First conversation with AronRa

In the description of the video I did post a follow up, to something that I made in response to Richard Dawkins., This was several years back, and since then I have found even greater evidence along the same lines. However this is what I have compiled so far; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a51P15KeId4

Can you answer those four questions?

Proving evolution untrue has never been my point. People can play on words and they will have different meanings to different people. Most creationist that I know do not doubt adaptation. Humans are great at adapting. But I see no proof of evolution being the origins of species, as Darwin predicted. Nor has this theory been proven in a lab, or observed in real time. So proving or disproving a theory, that has very little consequence to me or my path, is not what I have set out to do. However, the proof that I offer for creation, I have posted in that link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a51P15KeId4

I think we should start with those four questions. Can you answer them?

If evolution is true, what observation, discovery, or experiment could reveal that? It would have to be more than a theory, there would have to be observable science of this being the origins of species. If evolution is not true, what observation, discovery, or experiment do you predict would disprove it forever? Refer to question/answer one. If creationism is true, what observation, discovery, or experiment could reveal that? It has already been done. DNA has the signature of intelligent design. And there is no other creation that we know of that was created out of chaos, without a designer. The code in the DNA is the key here. If creationism is not true, what observation, discovery, or experiment do you predict would disprove it forever? I would suspect if question/answer one were proven, that as Darwin and other scientists predicted, that life came out of chaos, and that random elements came together randomly, and eventually a single cell organism popped up, and then evolved.

Anyway, it’s 4:25am. Thanks for the participation. How about you answer those questions. I’ll take a look later on today.

So if evolution were shown to be “more than a theory”, that would disprove creationism? How?

I answered the questions. Now your turn. Im on my way to bed.

Maybe I should have started with definitions. Evolution is the biological theory of biodiversity explaining every level of taxonomy as a population-level change over time, summarily defined as “decent with inherent genetic modification”. Creationism is a rejection of evolution specifically and of scientific methodology in general; positing instead that life was magically/miraculously created by a god according to one of many competing religious fables. 1. If evolution is true, what observation, discovery, or experiment could reveal that? In science, before we can even say that something is possible, there must be a precedent or parallel or verified phenomenon indicating that such possibility exists. Once we have that, then we’d have to have a mechanism for HOW that happens. We don’t always get that. We don’t have it for the theory of gravity for example. But gravity is at least demonstrable as a fact, even if the theory isn’t. So we’d have to have some means to verify that evolution can and does happen. Once we know that it could happen, then we’d need further indications (be it in paleontology, embryology, or phylogenetics) to show that it DID happen. 2. If evolution is not true, what observation, discovery, or experiment do you predict would disprove it forever? Evolution has to adhere to a series of specific biological laws that can’t be broken. Virtually everything that creationists ask for to prove evolution would actually break on or more of those laws. a) a fish deciding to grow legs b) cats giving birth to dogs c) a crocoduck d) any individual turning into a different “kind” of anything. What would disprove evolution for me is if an organism violates taxonomy. Defiance of taxonomy is the nature of created things because that’s how it’s been with absolutely everything we’ve ever “created”. Look at every single animal we’ve ever invented for mythology or movies. All of them defy taxonomic classification. They all have traits that don’t belong. Godzilla, for example, has differentiated teeth, eternal ears and an actual nose. These are all mammalian traits that don’t belong on a Diapsid reptile. I can accept that Godzilla has four toes instead of the typical five. I could even see how evolution could produce something like a jackalope, because hares aren’t that far from deer on the phylogenetic tree, and novel mutations can occur in any lineage. We can have atavisms or turn on genes that were dormant, like causing chickens to grow teeth for example, since they still have those genes. But something we can’t have would be six-limbs on a tetrapod or feathers on a mammal, because both of those things defy taxonomy. The discovery of a pegasus would reduce evolution to horse feathers, because that would be something evolution cannot account for. 3. If creationism is true, what observation, discovery, or experiment could reveal that? Well, as I said, we first have to know that it is possible to create something by supernatural means. So first we’d need to verify that there is something supernatural, gods, ghosts, magic of any kind. Can anyone create anything? Can anyone conjure anything? Can anyone heal anything in such a way that is not better explained by medicine or remission or simple trickery? If faith-healers worked in hospitals and healed amputees, that would convince me that someone out there at least some sort of supernatural powers. If parapsychologists actually got ectoplasm and verifiable kirlian imagery of spiritual life-force, that would be something too. If people could do things like Spock, Obiwan or Gandalf could do on-demand whenever they need to do it, then they can do it under laboratory conditions. Then, even if we can’t explain the supernatural, we’d at least be sure it actually exists, and thus “anything is possible” after that. Scripture actually has nothing to do with that. I mean, if the Qur’an actually did accurately describe the stages of fetal development as many Muslims say it does, that might imply special intuitive knowledge perhaps, but it doesn’t speak to how or if anything could be magically created. The fact that the Bhagavad Gita described the radiometric age of the earth with alarming accuracy for the oldest scripture in history could come down to simple coincidence. Again, the issue for me is taxonomy. Instead of a hierarchical phylogenetic tree of life, biologists would have to identify “created kinds” or baramins, things that were evidently magically-created unrelated to anything else. Remember those three monsters that Anakin Skywalker had to fight in Star Wars Episode II? All of them are obviously created as they clearly defy evolutionary explanation. 4. If creationism is not true, what observation, discovery, or experiment do you predict would disprove it forever? a) If you have to have faith to believe it, then you have no reason to believe it at all. if there is no evidence of it, that’s as good as proving it wrong. What is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence, because an unverified claim has no more validity than one that has already been disproved. b) Since religious scriptures are the only source ever provided for creationism, then if all those sacred texts were full of factual absurdities inconsistencies and contradictions, or if we otherwise had substantial reason to believe they were all written by men pretending to speak for their gods, then we’d know it was all a fraud. c) If the arguments from every religion from Sikh to Hindu to Mormon or what-have-you all turn out to be nothing but frauds, falsehoods and fallacies with no demonstrable truth to any of them, then we’d know it’s a massive hoax. Now, what would you need to learn in order to accept evolution as “more than a theory”? Can you name something–anything–in science that is “more than a theory”? What does that even mean?

Yes of course, as I said before we got into to the whole “you answer my questions, but I won’t answer my question thing. (btw- thank you for finally answering, and then deleting your rejection of my request to answer them). This was the beginning and really the ending of this for me: “Proving evolution untrue has never been my point. People can play on words and they will have different meanings to different people. Most creationist that I know do not doubt adaptation. Humans are great at adapting. But I see no proof of evolution being the origins of species, as Darwin predicted. Nor has this theory been proven in a lab, or observed in real time. So proving or disproving a theory, that has very little consequence to me or my path, is not what I have set out to do. However, the proof that I offer for creation, I have posted in that link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a51P15KeId4 ” However, why would solid evidence of evolution disprove creation? Well on the merits of how many believe, regarding the proposed solution that Darwin came up with, that evolution is the origins of life, and that chaos created order. (I think there is some Masonic rule about this concept) But if evolution could be proven correct, that there was no intelligence behind creation, and that creation came out of chaos (radom elements came together randomly and made a single celled organism, etc etc etc), then it would prove to many that no intelligence is needed for life. However, that has not been proven, or duplicated yet. So I am still waiting. If we could establish for certain that no intelligence was needed to plan or create life. Well that would be substatial.

Evolution has been proven in the sense that it has been reproduced and demonstrated, but I want to make sure of what we’re talking about. I asked you another question which you didn’t answer about what it means to be “more than a theory”. A theory is a body of knowledge including facts, natural laws and testable hypotheses within a particular field of study, which of course is meant to explain that topic. Have you heard of the theory of gravity, Theory of relativity, cell theory? tectonic plate theory, atomic theory, or the germ theory of disease? You accept that all these things are facts too, right? Every modern scientific theory is an explanation of a body of facts. Gravity is a fact. It’s not like atoms and germs exist only in theory, right? The predictions made by tectonic plate theory, relativity and evolution have all been confirmed conclusively. Cell theory has been effectively proven too, just like relativity. Yet they’re both still considered scientific theories, because everything in science is a theory. At the same time, atoms and gravity are matters of fact, and so is evolution. Nowadays a hypothesis must be effectively proven before it be elevated to the level of theory, which is as good as it gets. In science, it is impossible–against the rules–for anything to be “more than a theory”. Do you understand this much so far?

AronRa no evolution being the origin of life has not been proven, not even in the slightest. Present your evidence if that is the case. And as for “theories”, scientific theories are disproven all of the time. Which at the end of the video here, is what i demonstrated. Facts are different than theories

Only a very few scientific theories have ever been disproved, all of them in the 18th and 19th centuries. No scientific theory has been disproved in more than a hundred years. That, as I said, is why nowadays a hypothesis must be effectively proven before it can elevated to the level of theory. It must endure an extensive battery of tests for a long time, have great parsimonious explanative power and have substantial evidentiary backing. Most physicists hate the notion of “string theory” as popular tripe, because it doesn’t meet the criteria. Like Intelligent Design theory, it is a theory in name only. Evolution also is not the origin of life. As i said before, evolution is a theory of biodiversity, “descent with inherent genetic modification”. That has indeed been proved every way that it possibly can be. You’re asking for abiogenesis, which is a whole different set of processes. Here’s an explanation of abiogenesis, intended to teach middle school students. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdozVq81gog

Actually with Quantum Physics being so new and unexplored, it’s hard to say how many scientific theories have been disproven in the last 100 years. However MANY have, as a result of Quantum Physics/Mechanics. Regardless, if you have proof that evolution is the origin of life, I would be happy to view that evidence. But I will have to catch up later. Traveling with 4 young children takes a lot of my time and energy.

Once again, I repeat, evolution is not the origin of life. That’s abiogenesis. Very few scientific theories have ever been disproved, and all those were from the early days. Quantum mechanics hasn’t disproved anything.

What I am saying, and have said, is that chaos is not known to create anything. Without a designer, or a source of the information, structures (such as cells) can not be formed. Or at least there is no proof of this happening to this point. I laid my case out in this video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a51P15KeId4 What you have shown is a theory, not a proven experiment. It is interesting, as is your video. I love learning about these things. But it does not prove your case. As for disproven and/or superceded and or obsolete scientific theories. There are so many it’s hard to really have a reasonable discussion about it, without taken my time for the next 3 weeks. However here is a list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

One more follow up, as I have watched a few of your videos. In this video at minute 9:40, you ask the question “how did life begin”, and you answer “we still don’t know”. https://youtu.be/AP12uHdcS74?t=9m40s Incorrect. Life had a designer, and the origin of life has been written down and explained for a very long time.

Knowledge differs from mere belief in that knowledge is demonstrable and can be tested with measurable accuracy. We know that evolution is an inescapable fact of population genetics, but we we do NOT know that life had a designer. In fact I know otherwise, and I think I can prove even that to your satisfaction. While we haven’t solved every facet of abiogenesis yet, we know enough to know that’s what happened. We also know for certain that life didn’t come about by any incantation followed by a golem spell and there was never a talking snake. We know that snakes can’t talk under any circumstances ever. We know–yes KNOW–that Genesis is a collection of man-made mythology adopted and adapted from previous polytheism, and that’s why it is absolutely wrong about absolutely everything. You say that what I have shown is only a theory, but I haven’t shown you any theory yet. So far, we’ve only talked about abiogenesis. We’ve yet to discuss anything about evolution. You said scientific theories are disproved all the time, but they’re not. Look at the biology section of your own citation. Notice that every one of those theories was disproved (or “superceded”) over a hundred years ago, just like I said. The same goes in every other category you look under. All of the actual theories and even Dalton’s model of the atom (which was not a theory) were disproved over a hundred years ago. You said the list was so long you couldn’t cite everything, but in fact the only item on that list that was in the last century was the out-of-Asia “theory” that was disproved NINETY years ago, and that was only ever a hypothesis. You said that quantum mechanics had disproved many theories, but no, it hasn’t disproved anything, not one thing. And notice what is not on your list at all? Creationism never met even one of the criteria required of a scientific theory. There is no body of knowledge, no testable hypotheses, and no means of falsification. Creationism has absolutely no explanative power. It can’t withstand any critical scrutiny whatsoever, and there is not one fact that could be called evidence on its behalf. The “god-of-the-gaps” is a logical fallacy where the credulous assume that anything they don’t think science has explained must have happened by God’s magic, but magic is not an explanation of anything, and creationism can’t account for anything. It’s only an excuse for what you still can’t explain, but I can. How does creationism explain all the species of dogs and cats, for example? Not just domestic breeds but genetically distinct and separate species of wild variants too?

I have to add that abiogenesis is a list of catalytic chemical processes, which is not remotely like chaos.

This is where these conversations sort of take lengthy tangents off in other directions. Usually I am happy to hash those definitions of things out for awhile. But I feel I will leave you hanging for days at a time, because my situation is a bit unpredictable at the moment. Anyway, as for “Chaos” the definition that I found in the dictionary seems to match your use of the word very well actually. Reference: https://opinions.clovisstar.com/chaos Reference: – the property of a complex system whose behaviour is so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions. – the formless matter supposed to have existed before the creation of the universe. However there is still no known process of creation that we are aware of where random occurances can make something intelligent. Intelligence always comes from intelligence. From the “big bang” to the “origins of species” and everything in between, the only explainations from science is “we know sort of what probably happened”. Yet it has not been duplicated in the slightest. Anyway.. Thanks for the definitions, and for leading me to your channel. I watched two of your videos today, and I will certainly be watching mroe.

Let’s see, cha·os /kāˌäs/noun “complete disorder and confusion”. No, that’s not remotely like an overlapping sequence of natural catalytic chemical processes with cumulative results. Thus far, intelligence has never yet come from intelligence, but there is a process whereby intelligence may be derived as a property of emergent complexity. That process is evolution, and we haven’t even talked about that yet. Remember I’m not talking about what we “sorta know about what probably happened”, although that would already be better than the creationists’ position of assuming impossible absurdities for no good reason and pretending to know what no one knows. I’m talking about what we actually DO know and can prove beyond reasonable doubt. To demonstrate that, I asked you another question you didn’t answer. How does creationism explain all the species of dogs and cats, for example? Not just domestic breeds but genetically distinct and separate species of wild variants too? To clarify, I’m presenting a challenge that will already effectively prove evolution before I even show you any of the actual proof of it, which there is a lot of from many different fields of study. But first I have to know how you as a creationist would answer these. Are domestic cats related to each other and all other feral felines? Are all felines related to each other as well as panthers and scimitar cats? Are all felids related to nimravids or viverrids? And how could we tell? Are all of Feloidea related to any or all other members of the order Carnivora? Similarly, are domestic dogs related to each other as well as wolves and all other feral canines? Are all canines related to each other as well as the African wild dogs and Asian wild dogs? Are all types of living dogs related to each other as well as foxes and extinct forms like the giant “bone-crusher” dogs from the fossil record? Are canids related to modern bears as well as fossil bear-dogs? Are caniformes related to feliformes? This subject matter is explained in the following videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ-DawQKPr8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNrt90MJL08 These simple yes-or-no questions are extremely important, because they illustrate the most significant out of all the failures of creationism. If you need me to explain why that is, I’ll be happy to.

AronRa when you say on one hand “we do not know how life began” and then follow up with “intelligence doesnt come from intelligence” those are two extreme opposite statements. And if you watched my video in repsonse to Richard Dawkins you will learn a lot about intelligence and ID. In that there is no process that we know of on earth that currently produces intelligence without a designer. And it is mathmatetically impossible for these “natural processes” that you speak of to occur on their own

This is why humans have not and can not recreate Abiogenesis. Its mathmatically impossible and will never happen. https://youtu.be/Sh048UW2Tj4

So you think the origin of life equals intelligence? You realize that most organisms don’t have brains or even nerves, right? I mean, slime moulds have been shown to have a sort of non-neurological intelligence, but not what you’re talking about at all. I watched a moment of your video about Dawkins. I clicked to the middle where you said that Christian writing is older than Hinduism. Whoa! No. I studied comparative religion and the History of world religions in college, and was the only student in my class to get an A. The earliest Christian writing is very late 2nd century. Christianity is based on Judaism, and Judaism was initially polytheist and largely influenced by Zoroastrianism, which dates back to Zarathustra around 600 BCE. The Bhagavad Gita was contextually dated to roughly 600 BCE also, (though it was reputed to be much older) and that’s one of the more recent works of the Hindu religion. Vedic scripture is a thousand years older than that! Hinduism is the oldest and consequently most detailed and diverse religion in continuous practice. Christian writings are definitely NOT older than, or even anywhere near as old as Hindu writings. You shared that link with me saying it was proof of creation, but of course it was no such thing. Proof (in the context you’re using) is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence. Evidence is a body of facts which are positively indicative of, or exclusively concordant with one available position over any other, and facts are objectively verifiable data. You didn’t provide anything like any of that; just your own subjective assertions which happen to be misinformed and misleading misinformation. It’s not factual, it isn’t evidence, and it certainly isn’t proof of anything more than you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Craig Venter has already replicated living cells by artificial assembly, but that’s not what abiogenesis is, and abiogenesis is not what evolution is. I asked you to answer with a simple yes or no whether creationists accept each of those biological relationships. I told you this important. If evolution from common ancestry is not true and some flavor of special creation of as-yet unidentified “kinds” is true, then there would be some surface levels in a cladogram where you would accept an actual evolutionary ancestry, but there must also be subsequent levels in that twin-nested hierarchy where life-forms would no longer be the same “kind” and wouldn’t be biologically related anymore. At that point, they would be magically created separate “kinds”, and distinctly unique from those listed around it as well as those apparently ancestral to it. So…are domestic cats related to each other and all other feral felines? Are all felines related to each other as well as panthers and scimitar cats? Are all felids related to nimravids or viverrids? And how could we tell? Are all of Feloidea related to any or all other members of the order Carnivora? Similarly, are domestic dogs related to each other as well as wolves and all other feral canines? Are all canines related to each other as well as the African wild dogs and Asian wild dogs? Are all types of living dogs related to each other as well as foxes and extinct forms like the giant “bone-crusher” dogs from the fossil record? Are canids related to modern bears as well as fossil bear-dogs? Are caniformes related to feliformes? Those who promote creationism’s bewildering inanity should be able to show exactly where and why uniquely created kinds could not be grouped together with any parent clades which would otherwise only imply an evolutionary ancestry. Throw away any other argument you might be thinking about; none of them compare to this! If creationism is true of anything more than a single ancestor of all animal forms (if not the entire eukaryote collective), or if the concept of common ancestry is fundamentally mistaken, then there must be a point in the tree where taxonomy falls apart—where what we thought was related to everything is really unrelated to anything else; and unless you’re a scientologist or a Raelian, that criteria must apply to other animals besides ourselves. Do you understand the critical importance and validity of this inquiry to your position?

in·tel·li·gence /inˈteləjəns/noun: “the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.” Can you give me an example of when intelligence ever came from intelligence?

I just watched your video. The speaker used the logical fallacy of argument from improbablity. I’ll explain that if you need me to. But for the moment, remember that the ENTIRE global scientific community, including 99.87% of all earth & life scientists accept evolution. Less than one percent abstain and always only ever as a result of religious conditioning in early childhood. Yet you think that willfully ignorant religious zealots have discovered something all that all the brightest minds from every nation in the world for the last century or so couldn’t figure out? I’ve heard and refuted the fallacy of improbability argument many times, and a number of scientific luminaries have also. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCbjXDol1Lw

Imagine that you’re monitoring security cameras for a department store. At some point you see a woman entering a little-used ladies’ room. She is immediately followed by a man. He comes out of the restroom carrying that woman’s purse and hurries away. Hours later, it’s closing time, and that door hasn’t opened again. That woman still hasn’t come out of the ladies’ room. So you take a look yourself and find her dead. Would you know beyond reasonable doubt why she died?

Really though consensus does not define the Scientific Method. Like I said, if the cycle can be replicated and observed, then it is proven. Your proposal is that “this is what is likely” and asyou pointed out in your video “we don’t know how life began” (your words). So if your theory is not proven, and my theory is not proven, then we are both working on the same playing field. Yet the mathmatical equation is a reality, it would literally be the most impossible thing ever thought up, for life to be a random occurence without a designer. Intelligence comes from intelligence this is real as it gets. Now if you are proposing that “evolution is proven by consensus” but at the same time you claim that “evolution is not the theory of how life began, that is Abiogenesis”. Then in reality, what we should be talking about is “abiogenesis” using your terms. And the mathmatical improbability of this occuring, and the fact it has never been replicated, brings us back to square one.

I never said we don’t know how life began. We know it happened and we’ve already confirmed a few of equally viable ways that it could have happened, most of which could be true at the same time. You’re saying that if we don’t know which processes occurred in which order, then we don’t that it happened at all. That’s wrong. This is literally a contest between fact and fantasy. Let me lay this out for you. You posit a magical creation by a djinni-like character from your favorite mythology. You don’t know that happened, nor could you know that, though you pretend to. There is no possible way that could have happened. There is no indication of that at all, and all the indications are that it is just an old fable adopted and adapted from a handful of unrelated and even older fables from neighboring regions–written by simple primitives who clearly had no idea what they were talking about ever. Since your position is not indicated by evidence, and is in fact contradicted by all the evidence, then it can only be assumed on faith, which means you believe impossible absurdities for no good reason. We know and can show that abiogenesis happened. We know for certain the Garden of Eden never happened. Adam and Eve never existed. Adam is based on a combination of Enki, Adapa and Adama. Eve is based on Lilith and Ninti. Your interpretation of the devil is based on a combination of Ahriman, Helel bin Shahar, the serpent who could not be tamed and a completely different version of Satan. None of those characters were ever real. There is not a word of truth to any of it. It is all made up. We are not remotely on the same playing field. I never implied that consensus is what verifies science. Instead the means of verification establish the consensus. Let me show you, and you’ll see what I mean. In the context you’re using, my theory is proven, and this thread is an endeavor to show that to you, to prove that even to your satisfaction. But getting someone to see what they refuse to look at is a difficult process. We have to be interactive. So quit ignoring my questions. Answer them. And if you can’t, be honest about why you can’t, and I’ll help you. That’s why I’m here.

BTW- I just watched the video that you linked of yours about the Irrefutable Proof Of God II. I heard a lot of discrediting of people who have an opposing view to yours. Claiming that they “believed this nonesense” (paraphrased) and this and that. For reference your video did not comment in the slightest about the mathematical improbability of the first cell organizing itself into existence. The video that I presented that you said that you were responding to, was about this: For the purposes of today’s column I will go through the probability calculation that a specific ribozyme might assemble by chance. Assume that the ribozyme is 300 nucleotides long, and that at each position there could be any of four nucleotides present. The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^300, a number so large that it could not possibly happen by chance even once in 13 billion years, the age of the universe. But life DID begin! Could we be missing something? http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance Not about the solar alignment or the “goldilocks zone”. It was about the possibility of the first cell becoming such by accident, without a designer. But I will follow up with a video about these discredited theories of people that you disagree with, by illustrating the discredited racist and mysonigistic theories of Darwin who you cited quite a bit. I believe that you invoked the name of Darwin around 10 times. I wasn’t counting though. But if someone’s discredited theory discredits their whole point of view on everything forever, then Darwin will be easy to discredit.

Reference to the video that I originally posted, incase you missed it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh048UW2Tj4

And a good follow up would be this one too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmAFp27gYFA

The principle behind the fallacy of improbability is the same regardless what we’re talking about, and Lawrence Krauss explained this in the video. I don’t know how you missed it, but I will paraphrase. If you calculate in advance the odds against everything you did or that happened to you today, that would be highly improbable, and every parameter you add to the equation makes it more unlikely. So that it is easy enough to show that nothing you did today could have happened at all. It’s also a red herring because the reality is that we have models and mechanisms that actually work with predictive success while you have folklore that always fails every test. So what you’re doing now is trying to dismiss that reality rather than accept, admit or even test it. Your position is not based on reality. So reality scares you.

A good follow-up would be if you quit citing already-debunked pseudoscience propaganda and let me show you the facts proving the reality. I asked you this question before, and you ignored it. Notice that I haven’t ignored any of your questions. So why do you keep doing that to me? This one is critically important, so I will ask it again. Are domestic cats related to each other and all other feral felines? Are all felines related to each other as well as panthers and scimitar cats? Are all felids related to nimravids or viverrids? And how could we tell? Are all of Feloidea related to any or all other members of the order Carnivora? Similarly, are domestic dogs related to each other as well as wolves and all other feral canines? Are all canines related to each other as well as the African wild dogs and Asian wild dogs? Are all types of living dogs related to each other as well as foxes and extinct forms like the giant “bone-crusher” dogs from the fossil record? Are canids related to modern bears as well as fossil bear-dogs? Are caniformes related to feliformes? If you accept any of the common models of creationism, then you must accept a certain degree of relatedness, but at some point, you’ll have to be able to point out “created kinds”. If you can’t, then your whole belief system falls apart. Do you understand the critical importance and validity of this inquiry to your position?

I asked you this question before, but you ignored it. So I’ll have to ask it again. Can you give me an example of when intelligence ever came from intelligence? If the answer is yes, you’d have said so by now. So should I take your silence on this as an admission that I’m right and you’re wrong, because intelligence does NOT come from intelligence?

Here is another question you ignored. Imagine that you’re monitoring security cameras for a department store. At some point you see a woman entering a little-used ladies’ room. She is immediately followed by a man. He comes out of the restroom carrying that woman’s purse and hurries away. Hours later, it’s closing time, and that door hasn’t opened again. That woman still hasn’t come out of the ladies’ room. So you take a look yourself and find her dead. Would you know beyond reasonable doubt why she died? If your belief system had any strength of truth at all, you’d answer each of my questions as I eagerly answer yours. You wouldn’t have to duck and dodge like this unless you already knew that your position is false and indefensible.

“Iasked you this question before, but you ignored it. So I’ll have to ask it again. Can you give me an example of when intelligence ever came from intelligence?” Yes of course, when we first started this conversation, I posted my video that I created many years ago, that addresses this, and many of your other questions. You will notice that I have watched and responded to every vidoe that you have posted. Have you watched mine? When we started this conversation 4 days ago, I posted the video that I personally made, and it does give those examples that you are asking for. So why post videos for me to watch, and then I watch them, and respond.. But when I do the same for you, you ignore many of them? In fact I have posted as many videos for you as you have posted for me. But you ignored every bit of the first one that I posted for you. Again, that video is here, my response to Richard Dawkins about some of these same questions, where at the end of it, Richard Dawkins actually admits that intelligent design is plausible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a51P15KeId4

I watched your video. No part of it addressed any of the questions I asked you, not even one of them. That’s why I didn’t bring it up before. It’s irrelevant to anything we’re talking about now. Richard Dawkins never “admitted” that Intelligent Design was possible either. Ben Stein was deliberately deceptive when he asked Dawkins to explain how Intelligent Design could be possible. The only answer Dawkins could give was a prior intelligence rather than a god. Because of course we know that Dawkins doesn’t hold any such belief as that. The question demanded that he assume an intelligent designer, so he foolishly did. I would simply have answered that such is not possible at all even with aliens, and then I would have explained why. I have checked out every irrelevant nonsense video you’ve posted trying to distract me, and I have answered every question you’ve posed of me. Now will you go back and answer the questions you keep ignoring from me?

I have read it at least 3 times cover to cover. Anyway, this is my compilation of information that i have gathered on the subject over the years so far: <>< And this is my compilation so far, which I have posted on my blog. —- And this is the compilation that I have created so far. And mind you, I do watch your videos, when I have time. It is not always the case that I do have time. But I am going to post this for now, which is what I have posted on my blog to keep a running tally of these things as I am able to compile them. So this conversation from my long time troll carried into quite a conversation on youtube which now has over 100 comments and 3 videos that I created on the subject. I wanted to follow up as I explained to the participants that I would compile my thoughts on this and post it at a later time. Some are demanding that I answer their questions (that I have already answered in previous works such as videos and blogs), and I wanted to just give a full spectrum of the responses that I have already made on this subject which does in fact already answer every question that they demand that I answer. Unfortunately they want me to try to fit a round peg into a square hole with my answers to them, and sometimes it is important to realize that you can’t please everyone all the time. So you might as well do what you please. Here is that for me. So far this is what I have written in the past, or made video responses for. However I do intend to create an update to my data and I will post a new article soon. ——————————— I have been busy, and I have not had a chance to compile the article that I intended to write today on “Evolution vs. Creationism”. That will have to come later. I have wrote a few things on this, and really not much has changed since. So I will link what I currently have on the subjects of: Intelligent Design Evolution Atheism And follow up with a blog later on the subject. First this is my response to AronRa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMHbGhBhkRA I referenced that in this video. Then there is my response to Brandon Wade Cartman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UjwjBQkcVc And then there are a few things that I have created in the past. This is my playlist on evolution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UjwjBQkcVc&list=PLNO_WBOIczQZJiAS1Oio5GwEf9PxzsTrc This is my response to Richard Dawkins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a51P15KeId4 This is a video that I made about Quantum Theories and the Science of Creation; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzoKrse0qW8 I wrote a few articles about militant atheism, this was from many years ago; https://xcannabis.net/2011/09/13/is-militant-atheism-a-sore-spot-for-the-legalization-movement/ I recorded this excellent radio broadcast about Darwin’s racism in his work. It is incredible that people still respect this man, not yet that they still somehow follow all of his Pseudo-science. Darwin vs. Creationism Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtqVMXDNm2s Part 2 (Creation vs. Humanism – Darwin and racism) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3FDWyGYjfg And that’s what I have so far. It’s not to say that I haven’t learned anything by discussing this topic lately. But more so than anything, I have very limited time. I have 4 kids and I am traveling abroad. Life is a little chaotic right now. Will follow up though.