Hey, interesting video. I don't agree... at all, but it was still interesting. I was wondering... What does empirical evidence mean? I do already know, but I was wondering what you believe it to mean.
@ProphetofLogic why is it that you people try to catch me out with words? Dont you think that I cannot see the intent behind your loaded question? I think the majority of people wouldn't have a problem with the definition of 'empircal evidence'.
Let me quote you the official definition! It means to gain knowlege by means of direct observation or experimentation. Now hit me with the punchline...I'm waiting!
@NeilAnthony69 Good! I was worried for a second, because I've met others denying evolution who have no clue as to the actual meaning, and when I point this out they generally try to hand-wave away their ignorance. It's sad really.
You understand at least the very basics of the theory of evolution, which leads me to believe you can understand that a pre-curser system doesn't need to have the same function as the current system. I haven't got enough characters to explain in detail...
@ProphetofLogic Indeed, evolution is nothing but a crock of crap and, since no one has witnessed it taking place in the real wlorld, and please dont give me none of your flannel about viruses because I aint buying it; this is one fairy story that cannot be passed off as empircal.
@ProphetofLogic And please don't patronise me or speak down to me, because I dont like it. If you want to have a difference of opionion, that is your choice, but to talk down and/or call me or other people stupid for not sharing your point of view...it is nothing more than plain arrogance.
@NeilAnthony69 Have you heard of speciation? This is a real phenomena which has been seen and documented on multiple occations. When a variant of a species can no longer breed with another successfully, they are considered different species. What is it when one species becomes another? I think it's known as evolution. That is "knowledge gained by the means of direct observation."
@ProphetofLogic Speciation is not evolution in action and never will be for several diferent reasons, the main one being that despite its grandeose sounding name, it doesn't involve the creation of a different species but merely a different form of the same species.
Therefore, no new information is added to the genome and speciation merely explains how, for example, we managed to get a labrador from a wolf. Both are still the same species though and no new species has been formed.
@NeilAnthony69 At least you didn't use the word 'kind'. Are you going to live for a few THOUSAND years? Didn't think so. Speciation is the first step along a very long path that, if it's quick, will only last several millenia. Unless you're watching something with a very short generation count. Like E. Coli. Have you heard of the E.Coli. evolution experiment? Perhaps you should check that out. And please don't bring up naming conventions, it has little to do with it.
@NeilAnthony69 ...So I'll just suggest you look up "The Evolution of the Flagellum" There is a brilliant video by cdk007 which explains it perfectly. If need be I'll make a similar video and upload it as a reply. But only if you REALLY want me to.
@ProphetofLogic Ive seen the material on the bacterial flagellum and its laughable. it has been bebunked or at the very least has an alternative explaination and doesn't really prove anything. I expect you will shift the goalposts, though, like you people always do. Or maybe you will sit there are say that I don't have an adequate understanding of the subject...that one is always good for a laugh!
Go on upload your video...I could do with a laugh or two in these testing times!
@NeilAnthony69 Could you direct me to where it has been adaquately debunked? I would like to see it. No, you seem to have a better understanding of this subject than most. I'm also aware that I won't convince you no matter how hard I try, but I'll still try cause it's interesting and educational. As for moving the goal posts, where would I move them to? I would like to know, cause it's not often I get accused of doing it, and I don't want to fall into that trap.
@rickyt247 Yes indeed Evolutionists do require faith since no-one has ever witnessed one species change into another. It's a concept so simple that even a child could understand it.
They do indeed like changing the goal posts and are masters at it - at least all the ones I've spoken to and what's more; they just love telling you that you don't have a proper understanding of science, in order to give their goal-post moving some credibility. And if it wasn't so tragic, it would be funny!
In hindsight my comments were a bit rude. Alas I was in a bad mood. But my point that the flagellar motor is explainable in purely naturalistic terms, still stands. I'll post a link to a webpage which will hopefully convince you.
@Surroundx Its okay about the rudeness we can all be a bit rude sometimes...don't worry about it.
I have to say that those arguments make no difference whatsoever. You can send me 100 articles if you wish but it wont make a blind bit of difference to the fact that a cooked up hypothesis is being used to counter the fact that you are looking at design and not random chance.
@NeilAnthony69 evolution is NOT random chance so yes, science shows that we did not get here through random chance and this video lied, in darwins time, they knew about the complexity of the cell, they did NOT think it was a blob of jelly
@blazereef Sorry but you don't get any prizes for talking complete and utter rubbish. Firstly, Random mutation equals random chance and secondly; cell complexity was not known in Darwin's time because the electron microscope wasn't invented until 1931, so quite where you are getting your delusional fantasies from is beyond me.
@NeilAnthony69 yes, random mutation is random, however, natural selection, the main driving force of evolution is NOT random in any way. yes, in darwins time the cell was known to be complex, they did not know that much about the cell but they knew that it was very complex, now please, stop lying, oh wait, you are a creationist, lying is the only evidence you pathetic fools have
@blazereef Oh how how you atheists like to keep moving the goal-posts when you are backed into a corner. It's pathetic. In order for life to evolve in the first place you had to have had random mutation before natural selection.
By the way, when you talk of 'Natural selection' you really mean micro-evolution as opposed to macro-evolution. There are, and always have been, genetic variation between species but you will never see one species develop into another. It has never been witnessed.
@NeilAnthony69 Would you like to explain to me, on a genetic level, where the border between micro and macro evolution lies?
I don't think you can, because with claims like "you will never see one species develop into another", you really reveal you have no idea what you're talking about. As soon as you see a dog give birth to a cat, THEN you will have actual empirical (you may want to look up that word, it doesn't mean what you think it means) evidence evolution is wrong.
The flagellum motor is now known NOT to be a case of IC. It is a creationist myth which gets handed down without anybody actually checking their facts. Please do some research on the subject before you perpetuate the myth. Thankyou.
@Surroundx Sorry but I have heard the alternative explanations regarding the flagellum and I disagree. Therefore, the so-called myth that the flagellum motor is just a creationist myth, is really just an evolutionist myth designed to fool anybody who doesn't really know what they are talking about.
Go peddle your lies elsewhere because they are not welcome here!
@NeilAnthony69 so, you admit to seeing your lies get debunked completely (watch ken miller debunk it, he is a christian) and are still going to use the same argument? pathetic
@blazereef The only one telling porkies is yourself. I don't care if Ken Miller is a so-called Christian, Buddhist, or even Moslem; the answer is still the same.
As far as I'm concerned, Ken Miller is a disgrace. Ken Millers opinion or anyone else's come to that; is of no consequence to the truth. So go take your Ken Miller worship and shove it where the sun don't shine and don't bother me again with such pathetic comebacks...unless you have something of real consequence to say.
Hey, interesting video. I don't agree... at all, but it was still interesting. I was wondering... What does empirical evidence mean? I do already know, but I was wondering what you believe it to mean.
ProphetofLogic 11 months ago
@ProphetofLogic why is it that you people try to catch me out with words? Dont you think that I cannot see the intent behind your loaded question? I think the majority of people wouldn't have a problem with the definition of 'empircal evidence'.
Let me quote you the official definition! It means to gain knowlege by means of direct observation or experimentation. Now hit me with the punchline...I'm waiting!
NeilAnthony69 11 months ago
@NeilAnthony69 Good! I was worried for a second, because I've met others denying evolution who have no clue as to the actual meaning, and when I point this out they generally try to hand-wave away their ignorance. It's sad really.
You understand at least the very basics of the theory of evolution, which leads me to believe you can understand that a pre-curser system doesn't need to have the same function as the current system. I haven't got enough characters to explain in detail...
ProphetofLogic 11 months ago
@ProphetofLogic Indeed, evolution is nothing but a crock of crap and, since no one has witnessed it taking place in the real wlorld, and please dont give me none of your flannel about viruses because I aint buying it; this is one fairy story that cannot be passed off as empircal.
NeilAnthony69 11 months ago
@ProphetofLogic And please don't patronise me or speak down to me, because I dont like it. If you want to have a difference of opionion, that is your choice, but to talk down and/or call me or other people stupid for not sharing your point of view...it is nothing more than plain arrogance.
NeilAnthony69 11 months ago
@NeilAnthony69 Have you heard of speciation? This is a real phenomena which has been seen and documented on multiple occations. When a variant of a species can no longer breed with another successfully, they are considered different species. What is it when one species becomes another? I think it's known as evolution. That is "knowledge gained by the means of direct observation."
ProphetofLogic 11 months ago
@ProphetofLogic Speciation is not evolution in action and never will be for several diferent reasons, the main one being that despite its grandeose sounding name, it doesn't involve the creation of a different species but merely a different form of the same species.
Therefore, no new information is added to the genome and speciation merely explains how, for example, we managed to get a labrador from a wolf. Both are still the same species though and no new species has been formed.
NeilAnthony69 11 months ago
@NeilAnthony69 At least you didn't use the word 'kind'. Are you going to live for a few THOUSAND years? Didn't think so. Speciation is the first step along a very long path that, if it's quick, will only last several millenia. Unless you're watching something with a very short generation count. Like E. Coli. Have you heard of the E.Coli. evolution experiment? Perhaps you should check that out. And please don't bring up naming conventions, it has little to do with it.
ProphetofLogic 11 months ago
@NeilAnthony69 ...So I'll just suggest you look up "The Evolution of the Flagellum" There is a brilliant video by cdk007 which explains it perfectly. If need be I'll make a similar video and upload it as a reply. But only if you REALLY want me to.
ProphetofLogic 11 months ago
@ProphetofLogic Ive seen the material on the bacterial flagellum and its laughable. it has been bebunked or at the very least has an alternative explaination and doesn't really prove anything. I expect you will shift the goalposts, though, like you people always do. Or maybe you will sit there are say that I don't have an adequate understanding of the subject...that one is always good for a laugh!
Go on upload your video...I could do with a laugh or two in these testing times!
NeilAnthony69 11 months ago
@NeilAnthony69 Could you direct me to where it has been adaquately debunked? I would like to see it. No, you seem to have a better understanding of this subject than most. I'm also aware that I won't convince you no matter how hard I try, but I'll still try cause it's interesting and educational. As for moving the goal posts, where would I move them to? I would like to know, cause it's not often I get accused of doing it, and I don't want to fall into that trap.
ProphetofLogic 11 months ago
@ProphetofLogic No! Because I will be debunking it in the near future with one of my video's...Youll just have to stay tuned.
NeilAnthony69 11 months ago
@NeilAnthony69 I notice you didn't expalin how or where I would move the goal-posts. I really want to know this, cause I don't get it.
ProphetofLogic 11 months ago
DarwinIZM is like a religion. You have to have faith to believe. Not evidence.
rickyt247 1 year ago
@rickyt247 Yes indeed Evolutionists do require faith since no-one has ever witnessed one species change into another. It's a concept so simple that even a child could understand it.
They do indeed like changing the goal posts and are masters at it - at least all the ones I've spoken to and what's more; they just love telling you that you don't have a proper understanding of science, in order to give their goal-post moving some credibility. And if it wasn't so tragic, it would be funny!
NeilAnthony69 1 year ago
@NeilAnthony69 I have experienced the same. INSANE.
rickyt247 1 year ago
millerandlevinedotcom/km/evol/design2/article.html
Surroundx 1 year ago
In hindsight my comments were a bit rude. Alas I was in a bad mood. But my point that the flagellar motor is explainable in purely naturalistic terms, still stands. I'll post a link to a webpage which will hopefully convince you.
Surroundx 1 year ago
@Surroundx Its okay about the rudeness we can all be a bit rude sometimes...don't worry about it.
I have to say that those arguments make no difference whatsoever. You can send me 100 articles if you wish but it wont make a blind bit of difference to the fact that a cooked up hypothesis is being used to counter the fact that you are looking at design and not random chance.
NeilAnthony69 1 year ago
@NeilAnthony69 evolution is NOT random chance so yes, science shows that we did not get here through random chance and this video lied, in darwins time, they knew about the complexity of the cell, they did NOT think it was a blob of jelly
blazereef 1 year ago
@blazereef Sorry but you don't get any prizes for talking complete and utter rubbish. Firstly, Random mutation equals random chance and secondly; cell complexity was not known in Darwin's time because the electron microscope wasn't invented until 1931, so quite where you are getting your delusional fantasies from is beyond me.
NeilAnthony69 1 year ago
@NeilAnthony69 yes, random mutation is random, however, natural selection, the main driving force of evolution is NOT random in any way. yes, in darwins time the cell was known to be complex, they did not know that much about the cell but they knew that it was very complex, now please, stop lying, oh wait, you are a creationist, lying is the only evidence you pathetic fools have
blazereef 1 year ago
@blazereef Oh how how you atheists like to keep moving the goal-posts when you are backed into a corner. It's pathetic. In order for life to evolve in the first place you had to have had random mutation before natural selection.
By the way, when you talk of 'Natural selection' you really mean micro-evolution as opposed to macro-evolution. There are, and always have been, genetic variation between species but you will never see one species develop into another. It has never been witnessed.
NeilAnthony69 1 year ago
Comment removed
rickyt247 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NeilAnthony69 Would you like to explain to me, on a genetic level, where the border between micro and macro evolution lies?
I don't think you can, because with claims like "you will never see one species develop into another", you really reveal you have no idea what you're talking about. As soon as you see a dog give birth to a cat, THEN you will have actual empirical (you may want to look up that word, it doesn't mean what you think it means) evidence evolution is wrong.
amandarandom89 1 year ago
The flagellum motor is now known NOT to be a case of IC. It is a creationist myth which gets handed down without anybody actually checking their facts. Please do some research on the subject before you perpetuate the myth. Thankyou.
Surroundx 1 year ago
@Surroundx Sorry but I have heard the alternative explanations regarding the flagellum and I disagree. Therefore, the so-called myth that the flagellum motor is just a creationist myth, is really just an evolutionist myth designed to fool anybody who doesn't really know what they are talking about.
Go peddle your lies elsewhere because they are not welcome here!
NeilAnthony69 1 year ago
@NeilAnthony69 so, you admit to seeing your lies get debunked completely (watch ken miller debunk it, he is a christian) and are still going to use the same argument? pathetic
blazereef 1 year ago
@blazereef The only one telling porkies is yourself. I don't care if Ken Miller is a so-called Christian, Buddhist, or even Moslem; the answer is still the same.
As far as I'm concerned, Ken Miller is a disgrace. Ken Millers opinion or anyone else's come to that; is of no consequence to the truth. So go take your Ken Miller worship and shove it where the sun don't shine and don't bother me again with such pathetic comebacks...unless you have something of real consequence to say.
NeilAnthony69 1 year ago