A Very Young Richard Dawkins Demonstrates The Evolution Of The Eye

Submitted by: daegog 2 months ago in Science


Pretty good video for those interested in evolution concepts.
There are 234 comments:
Male 3,447
Dude...who Derped in here?  It totally smells like Derp...
3
Reply
Male 3,425
kalron27 Sherpa Derpa DooDoo
0
Reply
Male 39,958
I Googled "Richard Dawkins" and somehow came up with a picture of Ben Cohen.
It has nothing to do with this thread but isn't he gorgeous!!!

0
Reply
Male 39,958
0
Reply
Male 6,077
Gerry1of1 Enjoy! Personally, I prefer Selena Gomez.


0
Reply
Male 39,958
broizfam She looks like she's 12 years old as you pervert!
0
Reply
Male 6,077
Gerry1of1 "Prevert" - pervert before the fact.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
If you like this, check out his dissection of the laryngeal nerve of a giraffe. It's the clearest evidence I have ever seen that we exist as a result of evolution and not an intelligent designer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0
0
Reply
Male 39,958
holygod I posted this video at IAB about 3 years ago. It's a great study in anatomy. Of course religionists will say it's just "Gods will"
1
Reply
Male 941
holygod I don't see how this is evidence of evolution.  I mean, I get where he's coming from, but it is still just an assumption.  Even if the nerve doesn't have any other purpose in being so long, that doesn't mean that it must have evolved.  Just because modern science doesn't see the reasoning doesn't mean that there's not a reason.  It's quite a leap to just assume that this means there's no intelligent designer.  Additionally, it could have been a simple mutation somewhere in the giraffe species that caused it, which likewise doesn't mean that they evolved from some other organism.
-1
Reply
Male 39,958
cjeffblanchr "just an assumption"....... Does the sun reach Australia? You aren't' there so it's just an assumption that it does.  

Do you see what I'm getting at here ???
0
Reply
Male 941
Gerry1of1 Not really, no.  Well, okay, I see what you're getting at, but it is not even close to the same thing.  It can be shown the sun will reach Australia through various means.  It cannot be shown that there is not an intelligent designer.
0
Reply
Male 39,958
cjeffblanchr If you look at my Ex you KNOW there is not an intelligent designer
0
Reply
Male 941
Gerry1of1 My Ex is the strongest evidence against my beliefs.
1
Reply
Male 9,769
cjeffblanchr I'm guessing you didn't watch the whole video? Modern science knows EXACTLY why it is like that. Watch at 3:25. 

It isn't just in giraffes, it is in all mammals. It is in us. Our nerve goes all the way down from our brain, loops around our heart, and comes all the way back up to our larynx.

This does not prove god does not exist. None of this does. It just proves evolution happened. God might have created the first organisms and then guided evolution.
2
Reply
Male 941
holygod I think I dozed off for a bit at the end, (had a long tiring day) but I've gone back and rewatched it.  That still doesn't really prove anything.  Again, let's assume that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the nerve to loop around.  What does this really show?  It shows that there are similar or identical features within different species of animals.  That doesn't not imply evolution.

Here's a simplified, different way to look at it...

Say you're a computer programmer, making an super advanced video game with all kinds of creatures in it.  It takes a lot of code to create one of a certain kind.  Now, if there are similarities between different animals, are you going to rewrite all that code individually for each of them, or are you going to reuse code--copy and paste it for simplicity?
0
Reply
Male 9,769
cjeffblanchr There is no reason for an intelligent designer to make the nerve do that. The only reason is that a different creature had the nerve go around the heart because in their positions it made the most sense. As evolution is small changes as the head and heart got further developed the nerve got elongated by increments each time. Evolution can't go back and revise the nerve to the other side of the heart. An intelligent designer can.

Let me use your example. I'm making a game. I make a great human. Now I want to make an orc. I make a human that is 25% bigger, has green skin, and I put an orc head on top of the human head. The human head is still there because I was making changes to the original and I can't go backwards. THAT is evolution. If I was making the orc from scratch I would never create it with a human head inside his head, just like I would never make a dolphin with hip bones. No intelligent designer would.
0
Reply
Male 941
holygod I get the point of how evolution could do that.  But it's very presumptive.  It is also assuming that there is no reason whatsoever for the nerve to follow the path that it does.  Just because scientists do'tn see any reason for it doesn't mean that there's not a reason.  How many times have assumptions been made in science only to later be shown as wrong?  There is no reason, other than a want of belief in evolution, to assume that it must have been evolution that did it.  Just because evolution, if it is true, would be expected to do such a thing does not mean that's actually what happened.  

I would not be opposed to believing, as you said, that God created the first organisms then guided evolution--except that I just don't see any evidence for it, only assumptions.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
holygod you're wasting your time.
-2
Reply
Male 9,769
monkwarrior Do you have some input on the video, or what?
0
Reply
Male 341
holygod It's ironic isn't it? monkwarrior puts up such a valiant effort defending his personal beliefs, failing to realize that he's wasting time. 
The original post was about biology and this video was as well, and monkwarrior has said absolutely NOTHING about biology. 
1
Reply
Male 5,475
boredhuman unfortunately this post is about the "evolution of the eye", and i've said quite a bit about it.  Appeal to ignorance is fallacious, man.
0
Reply
Male 341
monkwarrior Yep, which is a topic in evolutionary biology. And what have you said about "evolution of the eye"? Just one thing repeated over and over:

"The evolution of the eye is anyone guess because likely no one of us today was there to see it ever occur.
However there is far less evidence for the evolution of the eye story than there is for God creating the earth.
More sensible people can see it is simply a story/assumption, and the reality is no one has witnessed the evolution of the eye, so it's anyone's guess.
But just because we have not observed the evolution of the eye, does not give a free pass to make an assumption of how it came to be, when the reality is, as i've already mentioned, no one today knows."

...You keep repeating, you don't know and can't know that the eye evolved, therefore its false. I agree, "Appeal to ignorance is fallacious, man." 
0
Reply
Male 5,475
boredhuman I'm simply saying that the story/assumption this presenter has made about the evolution of the eye is just that, a story/assumption, not factual.  I'm not saying it's false, i'm saying it's an assumption, meaning i'm fully willing to admit that there is a small possibility that they could be right.  However as it stands, it's still an assumption with no facts to back it up, since no one has observed it taking place (as far as we know).
0
Reply
Male 9,769
boredhuman The thing I find the most odd is that he refuses to accept that the EARTH IS ROUND unless he personally witnesses it, yet accepts the bible verbatim without personally witnessing a single thing in it. I don't understand how that level of incongruous thought can exist simultaneously. 
3
Reply
Male 5,475
holygod appeal to ignorance again?  I've made it very clear i've personally witnessed the things spoken of about God in scripture.  I don't understand how you could think your pettiness and appeal to ignorance could be remotely rational.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
monkwarrior Oh well that changes everything. Well I've personally witnessed that the Earth is round, so you can check that one off your list.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
holygod Unless you're a test pilot i doubt that, as rumor is that  it requires someone to go quite high to see it, and there are some early test pilot videos from 120k ft that show no curvature.  I've been in a plane before too and did not see it.  But still, my issue with the curvature of the earth is the calculations that don't seem to pan out.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
monkwarrior I jumped out of a plane at 13,000 feet and it is VERY easy to see the curvature with unobstructed vision. It's hard from inside a plane because you have a small window.

You've seen the video of the super high altitude sky dive that red bull did right? Do you somehow think red bull is in on the conspiracy?
0
Reply
Male 5,475
holygod i saw that video.  Did you also see how curved the earth was 1-10 meters above the earth, just before he landed?  Yep, that is how you know there was a fish-eye lens in use.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
monkwarrior There absolutely was a fish eye lens in use. All wide angle lenses are fish eye. All go pros do that towards the edges of the frame. We've had this discussion. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-w2_nTnunc

See right at the beginning? That isn't fish eye, it is the curvature of the Earth. If it was the fish eye lens the whole image would be curved.

Jump out of a plane though. You'll see it yourself. It's undeniable.

0
Reply
Male 5,475
holygod unforunately for you the fish eye lense is exposed here:

https://youtu.be/FHtvDA0W34I?t=45

When the door opens:  flat horizon.
Camera switches to external: exaggerated curve = fish eye. (that's the camera you're talking about at the start of your video)

You aren't really good at deducing information are you?  It's like you simply just assert things to satisfy your worldview ignorant of the scientific process.

Also i'd love to go up to 200,000 ft, but unfortunately i can't afford to do that.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
monkwarrior 

When the door is open it is not flat. It is slightly curved line segment on the perimeter of a large sphere.

Fish eyes do not curve things that much and if they did everything in the foreground would be distorted. See how it isn't? Are you under the impression that a lens can distort a background without distorting a foreground?

At this point you are either:

1. trolling and fucking with me
2. impossibly dumb

Either way, I'm not devoting any more time to this. Feel free to think the Earth is flat. I really don't care. Just don't get butt hurt when I point out that fact in other threads.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
holygod so you admit there is distortion, so why bother paying attention to it when we already have cameras that don't have distortion, and we can use those?  If you want to argue your admittedly distorted footage, have at it.  Also feel free to misrepresent my position and ignore the position i mentioned already here, where i said my issue is with the curvature of the earth calculations.

Because you assumed that i think the earth is flat when i don't actually do that, is why you didn't succeed.  Running away without learning why will only solidify your ignorance without learning why.  Maybe between now and the next time we talk you will understand how being wrong like that will not work well, but i question if you will after the 10-15'th correction already.  Don't get upset and emotional over it, just learn why it didn't work out for you, your chances of success will increase.
0
Reply
Male 7,943
holygod That sums it up best.  Comment of the thread.
2
Reply
Male 5,475
normalfreak2 sure, if you appeal to ignorance like holygod, but then that just makes you ridiculous.
0
Reply
Male 341
holygod It's just a different way at looking at truth/facts/evidence: evidence grounded in BELIEF rather than empiricism.

monkwarrior prides himself in understanding logic, yet routinely commits logical fallacies and wrongly accuses others of mistakes. I'm sure in his mind it all makes logical sense though.

I found it impossible to communicate with monkwarrior using empirical evidence. I think lockner01 has it figured out though: using the same flawed logic, but arriving at a very different conclusion. 

In the end it's all pointless though... I'm just enjoying the mental aerobics monkwarrior is doing. 
3
Reply
Male 5,475
boredhuman No mental aerobics required when you know the truth of deep matters that others reject.  As you can plainly see this is a walk in the park for me, whereas everyone against me is struggling tooth and nail to gain an inch, but losing a mile.
0
Reply
Male 341
monkwarrior Ignorance is bliss, my friend. Your ignorance is only matched by your self-confidence: 
You know the truth and don't let anyone else tell you otherwise! Your logic is flawless. 
It's a joy to behold. 
0
Reply
Male 5,475
boredhuman If someone doesn't like the fact that what this presenter presented was assumption, and instead wants to declare it as fact, i'll more than gladly point out the flaw in the reasoning.  I welcome everyone and anyone to point out my flaws, as i expect it, because how else can we grow?
0
Reply
Male 552
boredhuman The more I read comments from Monkwarrior the more I suspect he is a Troll.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
mrteatime People who judge pettily often do.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
holygod it's a waste of time: more assumptions by an anti-theist desperate to make their world view fact, when no matter how much they claim their assumptions are fact, the reality stands that no one knows.  He even made ridiculous assumptions "what engineer would do that?" to justify his world view, much like you have been observed to do.
-1
Reply
Male 9,769
monkwarrior Let's say you and I stood on opposite sides of a stage and attempted to take the position, you that intelligent design happened, me that evolution happened. In front of us were 1,000 people who had never heard of God or religion or evolution or biology.

We took turns listing reasons why we believe our position is correct. Then after 3 hours the impartial group decided who had proven their case better, what do you think the outcome would be?

You would list the bible, and testimony, and what else? Things like the laryngeal nerve, or that snakes and whales have hip bones, or that we have tail bones are all evidence that evolution happened. You have zero evidence that intelligent design happened.
1
Reply
Male 5,475
holygod The likely scenario would be you would crash and burn at the 30m mark, and run away, leaving me to explain why you did that for 2.5 hours.  If by chance you somehow did last the whole 2.5 hours you would have nothing to stand on (as we both already know), and the crowd would have been so cleanly divided that the only people going for you would be the people who are anti-theist, or haters of God, which would clearly be a small subset.  Assuming, of course that the crowd represented the beliefs of the world.

How?  or Why?  you may ask.

The answer is simple, i have more tools at my disposal - using both science and religion.  Whereas you limit yourself willingly by clinging to one while rejecting the other, and for petty, biased, or misguided reasons, which would be exposed roughly 5 minutes in.

When we were done the crowd would know that both are valid tools, that making assumptions is unwise, and that things aren't always black and white, but a wide range of shades and colors.

In fact, if i were to offer you to gather all of the anti-theists in the world to back you up to support you online while you debated, you would still be struggling.  That might be a more worthy challenge if you ask me, rather than facing you alone.  But i'm confident you still won't win, unless of course you want to stack the crowd with only anti-theists, to have yourself a little echo chamber.  I'd still give it a shot if it was available for the world to see: "single monk shatters crowd of anti-theists backed up by millions of anti-theists on-line" would make an interesting article here on I-A-B :D
-3
Reply
Male 9,769
monkwarrior You think the Earth might be flat and you are going to taut your understanding and grasp of science? Okey doke. LOL.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
holygod You're the one still coming out with fallacies based on your wilful ignorance and unwillingness to learn.
-1
Reply
Male 9,769
monkwarrior The likely scenario, is that if you got up on a stage in front of 1,000 adults who had never heard of god and started telling them the crazy shit you believe they would laugh at you. They would laugh at you the way we laugh at scientologists. 
0
Reply
Male 5,475
holygod that would be your dream no doubt, but you'll find that people trained with the wisdom of God often are guided to great successes.  Sometimes to the great dismay of those against it.
-1
Reply
Male 341
monkwarrior "won't win" - what does winning even mean? If it means atheists convincing you with evidence that God doesn't exist - you'd be right. 
You're missing the point though... In terms of biology, you've said absolutely nothing. 
An in terms of belief: your Christian God is on par with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You've failed. You're crashing and burning and don't realize it. To take a race as a metaphor: you're running in the wrong direction. Running backwards while telling everyone they're wrong.  
4
Reply
Male 941
boredhuman Atheists really need to come up with something better than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  It is a nonsensical argument dreamed up and used by those without any arguments.  It is not even comparable to God in that there is testimony, evidence and spiritual matters that are outside of the realm of science to justify belief in God.  The FSM has nothing.  
0
Reply
Male 341
cjeffblanchr You're missing the point of FSM... All the Atheist needs to do is show that FSM is on par with any other God.

Premise 1: FSM is as real as Christian God
Premise 2: "The FSM has nothing"
Conclusion: Christian God has nothing.

It's up to monkwarrior to show that FSM is NOT as real as Christian God or any other. So far he's failing miserably against lockner01
1
Reply
Male 5,475
boredhuman unfortunately no atheist has, hence cjeffblanchr's point.  It's been 11 years, and it's just as ridiculous as ever, if not more so.
0
Reply
Male 941
boredhuman Also, your premise 1 is nothing but a belief or an assumption, whereas my premise that the FSM has nothing is clearly reality.  You simply cannot compare the two.
0
Reply
Male 941
boredhuman I'm not arguing Monk's points.  I'm only commenting on the FSM and how silly it is to compare it to something like the Christian God.  To restate what I just posted in replay to holygod, "The Flying Spaghetti Monster was invented what maybe 10-15 years ago?  It is still only used as a smart-ass mockery of God.  Within that same period of time, Christianity had spread greatly and was helping people, not mocking other faiths.  Again, it is a nonsensical invention."
0
Reply
Male 1,082
cjeffblanchr OK Jeff -- can I call you Jeff? because I have no idea what your handle means.  The FSM has been around since before your god.  The FSM made the earth. He also designed the rabbits that eat their own poop and the knees of humans -- that are the worse design of all time.  

Why did he design these things?  We don't know.  




0
Reply
Male 941
lockner01 Jeff is fine.  Where is the evidence for your claim that the FSM has been around before our God?  Where do any of these ideas exist other than in silly pretense and in your own mind?  Where is the real testimony?  The FSM is in no way an equivalent argument to the existence of God, and since we both know this, I just don't see any reason to argue it.  It's not worth it, because you assume that my reason for belief in God is entirely based on blind faith, which it is absolutely not.
0
Reply
Male 341
cjeffblanchr The conclusion lives and dies by Premise 1. If you're basing the existence of Christian  God strictly on belief, then FSM can be shown to be equally valid. I invite you to argue with lockner01, trying to show how FSM is false.

I'm more interested in the empirical evidence though, i'd be happy to discuss the video and other biological evidence. 
FSM is used in ADDITION to other arguments. Notice how monkwarrior avoids talking about biology or the video. You also appear immune to empirical evidence when you state: "There is no reason, other than a want of belief in evolution, to assume that it must have been evolution that did it."
Evolution is the best theory we have for explaining biodiversity. You know, Christians were once very interested in empiricism and studying nature. Do you accept empirical evidence shown by Dawkins? 
0
Reply
Male 5,475
boredhuman The video was about the "evolution of the eye"  notice how you try to move the goalposts by saying it's about 'biology' when it's clearly about the 'evolution of the eye'? 
0
Reply
Male 341
The video was a biologist discussing biological evidence on the topic of  evolutionary biology. 'Evolution of the eye' is a topic in biology. 
The video certainly didn't discuss religion or testimony. What have you said on biology? 
0
Reply
Male 5,475
boredhuman Yet the reason behind the presentation is because, as the 'biologist' said at the start, he didn't agree with what creationists said, and wanted to assume a story about the evolution of the eye.
0
Reply
Male 941
boredhuman Let me put it this way...  I am not Christian because I was raised in a Christian household.  While my mother was sometimes a church-going person, I was never pushed or compelled into it and when I grew older, I was not a believer.  I had (and still have) an interest in science and philosophy.  I became a believer based on my own experiences and conclusions.  My point is that I don't base my belief strictly on belief, as you say.  I base it on the application of testimony and a world-view that is simply different than yours.  Different does not mean that it is wrong--it mean different.  Dependent on how one interprets data, science can support different conclusions.


It's not a matter of me ignoring empirical evidence.  There is no reason to argue the FSM with either you or lockner01--it's an idea that we both know is ridiculous, because none of us believe in it.  It was unquestionably made up and used as a mockery.  There is not evidence for it, testimony about it, nor is it backed by any number of years of actual belief--all of which is not true of God.

Evolution is the best theory YOU have for explaining biodiversity, because you accept such a world view.  Of course Christians were interested in science--Christianity basically started the wheels turning.  And guess what...  many Christians still hold science to be important.  In my view, God wrote two books--the Bible and the book of nature.  Don't presume that my worldview is based on blind faith.

To answer you final question, I do NOT accept Dawkin's INTERPRETATION of empirical evidence.  That's all it is.  Science does not tell us that evolution is a fact.  Science doesn't tell us anything at all.  Scientists do, based on how they interpret the evidence.
0
Reply
Male 341
cjeffblanchr Ok then. It sounds like you DO accept evidence shown by Dawkins, but DO NOT accept his interpretation.
Using your parlance, I see Dawkins and other biologists studying the book of nature. Would you agree that scientists are most qualified studying the book of nature, or would you argue that theologians should study it?
Do you have an alternative interpretation of the evidence Dawkins provided? I'd be happy to see what other biologists say about the evidence Dawkins shows to better understand the different interpretations in the scientific community.
Or are you just questioning all scientific interpretations and are content with the world being mysterious? - doesn't seem productive to me.

"Science does not tell us that evolution is a fact." Of course it doesn't. Careful observation provides facts. Theories, such as theory of evolution, are used to explain these facts.
"Science doesn't tell us anything at all." - It seems like you're lacking very basic understanding of science.

Here's a crash course: Science 101.
Maybe start with: "What is science?"
These might be helpful too: Science in Disguise, Intelligent Design and Science Limits
1
Reply
Male 941
boredhuman Scientific evidence points me and many many others to a different conclusion than you and Dawkins.  I do agree that scientists are the most qualified to study science, but that does not mean that their interpretations are always correct.  A common problem is that no one, scientist or otherwise, can go into a lab without taking their worldview in with them and interpreting their research accordingly.  To do so would entirely violate human nature.  Dawkins is a biologist who rejects philosophical principals.  He is arrogant and presumptive and has closed his mind off because he hates God.  There is no question that he has taken that hatred of religion into the lab.  Without an open mind, his interpretations should never be taken as fact.

Of course there are alternative explanations, all of which come from scientists who also also believe in God, the Bible, and Christianity.  Since you're not aware of them, I can give you a list if you would like it, later.  Just let me know if you want it, though you should have little trouble finding them on the internet.  If you have an open mind, then it's worth looking into rather than accepting Dawkins at his word. 
  
Now, why you think that I would be content with the world being mysterious is really beyond me.  Why would I even be having this discussion if that were the case?  Again, you are being presumptive and assuming that I am like many Christians you've met who accept things on blind faith.  This is not the case with me.

"Careful observation" absolutely does not provide that evolution is a fact.  You cannot observe evolution.  Adaptation can be observed, even minor mutations, but neither of these provide solid evidence that anything can somehow evolve into a new species.  A fruit fly becomes a fruit fly.  Call this evolution if you like, but this is not the evolution that is proposed as fact these day.  It is changes within a species.  

Now, about your last few comments...  You are venturing into the realm of trying to insult my intelligence.  If this is what you wish to resort to, then fine.  Carry on.  It does not bother me.  Just understand that it is the weakest of methods of trying to prove your point.  You cannot show that someone's worldview, which differs from yours, is "wrong" so you call them "uneducated", or say they don't understand.  If you're going to discuss something, discuss it and don't fall back on this ineffective and arrogant method of argument.  This is exactly why Monkwarrior says the things he does.  He has been through these arguments so many times that it is pointless to argue them, because everyone always falls back on this foolish argument.    I haven't yet reached that point, but if people can't come up with better arguments than "Dur yer stupid" then it will probably come to that.  You know nothing about my level of education, nor of the things I read and studied throughout my life.  Don't make assumptions.

I am not worked up or angry at all just so you know.  I'm happy to continue discussing any or all of this with you or anyone else.  But I'm only going to do it if we can do so maturely, without insult.  Remember, inasmuch as you seem to think that I don't understand basic science, I can also conclude that you lack an understanding of the matters that relate to my worldview.  That is why we discuss things.  
0
Reply
Male 341
cjeffblanchr
I'm glad you agree that scientists are most qualified to study the book of nature. I'm waiting for you to start throwing out some alternative explanations to see how they fit with the established scientific view.

"Without an open mind, his interpretations should never be taken as fact." - correct me if i'm wrong: It sounds like you imply that scientists have to be theists for their research to be valid... Please clarify. Research is judged within the scientific community based on the data and validity of research. If Dawkins' research was clouded by his bias, surely other biologists would have pointed it out. If his research is valid despite his bias - what's the harm of bias? 

Again, please do not take it as an insult, but an invitation to better understand the subject: evolution 101.
"Adaptation can be observed, even minor mutations, but neither of these provide solid evidence that anything can somehow evolve into a new species." You're talking about the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. Macroevolution can also be observed indirectly, by comparing genes and characteristic of different related species.
Here's more on evidence for speciation
0
Reply
Male 941
boredhuman Okay, see, here's the problem.  You are clearly of the mind that only what is accepted by the majority should hold any validity.  While I understand that position, and even admit there is some validity to it, it completely ignores some aspects.  For one, when there is a general consensus amongst any group of people--in this case, scientists--those who think outside of that box are silenced, either by ridicule or outright shaming.  Thus, most in that group are compelled to join into the norm.  You will no doubt disagree with this in regard to science, but I do not.  I see it.  Universities preach evolution as if it were fact, when an open minded study of both evolution and philosophy grants a very  reasonable alternative to evolution.

This opens the way for a simple alternative which you keep asking for.  That alternative is creation, or intelligent design.  Of course you can say that there is no room in science for such arguments, but of course I disagree.  See, you interpret the evidence according to a different world view than I--and many scientists--do.  You can say that scientists have to go into the lab and leave any possible beliefs behind; I say this is either impossible for anyone to do, or just a majority of scientists have been indoctrinated with anti-theist ideologies.

Now, not to be a jerk, but you can stop sending the links.  Chances are I've read every last one of them.  You need to stop assuming that I have not done research just because I disagree with you.  Again, you are making assumptions that I must be uneducated since I don't agree with your interpretation of scientific revelations.   My beliefs and understanding do not come from blind faith, but from years of study and reading on all sides of the matters. 

Below is a list of Christian scientists whom you might not be aware of; you can find info on all of them on the internet.  But first, I want to make another point...  You stated you wanted the names of proponents of alternative explanations so that you can check their scientific credentials.  That's fine, but be warned--if you look at them and simply disagree with their conclusions, then that's great.  We don't all have to agree.  All scientists do not have to agree.  But if you simply do as I have seen so many non-theists do, and dismiss them simply because they have a Christian world view and say their research is invalid, then I will have little choice but to terminate the discussion, because it would demonstrate a lack of an open mind.  Hopefully you won't be one who does that, because I am simply giving you the alternatives that you asked for.  I'm not trying to be an ass, but I've seen too many "intellectuals" claim that scientistncs who draw different conclusions are not "real scientists", and that is nothing but ignorance.

Okay, now for a list for you--name and their field of research.

Georgia Purdom--Molecular Genetics
Tommy Mitchell--Cell biology, bio-chemistry.
Joe Fracis--professor of biological sciences.
John Woodmorappe--biology, geology
Gary Parker--biologist


""Without an open mind, his interpretations should never be taken as fact." - correct me if i'm wrong: It sounds like you imply that scientists have to be theists for their research to be valid... Please clarify. Research is judged within the scientific community based on the data and validity of research. If Dawkins' research was clouded by his bias, surely other biologists would have pointed it out. If his research is valid despite his bias - what's the harm of bias?"

Nowhere did I indicate that I think scientists have to be theists for their research to be valid.  I am saying that when someone is completely overrun with bias--whether it's Dawkins or a theist--they close themselves off to other possibilities.  Do some searching, and you will find plenty of scientists--both theists and non-theists--who disagree with Dawkins.  Dawkins is just someone for the atheist to latch onto.

Comparing genes and characteristics do not provide proof of  evolution.  You and others interpret it that way.  Many thing can be created in a similar way, with similar characteristics without it meaning that one was made from the other.  

I think it was in response to holygod and not you the other day, but let me put it like this...

Say I'm a computer programmer designing an advanced video game filled with a multitude of various creatures, and the code for each of them is extremely complicated.  But they're not all entirely dissimilar.  Some of them share characteristics.  Am I going to write out the multitude of lines of code for each and every one of them, or am I going to cut and paste those parts that can be reused?

Apply this to the concept of intelligent design and you should be able to see that the evidence can support ideas other than that of evolution.  Similarities does not necessarily equal evolution.
0
Reply
Male 341
cjeffblanchr 
Some general points:
1) Which other biologist's interpretation do you find is correct? If I'm not mistaken, Dawkins is accepted in the scientific community. Please give names of the proponents of "alternative explanations" and we can check their scientific credentials.
2) "Dawkins is a biologist who rejects philosophical principals." You'll have to be much more specific when you throw accusations like that! What philosophical principals did he reject?
3) When say things like "Science doesn't tell us anything at all." it shows lack of understanding of science. I did not mean to insult, but have you refresh your understanding. "Fact" is used differently in science. Using common language it would be accurate that the scientific community accepts Evolution as Fact
0
Reply
Male 1,082
boredhuman BH -- if I may call you "BH". I'm assuming that you're not denying the fact of the FSM.  

I'm new to this community

0
Reply
Male 9,769
cjeffblanchr Wait 2,000 years.
0
Reply
Male 941
holygod The Flying Spaghetti Monster was invented what maybe 10-15 years ago?  It is still only used as a smart-ass mockery of God.  Within that same period of time, Christianity had spread greatly and was helping people, not mocking other faiths.  Again, it is a nonsensical invention.
1
Reply
Male 1,082
cjeffblanchr WTH? How is Pastafarinism mocking other faiths? Jesus -- you sound a little tribal.  
0
Reply
Male 941
lockner01 Again, not worth arguing because of the reasons I listed before.  Nevertheless, it is a mockery because it is intended only as a means to equate God with a fantasy based on blind faith--which again, Christianity is not.  

I have no idea what you mean by saying I sound a little tribal, but I'd recommend you not resort to any kind of "name calling".  This won't get you anywhere.  

If you want to argue for the non-existence of God, then great, I'm all in, because I love such discussions.  But continuing this farce of promoting the FSM--which we both know good and well is nothing but a weak attempt to create a false equivalency--is entirely pointless. 
1
Reply
Male 5,475
boredhuman ask hg, he seems intent on a one.
-1
Reply
Male 5,475
Interesting story, but assumptive as expected, since his whole reason for this was he didn't like what 'creationists' were saying.  The reality is no one today knows.

ps, i'm reminded of this video every time i see him (various ones where he says nothing is something, lol, cracks me up every time)
-1
Reply
Male 39,958
monkwarrior Fruit flys. A short life span so its easy to observe multiple generations.

I'm sorry to disappoint your "god" but evolution is a natural process, not supernatural one
-1
Reply
Male 5,475
Gerry1of1 yes i understand the project.  But fruit flys aren't the evolution of the eye. The evolution of the eye is anyone guess because likely no one of us today was there to see it ever occur.  So claiming it as fact without having a time machine to observe it factually, to test the theory to call it a fact, is simply just being taken on faith, we have no way to test it, so it is simply asserted, like fire, water, earth and air were once too.

I understand you believe what is told to you about evolution, but is it really wise to just accept any old story someone files under 'evolution', just blindly accepting it to satisfy a stance against God?
-1
Reply
Male 39,958
monkwarrior You do know that evolution is a fact. It has been observed, witnessed. We have seen evolution at work.  If you deny this you have to be either religious or just too much an idiot to deal with
0
Reply
Male 941
Gerry1of1 Where has evolution--the changing of one species into another--EVER been seen (at work)?  Mutations and variations within a species has been observed, but never, so far as I know, has it been observed that one species changes into another.  
-1
Reply
Male 39,958
cjeffblanchr Evolution can end in the changing of one species into another, but it doesn't have to. Evolution is when a species adapts to changing environments. Fruit Flies are used most often because of their short life span, it's easy to observe multiple gernerations. Put in more corrosive elements in the environment and they develop into corrosive resistant fruit flies. 

Google it
1
Reply
Male 941
Gerry1of1 But what have fruit flies ever evolved into?  You said it yourself--they "evolved" into other fruit flies.  Same species or kind.  This is adaptation, not evolution.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
Gerry1of1 You are wasting your time.
0
Reply
Male 39,958
holygod I know but we try....
1
Reply
Male 39,958
holygod I'm thinking you are right
0
Reply
Male 5,475
Gerry1of1 It's a waste because you're assuming things that were not said.
-1
Reply
Male 9,769
monkwarrior It's a waste because you have your belief structure set in stone and nothing is going to change that.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
holygod Actually it's a waste because Gerry was assuming things, and now you're assuming things too, nullifying your points again.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
Gerry1of1 I have seen evolution of the internet, and many other things.  I have not, nor has anyone else alive today, seen the assumptions that people have made of what happened when no one was around. Nor can anyone prove it, only assume.  I question those assumptions, as those assumptions do a discredit to science, like say, how science used to say the only elements were fire water earth and air.  What a waste of time that was.
0
Reply
Male 552
monkwarrior I agree, just as no one alive now was around to witness any of the events in the bible nor the creation of any matter, living or otherwise by a supernatural being.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
mrteatime So you understand that dawkins is a man of evolutionary faith in his tale.
0
Reply
Male 552
monkwarrior Indeed I do. Faith is a concept in its own right and is independent of both science and religion.
1
Reply
Male 39,958
monkwarrior Did god create the earth?  You weren't there to witness it so it must not have happened
0
Reply
Male 5,475
Gerry1of1 again, i believe He did.  Just as you can believe this person's story of the evolution of the eye.  However there is far less evidence for the evolution of the eye story than there is for God creating the earth.
0
Reply
Male 39,958
monkwarrior Men have observed the evolution of animals. Specifically insects because they have a short life span so it's easy to witness multiple generations.  I'm sorry if this doesn't  agree with your imaginary friend, but reality is reality no matter how much you wish it otherwise.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
Gerry1of1 Again, i don't have an issue with evolution that has been observed. I have not, nor has anyone else alive today, seen the assumptions that people have made of what happened when no one was around. Nor can anyone prove it, only assume.  I question those assumptions.

I'm sorry that this doesn't agree with your assumptions about me, but the fact is you've gotten emotional over something you wrongly assumed from the onset, and can only make work by ignoring what i've said.
-1
Reply
Male 39,958
monkwarrior With your logic I have no idea if gravity exists in Australia because I am not there to witness it.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
Gerry1of1 no wonder, because you're assuming ridiculous things, which shows you can't even grasp some of the basics of logic.
0
Reply
Male 39,958
monkwarrior Enjoy your fantasy. Evolution is a reality.  embrace it
0
Reply
Male 5,475
Gerry1of1 Yes, enjoy your fantasy thinking this assumption is reality, and also ignoring what others say and assuming they said something else.  But unfortunately what you're doing is too ridiculous to embrace.  Run along now, you've got nothing else to say.
0
Reply
Male 39,958
monkwarrior assuming a ridiculous thing"???? It is ridiculous to assume gravity exists in Australia ? ........................ ?

I'm done. You're an idiot.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
Gerry1of1 The ridiculous things you assume, that lead you to think ridiculous things about my logic, which only go to show how ridiculous your own logic is.

You are done, you were done a long time ago, and your own judgment applies to you if you think the evolution of the eye, as told by the person in this video, is a fact.  More sensible people can see it is simply a story/assumption, and the reality is no one has witnessed the evolution of the eye, so it's anyone's guess.

Sorry you can't argue effectively, but yeah, im surprised you were so emotional and ridiculous about it, it was juvenile.
0
Reply
Male 39,958
monkwarrior You weren't here when "God" created life so how do you know it happened? 
0
Reply
Male 5,475
Gerry1of1 I believe it has.  By following the scripture people have had a relationship with the creator of all things, and they have found out that He has created everything.  This has been corroborated for thousands of years through the evidence of testimony.

Unfortunately for the evolution of the eye, which a lot of assumptions are made, there's nothing but assumptions to make up the story, and empty arguments like yours.
-1
Reply
Male 39,958
monkwarrior You "believe" .... no evidence .... no proof.... just you and your imagination.

I could not have made you look more idiotic than you have yourself.
1
Reply
Male 5,475
Gerry1of1 Yes, just like you "believe" that the assumptions this person preached of the evolution of the eye is "fact".  No evidence for it, no proof, just you and unfortunately for you, the imaginations of others that you have considered fact.

Unfortunately for your rebuttal, there is evidence of testimony that billions of people have studied and used to find the truth of God, that it seems you want to cherry pick against to call "not evidence".

You might think i'm looking idiotic, but the reality is far from that, like how the assumption of the evolution of the eye is 'fact' to you, when neither you, or anyone else can prove it.  Assumption != fact.
0
Reply
Male 39,958
monkwarrior By following scripture people would believe there are Unicorns....

Daniel 8:5
Numbers 23:22
Numbers 24:22
Deuteronomy 33:17
Job 39:9-10
Psalm 22:21
Psalm 92:10
Isiah 34:7


0
Reply
Male 5,475
Gerry1of1
and your point is...

?
0
Reply
Male 39,958
monkwarrior LOL

While I think your reply is rediculous I'll give you credit for being original. I did not expect that.  LOL Well done.

0
Reply
Male 39,958
monkwarrior " The reality is no one today knows "

I'm just gonna shake my head and walk away
You can't argue with "stupid"
0
Reply
Male 3,425
Gerry1of1 you're right you can't argue with stupid, but stupid doesn't care, stupid goes on and on and on.
1
Reply
Male 5,475
Gerry1of1 Shake your head all you like, but no human alive today witnessed the creation of the eye.  But there's no shortage of tales of how it came to be.

Personally though, i do believe it was designed.

Here's a picture i saw once before (pixel s/b megapixels), that addresses this topic.
-1
Reply
Male 39,958
monkwarrior Not by accident. It came about by natural selection. The fittest being able to procreate. in this case, the animal that could see got laid. The animal that could not died a virgin
0
Reply
Male 5,475
Gerry1of1 So you claim, but have no proof of, only assumptions.  Therein is the problem, because you don't know, only assume and echo what others have said (who also don't know and didn't witness it first hand, but assumed (likely because they heard others who assumed (who likely heard others that assumed (etc.))))
-1
Reply
Male 39,958
monkwarrior I could provide you with a link to information.... but you would just say it's not proof... it's just words on a page.

It is time for you to be silent. Embrace it.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
Gerry1of1 Again, as i mentioned, you, nor i, nor anyone alive today, nor likely anyone alive in the last few thousand years, was around to see the eye evolve.  So stories have been made up, which are known as assumptions, which are just that: stories, not fact.

The problem is, assumptions have been made about something that no one was around to see, and you have declared those assumptions as fact, when no one can prove it.
-1
Reply
Male 9,769
monkwarrior Ummmm. I don't know where you pulled that, but there is a few things wrong with it.

1. As you said, it isn't "pixel" it is megapixel", as in a million pixels. Roughly 4700 pixels x 3200 pixels. 

2. We don't see in pixels. Our eye sees in infinite detail. It is not limited by resolution, but simply size and distance.

3. Film cameras also produce an image of infinite detail, not broken into pixels.

Also I can pretty much guarantee that neither the person who made this graphic, nor you, nor I really understands how a digital camera works, or a computer, or a great number of things. Not being able to understand how something happened doesn't mean it needs magic to have happened.

Primitive man didn't know why tides happened, or how the sun moved across the sky. So it answered those questions with magical beings called gods.
2
Reply
Male 39,958
holygod Well Said. 

Long winded but well said
0
Reply
Male 5,475
Gerry1of1 in your opnion, but not really, since they missed the point. But i understand it's become emotional for you at this point, and you need to make any grab at success you can, no matter how low it is.
-1
Reply
Male 5,475
holygod The point is we know the camera had a creator, and the eye, infinitely more complex, didn't?

Also not being able to understand how something happened doesn't automatically mean it wasn't 'magic'.  You don't know was all you had to say rather than try make a statement that gets shot down easily.
-1
Reply
Male 39,958
monkwarrior You know the camera had a creator. Therefore, by your logic, WE do not have a creator. You did not witness a deity creating life so you cannot claim it happened.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
Gerry1of1 The evidence is in those who have found the creator and testified of His existence.  In other words the evidence of testimony.  

Evolution of the eye, however, still only has assumptions of what no one can prove, but yes, i'll agree people do believe it.  However there is no evidence (not even evidence of testimony) to back it up.  Yes, the assumptions that this video assumes is unscientific backed up by nothing but the presenters dislike for 'creationism', and making a grasp to invent a story based on assumptions.
0
Reply
Male 39,958
monkwarrior WE have not observed the evolution of the eye..... but we have observed evolution.  It is a fact. Deal with it.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
Gerry1of1 Curious, based on your understanding of evolution, are beached whales really trying to instigate a million-plus year evolution to evolve into land whales?  If so, how do they pass on that decree for a million-plus years? What if a whale would rather live rather than risk dying on the beach? If they do die on the beach during this transition, as we can see is highly likely, wouldn't it likely lead to extinction before millions of years pass, rather than land whales becoming a thing?  If they're not trying to instigate a million-plus year evolution into land whales, why not?  They're the largest animal and might want to expand so what if you're wrong and they are but we won't find out for a million-plus years (or until they become extinct)? It's ok if you don't want to answer any of these questions, i was just curious if you would like to.
-1
Reply
Male 5,475
Gerry1of1 Yes we have not observed evolution of the eye.  Yes, i've previously noted that i have observed the evolution of the internet.  For example we went from gif's and it evolved to flash, or say realmedia to MP4's.  But just because we have not observed the evolution of the eye, does not give a free pass to make an assumption of how it came to be, when the reality is, as i've already mentioned, no one today knows.  Yes, you can say you 'know' based on the assumption, all you like, but in reality it's still an assumption. thank you.
-1
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior It was designed -- as I've explained, time and time again. It was designed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster and I have provided irrafutable evidence.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 Of course you have, cupcake, unfortunately you'll never fool sensible and intelligent people, which is why the only thing you have left is mockery and trolling.  
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior Sure I'll admit that I'm trolling you -- it's raining and I'm waiting to go out for lunch.  However if you took everyone of my comments and replaced "Flying Spaghetti Monster" with "God"  there probably wouldn't be a problem.
1
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 Unforunately you're wrong again.  If you had said "[the eye] was designed by God and I have provided irrafutable evidence."  I would have simply said, i also believe it was designed by God but i question your irrefutable evidence claim.  You're not very good at this, are you?  But then again, most mocking trolls aren't.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior Ok so my use of "irrefutable" might have been hyperbole but you stated:

" However, the evidence of testimony for God is overwhelming, and not built on mockeries, that sensible people can, have, and do find life-saving wisdom and lessons.  In fact the lessons of God have provided pillars that our society rests on, surrounding education, governance, and caring for others."

So you're saying that God is your belief and not an irrefutable truth?


0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 God is real as the evidence of testimony indicates (which i should add there is more of than any other testimony), and as billions have found.  Weather you agree or not is completely up to you, and your own willingness to seek and find the truth (of which your mockery is presently blocking you from).
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior What evidence of testimony?
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 The holy Bible, thousands of years of testimony, the evidence of lives changed for the better, the evidence of solid supports for modern day societies such as universities, hospitals, and governments.  TL;DR: All the evidence you so need to ignore to make your world-view work.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior But when was the first bible written?  The Hebrew bible was written in the 6th century BCE and the Christian bible was written in the 4th century CE. So 400 years after Christ walked on the earth.  Let's say they average life span of the time was 40 so if you had kids at 20 there would be 20 generations in 400 years.  I'm sure it was more but whatever.  So from the existance of Jesus to the writting of the book you've had these stories passed on through 20 generations.  Not taking into account politcal changes and wars.  I don't think I would call that testimony.  Did you ever play the telephone game as a kid?

Also there are a few Universities that accept the bible -- however most don't.  And which governments support the bible?
1
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 Grasping at straws is the sign of a losing position.  The earliest scripture is several thousands of years old, also it expresses the basis of science (Psalm 111:2), and the basis of successful governance all throughout it, which most governments have been built on.  Ignore it all you like, i understand the pettiness of deniers, but ultimately it's unstable and indefensible ground you're standing on.
-1
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior I don't really understand how I'm grasping at straws.  I can understand faith. I can understand the value of faith. But I can't understand the truth of faith -- you have offered no evidence.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 evidence of testimony was provided, it is simply you who is cherry picking against it.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior What does that even mean.   You're basically saying "I'm rubber and you're glue whatever you say bounces off me and sticks on you". 

I love it.  You've thrown personal insults to me.  You haven't given one piece of evidence -- even a link to support any of your claims.

Which makes me think that you are the ultimate troll. 
1
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 The meaning is quite clear:

These were quite simple to find, but it doesn't surprise me you chose to troll rather than study the evidence, as you've made your nature quite clear. It is only yourself your trolling is hurting.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior I was going to leave this thread but you posted a link to a Pat Robertson website. A guy who has said:

 "On the role of a man and a woman

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household, and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."

On Walt Disney World's "Gay Days"

"I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you ... It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor."

On homosexuality

"Many of those people involved in Adolf Hitler were Satanists. Many were homosexuals. The two things seem to go together."

On the tornadoes that ravaged the Midwest in 2012

"If enough people were praying, (God) would've intervened. You could pray. Jesus stilled the storm. You can still storms."

So I'm not sure how you call this evidence.

I'm still waiting to hear what's going to happen in September.  I'm starting to think that you're full of shit and you're the ultimate troll.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 unfortunatley for you, your petty world view required you to use the fallacy of ad-hominem (which is no surprise coming from a troll), to continue your appeal to ignorance fallacy.  See, in ignoring the testimony of people who posted on that site in favor of trying to discredit them by attempting to discredit the site owner, you have proven you're nothing but fallacious.  If you didn't like the site there were plenty more for you to look at, but instead you chose to dive into your fallacy to let anyone here to see the fragility of your world view.  Good job.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior I think you feel that if you use the word fallacy enough you're validating your arguement.  The 700 club depends on the support of desparate and ignorant people.

Why is the onus on me to search out material to prove your point of view? 
1
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 because you are asking the questions you want to find out, and are simply trolling instead of learning.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior The thread has got a little messy.  What question of mine are you answering?  And calling me a troll doesn't validate your statements either.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 You already admitted to trolling, so you have nothing there.  If you can't remember what you've said, you'll have to re-read everything you've said, but i can understand how that would be difficult for a troll who also uses fallacies.  So go on, prove you're not a troll by reading and learning.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior When I admitted to trolling it was when I was pushing the FSM.  It's a new day and you've pushed this to the next level.  I never used personal insults -- you have. 

Again with the word fallacy.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 not my fault if you want to use them, with me they will be called out. Since you have nothing else, and are exposed, are you now done?
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior Wow -- that made no sense, whatsoever.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 no doubt.  this is the 3rd or 4th time you seem to have a problem understanding simple words.  As previously mentioned, perhaps re-education on english may help you in that area.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior Since you've resorted to personal attacks and incoherant rants; I'll assume that you're beyond the point of no return.  

I'll ask again about what's going to happen in September?  You keep promising to provide information.  Are you refering to Labor Day?
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 Since you continue to troll, you'll have to head back to the post in question and re-read what was said.  Rest assured it was quite clear.  But again, if you can't understand, you may need to take a refresher course on english.  Don't think this is a personal attack, just an observation of your poor grasp on basic english, which has been clairifed for you too many times already, triggering another observation of your trolling.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior So asking you to clarify an unclear statement that you made is trolling?  You may think that you're writting in clear english but you're not.

Why not just answer a simple question? 
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 asking to clarify a statement for the 4'th time when it was cleared up for you 2-3 times already clearly shows you have a problem with understanding.  Why not go back and re-read it rather than post again to continue your trolling?
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior In fact, the next month and 9 days should provide you with many people denying the facts, using their propaganda war term 'conspiracy theorist', and failing to accept facts due to their indoctrination by the lies of the media.  Stick around, i'll be posting a few posts in the lead up to 9/11 2017, so you'll get a first-hand view of what i'm talking about.  Unless, of course, you're one of the deniers, in which case, good luck!


Here's the post that I keep asking for clarification.  You mention the next month and 9 days.  It's been over a week and still nothing. I've asked what the content will be about and you have refused to answer that simple question.  So I can only assume that your using these statements to troll.  If you had anything to show you would have shown it by now.

So I'll ask again. When are we going to see these posts?
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 pay attention to the stick around part, and learn paitience!  it's a virtue!
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior So in other words you have nothing.  You can't even answer a simple question about what you're talking about.  You just make vague comments.

Lame.
0
Reply
Male 552
lockner01 I do think that Monkwarrior is either an extreme Troll or brainwashed to a point where argument is utterly pointless.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 Oh i have some posts i plan to post, i just haven't gotten around to it yet, so in other words you have no patience, and are being ridiculous because of it.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior You sound exactly like Donald Trump.  Why don't you stop trolling on this thread and start working on these so called posts?  If you had anything you would have shown it by now. You obviously have nothing.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 You're the one who started trolling my post, if you can't handle the fact that your trolling is exposed and proven ineffective, perhaps it's time for you to call it a day?  If you have no patience, it's really not my problem.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior So trolling me by calling a troll?  You should use the word fallacy again.  The fact that you can't even answer a simple question tells me that you have nothing to show.  Why won't you say what these magical posts are going to be about?
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 The fact you can't understand a simple sentence the first time, nor the 3 subsequent times, and here again for the 4th time, really signals that you ought to go back to school to learn the language of English.  It's either that or you are a troll as you previously admitted, and at this juncture it's looking more like the later than the former..

Again, if you can't be patient, it's not my problem.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior I don't understand why you can't just admit that you don't have anything.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 because the reality is i do have something, and i just haven't gotten around to posting it yet.  Being an impatient troll is not going to speed it up, FYI.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior Time to put your money where your mouth is -- or you just don't have anything.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 Nothing for demanding trolls at the moment, sorry.  Looks like you'll have to be patient.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior In other words you have nothing.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 wrong again.  You took time to express how you were an impatient troll, are you trying to become an ignorant and impatient troll?
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior I didn't say I was a troll, I admitted to trolling you for a short period of time.

Just saying you have something doesn't make it true.  To be honest even if you do have something I'm sure it's a load of grabage.  However I'm sure you don't have anything.

You sir are an extreme troll.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 Yet you continue to troll, as anyone can see.  And within a month, when everyone sees the post i've made, they'll realize you were an impatient one.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior Just saying you have something doesn't make it true.  You obviously don't have anything.

And you being an extreme troll calling me a troll is rich.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 In the same vein, just saying "you have nothing" doesn't make it true, as you will see within a month.  Continue trolling all you like, you're suffering most for it as anyone can see.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior The burden of proof isn't on me to prove that you have something.  You're lack of even the slightest information demonstrates you have nothing.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 And you'll be proven wrong within a month.  Patience.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior I guess that's enough time for you to find some garbage.  So by Aug 31st? Or how are you defining a month? If you had anything now you would have put your cards on the table.

Start Googling whatever crazy thing you think is going to happen. Ièm sure youèll get a lot of responses that will allow you to troll people.

0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 back under your bridge, troll.  I suggest you take some time to learn something about patience in the time between now and when i post the series.  Also, don't try to assume how to best play cards, when you're clearly not getting any gains here.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior If you have something show it. Otherwise stop being an extreme troll.  You obviously don't have anything.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 again, there's a multi-part series that i'll be posting within the next month.  You'll just have to be patient until then to find out you were wrong today.  It's no issue for me at all that you have no patience, but you are indeed quite wrong, and exposing yourself as a troll more and more.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior You're very good at not answering questions.  Now you're saying within the next month.  So you pushing your deadline?  Lame.  Why not give a solid deadline.  Hey I'll even help Google some stuff for you since you don't have anything right now.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 I never set a date, but it will hopefully be before or on 9/11.  have patience.  As for the offer, don't worry, i have all i need.  It's just a matter of the write-up part, and i can see you're not at the skill required for that.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior You'll probably want someone to check your grammar. 

If you had something already you would be posting it.  Why would you say "In the next month and 9 days" rather than saying "By 9/11"

You've lost all credibility.  You can't even come up with something to allude to what it is you have.  The only ammunition you have is to result to personal attacks.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 No set date was given, it could have meant anytime between then and 9/11/2017.

Again, you'll see you're wrong in due time, but have patience.


0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior another day and still nothing.  You set the timeline. 
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 and how much patience did you learn since then?
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior Typical Donald Trump trolling response.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 typical impatient troll response.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior not really.  I'm patient but I know that you either don't have anything or it's taking you so long to do Google searches that you need time to prove whatever premise it is you're trying to prove; and haven't found anything yet.  Otherwise why would you not even give a hint about what amazing truths you be exposing.

If you do have something and actually post it before 9/11 it better be a PHD level discertation.  Because I don't hink you'll be able to live up to the hype you build.  
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 oh you "know" do you?  well in that case i know you're 100% wrong because i've had this series in mind to post on here for quite some time, long before i ever responded to a post of yours, in fact.  Also, in fact, i came across it earlier in 2017, and my first thought was "this is I-A-B material!"  in fact i had it in mind when squrlz4ever made a multi-post, and even asked them about it for a '9/11' series.  So why not go back and look at the comments for that post they made, and see how wrong you are now.  

Use it as a patience exercise, to show how wrong you were (since i had it in mind back then), and let it teach you to be patient.

Or prove to us all you're just a troll by not doing that.
0
Reply
Male 341
lockner01 Oh the irony!
You do realize that monkwarrior replied to: "Did you ever play the telephone game as a kid?" by giving you a link to dozens of DIFFERENT English translations to an ancient Hebrew song.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior " The reality is no one today knows"

The evidence is pretty clear that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world much as it exists.  I challenge you to offer any evidence to refute that.
1
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 Sure.  Bobby Henderson, the guy who came up with the 'flying spaghetti monster' admitted it was a mockery of God in the 2006 book he wrote, which was based on the 2005 protest he wrote where he used the same mockery. 

Any more stupidity you need resolved?
0
Reply
Male 3,425
monkwarrior so a flat earth believer, anti evolution, holocaust denier gets to question if someone else has any more stupidity they need resolved. 
0
Reply
Male 5,475
rumham Well well, it looks like you woke up on the wrong side of your trolling vortex this morning, doesn't it?  Get well soon.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior Saying Bobby Henderson created the Flying Spaghetti Monster is like saying some dude named Jim came up with the idea of modern Christianty.  Can you offer me any evidence that the FSM doesn't exist?  
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 Ignoring that Bobby Henderson invented it, is about on par with you ignoring that the author of harry potter wrote harry potter.  It's your delusion, i'm simply providing you the fact, its also your choice to ignore it, as ridiculous as it may be.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior I already offered a irrefutable explanation to the book below.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 I already spoke about your delusion above.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior How am I delusional? I can offer multiple sources to support my claims.  Other than one instance of somone being under an outside influence can you offer some evidence of me being wrong?
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 Unfortunately for you, the evidence of testimony for your claim is so small, and full of mockeries, that sensible people have a difficult time considering it.  However, the evidence of testimony for God is overwhelming, and not built on mockeries, that sensible people can, have, and do find life-saving wisdom and lessons.  In fact the lessons of God have provided pillars that our society rests on, surrounding education, governance, and caring for others.

It is understandable that those who hate God would need to find something to fill the void within them, even if it's a idol like the mockery you're trying to preach.  But ultimately that idol will not fill the void as required (since only one can fill that void), resulting in mindsets like your own: full of delusional and ridiculous arguments, pride, and ego.

Now you know, and knowing should be half the battle. 
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior Well I'm glad that you quoted G.I Joe to support your arguement. 

According to Google there are 14 million Jews on the planet, 2.7 Shintos, and 10 million Scientologists.  So with 15 million Pastafarians that believe in the FSM how can you refute that my clain is "full of mockeries"?  

Can you please provide me evidence that your god exists but mine is an illusion?
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 I've already pointed out the fact it was invented as a mockery by its author, the evidence of testimony for the said mockery, which is full of mockeries and only appealing to a mockers or haters of God.  Not only that but pointed to the evidence of testimony of God in scripture and testimony which has been corroborated and found to be true over thousands of years, continues to be found true, and continues to inspire positive change in this world.

If you want to ignore these facts out of the fragility of your world view, or fear of the truths about God, then it's like i said: your delusion.  Meaning: it's up to you to resolve the delusions that grip you, not me.  That would require you to take the first step and let go of them, and make a decision to seek the truth. That is something only you can do.  I've shown you the door, it's up to you to walk through it. If you don't want to, then the old adage applies: "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force them to drink".
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior You don't have to start using personal attacks -- jeez. I already stated that Bobby admitted to being under the influence of the FSM's noodle appendage, when he wrote that book.  It's beyond our comprehension why the FSM would make Bobby claim it wasn't real.  

When you say "God", I'm assuming your claiming a Christian god.  Well there is irrifuteable evidence that the FSM predates the Christian god.  However I will respect your mistaken belief. 

 I have a neighbour that believes in fairies. She puts chocolates out every night for them.  Because she's a nice lady I go and eat them after she goes to bed.  This supports her belief but it makes her happy -- so what the hell.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 Bright minds are able to discern fact from fiction.

If you are so willing to accept the tiny amount of questionable testimony for the mockery you're preaching, is it safe to assume you also accept that the small amount of questionable testimony for the nessie, big foot, UFO's, or a teapot orbiting pluto? In other words, are these facts to you too?
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior No I don't believe in that nonsense but I've provided irrifutable evidence of the FSM.  I'm not sure what part of irrifutable you don't understand.

On another note a couple of weeks ago you promised to provide me with links about how the earth is going to end some time in Septmember.  I'm still waiting.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 Well if you think i said that, you may be more delusional than you're willing to admit, likely just mocking, or at the very least having a hard time understanding english words.  In all cases further education could help you, however in the delusional or mocking case, a bit of additional work would be required to resolving them. 

I have no desire or need to further prove a mockery of something which the author of already clearly admitted was a mockery.  But understand, to get people to believe the mockery you're preaching will require you to lead them to be delusional like yourself, which most sensible people will outright reject.  So good luck to you.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior In fact, the next month and 9 days should provide you with many people denying the facts, using their propaganda war term 'conspiracy theorist', and failing to accept facts due to their indoctrination by the lies of the media.  Stick around, i'll be posting a few posts in the lead up to 9/11 2017, so you'll get a first-hand view of what i'm talking about.  Unless, of course, you're one of the deniers, in which case, good luck!

Sorry when I asked for an explaination of this statement you were pretty vague; so I assumed it was about the end of the world.

Still I haven't seen anything.  Perhaps the FSM is using his Noodle Appendage to sway you?
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 you haven't seen anything because i haven't posted it yet.  But don't worry you'll get your trolling wish soon.
0
Reply
Male 3,425
monkwarrior we can't wait im sure it will blow the minds of no one
1
Reply
Male 552
rumham LOL he's a funny one for sure!
0
Reply
Male 5,475
rumham apparetly it's got you wound up pretty tightly, shame.  Though i don't expect trolls, or people who think the media only tells the truth to enjoy it.  Consider it your forewarning for when you see it.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior So it's going to be like the end of the Wizard of Oz? Where ToTo pulls down the curtain to reveal the tiny man?
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 You never know.
0
Reply
Male 3,425
lockner01 careful of monks derp vortex. 
0
Reply
Male 941
lockner01 Someone admitting that he made it up is pretty solid evidence that it doesn't exist.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
cjeffblanchr It's been stated a number of times that the FSM was mentally manipulating Bobby, with it's noodle appendage, while the book was being written.  For some reason, that is beyond mortal comprehension, the FSM made Bobby write that it was a mokery of God.  On a number of occassions Bobby has publicly stated this.
0
Reply
Male 941
lockner01 How do I know you're not making that up?
0
Reply
Male 1,082
cjeffblanchr In days to come I will be posting more material proving my point.  You'll just have to wait.
0
Reply
Male 941
lockner01 Okay cool.  I'll hold my breath.
0
Reply
Male 3,496
lockner01 Flying Spaghetti Monster?  ABSURD!

Dragons, Unicorns, Talking Donkeys, Talking Burning Bushes,People hanging out inside of whales for 3 days with no ill effects, Sea Dragons, Walking on Water, Transmutation of water to wine, World encompassing floods and Faith Healing?

Well yeah, that all makes perfect sense. 

0
Reply
Male 1,082
daegog There is irrefutable evidence of the existance of FSM.


0
Reply
Male 341
lockner01 The only way to fight stupid is with stupid. Good job holding your own against monkwarrior using his tactics!
monkwarrior 's reasoning is clouded by his delusions and logical fallacies. He's retreating by starting to call you names and getting all worked up. You're so close to winning the pointless argument! 
0
Reply
Male 1,082
boredhuman Thanks.
0
Reply
Male 341
lockner01  "In days to come I will be posting more material proving my point."  I'd love to see a FSM post on IAB. 
0
Reply
Male 1,082
boredhuman I don't think I'll really be posting about the FSM; I was only using monkwarrior's methods of debate.  Although you never know -- there are still a few says left in the summer.
0
Reply
Male 341
In this video though, Dawkins is clearly in his element.
As a biologist he's looking at society through the lens of genes and survival.
Dawkins' concept of memes has enriched my view on politics/religion/society.
Despite what many may think, Dawkins does agree that religion has an evolutionary advantage... 
0
Reply
Male 552
Great stuff, I used to love these Christmas lectures, just as informative now as it was then.
0
Reply
Male 682
Climbing Mt Improbable! Thanks Daegog, this lecture was the one that put the nail in the coffin of me having a religion.
0
Reply