Herein is the video and a follow up which took place within the YouTube comments section.
sadetec wrote:
Actually, nobody ever suggested junk DNA was actually junk. The term "junk DNA" is just a joke/familiar name it was given because we didn't know its function at first -- just like the big bang was not actually a bang, and the god particle isn't god. If you want proof of this, go check out a copy of The Selfish Gene, one of the best selling biology books of all time, first published 40 years ago. On the topic of junk DNA the book basically explains that we need to do more research to establish its function -- you'd have thought that comments like that in such a well read, and respected, biology book would have attracted some attention if the scientific consensus had already agreed junk DNA had no function(?) Also... who is the "we" that has now discovered the function of junk DNA? Creationists? No... evolutionary biologists. Kind of strange that they would have spent decades researching the purpose of junk DNA if everyone had already agree it had no purpose.
None of the other examples quoted seem to be actual predictions made by Creationists. It seems that this is just a list of unexpected scientific discoveries that the Creationists have pounced on after the fact and claimed for themselves, as if they knew all along what the results would be. But you'll note there's little evidence presented in the video of when and where these predictions were made -- no articles or papers cited that actually record the Creationist predictions before the science was published. Anyone can make hindsight predictions after the result is known -- the trick is to do what scientists do, which is to make predictions before the result is known..!! ;)
Viewer will not also that the talk demonstrates its points often using second or third hand accounts; the slides don't show a scientific paper claiming surprise at the differences in human and chimp chromosomes, but news stories (often written by journalists with no scientific background) claiming that scientists are surprised. How do we know that these stories, published in sources such as Russia Today (the state-controlled Russian news channel) and the Daily Mail (the UK equivalent of Fox News), give a true representation of the scientific consensus? Why does the speaker have to rely on third hand accounts? Why not show actual articles published in scientific journals, if they exist? (Given that chimps have 48 chromosomes and humans have only 46, you'd expect a reasonable degree of difference, btw.)
My reply:
Sadetec, friend you appear to be too used to weaving together Darwinian stories. Please present your evidence that, for example, "The term "junk DNA" is just a joke/familiar name it was given because we didn't know its function at first."
And well, he, she and/or it never replied.
Then Jack bassman wrote:
Over 300,000 peer reviewed scientific papers supporting evolution, 0 scientific peer reviewed papers supporting "Intelligent Design" or similar claims.
My reply:
Friend, I am afraid that you are mistaken quantitatively as well as conceptually. Please read the following, for starters: Jerry Bergman’s “Censorship of Information on Origins”: not only are such papers censored but papers reporting on the censorship are censored from journals that deal with scholastic censorship.
Richard Horton’s “ What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”
Well, he never replied but did get one shot in within the discussion which ensued with atam mardes who wrote this to me:
“Creation Science” is an oxymoron made up to fool the morons. The proper terms are: “Creation fiction” or “Creation Fantasy”. If there is an overwhelming urge to associate creation with science, then the proper terms are: “Creation Junk Science” or “Creation Science Fiction”.
I, Ken Ammi, replied:
Friend, your comment is a jumping to conclusion assertion: please formulate an argument. “Creation Science” is the foundation of science as we know it. This is non-controversial and well known within the history of science.
atam mardes
Friend, everything I said is the truth and the reason you do not like it is because the truth hurts - especially if you have emotional attachment to your religious indoctrination. Just because some pre-Darwin scientists were religious or some post-Darwin scientists are intellectually dishonest, It does not mean creation story has anything to do with science. They have evidence for evolution and it is intellectually dishonest to ignore them:
FOSSIL EVIDENCE : http://tinyurl.com/nv59mn
DNA EVIDENCE: http://tinyurl.com/jbyfnh
Ken Ammi
Friend, everything I said is the truth and the reason you do not like it is because the truth hurts - especially if you have emotional attachment to your evolutionary indoctrination. Just because some per-Darwin scientists were not religious or some post-Darwin scientists are intellectually dishonest, it does not mean evolutionary story has anything to do with science. They have evidence for creation and it is intellectually dishonest to ignore them. If you want, I can also post links.
atam mardes
Friend, do you agree that you are being intellectually dishonest when you ignore these evolution evidences?
FOSSIL EVIDENCE : http://tinyurl.com/nv59mn
DNA EVIDENCE: http://tinyurl.com/jbyfnh
Ken Ammi:
I would have to know what you mean by “evolution” in order to really answer as to whether I believe in it or not.
But, I see the issue now: the problem is that you are making a category error by correlating evidence with interpretation of evidence. When, for example, a skeleton is found, that skeleton is the evidence. Yet, what we are told about it is just that: what we are told about it.
That is where interpretation comes in and evidence is interpreted according to the interpreter’s worldview philosophy, schools of thought, seeking to butters and protect preferred theories, etc., etc., etc.
If you would like to read very many evolutionists admitting these facts see here: http://truefreethinker.com/articles/scientific-cenobites-part-1-9
atam mardes:
By evolution I mean we evolved from apes with no prior plans, prior intentions, or prior purpose. Philosophy is no evidence for anything. Philosophy is just a product of human brain, which was evolved to be able to think in order to find new methods of survival. Evolving to have the complex ability to think is special to humans, but it's just another evolutionary survival mechanism similar to the complex sonar of a bat, or the complex camouflage of a cuttlefish. Evolving a thinking brain is just another evolutionary trait to help species survive. Humans evolving to be physically beautiful, better looking, and more attractive, are special to humans, but it is just evolutionary reproduction traits similar to the beauty of peacock feathers or other fancily and colorfully evolved creatures.
You have the option to look for a God given purposes, if that makes you feel good, but it's intellectually dishonest, arrogant, narcissistic, and delusional to thank a God for giving you good health as it implies God ignored hundreds of handicapped babies just to tent to you. No offense, by "you" I don't mean you!
Nobody knows what caused the big bang, but ignorance is no proof that an immaterial entity with intentions and plans did it. What caused the big bang could have very well been mindless unknown causes. No immaterial entity can think and plan without a material brain, even if it did, no intelligent and efficient creator would create 100s trillions of planets so that a planet earth can have life on it. It seems earth got lucky in its formation and life accidentally and precariously emerged from chemistry then evolved.
The analogy being: When a tiny plant sprouts through an accidentally created crack of a 2 ton boulder, neither the boulder was intentionally designed to be of that shape/size, nor the crack in the boulder was planned, nor was the boulder designed for the plant.
Ken Ammi
Well, if we evolved from apes with no prior plans, etc. then this entire discussion is irrelevant since I have no reason to be concerned by what a glorified ape grunts at me—capiche?
Now, the reason for thinking that we evolved from apes is precisely due to philosophy which has been my point all along: evidence is found and interpreted philosophically.
Now, if our brains “evolved to be able to think in order to find new methods of survival” and if it helps me survive to reject evolution then why are you attempting to hinder my ability to survive?
You have the option to look for a lack of purposes, if that makes you feel good, but it's intellectually dishonest, arrogant, narcissistic, and delusional to thank evolution for giving you good health as it implies evolution ignored hundreds of handicapped babies just to tent to you—but evolution, you and they are all accidents anyhow which means that none of it matters.
Now, of course, I am playing your card but the fact is that when you call people “intellectually dishonest, arrogant, narcissistic, and delusional” you are playing mind reader and revealing something about yourself and not others. For example, how do you know that someone is intellectually dishonest rather than simply wrong of ignorant (literally lacking info)?—because your philosophy tells you so.
Nobody knows what caused the big bang, but ignorance is no proof that nothing cause nothing to explode for no intended reasons and without plans did it. What caused the big bang could have very well been a mindful known cause.
I am afraid that you have merely told me various evolutionary stories based on philosophy. For example, you merely assert (tell another story) that “No immaterial entity can think and plan without a material brain” which is merely a philosophical point of view—made, by the way, by an ape attempting to survive.
Then you also philosophize and theologize about what an “intelligent and efficient creator would” or would not do. Even then claim that “earth got lucky” is merely a philosophical statement.
So, here I am dealing with a temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organism, you, expressing interpretations of bio-sensory neural reactions occurring within a brain which haphazardly evolved for survival as you sit atop a temporarily existing and accidentally spinning rock, orbiting a temporarily and accidentally average star in the backwaters of a temporarily and accidentally existing universe—and I should be concerned about it why, exactly?
In short, when you claim that our brains evolved to survive (for some unknown reason) you are discrediting any concept of absolute empirical truth as that no longer matters: only survival does. You have utterly discredited the very premise upon which you claim to have found the one truth about the factual nature of reality.
atam mardes:
You have no evidence for any God, capiche? Bible prophecies are made up and backdated. Virgin birth, resurrection, & walking on water are all fake. The church also uses fake pretty pictures of Jesus/Marry to fool people: tinyurl.com/jqsdj6o tinyurl.com/jm8wryq
Christianity is not even original with its fake nonsense: tinyurl.com/b5qhau
"evidence is found and interpreted philosophically."
Wrong, no need for philosophy when you have evidence to prove evolution is real.
"it helps me survive to reject evolution then why are you attempting to hinder my ability to survive?"
It is a show of your utmost intellectual dishonesty to ignore evolution evidences just because it feels better to have an imaginary God given purpose.
FOSSIL: http://tinyurl.com/nv59mn
DNA: http://tinyurl.com/jbyfnhYou must understand that I do not thank evolution for my good health. I am saying evolution is how we got here because of the evidence - whether the truth hurts your indoctrinated religious beliefs or not.
Fanged carnivores like lions designed to kill by instinct, and thousands of genetic DNA defects causing stuff like cancer, are expected from a mindless, accidental, unintelligent, unplanned, unguided, imperfect, unkind, immoral, and unintentional evolutionary process. They are NOT expected from an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, mindful, kind, loving, moral, and perfect designer/creator with intentions and an intelligent plan.
Ken Ammi:
Well friend, on your own view what you wrote to me is an ape’s interpretation of bio-chemical reactions which you interpret as you do solely because doing so helps you survive and not necessarily because it reflects reality. Thus, I am not sure what the point is.
Also, why are you attempting to get me to accept your theology? You tell me that which a designer/creator would and would not do but that is all according to you, your theology, your worldview, your philosophy. Yet, your points on that issue are, again, solely an ape interpreting brain chemicals towards the end of surviving.
Now, just to clear up a point or two. Indeed, if your view is accurate then, as have been mathematically proven, ever accumulating genetic defects would mean that we should no longer exist. Also, such things as you list (and which in doing so you presuppose an ethical standard without evidence) were not part of the designer’s/creator’s intentions or intelligent plan. Rather, the initial creation was perfect, a fall occurred which brought about such things and so the designer/creator sent Jesus to save us and eventually rectify or redeem the creation back to its originally intended state.
atam mardes:
Well friend, I tell you the truth again:
It's a show of your intellectual dishonesty and ignorance to dismiss the DNA/fossil evidences for evolution just because a fake God given purpose makes your gullible ass feel better.It's also a show of your intellectual dishonesty and ignorance to think evolution is a theology or a source of ethics. Evolution is not someone's ideology or moral plan to live our lives by. Evolution is an immoral unguided process that occurs in nature and they have the DNA/fossil evidence to prove it, whether the truth hurts your brainwashed religious views or not.
It's also a show of your intellectual dishonesty and ignorance to dismiss the fact that Christianity is not even original with its made up miracle stories: tinyurl.com/b5qhau8
It's also a show of your intellectual dishonesty and ignorance to dismiss the fact that Jesus is mostly a fictional character glorified by people throughout the history making stuff up on his behalf and associate fake miracle stories to him.
It's also a show of your intellectual dishonesty and ignorance to dismiss the fact that the church has been using fake pretty pictures of Jesus/Mary to fool people: tinyurl.com/jqsdj6 tinyurl.com/jm8wry
It's also a show of your intellectual dishonesty and ignorance to not realize the fact that sin/sacrifice story was made up by the barbaric primitive people who believed blood sacrifice is the solution to the problems they did not understand.
You should be ashamed of yourself for praising a God who orders the slaughter of even one innocent infant in any context:
1 Samuel 15:3 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.You should be ashamed of yourself for praising a God who orders to not only have people as slaves, but also to beat them:
Luke 12:47 The servant who knows the master's will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows.You should be ashamed of yourself for praising a hypocrite God who orders to enslave children and not to treat relatives the way slaves are treated:
Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.Do you agree that you are intellectually dishonest in regards to all the above? I am not trying to change your beliefs; I want you to be happy believing whatever fairy tale you need to believe in order to get through the day. I just want you to admit the fact that you are being intellectually dishonest by using fake artificial religious facts to make yourself happy - because of your brain's inability to handle reality - capiche?
Cheers
Ken Ammi
Friend, if you would only take yourself as seriously as I am taking you, if you would only actually apply the worldview which you claim to hold. Basically, as per your view: you are an ape grunting, “Ooh, ooh, ahh, ahh” and I am one grunting “Aah, aah, ooh, ooh” and you are upset (due to random chemical reactions in your brain) because you believe that “Ooh, ooh, ahh, ahh” is a superior view than “Aah, aah, ooh, ooh.”
Now, since as per you we are both apes, upon what basis do you even imagine that you tell me “the truth” since you claim that our brains haphazardly evolved and did so for survival (for some unknown reason): you are claiming that random bio-chemical reactions reflect truth and that your interpretation of random bio-chemical reactions is truthier than mine. You are asking me to adhere to your view of truth, logical and ethics but you are not providing a premise upon which to do so and are also discrediting your very own view of truth, logical and ethics.
In fact, you claim that our brains haphazardly evolved and did so for survival and then blame me for having been shortchanged by random chance due to my “brain's inability to handle reality”: this is utterly incoherent.
Likewise, upon what premise do you condemn the following which I am pulling from your most recent comment alone, “intellectual dishonesty” holding to views to as to “feel better” bring “brainwashed” believing in a “fictional character” making up a “sin/sacrifice story” being “barbaric primitive people” also “praising a God who orders the slaughter” slavery, hypocrisy, “believing” in a “fairy tale,” etc., etc., etc.
Your arguments are literally incoherent as they are all self-defeating. I would love to interact with each and every mistaken point you made but I would first like you to premise your statements rather than simply lashing out emotionally.
atam mardes:
Friend, you thanking a God for you good health implies that God ignored thousands of miscarriages just to look after you - and that is a show of your narcissism, intellectual dishonest, selfishness & ignorance, which religion business exploits to make you feel special in your delusional mind. Do you agree?
Ken Ammi:
Friend, why are you constantly ignoring specific points that I make in reply to you and move the goal post with quaint one-liners?
atam mardes:
Friend, why are constantly ignoring the truth in my quaint one-liners? For example, do you agree that my last quaint one-liner is the truth? If not why not? And if yes, that pretty much destroys the rest of your arguments and preconceptions. Do you agree?
Ken Ammi:
Since I do not share your philosophical outlook then no, I do not agree. Now, being thankful to evolution, consciously or not, for you good health implies that evolution ignored thousands of miscarriages just to look after you - and that is a show of your narcissism, intellectual dishonest, selfishness & ignorance, which religion business exploits to make you feel special in your delusional mind. Do you agree? If you are just an accidentally and temporarily existing hairless ape then why do you care? Also, how is “truth” determined by a haphazardly evolved brain that accidentally exists so as to better a bio-organism’s changes of surviving?
atam mardes:
Friend, religious brainwashing prevents you from understand these simple facts:
1) Evolution is not philosophy, ideology or source of morality.
2) Evolution works based on random mutations and natural selection.
3) Evolution is a fact based on evidence whether you are a sore creationist loser or not.
4) IT is intellectually dishonest to ignore the DNA and fossil evidences.
Ken Ammi:
Friend, Atheistic and evolutionary brainwashing prevents you from understand these simple facts:
1) Biology is a science but evolution is philosophy and ideology: it is a template used to subjectively interpret biology. Moreover, you prove that it is a philosophy and ideology since you are willing to besmirch perfect strangers in your demands that they covert to your subjective definition of evolution. Agree, it is not a source of morality.2) Evolution works based on random mutations and natural selection. Yet, traditionally evolution is “on the origin of species (whatever that means)” from already previously existing species. Random, or purposeful for that matter (as in done in the lab), mutations (which proved that evolution does not work as you think it does) and natural selection are different issues to which evolutionists appeal as supposed engines of evolution.
3) Evolution has a very, very long history of being proven to be based on subjective interpretations of evidence, hoaxes, lies, mistakes, outdated science, etc., etc., etc. and simply posting URLs to interpretations of evidence only proves that people subjectively interpret evidence.
4) It may be intellectually dishonest to ignore the DNA and fossil evidences which I do not do: I have told you time and again that I simply reject your subjective interpretation of what the actual DNA and fossil evidences is and what it implies. Now, why is this such a militant mission of yours: why do you care what an fellow ape believes?
atam mardes:
Friend, are you really that intellectually dishonest to claim the DNA evidence ( tinyurl.com/jbyfnh ) is a subjectively interpreted biology? Are you really that intellectually dishonest to claim the fossil evidences ( tinyurl.com/nv59mn ) are subjectively interpreted archeology?
He followed directly with another comment:
Friend, Are you really that intellectually dishonest to ignore the fake religious miracle stories like virgin birth and resurrection that were copied from previous religions? tinyurl.com/b5qhau
And another:
Friend, you dismiss DNA & fossil evidences (tinyurl.com/jbyfnh tinyurl.com/nv59mn) and you accept an Adam/Eve story just because a book claims itself to be the holy truth. Inconsistency in requiring levels of evidence is a hypocrisy that you are oblivious to due to your religious brainwashing. Do u agree?
My reply:
Friend, I accept evidence but dismiss subjective, biased, worldview-philosophy based interpretations of evidence—when you read even peer reviewed science journal papers it is of the utmost importance to discern between these two categories. When you see, for example, a few bones and you believe that which you are told about them (beyond where they were found, etc.) then you are accept that story just because scientists claims to be telling you truth. Inconsistency in requiring levels of evidence is a hypocrisy that you are oblivious to due to your Atheistic and evolutionary brainwashing. Do u agree? But if we are just hairless apes then what does it matter what I believe or why I believe it: why are you trying to convert me? Now, here is an example of what I mean with regards to Skull 1470:
"One point of uncertainty was the angle at which the face attached to the cranium. Alan Walker remembers an occasion when he, Michael Day, and Richard Leakey were studying the two sections of the skull. 'You could hold the maxilla forward, and give it a long face, or you could tuck it in, making the fact short,' he recalls. 'How you held it really depended on your preconceptions. It was very interesting watching what people did with it.'
Leakey remembers the incident too: 'Yes. If you held it one way, it looked like one thing; if you held it another, it looked like something else. But there was never any doubt that it was different. The question was, was it sufficiently different from everything else to warrant being called something new?'"[Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987 AD), p. 160]
You see, the face plate and cranium are evidence but what is made of it is based on interpretations.
sadetec replied:
Friend, aside from your low IQ, do you have any other evidence that you are an inbred of Adam/Eve?
Ken Ammi:
It apparently feels good to you to emotionally lash out and make childish taunts but please deal with the discussion between you and I and let Jack and I have our own discussion.
atam mardes:
Friend, I only tell the truth and you think I am lashing out because the truth hurts especially if you have severe emotional attachment to the religious beliefs indoctrinated in you without the benefit of intellect. Do you agree?
What could I do but repeat myself—hoping beyond hope that it would elucidate the situation?
It apparently feels good to you to emotionally lash out and make childish taunts but please deal with the discussion between you and I and let Jack and I have our own discussion.
atam mardes
Friend, do you feel good to accuse people of lashing out when they tell the truth? Which part of what I said is untrue?
Ken Ammi
You are committing a logical category error. Now please and again, deal with the discussion between you and I and let Jack and I have our own discussion.
atam mardes:
Friend, you are committing an intellectual dishonesty by ignoring the DNA/Fossil evidences I gave you. Do you think it is intellectual dishonest of you to ignore my evidences and conveniently move on to some logical fallacies that religion business has made up?
Ken Ammi:
Friend, you are committing an intellectual dishonesty by ignoring the fact that I explained that you have not provided DNA/Fossil evidences but rather, are trying to get me to accept INTERPRETATIONS of DNA/Fossil evidences. Do you think it is intellectual dishonest of you to ignore my evidences about how it is a fact that such evidence is interpreted and conveniently move on to some logical fallacies that Atheism business has made up? If you are just an accidentally and temporarily existing hairless ape then why do you care?
atam mardes:
Friend, do you have any evidence that you are an inbred of Adam/Eve? Are you going to go through life by being an intellectually dishonest sore creationist loser who ignores evidences for evolution?
Fossil: tinyurl.com/nv59mn
DNA: tinyurl.com/jbyfnh
Ken Ammi:
Friend, I am uncertain why you are attempting to convert me to your worldview—the one you use to interpret actual evidence. Yes, we have evidence that we are an inbred from Adam and Eve as human DNA is human DNA. Now, please reply to the question that I have posed time and again.
Jack bassman chimed in at this point directing the comment to atam mardes
Why on earth do people refer to something with as much clear evidence as a 'world view', is algebra, biology, geometry, paleantology, geometry etc referred to as a world view? Don't soften the stance to creationist lunatics, it's a fact, a done deal, if they are too brainwashed or thick to understand, that's their tough luck.
atam mardes replied thusly to me:
Ken Ammi Friend, biology has proven inbreeding causes deformity including mental disabilities. Do you have the ability to realize how ridiculous the Adam&Eve story is? If Adam&Eve had 3 kids: Cain, Seth & Able, did Able marry Cain or Seth? Or, did Cain & Seth share Able?
To Jack bassman I replied:
Friend, if you have been following my discussion you would know that I am NOT referring to algebra, biology, geometry, paleontology, geometry etc. as worldviews. I have pointed out the fact, which I proved via quotations form evolutionists, that they interpret evidence via their worldviews. Thus, biology is a science but evolution is a worldview-philosophy which is then used to interpret biological evidence. In other words, when they encounter evidence they then go about discussing what the evidence means and that is where we encounter a crossover form science to worldview-philosophy. Now, do you believe that we are basically hairless apes who ultimately are the accidental result of nothing causing nothing to explode?
To atam mardes I replied:
Friend, biology has proven inbreeding causes deformity including mental disabilities. Do you have the ability to realize how ridiculous the accidental life from non-life and a common ancestor story is? Now, what makes you think that “Adam&Eve had 3 kids”?
Now, when I went into YouTube to copy these comments from the section therein it seemed that they were not exactly all posted chronologically so that I had to reconstruct the discussion herein. Here is the last comment I posted and that was the end of that as no replies were forthcoming from anyone:
Do you go to the zoo and argue with apes because they are saying “aah, aah, ooh, ooh” but you demand that “ooh, ooh, aah, ahh” is correct? Why do you, an accidentally and temporarily existing hairless ape care what another accidentally and temporarily existing hairless ape thinks—with “thinks” meaning interpreting random mixture of bio-neural chemicals? I presented evidence and your reply is to behave like a childish schoolyard bully. I expect nothing less from someone who claims to believe that are an accidentally and temporarily existing hairless ape whose thoughts are interpretations of a random mixture of bio-neural chemicals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.
