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

a reply to: Argyll

Still wouldn't

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Additionally, and perhaps too much of a tangent for the thread, it’s possible if there is a Creator god it’s absolutely not affiliated with any known religion.

I don't think that is off topic at all. The video included in the OP details why the presenter feels this particular God is the Christian God, but I think it's an equally large stretch of the imagination (despite my personal beliefs).

Objectively speaking, Deism is just as valid of an opinion as atheism.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Since you reply to me about that, can you reply to me about this, please?

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: aorAki

Pretty sure a guy whose been to medical school knows what foramen magnum.(sic)

Well, it sure looks like he doesn't.

Tell me, where is the foramen magnum in that picture?

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

don’t see how the irreducibly complex argument is ultimately different than the 'complexity entails design’ argument. Therefore the Creator himself should be subject to the same rationale.

Well thats because you ignored the first part of my premise. Anything that has a beginning has a cause. If the Creator your talking about has a beginning then you cease to be talking about the Biblical concept of God and are producing a strawman.

There are of course many theories other than god that suggest a ‘something’. Just because we don’t yet have a definitive answer to this big question doesn’t mean the answer is ‘god’.

Yes, but I would say those theories we put to criticism is logically incoherent.

a reply to: aorAki

You can't see it. i am sorry but this is just not a big issue for me. The guy who viewed the skulls in person and has far more schooling on the anatomy of the human school than both of us said specifically that it wasn't that. If it was it would have been foolish for him to mention the words in the sentence at all..

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: aorAki

You can't see it.

Oh really? See below.


a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Well he sure looks foolish and I'm sorry that you don't see fabricating evidence and lying outright as "not a big issue".
Given the angle of repose of the skull in that image, the foramen magnum should be clearly visible and I categorically state that what he disingenuously attempts to pass off as an exit wound is, in fact, the foramen magnum. If you can't trust him over this issue, then how much else has he got wrong/made up/relied upon the ignorance of his followers?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Just to play devils advocate

Well thats because you ignored the first part of my premise. Anything that has a beginning has a cause. If the Creator your talking about has a beginning then you cease to be talking about the Biblical concept of God and are producing a strawman.

I don't think that was a strawman at all. In fact I applaud lucidity for thinking about the issue in broader terms, and being open minded. Why must anyone assume the biblical concept of God is the only viable concept of a created universe? A Deist perspective is just as possible (if not more likely).

Yes, but I would say those theories we put to criticism is logically incoherent.

Depends on your perspective. I think you and I both agree that "something" cannot come from "nothing". However, atheists have come up with theories to explain certain difficulties within the framework of this debate, such as the multiverse. Logically speaking, a multiverse could account for our known universe. However, it can never be proven any more than God can be.

But I feel like I've taken this discussion somewhat off topic. It's been very interesting, but I think we should attempt to return to the subject of evolution.

I will say that it's a shame many won't bother watching the videos in the OP. I personally don't see a problem with the idea of evolution. I do however see glaring holes in the theory, starting with the origins of life itself, and branching out from there in the form of the Cambrian Explosion, as well as problems within the fossil record, and a lack of concrete evidence for human evolution from apes. There is a lot of compelling evidence for evolution as a whole, but strangely it isn't all that strong within the human fossil record. That's not to say I either believe in it or disbelieve in it. The truth is, I remain unconvinced either way, and I'm content admitting that I don't know.

One thing I do find fascinating about the debate is how both sides seem to be so adamant in what they think they know.

a reply to: aorAki

Just found this its from talk origins and its the writer of Buried alive writing about broken hill himself

"1. The Broken Hill skull from Zambia cries out disease! I have enumerated on pages 279 and 280 fourteen reasons why this is so. It is a first-hand report that Chris Stringer could reply to if he so desired. It is up to the British Museum to refute this and no book review or argument on the Internet can settle the issue. The answer is the same for the second hole or exit wound on the occipital bone of the skull. No one seems to want to discuss it either. Let them prove there is no exit wound. Then there is the missing anterior clinoid process in Ronald Singer's 1958 cranial x-ray and its sudden appearance in my cephalometric x-ray in 1981. Was this piece of bone glued in to dispel any notion of pathology? I have had a top-notch neurosurgeon in NYC, and a radiologist at our hospital examine my material. The neurosurgeon said, "I wish it weren't there", meaning its absence spelled pathology. The radiologist agreed. But, it is there. Now you see it, now you don't! This is supposed to be science not magic tricks.
Also what happened to the missing bone from the left and only mastoid process? All these things are very suspicious. Could the British Museum please answer my findings! This is serious business! It's not just creation vs. evolution; it's tampering with evidence, if true.
Concerning Montgomery and Stringer's article: I saw no evidence of healing of the bone around the entrance hole as they had concluded. "

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Ivan Sanderson thought the Iceman was real... his report said it smelled of decay and had all the appearances of a hominid ... and that a dummy replacement was introduced when talk of manslaughter charges were bandied about... so the Minnesota Iceman is a convoluted tale that isn't a cut and dry fake, if one believed Sanderson, anyway.

As far as this... never mind the Neanderthal with a bullet wound ...where's the woman fossilized in limestone??

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


The fact remains that his 'exit hole' is the foramen magnum. Where should the foramen magnum be, if you disagree with me?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
The answer is the same for the second hole or exit wound on the occipital bone of the skull.

Except the hole where rod is emerging is not the occipital bone, it is the foramen magnum.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Technically, it is the occipital bone, but that seems to me like an avoidance of acknowledging that the hole is the foramen magnum.


Beware, Science!

originally posted by: aorAki
Technically, it is the occipital bone, but that seems to me like an avoidance of acknowledging that the hole is the foramen magnum.

Agrred, I should have phrased that better by saying the rod is emerging through an already existing hole in the occipital bone.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

I will say that it's a shame many won't bother watching the videos in the OP.

It's just the huge time investment for me. I am still burning through those Teaching Company Courses I linked to you years ago. OP videos are 5 hours? Yikes heh..

Apologies for not responding to some of your questions/points. I agree with you that we are diverging too much and the thread should be put back on course. No doubt these things will be addressed more in other threads.

The creationist agenda never changes. The false arguments, red herrings, and strawmen are the same in every debate:

"Microevolution and Macroevolution are two different processes." No, they aren't. They never have been.

"Where's the missing link?" There is no "missing link." The changes were gradual but the belief in a young earth contradicts this one.

"This guy who's a scientist says blah blah blah that discredits evolution." No, it's just a crackpot religious dingbat who happened to get a college degree that doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and is pushing the creationist agenda.

"You just deny any evidence that contradicts evolution." No, the only "evidence" presented by creationists is from biased sources pushing an agenda and said "evidence" always falls apart under the slightest of scrutiny.

The most mind-blowing lapse of logic from creationists is the tendency to reject mountains of evidence while clinging to the handful of crap they can find that seemingly supports their beliefs. "All your scientific evidence is wrong and all your scientists are just biased but this guy who claims to be a scientist says this so it clearly supports the creation story."

Just once, it would be nice if a creationist actually understood the Theory of Evolution before they tried to attack it.

originally posted by: Answer

Just once, it would be nice if a creationist actually understood the Theory of Evolution before they tried to attack it.

Those of us who understand it and present valid points and questions usually just get ignored.

a reply to: Answer

The creationist agenda never changes. The false arguments, red herrings, and strawmen are the same in every debate

You seem to be pigeonholing everyone who doesn't hold a materialist view of the universe into one category. A category which many of us don't self subscribe to.

"Microevolution and Macroevolution are two different processes." No, they aren't. They never have been.

Yes, they are. One of them is the process of species evolving into different species, and one of them is species developing different characteristics through the process of adaptation.

"Where's the missing link?" There is no "missing link." The changes were gradual but the belief in a young earth contradicts this one.

I can't speak for the OP, but I believe in the creation of the universe, but do not believe in a young earth. Again, you are making broad assumptions. We understand that the theory of evolution involves gradual changes over millions and millions of years. There is a distinct lack of fossil evidence to prove that men evolved from monkeys. The fossil record is much stronger for creatures which were said to have lived much further back. Why is that? How do you explain the discrepancy between the fossil record and the theory of evolution when it comes to the Cambrian Explosion?

"This guy who's a scientist says blah blah blah that discredits evolution." No, it's just a crackpot religious dingbat who happened to get a college degree that doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and is pushing the creationist agenda.

You are oversimplifying your opposition. Much smarter men than you have questioned the science. That's how science works.

"You just deny any evidence that contradicts evolution." No, the only "evidence" presented by creationists is from biased sources pushing an agenda and said "evidence" always falls apart under the slightest of scrutiny.

This is interesting to me, coming from someone who probably didn't even bother reading the thread, or even watching the videos. Sure, there are some crackpot creationists out there. But the issue isn't as open and shut as you'd like to portray it, either.

The most mind-blowing lapse of logic from creationists is the tendency to reject mountains of evidence while clinging to the handful of crap they can find that seemingly supports their beliefs.

Not everyone who believes in a created universe assumes evolution is false.

"All your scientific evidence is wrong and all your scientists are just biased but this guy who claims to be a scientist says this so it clearly supports the creation story."

There you go again, painting us all with the same brush. I guess all atheists are Godless communists hell bent on murdering millions of people, while we're at it.

Just once, it would be nice if a creationist actually understood the Theory of Evolution before they tried to attack it.

Many people who are more educated on the subject than you or I have raised valid questions and criticisms. Why does that bother you so much? It's almost like you are religious about it...

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Still wouldn't

You know that how?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You can't see it. i am sorry but this is just not a big issue for me. The guy who viewed the skulls in person and has far more schooling on the anatomy of the human school than both of us said specifically that it wasn't that. If it was it would have been foolish for him to mention the words in the sentence at all..

I'm sorry but I don't see how this works.......you pick one "specialist"....a dentist?.... and believe everything he says, because he's an "expert" in his field, yet you ignore the thousands of scientists, from many fields, who quite rightly debunk your bunkum........because why?

Because the dentist is right?.....or because the expert in farming is right?

Seriously?

a reply to: DeadSeraph

There is a distinct lack of fossil evidence to prove that men evolved from monkeys.

A common ancestor with apes isn't it?