be able to produce Vitamin C. But none of the great apes (including us) can. Interestingly, we do have broken genes for Vitamin C synthesis in our genomes. All the other apes and we, broken at the same place.
Guinea pigs also can't produce Vitamin C, but their genes are mutated at a different locus.
This is just one of many, many examples.
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
@smarthandsomeguy I recommend that you view Evolution Debunked which discusses chirality . Interesting with the emergence of this that some scientists now suggest that chirality was possibly formed in comet dust. Chemistry certainly does not support evolution, nor biochemistry.
llewellleo 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo ppsimmons. Oh goodie. Why do you point me to a ppsimmons video? Why not to some peer reviewed published scientific paper? Because there are none.
First of all, I have seen that clip. And I have watched all of Kent Hovind. I even visit AiG every now and then. I watch "debunking evolution" videos on a daily basis.
Secondly: please let's stick to evolution for now
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@llewellleo >"I recommend that you view Evolution Debunked"
Maybe you can answer my earlier questions:
1) You said there are NO transitional fossils regarding whale evolution. I gave you half a dozen. Did that in any way influence your thinking?
2) What kind of evidence would convince you, that evolution as in common descent is true?
Show me well documented genetic evidence (like: several viral DNA insertions at identical loci in dogs and humans but not chimps), and I will reconsider.
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo I have to make a broader point here. Let's face it: You are not well equipped to discuss evolution. No problem, but let's be honest. Your motivation to reject evolution is not based on scientific insight, but religious beliefs.
How do I know? The best you came up with to make a case was to type: "evolution debunked" in the YT search bar. You simply clicked on the first video, and did not even realize, that it was not about evolution but abiogenesis.
Maybe you give me YOUR objections.
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo >"Maybe you give me YOUR objections."
Because, I know ppsimmons and shock and nephilim, Hovind, the Discovery Institute and so on. They are confusers and deceivers, not educators. I don't need you to point me to their recycled stuff. I watch that anyway, probably more than you.
If you have honest doubts, why don't you discuss them? Or, on a scientific level: point me to good research, I mean published papers.
I think, that would be much more fruitful.
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
llewellleo 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo >"attack the person and make every effort to demean and degrade that individual"
Well, I first gave you the names of the transitional species you claimed do not exist, then pointed out that it's quite arrogant to wipe away whole branches of science while being obviously ignorant and misinformed by religious propaganda.
What would you say to somebody who writes in public forums, that the earth being round is really an just unproven "theory".
I understand that you are not stupid.
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
@smarthandsomeguy Although these animals were very real there is no verifiable evidence that they are indeed transitional species except the word of scientists who state that they are.
I know the earth is round and its a proven fact, in fact spherical would be the correct term but to compare that to evolution which is based on assumptions is dishonest.
llewellleo 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo >"based on assumptions"
That's an empty allegation. Evidence for evolution: the convergence of entire sub fields of biology, a known mechanism predicted and found (genetics), shown in the lab, used in medicine, biology, psychology, computer science end engineering.
Hundreds of thousands of papers, 99.9% of the experts agreeing.
May I ask: what evidence would you need to consider that 99.9% of the experts might actually be right?
What would convince you of evolution?
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
@llewellleo
Google the Lenski results.
Actual documented evidence of evolution
The earth is not a sphere, it's an oblate spheroid.
SuperBspb 3 weeks ago
@smarthandsomegu The Use of evolutionary algorithms are generally limited to explorations of micro evolutionary processes, not macro.
llewellleo 3 weeks ago
@MisterChartreuse Artificial selection is where man intervenes, its intelligent and in no way evidence for evolution. Germs and viral entities adapt, its a survival mechanism but they do not evolve into lizards or insects, they essentially remain microscopic and germs and viruses so do not see how this is evidence to support evolution as you see it.
llewellleo 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@llewellleo >"Germs and viral entities adapt, its a survival mechanism but they do not evolve into lizards or insects"
If they would, that would actually be a strong argument against evolution. They are well adapted to their single cell niche, and until new niches open, they will not change.
But for example yeast has been evolved into multicellular organisms in the lab - where the niche was not preoccupied, just so you know.
smarthandsomeguy 3 weeks ago
I don't get why evolution is even debated, especially in a first world nation. It's been shown to be true again and again. There is overwhelming evidence pointing to it. The process plays a major part in medical research. Everything we observe SCREAMS evolution. Creationists and theists just cannot bring themselves to accept it as a proven reality. It's like watching people arguing that the earth is not spherical.
UncleFeedle 3 weeks ago
the war on science wtf why does america think every thing is a war
adamasdiamandis 3 weeks ago
I think that Galileo was probably wrong too. The Earth is the center of the Universe.
55chh 4 weeks ago
im sick of people saying they 'believe' in evolution, that implies an opinion. evolution is not a religion.
gat0rgirl13 1 month ago
America is doomed to turn into a christian version of an Islamic state.
Mark my words. The US is doomed..
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago
@DaToNyOyO no we're becoming less religious
gat0rgirl13 1 month ago
@gat0rgirl13 Well, I hope so. But you guys do seem to have zero atheist candidates and all too many fundamentalist christians running for president etc.
Palin nearly made it there... that would've been bad. And it shows the issues with US politics. Can you imagine if Palin had inherited the presidency? She is a retard! She should never have even been in the running.
And it doesn't look like the rest are any better.
DaToNyOyO 1 month ago 8
@DaToNyOyO there's a good possibility there are atheists in congress, just "in the closet". An open atheist cant be president yet bc not enough people would vote for him. But all the polls show that nonreligious people are the fastest growing "religion". Atheists/agnostics/secularists are the largest minority with ~14%. The reason we have so many fundamentalists is bc they know they can use faith to propel their campaign. unfortunately faith is still considered a good thing here (not for long!)
gat0rgirl13 1 month ago
@DaToNyOyO An open atheist cant be president yet but all the polls show that nonreligious people are the fastest growing "religion". Atheists/agnostics/secularists are the largest minority with ~14%. The reason we have so many fundamentalists is bc they know they can use faith to propel their campaign, they still think faith is a good thing. But if you look at the polls you'll see that the most conservative republican candidate will have the hardest time defeating obama in 2012.
gat0rgirl13 1 month ago
@DaToNyOyO if you look at rick santorum you'll see him getting ripped for his beliefs especially his stance on gay marriage. he's one of the right wing nuts
gat0rgirl13 1 month ago
Finally! I found a clip of people in the news having an intelligent and intellectual discussion about evolution without having to continually invoke "God" every ten seconds!
FrankLightheart 1 month ago 2
Evangelicals will destroy science in America the same as Islam destroyed science in their schools.
bbridge4th 1 month ago 25
This has been flagged as spam show
The reason there is a debate is because the theory is flawed, simple. I see extremists on both sides of the isle with a few in the center who see it as it is, incomplete and needing some serious adjustment to come in line with simple and clear evidence and in line with logic.People should never lose the right to question and to correct something when it is framed incorrectly as it seems evolutionists wish to do and some religionists have done in the past.
llewellleo 1 month ago
Comment removed
llewellleo 1 month ago
Comment removed
llewellleo 1 month ago
The only reason why there is a debate is because the religious see evolution as a threat. Had they not so publicly tried to discredit evolution and offered such idiotic alternatives such as creationism then scientists and atheists would not even bother discussing it. Unfortunately when you have politicians trying to prove how "American" they are by the strength of their faith you effectively have people who are willing to disregard truth for power.
foxymrfox 1 month ago
Evolution is not up for debate and it hasn't been for over a hundred years. Even the Vatican accepted evolution in light of the abundance of evidence. Why do American Christians think that this is even a discussion to be had? Regardless of whether you believe in evolution or not, it is still a bona fide fact. It's not an assault on religion anymore than the discovery of radio waves is. It's theory turned fact by supporting evidence. It's not hard.
foxymrfox 1 month ago
@foxymrfox The implication is that much of the world is natural and what appears designed could not be. It also goes against a personal God acting and weaving the design of humanity in some perfect plan not to mention it goes against a literalist interpretation of the Bible. It doesn't disprove God, but it opens the possibility for non-belief.
RuinSonic 1 month ago
Evolution, which is pushed by what I would describe as a non structured or semi structured religion which does not believe in a God but in theoretical science which supposedly answers all questions of life, created by man and thus flawed as man is,should also not be forced. I believe students should have freedom which neither religionists in the extreme nor evolutionists normally pushing for the destruction of religion and freedom should be able to remove.
llewellleo 1 month ago
@llewellleo Yes! While we're at it, lets teach alternative theories to Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, or teach our kids Holocaust Denial, Scientology, The Stork theory, geocentrism.
BOY OUR KIDS MUST LOVE FREEDOM
Science hasn't answered all the questions in life, nor does it claim it, about 60% of my Biomedical course all believe in God, yet don't believe in Creationism. Atheism and Evolution are not synonymous, if you think otherwise, don't join a school board committee.
TheAsymmetrical 1 month ago
@TheAsymmetrical I did not say science which is a very broad term but specifically focused on one area which claims to have the answers for the complexity of life , is pushed by those who blindly believe in it as a so called proven fact and is adopted by atheists who see it as a tool to undermine religion and freedom of though, the right to question,explore and thus discover the truth. I have presented evidence here that shows evolution is not as scientific as many falsely claim
llewellleo 1 month ago
I actually believe in God but I agree with the scientist. I think our children should have the right to study evolution and have an understanding of science. I am a firm supporter of separation of church and state. I could just imagine how terrible things will be if these people succeed in obliterating the line between church and state! We would have a modern day inquisition!! We would have no right and would be put in prison or killed 'secretly' for having different views.
7White7Night7 1 month ago in playlist More videos from YOURINQUIRER
I believe Logic cannot so easily be discredited and sad that folk would suggest that logic and practical thinking should have no place in science, sure seems to be that way considering your response and also from others who have responded here. Spiritual realm,? I have seen some very interesting phenomenon which has been recorded and which is being studied but we do not fully understand it. Shadowy human like figures have been recorded all over the world. Should I ignore this fact?
llewellleo 1 month ago
@llewellleo
,
Yes
tellnet 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
On point number 2 of your last post I disagree with you completely simply because It will need a chain of events beginning with an intelligent being putting the forces needed to create the complexity found in a single cell in motion. I would say the the ods should be impossible for it to happen otherwise. For a motor to run a spark is needed which ignites the gas in the engine and sets it in motion. For that spark to fire a switch needs to be turned and this does not happen by itself.?!
llewellleo 1 month ago
Comment removed
llewellleo 1 month ago
Logic states that without intelligence nothing can function and that intelligence can neither create itself or be created by some random event, the ods against that happening being astronomical. Intelligence is the key to life and without it there can be no life.Evolution in my mind is an intelligent mechanism designed and put in place by an intelligent Being.I know without my hard drive and the relevant software my machine cannot function, nor can it without the other relative parts.
llewellleo 1 month ago
@llewellleo "some random event, the ods against that happening being astronomical."
1st, quantum physics seriously challenges your / our feeble classical understanding of causation and the idea of something from nothing. Logic is out the window in the quantum world. You can't have such a dogmatic view of these things.
2: If a random event can possibly happen, given enough time, it will, no matter how small the odds.
burkerow 1 month ago
Comment removed
burkerow 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@llewellleo "the ods against that happening being astronomical."
So, you're saying that you can't believe in something happening with astronomically small odds, yet you're willing to believe that a dead man resurrected and came back to life?
Who's being illogical? This thinking violates the "law of consistency" in terms of logic and critical thinking.
Give up sir, for you it's not what's logical that matters, it's what you want to believe and the hell with science or logic where it conflicts.
burkerow 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@llewellleo "Evolution in my mind is an intelligent mechanism put in place by an intelligent Being."
I do want to give you some credit here, at least you realize that evolution is a fact, I hope. However, to postulate an "intelligent being" God, as a causative mechanism, simply introduces an infinitely more complex factor to the whole equation.
It's okay for us to say, "we just don't know yet how the universe or life got its start."
But you just can't give up your cherished belief in God.
burkerow 1 month ago
Comment removed
llewellleo 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Science is meant to help advance the human race but to some it is a tool to push their disbelief through dishonest means, let me ad that many creationists fall in the same category, manipulating data to suit their point of view. I believe in evidence and logic, not creating a false view by endless speculation. Of course on many a point we can but just speculate but when such opinions or interpretations are viewed as factual then how can one claim that to be science.?!
llewellleo 1 month ago
Comment removed
llewellleo 1 month ago
Oh, so you admit that it is a lie that the fossil record supports the theory as you well know it does not! DNA proves evolution? From what Ive read on studies done in Japan on viral DNA we are growing weaker, more plagued by illness, not evolving. A scary thought really but a reality. DNA itself, a complex device is truelly no evidence for evolution at all, in fact evolution can create nothing of the sort because it is not intelligent
llewellleo 1 month ago
@llewellleo Sir, you didn't address the comment to me so I stumbled upon it by accident....I am certain it was inadvertant (cough, cough).
Why would you state that I admit that the fossil record is a lie?!?!?!?!?!?!?! I stated NO SUCH THING.
As I said before, I post evidence WITH NUMEROUS LINKS which validate evolution...you reply with opinion.
Everything that I posted can be CONFIRMED with INTERNET SEARCHES....there is no excuse for your ignorance and refusal to accept REALITY.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 month ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 Oh pardon, I did not realize you were ignorant concerning the fact that the fossil record does not support evolution. Sure seemed like you knew the facts, guess I overestimated your knowledge about this fact. I love reality and clear evidence, as I stated before , the very reason why i do not support evolution as atheists see it, nor as creationists in general see it. I supplied links as well, recommend you take a look
llewellleo 1 month ago
What Hartwell discovered is that mutations in the gene that regulates proper cell division is a cause of some cancers. Truelly brilliant work but what I see , and unintentionally,is a debunking of evolution and one has to be awake to see it, simply, mutations are not beneficial to most species of course excluding and what I call the environmental adaptive intelligent mechanism. Would love to understand how cancer caused by mutations in genes supports evolution.
llewellleo 1 month ago
Sounds to me like the tea party needs a mad hatter to bash their shit to pieces.
joegt123 1 month ago
I see this video has attracted a fair number of the ignoratti!
MrNeodarwinian 1 month ago
For anyone interested in science there is a video on You Tube(Evolution Debunked) I recommend you watch it and see that evolutionists do not depend on science as they always claim but in fact the opposite, they ignore relevant facts and any evidence that shows evolution to be a fraud and sadly many who propose it as well.
llewellleo 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@llewellleo 'that your whole argument hinges on pure luck creating complexity and then creating balance'. What are you dribbling on about? Balance? Luck? Go away, read a science book.
arseymcpherson 1 month ago
Comment removed
arseymcpherson 1 month ago
@llewellleo shall I repeat the same answers to you that everyone with half a brain has been repeating to people like you for years? But you don't listen. I can't have a discussion with someone who thinks the evolutionary process hinges on 'luck' - another fallacy - nor is there any point in talking to someone who STILL does not know the difference between the diversification of species (as evidenced by evolution) and the research into the origin of life, which is a completely different field.
arseymcpherson 1 month ago
@arseymcpherson Ive seen the evidence and sadly you are only fooling yourself but that is the case with men in general when it come to this subject. I know the difference but one is very much dependent to the other and it is relevant to any discussion on this especially when it come to intelligent design and mechanisms opposed to random and unpredictable events.
llewellleo 1 month ago
@llewellleo give us the links to the papers and the evidence.
arseymcpherson 1 month ago
Question is do you believe that a cell can be created by unintelligent forces and luck? Could other forces in combination create more complex structures like a car for instance? Your logic is illogical.
llewellleo 1 month ago
@llewellleo A car is not a biological system. Fallacious argument.
arseymcpherson 1 month ago
Comment removed
llewellleo 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@M0rdH0rst You know that people in Afghanistan laughed when American troops told them that men had walked on the moon and imagine a primitive culture discovering a laptop, it would seem magical to them but to someone who has used one and understands it its far from magical. The first step is relevant. If God designed and created the first cell then evolution is an unlikely path for diversity and its frankly impossible for a complex structure like a cell to be created by sheer luck.
llewellleo 1 month ago
@llewellleo People in Afghanistan would probably laugh too, if they hear that two persons thousands of miles appart are able to have a discussion like this. It seems impossible to them.
As you think it is impossible for a cell to form under the right conditions. Luck may have been a factor but the chemistry is known, as stated in the movie.
M0rdH0rst 1 month ago
Comment removed
llewellleo 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@M0rdH0rst So you mention a few fraudsters and evangelists(fanatics in my opinion) and imagine you have a slam dunk but how does this disprove intelligent design or show that evolution is beyond doubt as a presumed fact? Once again no real data which is not a surprise at all. It seems all you have developed is the ability spew out juvenile insults and then presume you have shown brilliance and proven your point, come on show some intelligence in your responses. Supply meaningfull data.
llewellleo 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@M0rdH0rst You know its not always liars who get banned as history so clearly shows, often it is those who see it as it is but who upset those set in their ways. So how does denying evidence and logic help you? Science is a tool, that is all it is. Men can distort and interpret as they see fit. Science cannot speak, it is not a living entity, nor does it have an intellect and will. Its clear you have created your own God.
llewellleo 1 month ago
@llewellleo Like Kent Hovind, who got all the tax free money and still cheated on the tax declaration?
Or Jimmy Swaggart who got caught TWICE doing an adultery, cried a bit and was back in business?
Or Ray Comfort who did not do a bit of research and lied about the origins of bananas?
Does that not ring a tiny bell in that space between your ears?
Give one example like the above from science which has not been clarified yet. There is no faith in science.
M0rdH0rst 1 month ago
@M0rdH0rst Lovely subject which illustrates my point that science is very much dependent on the men who use it sensibly or are simply frauds. A famous fraud must most certainly be Piltdown man brought to life by Charles Dawson. Archaeoraptor.So many dead and defunct theories left on the trash heap of assumption. Look up superseded theories including on evolution which seems to be evolving as new data emerges.
llewellleo 1 month ago
@llewellleo Funny, I was using the creationist-style to argue and you call it juvenile :)
The piltdown man has been debunked in 1953. Only creatards are still using it.
Archeoraptor has been assembled from 2 different fossiles which still do have some value. The front part is an almost complete Yanornis Martini and the tail belongs to a microraptor.
I forgot to mention M. Behe, who failed miserably at the Kitzmiller v. Dover testemony.
ID is not science!
M0rdH0rst 1 month ago
@M0rdH0rst It is very much a fanatical evolutionist slash fanatical creationist style and I fall in neither of these two categories. Seeing that you used a fanatical creationist style as you call it should I presume that you are a fanatic on the other side of the fence? Did you look at superseded theories at all?
llewellleo 1 month ago
@llewellleo I just tried it. Sometimes I pretend to be a pagan who believes in Odin. The replies are very interesting ;)
Yes I've looked up some superseded theories. A lot of them were "Rendered obsolete by Darwinian evolution" or the germ theory of deseases or genetic theory.
There are a lot of theories which became obsolete with growing knowledge. If there is a better explanation, why keep the old one.
As may people say: "The Better is the enemy of the Good"
M0rdH0rst 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@llewellleo (1) “Piltdown man”
This “fraud” took place 100 years ago and was perpetrated by a man trying to make a name for himself. He, unfortunately duped much of the scientific community into thinking it was “the missing link”.
As early as 1913 however, David Waterston of King's College London published in Nature his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull. Likewise, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the same thing in 1915.
burkerow 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@llewellleo (2) PiltdownIn cont.
1923 Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they were of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth. Weidenreich, being an anatomist, had easily exposed the hoax for what it was.
The validity of the specimen has always been questioned. In the 1940s, more advanced dating technologies, such as the fluorine absorption test, scientifically proved that this skull was actually a fraud.
cont.
burkerow 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@llewellleo (3) Piltdown cont
The hoax is often cited (along with Nebraska Man) by creationists as an example of the dishonesty or credulity of biologists that study human evolution, despite the fact that evolutionary biologists had exposed the hoax themselves.
burkerow 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@llewellleo (4) Piltdown
It is unfortunate that a few people try to perpetrate frauds for their own gain, but for you to bring this up as if the entire scientific community willingly attempted a conspiracy, and in so doing attempt to refute all of evolution science, is nothing but a strawman argument and you should be ashamed of yourself. You’re going to have to better than this.
burkerow 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@llewellleo "Examples of fraud in religion"
If you want to talk about fraud, we need look no further than your own religion. We can start with the "Shroud of Turin". Did "the Church" police itself and expose this as a fraud? No! The Church protected and hence perpetrated this hoax for 700 years by protecting the Shroud from critical inquiry. If was in fact scientist who exposed the Shroud for the hoax that it is, yet many Christians still try to claim the Shroud is genuine.
burkerow 1 month ago
@llewellleo "So many dead and defunct theories left on the trash heap of assumption."
There are less "dead and defunct theories" than what you might think. Scientific understanding evolves and builds on earlier theories and understandings. Rarely, in modern science is a theory completely overturned.
But that's the beauty of the scientific method, it's open to peer review and falsification. It has a self correcting mechanism. Religion is well.... just religion.
burkerow 1 month ago
@llewellleo Science, with whatever flaws it may have, also happens to be the best way we have to objectively evaluate the reality of the natural universe. Without science we have no understanding at all. So, whether the theories are right or wrong in the end, our "faith" needs to be with what mainstream science knows. That means when new information and knowledge is learned through science, we change our understanding with it.
The ancient skeptics called this "acquiesce to appearances".
burkerow 1 month ago
@burkerow I love science, did since I was a child. I agree with you but I would love to see a debate where there is still room to explore an idea, study it, find the faults and if its incorrect search for the right answer. Atheists generally believe the case is closed on the subject but I disagree, new information, gathered through science which is but a tool, brings some question marks on the subject and sad that so called intellectuals have shut their minds to the new evidence.
llewellleo 1 month ago
@llewellleo "but I would love to see a debate where there is still room to explore an idea, study it, find the faults and if its incorrect search for the right answer"
You see this happening all the time in science. "Cold Fusion" was one idea that was debated, but unfortunately data was forged and the experiment could not be repeated. Now we have the CERN particle accelerator observe quarks that seem to move faster than light. We may need to rethink some of what we know about physics.
cont
burkerow 1 month ago
@llewellleo Quarks: The September announcement of the finding, backed up last week after new studies, caused a furor in the scientific world as it seemed to suggest Albert Einstein's ideas on relativity, and much of modern physics, were based on a mistaken premise.
An international team of scientists in Italy studying the same neutrino particles colleagues say appear to have travelled faster than light rejected the startling finding this weekend, saying their tests had shown it must be wrong.
burkerow 1 month ago
@burkerow I love the theory of relativity.Had a brilliant scientists explain it to me and to some degree it makes perfect sense. It truelly is a beautiful piece of thinking but I personally saw flaws in it as well.
llewellleo 1 month ago
@llewellleo Quarks: So you see, this is how science works. BUT, ID is not science, and here's why.
The late Steven Jay Gould said that religion and science have "Nonoverlapping Magisteria" NOMA. In other words, religion deals with the spirit realm (IF one exist) and science deals with the realm of nature. Gould is correct except when religion makes claims that the spiritual realm influences the natural realm, such as miracles, Noaic Flood or creation stories.
cont.
burkerow 1 month ago
@llewellleo The scope and ken of science is to understand our universe from a natural mechanism and causation. As soon as someone attempts to invoke a supernatural causation to explain the natural world, then science has nothing to say except to look for a natural cause. Historically, whenever we have wondered if a natural observation was cause by the supernatural, it has always turned out to be a natural cause when we use science to answer the question.
This is why ID is not science.
burkerow 1 month ago
@llewellleo "Atheists generally believe the case is closed on the subject but I disagree,"
I disagree with your statement. Most, or all atheist are also naturalist, so we will choose to look to science for "natural" explanations to our questions about life and the universe.
We put our "faith" in science. Science does not have all the answers yet and will never have all the answers, but that's okay. To postulate a God as an answer for the unknown is a logical fallacy called ad ignorantium.
burkerow 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@llewellleo "new information gathered through science... a tool, brings some questions on the subject and sad that so called intellectuals have shut their minds to the new evidence."
You are incorrect on several accounts, but this just seems like an ad hoc argument.
1. What new "evidence" has brought questions? Please support your assertion.
2. Yes science is a tool, but it's nevertheless a good tool and the BEST we have for understanding nature.
3. Which intellectuals have shut their minds?
burkerow 1 month ago
@llewellleo "intellectuals shut their minds to new evidence."
You might me mistaking a skeptical peer review process with a closed mind. This is a mistake most believers make when talking about skeptics.
The Greek term skeptikos means "inquirer" or "investigator".
It is the job of scientists to be skeptical when presented with "new evidence", to be critical, meaning to investigate the veracity of new evidential claims. That's peer review and the scientific method.
Remember the quarks?
burkerow 1 month ago
Comment removed
llewellleo 1 month ago
Comment removed
llewellleo 1 month ago
I cannot believe these people run our country.
shredder767 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yom, the Hebrew word from which day has been translated, has more than one meaning when it comes to time and the very reason Peter later makes an effort to clarify that word in the scripture which was clearly corrupted or rather simply mistranslated. Hebrew is not as complex as the English language with nearly half a million words.Yom can mean a day, a week, a month, old age or an old age.Like many educated on this I know the Bible is not 100% correctly translated as many falsely believe it is.
llewellleo 1 month ago
The Bible holds up very well if one looks at the scientific evidence and better so than evolution which in fact is nothing original in part and kept alive not because it has any real value to human progress but because it gives atheists what they desire,an excuse. Well its a poor excuse. I trust science, evidence, logic not something clearly dis-proven.
llewellleo 1 month ago
@llewellleo Who has dis-proven it? Where is their Nobel prize?
arseymcpherson 1 month ago
@arseymcpherson I think you overestimate the importance of evolution.Part of it is very relevant to science, the other is protected by a gang of old men desperate to not end up looking like fools and e they would gladly throw a spanner in the works if they could. Are they any different to those who opposed Galileo? It all about blind indoctrination, pride and power, not science and exploration.
llewellleo 1 month ago
@llewellleo You talk nothing but jibberish.
arseymcpherson 1 month ago
@arseymcpherson lol Sense is jibberish to evolutionists. One has to be awake to know that evolution itself is just a load of crock and drunk to believe it is not.
llewellleo 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@llewellleo Sir, allow me to assist with your edification. EVOLUTION is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a DAILY basis by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalize observed data and prepare applications.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 month ago
@llewellleo Excerpt: James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combatting cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of EVOLUTIONARY theory.
Scientists don't win Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology based on a theory that doesn't actually exist.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 month ago
@CynicalSkeptic1As I clearly stated below there is a part of it that is very valid ending with one species becoming another which cannot scientifically be verified and which is not supported by the fossil record either.A theory that does not exist, that is a strange statement.The theory exists because of observation and interpretation but is not a fact.Darwin's theory of evolution and the modern version is not exactly the same for instance black folk being considered lower evolutionary mutations
llewellleo 1 month ago
@llewellleo "..not supported by the fossil record either"
Evolution is MOST CERTAINLY supported by the fossil record and your insistence to remain willfully ignorant is truly pathetic.
Some links for your convenience:
talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/comdesc/section1
anthro(dot)palomar(dot)edu/evolve/evolve_3
wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
evolution(dot)berkeley(dot)edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2
txtwriter(dot)com/backgrounders/evolution/evcontents
CynicalSkeptic1 1 month ago
@llewellleo What you described is euphemistically defined by Creationists as "Macro-evolution". "Micro-evolution" and "Macro-evolution" are not recognized as sub-groups of evolution by the biological scientific community...there is only "evolution". PubMed(dot)gov reports that there are 179 publications on "Macro-E", 341 publications on "Micro-E" and 247,308 publications on "evolution". Even the "Platypus" has 414 publications, so there are more articles about one animal than Micro-E or Macro-E.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 month ago