Take a look in the mirror, shiny.

My position is backed up by mountains (both methaphorically and literally) of evidence. You have nothing. I've looked at the so-called evidence for a young earth or creationism and I dismissed it almost instantly.

It fails almost every conceivable test of reliable evidence almost instantly. I am not obliged to consider nonsense. The burden of proof is not on me, it is on you.

If I tell you the sky is pink and green with a giant picture of Steve Carell on it, I'd want some pretty decent evidence to back that up.

I don't have to "seek out someone who agreed" with me, that is the default position. It is the accepted scientific reality.

Part of the reason, I don't have to continually reassess my acceptance of it is because it makes sense. I don't go around thinking "man, evolution is a cool idea, but I wonder why it doesn't explain X", because it does explain X (where X is any silly creationist nonsense like irreduceable complexity, etc).

So, on one hand we have evolution, which has:
- an elegant, sensible theory
- millions and millions of man hours of study
- ginormous swathes of evidence

and on the other we have creationism, which has:
- some old book said it's true and the same book said the book is true (despite the fact that said book has been wrong time and time again)

Anyway, I'm done here.
Have fun on the wrong side of history; you can take a seat over there beside the flat earthers, the slave-owners and the people that thought non-whites were genetically inferior.

hah. I point out the flaws in your weak reasoning and then you run away calling me irrational.

You said that the concept of a supernatural being is meaningless because it cannot be falsified. That is so obviously untrue I scarcely have to construct an argument against it, but I graciously provided you two proofs that show you that your fundemental assumptions about life cannot be falsified either, making your point meaningless in itself. Does this mean I don't believe in concept of knowledge? Show me where I said that please. What I believe in an absolute truth that can be grasped by anyone. In any case, the concept could actually be falsified if you could show it to be logically incoherent.

What you really mean to say is that the existence of God cannot be empirically verified, because you believe in the fundemental assumptions of atheistic materialism, which is that knowledge only comes by the senses. IE, if I can't see it, touch it or taste it, it isn't there. Yet none of this does anything to advance your case, because the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

What I mean by an irreducibly complex system is a system which cannot be reduced in complexity without compromising its functionality. Meaning, it would be impossible for it to evolve. There are plenty of examples of this in nature, yes like the flagellum.

We have an equal burden of proof, so I do hold myself to the same standards. My question was designed to test your level of rationality, actually. You didn't answer it because it is a yes or no question. If Jesus is God, would you follow Him? That you cannot even answer a hypothetical question about God is a very good measurement on where you're at in the rationality department.

"Anyway, have a good life, and for both our sakes I hope your worldview is not correct."

God has given you sufficient evidence of His existence, and you are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

>> ^shinyblurry:
Flim flam flooey, I'm irrational.

Look, I'm going to back slowly away from this conversation since it has become clear to me that you are not rational. You reject the concept of knowledge outright but then demand proofs, you throw out ridiculous terms like "irreducible complexity" (let me guess: eyes? flagellum?), and you don't hold yourself to the same standards of proof as you do your philosophical opponents. I'm sorry you didn't get to spring whatever rhetorical trap you had planned with the whole "if Jesus is god" thing, but I answered that question twice.

Anyway, have a good life, and for both our sakes I hope your worldview is not correct.

So I take this to mean that you are truly agnostic about all
non-Christian gods. You will refuse to state unequivocally that there
is a council of 5 supreme beings who created the universe.

No, I will state unequivocally that Jesus is God, and that anyone else claiming to be a god is a pretender to the throne.

You do have me on the trivializing part, because god and a teapot in
space mean about the same to me since there is the same amount of
evidence for both.

I'm looking at the same evidence you are. The difference is in the presuppositions of your worldview. If you took off those glasses then you might start to see what I am talking about. For instance, the Uniformity in nature, how do you explain it?

There is no appearance of design in biological
systems (we made great leaps in understanding biology in the last 100
years or so)

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker p.1

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.

Francis Crick Nobel Laureate
What Mad Pursuit p.138 1988

There certainty is the appearance of the design, and these systems were in fact designed, but you say it is simply chance that created these sophisticated and irreducibly complex systems. I say something irreducibly complex cannot have been evolved.

, and the "fine-tuning" of physical laws are easily
explained without a higher being, and so it is not necessary.

They are not easily explained away. It is virtually a mathematical impossibility for the laws to be tuned the way they are. Check this out:



(Any universe without those properties would make life impossible and so we
would never know it existed

If I stood in front of a firing squad of 100 highly trained marksmen and survived the execution without a scratch, I should not be shocked to find out they missed, since if they hadn't, I wouldn't be alive to know that they did. In the same manner, while we shouldn't be shocked we are alive in a life permitting Universe, it doesn't follow that we shouldn't be surprised the Universe in which we find ourselves is life permitting.

, we do not know how many universes exist,
have existed, or can exist, etc.

If there are multiple universes, it just makes the fine tuning problem worse. The fine tuning on the mechanism for the multiple Universe generator would be infinitely more improbable.

If you want to maintain a god of the
gaps you are welcome to, but the natural solutions to every mystery
ever make the future of such a worldview tenuous at best.)

It isn't the God of the gaps when God is the superior explantion for the evidence, such as the information in DNA.

The presence of a supernatural being is, by definition, unfalsifiable.
The concept of a supernatural being is literally meaningless, since
you can say anything about it and not be proven wrong (or right). It
cannot be measured

Is believing in the existence of the external world falsifiable? Is the idea that the Universe began 5 seconds ago and all of your memories are false falsifiable? Is the fact that you cannot falsify either of those ideas make your existence meaningless?

The non-existence of God certainly is falsifiable; He could show up, as in the second coming. God cannot be measured by emprical methodology because God is a Spirit. This doesn't prove He doesn't exist. I notice you didn't answer my question, which is basic..you say you have an open mind, so I ask, if Jesus is God, would you turn your life over to Him and follow Him?

>> ^botono9

>> ^shinyblurry:

A mind created and designed it, therefore a mind is involved, therefore it is an invalid example..


So, by this argument, if we live in a deist universe, in which the universe was created but the creator pays it no mind, then abiogenesis and evolution by natural selection are completely plausible. That's an interesting position, it does not really help you here.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Abiogenesis is unproven because there is no evidence, it is just metaphysics. It's your faith that it is true. It is not the only coherent explanation, it is just the explanation that you have to believe because you have ruled out an intelligent designer apriori.

You seem to not understand the meaning of apriori. A few hundred years ago everybody in the western world, at least claimed to, believe the creation myth of genesis. We got to here from there, don't pretend your ideology has not had a chance, you were in charge of the game, we called your bluff, you just had nothing in your hand, you still don't.

Evolving molecules exist, they came into being at some point after it was possible for them to exist in this universe. The only non-magic hypotheses we have are based on a naturalistic model where these molecules are generated by a series of non-evolving processes. The gaps in the chemical record are very much like the gaps in the fossil record used to be, we have not filled them all, but neither have we found one that can not be crossed, and no reason to think they will not be filled.

>> ^shinyblurry:
Here is the hypothesis


The ID position is stated there in four parts, the last three follow from common decent, and the first one is either false, like all Behe's examples, or undemonstrated. It is mathematically possible that there is irreducible complexity somewhere, just as with faeries and unicorns, absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.

All the Discovery Institute links were painful in their fail. DI is a propaganda organization, only one of their links discusses any scientific discovery, and it actually makes no ID claims. The rest of the articles either make no claim, or have been shown to be false. If Well's article is going to be your flagship falsifiable ID position, fine, but you should probably know it's already been falsified here .

>> ^shinyblurry:

There is obviously a concrete difference since life doesn't come from non-life, and has never once been observed doing so. You have everything in the world to prove here.

This is your premise, and your conclusion, draw the line, and I will show you something on either side that confounds your "distinction". If you can't define the problem, I can't show it's flaws. Refusing to define your terms may get you by in theology, we are talking chemistry here, chemistry does not "work in mysterious ways".

>> ^shinyblurry:

if our mental processes are just chemical reactions, then there is no reason to believe anything is true. If our mental states have their origin in non-rational causes, rationality can't be trusted. You can't know if the rationality we have from evolutionary processes is discerning the truth of the world or not.

Ontology can't help you here, gods, since the can intervene, make it more difficult to make truth claims, not easier.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The reason it is labeled magic is because there is no proof.

There is no proof of anything. There is evidence of RNA/DNA metabolism, there is evidence of general chemical probability, there is no evidence for irreducible complexity, or anticipatory design in any non lab built genome. You can scream about nonexistent, and unneeded proof all day, science follows the evidence.

I have no interest in answering the personal questions of someone who strives to mock me at every turn.

>> ^hpqp:
I am certain your credentials are most impressive - you have an IQ of 149 after all (which makes creationism trump evolution, of course) - so why not answer my question? It's not like you'd be the only person with game industry history on the Sift. Are you afraid one of your ex-colleagues remembers you? ...or doesn't? Don't be shy, shiny!
>> ^shinyblurry:
My parents respect my choices, even if they don't necessarily agree with my beliefs. They're not anti-theist, as you are. As far the suggestion that I am lying, that would be convenient for your stereotyping, but I am telling the truth about it. I also did work for the video game industry, albiet I wasn't a designer, but my credentials would impress.
>> ^hpqp:
Somehow this sounds as believable as your epic fling in the videogame industry. Soooo... convenient. If it is true though, I truly pity your parents, they must feel they failed miserably.
>> ^shinyblurry:
My Dad is an atheist and my mom an agnostistic/near-theist..I was raised with no religion. Was an agnostic secular materialist by default. I received revelation of Gods existence a few years back. Although I am sad I was lied to all my life and believed the lies, I marvel at the fake world we live in, and am amazed more people don't see right through it..but then remember I used to be one of those people. Although I was never so arrogant as to rule out Gods existence, I have empathy for people who can't see it.

I am certain your credentials are most impressive - you have an IQ of 149 after all (which makes creationism trump evolution, of course) - so why not answer my question? It's not like you'd be the only person with game industry history on the Sift. Are you afraid one of your ex-colleagues remembers you? ...or doesn't? Don't be shy, shiny!

>> ^shinyblurry:

My parents respect my choices, even if they don't necessarily agree with my beliefs. They're not anti-theist, as you are. As far the suggestion that I am lying, that would be convenient for your stereotyping, but I am telling the truth about it. I also did work for the video game industry, albiet I wasn't a designer, but my credentials would impress.
>> ^hpqp:
Somehow this sounds as believable as your epic fling in the videogame industry. Soooo... convenient. If it is true though, I truly pity your parents, they must feel they failed miserably.
>> ^shinyblurry:
My Dad is an atheist and my mom an agnostistic/near-theist..I was raised with no religion. Was an agnostic secular materialist by default. I received revelation of Gods existence a few years back. Although I am sad I was lied to all my life and believed the lies, I marvel at the fake world we live in, and am amazed more people don't see right through it..but then remember I used to be one of those people. Although I was never so arrogant as to rule out Gods existence, I have empathy for people who can't see it.

>> ^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.

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:

>> ^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.

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

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

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

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.

>> ^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.