go, shinyblurry. go!

Whooops!
...so easy to destroy this old argument about irreducible complexity.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

This thread's going to be another humdinger.

*lies *religion *controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Lies, Religion) - requested by Skeeve.

@shinyblurry There are more than 1.1 million biological and geological scientists in the US. You posted a video from one of the approximately 150 American biologists who are creationists.

Please (and this is a serious and humble request with all the fervor a Christian might have when trying to save someone from hell), please watch, with an open mind, one of the thousands of videos from biologists who aren't trying to convert people.

This atheist watched your video with an open mind and found it lacking. It's time for you to open yours.

I watch science videos all the time. Far from being ignorant of science, I was going to make it my career..it didn't turn out that way, but I would say I know more about science in general and astronomy in specific than the average bear. Thank you for watching it with an open mind..I found it fascinating simply of the basis of the illustration of molecular machinery. I agree with the irreducible complexity not on the basis that things like this couldn't necessarily evolve..but simply on the information content of something like DNA..which could not have evolved on its own. Information has to come from somewhere. And you have the chicken and the egg problem..DNA requires around 75 proteins to function, and those proteins require DNA to make them. Science just doesn't have any good theories on these things..nature is not matching up to darwinian evolution. And of course there is the embarassment of not having any true transitional forms..which should be abundent by now I would think.

>> ^Skeeve:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry There are more than 1.1 million biological and geological scientists in the US. You posted a video from one of the approximately 150 American biologists who are creationists.
Please (and this is a serious and humble request with all the fervor a Christian might have when trying to save someone from hell), please watch, with an open mind, one of the thousands of videos from biologists who aren't trying to convert people.
This atheist watched your video with an open mind and found it lacking. It's time for you to open yours.

>> ^kulpims:
go, shinyblurry. go!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-7Vu7cqB20&feature=related

shiny: how the world will look from jubus's lap as you watch all the sinners burn.

blurry: your view of the world of science.

I see the intelligentsia of the sift is starting to come out of the woodwork..utterly provocative boise_lib.

>> ^Boise_Lib:
shiny: how the world will look from jubus's lap as you watch all the sinners burn.
blurry: your view of the world of science

>> ^shinyblurry:

I see the intelligentsia of the sift is starting to come out of the woodwork..utterly provocative boise_lib.
>> ^Boise_Lib:
shiny: how the world will look from jubus's lap as you watch all the sinners burn.
blurry: your view of the world of science

Ahh, I'm crushed that an intellectual such as yourself--who agrees with such luminaries as Sarah Palin--is looking down your nose at me.

I'll read the bible (again) to see how I should deal with the people who are different than me. During 6000 years you would think that you guys could have rid the world of the likes of me.

Don't put words in my mouth..I don't recall ever agreeing with sarah palin on anything..im not a republican, im an independent.

And I'm not looking down on you..i was responding to the fact that you decided to mock my beliefs instead of adding something to the discussion. and im people like you..christians are not better than anyone..the difference is, we're (trying to) follow Gods will.

>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I see the intelligentsia of the sift is starting to come out of the woodwork..utterly provocative boise_lib.
>> ^Boise_Lib:
shiny: how the world will look from jubus's lap as you watch all the sinners burn.
blurry: your view of the world of science

Ahh, I'm crushed that an intellectual such as yourself--who agrees with such luminaries as Sarah Palin--is looking down your nose at me.
I'll read the bible (again) to see how I should deal with the people who are different than me. During 6000 years you would think that you guys could have rid the world of the likes of me.

>> ^shinyblurry:

And of course there is the embarassment of not having any true transitional forms..which should be abundent by now I would think.
True transitional forms are plenty. It's just that "people like you" set the bar unreasonably higher and higher so it cannot be ever reached.
Example with numbers:
Scientists give you: 1,2,3,4,5,6,...
And "you" go: but where is 1.5,2.5,..?
Scientists find: 1.5,2.5,...
And "you" go again: but where is 1.25,1.75,...?

>> ^shinyblurry:
Information has to come from somewhere. And you have the chicken and the egg problem..DNA requires around 75 proteins to function, and those proteins require DNA to make them.
It has been shown that the building blocks of DNA can come together naturally, just because "we" have yet to figure out how it went from there does not mean it is not possible. All evidence leads to the conclusion that it somehow works.
Additionally, proteins have been shown to come together naturally too, so DNA and proteins do not need each other. It is the cell (as we understand a cell) who needs both to function.

Oh and please do not use "the chicken and the egg problem", it reduces the percived credebility of your whole argument.

the bar is still incredibly low..one of the best transitional forms out there is based on a whales nostril..i would find that embarassing if i believed in evolution. show me something convincing. also, give me an example of mutation that increases information in a genome while you're at it.

>> ^TheGenk:
>> ^shinyblurry:
And of course there is the embarassment of not having any true transitional forms..which should be abundent by now I would think.
True transitional forms are plenty. It's just that "people like you" set the bar unreasonably higher and higher so it cannot be ever reached.
Example with numbers:
Scientists give you: 1,2,3,4,5,6,...
And "you" go: but where is 1.5,2.5,..?
Scientists find: 1.5,2.5,...
And "you" go again: but where is 1.25,1.75,...?
>> ^shinyblurry:
Information has to come from somewhere. And you have the chicken and the egg problem..DNA requires around 75 proteins to function, and those proteins require DNA to make them.
It has been shown that the building blocks of DNA can come together naturally, just because "we" have yet to figure out how it went from there does not mean it is not possible. All evidence leads to the conclusion that it somehow works.
Additionally, proteins have been shown to come together naturally too, so DNA and proteins do not need each other. It is the cell (as we understand a cell) who needs both to function.
Oh and please do not use "the chicken and the egg problem", it reduces the percived credebility of your whole argument.

>> ^shinyblurry:

the bar is still incredibly low..one of the best transitional forms out there is based on a whales nostril..i would find that embarassing if i believed in evolution. show me something convincing. also, give me an example of mutation that increases information in a genome while you're at it.

You've said that you aren't ignorant of science, yet you ignore the science that proves these things. You, and people like you, are not really interested in the facts, you are interested in finding all the gaps so you can point and say "aha, there is a god!" I am truly saddened by people like you - it breaks my heart that you can be so smart and so blind at the same time.

But you asked for yet more proof so I am at your service.

A (comparatively) short list of transitional forms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

As for the claim that mutations not increasing information in a genome:
"We have observed the evolution of

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place."

You can look up those scholarly articles if you actually don't want to remain ignorant. They are listed here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

@shinyblurry: Have you seen the Hominidae Family, then going on to the line of the genus Homo? Pretty well documented. I dare say a nice line of transitional forms.

also, give me an example of mutation that increases information in a genome while you're at it.
Mutation actually favors loss of information (DNA loss through small deletions) by a small margin.
While Retrotransposons transposition or polyploidy can drastically increase genome size.
So in short, as "we"(or more appropriately I) understand it today: Information increase in genomes through mutation happens by copy/paste AND random deletion of gene sequences, thereby changing the function of either existing or new duplicate genes.

Evidence that a Recent Increase in Maize Genome Size was Caused by the Massive Amplification of Intergene Retrotransposons
or
Doubling genome size without polyploidization: Dynamics of retrotransposition-driven genomic expansions in Oryza australiensis, a wild relative of rice
are two articles I found with a quick search.

it sucks when people actually destroy your arguement with facts, documentation and links

and not just the info you present, i mean the way you actually present your arguement

gosh, i'd be embarrased to believe in creationism right now if this was the result of my presentation

I'm not sure how you see yourself as any less dogmatic than I am..and Im sorry for making you sad. I hope that you haven't wasted too many kleenexs on me, but save them for yourself..you'll need them when you figure out evolution is wrong.

Here is the key portion of your wiki article:

"Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor"

What we see in the fossil record is that when something new shows up its all at once and is fully formed and then never changes. Ie, no true transitionals have ever been discovered. What has never been witnessed in the fossil record is steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different.

You think this is a gap? It's a super massive black hole, and the vacuum may be in your head if you believe it. Here's some info:

John Bonner, a biologist at Princeton, writes that traditional textbook discussions of ancestral descent are "a festering mass of unsupported assertions." In recent years, paleontologists have retreated from simple connect-the-dot scenarios linking earlier and later species. Instead of ladders, they now talk of bushes. What we see in the fossils, according to this view, are only the twigs, the final end-products of evolution, while the key transitional forms which would give a clue about the origin of major animal groups remain completely hidden.

The blank spots on evolutionary "tree" charts occur at just the points where, according to Darwin's theory, the crucial changes had to take place. The direct ancestors of all the major orders: primates, carnivores, and so forth are completely missing. There is no fossil evidence for a "grandparent" of the monkey, for example. "Modern gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere," writes paleontologist Donald Johansen. "They are here today; they have no yesterday." The same is true of giraffes, elephants, wolves, and all species; they all simply burst upon the scene de novo [anew], as it were.

I think you're the one who needs to re-evaluate your beliefs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6EiN-3uWak




>> ^Skeeve:
>> ^shinyblurry:
the bar is still incredibly low..one of the best transitional forms out there is based on a whales nostril..i would find that embarassing if i believed in evolution. show me something convincing. also, give me an example of mutation that increases information in a genome while you're at it.
You've said that you aren't ignorant of science, yet you ignore the science that proves these things. You, and people like you, are not really interested in the facts, you are interested in finding all the gaps so you can point and say "aha, there is a god!" I am truly saddened by people like you - it breaks my heart that you can be so smart and so blind at the same time.
But you asked for yet more proof so I am at your service.
A (comparatively) short list of transitional forms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
As for the claim that mutations not increasing information in a genome:
"We have observed the evolution of
increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place."
You can look up those scholarly articles if you actually don't want to remain ignorant. They are listed here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

It's still all about the missing link, which has never been found. You have a lot of theory and speculation, but you would be surprised how much science takes on faith about evolution, and these discoveries. Entire societies have been fabricated from the find of a single tooth! Or an armbone..but there is no real proof, which is why science still desperately searches for the missing link that they'll never find.

I'll get back to you on the information question because I need to read through the articles..but even if there was some process for it, how do you get from inanimate material to life? Here's a quote:

Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." or

Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747

it's just taken on faith that it happened, of course..but there isn't even a good theory for it. pea soup getting electrocuted a cell does not create. its just not plausible.






>> ^TheGenk:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry: Have you seen the Hominidae Family, then going on to the line of the genus Homo? Pretty well documented. I dare say a nice line of transitional forms.
also, give me an example of mutation that increases information in a genome while you're at it.
Mutation actually favors loss of information (DNA loss through small deletions) by a small margin.
While Retrotransposons transposition or polyploidy can drastically increase genome size.
So in short, as "we"(or more appropriately I) understand it today: Information increase in genomes through mutation happens by copy/paste AND random deletion of gene sequences, thereby changing the function of either existing or new duplicate genes.
Evidence that a Recent Increase in Maize Genome Size was Caused by the Massive Amplification of Intergene Retrotransposons
or
Doubling genome size without polyploidization: Dynamics of retrotransposition-driven genomic expansions in Oryza australiensis, a wild relative of rice
are two articles I found with a quick search.


>> ^TheGenk:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry: Have you seen the Hominidae Family, then going on to the line of the genus Homo? Pretty well documented. I dare say a nice line of transitional forms.
also, give me an example of mutation that increases information in a genome while you're at it.
Mutation actually favors loss of information (DNA loss through small deletions) by a small margin.
While Retrotransposons transposition or polyploidy can drastically increase genome size.
So in short, as "we"(or more appropriately I) understand it today: Information increase in genomes through mutation happens by copy/paste AND random deletion of gene sequences, thereby changing the function of either existing or new duplicate genes.
Evidence that a Recent Increase in Maize Genome Size was Caused by the Massive Amplification of Intergene Retrotransposons
or
Doubling genome size without polyploidization: Dynamics of retrotransposition-driven genomic expansions in Oryza australiensis, a wild relative of rice
are two articles I found with a quick search.

How did you manage to switch the argument into the formation of life? I thought the discussion was about the evolution of life.

When people provide you with actual scientific information, you just find a way to push the conversation in a different direction or move the goalposts, so you won't have to claim you are wrong.

You claim to know about science and understand it, but if you really understood science, you would know that these scientific theories wouldn't stand up at all on just faith or a vague scientific conspiracy. Science simply doesn't work that way.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." or
Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747
it's just taken on faith that it happened, of course..but there isn't even a good theory for it. pea soup getting electrocuted a cell does not create. its just not plausible.
Those quotes are all true, but the fail on one point: They assume a very complex endproduct (Here: the unabridged dictionary, the boeing 747 and the cell). Which is simply false.


Arguments about the statistical chances of something happening being very unlikely when it demonstrably happened are moot.
I could use that to argue that statistically the chance of you being created from the genetic material of your parents is so small that therefore you could not possibly exist. But clearly you do.

I'll just address the last one:
No one claims that the fully formed cell was the first "life" to pop into existance. There are other more "primitive" forms which came first. I can't find the articles but I know of at least one which demonstrates how a less complex version of a cell membrane every cell enjoys today "creates itself" in a primordial soup like environment. Add the amino acids that form in the same environment and you got yourself a very primitive cell.

What scientific information? I asked for transitional forms, and I got distant cousins..there simply aren't any in the fossil record. You also may not have noticed that I am having a few conversations at once here. I'm happy to discuss transitional forms all day long because it shows how flawed evolution as a theory really is. Darwin stated they should be everywhere..yet in 120 years of excauvation, none have been uncovered. Zero. Pretty damning evidence in my opinion.

>> ^IronDwarf:
How did you manage to switch the argument into the formation of life? I thought the discussion was about the evolution of life.
When people provide you with actual scientific information, you just find a way to push the conversation in a different direction or move the goalposts, so you won't have to claim you are wrong.
You claim to know about science and understand it, but if you really understood science, you would know that these scientific theories wouldn't stand up at all on just faith or a vague scientific conspiracy. Science simply doesn't work that way.

>> ^shinyblurry:

What scientific information? I asked for transitional forms, and I got distant cousins..there simply aren't any in the fossil record. You also may not have noticed that I am having a few conversations at once here. I'm happy to discuss transitional forms all day long because it shows how flawed evolution as a theory really is. Darwin stated they should be everywhere..yet in 120 years of excauvation, none have been uncovered. Zero. Pretty damning evidence in my opinion.
>> ^IronDwarf:
How did you manage to switch the argument into the formation of life? I thought the discussion was about the evolution of life.
When people provide you with actual scientific information, you just find a way to push the conversation in a different direction or move the goalposts, so you won't have to claim you are wrong.
You claim to know about science and understand it, but if you really understood science, you would know that these scientific theories wouldn't stand up at all on just faith or a vague scientific conspiracy. Science simply doesn't work that way.



You have been given lots of scientific information throughout this and other discussions. That you continue to choose to ignore it or purposefully misunderstand it tells me you are just a troll. If by some chance you aren't a troll, then you seem like the type of person who will always cling to your religious beliefs and no amount of evidence will convince you. You seem comfortable in your ignorance, so enjoy it. You are a brick wall.

And your participation has been? You've offered no evidence for anything. If you aren't going to offer anything except "ur dum bcuz u dnt believe wut i do!!!", then please stay in the peanut gallery.

>> ^IronDwarf:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What scientific information? I asked for transitional forms, and I got distant cousins..there simply aren't any in the fossil record. You also may not have noticed that I am having a few conversations at once here. I'm happy to discuss transitional forms all day long because it shows how flawed evolution as a theory really is. Darwin stated they should be everywhere..yet in 120 years of excauvation, none have been uncovered. Zero. Pretty damning evidence in my opinion.
>> ^IronDwarf:
How did you manage to switch the argument into the formation of life? I thought the discussion was about the evolution of life.
When people provide you with actual scientific information, you just find a way to push the conversation in a different direction or move the goalposts, so you won't have to claim you are wrong.
You claim to know about science and understand it, but if you really understood science, you would know that these scientific theories wouldn't stand up at all on just faith or a vague scientific conspiracy. Science simply doesn't work that way.


You have been given lots of scientific information throughout this and other discussions. That you continue to choose to ignore it or purposefully misunderstand it tells me you are just a troll. If by some chance you aren't a troll, then you seem like the type of person who will always cling to your religious beliefs and no amount of evidence will convince you. You seem comfortable in your ignorance, so enjoy it. You are a brick wall.

Okay, the theory is that something mutates and creates something beneficial which then is selected to survive because it reproduces...well..how does natural selection choose for parts for components that dont exist and dont work? why would a creature with 1/40th of a working part be selected to survive so that it could get another part for a component that still doesnt work it just does not explain things like the flaggelums tail..thats what irreducible complexity is all about..there is no reason why flaggelums with a 10th an onboard tail motor would be selected to survive..just because each component could independently grow in some scenerio doesnt mean anything..no mutation for a non working part is beneficial..there would be no reason to continue on down that line or why the creature would survive in the first place.

another problem for evolution is that we can observe it in action..a generation of bacteria grows in no time..and at no time has there ever been observed one kind of bacteria mutating into another kind. we can test evolution this way..yes things mutate all the time..but they don't produce new kinds. not even once. so evolution is just not happening today

>> ^TheGenk:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." or
Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747
it's just taken on faith that it happened, of course..but there isn't even a good theory for it. pea soup getting electrocuted a cell does not create. its just not plausible.
Those quotes are all true, but the fail on one point: They assume a very complex endproduct (Here: the unabridged dictionary, the boeing 747 and the cell). Which is simply false.
Arguments about the statistical chances of something happening being very unlikely when it demonstrably happened are moot.
I could use that to argue that statistically the chance of you being created from the genetic material of your parents is so small that therefore you could not possibly exist. But clearly you do.
I'll just address the last one:
No one claims that the fully formed cell was the first "life" to pop into existance. There are other more "primitive" forms which came first. I can't find the articles but I know of at least one which demonstrates how a less complex version of a cell membrane every cell enjoys today "creates itself" in a primordial soup like environment. Add the amino acids that form in the same environment and you got yourself a very primitive cell.

>> ^shinyblurry:

And your participation has been? You've offered no evidence for anything. If you aren't going to offer anything except "ur dum bcuz u dnt believe wut i do!!!", then please stay in the peanut gallery.
>> ^IronDwarf:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What scientific information? I asked for transitional forms, and I got distant cousins..there simply aren't any in the fossil record. You also may not have noticed that I am having a few conversations at once here. I'm happy to discuss transitional forms all day long because it shows how flawed evolution as a theory really is. Darwin stated they should be everywhere..yet in 120 years of excauvation, none have been uncovered. Zero. Pretty damning evidence in my opinion.
>> ^IronDwarf:
How did you manage to switch the argument into the formation of life? I thought the discussion was about the evolution of life.
When people provide you with actual scientific information, you just find a way to push the conversation in a different direction or move the goalposts, so you won't have to claim you are wrong.
You claim to know about science and understand it, but if you really understood science, you would know that these scientific theories wouldn't stand up at all on just faith or a vague scientific conspiracy. Science simply doesn't work that way.


You have been given lots of scientific information throughout this and other discussions. That you continue to choose to ignore it or purposefully misunderstand it tells me you are just a troll. If by some chance you aren't a troll, then you seem like the type of person who will always cling to your religious beliefs and no amount of evidence will convince you. You seem comfortable in your ignorance, so enjoy it. You are a brick wall.



I've been following the discussion from the beginning. I can go back and quote all those who have already provided you with actual evidence, but that doesn't seem to be doing you any good. You don't want to hear it. It is a waste of time.

I'm sorry I got involved in the first place. Just reading this discussion is tiring; trying to argue with you is even more so.

So, wait, are we trying to convince one another that WE are right and YOU are wrong? You guys can argue all week long about what you believe, but we all KNOW that his holy Noodliness has provided us, with his marinated Meat balls, life in our mind and Spaghetti in our stomaches!

So, wait, are we trying to convince one another that WE are right and YOU are wrong? You guys can argue all week long about what you believe, but we all KNOW that his holy Noodliness has provided us, with his marinated Meat balls, life in our mind and Spaghetti in our stomaches!

yeesh... so much to discuss, so little time.

The one thing I want to say is this... biology is not impossibly complex. There are fascinating mechanism (trafficking of vesicles!) and still mysterious rules (epigenetics!), but its nothing we can't handle given time. We've only very recently invented technology that lets us BEGIN to really poke around... nearly all of the fanciest microscopes and imaging techniques still require dead, fixed, processed samples in order to investigate the sub-cellular world in detail.

Just... you-know... hug a researcher, maybe give her/him a high-five,... and give them some time to keep pulling back this curtain.

A chicken and an egg were lying in bed together. The egg, who was in a very grumpy mood, looked over at the chicken wearing a smug grin and smoking a cigarette and said, "well, I guess we answered that question..."

"Science can't explain everything perfectly at this very moment, therefor Jesus is real!"

Really, shiny? Attacking evolution? You think the world is 6000 years old too?

So pathetic. But whatever. Your God of the Gaps gets smaller every day as human beings expand their knowledge through scientific inquiry. Eventually he'll disappear.

It only saddens me to think of the drag your GOTG puts on scientific discovery, but such are the chains of ignorance. Neil deGrasse Tyson discusses this phenomenon here: http://videosift.com/video/The-God-of-the-Gaps-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson

>> ^shinyblurry:

Okay, the theory is that something mutates and creates something beneficial which then is selected to survive because it reproduces...well..how does natural selection choose for parts for components that dont exist and dont work? why would a creature with 1/40th of a working part be selected to survive so that it could get another part for a component that still doesnt work it just does not explain things like the flaggelums tail..thats what irreducible complexity is all about..there is no reason why flaggelums with a 10th an onboard tail motor would be selected to survive..just because each component could independently grow in some scenerio doesnt mean anything..no mutation for a non working part is beneficial..there would be no reason to continue on down that line or why the creature would survive in the first place.
another problem for evolution is that we can observe it in action..a generation of bacteria grows in no time..and at no time has there ever been observed one kind of bacteria mutating into another kind. we can test evolution this way..yes things mutate all the time..but they don't produce new kinds. not even once. so evolution is just not happening today

Concerning your first paragraph:
Just from the top of my head the Appendix comes to mind, which seems to not serve any function.
Regardless, you still use the irreducible complexity argument, which I should believe enough evidence has been presented to you to show that it is incorrect.

Your 2. paragraph:
Google is a b***

Now I am growing tired of this game because we came full circle.
I have only one question for you now:
How did, to the best of your knowledge, life end up like we see it today(I am not asking for how life came to exist, that has nothing to do with evolution)? And please provide evidence.

shinyblurry position is based on the fact that he believes the bible is the word of god , so everything he is saying is based on him "knowing" that god exists so the science has to be wrong until it matches up with his belief that the bible is the word of god.


If u have sum one that thinks the bible is the word of god how can you exspect them to have a resnable conversation on things that requre a deeper understanding of the scientific method or cognagtive skills to interpret information thats available .

you would not expect sum one that can only draw stick men to suddenly be able to draw a relastic portrate. Given that its always worth encouraging them and helping point them in the right direction and in the long run they might evan be able to teach you a thing or two.

>> ^shinyblurry:
And of course there is the embarassment of not having any true transitional forms..which should be abundent by now I would think.


Oh god.

Every animal and every fossil there ever was, is, and ever will be, IS a transitional form, by definition. If we limit ourselves to the human/homo linaege , please check out a video I recently posted about human evolution: http://videosift.com/video/Human-Evolution-and-Why-it-matters

If you watch that video, you will see how scientists are working to piece togheter a very large number of hominids with a large variety. its not like "Apes turned into human" in some neat movie-style morph, but a complex mess up populations of gradually more humanoid apes, the large majority of which formed long lineages that lived for thousands of years, before joining the vast collection of extinct species. Its become increasingly clear that we are one of many branches, and the last surviving in the hominid group so far.

The "no transitional fossils" is a laughable strawman argument, deeply ignorant and dishonest at the same time, in other words, typical creationist nonsense.

As for Irreducible complexity, , this is the most "sciencey" of the creationist drivel out there, but its still drivel. It's not even bad science, its just meaningless white noise designed to baffle people who has no knowledge of biology.

Heres my live-comment on the video

"New knowledge has shaken the foundations of Darwins theory"

No. In fact, everything in biology, especially the discovery of DNA in 1953 have confirmed, and established once and for all that the foundation of Darwins theory based on the Natural selection of hereditery properties (Darwin called them traits, we now call them genes) is true.

"When Darwin was alive, they thought the cell was a simple blob"

Wow, that was only like 3 seconds between lie #1 and lie #2! Impressive, Behe. Lets drag up Darwins corpse, and see what he had to say, even if its largely irrelevant to the fact of evolution and the practice of modern biology:
http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2007/07/16/darwin_and_the_cell_not_just_p/

"Like a car factory where everything has to fit together"


Not really, cells are messy things, and the processes inside is based on chemical reactions and physical laws (such as entropy) They look nothing like these tidy animations meant for illustration purposes. The production of proteins, for instance,is a process where the amino acids float around and bind themselves chemically to rna, not in an orderly "wait my turn"-style, but they latch on naturally to the RNA because they are chemically attracted to the 5 different nucleic acids on the RNA chain. It would be more similar to a redox reaction you can do with electrodes in water where the iron rod attracts the oxygen molecules, forming rust.(in the sense that theres nothing intelligent going on, just chemistry.)

"Darwinism was a lot more plausible when we thought the cell was a blob"

No.

"Flagellum"

A , Behes flagship of his idiot argument, he always pulls it out, all debunking be damned, he cant even hear how people have destroyed this silliness over and over:

http://youtu.be/a_5FToP_mMY

Utter bullshit.

very good vid from above comment

What's less intelligent, having a discussion about what you believe or jumping into that discussion and filling it with baseless accusations and ad homs? I'll let rationality decide that one. Don't put words in my mouth and don't attempt explain what you think I know.

I'll give you an example of the ridiculousness of evolutionary theory. Many evolutionists claim that the wings of an ostrich are a vestigal part. Despite the fact that anyone with a brain could observe that ostriches use their wings for quite a number of things, evolutionists claim that its on its way out. Well, the oldest ostrich fossil we have is around 50 or 60 million years old. Guess what? Its exactly the same. So even though the ostrich wing is supposed to be a vestigal part, it hasn't changed in 60 million years. Yet, scientists claim that humans evolved in the last 4 to 5 million years. See anything wrong here? With the enlightening commentary you've already produced, im guessing no.

>> ^westy:
shinyblurry position is based on the fact that he believes the bible is the word of god , so everything he is saying is based on him "knowing" that god exists so the science has to be wrong until it matches up with his belief that the bible is the word of god.
If u have sum one that thinks the bible is the word of god how can you exspect them to have a resnable conversation on things that requre a deeper understanding of the scientific method or cognagtive skills to interpret information thats available .
you would not expect sum one that can only draw stick men to suddenly be able to draw a relastic portrate. Given that its always worth encouraging them and helping point them in the right direction and in the long run they might evan be able to teach you a thing or two.

It's amusing that no one here can actually just present their views without acting all incredulous "OMG I CANT BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE OMG UR SO DUMB OMG!!!" How about you just let your logic speak for itself. If you want to talk about intelligence, I scored 149 on my last IQ test..how about you? You science worshippers are more dogmatic and sensitive than any religious person I know, and that's the truth.

You can repeat something is true over and over again, as forcefully and dramatically as you want..there are no, and I repeat ZERO true transitionals. Yes of course every fossil is a transitional by definition..lol..but we're talking about actual records showing a change in kind to another kind. There aren't any. Here is a list of all the best ones science has found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

And here is the disclaimer:

Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor

Read that a few times and let it sink in. None have ever been found, those are all extinct side branches, not true transitionals. Why don't you get a background and know you're talking about before you try to get into a debate with someone, let alone imply they themselves are ignorant.


>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
>> ^shinyblurry:
And of course there is the embarassment of not having any true transitional forms..which should be abundent by now I would think.

Oh god.
Every animal and every fossil there ever was, is, and ever will be, IS a transitional form, by definition. If we limit ourselves to the human/homo linaege , please check out a video I recently posted about human evolution: http://videosift.com/video/Human-Evolution-and-Why-it-matters
If you watch that video, you will see how scientists are working to piece togheter a very large number of hominids with a large variety. its not like "Apes turned into human" in some neat movie-style morph, but a complex mess up populations of gradually more humanoid apes, the large majority of which formed long lineages that lived for thousands of years, before joining the vast collection of extinct species. Its become increasingly clear that we are one of many branches, and the last surviving in the hominid group so far.
The "no transitional fossils" is a laughable strawman argument, deeply ignorant and dishonest at the same time, in other words, typical creationist nonsense.
As for Irreducible complexity, , this is the most "sciencey" of the creationist drivel out there, but its still drivel. It's not even bad science, its just meaningless white noise designed to baffle people who has no knowledge of biology.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'll give you an example of the ridiculousness of evolutionary theory. Many evolutionists claim that the wings of an ostrich are a vestigal part. Despite the fact that anyone with a brain could observe that ostriches use their wings for quite a number of things, evolutionists claim that its on its way out. Well, the oldest ostrich fossil we have is around 50 or 60 million years old. Guess what? Its exactly the same. So even though the ostrich wing is supposed to be a vestigal part, it hasn't changed in 60 million years. Yet, scientists claim that humans evolved in the last 4 to 5 million years. See anything wrong here? With the enlightening commentary you've already produced, im guessing no.


A quick google search will prove this wrong, the earliest ostrich-like fossil is more like 40 million years old, and more importantly, it's nothing like a modern ostrich, but a distant ancestor of ostriches, As with humans, like all other species, there is no one thing called ostriches, there are many subspecies, and even more extinct relatives and ancestral lineages


As for its vestigal wings, well, nobody is saying htey are useless, just that they are useless for FLYING. in other words, they are a perfect example of the very kind of evolution Behe says isnt possible in the video, namely that just because something seems useless for what it is usually used for (such as a non-flying wing or a non-rotating flagellum-like protein structure) it can have other uses for that animal or bacteria.

Humans didnt evolve in full over 4-5 million years, we, along with every other modern animal, have evolved for 3 billion years. We share ancestors with chimps, and these ancestors lived around 2 million years ago. And to us they would probably look rather chimp-like, they would be four-legged, tree-dwelling apes, some populations would stay behind in the forest, basically maintaining and perfecting the lifestyle, and some populations were gradually driven into more open savannah, where they developed bipedalism and eventually larger brains. But from evolutions perspective, the majority of the work (in creating us) had been long since done. 4 million years ago we were already great apes, and if an alien came to this planet they might say "oh they're basically still the same ape, larger brains and bipedal, maybe, but basically the same"

These differences make a massive difference to us, of course, because they separates us from everything else, but in the grand scheme of things, they may not be the evolutionary miracle we think they are.

Shiny, are you one of those creationists that claim the Theory of Evolution is "just a theory"?

Also, drawing on your science background (according to you), can you appreciate the difference between a law and a theory in science? Please provide definitions and/or examples. Thanks.

To everyone else: I'd like to wait and hear Shiny's answer, if that's OK with you lot.

>> ^shinyblurry:

What's less intelligent, having a discussion about what you believe or jumping into that discussion and filling it with baseless accusations and ad homs? I'll let rationality decide that one. Don't put words in my mouth and don't attempt explain what you think I know.
I'll give you an example of the ridiculousness of evolutionary theory. Many evolutionists claim that the wings of an ostrich are a vestigal part. Despite the fact that anyone with a brain could observe that ostriches use their wings for quite a number of things, evolutionists claim that its on its way out. Well, the oldest ostrich fossil we have is around 50 or 60 million years old. Guess what? Its exactly the same. So even though the ostrich wing is supposed to be a vestigal part, it hasn't changed in 60 million years. Yet, scientists claim that humans evolved in the last 4 to 5 million years. See anything wrong here? With the enlightening commentary you've already produced, im guessing no.
>> ^westy:
shinyblurry position is based on the fact that he believes the bible is the word of god , so everything he is saying is based on him "knowing" that god exists so the science has to be wrong until it matches up with his belief that the bible is the word of god.
If u have sum one that thinks the bible is the word of god how can you exspect them to have a resnable conversation on things that requre a deeper understanding of the scientific method or cognagtive skills to interpret information thats available .
you would not expect sum one that can only draw stick men to suddenly be able to draw a relastic portrate. Given that its always worth encouraging them and helping point them in the right direction and in the long run they might evan be able to teach you a thing or two.



"What's less intelligent, having a discussion about what you believe or jumping into that discussion and filling it with baseless accusations and ad homs?"

The exact point of what i said is specifically that until sum-one understands or can demonstrait a basic grasp of the foundations of what they are talking about , its incredibly likely that all conversation with them will be waisted until you address the key issue thats holding them back.

The problem is Evolution is very well explained and demonstrated but creationists will ether ignore the scentific evidence presented to them or they will keep pointing to places science is yet to explain and then use that as a justification for intelligent design.

The only reason creationists are so keen to hold onto intelligent design and have a bias for it ( despite all the evidence that points to evolution) is because they believe the bible (whatever book they believe in) is the word of god.

The other issue with talking to Creationists online is its near imposable to tell if they are trolling. Why don't you phone up the atheist exsperance they will get to the route of what you believe and explain why a belief in a specific god is unfounded far faster than I could and and I'm sure most people on this website could.

Contact them hear tv@atheist-community.org

Moving this video to shinyblurry's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

By the way, i downvoted this video, because Behe doesnt deserve the platform. He's lying about biology, and he KNOWS he is lying. All his arguments (basically just one) was pulverized by real scientists in the Dover trial RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIS EYES, he was shown flagellums with missing parts, people explained how things evolve new functions etc. and he was forced to accept that "intelligent design theory" is no more scientific than astrology.

From Wikipedia:

Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fiftyeight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough"

The guy is a deluded fraud and a liar who is completely unwilling to understand or accept evolution in the face of the overwhelming evidence that has been, on occasion, personally presented to him.

Instead of doing what any scientist and reasonable person would do, and discard his long-since disproven nonsense, he keeps trotting out the same baloney, in an attempt to fool people who know nothing about biology.

He is also, according to his own son, religiously retarded on other levels, when his son became an atheist, he basically forbade him to talk to his younger siblings. (http://breakingspells.net/son-of-michael-behe-discusses-his-atheism/)

Religious, deluded, dishonest nutcase

Nice one, BRM. I liked the Salty-Behe article, in particular this bit, which might apply to shinyblurry:

When asked for, “insights into how the mental compartmentalization which allows someone with a decent education to be a creationist works?” Behe had this to say:

After not questioning an issue for twenty years, hearing everyone and everything around you affirm it repeatedly, the brain becomes so used to looking at it in a certain way- as truth, in this example- that it can be very difficult or even nearly impossible for you to look at the issue without that desensitization in the back of your head assuring you that it’s true and can’t be disproved. I know someone has reached that point when literally nothing I can say will change their minds. [...] the idea will not require any detectable amount of proof after lying stagnant in the creationists’ head for so many years. They will look at it and it will appear absolutely normal and completely plausible. This is the damage that indoctrination causes.

Reddit poster: I'm wondering what actual work could [Behe Sr.] have done on ID in the last 15 years?

Behe Jr.: Well, the problem is that someone looking to prove God does not need evidence to support their theory- all they need are unsolved questions in the other theory. All my dad really needed to do was point to some organism that had temporarily confused scientists and claim that the proof of God was there. Unfortunately for him, science gains ground every day, and religion loses it as a result.

I had a little rant here..ive erased it for civilities sake..if you want to address me in civilized manner instead of attacking my intellect, which I will assure you is doing just fine, let me know..


>> ^shuac:
Nice one, BRM. I liked the Salty-Behe article, in particular this bit, which might apply to shinyblurry:

When asked for, “insights into how the mental compartmentalization which allows someone with a decent education to be a creationist works?” Behe had this to say:

After not questioning an issue for twenty years, hearing everyone and everything around you affirm it repeatedly, the brain becomes so used to looking at it in a certain way- as truth, in this example- that it can be very difficult or even nearly impossible for you to look at the issue without that desensitization in the back of your head assuring you that it’s true and can’t be disproved. I know someone has reached that point when literally nothing I can say will change their minds. [...] the idea will not require any detectable amount of proof after lying stagnant in the creationists’ head for so many years. They will look at it and it will appear absolutely normal and completely plausible. This is the damage that indoctrination causes.

Hmm, to upvote, or to downvote? That is the question. I really enjoyed the shellacking that @BicycleRepairMan laid down on @shinyblurry, but I also agree that this toolbag doesn't really deserve a podium on which to shout his nonsense.

What a dilemma...

>> ^shinyblurry:

I had a little rant here..ive erased it for civilities sake..if you want to address me in civilized manner instead of attacking my intellect, which I will assure you is doing just fine, let me know..

You mistake me, sir, for a common internet thug. My comment takes no such attitude. There exist very learned scientists who are among the most pious Christians ever. People like William Jennings Bryan, Freeman Dyson, and the head of the genome sequencing project, Francis Collins.

The younger Behe's answer about compartmentalization would probably, in my estimation, apply to all of them. That's not an attack on their intellect, sir. At least, I don't see it as one and I certainly don't mean it as one. In fact, a very decent argument could be made that such a sophisticated partitioning would require a degree of sophistication beyond that of normal needs.

For instance, I have very achievable compartmentalization requirements when I carry two opposing thoughts in my head. Typically, they are thoughts like "I hate 80s hair metal but I love that one song by Warrant" or the like. That kind of partitioning doesn't require a lot of mental horsepower but then, my needs are modest. You see what I mean?

As far as the second quote by Behe the Younger goes...well, I believe that sums up the entire ID stance and is similarly in no way an attack on your (or anyone else's) intellect. Hey, I get it: creationists feel strongly about this stuff and I'm not surprised they're trying to get around the rules.

Just understand that we also feel strongly.

Thank you for your good will here, I genuinely appreciate it. It's one of the few acts of sincerity I've received on this board. Because of that, you've inspired me to present my defense. I will attempt to show that evolution is every bit as metaphysical as a belief in God. I will also attempt to answer the question you posed about compartmentalization. I should get to it later today. Thank you again.

>> ^shuac:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I had a little rant here..ive erased it for civilities sake..if you want to address me in civilized manner instead of attacking my intellect, which I will assure you is doing just fine, let me know..
You mistake me, sir, for a common internet thug. My comment takes no such attitude. There exist very learned scientists who are among the most pious Christians ever. People like William Jennings Bryan, Freeman Dyson, and the head of the genome sequencing project, Francis Collins.
The younger Behe's answer about compartmentalization would probably, in my estimation, apply to all of them. That's not an attack on their intellect, sir. At least, I don't see it as one and I certainly don't mean it as one. In fact, a very decent argument could be made that such a sophisticated partitioning would require a degree of sophistication beyond that of normal needs.
For instance, I have very achievable compartmentalization requirements when I carry two opposing thoughts in my head. Typically, they are thoughts like "I hate 80s hair metal but I love that one song by Warrant" or the like. That kind of partitioning doesn't require a lot of mental horsepower but then, my needs are modest. You see what I mean?
As far as the second quote by Behe the Younger goes...well, I believe that sums up the entire ID stance and is similarly in no way an attack on your (or anyone else's) intellect. Hey, I get it: creationists feels strongly about this stuff and I'm not surprised they're trying to get around the rules.
Just understand that we also feel strongly.

@TheGenk @Skeeve @Boise_Lib @gwiz665 @packo @IronDwarf @MaxWilder @westy @BicycleRepairMan @shuac @KnivesOut

Evolution is pseudo-science. It exists in the realm of imagination, and cannot be scientifically verified. At best, evolution science is forensic science, and what has been found not only does not support it, but entirely rules it out. I don't think any of you realize how weak the case for evolution really is. None of them quotes, as far as I know, are from creation scientists btw

No true transitional forms in the fossil record:

Darwins theory proposed that slow change over a great deal of time could evolve one kind of thing into another. Such as reptiles to birds. The theory proposed that we should see in the fossil records billions of these transitional forms, yet we have found none. When the theory was first proposed, darwinists pleaded poverty in the fossil record, claiming the missing links were yet to be found. It was then claimed that the links were missing because conditions conspired against fossilizing them, or that they had been eroded or destroyed in subsequent fossilization.

120 years have gone by since then. We have uncovered an extremely rich fossil record with billions of fossils, a record which has completely failed to produce the expected transitions. It has become obvious that there was no process that could have miraculously destroyed the transitionals yet left the terminal forms intact.

The next theory proposed was "hopeful monster" theory, which states that evolution occurs in large leaps instead of small ones. Some even suggested that a bird could have hatched from a reptile egg. This is against all genetic evidence, and has never been observed.

The complete lack of transitional forms is not even the worst problem for evolution, considering the big gaps between the higher categories, and the systemic absence of transitional forms between families classes orders and phyla.

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"

Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History (and a hardcore evolutionist), in a letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979 admitting no transitional forms exist.

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216

"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"

-Charles Darwin

"In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."

-Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University

Fossil record disputes evolutionary theory:

According to evolutionary theory we should see an evolutionary tree of organisms starting from the least complex to the most complex. Instead, what we do see in the fossil record is the very sudden appearance of fully-formed and fully-functional complex life.

If you examine the fossil record, you see all kinds of complex life suddenly jumping into existence during a period that evolutionists refer to as the "Cambrian explosion".

None of the fossilized life forms found in the "Cambrian period" have any predecessors prior to that time. In essence, the "Cambrian period" represents a "sudden explosion of life" in geological terms.

Evolutionists try to disprove this by stretching it over a period of 50 million years, but they have no transitional fossils to prove that theory before or during.

"The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed"

-Paleontologist George Gaylord

What disturbs evolutionists greatly is that complex life just appears in the fossil record out of nowhere, fully functional and formed.

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.

-Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki (an evolutionist)

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative."

-Richard Dawkins, 'The Blind Watchmaker', W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230

Evolution can't explain the addition of information that turns one kind into another kind

There is no example recorded of functional information being added to any creature, ever.

"The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus)."

Species just don't change. Kind only produces kind:

"Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it."

Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University

Not enough bones:

Today the population grows at 2% per year. If we set the population growth rate at just 0.5% per year, then total population reduces to zero at about 4500 years ago. If the first humans lived 1,000,000 years ago, then at this 0.5% growth rate, we would have 10^2100 (ten with 2100 zeroes following it) people right now. If the present population was a result of 1,000,000 years of human history, then several trillion people must have lived and died since the emergence of our species. Where are all the bones? And finally, if the population was sufficiently small until only recently, then how could a correspondingly infinitesimally small number of mutations have evolved the human race?

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

-Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research.

Try to debunk this if you can
http://www.youtube.com/watchv=tYLHxcqJmoM&feature=PlayList&p=C805D4953D9DEC66&index=0&playnext=1

More fun facts:

There are no records of any human civilization past 4000 BC

"The research in the development of the [radiocarbon] dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historic and prehistoric epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisors informed us that history extended back only for 5,000 years . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, the earliest historical date that has been established with any degree of certainty is about the time of the First Dynasty of Egypt."—*Willard Libby, Science, March 3, 1961, p. 624.

Prior to a certain point several thousand years ago, there was no trace of man having ever existed. After that point, civilization, writing, language, agriculture, domestication, and all the rest—suddenly exploded into intense activity!

"No more surprising fact has been discovered, by recent excavation, than the suddenness with which civilization appeared in the world. This discovery is the very opposite to that anticipated. It was expected that the more ancient the period, the more primitive would excavators find it to be, until traces of civilization ceased altogether and aboriginal man appeared. Neither in Babylonia nor Egypt, the lands of the oldest known habitations of man, has this been the case."—P.J. Wiseman, New Discoveries, in Babylonia, about Genesis (1949 ), p. 28.

Oldest people/language recorded in c. 3000 B.C., and were located in Mesopotamia.

The various radiodating techniques could be so inaccurate that mankind has only been on earth a few thousand years.

"Dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude . . Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand."—*Robert Gannon, "How Old Is It?" Popular Science, November 1979, p. 81.

Moonwalk disproves age of moon:

The moon is constantly being bombarded by cosmic dust particles. Scientists were able to measure the rate at which these particles would accumulate. Using their estimates according to their understanding that the age of the Earth was billions of years, their most conservative estimate predicted a dust layer 54 feet deep. This is why the lander had those huge balloon tires, to be prepared to land on a sea of dust. Neil Armstrong, after saying those famous words, uttered two more which disproved the age of the moon entirely "its solid!". Far from being 54 feet, they found the dust was 3/4 of an inch.

Evolution is a fairy tale that modern civilization has bought, hook line and sinker. Humorously, atheists accuse creationists of beiieving in myths without any evidence..when they place their entire faith in an unproven theory even evolutionists know is fatally flawed and invalid. Evolution is a meta physical belief that requires faith. Period.

Evolution is false, science affirms a divine Creator
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Tracts/big_daddy.htm

Though most of this is undisputable, I'm just getting started..

Continue to cherry pick your quotes and continue to post them out of context. It still makes you wrong and ignorant and sad. You aren't worth the fucking effort.

I guess when you Google "transitional fossils" and see all those pages with huge lists of transitional fossils, they are all liars. But the religious people, they know science better than the scientists.

Duh, winning.

Actually, you can find all the best ones here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Brace yourself for the disclaimer:

"Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor" ie, no real transitions have ever been discovered..meaning evolution is a fraud

You accuse me of being blind to evidence..I just provided a mountain of evidence showing evolution to be a total fabrication..you do one google search and determine you're right..lol..pretty sad maxyboy. Shows the supreme level of ignorance im dealing with here.

>> ^MaxWilder:
I guess when you Google "transitional fossils" and see all those pages with huge lists of transitional fossils, they are all liars. But the religious people, they know science better than the scientists.
Duh, winning.

anyway, 2 down 9 to go

Just as a quick example, you just used a wholly out of context quote from Richard fucking Dawkins to "prove" your "point". You have only shown everyone else how blind you have made yourself in clinging hopelessly to your worldview. You are obviously unwilling, and seemingly unable, to learn and think for yourself.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Actually, you can find all the best ones here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Brace yourself for the disclaimer:
"Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor" ie, no real transitions have ever been discovered..meaning evolution is a fraud
You accuse me of being blind to evidence..I just provided a mountain of evidence showing evolution to be a total fabrication..you do one google search and determine you're right..lol..pretty sad maxyboy. Shows the supreme level of ignorance im dealing with here.
>> ^MaxWilder:
I guess when you Google "transitional fossils" and see all those pages with huge lists of transitional fossils, they are all liars. But the religious people, they know science better than the scientists.
Duh, winning.



I'm glad to see that you accept that general transitional fossils exist. That is, we have many examples of fossils which demonstrated the transition from fish to amphibian, for example.

But you, like all creationists, demand more specificity. You need to see a single branch go from species A to B to C.

Here's the thing you don't seem to get, shiny. Fossils are rare. And during the process of evolution, extinct side branches are common. Well, "common" isn't exactly the right word. The branch that survives basically has to win the evolutionary lotto. So if an animal gets fossilized, it is by far more likely to come from an extinct side branch. It's simply statistics. So species A evolves into a zillion different species B, most of which are evolutionary dead ends. So to find fossil records of the exact variant of species B that fell directly between Species A (which we had a fossil) and Species C (which we had a fossil that wasn't close enough to species A to be sure about)... that's kinda like winning the lotto ten times in a row. We have plenty of them that are close. But the exact ones? You don't understand what you are asking for.

Given enough time, we'll probably find some. But they won't be proving evolution true. The Theory of Evolution is just the best explanation for the evidence we have. You can't really prove it true. The theory as it stands has made a ton of predictions that have been shown to be accurate, but none of those are "enough" for skeptics. Perhaps there is a piece of evidence which would be so bizarre that it could prove it false, but it doesn't really work the other way around. Only mathematical theorems can be "proven" true.

No, if we ever find a "true" transitional fossil as you have defined it, it will simply prove creationism false. But then again, you've never let logic or evidence dissuade you from your beliefs, so it probably wouldn't change anything.

There's some lovely quote-mining there. I'll make a proper debunking when I get home and have time to do it.

It's fun to google random excerpts of your post, seems like much of the work was done for you
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/recorded_history.htm
http://signsofthelastdays.com/archives/how-to-disprove-evolution
http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people

A bunch of your quotes are debunked here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.html but I haven't checked them all

Fossils aren't rare, there are billions of them. According to darwins theory, there should be an overwhelming number of transitional fossils, but there aren't any. There is absolutely no evidence showing one kind of animal changing into another kind, period. Which is what the entire theory is based on.

"Given enough time we'll probably find one" Yeah, that's what the theory is hinged on..the faith that they exist. It's been 120 years but don't give up..we've uncovered billions of fossils but i bet thyere in there somewhere! It's a metaphysical belief and you have way more faith than I do.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Actually, you can find all the best ones here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Brace yourself for the disclaimer:
"Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor" ie, no real transitions have ever been discovered..meaning evolution is a fraud
You accuse me of being blind to evidence..I just provided a mountain of evidence showing evolution to be a total fabrication..you do one google search and determine you're right..lol..pretty sad maxyboy. Shows the supreme level of ignorance im dealing with here.
>> ^MaxWilder:
I guess when you Google "transitional fossils" and see all those pages with huge lists of transitional fossils, they are all liars. But the religious people, they know science better than the scientists.
Duh, winning.


I'm glad to see that you accept that general transitional fossils exist. That is, we have many examples of fossils which demonstrated the transition from fish to amphibian, for example.
But you, like all creationists, demand more specificity. You need to see a single branch go from species A to B to C.
Here's the thing you don't seem to get, shiny. Fossils are rare. And during the process of evolution, extinct side branches are common. Well, "common" isn't exactly the right word. The branch that survives basically has to win the evolutionary lotto. So if an animal gets fossilized, it is by far more likely to come from an extinct side branch. It's simply statistics. So species A evolves into a zillion different species B, most of which are evolutionary dead ends. So to find fossil records of the exact variant of species B that fell directly between Species A (which we had a fossil) and Species C (which we had a fossil that wasn't close enough to species A to be sure about)... that's kinda like winning the lotto ten times in a row. We have plenty of them that are close. But the exact ones? You don't understand what you are asking for.
Given enough time, we'll probably find some. But they won't be proving evolution true. The Theory of Evolution is just the best explanation for the evidence we have. You can't really prove it true. The theory as it stands has made a ton of predictions that have been shown to be accurate, but none of those are "enough" for skeptics. Perhaps there is a piece of evidence which would be so bizarre that it could prove it false, but it doesn't really work the other way around. Only mathematical theorems can be "proven" true.
No, if we ever find a "true" transitional fossil as you have defined it, it will simply prove creationism false. But then again, you've never let logic or evidence dissuade you from your beliefs, so it probably wouldn't change anything.

Yeah, like you're an evolutionary biologist right? I'll be interested to see your personal research...should win a noble. Give me a break. The theory is fundementally flawed and indefensible..I already know how you're going to reply..and im sorry to tell you the facts aren't on your side. >> ^gwiz665:
There's some lovely quote-mining there. I'll make a proper debunking when I get home and have time to do it.
It's fun to google random excerpts of your post, seems like much of the work was done for you
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/recorded_history.htm
http://signsofthelastdays.com/archives/how-to-disprove-evolution
http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people
A bunch of your quotes are debunked here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.html but I haven't checked them all

I'm not saying that you have to be an evolutionary scientist to make an argument, I'm just saying you didn't make this particular argument.

The really funny thing is that it's utterly, hopelessly false and misleading. The theory is sound; it explains reality as it is; it can predict. You can use it to create artificial evolution too, even the most stubborn creationist farmers do it.

Evolution is fact, no matter how much you don't want it to be.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Yeah, like you're an evolutionary biologist right? I'll be interested to see your personal research...should win a noble. Give me a break. The theory is fundementally flawed and indefensible..I already know how you're going to reply..and im sorry to tell you the facts aren't on your side. >> ^gwiz665:
There's some lovely quote-mining there. I'll make a proper debunking when I get home and have time to do it.
It's fun to google random excerpts of your post, seems like much of the work was done for you
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/recorded_history.htmhttp://signsofthelastdays.com/archives/how-to-disprove-evolution
http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people
A bunch of your quotes are debunked here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.html but I haven't checked them all

Ban the troll

So, in other words, you don't have a counter argument except "lalalalalallaalalallalaalllaalala im not listening to you now lalalalallalalalaa i cant hear you lalalalalallaalalala" evolution is right, evolution is true, evolution is my friend, evolution evolution evolution evolution

>> ^gwiz665:
I'm not saying that you have to be an evolutionary scientist to make an argument, I'm just saying you didn't make this particular argument.
The really funny thing is that it's utterly, hopelessly false and misleading. The theory is sound; it explains reality as it is; it can predict. You can use it to create artificial evolution too, even the most stubborn creationist farmers do it.
Evolution is fact, no matter how much you don't want it to be.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yeah, like you're an evolutionary biologist right? I'll be interested to see your personal research...should win a noble. Give me a break. The theory is fundementally flawed and indefensible..I already know how you're going to reply..and im sorry to tell you the facts aren't on your side. >> ^gwiz665:
There's some lovely quote-mining there. I'll make a proper debunking when I get home and have time to do it.
It's fun to google random excerpts of your post, seems like much of the work was done for you
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/recorded_history.htmhttp://signsofthelastdays.com/archives/how-to-disprove-evolution
http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people
A bunch of your quotes are debunked here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.html but I haven't checked them all

>> ^TheGenk:

I have only one question for you now:
How did, to the best of your knowledge, life end up like we see it today(I am not asking for how life came to exist, that has nothing to do with evolution)? And please provide evidence.
Still waiting.


That aside, I really like that 95% of the sources creationists quote are at least 30-40 years old. Quietly disregarding the boost modern computers and electronics have given scientific research and understanding.

@shinyblurry

You have seriously discredited yourself multiple times in this thread.

From the "I scored 149 on my last IQ test" to quoting Dawkins to "disprove" evolution, you have shown yourself to be a quote-mining troll with no understanding of the scientific method or simple critical thinking. It is, quite literally, not worth my time (and I'm sure my time isn't worth as much as some of the others here) to even attempt a refutation of the outdated, quote-mined, religious garbage you presented as a case against evolution.

The sheer volume of evidence for evolution is overwhelming and freely available for those who actually wish to learn - you obviously do not wish to learn and for that fact alone you are no longer of interest to me.

Have a nice life.

3 down..

I have better things to do than to refute this. The evidence is freely available on the Internet from more reputable sources than Creation Science, but I don't want to waste my time sifting through your quote jungle to show that they are either quote mined or stated be a "creation scientist" aka a fraud.

Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design is a hoax, it's creation by another name and it is false. the video I linked above shows that, and there are many many more. If nothing else, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

And notice when you google Intelligent Design you ONLY get creation science sources. Why is that, I wonder?

Now refuting ID doesn't automatically make Evolution true, and vice versa. They are not linked except in that they want to explain the same thing.

Here's some basics on evolution which you might benefit from:

>> ^Skeeve:


You have seriously discredited yourself multiple times in this thread.
From the "I scored 149 on my last IQ test" to quoting Dawkins to "disprove" evolution, you have shown yourself to be a quote-mining troll with no understanding of the scientific method or simple critical thinking. It is, quite literally, not worth my time (and I'm sure my time isn't worth as much as some of the others here) to even attempt a refutation of the outdated, quote-mined, religious garbage you presented as a case against evolution.
The sheer volume of evidence for evolution is overwhelming and freely available for those who actually wish to learn - you obviously do not wish to learn and for that fact alone you are no longer of interest to me.
Have a nice life.



My comment about banning this troll (simplyblurry) was downvoted.

Please look at the evidence.
>> ^shinyblurry:

3 down..


3 of what are now down? Keeping score of the people you caused to waste time and effort refuting your straw man?

Trolling pure and simple.