sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,233
The answer "No, I can't" would have done.
100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid (Part 1 of 11)
- Thread starter David Henson
- Start date
-
- Tags
- evolution kent hovind religion
The answer "No, I can't" would have done.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
I believe you have mistaken jooz for Radrook.
Olowkow
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 8,230
It's amazing that Radrook has not heard about this. Pwned again.
It has been all over the web for a while. Most of us would be greatly embarrassed if we were conned into posting such nonsense as truth and would very likely apologize. I'll be impressed if Radrook even takes the trouble to look at the article or the video. Lying to discredit the opposition is all these people have any more, since their arguments don't amount to anything.six7s
veretic
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,716
So... that is an inane flurry of waffle masquerading as a resounding 'no', thenAn inane flurry of waffle masquerading as a resounding 'no' AND a blatant lie
Wow!
How low can you go?
Dawkins tricked into appearing in pro-Intelligent Design documentary
The Information Challenge
By Richard Dawkins
Why don't you just ask me?
Simon39759
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,285
Summary: Gravity could take an tremendous number of values (one value per one inch for each of the 14 billions light year the universe spans) and only one inch worth of these values would allow the apparition of life.
Answer: Where does that estimates come from? I have never heard any reference to 'values the force of gravity could take'.
As far as I know, the origin of gravitic forces is not well known enough for scientists to make such predictions.
Summary: The fossil record lack evidence for 'macro-evolution' and the four phila sprang abruptly at the same time.
Answer: ********! First of all, the Cambrian explosion took about 60 million years, so no, not so abrupt.
Furthermore, there is now plenty of evidences that the four phila actually emerge and diverged before the cambrian.
Finally; we know of several factors, preliminary mass-extinctions that freed many environmental niches; the emergence of Hox genes, the the rising oxygen levels, the earth exiting its snowball phase, that contributed to the, indeed, rapid evolution in this phase.
More importantly is the absolutely dishonest sleight of hand: 'the Fossil record is scarce at the time of the Cambrian explosiont therefore there is absolutely no evidence of macro-evolution'.
Stroebel disingenuously "forget" all the examples of 'macro-evolution' that took place after the cambrian explosion and for which we have, more often than not, very good fossil evidence.
This video is nothing less than a series of lies and misleadings...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC66oXIDGc8&NR=1
I think your title should be: Dawkins destroy a creationist argument.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_ejdvNDOIM&feature=related
Why? Yes, after billion years, the eukaryotic, the most complex form of cells on earth, have accumulated a high level of complexity; duh!
That's beside the point, the question is not whereas modern organisms are complex. The question is 'what is the best explanation for this complexity'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq9pOWfwZ4g&NR=1
It has Here watch that instead (nd this one too, if you have time, it's a good introduction!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2fswCPeu_Q&NR=1
The special theory of relativity allows us our first glimpse at what exist beyond the material world? Light is omniscient? Space ship disappear when it reaches the speed of light and just after that, he mentions the exponential increase in mass?
It's just a mumbo-jumbo of poorly grasped relativity!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX7Htg2HxkA&NR=1[/QUOTE]
Actually; the video was edited that way.
Dawkins mentioned that the journalists were interviewing him on false pretense and, when they asked this question, he realized it and was shocked for a few seconds.
He then answers (poorly), but the creationists cut the video there to make him appear to be stumped.
In reality, the question was quite terribly worded. Most mutations do, in fact, create new information. The gene is different than it was before, therefore, the information it now carries is new, by definition.
On the other hand, gene duplication is a very common phenomenon and double the amount of genetic information from a particular region.
CDK has another video on that subject; here is the first part on that subject.
It is quite illuminating that so many of the links you posted pointed at dishonesty on the part of the creationists and you certainly choose the best one for the end, with an out-right, straight-faced lie...
Last edited:
Just in case Radrook has you on ignore.
@Radrook: None of the videos comes close to presenting a worthwhile case for ID. It actually looks like the only way creationists can express their ideas is by lieing. What did Jesus say about liars?
Last edited:
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Is it just me? I'm tired of youtube links.
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
Simon39759
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,285
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
It's been tried and didn't work.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Did any of those videos tell you whether to believe that your god was the IDer or not?
Questions for Radrook and/or edge.
1) Is your god the IDer?
2) Why do you believe your god to be correct, and not that of other religions?
3) What evidence would convince you that evolution is correct?
4) What is the difference between micro- and macro-evolution?
1) Is your god the IDer?
2) Why do you believe your god to be correct, and not that of other religions?
3) What evidence would convince you that evolution is correct?
4) What is the difference between micro- and macro-evolution?
Simon39759
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,285
Considering that one of the video he posted was from a Muslim, the question is indeed interesting.
Yes I can. But what I say can be more eloquently expressed by the videos.,
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 6,025
What never cease to amaze me is that some people think that youtube rants equal scientific knowledge.
A youtube video takes however much time it costs to make, which I doubt is much more than the lenght of said video.
For Radbrook's enlightnement, an example of science and the time it takes.
I have recently published a paper in collaboration with others on a biochemistry subject.
This paper is not going against the current theories in that field and in fact uses them to try something new, using established biochemistry techniques and standard organisms.
So this simple. relatively straightforward non-controversial paper cost me and three others three years to get all the data convincing and reproducible. That is TWELVE man years of work to convincingly show something where most scientists in the field will go 'Heh, nice bit of work'. And even then the referees had comments and made us do some extra work to really convince them.
Yet you seem to feel that some unchecked videos, that don't even give true references are enough to abandon a theory with untold millions of man hours of evidence in it? And you wonder why scientists don't agree? There have been a few scientists that indeed have tried to disprove the theory of evolution by actual work. So far they have not found any evidence, but at least I respect them for putting in their effort. But youtube video's are nothing but entertainment, and entertainment is never proof of anything.
Two closing points:
1: I haven't linked the paper as I make some attempt at internet anonymity because I do not like being able to be googled except on a professional basis, but if you want contact me through pm and I am more than willing to send you the finished paper, any drafts that are still there and the raw data (though that is pretty hard to understand)
2: We would never have been able to perform said experiments without assuming common descent of all organisms as it involved a conserved element. Homology withing said element indicates which parts are important only if you assume evolution took place.
A youtube video takes however much time it costs to make, which I doubt is much more than the lenght of said video.
For Radbrook's enlightnement, an example of science and the time it takes.
I have recently published a paper in collaboration with others on a biochemistry subject.
This paper is not going against the current theories in that field and in fact uses them to try something new, using established biochemistry techniques and standard organisms.
So this simple. relatively straightforward non-controversial paper cost me and three others three years to get all the data convincing and reproducible. That is TWELVE man years of work to convincingly show something where most scientists in the field will go 'Heh, nice bit of work'. And even then the referees had comments and made us do some extra work to really convince them.
Yet you seem to feel that some unchecked videos, that don't even give true references are enough to abandon a theory with untold millions of man hours of evidence in it? And you wonder why scientists don't agree? There have been a few scientists that indeed have tried to disprove the theory of evolution by actual work. So far they have not found any evidence, but at least I respect them for putting in their effort. But youtube video's are nothing but entertainment, and entertainment is never proof of anything.
Two closing points:
1: I haven't linked the paper as I make some attempt at internet anonymity because I do not like being able to be googled except on a professional basis, but if you want contact me through pm and I am more than willing to send you the finished paper, any drafts that are still there and the raw data (though that is pretty hard to understand)
2: We would never have been able to perform said experiments without assuming common descent of all organisms as it involved a conserved element. Homology withing said element indicates which parts are important only if you assume evolution took place.
Well, I didn't' expect you to be convinced and neither was I trying to convince you. I was asked the basis for my belief in an Id and felt that the videos provide the answerr.
You disagree with their logic? That's OK. It's your prerogative.