Let's see if any of the "geniuses" here can answer what this video asks. Good luck
This will be FUN!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiJdfCiWo4I
Oh, and unlike my previous threads, this video has 0 to do with religion
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Plz list main points, not having some creationism bunk in my search history.
I hear this bullshit propaganda all the time! If we took it seriously, we would have to conclude that Sherlock Holmes could never solve a single case since he wasn't there to observe the crime taking place! Clearly, that is a grossly unreasonable conclusion, meaning that the idea of having to be there is a grossly unreasonable requirement.
Good, inductive reasoning (about the nature of our physical world) creates models to explain the evidence, and if a model has no serious competition, if it explains the evidence extremely well, and if that model leads to significant new predictions that are verified, then we accept it as the explanation. But we don't write that conclusion in stone. We are always open to new, significant evidence. This is basically how science operates, and note how successful science has been!
The claim that we have to be there to know the truth of an historical event is simply dishonest. All we need is sufficient evidence. Some people seem willfully ignorant of that fact! Were you there when the Government of the United States of America was formed? No sane person doubts the basic account because we have sufficient evidence. Was anyone there when the Himalaya Mountains began to form? Yet, geologists have a clear answer because the evidence is there. Was anyone there when a well-known layer of sandstone was formed? Yet, geologists can tell you a lot about how it happened because the evidence is there. Was anyone there when the elements of carbon and oxygen first appeared in our universe? Yet, astronomers and physicists can answer that question with confidence because enough evidence is there!
As for evolution, one can find an unusual amount of evidence that makes it abundantly clear, at least to rational minds with a scientific education, that life has evolved. Please see my thread "The Case for Macroevolution" which hasn't yet been buried too deeply. In the light of all that evidence one would have to conclude that the makers of that YouTube are either totally cut off from reality or are dishonest. Take your pick.
[Added on] I would like to add that whoever did that YouTube was performing a disgustingly dishonest piece of not-so-subtle propaganda! It might fool a scientific ignoramus who is into evolution denial. People were probably conned into participating and then slammed with leading questions, no time for serious reflection, continual interference to push the propaganda points, all delivered by an "interviewer" who was well versed in slick replies designed to make those who accepted evolution look stupid. And, of course, anyone who actually stood their ground would have been edited out. Only the responses that make evolution look bad would have been retained in the final edit. Of that you can be sure.
I'd love to have that moron, that disgusting mouth-piece for propaganda, appear on this forum and reply to my thread "The Case for Macroevolution." Of course he's not going to show. He probably knows that he is dealing in cheap propaganda and would look like an ass in a serious discussion!
@Greensnake
Re: " I would like to add that whoever did that YouTube was performing a disgustingly dishonest piece of not-so-subtle propaganda"
I think it was Ray Comfort. It sounded like him.
@Sushi
My voice analysis software says the probability was 0.782934. (78.2934%). Almost admissible in court.
rmfr
Oh, is this one of those "No one was there to see it" arguments?
That would mean every person in jail today that was convicted when there was no one, or no recording device, there to see the crime occur must be immediately released. Since no one saw the crime happen, it's impossible to determine who committed it and what happened, right?
Time to turn the tables.
Question To man in search of: How do you know Muhammad wrote the Qu'ran? You were not there to observe him writing it.
Shifting burden is what you Absolutists always do. My turn.
rmfr
Edit: self-pulled the content hopefully before anyone saw it.
i completely lost it. the spirit of myk was flowing, and man in search of turned me into his avatar.
if anyone saw this before i pulled it. i apologize. i am sorry for losing it.
rmfr
Oh really! What a disgustingly dishonest piece of interviewing and editing. The interviewer puts people on the spot and badgers them to provide soundbite answers to complex questions. We'll never know what they really said because of the unfair editing.
But here's an example of an everyday phenomenon that supports evolution. The hiccup.
The first creatures to migrate from sea to land had both gills and lungs. Their brains sent out signals to close the airways and switch to gill breathing when under water. That reflex is still present in our brains, and from time to time it fires, forcing our glottis to clamp shut and creating the "hic" sound. When tadpoles do that, they are able to force water out through their gills. The same reflex can be observed in various amphibians. Presumably in those creatures the gills start working, and the reflex stops. We don't have gills, so the signal just keeps firing over and over.
So there's vestigial evidence of a fish evolving into a land animal--what you creatards would call a "change of kind".
And BTW, if you want to cure hiccups, try sprinkling a spoonful of granulated sugar on your tongue at the back of your mouth. Or if you're a young Earth creationitwit, try swallowing a bible whole.
Algebe,
We might also note that this dude, and everyone else, still has egg-laying genes in their genomes! That is, the genes (now degenerate but still present) for making yokes are still there. (Yokes are the necessary food for the embryo in LAID EGGS.) It's worse than that. Human embryos also have a vestigial yoke sac attached to their gut! The sac is there--minus the nutritious yoke. I wonder, I wonder, how I wonder, where we got that egg-laying gear? Me thinks that our great ancestors laid eggs! I think that qualifies as a change of "kind". (See that and other fascinating vestigial structures in my (slightly buried) thread "The Case for Macroevolution.")
@Greensnake: still has egg-laying genes in their genomes!
My ancestors also invented a way to fertilize eggs inside a female's body before the hard shells form, which is a lot more fun than floating around underwater trying to squirt jism all over an egg cluster.
1. The Banana. You would have thought Ray would have figured out this one by now.
2. Chromosome number 2. First predicted by evolutionary theory and then discovered. Wow, that science stuff really works.
There is no classification of "Kinds" (Do Koalas Prefer Coke Or Fruit Generally Speaking?)
Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species. When you let an idiot talk about biology and evolution you get all sorts of weird shit.
Next he will begin asserting that there is something called Macro Evolution. Evolution is just evolution (Small changes over a long period of time.) You can see it everywhere.
FINALLY: This is a chat room for atheists. Why would you assume atheists know anything at all about evolution or biology? Okay, some may; however, even if Evolution was completely wrong. 100% incorrect. That would mean nothing to us? Atheists are people that do not believe in Gods. What's the point in bringing up evolution?
@Cognostic: What's the point in bringing up evolution?
Because intelligent design is the theists' last hope for getting their nonsense into public education. Evolutionary theory is simple enough to explain, but it's more difficult to provide actual examples, so this kind of shonky interviewing is an easy way to make atheists look bad. The theists' flawed logic is that if evolution is wrong, intelligent design (i.e., creation by god) must be right, ergo atheists are idiots.
@Algebe Re: "...ergo atheists are idiots."
Hmph! Speak for yourself. The Hulkster himself called me a "genius" in the OP. And I believe him, because the Hulkster is never wrong! *sticking out tongue*
@ TM
Ummmm.....TM.....a minute please...... *taps TM on shoulder and whispers in ear* "Hulkster also believes in flying horses, a supreme invisible creator, and that a certain self styled prophet on the Arabian peninsula in 7th CenturyCE was not a peadophile when he married a 9 year old and took public baths with her...."
@Old Man Re: Flying horses, Invisible creator, Pedophile prophets...
Yeah, yeah, yeah... Whatever... You are obviously taking those things out of context and not seeing the true metaphorical analogies of the valuable lessons to be learned from them. Why do "you people" always have to twist things around and take them so literally? I mean, it is as clear as mud that THOSE particular examples have been cherry-picked by those who wish to discredit all the great and wonderful teachings of the most perfect example of moral vagueness and societal ineptitude. So, please, stop trying to burst my "genius bubble" with your jealously and your grossly misinterpreted interpretations of interpreted texts misrepresented due to faulty interpreting.... *arms folded and nose in the air with eyes closed snobbishly*..... *eyes open suddenly in surprise*.... Wait... did you say public bathes with a 9 year old girl?.... Whoa!... Not cool!... Sorry, Hulkster! You're own your own, dude!... *jumping on back of tricycle*.... C'mon, Old Man. Let's get out of here!
@Tin-Man:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWdgiFzpolA
@Algebe
Hey! I think I just found my new theme song! *clapping joyfully*
@Tin-Man
What?! He called me a genius? How dare he?
Why I oughta... **double pokes the hulkster in his eyes**
Now how's that.
To the AR Crowd: Don't worry, everyone knows an Ent is stronger and more powerful than a troll...
rmfr
@Cog
Re: "The Banana. You would have thought Ray would have figured out this one by now."
Did he actually go there again? I didn't watch past the dishonest opening vox pops and the "We can't observe evolution" statement straight after them.
No. The banana is a product of controlled evolution, genetic breeding, by man. A theory is only good if it can be used to make predictions as well as explain. Both the Banana and chromosome 2 are products of evolution.
NICE: Nostalgic
Yup... That's Ray all right... ughhh. No I need a brain shower... I've seen this insufferable video before... the whole thing. It's "the atheist delusion" if you really want to see the most dishonest, mind-numbingly stupid creationist bullshit so you can puke all over yourself and binge drink for a month to get your mind back from the abyss... I recommend watching the whole thing.
@Apost
Well, that's enticing. Hard to say no to a recommendation like that, Apost, and yet...
Evolution is observed frequently under test conditions, including speciation.
The scientific method has produced the most accurate understanding of the natural world. I agree that religion has nothing to do with that.
Visible evidence for evolution: Pharyngula!
Hey, man in search of. Here are two images of embryos. Notice both have the yolk sac that Greensnake mentioned.
Now for the challenge, guess which one is human and which is the fish embryo. Both are at about the same stage of development (around 25 to 30 days).
https://i.imgur.com/4AUAWu3.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/NIJH567.jpg
And you said that video is not about religion. Bullshit! You lied. It was nothing more than a religious propaganda bullshit made by Ray Comfort (analysis software gave it a 78 to 79% probability it was Ray Comfort, which is actually no comfort).
For once will your ____ out of your ___. Please.
https://i.imgur.com/kelGXDx.jpg
rmfr
P.S. - Now I am off to get a bottle of Highland Park and a case of Blue Moon so I can get myself back from the abyss. Thanks for the hint AU...
If evolution is so true and established, why is it still called a theory? Why isn't a law yet?
Scientific truths are never ultimately proven, because they can always be falsified based on further observation.
[plagiarized post removed, if anyone wants to read the material, read it here. -Nyarlathotep]
Man in search: You are avoiding the points made above. I and one other have posited the Pharyngula as evidence of evolution. What is your reply?
Pages