MAND: Of course, if you read the comment threads, as well as Mr. Maher's autistic repitions of "most scientists believe X" you'd see why I dismiss that and then point out that there isn't a real consensus. Good try though.
Now MOMO is going back and deleting comments, that's quite funny. BTW, to answer her question concerning microevolution in the Bible, Genesis says each kind will produce after his own kind (16 times). The Hebrew word is "miyn" which means "to portion out, a sort, i.e. species."
MOMO was asked (after asserting orbjective morality does not exist) why she would oppose or support (and whether on pragmatic grounds or not) a bill euthanizing all people over 65 who are not financially well-off. She said "don't be stupid." She doesn't even want to support it on pragmatic grounds. So, if objective morality is illusory, what's wrong with a majority saying Jews aren't really people or euthanizing "the useless eaters." Naturalism has no foundation for morality, which does exist.
I should qualify, when I said ID only has one expert. I meant in evolutionary biology. I realize ID also includes other fields, like astronomy. Some may include Jonathan Wells. He isn't a practicing scientist and because he is mildly crazy and a compulsive liar I didn't count him.
From what I have read in the creationist literature it is clear most don't understand the theory of evolution. I think if they did they wouldn't be so against it. Which is why I suggest they learn from the experts.
I am familiar with creationist literature. I have some books in my collection and I have read AiG's Answers Journal and the stuff from Discovery Institute. None of the arguments are strong enough to be published in scientific journals. Not only do I think my experts are better than yours, but I think ID only has one real expert: Micheal Behe (who you probably disagree with since he accepts common descent).
I didn't miss the point. I disagree when you say expert opinions are worthless.
TIM: I never said expert opinons are worthless (please pay attention), just that ad populum appeals are, which is what I've heard countless times on here, despite debunking it in the vid. Apparently you're NOT familiar with creationist literature, you didn't think they published in peer-reviewed journals. Nobody really cares what you think Tim. What about Denton? Piecemeal evolution fails against the blood clotting cascade.
@UTubekookdetector : If Denton published something on ID in a peer reviewed journal please provide a link, because as far as I can tell his papers were not ID science. Whales and other organisms are missing steps in the blood clotting cascade, so it is not irreducibly complex. Even if you can't think of a way it evolved doesn't mean it didn't evolve by a way you can't think of. It's a cleaver idea, but I can't think of anyway to conclusively demonstrate something is irreducibly complex.
TIM: Your point about politicians and religious leaders is quite odd, I never referred to any politician or religious leader, I referred to scienctists (remember, you asserted creationists don't publish in peer-reviewed journals, Tim Wallace debunked that years ago), it appears you're beating up straw men. Is Ambulocetus missing certain proteins in the cascade and functioning? How do you know evolution bothers me more than other "unthruths"?
@UTubekookdetector We probably are never going to agree. For some reason you trust politicians and religious leader opinions on science over that of scientists. Could you answer some questions:
1. It seems evolutionary theory is too complex for many of the general public to grasp. Why do you think you understand better than most scientists?
2. I know you don't believe it's true, but my question for you is why does the theory of evolution bother you so much more than other "untruths"?
TIM: "Even if you can't think of a way it evolved doesn't mean it didn't evolve by a way you can't think of." I'd say your camp should take that advice as well, as it is plausible--coming from an empiricist, I don't think that would help your case much.
It remains that you cannot show one peer reviewed scientific paper on ID or creationism. Yet you deny the evidence shown in thousands of papers concerning evolution. Though they have failed to publish any scientific papers on it, there are a handful of scientists who reject evolution. Why do you believe these scientists and not the others. I shouldn't have assumed your reasons were political or religious, but if not what are they.
@UTubekookdetector The primary reason given by everyone I have met that didn't accept evolution is that the genesis story is meant to be interpreted as a literal historic event. Is that the case for you? I also know this is important to you because you posted a video on it. I assume you think this "untruth" is more dangerous than other untruths because you made a video for this one. I'm not saying this is the only thing you care about, but I ask why do you care so much? What danger do you see?
TIM: Perhaps you could ask yourself the same questions? I'll tell you this pertaining to education curriculum (and again, you were still wrong on creationists publishing in peer-reviewed journals, interested users can see the URL I supplied): The federal gov't should be OUT of the business of education. It's unconstitutional and then states can decide what they want. If it's a private school system, you're free to send your kids to a school that teaches naturalism. I'm free to do otherwise.
@UTubekookdetector Now we are getting somewhere. The scientific theory of evolution has nothing to do with the philosophy of naturalism. Some people in the New Atheist movement (including some scientists, but not most) and some Christians make evolution out to be a philosophy or a world view. This is improper and most scientists would refute this. Unfortunately the general public in the US has been misinformed. Evolution is only "naturalistic" in the same sense that the theory of gravity is.
TIM: "The scientific theory of evolution has nothing to do with the philosophy of naturalism." I specifically made the point in the vid (I knew it would be brought up) that all atheists are evolutionists, but not all evolutionists are atheists. Those that are have naturalism as their underlying philosophy, the link is not severable. I know a few theists that subscribe to biological evolution, but no atheists that are creationists (oxymoron). I gave a few reasons I don't embrace naturalism.
The primary reason I have a problem with this is that this debate has been used to fuel the "culture wars." I believe the "culture wars" are destroying the country. It divides us when we should be working together. It distracts us from our real problems. It is manufactured by political leaders to drive voter turnouts. They tell us that our neighbor hates us and that we need to cancel out his/her vote. The evolution debate is more political and religious than it is scientific.
I looked at your links again. I still haven't seen any evidence that there are papers in real scientific journals on creationism or ID. You can't just asset it. Surely you can show me a direct link to just one of these papers if one exists. I agreed with you that scientists that don't believe in evolution still publish, but they never publish on creationism or ID. Not sure why you keep bringing this up. Show me and I'll shut up about this point.
TIM: Already gave you the link on Wallace's True Origin website, you apparently DIDN"T read it. Just asking the same question over and over again is silly. "I believe the "culture wars" are destroying the country." I believe multiculturalism is a crock, but please let me know if you find an utopia, I'll buy a ticket. "Culture wars" have been around since the days of Noah, I doubt they'll end anytime soon.
There is so much nonsense in this video and in the comments that I could write a book. Yes, Scientists that are creationists do publish, but they don't publish on creation science or intelligent design. Some creationists do real science unrelated to creationism and they publish this.
So they lie about global warming they must also be lying about evolution? They aren't lying about global warming and even if they were, it doesn't mean they are lying about evolution.
TIM: I don't think you're a good listener. One of my main points was that ad populum appeals are basically worthless. You write a book? Does it have coloring areas and pop-up pictures too for your friends? Actually, some creationists do publish on their own theories, Tim Wallace debunked that talking point years ago. Yes, they are lying about anthropogenic global warming too, if you want to debate that, find one of my vids on it.
When I said published, I should have clarified to mean in peer reviewed scientific journals. This process helps ensure that ideas are well supported by the evidence. To publish a book, you only have to have people willing to buy it. It doesn't have to meet a scientific standard. If you search pubmed (government collection of biomedical journals) there are only a handful of papers mentioning ID, and they all refute the theory.
Appealing to the consensus of the experts is not direct evidence of the truth of evolution. However, in general, experts are more familiar with the evidence and have greater understanding then non-experts. Expert opinions trump your own gut feelings or personal convictions. If you care about truth and think the experts are wrong, why not become an expert yourself. Take classes, even get a PhD. Do some real research. Than publish something.
Surveys show that there is a consensus among biologists on the theory of evolution. In a field of thousands, there will always be a few dissenters (there are even a few that deny HIV causes AIDS). I am a biologist. Out of the 100 or so biologists I know personally only 3 are creationists. All of them reject evolution for religious, not scientific reasons (and they will tell you this).
ad populum is a bit heavy handed as these people are trained, credentialed and leaders in their field. This is a good counter argument to the spurious things said by creationists whom claim that there is "significant debate in the scientific community." A tiny percentage of discredited scientists does not constitute significant debate.
SQUE: Actually, Tim Wallace disproved the oft-repeated contention that creationists don't publish in peer-reviewed literature. There are more scientists that don't buy Darwinism than you think (you just never look and this is your standard precanned ham reply). Remember the consensus against continental drift? Remember the consensus that bleeding people would cure them? Remember the consensus that most of our DNA is junk? I thought so.
@UTubekookdetector You are absolutely wrong, there is no significant debate in the scientific community as to the veracity of the theory of evolution. The fact that creationists don't want it to be true doesn't change this reality. The fact that literally millions of scientists use it daily when researching cures for diseases, developing medical technology, improving farming techniques, and creating real life applications from the theory shows that what you are saying is complete bunk.
SQUE: "No 'significant' debate"? It seems you're using a qualifier here, a weasel word if you will so you can employ moving goalposts later on. Wow, you're all over the map kid. The theory that dinosaurs evolved into birds is part of the reason we're producing much more food now with less farmers? Seriously? Could you possibly be a little more generalized? I see you've pretty much abandoned your consensus argument in favor of naturalist boilerplate.
@UTubekookdetector I used creationist jargon with "significant debate" and used it in my original post. Evolution is used by people researching many applications, some farming ones: larger crop yields, sustainable fish farming, forestry, bigger/fatter beasts to butcher, thicker wool, disease control in animals. Your condescending use of the word kid merely loosens your position, and your dinosaur to bird reductio ad absurdum shows me clearly that you have a deep misunderstanding of the subject
SQUE: Larger crop yields: If you're referring to genetically-altered corn (this is Iowa, it's big here) then that would be microevolution, something the Bible itself agrees with. The corn didn't evolve into a bird and fly away. Still doing the same ad populum set I see? If that's all you have, you're in deep trouble. You forgot to tell me to go read a science book (if you're using empiricism, that won't help your paradigm either).
@UTubekookdetector now I understand you, you actually believe that there is a difference between "micro evolution" and "macro evolution". You have demonstrated well your deep and frightening ignorance of evolution. If you had studied evolution you wouldn't have made such a glaring, embarrassing and comical mistake. I have sat here and actually laughed at how stupid you sound, I fear for the American youth if you are an indication of the education system over there.
TIM: I think #3 should read "SOME people (painting with a broad brush are we--remember, that's a two-edged sword) have attacked the character of good scientists over this." Point #1 is hearsay, even if true, that's a pretty small sample size. If they follow the Bible, they wouldn't let an evolutionist take Communion, for example. Sorry, that's just heresy. Go start your own naturalist church if you don't like it. #2: Depends on if it's constitutional & depends on what its funding.
You agreed that evolution is not the same as naturalism, but then make a big deal about how atheists that accept evolution accept naturalism. What's your point? If evolution is not naturalism and your real beef is with naturalism, then why are you attacking those who believe in evolution instead? If you agree that evolution is not naturalism, than why would I need to go to a "naturalist church?"
I never meant "everyone" when I said "people." Point #1: I was telling you why I personally care based on my own experience, obviously I haven't done a study. You can believe it if you want. It is pretty clear that you would not be welcoming if I came to your church. Accusing your fellow Christians of philosophical naturalism for accepting evolution is both untrue and unwelcoming (you keep telling me to go to a naturalist church and send my kids to naturalists schools).
TIM: I should clarify: Nobody is going to hades because they believe God used evolution to "create," but it's still heresy. You can't shoehorn Darwin into Genesis. My problem is with naturalism & evolution. If I undermine naturalism then that would take the atheist's belief in biological evolution with it. If I destroy the foundation (naturalism) then the roof (biological evolution) would become meangingless. Debating a theistic evolutionist that adheres to Christianity, I would use a diff. tact
My belief in evolution is not based on philosophical naturalism, but evidence. This seems to also be true for most scientists I know.
I got sidetracked, but my main goal was not to convince you of evolution. Instead I want to help creationists understand those of us that believe in evolution. I hope to clarify why we do so, and why some of us find the anti-evolution movement troubling. Feel free to ask me further questions, otherwise this will be my last post.
MOMO: Quite detailed you are. Here's something for you to think about. Objective morality (unless you really are a relativist, but I doubt it) is not "natural" it is not tangible, where then does it come from? If you assert that this was established by society and societies change, I will respond by saying, "If the federal gov't condoned euthanizing everyone over 65 who is poor or legalizing rape, you would be ok with that, correct?" Where was morality in the Big Bang?
MOMO: Your "don't be stupid" answer shows me you're uncomfortable, you're going to have to do better than that. So, if the gov't legalized rape or the euthanization or people over 65 who are not financially well-off, why would you oppose it? On what grounds? If morality is "relative" and can change on a whim, what if 90% of the public supported such a thing. Why would you push back against them? Answer that in your next post. Good luck.
Rape, murder, theft and other crimes are opposed by societies since they tend to be detrimental to the survival of those societies. From another perspective, human beings evolved empathy, which is pretty much the glue of human society as a whole.
"what if 90% of the public supported such a thing."
MOMO: Ah, still avoiding my question eh? So, I will ask you one more time, if the gov't enacted a law euthanizing (you seem to be trying to oppose it on pragmatic grounds, not moral) all those over 65 who are financially well-off (that would save $, so you could support it on pragmatic grounds) why would you oppose it? Would you oppose it? "Empathy" isn't tangible, ergo, it could not have evolved any more than objective morality.
MOMO: I'll give you one more chance. You stated that objective morality doesn't exist, so then, on what grounds would you oppose (or maybe support?) that legislation? You can't give a simple yes or no and then an explanation, that's not a viable answer for an empiricist. If you support or oppose it on pragmatic grounds (e.g. you oppose it because it contributes to an "unstable" society), I'll point out that another party could argue otherwise, just stating it's "good" for society.
MOMO: Not good enough. One more chance and I'll use a real life example: Why would you support or oppose (on moral or pragmatic grounds) the German Supreme Court ruling in 1938 the said Jews weren't really people. Why would you support or oppose it? And no, you never answered the question. You said "don't be stupid" which is a dumb answer (for an empiricist) and you appealed to pragmatism. However, that can (as I've explained) be turned around on you.
Here's the comment MOMO removed: "You're simply luring me in the age-old trick of letting me answer a question I have clearly answered already, only for you to ignore everything I say and start asking your question again, claiming I never gave an answer in the first place. I'm happy to address questions about specifics in my answer, but don't play childish tricks like these. It's really grating and nonproductive." Just because you remove it, doesn't mean I can't see it.
MOME: My apologies, you've been deleting so many comments (users can click VIEW ALL COMMENTS and see this) that I got confused. If you post again, you will answer my question in a "yes" or"no" fashion and then an explanation. You've stalled with silly answers that should embarrass an empiricist long enough. This is NOT negotiable. Good luck.
You're simply luring me in the age-old trick of letting me answer a question I have clearly answered already, only for you to ignore everything I say and start asking your question again, claiming I never gave an answer in the first place.
I'm happy to address questions about specifics in my answer, but don't play childish games like these. It's really annoying and nonproductive.
@squeezycheeseypeas You are absolutely wrong, there is no significant debate in the scientific community as to the veracity of the theory of evolution. The fact that creationists don't want it to be true doesn't change this reality. The fact that literally millions of scientists use it daily when researching cures for diseases, developing medical technology, improving farming techniques, and creating real life applications from the theory shows that what you are saying is complete bunk.
TIM: If you had actually paid attention to the vid & some of the comments in the thread, you'd probably know why. I suggest paying better attention to the vid or reading some of the comments. Thanks!
@UTubekookdetector Thanks, I did pay attention to the video, and the only justification you had for talking about the big bang was that you linked evolution to atheism. First of all, it doesn't matter how the universe got here or how the first cell came to existence in regards to evolution. As long as the two things happened, evolution can take place. 2nd, you showed a lot of ignorance in regards to the big bang. "nothing" did not sit around for billions of years, time itself began at the
TIM: Not every naturalist is an atheist, but every atheist is a naturalist, that's what I was linking. "The universe contains both positive energy and negative P.G. energy," So if I have a "jar" of 5 neutrons, 5 electrons & 5 protons then there's not really anything in the jar because its charge is zero? A little research would've told you these RNA-bases would've hydrolized in the pre-biotic soup. Their half-lives are too short.
@UTubekookdetector No, there is matter in the jar. But you said the big bang violates the COE law, when it doesn't. The total energy starts at 0, ends at 0. If you want a more in depth explanation, look it up online, or read The Grand Design. Second, you have still provided 0 evidence against evolution. All you can do is go for the "God of the gaps" that because we don't know the real answer to abiogenesis, its impossible. Reading the other comments, you said we need the answer to the
TIM: Sorry, your rhetorical sleight-of-hand isn't going to work. You have to violate mass/energy conservation for matter to come out of nothing. It reminds me of this guy who responded to one of my points concerning an infinte. It's just an idea in the mind, you can't take a part from the whole and still have a whole. He responded by saying 0-0=0. I've already dealt several times with those who get frustrated and invoke "god of the gaps" to cover up for their own sorry arguments.
@UTubekookdetector No, you don't. I just explained how the universe can come from nothing and not violate the law of conservation of energy. And people say God of the gaps because it's exactly what you are doing. Back in the day, we didn't know how a rainbow was formed. Does that mean its impossible for it to form naturally? No, we look for the answer, and find it. Stating that you've heard it before doesn't mean you're right unless you explain why it's wrong.
@TimofAwsome origin of the cell to validate evolution? I'll repeat what I said before, somehow, be it God or not, a cell came into existance. From there, it evolved. I don't see why it matters how it got there. Second, you show a possible error in one hypothesis to abiogenesis. This in no way invalidates whether it happened, just shows that the particular hypothesis has to change if a fact contradicts what was thought before.
TIM: I'll repeat what I've said before..for the naturalist, they need matter ex nihilo and life out of non-living material or their paradigm is on shifting sand. That's aside from the philosophical problems with naturalism. If it doesn't matter how it (matter, first cell) got here, why are you getting so hot-and-bothered over it? Some hypotheses change, some are discarded.
@UTubekookdetector We have matter, and we have life from non life. I don't think you're arguing that. Whether that life arose by God or by a natural reason doesn't falsify evolution. You merely keep restating that without explaining the reason. And I'm saying that it is not impossible for a cell to exist naturally, and even if it was, it would in no way diminish evolution. Your last sentence was actually correct though.
TIM: I think I'll just say this one more time, since we seem to be going in a circle. Without matter ex nihilo & without a living cell from non-living material, evolution cannot occur as the naturalist presupposes. All naturalists require this or their paradigm is false. I did make it clear in the vid, you seem to have ignored that and asked the same question several times. You're not the first one to do this though.
@UTubekookdetector This is ridiculous. I've answered why this claim is false several times, and you ignore it. I agree that this is going to to be a circle, but I'm not at fault. You're right, evolution can't occur without matter and the first cell but NOBODY IS CLAIMING THAT IT DOES. We know there was a first cell, therefor, evolution can take place. How it got there is irrelevant. You have STILL yet to justfiy why evolution is false.
TIM: You are getting ridiculous & frustrated. My point was to undercut the naturalist philosophy, but considering you didn't comprehend that the last 5 times I stated it, I doubt it'll work if I do it again. Thanks for the discussion though.
@UTubekookdetector Lol, I understand what your point was and I showed why you failed at it, 5 times. Clearly though, YOU coudldn't understand my argument to yours about evolution or that the naturalist view is impossible. However at least we can agree that this isn't going anywhere. Thanks for the discussion.
ah i see you're reading that creationist bullshit about macroevolution being so drastically different than microevolution..u need to read articles from scientists if u wanna properly learn about evolution,not creationist sites..problem is, u have your religious beliefs, and u gravitate toward the creationist bullshit because it reinforces your own beliefs. if u cared about scientific truth, you'd learn your evolutionary science from scientists..but that makes too much sense.
ITZ: You're using words like "wanna" and in the same breath accusing me of being stupid. Ah, the good old "read a science book" argument. "gradual microevolutionary change over time, is the hallmark cause of speciation." And I've pointed out numerous times on this thread, that doesn't work with the blood clotting cascade.
great point..i said "wanna"..that makes me a generally stupid person, because i shorten words :-I
"the good old read a science book argument"
when it comes to science, use scientific sources, instead of creationist ones!..what an idea, right?..gotta love those old cliche arguments..tried and true.
"blood clotting cascade." ah the irreducibly complex system argument..they can't possibly evolve, right?..just like the eye and the flagella..any more creationist bullshit?
ITZ: You sound like you're going to cry son. My points on the clotting cascade come from a PhD. Talk Origins attempted to debunk irreducible complexity by removing the platform on a mousetrap and attaching it directly to the floor. However, they just replaced one platform with another, no fundamental change to the trap. You probably thought that was a pretty good response didn't you? If you have anything worthy, let me know kiddo.
ITZ: You can dish it out, but you can't take it. "just because something is irreducibly complex, doesn't mean it couldn't have evolved to become irreducibly complex." And while the clotting cascade was on this long, arduous journey to "irreducible complexity" homo sapien sapien bled to death for thousands of years until nature got it right. BTW, you are banned, if I wanted to talk to someone who has been hitting the sauce & needs medication, I'd visit the bar or an insane asylum.
macroevolution (speciation) is merely the accumulation of microevolutionary changes over time..over time many microevolutionary changes inevitably result in a macroevolutionary event..the only difference between the 2, is time..u merely assume time, and speciation is inevitable..sometimes u don't even need time..sometimes all it takes is a specific type of mutation to cause speciation.
@UTubekookdetector (continued) big bang. There was nothing before it. Second, the big bang does not in any way violate the law of conservation of energy. The universe contains both positive energy and negative P.G. energy, balancing out to a total of zero. And the first primitive blood cells would have probably come into existance first in ancient sponges. 5 min of research could have told you this.
Evolution only deal with biology, why do you mention Physics, Evolution and the origin of the Universe are independent variable, and it is nice how you relate it to atheism. Evolution does not equal atheism and does not tell us how the universe originated
you have stated the 1st and 6th foundational falsehood of creationism
LOG: I made it clear in the vid, you apparently didn't pay attention. Every naturalist (in violation of mass/energy conservation) requires matter to come out of nothing (even toouched on this briefly) and the first cell even before biological evolution can take place. Please pay attention next time.
@UTubekookdetector yes but evolution is merely change over time, or as some put it change in allele frequency over time. What happen before a single celled organism and horizontal gene transfer does not validate or affect evolution
LOG: Not good enough, you need to address my point that the naturalist (before he gets to biological evolution) ) needs matter ex nihilo & without that his theory of naturalisitic evolution is dead.
LOG: It's amazing how you're avoiding answering a simple question. I've come to a logical conclusion on this and laid it out for you in simple terms. Either you don't understand or you realize your point is invalid & this is your only recourse. I think the viewers of this thread can decide for themselves.
@UTubekookdetector I said it before and i will say it again evolution does not deal with or is not affected by the origin of the universe or matter, I naturalistic origin may, but evolution does not, the big bang neither confirms or asses the validity of evolution, abiogenesis does not do this either, even answers in genesis knows better and said creationist should not use some of the argument you have used for evolution, atheism maybe but not evolution
LOG: And I will say this one more time and this will be the last time we go around on it. The naturalist needs the first matter & the first cell ex nihilo OR biological evolution isn't even an issue. They have to validate those items first or the rest doesn't even matter. I've made this point many times, I will not make it again (neither will you).
@UTubekookdetector well I can't really speak for astrophysicist or biochemist who know more about the origins of the universe and single celled organisms, but i will do my best, to deal with 3 different fields of discipline, cosmology, chemistry and biology even though evolution only deal with one, and most people contend and stick to only one, since they are independent and not as you believe dependent variables. While abiogensis has some evidence for it, it is not nearly as solid as evolution
LOG: Abiogenesis has a major uphill climb, especially when one considers the half-lives of these RNA bases, they would've hydrolized in the "pre-biotic" soup. Your comments indicate an empiricist POV, but there are many things Science cannot explain. I'll give one example I've used many times. Science can't tell me that killing starving children for fun is wrong--even though it is wrong, even if the gov't sanctions it.
@UTubekookdetector wow, i just lost the small amount of respect I had in you,of course science does not tell us what is right or wrong, science is a mere observation of the natural world, you seem to think, and the video i provided mentions this, that if your book is not right then nothing is and you can do what ever you want, as if killing people is some how fun science does not tell use what is right or wrong, well neither does mathematics, or statistics, for that you need to get into....
LOG: No offence my friend but I don't really care if you respect me or not. People can go read through your comments and look at how you used "science" as your yardstick for knowledge. I just poked a hole in it and this is how you react. Science also can't tell me that it took light the same amount of time to travel from Jupiter to Earth 3 million years ago.
of course I used science, what else was I supposed to use Mathematics, on certain situations i would use science and in other i will not, Politics does not require physical or life science and neither does economics or literature. now the speed of light, you mention was said by some creationist, not in that form, the speed of light for the most part is constant and 3X10^8 meters per second(I use metric) and if it were faster or slower we would see a decay or exponential growth
LOG: " the speed of light for the most part is constant and 3X10^8 meters per second(I use metric) and if it were faster or slower we would see a decay or exponential growth." The problem with that: Let's say the universe is 100 million years old. The time frame we've been observing "C decay" is a drop-in-the-bucket pertianing to geological time frames. I find it telling that you've basically admitted to me that "science" can't give you a foundation for objective morality, which does exist.
@UTubekookdetector i also told you that, it is not my field of knowledge, I will admit, that I do not know the part of morality, but I said "the subject of objective and subjective morality, and some info on the human mind, and you would have to look into social animals as well, and make comparative analogies to justify your claim," you might as well ask me on literature, someone once said to debate a creationist, you need to know not just evolutionary biology but physics astronomy,....
...biochemistry philosophy sociology, and so on rather that have to stick with just evolutionary theory, and so on, and you would need a Jimmy Neutron brain to know and be in expert in all that, but on morality ask someone else,
the subject of objective and subjective morality, and some info on the human mind, and you would have to look into social animals as well, and make comparative analogies to justify your claim,now I can do this but there are many thing I am not and expert or have not looked into,like literature and language which i find difficult compared to science and math, I can look up info, but do not feel compelled to do so because of some random internet wackjob,now I originally started this since I.....
I am not and expert and do not know much on this part of morality, but you seem to think that I am into scientism which I am not, since science only deals with the natural world, I am good with mathematics and certain fields of science, but in science I am not good with Psychology, there are of course things science cannot explain but does that mean should give up and say god did it, and believe it or not I am more into mathematics but science is necessary for something to be explained.....
while abiogenesis has some evidence for it there are still many competing theories for it, astronomy the big bang has some evidence for it but there are some things it cannot account for, an example of something that validates it is, the red shift we see in galaxies, red shift is cause by a very simple mechanism called the Doppler affect that as stars get father they shift towards the red end of the spectrum while, if they were getting close you have a blue shift, this red shift indicates that..
indicated that the galaxies were in the past closer to each other, now there are something that the big bang does not explain like why expansion is accelerating rather that slowing down and for this there are many competing theories, but of course most would be happy to use the god of the gaps argument, something science cannot explain, no problem god did it, but if we say god did it for abiogenesis and cosmology what of evolution, well evolution until then would still be true even if god is....
...even if god is necessary for the origins of the universe and the first organisms, now i think most creationist when debating on evolution would for some reason say where did everything come from, while the discovery institute for the most part does not do that
And that isn't to say an appeal to authority makes something correct mainly, but it does indicate that almost all *experts* in the field are for evolution. I have a thermophysics book in front of me from a class I'm taking. I look up the author and sure enough he works on thermal physics as his focus in physics. He's very knowledgeable in that particular area. So these *experts* write about what they know works and is correct. Scientists also generally admit what they simply don't know.
ECO: I never said most scientists reject it, simply that ad populum appeals are just that (we've seen these types of fallacious appeals in the AGW debate), ad populum appeals and don't really prove anything.
@UTubekookdetector I did not claim that you said "most scientists reject it." I was saying it *does* indicate that we need to take that into consideration. My point was that *if* a majority of experts (scientists) indicate that a certain theory works, then if you don't accept it, you should be sure to understand first what they are saying exactly (and be careful in doing so) and have *extremely* good reasons for it. (Most likely if you can though, then it wouldn't be a theory anyway.)
ECO: Yoou said, "that isn't to say an appeal to authority makes something correct mainly, but it does indicate that almst all *experts* in the field are for evolution." Then you say, " I did not claim that you said "most scientists reject it." Then why were you bringing it up?
@UTubekookdetector Merely to point it out basically. I confirmed that what you said was correct in one sense (that just because the majority of people accept something doesn't make it true). But, I also wanted to say that there IS a point in saying that the majority of scientists accept evolution. It doesn't "prove" objectively anything, but quite frankly it is a pretty strong statement to show how serious the theory is. If you are fine with my statement, then there is no problem =).
@UTubekookdetector (That does not mean that just because scientists say it is true, then you should accept it. But, it should be an understand it first, and then (in my opinion), then people usually agree once they really understand it.)
Well, about your claim of scientists rejecting evolution... the point was that a much larger percent accept evolution than don't. (Google "Project Steve") While I don't know what other peoples' intentions for listing such a list are, but imo the main thing is to simply take this into consideration when evaluating your opinion on evolution. Being a scientist is not easy and it requires a lot of in-depth thinking and rigorous training on how to think logically.
JIS: I know a few scientists that reject Darwinian evolution and even provided a link under the vid to other scientists who don't buy what Darwin's selling. Your ilk like to use ad populum appeals, just as they do in the global warming debate (most scientists believe X), when it's not even true. Even if it was, that wouldn't make it true. There are numerous scientific beliefs that have been thrown under the bus as science has advanced.
@UTubekookdetector I am a scientist, I have examined the evidence for myself. I work with evolutionary biology on the genetic level. There is 150 years of peer reviewed scientific evidence in genetics, geology, paleontology, and comparative anatomy which prove evolution. Global warming is also a fact, sorry but it is. The irony that you would accuse me of using ad populum appeals as a creationist is humorous. I won't even bother "debating" you. You don't need a debate, you need an education.
JIS: You seem angry too and I highly doubt your evidence. The fact that you can't address the specific points I made in this vid (and you're attempting anything you can to detour the conversation elsewhere) validates this as well. If you want to debate global warming, go find some of my vids on it and bring an argument to the table.
@UTubekookdetector You sit at a table of plenty laid out by science for you to feast on. At every turn there is a scientific break through which makes your life easier. Do you help contribute to science or at least cheer it on from the stands? No. Instead you actively make youtube videos about it to try and distort other people's minds to reality. You "question" the evidence. You are a scientific illiterate who is not qualified to question any evidence as you don't have a grasp on reality.
@UTubekookdetector The "scientist" you know who reject Darwinian evolution are obviously not objective, and cannot be taken seriously by other scientist. Evolution has a wealth of evidence, so much so that it is self evident to anyone who looks at the evidence. Is it too much of me to ask you to visit google, or a museum and look for yourself? Do I really have to spoon-feed you evidence and then have you deney it's value? Let me ask you, where did you get your science education from?
JIS: You seem frustrated too, you didn't even bother to check the link I provided to seveal scientists who do indeed reject Darwinism. It's obvious, you don't want a debate, you're just going to throw the other side under the bus immediately. Lastly, I already told you no more off-topic comments, you made another one about global warming--you are hereby banned. Don't like it? Go do your own video. JIS couldn't provide any evidence for a piecemeal evolution of the clotting cascade.
@lnTheFlesh: certainly, people can be as ignorant as they choose to be. There are mountains of evidence that support the evolutionary scientific theories Talk about fossil evidence, there are tons of . If you would just open your minds and read up on books that support these facts. Turn off limbaugh, beck, palin, robertson, and the rest of charlatans that are leading you guys stray and into a deeper ignorance.
@ UTubekookdetector. Were you even alive in the 50's, 60's?. So you can see why states aren't and shouldn't be allowed complete freedom to set their own standards, as far as religion, education and civil rights is concerned. It's because states very often cater to a very vociferous and very often, sad to say in this day and age, racist, fascist, xenophobic minority. That's why the federal government, with all his faults, has been the bulkwark against all this fringe ideas ultimately fail.
HOTT: Wrong and this is the last comment that will be made on this subject. The US Const. does not mention education, it is a state task. Even the FDR Admin. agreed with this. Sorry! Now, here's what you'll answer in your next post. When did say, Christmas Factor & Stuart Factor make their appearance in the blood clotting cascade? Were they there at the same time (since I did ask this in the vid) or did they appear separately? You won't be allowed to derail this with unrelated rants.
I agree with hottpoker. The charlatans pushing the religion of evolution are spreading ignorance throughout our country. Stasis and the lack of fossil evidence should be enough to humble these evolutionists but they still push their ideas into schools.
MUG: Is this akin to rats developing a resistance to Warfarin? Even the Bible supports change within "the kind", but how do rats becoming resistant to Warfarin (and thus having less genetic info if I remember correctly) bridge the gap to say, the evolution of the blood-clotting cascade from scratch?
@UTubekookdetector I'm no expert but rats becoming immune or highly resistant to poisons is probably pretty similar to antibiotic resistant infections. rats becoming resistant to poisons can be a very quick evolution but complex changes like blood clotting and fins turning in to flippers happen of millions upon millions of years.
MUG: Millions of years is where you and your ilk run into problems with the cascade. It couldn't have taken millions of years because it wouldn't work in a piecemeal process. Some of the proteins later in the cascade regulate ones that appeared earlier, it was either fully-functioning as it is today or it didn't function at all---which would become quite a problem for homo sapien sapien when he got a paper cut.
MUG: That's weak. Are you jumping on the Gould bandwagon now, proposing hopeful monsters & punctuated equilibria? If you're an empiricist, your argument just failed.
MUG: I think I can deduct from your answer that you can't give me a coherent model for the piecemeal evolution of the blood-clotting cascade. I accept your concession.
@UTubekookdetector congratulations you single handedly defeated the theory of evolution because I can't explain a highly complicated process that you keep repeating.
MUG: For those who are interested, I asked MUG on several occasions to tell me which proteins in the blood-clotting cascade regulate proteins that come earlier in the cycle. Remember, he started the disagreement with me and now this is escape. Pretty weak if you ask me. Heck, he even theorized that the cascade took millions of years to evolve. For thousands of years humans bled to death until the cascade was fine-tuned.
@UTubekookdetector OK I can't explain it there are you happy? unlike you I don't waste my time studying (this is assuming you actually know anything about the process) obscure biological traits so I can go on youtube and "debate" other people (who have a life) and make myself feel better. This isn't escape this is me admitting defeat, congrats.
@UTubekookdetector just out of curiosity how do you believe the blood clotting cascade came to be? someone magically created it out of nowhere. thats a weak man's expression of ignorance.
MUG: You seem a little frustrated. Your petty sniping validates this. For the record, I believe the universe has an Intelligent Designer, I thought I made that pretty clear in the video.
@UTubekookdetector So you honestly believe a magic man (where did god come from any ways? nowhere? the mind of stupid supersticious men?) created everything (out of nowhere and also by magic).
face it religion only exists on the scale that it does today as a means of dumbing down the population (not that you needed any help apparently) and make them more complacent.
For the record, what sort of education do you have?
MUG: Don't worry about my personal life son, focus on the issues. You seem pretty frustrated that Intelligent Design is the best way to explain the origin of the universe and life. How about objective morality? Do you think the naturalist or non-naturalist paradigm provides the best explanation for objective morality (unless you REALLY ARE a relativist)? "At every turn there is a scientific break through which makes your life easier." All engineered by an Intelligent Designer (Man).
@UTubekookdetector again stop skipping around my questions and maybe I'll take you seriously
So you honestly believe a magic man (where did god come from any ways? nowhere? the mind of stupid supersticious men?) created everything (out of nowhere and also by magic).
MUG: Whatever caused the universe has to be outside of space/time and not constrained by those, otherwise you have to argue that the universe has always existed (not true) or created itself (also not true). You must not pay attention: I made it pretty clear in the vid that yes, I believe something outside of space/time is responsible for the universel existing. If you argue for a cause for God, you are arguing for an infinite regress, which is also not logical.
@UTubekookdetector instead of saying you don't know what created the universe you immeadiately jump to "oh some magic man created it because I said so" when no one has ever seen or spoken to this magic man, aside from schizophrenics (maybe all "religious" people are just schizophrenics). like I said before religion and creationism are just a lazy pathetic man's way of explaining something they have no real concept of.
and you should stop talking about the origin of the universe its off topic.
MUG: I specifically brought up the origin of the universe in this video, so it is certainly NOT off-topic (see my responses to "logicalthinker"). Now you're just engaging in ad hominem, you're frustrated. I think interested users can peruse the archives & see your level of frustration grow. Naturalism doesn't provide a foundation for objective morality either--I assume you are NOT a relativist. Come up with something new or take a hike.
@UTubekookdetector face it religion only exists on the scale that it does today as a means of dumbing down the population (not that you needed any help apparently) and make them more complacent.
For the record, what sort of education do you have?
HLY: I see what you're saying, but it's quite a leap to go from micro (dogs/wolves) to macro (blood clotting cascade or the "common ancestor" between crocodiles & sheep). I'm arguing that these macro changes could not have evolved piecemeal.
Among the biggest reasons this country is falling behind in education as compared to the other developed countries, is the fact that we have let a bunch of charlatans push this kind of theories, (that show and sow ignorance in less discerning types), as to how men came to be. A little proof of this: the South is probably the less developed region in the country, and the most religious in a nutty way. It's there a correlation?. I throw that bone out there...
HOTT: Your comment isn't really germane: I will say this: As far as the US Const. is concerned, each state is permitted to set their own cirriculum; whether it be public, a mix of public, charter & private schools & the information given to pupils.
I urge everyone to read KING's comments and see how many times he plays the you're a liar card, you're uneducated, he appears to be extremely frustrated. He tried a generalized response to Moreland's book because he didn't like Moreland's examples refuting KING's support for an infinite. It is just an idea in the mind, nothing more.
@UTubekookdetector Yes please read my comments.... You will see how I told this idiot about the pathway for blood vessel evolution and then how he has to rappidly change the subjecty from 1 topic to another to try and hide his butt kicking.
@kingdjoser The evolution of blood/blood vessels and clotting is very well described by the evolutionary pathways...just do a search on youtube for "ken miller" and "blood" and you will see an example of why Behes ID theory was destroyed in the Dover trial.
The fact that the OP refuses to do any research on the subject speaks volumes. Thats why each post he gives just asks 3 new questions without addressing the points from my previous post...its shotgun debating.
KING: I'm still waiting (and you will inform everyone in your next comment) for you to inform us of which proteins in the cascade regulate proteins that come earlier in the cascade. After that, inform us all of when those proteins "evolved" into the cascade. Good luck. I also have to LOL at KING's urging everyone to google. I urge everyone to read the chapter in Darwin's Black Box that covers the clotting cascade.
KING: I accept your concession, you couldn't name what proteins later in the blood clotting cascade, regulate ones that appear earlier in the cascade (which was my question & you curiously urged everyone to Google). KING also did a poor job of defending an infinite (and even contradicting himself at least once). I urge all users to consult the archives. KING: I am now hanging up and taking another call from someone who is sober.
If you peruse KiNG's comments about blood clotting, he's making the same mistake Mark Isaak made in defending the Bombardier beetle. He hearkened back to items that were present in other organisms and then jumped to the conclusion that this is how it got in the Beetle, he still has a chicken-and-egg problem. How did it evolve in organism X so organism Y could use it? He still hasn't shown me how the system of blood vessels evolved in modern man and whether the blood clotting cascade was present
@UTubekookdetector If you want to reply to my comments... please use the reply button...don't post out of the discussion hoping I won't notice....that is dishonest.
It is not I making the mistake...you are the one who is making the mistake. You are making the error that all ID followers make. There is no chicken-egg problem with evolution if you understand the very basic fact that small changes lead to complex systems over long periods of time.
KING: I replied twice to your last comment, whining just makes you look bad. "the very basic fact that small changes lead to complex systems." How does that work with the blood clotting cascade? When did anti-hemophilic Factor appear? Did clotting continue until the organism died for thousands of generations before it came along to save the day? When did Christmas and/or Stuart Factor come on the scene? I'm sure you also know proteins later in the cascade regulate ones that appear earlier?
@UTubekookdetector Do some damm research...just do a basic google search on the evolution of blood clotting (as well as other complex systems) and you will find many examples of possible evolutionary pathways....just sticking your fingers in your ears and covering your eyes will not help you find the truth...ignorance is not a valid excuse.
KING: You mad? Now you're wanting me to google rather than read books? I can see from your highly-philsophical comments concerning an infinite, it appears you have been getting talking points off of Google. To defend an infinite, you also have to believe that you can take a part from the whole and still have the whole. 2-1=1, but Infinity-189,000=infinity? No wonder David Hilbert relegated that idea to the trash heap of silly ideas. Your parroted argument for piecemeal evolution is nonsense.
@UTubekookdetector You just don't care about the truth do you...admit it...no matter what evidence is given you refuse to accept evolutiuonary principal becuase it butts up against your beliefs. I keep refuting what you say and you just ignore it and move on to another subject...its willful ignorance.
KING: You're just a spoiled little brat throwing an autistic fit now, just admit it. Very unbecoming of you. You agree with me now that your prior argument in favor of an infinity was rubbish? Glad to hear it. PS It's "concede." Either reply to the library analogy or you'll be on your way.
@UTubekookdetector Of course.....this is why there is no point in debating christians....they don't have the educational background or intellectual honesty for proper deabte. You asked how blood evolved, I gave you a summary and told you that we have good evolutionary pathways for it...You ignore me and try to change the subject. Then when I refute the drivel that follows you get mad and threaten to shut me up....goood job there.
KING: You're just an angry little man because you can't defend an infinite (I have your comments archived, you contradicted yourself) and now you're throwing a fit. I think people can see my comments and yours, you appear to be angry. Your summary was rather pathetic. I do accept your concession, now go back to your troll channel with 154 view in 3.5 years and declare victory.
Evolution says nothing about how the universe began, or where matter came from or how life started...all it states is that the process of natural selection causes speciation...thats it...nothing more.
Blood (like substances) first orginated in the earliest members of the animal kingdom to transfer various chemicals via conjoined diffusion through body tissues...the first blood vessels originate much later as a specialized transport system for rudimentary hepatic systems.
KING: I think if you peruse the archives (and actually listen to the vid), you'll see why I brought up the origin of matter and how it relates to the naturalist paradigm. So, according to you, the first blood vessels evolved and they didn't transport blood? Are you saying "blood vessels" evolved first? Where does the clotting cascade fit into this scenario?
I like how you dismiss an appeal to authority then say "some scientists doubt evolution"!
Also I can't help but wonder how many of those scientists are biologists
mandangalo18 5 months ago
MAND: Of course, if you read the comment threads, as well as Mr. Maher's autistic repitions of "most scientists believe X" you'd see why I dismiss that and then point out that there isn't a real consensus. Good try though.
UTubekookdetector 5 months ago
Now MOMO is going back and deleting comments, that's quite funny. BTW, to answer her question concerning microevolution in the Bible, Genesis says each kind will produce after his own kind (16 times). The Hebrew word is "miyn" which means "to portion out, a sort, i.e. species."
UTubekookdetector 6 months ago
MOMO was asked (after asserting orbjective morality does not exist) why she would oppose or support (and whether on pragmatic grounds or not) a bill euthanizing all people over 65 who are not financially well-off. She said "don't be stupid." She doesn't even want to support it on pragmatic grounds. So, if objective morality is illusory, what's wrong with a majority saying Jews aren't really people or euthanizing "the useless eaters." Naturalism has no foundation for morality, which does exist.
UTubekookdetector 6 months ago
I should qualify, when I said ID only has one expert. I meant in evolutionary biology. I realize ID also includes other fields, like astronomy. Some may include Jonathan Wells. He isn't a practicing scientist and because he is mildly crazy and a compulsive liar I didn't count him.
From what I have read in the creationist literature it is clear most don't understand the theory of evolution. I think if they did they wouldn't be so against it. Which is why I suggest they learn from the experts.
VirologistTim 9 months ago
I am familiar with creationist literature. I have some books in my collection and I have read AiG's Answers Journal and the stuff from Discovery Institute. None of the arguments are strong enough to be published in scientific journals. Not only do I think my experts are better than yours, but I think ID only has one real expert: Micheal Behe (who you probably disagree with since he accepts common descent).
I didn't miss the point. I disagree when you say expert opinions are worthless.
VirologistTim 9 months ago
TIM: I never said expert opinons are worthless (please pay attention), just that ad populum appeals are, which is what I've heard countless times on here, despite debunking it in the vid. Apparently you're NOT familiar with creationist literature, you didn't think they published in peer-reviewed journals. Nobody really cares what you think Tim. What about Denton? Piecemeal evolution fails against the blood clotting cascade.
UTubekookdetector 9 months ago
@UTubekookdetector : If Denton published something on ID in a peer reviewed journal please provide a link, because as far as I can tell his papers were not ID science. Whales and other organisms are missing steps in the blood clotting cascade, so it is not irreducibly complex. Even if you can't think of a way it evolved doesn't mean it didn't evolve by a way you can't think of. It's a cleaver idea, but I can't think of anyway to conclusively demonstrate something is irreducibly complex.
VirologistTim 9 months ago
TIM: Your point about politicians and religious leaders is quite odd, I never referred to any politician or religious leader, I referred to scienctists (remember, you asserted creationists don't publish in peer-reviewed journals, Tim Wallace debunked that years ago), it appears you're beating up straw men. Is Ambulocetus missing certain proteins in the cascade and functioning? How do you know evolution bothers me more than other "unthruths"?
UTubekookdetector 9 months ago
@UTubekookdetector We probably are never going to agree. For some reason you trust politicians and religious leader opinions on science over that of scientists. Could you answer some questions:
1. It seems evolutionary theory is too complex for many of the general public to grasp. Why do you think you understand better than most scientists?
2. I know you don't believe it's true, but my question for you is why does the theory of evolution bother you so much more than other "untruths"?
VirologistTim 9 months ago
TIM: "Even if you can't think of a way it evolved doesn't mean it didn't evolve by a way you can't think of." I'd say your camp should take that advice as well, as it is plausible--coming from an empiricist, I don't think that would help your case much.
UTubekookdetector 9 months ago
@UTubekookdetector
It remains that you cannot show one peer reviewed scientific paper on ID or creationism. Yet you deny the evidence shown in thousands of papers concerning evolution. Though they have failed to publish any scientific papers on it, there are a handful of scientists who reject evolution. Why do you believe these scientists and not the others. I shouldn't have assumed your reasons were political or religious, but if not what are they.
VirologistTim 9 months ago
@UTubekookdetector The primary reason given by everyone I have met that didn't accept evolution is that the genesis story is meant to be interpreted as a literal historic event. Is that the case for you? I also know this is important to you because you posted a video on it. I assume you think this "untruth" is more dangerous than other untruths because you made a video for this one. I'm not saying this is the only thing you care about, but I ask why do you care so much? What danger do you see?
VirologistTim 9 months ago
TIM: Perhaps you could ask yourself the same questions? I'll tell you this pertaining to education curriculum (and again, you were still wrong on creationists publishing in peer-reviewed journals, interested users can see the URL I supplied): The federal gov't should be OUT of the business of education. It's unconstitutional and then states can decide what they want. If it's a private school system, you're free to send your kids to a school that teaches naturalism. I'm free to do otherwise.
UTubekookdetector 9 months ago
@UTubekookdetector Now we are getting somewhere. The scientific theory of evolution has nothing to do with the philosophy of naturalism. Some people in the New Atheist movement (including some scientists, but not most) and some Christians make evolution out to be a philosophy or a world view. This is improper and most scientists would refute this. Unfortunately the general public in the US has been misinformed. Evolution is only "naturalistic" in the same sense that the theory of gravity is.
VirologistTim 9 months ago
TIM: "The scientific theory of evolution has nothing to do with the philosophy of naturalism." I specifically made the point in the vid (I knew it would be brought up) that all atheists are evolutionists, but not all evolutionists are atheists. Those that are have naturalism as their underlying philosophy, the link is not severable. I know a few theists that subscribe to biological evolution, but no atheists that are creationists (oxymoron). I gave a few reasons I don't embrace naturalism.
UTubekookdetector 9 months ago
@UTubekookdetector
The primary reason I have a problem with this is that this debate has been used to fuel the "culture wars." I believe the "culture wars" are destroying the country. It divides us when we should be working together. It distracts us from our real problems. It is manufactured by political leaders to drive voter turnouts. They tell us that our neighbor hates us and that we need to cancel out his/her vote. The evolution debate is more political and religious than it is scientific.
VirologistTim 9 months ago
@UTubekookdetector
I looked at your links again. I still haven't seen any evidence that there are papers in real scientific journals on creationism or ID. You can't just asset it. Surely you can show me a direct link to just one of these papers if one exists. I agreed with you that scientists that don't believe in evolution still publish, but they never publish on creationism or ID. Not sure why you keep bringing this up. Show me and I'll shut up about this point.
VirologistTim 9 months ago
TIM: Already gave you the link on Wallace's True Origin website, you apparently DIDN"T read it. Just asking the same question over and over again is silly. "I believe the "culture wars" are destroying the country." I believe multiculturalism is a crock, but please let me know if you find an utopia, I'll buy a ticket. "Culture wars" have been around since the days of Noah, I doubt they'll end anytime soon.
UTubekookdetector 9 months ago
There is so much nonsense in this video and in the comments that I could write a book. Yes, Scientists that are creationists do publish, but they don't publish on creation science or intelligent design. Some creationists do real science unrelated to creationism and they publish this.
So they lie about global warming they must also be lying about evolution? They aren't lying about global warming and even if they were, it doesn't mean they are lying about evolution.
VirologistTim 9 months ago
TIM: I don't think you're a good listener. One of my main points was that ad populum appeals are basically worthless. You write a book? Does it have coloring areas and pop-up pictures too for your friends? Actually, some creationists do publish on their own theories, Tim Wallace debunked that talking point years ago. Yes, they are lying about anthropogenic global warming too, if you want to debate that, find one of my vids on it.
UTubekookdetector 9 months ago
@UTubekookdetector
When I said published, I should have clarified to mean in peer reviewed scientific journals. This process helps ensure that ideas are well supported by the evidence. To publish a book, you only have to have people willing to buy it. It doesn't have to meet a scientific standard. If you search pubmed (government collection of biomedical journals) there are only a handful of papers mentioning ID, and they all refute the theory.
VirologistTim 9 months ago
TIM: Yes, Tim Wallace debunked that talking point, sorry. trueorigin(dot)org/creatpub(dot)asp
UTubekookdetector 9 months ago
Appealing to the consensus of the experts is not direct evidence of the truth of evolution. However, in general, experts are more familiar with the evidence and have greater understanding then non-experts. Expert opinions trump your own gut feelings or personal convictions. If you care about truth and think the experts are wrong, why not become an expert yourself. Take classes, even get a PhD. Do some real research. Than publish something.
VirologistTim 9 months ago
TIM: My experts can beat up your experts. I think that's the gist of your statement. Want some cheese with that whine?
UTubekookdetector 9 months ago
Surveys show that there is a consensus among biologists on the theory of evolution. In a field of thousands, there will always be a few dissenters (there are even a few that deny HIV causes AIDS). I am a biologist. Out of the 100 or so biologists I know personally only 3 are creationists. All of them reject evolution for religious, not scientific reasons (and they will tell you this).
VirologistTim 9 months ago
ad populum is a bit heavy handed as these people are trained, credentialed and leaders in their field. This is a good counter argument to the spurious things said by creationists whom claim that there is "significant debate in the scientific community." A tiny percentage of discredited scientists does not constitute significant debate.
squeezycheeseypeas 10 months ago
SQUE: Actually, Tim Wallace disproved the oft-repeated contention that creationists don't publish in peer-reviewed literature. There are more scientists that don't buy Darwinism than you think (you just never look and this is your standard precanned ham reply). Remember the consensus against continental drift? Remember the consensus that bleeding people would cure them? Remember the consensus that most of our DNA is junk? I thought so.
UTubekookdetector 10 months ago
@UTubekookdetector You are absolutely wrong, there is no significant debate in the scientific community as to the veracity of the theory of evolution. The fact that creationists don't want it to be true doesn't change this reality. The fact that literally millions of scientists use it daily when researching cures for diseases, developing medical technology, improving farming techniques, and creating real life applications from the theory shows that what you are saying is complete bunk.
squeezycheeseypeas 9 months ago
SQUE: "No 'significant' debate"? It seems you're using a qualifier here, a weasel word if you will so you can employ moving goalposts later on. Wow, you're all over the map kid. The theory that dinosaurs evolved into birds is part of the reason we're producing much more food now with less farmers? Seriously? Could you possibly be a little more generalized? I see you've pretty much abandoned your consensus argument in favor of naturalist boilerplate.
UTubekookdetector 9 months ago
@UTubekookdetector I used creationist jargon with "significant debate" and used it in my original post. Evolution is used by people researching many applications, some farming ones: larger crop yields, sustainable fish farming, forestry, bigger/fatter beasts to butcher, thicker wool, disease control in animals. Your condescending use of the word kid merely loosens your position, and your dinosaur to bird reductio ad absurdum shows me clearly that you have a deep misunderstanding of the subject
squeezycheeseypeas 9 months ago
SQUE: Larger crop yields: If you're referring to genetically-altered corn (this is Iowa, it's big here) then that would be microevolution, something the Bible itself agrees with. The corn didn't evolve into a bird and fly away. Still doing the same ad populum set I see? If that's all you have, you're in deep trouble. You forgot to tell me to go read a science book (if you're using empiricism, that won't help your paradigm either).
UTubekookdetector 9 months ago
@UTubekookdetector now I understand you, you actually believe that there is a difference between "micro evolution" and "macro evolution". You have demonstrated well your deep and frightening ignorance of evolution. If you had studied evolution you wouldn't have made such a glaring, embarrassing and comical mistake. I have sat here and actually laughed at how stupid you sound, I fear for the American youth if you are an indication of the education system over there.
squeezycheeseypeas 9 months ago
@UTubekookdetector
These are the reasons I care.
1. I have been made to feel unwelcome in many churches because I was a biologist.
2. Certain people and politicians want to cut government research funding over this.
3. People have attacked the character of good scientists over this. We are all accused of lying or a conspiracy against God.
4. The Christian leadership's reaction to evolution is one (I know there are others) of the reasons I think fewer Christians are in science.
VirologistTim 9 months ago
TIM: I think #3 should read "SOME people (painting with a broad brush are we--remember, that's a two-edged sword) have attacked the character of good scientists over this." Point #1 is hearsay, even if true, that's a pretty small sample size. If they follow the Bible, they wouldn't let an evolutionist take Communion, for example. Sorry, that's just heresy. Go start your own naturalist church if you don't like it. #2: Depends on if it's constitutional & depends on what its funding.
UTubekookdetector 9 months ago
@UTubekookdetector
You agreed that evolution is not the same as naturalism, but then make a big deal about how atheists that accept evolution accept naturalism. What's your point? If evolution is not naturalism and your real beef is with naturalism, then why are you attacking those who believe in evolution instead? If you agree that evolution is not naturalism, than why would I need to go to a "naturalist church?"
VirologistTim 9 months ago
@UTubekookdetector
I never meant "everyone" when I said "people." Point #1: I was telling you why I personally care based on my own experience, obviously I haven't done a study. You can believe it if you want. It is pretty clear that you would not be welcoming if I came to your church. Accusing your fellow Christians of philosophical naturalism for accepting evolution is both untrue and unwelcoming (you keep telling me to go to a naturalist church and send my kids to naturalists schools).
VirologistTim 9 months ago
TIM: I should clarify: Nobody is going to hades because they believe God used evolution to "create," but it's still heresy. You can't shoehorn Darwin into Genesis. My problem is with naturalism & evolution. If I undermine naturalism then that would take the atheist's belief in biological evolution with it. If I destroy the foundation (naturalism) then the roof (biological evolution) would become meangingless. Debating a theistic evolutionist that adheres to Christianity, I would use a diff. tact
UTubekookdetector 9 months ago
@UTubekookdetector
My belief in evolution is not based on philosophical naturalism, but evidence. This seems to also be true for most scientists I know.
I got sidetracked, but my main goal was not to convince you of evolution. Instead I want to help creationists understand those of us that believe in evolution. I hope to clarify why we do so, and why some of us find the anti-evolution movement troubling. Feel free to ask me further questions, otherwise this will be my last post.
VirologistTim 9 months ago
TIM: You need to show how one can shoehorn Darwinism into Genesis.
UTubekookdetector 9 months ago
@UTubekookdetector
"If I undermine naturalism"
How the heck can you even THINK about undermining the obvious observation that the natural world exists and can be explained?
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
MOMO: Quite detailed you are. Here's something for you to think about. Objective morality (unless you really are a relativist, but I doubt it) is not "natural" it is not tangible, where then does it come from? If you assert that this was established by society and societies change, I will respond by saying, "If the federal gov't condoned euthanizing everyone over 65 who is poor or legalizing rape, you would be ok with that, correct?" Where was morality in the Big Bang?
UTubekookdetector 7 months ago
@UTubekookdetector
"where then does it come from?"
There is no such thing as objective morality. Even if morality would come from a god, it would still be the subjective opinion of that god.
"legalizing rape"
Don't be stupid.
"Where was morality in the Big Bang?"
You can't apply morality no non-conscious processes.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
MOMO: Your "don't be stupid" answer shows me you're uncomfortable, you're going to have to do better than that. So, if the gov't legalized rape or the euthanization or people over 65 who are not financially well-off, why would you oppose it? On what grounds? If morality is "relative" and can change on a whim, what if 90% of the public supported such a thing. Why would you push back against them? Answer that in your next post. Good luck.
UTubekookdetector 6 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@UTubekookdetector
"why would you oppose it? On what grounds?"
Rape, murder, theft and other crimes are opposed by societies since they tend to be detrimental to the survival of those societies. From another perspective, human beings evolved empathy, which is pretty much the glue of human society as a whole.
"what if 90% of the public supported such a thing."
That won't happen for above-mentioned reasons.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
MOMO: Ah, still avoiding my question eh? So, I will ask you one more time, if the gov't enacted a law euthanizing (you seem to be trying to oppose it on pragmatic grounds, not moral) all those over 65 who are financially well-off (that would save $, so you could support it on pragmatic grounds) why would you oppose it? Would you oppose it? "Empathy" isn't tangible, ergo, it could not have evolved any more than objective morality.
UTubekookdetector 6 months ago
@UTubekookdetector
"still avoiding my question eh? "
I clearly answered it, for anybody to read. Stop being disingenuous.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
MOMO: I'll give you one more chance. You stated that objective morality doesn't exist, so then, on what grounds would you oppose (or maybe support?) that legislation? You can't give a simple yes or no and then an explanation, that's not a viable answer for an empiricist. If you support or oppose it on pragmatic grounds (e.g. you oppose it because it contributes to an "unstable" society), I'll point out that another party could argue otherwise, just stating it's "good" for society.
UTubekookdetector 6 months ago
@UTubekookdetector
"I'll give you one more chance."
I already answered your question. Stop being a dud.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@UTubekookdetector
"Your "don't be stupid" answer shows me you're uncomfortable"
No, it shows that I think you're being stupid.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@UTubekookdetector
"microevolution, something the Bible itself agrees with."
Please point out exactly where the Bible mentions micro-evolution.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
MOMO: Not good enough. One more chance and I'll use a real life example: Why would you support or oppose (on moral or pragmatic grounds) the German Supreme Court ruling in 1938 the said Jews weren't really people. Why would you support or oppose it? And no, you never answered the question. You said "don't be stupid" which is a dumb answer (for an empiricist) and you appealed to pragmatism. However, that can (as I've explained) be turned around on you.
UTubekookdetector 6 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
Here's the comment MOMO removed: "You're simply luring me in the age-old trick of letting me answer a question I have clearly answered already, only for you to ignore everything I say and start asking your question again, claiming I never gave an answer in the first place. I'm happy to address questions about specifics in my answer, but don't play childish tricks like these. It's really grating and nonproductive." Just because you remove it, doesn't mean I can't see it.
UTubekookdetector 6 months ago
@UTubekookdetector
"Here's the comment MOMO removed"
Actually, I did not remove that comment. It's here for anybody to see.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
MOME: My apologies, you've been deleting so many comments (users can click VIEW ALL COMMENTS and see this) that I got confused. If you post again, you will answer my question in a "yes" or"no" fashion and then an explanation. You've stalled with silly answers that should embarrass an empiricist long enough. This is NOT negotiable. Good luck.
UTubekookdetector 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UTubekookdetector
"If you post again, you will answer my question in a "yes" or"no" fashion and then an explanation."
Yes, I thoroughly believe you're a fucking idiot. I'm out!
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@UTubekookdetector
You're simply luring me in the age-old trick of letting me answer a question I have clearly answered already, only for you to ignore everything I say and start asking your question again, claiming I never gave an answer in the first place.
I'm happy to address questions about specifics in my answer, but don't play childish games like these. It's really annoying and nonproductive.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@squeezycheeseypeas You are absolutely wrong, there is no significant debate in the scientific community as to the veracity of the theory of evolution. The fact that creationists don't want it to be true doesn't change this reality. The fact that literally millions of scientists use it daily when researching cures for diseases, developing medical technology, improving farming techniques, and creating real life applications from the theory shows that what you are saying is complete bunk.
squeezycheeseypeas 10 months ago
Why is the big bang being talked about in a discussion about evolution?
TimofAwsome 11 months ago
TIM: If you had actually paid attention to the vid & some of the comments in the thread, you'd probably know why. I suggest paying better attention to the vid or reading some of the comments. Thanks!
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector Thanks, I did pay attention to the video, and the only justification you had for talking about the big bang was that you linked evolution to atheism. First of all, it doesn't matter how the universe got here or how the first cell came to existence in regards to evolution. As long as the two things happened, evolution can take place. 2nd, you showed a lot of ignorance in regards to the big bang. "nothing" did not sit around for billions of years, time itself began at the
TimofAwsome 11 months ago
TIM: Not every naturalist is an atheist, but every atheist is a naturalist, that's what I was linking. "The universe contains both positive energy and negative P.G. energy," So if I have a "jar" of 5 neutrons, 5 electrons & 5 protons then there's not really anything in the jar because its charge is zero? A little research would've told you these RNA-bases would've hydrolized in the pre-biotic soup. Their half-lives are too short.
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector No, there is matter in the jar. But you said the big bang violates the COE law, when it doesn't. The total energy starts at 0, ends at 0. If you want a more in depth explanation, look it up online, or read The Grand Design. Second, you have still provided 0 evidence against evolution. All you can do is go for the "God of the gaps" that because we don't know the real answer to abiogenesis, its impossible. Reading the other comments, you said we need the answer to the
TimofAwsome 11 months ago
TIM: Sorry, your rhetorical sleight-of-hand isn't going to work. You have to violate mass/energy conservation for matter to come out of nothing. It reminds me of this guy who responded to one of my points concerning an infinte. It's just an idea in the mind, you can't take a part from the whole and still have a whole. He responded by saying 0-0=0. I've already dealt several times with those who get frustrated and invoke "god of the gaps" to cover up for their own sorry arguments.
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector No, you don't. I just explained how the universe can come from nothing and not violate the law of conservation of energy. And people say God of the gaps because it's exactly what you are doing. Back in the day, we didn't know how a rainbow was formed. Does that mean its impossible for it to form naturally? No, we look for the answer, and find it. Stating that you've heard it before doesn't mean you're right unless you explain why it's wrong.
TimofAwsome 11 months ago
@TimofAwsome origin of the cell to validate evolution? I'll repeat what I said before, somehow, be it God or not, a cell came into existance. From there, it evolved. I don't see why it matters how it got there. Second, you show a possible error in one hypothesis to abiogenesis. This in no way invalidates whether it happened, just shows that the particular hypothesis has to change if a fact contradicts what was thought before.
TimofAwsome 11 months ago
TIM: I'll repeat what I've said before..for the naturalist, they need matter ex nihilo and life out of non-living material or their paradigm is on shifting sand. That's aside from the philosophical problems with naturalism. If it doesn't matter how it (matter, first cell) got here, why are you getting so hot-and-bothered over it? Some hypotheses change, some are discarded.
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector We have matter, and we have life from non life. I don't think you're arguing that. Whether that life arose by God or by a natural reason doesn't falsify evolution. You merely keep restating that without explaining the reason. And I'm saying that it is not impossible for a cell to exist naturally, and even if it was, it would in no way diminish evolution. Your last sentence was actually correct though.
TimofAwsome 11 months ago
TIM: I think I'll just say this one more time, since we seem to be going in a circle. Without matter ex nihilo & without a living cell from non-living material, evolution cannot occur as the naturalist presupposes. All naturalists require this or their paradigm is false. I did make it clear in the vid, you seem to have ignored that and asked the same question several times. You're not the first one to do this though.
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector This is ridiculous. I've answered why this claim is false several times, and you ignore it. I agree that this is going to to be a circle, but I'm not at fault. You're right, evolution can't occur without matter and the first cell but NOBODY IS CLAIMING THAT IT DOES. We know there was a first cell, therefor, evolution can take place. How it got there is irrelevant. You have STILL yet to justfiy why evolution is false.
TimofAwsome 11 months ago
TIM: You are getting ridiculous & frustrated. My point was to undercut the naturalist philosophy, but considering you didn't comprehend that the last 5 times I stated it, I doubt it'll work if I do it again. Thanks for the discussion though.
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector Lol, I understand what your point was and I showed why you failed at it, 5 times. Clearly though, YOU coudldn't understand my argument to yours about evolution or that the naturalist view is impossible. However at least we can agree that this isn't going anywhere. Thanks for the discussion.
TimofAwsome 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector
ah i see you're reading that creationist bullshit about macroevolution being so drastically different than microevolution..u need to read articles from scientists if u wanna properly learn about evolution,not creationist sites..problem is, u have your religious beliefs, and u gravitate toward the creationist bullshit because it reinforces your own beliefs. if u cared about scientific truth, you'd learn your evolutionary science from scientists..but that makes too much sense.
itzahazylife 11 months ago
ITZ: You're using words like "wanna" and in the same breath accusing me of being stupid. Ah, the good old "read a science book" argument. "gradual microevolutionary change over time, is the hallmark cause of speciation." And I've pointed out numerous times on this thread, that doesn't work with the blood clotting cascade.
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector
great point..i said "wanna"..that makes me a generally stupid person, because i shorten words :-I
"the good old read a science book argument"
when it comes to science, use scientific sources, instead of creationist ones!..what an idea, right?..gotta love those old cliche arguments..tried and true.
"blood clotting cascade." ah the irreducibly complex system argument..they can't possibly evolve, right?..just like the eye and the flagella..any more creationist bullshit?
itzahazylife 11 months ago
ITZ: You sound like you're going to cry son. My points on the clotting cascade come from a PhD. Talk Origins attempted to debunk irreducible complexity by removing the platform on a mousetrap and attaching it directly to the floor. However, they just replaced one platform with another, no fundamental change to the trap. You probably thought that was a pretty good response didn't you? If you have anything worthy, let me know kiddo.
UTubekookdetector 10 months ago
@UTubekookdetector
your profoundly condescending attempts at belittling me are pathetic.."sound like you're going to cry son".. "kiddo"...are u fucking kidding me?
i don't think u realize that just because something is irreducibly complex, doesn't mean it couldn't have evolved to become irreducibly complex.
itzahazylife 10 months ago
ITZ: You can dish it out, but you can't take it. "just because something is irreducibly complex, doesn't mean it couldn't have evolved to become irreducibly complex." And while the clotting cascade was on this long, arduous journey to "irreducible complexity" homo sapien sapien bled to death for thousands of years until nature got it right. BTW, you are banned, if I wanted to talk to someone who has been hitting the sauce & needs medication, I'd visit the bar or an insane asylum.
UTubekookdetector 10 months ago
@UTubekookdetector
macroevolution (speciation) is merely the accumulation of microevolutionary changes over time..over time many microevolutionary changes inevitably result in a macroevolutionary event..the only difference between the 2, is time..u merely assume time, and speciation is inevitable..sometimes u don't even need time..sometimes all it takes is a specific type of mutation to cause speciation.
itzahazylife 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector
although gradual microevolutionary change over time, is the hallmark cause of speciation.
itzahazylife 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector (continued) big bang. There was nothing before it. Second, the big bang does not in any way violate the law of conservation of energy. The universe contains both positive energy and negative P.G. energy, balancing out to a total of zero. And the first primitive blood cells would have probably come into existance first in ancient sponges. 5 min of research could have told you this.
TimofAwsome 11 months ago
Evolution only deal with biology, why do you mention Physics, Evolution and the origin of the Universe are independent variable, and it is nice how you relate it to atheism. Evolution does not equal atheism and does not tell us how the universe originated
you have stated the 1st and 6th foundational falsehood of creationism
LogicalThinker667 11 months ago
LOG: I made it clear in the vid, you apparently didn't pay attention. Every naturalist (in violation of mass/energy conservation) requires matter to come out of nothing (even toouched on this briefly) and the first cell even before biological evolution can take place. Please pay attention next time.
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector yes but evolution is merely change over time, or as some put it change in allele frequency over time. What happen before a single celled organism and horizontal gene transfer does not validate or affect evolution
LogicalThinker667 11 months ago
LOG: Not good enough, you need to address my point that the naturalist (before he gets to biological evolution) ) needs matter ex nihilo & without that his theory of naturalisitic evolution is dead.
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector its amazing how you fit into this category /watch?v=t3k0dDFxkhM
LogicalThinker667 11 months ago
LOG: It's amazing how you're avoiding answering a simple question. I've come to a logical conclusion on this and laid it out for you in simple terms. Either you don't understand or you realize your point is invalid & this is your only recourse. I think the viewers of this thread can decide for themselves.
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector I said it before and i will say it again evolution does not deal with or is not affected by the origin of the universe or matter, I naturalistic origin may, but evolution does not, the big bang neither confirms or asses the validity of evolution, abiogenesis does not do this either, even answers in genesis knows better and said creationist should not use some of the argument you have used for evolution, atheism maybe but not evolution
LogicalThinker667 11 months ago
LOG: And I will say this one more time and this will be the last time we go around on it. The naturalist needs the first matter & the first cell ex nihilo OR biological evolution isn't even an issue. They have to validate those items first or the rest doesn't even matter. I've made this point many times, I will not make it again (neither will you).
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector well I can't really speak for astrophysicist or biochemist who know more about the origins of the universe and single celled organisms, but i will do my best, to deal with 3 different fields of discipline, cosmology, chemistry and biology even though evolution only deal with one, and most people contend and stick to only one, since they are independent and not as you believe dependent variables. While abiogensis has some evidence for it, it is not nearly as solid as evolution
LogicalThinker667 11 months ago
LOG: Abiogenesis has a major uphill climb, especially when one considers the half-lives of these RNA bases, they would've hydrolized in the "pre-biotic" soup. Your comments indicate an empiricist POV, but there are many things Science cannot explain. I'll give one example I've used many times. Science can't tell me that killing starving children for fun is wrong--even though it is wrong, even if the gov't sanctions it.
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector wow, i just lost the small amount of respect I had in you,of course science does not tell us what is right or wrong, science is a mere observation of the natural world, you seem to think, and the video i provided mentions this, that if your book is not right then nothing is and you can do what ever you want, as if killing people is some how fun science does not tell use what is right or wrong, well neither does mathematics, or statistics, for that you need to get into....
LogicalThinker667 11 months ago
LOG: No offence my friend but I don't really care if you respect me or not. People can go read through your comments and look at how you used "science" as your yardstick for knowledge. I just poked a hole in it and this is how you react. Science also can't tell me that it took light the same amount of time to travel from Jupiter to Earth 3 million years ago.
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
of course I used science, what else was I supposed to use Mathematics, on certain situations i would use science and in other i will not, Politics does not require physical or life science and neither does economics or literature. now the speed of light, you mention was said by some creationist, not in that form, the speed of light for the most part is constant and 3X10^8 meters per second(I use metric) and if it were faster or slower we would see a decay or exponential growth
LogicalThinker667 11 months ago
LOG: " the speed of light for the most part is constant and 3X10^8 meters per second(I use metric) and if it were faster or slower we would see a decay or exponential growth." The problem with that: Let's say the universe is 100 million years old. The time frame we've been observing "C decay" is a drop-in-the-bucket pertianing to geological time frames. I find it telling that you've basically admitted to me that "science" can't give you a foundation for objective morality, which does exist.
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector i also told you that, it is not my field of knowledge, I will admit, that I do not know the part of morality, but I said "the subject of objective and subjective morality, and some info on the human mind, and you would have to look into social animals as well, and make comparative analogies to justify your claim," you might as well ask me on literature, someone once said to debate a creationist, you need to know not just evolutionary biology but physics astronomy,....
LogicalThinker667 11 months ago
...biochemistry philosophy sociology, and so on rather that have to stick with just evolutionary theory, and so on, and you would need a Jimmy Neutron brain to know and be in expert in all that, but on morality ask someone else,
LogicalThinker667 11 months ago
the subject of objective and subjective morality, and some info on the human mind, and you would have to look into social animals as well, and make comparative analogies to justify your claim,now I can do this but there are many thing I am not and expert or have not looked into,like literature and language which i find difficult compared to science and math, I can look up info, but do not feel compelled to do so because of some random internet wackjob,now I originally started this since I.....
LogicalThinker667 11 months ago
I am not and expert and do not know much on this part of morality, but you seem to think that I am into scientism which I am not, since science only deals with the natural world, I am good with mathematics and certain fields of science, but in science I am not good with Psychology, there are of course things science cannot explain but does that mean should give up and say god did it, and believe it or not I am more into mathematics but science is necessary for something to be explained.....
LogicalThinker667 11 months ago
while abiogenesis has some evidence for it there are still many competing theories for it, astronomy the big bang has some evidence for it but there are some things it cannot account for, an example of something that validates it is, the red shift we see in galaxies, red shift is cause by a very simple mechanism called the Doppler affect that as stars get father they shift towards the red end of the spectrum while, if they were getting close you have a blue shift, this red shift indicates that..
LogicalThinker667 11 months ago
indicated that the galaxies were in the past closer to each other, now there are something that the big bang does not explain like why expansion is accelerating rather that slowing down and for this there are many competing theories, but of course most would be happy to use the god of the gaps argument, something science cannot explain, no problem god did it, but if we say god did it for abiogenesis and cosmology what of evolution, well evolution until then would still be true even if god is....
LogicalThinker667 11 months ago
...even if god is necessary for the origins of the universe and the first organisms, now i think most creationist when debating on evolution would for some reason say where did everything come from, while the discovery institute for the most part does not do that
LogicalThinker667 11 months ago
And that isn't to say an appeal to authority makes something correct mainly, but it does indicate that almost all *experts* in the field are for evolution. I have a thermophysics book in front of me from a class I'm taking. I look up the author and sure enough he works on thermal physics as his focus in physics. He's very knowledgeable in that particular area. So these *experts* write about what they know works and is correct. Scientists also generally admit what they simply don't know.
Ecoi1 11 months ago
ECO: I never said most scientists reject it, simply that ad populum appeals are just that (we've seen these types of fallacious appeals in the AGW debate), ad populum appeals and don't really prove anything.
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector I did not claim that you said "most scientists reject it." I was saying it *does* indicate that we need to take that into consideration. My point was that *if* a majority of experts (scientists) indicate that a certain theory works, then if you don't accept it, you should be sure to understand first what they are saying exactly (and be careful in doing so) and have *extremely* good reasons for it. (Most likely if you can though, then it wouldn't be a theory anyway.)
Ecoi1 11 months ago
ECO: Yoou said, "that isn't to say an appeal to authority makes something correct mainly, but it does indicate that almst all *experts* in the field are for evolution." Then you say, " I did not claim that you said "most scientists reject it." Then why were you bringing it up?
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector Merely to point it out basically. I confirmed that what you said was correct in one sense (that just because the majority of people accept something doesn't make it true). But, I also wanted to say that there IS a point in saying that the majority of scientists accept evolution. It doesn't "prove" objectively anything, but quite frankly it is a pretty strong statement to show how serious the theory is. If you are fine with my statement, then there is no problem =).
Ecoi1 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector (That does not mean that just because scientists say it is true, then you should accept it. But, it should be an understand it first, and then (in my opinion), then people usually agree once they really understand it.)
Ecoi1 11 months ago
Well, about your claim of scientists rejecting evolution... the point was that a much larger percent accept evolution than don't. (Google "Project Steve") While I don't know what other peoples' intentions for listing such a list are, but imo the main thing is to simply take this into consideration when evaluating your opinion on evolution. Being a scientist is not easy and it requires a lot of in-depth thinking and rigorous training on how to think logically.
Ecoi1 11 months ago
Why do non-scientist think they have the right to refute the very science they don't understand?
jisaid08 11 months ago
JIS: I know a few scientists that reject Darwinian evolution and even provided a link under the vid to other scientists who don't buy what Darwin's selling. Your ilk like to use ad populum appeals, just as they do in the global warming debate (most scientists believe X), when it's not even true. Even if it was, that wouldn't make it true. There are numerous scientific beliefs that have been thrown under the bus as science has advanced.
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector I am a scientist, I have examined the evidence for myself. I work with evolutionary biology on the genetic level. There is 150 years of peer reviewed scientific evidence in genetics, geology, paleontology, and comparative anatomy which prove evolution. Global warming is also a fact, sorry but it is. The irony that you would accuse me of using ad populum appeals as a creationist is humorous. I won't even bother "debating" you. You don't need a debate, you need an education.
jisaid08 11 months ago
JIS: You seem angry too and I highly doubt your evidence. The fact that you can't address the specific points I made in this vid (and you're attempting anything you can to detour the conversation elsewhere) validates this as well. If you want to debate global warming, go find some of my vids on it and bring an argument to the table.
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector You sit at a table of plenty laid out by science for you to feast on. At every turn there is a scientific break through which makes your life easier. Do you help contribute to science or at least cheer it on from the stands? No. Instead you actively make youtube videos about it to try and distort other people's minds to reality. You "question" the evidence. You are a scientific illiterate who is not qualified to question any evidence as you don't have a grasp on reality.
jisaid08 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector The "scientist" you know who reject Darwinian evolution are obviously not objective, and cannot be taken seriously by other scientist. Evolution has a wealth of evidence, so much so that it is self evident to anyone who looks at the evidence. Is it too much of me to ask you to visit google, or a museum and look for yourself? Do I really have to spoon-feed you evidence and then have you deney it's value? Let me ask you, where did you get your science education from?
jisaid08 11 months ago
JIS: You seem frustrated too, you didn't even bother to check the link I provided to seveal scientists who do indeed reject Darwinism. It's obvious, you don't want a debate, you're just going to throw the other side under the bus immediately. Lastly, I already told you no more off-topic comments, you made another one about global warming--you are hereby banned. Don't like it? Go do your own video. JIS couldn't provide any evidence for a piecemeal evolution of the clotting cascade.
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@lnTheFlesh: certainly, people can be as ignorant as they choose to be. There are mountains of evidence that support the evolutionary scientific theories Talk about fossil evidence, there are tons of . If you would just open your minds and read up on books that support these facts. Turn off limbaugh, beck, palin, robertson, and the rest of charlatans that are leading you guys stray and into a deeper ignorance.
hottpoker 1 year ago
@ UTubekookdetector. Were you even alive in the 50's, 60's?. So you can see why states aren't and shouldn't be allowed complete freedom to set their own standards, as far as religion, education and civil rights is concerned. It's because states very often cater to a very vociferous and very often, sad to say in this day and age, racist, fascist, xenophobic minority. That's why the federal government, with all his faults, has been the bulkwark against all this fringe ideas ultimately fail.
hottpoker 1 year ago
HOTT: Wrong and this is the last comment that will be made on this subject. The US Const. does not mention education, it is a state task. Even the FDR Admin. agreed with this. Sorry! Now, here's what you'll answer in your next post. When did say, Christmas Factor & Stuart Factor make their appearance in the blood clotting cascade? Were they there at the same time (since I did ask this in the vid) or did they appear separately? You won't be allowed to derail this with unrelated rants.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
I agree with hottpoker. The charlatans pushing the religion of evolution are spreading ignorance throughout our country. Stasis and the lack of fossil evidence should be enough to humble these evolutionists but they still push their ideas into schools.
lnTheFlesh 1 year ago
@lnTheFlesh can you explain how MRSA and other bacteria that develop resistances to antibiotics do so?
mugtar100 1 year ago
MUG: Is this akin to rats developing a resistance to Warfarin? Even the Bible supports change within "the kind", but how do rats becoming resistant to Warfarin (and thus having less genetic info if I remember correctly) bridge the gap to say, the evolution of the blood-clotting cascade from scratch?
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector I'm no expert but rats becoming immune or highly resistant to poisons is probably pretty similar to antibiotic resistant infections. rats becoming resistant to poisons can be a very quick evolution but complex changes like blood clotting and fins turning in to flippers happen of millions upon millions of years.
mugtar100 1 year ago
MUG: Millions of years is where you and your ilk run into problems with the cascade. It couldn't have taken millions of years because it wouldn't work in a piecemeal process. Some of the proteins later in the cascade regulate ones that appeared earlier, it was either fully-functioning as it is today or it didn't function at all---which would become quite a problem for homo sapien sapien when he got a paper cut.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector maybe it all did evolve at once? I'm not an expert on the subject of blood clotting and neither are you.
mugtar100 1 year ago
MUG: That's weak. Are you jumping on the Gould bandwagon now, proposing hopeful monsters & punctuated equilibria? If you're an empiricist, your argument just failed.
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector explain MRSA without evolution
mugtar100 11 months ago
MUG: I think I can deduct from your answer that you can't give me a coherent model for the piecemeal evolution of the blood-clotting cascade. I accept your concession.
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector congratulations you single handedly defeated the theory of evolution because I can't explain a highly complicated process that you keep repeating.
mugtar100 11 months ago
MUG: For those who are interested, I asked MUG on several occasions to tell me which proteins in the blood-clotting cascade regulate proteins that come earlier in the cycle. Remember, he started the disagreement with me and now this is escape. Pretty weak if you ask me. Heck, he even theorized that the cascade took millions of years to evolve. For thousands of years humans bled to death until the cascade was fine-tuned.
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector OK I can't explain it there are you happy? unlike you I don't waste my time studying (this is assuming you actually know anything about the process) obscure biological traits so I can go on youtube and "debate" other people (who have a life) and make myself feel better. This isn't escape this is me admitting defeat, congrats.
mugtar100 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector just out of curiosity how do you believe the blood clotting cascade came to be? someone magically created it out of nowhere. thats a weak man's expression of ignorance.
mugtar100 11 months ago
MUG: You seem a little frustrated. Your petty sniping validates this. For the record, I believe the universe has an Intelligent Designer, I thought I made that pretty clear in the video.
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector So you honestly believe a magic man (where did god come from any ways? nowhere? the mind of stupid supersticious men?) created everything (out of nowhere and also by magic).
face it religion only exists on the scale that it does today as a means of dumbing down the population (not that you needed any help apparently) and make them more complacent.
For the record, what sort of education do you have?
mugtar100 11 months ago
MUG: Don't worry about my personal life son, focus on the issues. You seem pretty frustrated that Intelligent Design is the best way to explain the origin of the universe and life. How about objective morality? Do you think the naturalist or non-naturalist paradigm provides the best explanation for objective morality (unless you REALLY ARE a relativist)? "At every turn there is a scientific break through which makes your life easier." All engineered by an Intelligent Designer (Man).
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector again stop skipping around my questions and maybe I'll take you seriously
So you honestly believe a magic man (where did god come from any ways? nowhere? the mind of stupid supersticious men?) created everything (out of nowhere and also by magic).
mugtar100 11 months ago
MUG: Whatever caused the universe has to be outside of space/time and not constrained by those, otherwise you have to argue that the universe has always existed (not true) or created itself (also not true). You must not pay attention: I made it pretty clear in the vid that yes, I believe something outside of space/time is responsible for the universel existing. If you argue for a cause for God, you are arguing for an infinite regress, which is also not logical.
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector instead of saying you don't know what created the universe you immeadiately jump to "oh some magic man created it because I said so" when no one has ever seen or spoken to this magic man, aside from schizophrenics (maybe all "religious" people are just schizophrenics). like I said before religion and creationism are just a lazy pathetic man's way of explaining something they have no real concept of.
and you should stop talking about the origin of the universe its off topic.
mugtar100 11 months ago
MUG: I specifically brought up the origin of the universe in this video, so it is certainly NOT off-topic (see my responses to "logicalthinker"). Now you're just engaging in ad hominem, you're frustrated. I think interested users can peruse the archives & see your level of frustration grow. Naturalism doesn't provide a foundation for objective morality either--I assume you are NOT a relativist. Come up with something new or take a hike.
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UTubekookdetector face it religion only exists on the scale that it does today as a means of dumbing down the population (not that you needed any help apparently) and make them more complacent.
For the record, what sort of education do you have?
mugtar100 11 months ago
Macro and Micro are the same type of evolution, just on different time-scales.
hlyleh 1 year ago
HLY: I see what you're saying, but it's quite a leap to go from micro (dogs/wolves) to macro (blood clotting cascade or the "common ancestor" between crocodiles & sheep). I'm arguing that these macro changes could not have evolved piecemeal.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
Among the biggest reasons this country is falling behind in education as compared to the other developed countries, is the fact that we have let a bunch of charlatans push this kind of theories, (that show and sow ignorance in less discerning types), as to how men came to be. A little proof of this: the South is probably the less developed region in the country, and the most religious in a nutty way. It's there a correlation?. I throw that bone out there...
hottpoker 1 year ago
HOTT: Your comment isn't really germane: I will say this: As far as the US Const. is concerned, each state is permitted to set their own cirriculum; whether it be public, a mix of public, charter & private schools & the information given to pupils.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
I urge everyone to read KING's comments and see how many times he plays the you're a liar card, you're uneducated, he appears to be extremely frustrated. He tried a generalized response to Moreland's book because he didn't like Moreland's examples refuting KING's support for an infinite. It is just an idea in the mind, nothing more.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Yes please read my comments.... You will see how I told this idiot about the pathway for blood vessel evolution and then how he has to rappidly change the subjecty from 1 topic to another to try and hide his butt kicking.
kingdjoser 1 year ago
@kingdjoser The evolution of blood/blood vessels and clotting is very well described by the evolutionary pathways...just do a search on youtube for "ken miller" and "blood" and you will see an example of why Behes ID theory was destroyed in the Dover trial.
The fact that the OP refuses to do any research on the subject speaks volumes. Thats why each post he gives just asks 3 new questions without addressing the points from my previous post...its shotgun debating.
kingdjoser 1 year ago
KING: I'm still waiting (and you will inform everyone in your next comment) for you to inform us of which proteins in the cascade regulate proteins that come earlier in the cascade. After that, inform us all of when those proteins "evolved" into the cascade. Good luck. I also have to LOL at KING's urging everyone to google. I urge everyone to read the chapter in Darwin's Black Box that covers the clotting cascade.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
KING: I accept your concession, you couldn't name what proteins later in the blood clotting cascade, regulate ones that appear earlier in the cascade (which was my question & you curiously urged everyone to Google). KING also did a poor job of defending an infinite (and even contradicting himself at least once). I urge all users to consult the archives. KING: I am now hanging up and taking another call from someone who is sober.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
If you peruse KiNG's comments about blood clotting, he's making the same mistake Mark Isaak made in defending the Bombardier beetle. He hearkened back to items that were present in other organisms and then jumped to the conclusion that this is how it got in the Beetle, he still has a chicken-and-egg problem. How did it evolve in organism X so organism Y could use it? He still hasn't shown me how the system of blood vessels evolved in modern man and whether the blood clotting cascade was present
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector If you want to reply to my comments... please use the reply button...don't post out of the discussion hoping I won't notice....that is dishonest.
It is not I making the mistake...you are the one who is making the mistake. You are making the error that all ID followers make. There is no chicken-egg problem with evolution if you understand the very basic fact that small changes lead to complex systems over long periods of time.
kingdjoser 1 year ago
KING: I replied twice to your last comment, whining just makes you look bad. "the very basic fact that small changes lead to complex systems." How does that work with the blood clotting cascade? When did anti-hemophilic Factor appear? Did clotting continue until the organism died for thousands of generations before it came along to save the day? When did Christmas and/or Stuart Factor come on the scene? I'm sure you also know proteins later in the cascade regulate ones that appear earlier?
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Do some damm research...just do a basic google search on the evolution of blood clotting (as well as other complex systems) and you will find many examples of possible evolutionary pathways....just sticking your fingers in your ears and covering your eyes will not help you find the truth...ignorance is not a valid excuse.
kingdjoser 1 year ago
KING: You mad? Now you're wanting me to google rather than read books? I can see from your highly-philsophical comments concerning an infinite, it appears you have been getting talking points off of Google. To defend an infinite, you also have to believe that you can take a part from the whole and still have the whole. 2-1=1, but Infinity-189,000=infinity? No wonder David Hilbert relegated that idea to the trash heap of silly ideas. Your parroted argument for piecemeal evolution is nonsense.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector You just don't care about the truth do you...admit it...no matter what evidence is given you refuse to accept evolutiuonary principal becuase it butts up against your beliefs. I keep refuting what you say and you just ignore it and move on to another subject...its willful ignorance.
kingdjoser 1 year ago
KING: You're just a spoiled little brat throwing an autistic fit now, just admit it. Very unbecoming of you. You agree with me now that your prior argument in favor of an infinity was rubbish? Glad to hear it. PS It's "concede." Either reply to the library analogy or you'll be on your way.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector Of course.....this is why there is no point in debating christians....they don't have the educational background or intellectual honesty for proper deabte. You asked how blood evolved, I gave you a summary and told you that we have good evolutionary pathways for it...You ignore me and try to change the subject. Then when I refute the drivel that follows you get mad and threaten to shut me up....goood job there.
kingdjoser 1 year ago
KING: You're just an angry little man because you can't defend an infinite (I have your comments archived, you contradicted yourself) and now you're throwing a fit. I think people can see my comments and yours, you appear to be angry. Your summary was rather pathetic. I do accept your concession, now go back to your troll channel with 154 view in 3.5 years and declare victory.
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
@UTubekookdetector How do you figure I can't defend an infinite?
kingdjoser 1 year ago
@kingdjoser Because I called you on your poor library analogy?
kingdjoser 1 year ago
Evolution says nothing about how the universe began, or where matter came from or how life started...all it states is that the process of natural selection causes speciation...thats it...nothing more.
Blood (like substances) first orginated in the earliest members of the animal kingdom to transfer various chemicals via conjoined diffusion through body tissues...the first blood vessels originate much later as a specialized transport system for rudimentary hepatic systems.
kingdjoser 1 year ago
KING: I think if you peruse the archives (and actually listen to the vid), you'll see why I brought up the origin of matter and how it relates to the naturalist paradigm. So, according to you, the first blood vessels evolved and they didn't transport blood? Are you saying "blood vessels" evolved first? Where does the clotting cascade fit into this scenario?
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago