Two videos for those who want to know the truth about evolution.

originally posted by: Baddogma
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Not to beat a dead horse, and I really tend to agree with you as that's the logical answer, but reading Sanderson, he was quite specific and puzzled and so was Huevelman... they had bio backgrounds and said the thing in the ice wasn't the same dummy that was there later.

I wasn't there and have no real input, other than to say Sanderson liked a good yarn and stretched his conjectures... but wasn't a bold-faced liar... and his description of the being and the gunshot wound, viscera, etc. along with the smell of decay, was vivid and backed up... so I remain uncommitted to the Minnesota Iceman final verdict of hoax from the first... despite that being the best answer.

Well, which is more plausible? What is easier to believe?

- That Sanderson was mistaken and that Hanson was just another dishonest showman.. or..

- That the iceman was a recently frozen hominid (so recent it has a bullet-hole) - something which argues against almost everything we know according to scientific study.

One of these is a mundane explanation, the other is extraordinary. I know which one I am more inclined to believe.

Sanderson asked that John Napier from the Smithsonian go and study the exhibit, and as soon as he did Hanson came up with the "we've swapped it for a gaff" excuse. Seems awfully convenient that when it came time to really scrutinize the exhibit that Hanson trotted out the "it's a replica" story.


As far as rotting tissue and all that - have you ever smelt perishing rubber? Rotting hair? Etc.. Who knows what else was used to make it, it may well have been a bit on the nose just from the materials used. Sanderson described seeing lice on the skin, but he was examining it through inches of cloudy ice, so how could he be sure? Sorry but I am not buying it at all. Sanderson wanted to believe, and he let that desire overcome his scientific skepticism, and I trust Hanson about as far as I can comfortably spit out a rat..

a reply to: peter vlar

There's nothing we could have learned from Oliver that would have justified the treatment he received. This isn't directed at you (you mentioned his ill-treatment) but at the field in general.

a reply to: Tangerine

I absolutely agree. The treatment he received over the majority of his life is, in my opinion, unforgivable and entirely devoid of merit.

As interesting as this topic is, he does not show any evidence to support his own belief. The basic rule of debate is not to prove the other person wrong, but to prove your own ideals true. I will say he had done interesting evidence, but I have still seen nothing to prove creationism by some magical all mighty deity. But like I said before, j just because I think creationism isn't true does not make evolution true. So claiming that this video is the "truth" is rather pompous and unprofessional. Saying that studying this could aid someone in finding the truth is fair.

Another thing I would like to say it's that "evolution" it's absolutely real. It is happening all the time to millions of species. That had been proven. The topic in question is that we evolved from something more primitive like monkeys. I know this is generally understood, but sometimes the obvious must be stated.

Fun idea: I think humanity is done evolving biologically and our next step is technological evolution. Synthesis. Singularity. I don't think it's scary at all

Love you guys!!!!

The speaker in the video also brings up hoaxes like Piltdown man. The funny thing about that is that scientists were the ones to figure out that it was an intentional hoax perpetuated by dishonest people that only wanted to become famous. Thanks to science, the hoax was debunked and excluded from the theory of evolution. This is why science is so great. Even when liars try to hoax, they will inevitably be exposed. There are liars and frauds in all walks of life, it certainly isn't limited to scientists.

What about the guy that told told folks that witches can be detected by popping a mole and seeing if it bleeds or not? What about the human footprint with dinosaur footprints hoax or the lie perpetuated that the earth is the center of the universe? Does that debunk all of Christianity? Of course not. Humans have big egos, it's just the way it is. The problem with discussing the hoaxes, is that they are no longer relevant and aren't part of the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis.

People like to attack evolution for what it's NOT, rather than focusing on the other 20+ VALID fossils of human ancestors. It's a giant red herring. Why ignore the thousands of valid fossils because of a few hoaxes? It's backwards logic. If you want to attack evolution, attack the actual evidence as it stands today. Don't attack Darwin, who didn't even know DNA existed, or hoaxes that were debunked decades ago by science.

originally posted by: qiwi676

Fun idea: I think humanity is done evolving biologically and our next step is technological evolution. Synthesis. Singularity. I don't think it's scary at all

Love you guys!!!!

Impossible. Evolution never ceases. If we adopt technology as part of our physical makeup then evolution will work right along side of that.

a reply to: boymonkey74

That is funny as #...as a precursor, I don't believe any books at face value. With that having been said, you and many other evolution adherents are much more fervent and willing to call others heretics for anything brought up that discounts evolutionary hypotheses than most modern Christians do.

Me, I don't discount evolution, I merely discount contrived evidences and non-logical thought processes that are used to bolster it.

Evolution as most adherents believe it, IS a religion and even worse, it is the modern day equivalent of the catholic church during the inquisition, willing to burn at the stake anyone who dares question the paradigm...

That alone is enough to get me to question it.

Jaden

a reply to: IndependentOpinion

Because they don't want to look at anything that might make them question their religion. It happens on both sides.

The funniest # is when the evolutionists claim, religion, religion to the other side, without acknowledging or even realizing that their side is a religion as well...lol

Jaden

a reply to: aorAki

I watched both videos all the way through, since I am not opposed to listening to differing view points from my own and at NO time did I EVER hear him say that since evolution is wrong, he must be right.

Jaden

a reply to: aorAki

Hey an adherent to evolution that acknowledges the circular logic used as its' foundation??Say it isn't so...

Oh that's right, you were being sarcastic...lol go back to your idiocy...

Jaden

a reply to: roth1

You do realize that evolution takes that to the nth degree right??? Not only does macro evolution state that two humans are responsible for ALL of the diversity in modern humans (and other species) it claims that ONE single cell is responsible for ALL biodiversity.

Jaden

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Just reading along...

Taking it all in...


I may return to comment...


But thought you deserved this...

a reply to: strongfp

And comments like this is why watching a video is important.

A) no, macro evolution has NEVER been observed, in fact, it conveniently is acknowledged be adherents as not being possible to observe. Well, of course if it occurs, it should be everywhere with transitional creatures abounding. You point that out and then it's no, well it's rapid changes not gradual changes, that are due to mutation. Another thing that has NEVER been observed that grants non-disfiguring benefits or even survivable benefits.

B) Evolutionary theory for these types of debates MUST be delineated as micro, macro, biogensis, etc.. or there can be no debate because I have not heard a SINGLE person EVER deny micro evolution, which is the only type that you referenced with your dogs, moths, etc...

Jaden

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You answered the debate right there. Evolution then becomes a religion and not science and they are then on equal footing. That is the thing that evolutionists just don't want to acknowledge. That in actuality they are not debating Religion/Science, but one religion versus another. Science doesn't work on a SLIDING SCALE...lol. Science is either supported and testable or not.

Jaden

p.s. I don't care who's right, I'm just tired of people bastardizing science in the name of religion, and it happens more often in the paradigms of science these days than the paradigms of religion.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

What evidence do you have for the latter???? Your imaginings??? QUIT CALLING RELIGION SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jaden

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Because, unlike what you previously wrote, ALL of observable reality points to natural phenomena being the opposite of ordered and increasingly ordered behavior.

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They accept that evolutionary change is possible within what they call "kinds" ("microevolution"), but deny that one "kind" can evolve into another ("macroevolution"). While this claim is maintained on the vagueness of the undefined, unscientific term "kind", evolution of life forms beyond the species level (i.e. "macroevolution" by the scientific definition) has been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. In creation science, creationists accepted speciation as occurring within a "created kind" or "baramin", but objected to what they called "third level-macroevolution" of a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy. Generally, there is ambiguity as to where they draw a line on "species", "created kinds", etc. and what events and lineages fall within the rubric of microevolution or macroevolution. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is not supported by the scientific community.

Such claims are rejected by the scientific community on the basis of ample evidence that macroevolution is an active process both presently and in the past. The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place. Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community.While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".

sources are available in the original article. have a gander.

en.wikipedia.org...

Don't really feel like trudging through 5 hours of video and 12 pages of comments, so I'll ask this here.

What are this fella's credentials to be speaking as an expert of evolution? I'm genuinely curious. Does he have a background in biology or archaeology?

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Don't really feel like trudging through 5 hours of video and 12 pages of comments, so I'll ask this here.

What are this fella's credentials to be speaking as an expert of evolution? I'm genuinely curious. Does he have a background in biology or archaeology?

www.creationinfo.com...

i would be willing to bet that he did not get those degrees by knowing scripture, however.

originally posted by: Argyll
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Get on code blocks and sit there and type in a bunch of random keys and see how long it takes you to get a working program...

Billions of years?

No, there is no amount of time that would be sufficient and this is why...

This mechanisms are built upon earlier foundations and without purpose, there would be no reasoning behind understanding that one is successful where as another is not.

Random keys being punched on the keyboard COULD eventually provide a code that does SOMETHING, but what stops that code from being changed with more keystrokes? What eliminates the unnecessary keystrokes in between the good code? What is determining that the good code IS in fact good code???

How does that good code get used with other discovered good code to become better code??? What is the determining measure for success???

One could argue with life, it is the continuance of life, but you have to have a reason to continue that life? So are these single celled organisms AWARE that they are alive and that they need to continue their existence???

It is the folly of man to ascribe to mankind the greatest of intelligence in the vast universe.

There are likely greater intelligences beneath our very feet.

The earth is probably a conscious entity with a far greater intelligence than our own that we are merely a component of its living being. It is likely only a component of an even greater being.

Are the cells in our bodies conscious, and do they think that they are the most intelligence creature in existence? If they are conscious, they likely have no idea that our bodies are moving around in this world that they can't even comprehend.

What makes you think that our lives are any different from the cells within our bodies???

Jaden