Total Posts:74|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution, the Anti-Science

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 9:59:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 9:48:17 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This video isn't terribly detailed but lays out a good basis for why common descent is not scientific.



Do you believe The Big Bang is scientific?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 10:09:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes and no. There are alot of arguments and pieces of evidence that I would agree are scientific, but ultimately there is no way to test it. We can't experiment with, and replicate these kinds of theories about origins so there really is no way to falsify such a theory. That which can be asserted theoretically, can be dismissed theoretically.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 10:11:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, the guy in the video is just stating things without any justification. The notion that there is just as much evidence for against the notion of a 13.7 billion year old earth than for it is laughable. If that's the case, then why virtually all cosmologists adhere to an old Earth, and not a young earth? It cannot be an Atheist conspiracy (which is the most moronic theory I have ever heard), because a huge chunk of these scientists are Christians themselves. Also, everything the guy said in the video that couldn't be falsified, can be falsified easily. This whole thing is just embarrassing. The Big Bang and Evolution have been tested time and time again, has been peer reviewed, and adheres to the scientific process. Either almost virtually all scientists are wrong, or some bible thumpers making you-tube videos who can't let go of stories from thousands of years ago are wrong. Mmm, real tough choice there....
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 10:14:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 10:09:44 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Yes and no. There are alot of arguments and pieces of evidence that I would agree are scientific, but ultimately there is no way to test it. We can't experiment with, and replicate these kinds of theories about origins so there really is no way to falsify such a theory. That which can be asserted theoretically, can be dismissed theoretically.

You can falsify The Big Bang lol Just show that the Red Shift doesn't really mean the universe is expanding, for one. The problem is The Big Bang made many predictions that turned out to be true, this is what a good scientific theory does. You really need to go back to the drawing board. Evolution can easily be disproved as well, if we found a fossil that was dated to a date it shouldn't be for that type of fossil, then this means creation could have merit, and Evolution would be destroyed. There are tons of ways you can falsify The Big Bang or Evolution, to say otherwise, is just a joke. These are strong scientific theories, whether you choose to admit it or not.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 10:18:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 10:11:01 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, the guy in the video is just stating things without any justification. The notion that there is just as much evidence for against the notion of a 13.7 billion year old earth than for it is laughable. If that's the case, then why virtually all cosmologists adhere to an old Earth, and not a young earth? It cannot be an Atheist conspiracy (which is the most moronic theory I have ever heard), because a huge chunk of these scientists are Christians themselves. Also, everything the guy said in the video that couldn't be falsified, can be falsified easily. This whole thing is just embarrassing. The Big Bang and Evolution have been tested time and time again, has been peer reviewed, and adheres to the scientific process. Either almost virtually all scientists are wrong, or some bible thumpers making you-tube videos who can't let go of stories from thousands of years ago are wrong. Mmm, real tough choice there....

The BB and evolution have been tested time and time again?? Please enlighten me with examples of one kind of animal descending from another kind, or another universe being created during an experiment.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 10:25:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 10:18:55 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:11:01 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, the guy in the video is just stating things without any justification. The notion that there is just as much evidence for against the notion of a 13.7 billion year old earth than for it is laughable. If that's the case, then why virtually all cosmologists adhere to an old Earth, and not a young earth? It cannot be an Atheist conspiracy (which is the most moronic theory I have ever heard), because a huge chunk of these scientists are Christians themselves. Also, everything the guy said in the video that couldn't be falsified, can be falsified easily. This whole thing is just embarrassing. The Big Bang and Evolution have been tested time and time again, has been peer reviewed, and adheres to the scientific process. Either almost virtually all scientists are wrong, or some bible thumpers making you-tube videos who can't let go of stories from thousands of years ago are wrong. Mmm, real tough choice there....

The BB and evolution have been tested time and time again?? Please enlighten me with examples of one kind of animal descending from another kind, or another universe being created during an experiment.

Testing isn't necessarily the same thing as recreation.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 10:27:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 10:18:55 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:11:01 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, the guy in the video is just stating things without any justification. The notion that there is just as much evidence for against the notion of a 13.7 billion year old earth than for it is laughable. If that's the case, then why virtually all cosmologists adhere to an old Earth, and not a young earth? It cannot be an Atheist conspiracy (which is the most moronic theory I have ever heard), because a huge chunk of these scientists are Christians themselves. Also, everything the guy said in the video that couldn't be falsified, can be falsified easily. This whole thing is just embarrassing. The Big Bang and Evolution have been tested time and time again, has been peer reviewed, and adheres to the scientific process. Either almost virtually all scientists are wrong, or some bible thumpers making you-tube videos who can't let go of stories from thousands of years ago are wrong. Mmm, real tough choice there....

The BB and evolution have been tested time and time again?? Please enlighten me with examples of one kind of animal descending from another kind, or another universe being created during an experiment.

For example:

Tests of Big Bang Cosmology

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 10:29:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Since testing isn't necessarily the same thing as recreation, and both the Big Bang and Evolution could be easily falsified, the video here is basically worthless intellectually.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 10:30:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 10:14:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:09:44 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Yes and no. There are alot of arguments and pieces of evidence that I would agree are scientific, but ultimately there is no way to test it. We can't experiment with, and replicate these kinds of theories about origins so there really is no way to falsify such a theory. That which can be asserted theoretically, can be dismissed theoretically.

You can falsify The Big Bang lol Just show that the Red Shift doesn't really mean the universe is expanding, for one. The problem is The Big Bang made many predictions that turned out to be true, this is what a good scientific theory does. You really need to go back to the drawing board.

I'll give you the BB, for the sake of argument, but I'll only concede that it is possible, not a proven fact.

Evolution can easily be disproved as well, if we found a fossil that was dated to a date it shouldn't be for that type of fossil, then this means creation could have merit, and Evolution would be destroyed. There are tons of ways you can falsify The Big Bang or Evolution, to say otherwise, is just a joke. These are strong scientific theories, whether you choose to admit it or not.

Evolutionary common descent is falsified every single day of the year, by observational evidence. It has never even been proven possible to begin with, so to call it strong science is just wishful thinking.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 10:48:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 10:30:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:14:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:09:44 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Yes and no. There are alot of arguments and pieces of evidence that I would agree are scientific, but ultimately there is no way to test it. We can't experiment with, and replicate these kinds of theories about origins so there really is no way to falsify such a theory. That which can be asserted theoretically, can be dismissed theoretically.

You can falsify The Big Bang lol Just show that the Red Shift doesn't really mean the universe is expanding, for one. The problem is The Big Bang made many predictions that turned out to be true, this is what a good scientific theory does. You really need to go back to the drawing board.

I'll give you the BB, for the sake of argument, but I'll only concede that it is possible, not a proven fact.

The Big Bang is falsifiable. There are plenty of things one could find which could put The Big Bang in question. The problem is, everything we find seems to line up with it perfectly.


Evolution can easily be disproved as well, if we found a fossil that was dated to a date it shouldn't be for that type of fossil, then this means creation could have merit, and Evolution would be destroyed. There are tons of ways you can falsify The Big Bang or Evolution, to say otherwise, is just a joke. These are strong scientific theories, whether you choose to admit it or not.

Evolutionary common descent is falsified every single day of the year, by observational evidence.

Interesting, because over 98% of the scientific community would disagree with you (many of whom are Christians). Do you have anything to support this wild claim of yours?

It has never even been proven possible to begin with, so to call it strong science is just wishful thinking.

Well, considering you are the one going against scientific consensus for no good reason, other than it conflicts your view of The Bible, I think it's safe to say that the only one delving into wishful thinking here is you.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 10:50:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 10:30:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:14:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:09:44 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Yes and no. There are alot of arguments and pieces of evidence that I would agree are scientific, but ultimately there is no way to test it. We can't experiment with, and replicate these kinds of theories about origins so there really is no way to falsify such a theory. That which can be asserted theoretically, can be dismissed theoretically.

You can falsify The Big Bang lol Just show that the Red Shift doesn't really mean the universe is expanding, for one. The problem is The Big Bang made many predictions that turned out to be true, this is what a good scientific theory does. You really need to go back to the drawing board.

I'll give you the BB, for the sake of argument, but I'll only concede that it is possible, not a proven fact.

Evolution can easily be disproved as well, if we found a fossil that was dated to a date it shouldn't be for that type of fossil, then this means creation could have merit, and Evolution would be destroyed. There are tons of ways you can falsify The Big Bang or Evolution, to say otherwise, is just a joke. These are strong scientific theories, whether you choose to admit it or not.

Evolutionary common descent is falsified every single day of the year, by observational evidence. It has never even been proven possible to begin with, so to call it strong science is just wishful thinking.

Also it's funny, first you say that theories like Evolution cannot be falsified, and then you say it is falsified everyday. Nice one there....
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 11:54:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 9:48:17 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This video isn't terribly detailed but lays out a good basis for why common descent is not scientific.



That video is nonsense, it starts with the notion of a missing link, which is pure nonsense. The fossil record clearly demonstrates a developmental sequence that supports the TOE, the concept of a "missing link" is manufactured.

The rest is mostly baseless assertions and unscientific conjecture, it's true we have never been able to observe macroevolution, but of course that is impossible in principal. If you were to apply the same logic and tests to the Bible or belief in God you'd make the same case that they are just as unsupported.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 1:39:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 10:48:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:30:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:14:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:09:44 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Yes and no. There are alot of arguments and pieces of evidence that I would agree are scientific, but ultimately there is no way to test it. We can't experiment with, and replicate these kinds of theories about origins so there really is no way to falsify such a theory. That which can be asserted theoretically, can be dismissed theoretically.

You can falsify The Big Bang lol Just show that the Red Shift doesn't really mean the universe is expanding, for one. The problem is The Big Bang made many predictions that turned out to be true, this is what a good scientific theory does. You really need to go back to the drawing board.

I'll give you the BB, for the sake of argument, but I'll only concede that it is possible, not a proven fact.

The Big Bang is falsifiable. There are plenty of things one could find which could put The Big Bang in question. The problem is, everything we find seems to line up with it perfectly.


Evolution can easily be disproved as well, if we found a fossil that was dated to a date it shouldn't be for that type of fossil, then this means creation could have merit, and Evolution would be destroyed. There are tons of ways you can falsify The Big Bang or Evolution, to say otherwise, is just a joke. These are strong scientific theories, whether you choose to admit it or not.

Evolutionary common descent is falsified every single day of the year, by observational evidence.

Interesting, because over 98% of the scientific community would disagree with you (many of whom are Christians). Do you have anything to support this wild claim of yours?

It has never even been proven possible to begin with, so to call it strong science is just wishful thinking.

Well, considering you are the one going against scientific consensus for no good reason, other than it conflicts your view of The Bible, I think it's safe to say that the only one delving into wishful thinking here is you.

This argument from majority opinion is convincing to you, in spite of what can be observed in the natural world??

We have several thousand years of observing that life only comes from life, and that kinds only bring forth after their own kind.

You have 0 examples of observed cases of anything refuting those processes. Don't tell me that your view is backed by science, that's a lie, plain and simple. It's backed by nothing more than speculation, until you can show that there is an evolutionary process that actually works to produce the effects you claim. I don't care how many "scientists" want to argue it, they have nothing that disproves what we see in the real world. They're the ones that are arguing against scientific observation, not me.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 1:48:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 11:54:13 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/4/2013 9:48:17 AM, medic0506 wrote:
This video isn't terribly detailed but lays out a good basis for why common descent is not scientific.



That video is nonsense, it starts with the notion of a missing link, which is pure nonsense. The fossil record clearly demonstrates a developmental sequence that supports the TOE, the concept of a "missing link" is manufactured.

The rest is mostly baseless assertions and unscientific conjecture, it's true we have never been able to observe macroevolution, but of course that is impossible in principal. If you were to apply the same logic and tests to the Bible or belief in God you'd make the same case that they are just as unsupported.

The fossil record disputes evolution. Sudden appearance of fully formed organisms with no evolutionary history, and stasis, is the opposite of what evolution would predict. Those 2 realities found in the fossil record is what prompted Gould and Eldridge to propose the puncuated equilibrium hypothesis, to explain the problem that evolutionists have with the fossil record.

Lining up bones found in the dirt and saying, "This one descended from that one", is pointless unless you can show a mechanism or process that allows for that to happen. You're welcome to believe that if you want, but don't try to convince me that it's a scientific position because it isn't. It's merely conjecture.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 2:09:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't know how many threads you've posted just because you happened to find a video that attempts to detract from evolution. Give it up, for God's sake.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 2:17:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 2:09:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't know how many threads you've posted just because you happened to find a video that attempts to detract from evolution. Give it up, for God's sake.

Ok, then you need to stop posting on DDO about subjects that you're interested in, too. I don't recall a single thread forcing someone to post who isn't also interested. If you're not interested in discussing the subject matter of someone's thread, then just don't click on it, it's a simple fix so bug off.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 2:29:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 2:09:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't know how many threads you've posted just because you happened to find a video that attempts to detract from evolution. Give it up, for God's sake.

"Give it up, for God's sake."

Nice touch, lol.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 3:02:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 1:39:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:48:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:30:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:14:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:09:44 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Yes and no. There are alot of arguments and pieces of evidence that I would agree are scientific, but ultimately there is no way to test it. We can't experiment with, and replicate these kinds of theories about origins so there really is no way to falsify such a theory. That which can be asserted theoretically, can be dismissed theoretically.

You can falsify The Big Bang lol Just show that the Red Shift doesn't really mean the universe is expanding, for one. The problem is The Big Bang made many predictions that turned out to be true, this is what a good scientific theory does. You really need to go back to the drawing board.

I'll give you the BB, for the sake of argument, but I'll only concede that it is possible, not a proven fact.

The Big Bang is falsifiable. There are plenty of things one could find which could put The Big Bang in question. The problem is, everything we find seems to line up with it perfectly.


Evolution can easily be disproved as well, if we found a fossil that was dated to a date it shouldn't be for that type of fossil, then this means creation could have merit, and Evolution would be destroyed. There are tons of ways you can falsify The Big Bang or Evolution, to say otherwise, is just a joke. These are strong scientific theories, whether you choose to admit it or not.

Evolutionary common descent is falsified every single day of the year, by observational evidence.

Interesting, because over 98% of the scientific community would disagree with you (many of whom are Christians). Do you have anything to support this wild claim of yours?

It has never even been proven possible to begin with, so to call it strong science is just wishful thinking.

Well, considering you are the one going against scientific consensus for no good reason, other than it conflicts your view of The Bible, I think it's safe to say that the only one delving into wishful thinking here is you.

This argument from majority opinion is convincing to you, in spite of what can be observed in the natural world??

What do you mean in spite? What can be viewed in the actual world, supports evolution. This is why most scientists adhere to it. If what we viewed didn't support evolution, then scientists would not adhere to it now would they?


We have several thousand years of observing that life only comes from life, and that kinds only bring forth after their own kind.

Not true. It's been show in labs that viruses change drastically into different kinds of viruses. This is why vaccines always have to change. Also, a human life only lasts around 80 years. To expect a human, who only lives 80 years, to observe something with his own eyes that takes millions of years, is silly. If creation is true, then human fossils should be traced as far back as the first animals. However, this is not what we find. The farther down the line we go, the more the skeletons resembles that of an ape. Look at Lucy, and look at other fossils, and you will see. This means that creation is false, because if it was true, we would find human fossils dated back to the first fossils we find. This is not the case, all signs point to creation being bogus.


You have 0 examples of observed cases of anything refuting those processes. Don't tell me that your view is backed by science, that's a lie, plain and simple.

No, it's not a lie. This is just something you tell yourself to make yourself feel better about holding a false belief.

It's backed by nothing more than speculation, until you can show that there is an evolutionary process that actually works to produce the effects you claim. I don't care how many "scientists" want to argue it, they have nothing that disproves what we see in the real world. They're the ones that are arguing against scientific observation, not me.

You are truly a piece of work. DNA + Fossils = Hard evidence for Evolution, and disproves creation. It's like you are expecting a dog to give birth to a bird or something. This means, you don't even understand what Evolution actually is.

Red Shift + Cosmic Microwave Background are best explained by The Big Bang theory. DNA + Fossils found, are best explained by the theory of Evolution. You can scream "it's a lie!!" all you want, it isn't going to change the fact that these theories are completely scientific.

Evolution best explains all evidence, and creation is the least likely explanation for what we see in the natural world.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 12:16:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/5/2013 10:45:21 AM, popculturepooka wrote:


Ya, I don't know why some Christians fight evolution so much. Ken Miller is a theist, and has no problem accepting the truth of evolution.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 12:43:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/5/2013 12:16:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/5/2013 10:45:21 AM, popculturepooka wrote:


Ya, I don't know why some Christians fight evolution so much. Ken Miller is a theist, and has no problem accepting the truth of evolution.

Medic even concedes that an entirely literal interpretation of Genesis is impossible, yet he disbelieves evolution because it isn't compatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 12:57:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/5/2013 12:43:43 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/5/2013 12:16:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/5/2013 10:45:21 AM, popculturepooka wrote:


Ya, I don't know why some Christians fight evolution so much. Ken Miller is a theist, and has no problem accepting the truth of evolution.

Medic even concedes that an entirely literal interpretation of Genesis is impossible, yet he disbelieves evolution because it isn't compatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

He also says he disbelieves it because it's not scientific. Basically, him advocating a video that says The Big Bang and Evolution are not scientific, proves that he doesn't even understand what science is. He thought that because we cannot recreate The Big Bang, or humans evolving from a common ancestor, that therefore, The Big Bang and Evolution cannot be tested. It's outrageous and embarrassing for him...These two theories are some of the most heavily tested scientific theories there are lol
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 1:23:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/5/2013 12:43:43 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/5/2013 12:16:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/5/2013 10:45:21 AM, popculturepooka wrote:


Ya, I don't know why some Christians fight evolution so much. Ken Miller is a theist, and has no problem accepting the truth of evolution.

Medic even concedes that an entirely literal interpretation of Genesis is impossible, yet he disbelieves evolution because it isn't compatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

lol
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 2:38:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How can one even trust a guy who thinks the scientific process has to be completed in 1 day in order for something to be "scientific"? It is like he is trying to substitute the word "scientific" for the word "fact".

It all seems very shady and propoganda-ish to even go at it that way.

Not to mention he makes a distinction between living and non-living matter. All matter is non-living. Collections of non-living matter that are organized and have dynamic repeatable functions such as metabolism is what life is.

The question at hand is how did "dead" stuff get organized in a fashion to sustain such dynamic processes (become living functions). He can't even present the discussion on the heart of the matter and instead relies on Red Herring arguments.

Not that I always argue things in a proper technical fashion, but this guy clearly has an agenda and nothing is going to stop him from getting to his end play. Especially not common sense.

I mean really.......If humanity has only been on the earth for 10,000 years and documentation standards really only the last 4,000 how could we observe and document a "thing" changing into another "thing"?
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 8:47:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Other hard-hitting cogent analysis pieces by this YouTube user include:

OBAMA TELLS AMERICA - "Serve Satan!" - This will floor you!
BREAKING NEWS! - Is Barack Obama Really A Saudi / Muslim "Plant" in the White House?
and
The Evidence Is In! America Is Under Foreign Control! Evidence, Analysis and a Challenge!
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 9:58:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 3:02:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 1:39:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:48:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:30:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:14:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:09:44 AM, medic0506 wrote:
Yes and no. There are alot of arguments and pieces of evidence that I would agree are scientific, but ultimately there is no way to test it. We can't experiment with, and replicate these kinds of theories about origins so there really is no way to falsify such a theory. That which can be asserted theoretically, can be dismissed theoretically.

You can falsify The Big Bang lol Just show that the Red Shift doesn't really mean the universe is expanding, for one. The problem is The Big Bang made many predictions that turned out to be true, this is what a good scientific theory does. You really need to go back to the drawing board.

I'll give you the BB, for the sake of argument, but I'll only concede that it is possible, not a proven fact.

The Big Bang is falsifiable. There are plenty of things one could find which could put The Big Bang in question. The problem is, everything we find seems to line up with it perfectly.


Evolution can easily be disproved as well, if we found a fossil that was dated to a date it shouldn't be for that type of fossil, then this means creation could have merit, and Evolution would be destroyed. There are tons of ways you can falsify The Big Bang or Evolution, to say otherwise, is just a joke. These are strong scientific theories, whether you choose to admit it or not.

Evolutionary common descent is falsified every single day of the year, by observational evidence.

Interesting, because over 98% of the scientific community would disagree with you (many of whom are Christians). Do you have anything to support this wild claim of yours?

It has never even been proven possible to begin with, so to call it strong science is just wishful thinking.

Well, considering you are the one going against scientific consensus for no good reason, other than it conflicts your view of The Bible, I think it's safe to say that the only one delving into wishful thinking here is you.

This argument from majority opinion is convincing to you, in spite of what can be observed in the natural world??

What do you mean in spite? What can be viewed in the actual world, supports evolution. This is why most scientists adhere to it. If what we viewed didn't support evolution, then scientists would not adhere to it now would they?

This is an assertation in return to an assertation. Doesn't seem to be much point.


We have several thousand years of observing that life only comes from life, and that kinds only bring forth after their own kind.

Not true. It's been show in labs that viruses change drastically into different kinds of viruses. This is why vaccines always have to change. Also, a human life only lasts around 80 years. To expect a human, who only lives 80 years, to observe something with his own eyes that takes millions of years, is silly. If creation is true, then human fossils should be traced as far back as the first animals. However, this is not what we find. The farther down the line we go, the more the skeletons resembles that of an ape. Look at Lucy, and look at other fossils, and you will see. This means that creation is false, because if it was true, we would find human fossils dated back to the first fossils we find. This is not the case, all signs point to creation being bogus.

Lab Vaccines: Yes, the population changes. However, this is just natural selection. No new information has been added. One bacteria was resistent to the antibiotics, so that was the one that survived to reproduce, and a whole new population resistant to the antibiotics is created.

Non witnessing of evolution: True. However, scientists have attempted to simulate evolution by using bacteria and fruitflys that reproduce and die extremely quickly. Millions of 'bacteria years' passed, with no significant change. The bacteria remained bacteria.

Lack of human fossils with animal fossils: An extremely insightful hypothesis has been created for this problem. In Noah's flood, the intelligent animals would've been the last to die, as they would be smart enough to run for higher ground. Humans would've been last of all, as they could have held on to driftwood or made rafts till the end. This would create an appearance of a gradual increase in intelligence.

You have 0 examples of observed cases of anything refuting those processes. Don't tell me that your view is backed by science, that's a lie, plain and simple.

No, it's not a lie. This is just something you tell yourself to make yourself feel better about holding a false belief.


It's backed by nothing more than speculation, until you can show that there is an evolutionary process that actually works to produce the effects you claim. I don't care how many "scientists" want to argue it, they have nothing that disproves what we see in the real world. They're the ones that are arguing against scientific observation, not me.

You are truly a piece of work. DNA + Fossils = Hard evidence for Evolution, and disproves creation. It's like you are expecting a dog to give birth to a bird or something. This means, you don't even understand what Evolution actually is.

Fossils, please? The lack of missing links is probably the second biggest evidence against evolution. There ought to be millions, yet all we have are a couple of hundred of disputable examples.

How is DNA evidence for evolution again?

Red Shift + Cosmic Microwave Background are best explained by The Big Bang theory. DNA + Fossils found, are best explained by the theory of Evolution. You can scream "it's a lie!!" all you want, it isn't going to change the fact that these theories are completely scientific.

Can't say I know much about the big bang, sorry.


Evolution best explains all evidence, and creation is the least likely explanation for what we see in the natural world.

Have you ever considered you might be a little biased?
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2013 10:28:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/5/2013 9:58:32 PM, errya wrote:
At 4/4/2013 3:02:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 1:39:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:48:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:30:49 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:14:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 10:09:44 AM, medic0506 wrote:


You can falsify The Big Bang lol Just show that the Red Shift doesn't really mean the universe is expanding, for one. The problem is The Big Bang made many predictions that turned out to be true, this is what a good scientific theory does. You really need to go back to the drawing board.

I'll give you the BB, for the sake of argument, but I'll only concede that it is possible, not a proven fact.

The Big Bang is falsifiable. There are plenty of things one could find which could put The Big Bang in question. The problem is, everything we find seems to line up with it perfectly.


Evolution can easily be disproved as well, if we found a fossil that was dated to a date it shouldn't be for that type of fossil, then this means creation could have merit, and Evolution would be destroyed. There are tons of ways you can falsify The Big Bang or Evolution, to say otherwise, is just a joke. These are strong scientific theories, whether you choose to admit it or not.

Evolutionary common descent is falsified every single day of the year, by observational evidence.

Interesting, because over 98% of the scientific community would disagree with you (many of whom are Christians). Do you have anything to support this wild claim of yours?

It has never even been proven possible to begin with, so to call it strong science is just wishful thinking.

Well, considering you are the one going against scientific consensus for no good reason, other than it conflicts your view of The Bible, I think it's safe to say that the only one delving into wishful thinking here is you.

This argument from majority opinion is convincing to you, in spite of what can be observed in the natural world??

What do you mean in spite? What can be viewed in the actual world, supports evolution. This is why most scientists adhere to it. If what we viewed didn't support evolution, then scientists would not adhere to it now would they?

This is an assertation in return to an assertation. Doesn't seem to be much point.

This observation of yours doesn't seem to be much of a point either.



We have several thousand years of observing that life only comes from life, and that kinds only bring forth after their own kind.

Not true. It's been show in labs that viruses change drastically into different kinds of viruses. This is why vaccines always have to change. Also, a human life only lasts around 80 years. To expect a human, who only lives 80 years, to observe something with his own eyes that takes millions of years, is silly. If creation is true, then human fossils should be traced as far back as the first animals. However, this is not what we find. The farther down the line we go, the more the skeletons resembles that of an ape. Look at Lucy, and look at other fossils, and you will see. This means that creation is false, because if it was true, we would find human fossils dated back to the first fossils we find. This is not the case, all signs point to creation being bogus.

Lab Vaccines: Yes, the population changes. However, this is just natural selection. No new information has been added. One bacteria was resistent to the antibiotics, so that was the one that survived to reproduce, and a whole new population resistant to the antibiotics is created.

Non witnessing of evolution: True. However, scientists have attempted to simulate evolution by using bacteria and fruitflys that reproduce and die extremely quickly. Millions of 'bacteria years' passed, with no significant change. The bacteria remained bacteria.

What makes you think this drastic change can be measured in bacteria years? Also, would you care to cite this study?


Lack of human fossils with animal fossils: An extremely insightful hypothesis has been created for this problem. In Noah's flood, the intelligent animals would've been the last to die, as they would be smart enough to run for higher ground. Humans would've been last of all, as they could have held on to driftwood or made rafts till the end. This would create an appearance of a gradual increase in intelligence.

We should still find their fossils. The fact that the farther back you go, the more ape like the fossils get, and the fact that there are some fossils which scientists can't tell if it's ape or human, is strong evidence for evolution. Even if the intelligent animals would have been the last to die, we should have still found their fossils with regards to certain time periods, and we don't.


You have 0 examples of observed cases of anything refuting those processes. Don't tell me that your view is backed by science, that's a lie, plain and simple.

No, it's not a lie. This is just something you tell yourself to make yourself feel better about holding a false belief.


It's backed by nothing more than speculation, until you can show that there is an evolutionary process that actually works to produce the effects you claim. I don't care how many "scientists" want to argue it, they have nothing that disproves what we see in the real world. They're the ones that are arguing against scientific observation, not me.

You are truly a piece of work. DNA + Fossils = Hard evidence for Evolution, and disproves creation. It's like you are expecting a dog to give birth to a bird or something. This means, you don't even understand what Evolution actually is.

Fossils, please? The lack of missing links is probably the second biggest evidence against evolution.

There is no lack of missing links. This is just a creationist myth, enough of the pieces are there, and the paint a clear picture of common ancestry.

There ought to be millions, yet all we have are a couple of hundred of disputable examples.

Where are you getting that figure from? Also, the fossils in general are not really disputed in the scientific community, considering the overwhelming consensus in favor of evolution. The idea that there is some scientific conflict is an illusion put forth by people with religious agendas, in reality, the scientific consensus is that common ancestry is as close to a fact as you can get.

How is DNA evidence for evolution again?

The genetic sequencing shows this. Regardless, it was predicted that if common ancestry was true, we should find two chromosomes fused together. As Ken Miller explains in the video a few posts up, if we didn't find it, common ancestry is false. They found it, it's chromosome 2.


Red Shift + Cosmic Microwave Background are best explained by The Big Bang theory. DNA + Fossils found, are best explained by the theory of Evolution. You can scream "it's a lie!!" all you want, it isn't going to change the fact that these theories are completely scientific.

Can't say I know much about the big bang, sorry.


Evolution best explains all evidence, and creation is the least likely explanation for what we see in the natural world.

Have you ever considered you might be a little biased?

What reason would I have to be biased? You are Christian, so the only one with a reason to be biased with regards to their position here is you.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 9:53:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/4/2013 3:02:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 1:39:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:

This argument from majority opinion is convincing to you, in spite of what can be observed in the natural world??

What do you mean in spite? What can be viewed in the actual world, supports evolution. This is why most scientists adhere to it. If what we viewed didn't support evolution, then scientists would not adhere to it now would they?

What we observe in the natural world is that only life can produce life, and kinds bring forth after their kind, exactly as the Bible says.

We have several thousand years of observing that life only comes from life, and that kinds only bring forth after their own kind.

Not true. It's been show in labs that viruses change drastically into different kinds of viruses. This is why vaccines always have to change.

lmbo....A virus "changed drastically" into...a virus?!?! Say what??

Sorry but using that as evidence for common decent isn't even...rational, Rational. That means that the virus is losing information, and becoming more specialized. That is a detriment to an organism's flexibility, and the virus is still a virus.

Also, a human life only lasts around 80 years. To expect a human, who only lives 80 years, to observe something with his own eyes that takes millions of years, is silly.

I would agree if only one human didn't see it within their lifetime, but after thousands of years of human life, no human has ever witnessed anything other than what the Bible tells us. Until it's shown that your process actually works, you're simply asserting a historical hypothesis as a fact, when it isn't factual.

If creation is true, then human fossils should be traced as far back as the first animals. However, this is not what we find.

There is evidence of humans and dinosaurs living together but evolutionists just dismiss it out of hand, because it doesn't line up with their imaginary time line.

The farther down the line we go, the more the skeletons resembles that of an ape. Look at Lucy, and look at other fossils, and you will see.

Lucy was a primate who spent much of her time in the trees. Almost the entire case for her being a human ancestor is built on the assertion that she walked upright sometimes. So what if she walked upright at times. I've seen dogs, cats, and lizards walk on two legs before. Does that mean they are evolving to become bipedal and therefore are all human ancestors?? No, that's retarded.

This means that creation is false, because if it was true, we would find human fossils dated back to the first fossils we find. This is not the case, all signs point to creation being bogus.

An honest scientist would tell you that the fossil record doesn't support evolution, it supports creation, it spite of all the foot stomping and claims by desperate evolutionists. Sudden appearance of fully formed individuals in each phyla, and stasis in the fossil record doesn't support evolution. Sorry.

You have 0 examples of observed cases of anything refuting those processes. Don't tell me that your view is backed by science, that's a lie, plain and simple.

No, it's not a lie. This is just something you tell yourself to make yourself feel better about holding a false belief.

If you say that something is observed, that doesn't support the creation view, and know what you're talking about then you're telling a lie. If you don't know what you're talking about, then you're just being gullible and repeating a lie that someone else has convinced you of.

It's backed by nothing more than speculation, until you can show that there is an evolutionary process that actually works to produce the effects you claim. I don't care how many "scientists" want to argue it, they have nothing that disproves what we see in the real world. They're the ones that are arguing against scientific observation, not me.

You are truly a piece of work. DNA + Fossils = Hard evidence for Evolution, and disproves creation. It's like you are expecting a dog to give birth to a bird or something. This means, you don't even understand what Evolution actually is.

I often wonder if people like you even know what evolutionary common descent requires. I don't think you guys have thought this process through very much. If you have and you've actually looked into the evidence, and still stand by the claim that we evolved from a microbe, then I put you in the same class of nutcase that you put creationists in.

Red Shift + Cosmic Microwave Background are best explained by The Big Bang theory. DNA + Fossils found, are best explained by the theory of Evolution. You can scream "it's a lie!!" all you want, it isn't going to change the fact that these theories are completely scientific.

Evolution best explains all evidence, and creation is the least likely explanation for what we see in the natural world.

You can keep stamping your feet and screaming that evolution explains the evidence, but anybody with common sense can see that you don't even have a workable process that you can show as an example, and have 0 observable evidence. All observable evidence supports what the Bible says, and the process has never been shown to produce anything other than what the Bible says. So don't tell me that evolutionary common descent is science, go sell that to someone who is gullible enough to believe it.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 10:16:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 9:53:27 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 3:02:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/4/2013 1:39:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:

This argument from majority opinion is convincing to you, in spite of what can be observed in the natural world??



What we observe in the natural world is that only life can produce life, and kinds bring forth after their kind, exactly as the Bible says.

False. We observe evidence that indicates humans evolved from a common ancestor we share with the apes.


We have several thousand years of observing that life only comes from life, and that kinds only bring forth after their own kind.

Not true. It's been show in labs that viruses change drastically into different kinds of viruses. This is why vaccines always have to change.

lmbo....A virus "changed drastically" into...a virus?!?! Say what??

A different form of virus.


Sorry but using that as evidence for common decent isn't even...rational, Rational. That means that the virus is losing information, and becoming more specialized. That is a detriment to an organism's flexibility, and the virus is still a virus.

That is like saying that a mammal is still a mammal. No. There are different species of mammals, like there are different species of virus.


Also, a human life only lasts around 80 years. To expect a human, who only lives 80 years, to observe something with his own eyes that takes millions of years, is silly.

I would agree if only one human didn't see it within their lifetime, but after thousands of years of human life, no human has ever witnessed anything other than what the Bible tells us.

Lol You expect to see that happen in only a thousand years? It took billions of years of evolution to get humans, get real.

Until it's shown that your process actually works, you're simply asserting a historical hypothesis as a fact, when it isn't factual.

Of course it's factual. Evolution isn't a hypothesis either, it's one of the most tested scientific theories we have. The fact that you think testing necessitates recreation, shows you have not done any research on science and testing.


If creation is true, then human fossils should be traced as far back as the first animals. However, this is not what we find.

There is evidence of humans and dinosaurs living together but evolutionists just dismiss it out of hand, because it doesn't line up with their imaginary time line.

The farther down the line we go, the more the skeletons resembles that of an ape. Look at Lucy, and look at other fossils, and you will see.

Lucy was a primate who spent much of her time in the trees. Almost the entire case for her being a human ancestor is built on the assertion that she walked upright sometimes. So what if she walked upright at times. I've seen dogs, cats, and lizards walk on two legs before. Does that mean they are evolving to become bipedal and therefore are all human ancestors?? No, that's retarded.

Ok, this shows you have not done your research. Lucy stood upright normally, and not only that, she showed way more human like signs than here ancestors. If you are comparing Lucy's walking upright, to how my dog walks upright sometimes, then you are right, that is retarded. I'm actually unsure if you even know what evolution is...


This means that creation is false, because if it was true, we would find human fossils dated back to the first fossils we find. This is not the case, all signs point to creation being bogus.

An honest scientist would tell you that the fossil record doesn't support evolution, it supports creation,

So either some poster on a debate website right, or 98% of the scientific community is dishonest. Which seems more likely? Also, the dating of the Earth and Universe, and the fossil records disprove creation. It's literally, impossible to believe in in spit of all the evidence.

it spite of all the foot stomping and claims by desperate evolutionists. Sudden appearance of fully formed individuals in each phyla, and stasis in the fossil record doesn't support evolution. Sorry.

Why is that not consistent with evolution? It seems that your stance lacks reason, sorry.


You have 0 examples of observed cases of anything refuting those processes. Don't tell me that your view is backed by science, that's a lie, plain and simple.

No, it's not a lie. This is just something you tell yourself to make yourself feel better about holding a false belief.

If you say that something is observed, that doesn't support the creation view, and know what you're talking about then you're telling a lie. If you don't know what you're talking about, then you're just being gullible and repeating a lie that someone else has convinced you of.

Dude, give it up. Creationism is dead. When the scientific community accepts creationism, then call me. Instead, I'll listen to the real scientists with degrees, and not your views are not based on science, but on Bible thumping. If creation is true, we should find human fossils dating back to the first animal ones. We do not, we see as time goes on, the fossils becoming more human like. This could only be true, if evolution is true and creation is false. Thus, creation is false.


It's backed by nothing more than speculation, until you can show that there is an evolutionary process that actually works to produce the effects you claim. I don't care how many "scientists" want to argue it, they have nothing that disproves what we see in the real world. They're the ones that are arguing against scientific observation, not me.

You are truly a piece of work. DNA + Fossils = Hard evidence for Evolution, and disproves creation. It's like you are expecting a dog to give birth to a bird or something. This means, you don't even understand what Evolution actually is.

I often wonder if people like you even know what evolutionary common descent requires. I don't think you guys have thought this process through very much. If you have and you've actually looked into the evidence, and still stand by the claim that we evolved from a microbe, then I put you in the same class of nutcase that you put creationists in.

I'm sorry, but if you think you are right when the scientific community is wrong, and you have no degree, the only nutcase is you lol If evolution is wrong, go publish a paper, get it peer-reviewed independently, then evolution is dead. It hasn't happened yet, why? Because it can't, evolution is true whether you chose to admit it or not.


Red Shift + Cosmic Microwave Background are best explained by The Big Bang theory. DNA + Fossils found, are best explained by the theory of Evolution. You can scream "it's a lie!!" all you want, it isn't going to change the fact that these theories are completely scientific.

Evolution best explains all evidence, and creation is the least likely explanation for what we see in the natural world.

You can keep stamping your feet and screaming that evolution explains the evidence, but anybody with common sense can see that you don't even have a workable process that you can show as an example, and have 0 observable evidence.

You are right, I mean, you must have so much common sense. The 98% + of scientists who confirm evolution must just be retards. Come on dude, if you had common sense, you would know you are wrong.

All observable evidence supports what the Bible says,

False. Science has disproved creation.

and the process has never been shown to produce anything other than what the Bible says.

If what the Bible says is true, we should find human fossils dating as far back as the first animal fossils we find. We don't, thus, creation is false.