7:30  Not observable.  -- Um:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

10:30 Evolution is a historical science.  --  Agreed.

14:50 Evolutionists say the grand canyon was formed over millions of years.  Creationists say the grand canyon was formed during the great flood.  ---  What’s your assumption of the wear rate of water on rock?  Does that match actual observations?  Also, do you really think that all the layers of sediment were laid down in only 6,000 years?

19:00 "This is an example of unbound extrapolation, which is known to be extremely poor science." ---  By whom?

24:00 Dog breeding is micro evolution and doesn’t equal macro evolution.  ---  Well, not YET.

33:30 Human genetic de-evolution.  --- Yes, we became so successful that there are no longer any significant pressures on humans.  We can support people who, in a hunter-gatherer society, would never have survived.

43:00 “Lucy” is a jumble of human and ape bones, not a separate species.  ---  An intriguing theory.  Though they move on without really doing a good comparison. 

48:00 Radio-carbon dating relies on assumptions which are flawed.  ---  Agreed.  But I don’t know enough to argue either way.  It could also be that the earth is even older than we thought.

1:03:00 Human/chimp DNA match is really 85%, not 99%.  ---  This makes more sense considering how we look.

1:07:00 The (estimated) length of time needed to form beneficial mutations exceeds the (estimated) time to form them.  ---  I added the “estimated”s in there to show these are just guesses.  And clearly wrong.

1:11:00 Eve existed 200,000.  We know thanks to Mitochondrial DNA.  ---  A number of problems with this study.  A: assumptions about the rate of change in DNA.  B: only 147 participants.  C: most of the “African” people studied were African-Americans of mixed ancestry.  https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/female-ancestor.htm

1:16:00 We can calculate the mutation rate right now.  ---  That’s what?  Four?  Maybe five generations you can test right now?  And then you’re extrapolating that back?  What were you saying about “unbound extrapolation” before?

1:17:00 Genes are changing much faster than we thought.  This means Adam and Eve happened 6,000 years ago.  ---  LOL.  They just undid their own arguments above about the speed of evolution.

1:29:00 The “out of Africa” theory closely mirrors the biblical account.  ---   You gotta really squint.  You could also say that the bible mirrors what we know about evolution.

The order of creation in the Bible is 1. Light, 2. Waters/Sky, 3. Plants, 4. Lights again, 5. Fish, Birds, 6. Mammals, Humans. So it went: Water, plants, fish, birds, mammals, humans. That list leaves out amphibians, reptiles, and a bunch of other stuff; but when we look at evolution, what order do things happen in? Water, plants, (insects,) fish, (amphibians, reptiles,) dinosaurs (AKA birds), mammals, humans. Interesting that things happened in that order. My question is: How did a bunch of illiterate people learn something like the order of evolution? (I ignore the mistake of creating lights twice as that's a clear case of the "telephone game" at work mixing things up in an oral tradition)

Okay, I watched yours.  You read mine:  https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution.htm/printable

Let me know what you think.

Though I’m not sure why this is even a debate.  Just look at your feet.  They clearly came from a more hand-like appendage but the toes have atrophied to the point of being mostly useless.  That’s just one example of the “argument from poor design.” 

More examples:

The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking.

The breathing reflex is stimulated not directly by the absence of oxygen but indirectly by the presence of carbon dioxide. A result is that, at high altitudes, oxygen deprivation can occur in unadapted individuals who do not consciously increase their breathing rate.

Almost all animals and plants synthesize their own vitamin C, but humans cannot because the gene for this enzyme is defective (Pseudogene ΨGULO).[12] Lack of vitamin C results in scurvy and eventually death. The gene is also non-functional in other primates and in guinea pigs, but is functional in most other animals.[13]

Let’s talk more about Vitamin C.  So why does this prove evolution? Very simple: because we (humans, apes, and monkeys) still have the entire instruction set to create Vitamin C, which we share with all mammals, it shows that all mammals have a common descent (dogs and cats for instance can synthesize it pretty well), and furthermore, that all monkeys and apes (humans included) also share a common descent because we all share the same mutation that turned off Vitamin C production. Slam-dunk, if such a thing was still needed...

human evolution is also ongoing.
Apparently increasing numbers of people are being born without wisdom teeth. As the human diet gas changed so much that we no longer need those large back grinding teeth for hard seed and grains.

And little toes are pretty much vestigial these days - well mine are

Also if you choose to accept One creation myth - then you really need to accept them all.
Most of them have been around a LOT longer than christianity, which is one of the youngets religions on the block anyway.

My answer to the question:'do you believe in god ?'
Is usually - 'which one ?'
They then say - all offended: 'god god !'
I say: 'my next door neighbours are hindus and have hundreds of gods. Why should I believe in any one god more than any other ? What makes you're god the 'REAL' god and everyone elses gods false ? Particularly as there are many gods who have been worshipped a lot longer than your 'God'.

The way I look at it, I'll repsect anyones beliefs, but I won't discriminate.
I don't see why any particular religion is more viable or non-viable than any other.
So sure I'll accept your beliefs, on the proviso you accept and respect everyone elses

And that include atheists - yes, atheism IS a religion. In as much as it's  unproveable belief system that attracts as many hardcore fanatics as any other religion out there.
Old blood and thunder: 'I'm right and you are wrong and you need to believe what I say you need to believe' richard dawkins, is as much a religious fanatic as the maddest mullah from mad town in madistan.

Odd that he's never realised.

Curious Aardvark wrote on Oct 11^th, 2020 at 1:31pm:

What beliefs does atheism adhere to?  And you can't say 'The belief that no god (or gods) exists', because that isn't required for atheism.

joe_meadmaker wrote on Oct 11^th, 2020 at 5:52pm:


Actually, that's the definition of an ashiest. 

An atheist doesn't believe in a god or divine being.  However, an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. Agnostics assert that it's impossible for human beings to know anything about how the universe was created and whether or not divine beings exist.

Well they do say not to talk religion, sex or politics in polite company NOOC I really do love these discussions though. I did philosophy at A level (I think that's High School level in America?) and I really love it as a subject. All the big questions are the most interesting ones.

I watched it but it was a little bias I thought. Had some interesting ideas but I’m not versed enough to really comment on the legitimacy of it.

Kick wrote on Oct 12^th, 2020 at 11:29am:


I am sorry to hear that and glad you are doing better.

I am curious were you for actual policy for eradication of religion or did you merely hold that it would be a positive thing if religiosity dwindled over time and eventually disappeared? I think the latter is far more excusable, I'm not sure I hold it- but I can understand why some might.