ANYONE: If you see no reply to some posters they know they are on ignore for things like name calling, personal insults, gross obscenities & sometimes even sexual harrassment. Some of these folk seem to be evo vid watch dogs following me & others around with such tactics. I am happy to debate where true debate is possible, with those who are civil & objective.
SCIENCE is from the Latin verb SCIRE : TO KNOW, and is NOT reliant upon: postulation, caricaturisation, supposition, proposition, theory, conjecture, speculation, assumption, hunch, intuition...
he really confuses me,i don't get the whole religious and scientific thing,maybe he is like me,knows it doesn't make sense but clings to it deep down.
n his book, Finding Darwin's God, Miller says that the expansion of space at the Big Bang was controlled within a tolerance of 1/(1X10 to the power of 1 million). Without this degree of fine tuning, the universe would have collapsed on itself and we would not be here. There would be nothing rather than something. It is mathematical proof of God's design. If there is a God who designs the universe, as Miller claims, it makes perfect sense to belief that the Creator also designed life.
TO ANYONE: If you notice no reply to some posters, they know they are on ignore for following me (& others) around YT trying to Expell us thru: name calling, insults, false accusations, gross obscenities & sometimes even sexual harrassment. I am happy to debate with the very few who are civil & objective. Only.
@LoricaLady Well, there you have it, the closed mind at work. Not that anyone actually follows her around YouTube, but rather she posts on basically every evolution video on this site and anyone who likes to watch lectures about evolution will invariably see her comment, but it's more interesting if she believes she's a victim in all of this and is being harassed. Fancy that. Either way, this is how creationists like to debate. They just close their ears to anything that doesn't agree with them.
@BigMikeMcBastard I often analyze evo lit on YT & was prepared to analyze your chosen topic for you here, showing the usual logical fallacies, skewed facts & presentation of theories as data. However, I make it a point to avoid verbal abuse, to not reinforce it or waste my time with it. Think about this tho.. The Ecoli is still Ecoli. Dawkins attacks intelligent design by YHWH but not by aliens, as clearly shown in Expelled. (Rolling eyes.) Think about that too. Bye!
@LoricaLady Intelligent design is intelligent design. Doesn't matter what the causative agent was. The point is that ID is based on faith and ignorance of science. It ignores all of the evidence that point to evolution being how things are as they are.
As for E. coli still being the same, the point is whether evolution is true. Evolution is the change in frequency of alleles in a population over time. It is proven correct. How about a chihuahua, though? They evolved from wolves. Are they wolves?
@BigMikeMcBastard Sorry, perhaps I did not make myself clear. You are now on ignore. I have discovered that if I give second chances to those who are verbally abusive, sooner or later, & usually sooner, they revert right back to the trash talk. In fact, it gets more vehement. A neurosurgeon in Expelled remarked at how startled he was that not only did evolutionists not want him to speak his mind, but they were pretty nasty in their personal attacks on him. Ditto. That's not science. Finis
@LoricaLady Expelled is a bad movie, Ben Stein is an idiot, and anyone who references it as a serious contribution to undermining evolution has a fundamental misunderstanding about science and is seriously lacking in a capacity for critical thinking.
In fact the person who made up Intelligent Design , Phillip Johnson the scientifically illiterate lawyer doesnt even pretend that ID is science. In his "Wedge Strategy" he specifically states the goal of ID is :" To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God"
ie it is creationism masquerading as science. A dishonest scam
@wildcrazygoats For sure. Ken Miller included a really fascinating history of ID in relation to creationism in another video. I don't think he got into it much in this one.
Either way, a scam is right. And whether people say aliens did it, or god(s) did it, or whatever, they're all the same.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
TO ANYONE: If you notice no-reply to some posters below, those Miller vid guard dogs (who've tracked me on YT for over a yr) & thers know they are on ignore for: personal insults, name calling, gross obscenities, false accusations about what I have said, campaigns to hide my posts & in the case of Foxlake, sexual harrassment & telling a poster who left a 0 science porno post Good job! Such behaviors are counterproductive to the true purposes of science. I will debate those who are being civil.
@LoricaLady Great news LogicallyLazy - I found another deranged fundamentalist that makes you almost seem , well , just ignorant & stupid (but a little less so)
Have a look at "Jacobs: Birds Dying Because of DADT Repeal "
WTF is she wearing ...... a hollowed out psychedelic leopard?? And what does she do with those erotic beads (or is this a secret fundamentalist thing?) ????
nobody i changing anyone's mind here. so shut up. let stupid people be stupid and ignorant if they please. that's the beauty (or downfall) to this country
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
TO ANY INTERESTED: If you see no replies to some posters, they know they are on ignore. (Sometimes I do respond, however, for the benefit of others to clear up what I think is disinformation.) Quite a few of them follow me from vid series to vid series with personal insults, name calling, hiding my posts, falsely accusing me of lying, sometimes even sexual harrassment. Such behaviors are counterproductive to the true purposes of science. I am happy to debate with the very few civil ones.
"sometimes even sexual harrassment" wow, there are really crazy people...
Anyway, about your acceptation of Evolution in the same kind, lets say fish to another fish, apparently you accept that statement without problem if the fish keep the fins, the respiratory system and the scales... So bigger or smaller it does not matter for you if they are another specie. You accept that!
So Ape and human are the same kind, they don't need new legs, or wings... so you can accept the same ancestor...;-)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. Once again, where is it suddenly going to get the muscles & veins & nerves to make it "articulate" the right ways, with connections all over the body, includikng to the spine & the brain? You want me to believe that over countless eons - conveniently "too long ago to observe" - evo drove all those steps, and COORDINATED them - while useless? How could accidents drive a nub of a new vessel, or a nerve that doesn't quite reach the spine & brain yet ,to perfection while functionless? Cont.
what a wonderful assumption. Let's see how many useless limbed members of species outperform those with limbs and still maintain an evolutionary pressure towards limb usage? None.
Sorry babe, only VIABLE members get to pass down their genes
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@ExtantFrodo Tho you are on the ignore list for verbal abuse, & will probably go right back on for more if you follow the usual pattern - for the benefit of any others I will respond to you. "While useless" is no assumption. "Emerging" veins that can't carry blood to an "emerging" limb, nerves that can''t yet carry messages for it, new "muscles" that are incomplete,, new cranial & spinal connections would all be useless until fully formed & fully INTERconnected. This should be obvious. Cont.
@LoricaLady It should be obvious to you that your arguments are straw. A body isn't a skyscraper that gets this part installed, then that part. It's during gestation that the set of available signals and the timing thereof establish cell differentiation patterns. A mutation for a sixth finger for instance doesn't set a mutation for the new set of bones, another mutation for the new set of veins etc and more mutations for the new way it connects to the rest of the body.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@ExtantFrodo "A body isn't a skyscraper that gets this part installed, then that part." Your claim, not mine: "A mutation for the new veins...& more mutations for a new way it connects to the rest of the body..." What use are mutations for new veins until the nerves, bones & muscles are there & connected? An extra finger is a repetition of existing info, not analogous to new DNA for a fin turning into a leg, really 4 legs that have to keep "evolving" in synchrony - waiting for new mutations!
@LoricaLady I don't get the idea you want to provide...You want the exact order of fins to leg... Consider that the fish has to move faster to readch the sea when it is dry season. The faster will be. this one a a specific code. it needs to go every year to the same place to give birth, every year same dry season. The next generation will have more survival! In this generation you have one with stronger fins cartilage...the next better articulation, the next a bigger fin, the next a larger fin
the next better calcification, the next bones, the next stronger muscle, the next reduction of skin between bones, the next has legs. two legs in front!
So your nerve, your veins are already there, they just grow with the animal!
The synchrony is basically normal, because it is in the genome of fins, which are two all the times...
This rational step is what we can see in the fossil record, of course it is not complete! What the difference betwenn the stronger and the bigger fins...
It can't be really seen! such as lactose tolerance between european and african, could you see the difference with just the skeleton!
It is the same in the fossil record, we have only the phenotype and not the genotype record that could explain why you are wrong.
But we do the experiment, we know that DNA is the basement of Evolution! But DNA is not conserved in fossils!Let see the rest of your comment! If it is still out of topic, I give up & laugh at for your stupidity & your dishonnesty
@LoricaLady "An extra finger is a repetition of existing info"
standard creationist response. Honey, HOW DOES IT CONNECT? The blood vessels aren't set in a programmed pathway that sets it up as going specifically "through left pinky in such and such a path".
I was trying to point out that the gradual deformation from fin to leg requires even less generation by generation change than the addition of a new digit. At no point in the fin to leg transition does there have to be an "unconnected leg"
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@ExtantFrodo If you want to believe in what is statistically absurd, unobserved and untested, help yourself. I don't like someone who has a past history of verbal abuse & also calls me "babe" & "honey." Let those see who have eyes to see and let those get them who want to come out of the matrix and learn what real science - and math - are. Goodbye.
@LoricaLady This is precisely what creationists say cannot happen. Also, when referring to a fin becoming a leg, this is an argument from incredulity. The genes for bone growth were already there, but a population of lobe finned fish separated in an inland stream would be selected for development of fingers which confers advantages in this type of environment.
Also, limbs would always form in pairs because the genes for "mirror image" has been around for about three quarter of a billion years.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@gardener68 Creationists generally know far more about what is going on in the science word than evo fans. For example it is not just in the last half century that new species have evolved, there are new ones being found all the time. When you say things like "Darwin was a scientist" I'm sorry but you show you need to study one heck of a lot more - about evolutioin. Darwin's degree was in theology with some experience in nature observation. He never did anything using the scientific method.
@LoricaLady I have to go back to work and then class. I want to discuss this further, but I've no time. Please read The Voyage of the Beagle Round the World, The Origin of Species, and a basic biology textbook. I'm not saying this to be condescending, but to allow you to understand the depth to which you have been lied to by creationist apologetics. Darwin WAS a hard working scientist, but no one really follows him anymore. Biology has changed as new data has become available.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@gardener68 Darwin was not a scientist. He was an armchair theorist with a degree in theology who provided zip, zero, nada, not any data whatsoever to show any kind of origin of specie. He provided nothing but wild theories about finches based on seasonal beak changes. YOU read his books. Find where he showed any scientific basis for origin of any species. Find any ev-i-dence for his Tree of Life. There is nothing scientific in his writings. They are purely theories based on observations.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@gardener68 You say no one really follows Darwin any more. Then why are you recommending his book to me? Why does Miller tell folk to read Origin of Species & say "It is a great book!". There is much that Darwin said that evolutionists defend daily. He is an icon to them. You seem like a very nice guy, actually. Not like the usual, well, evo trash talkers on YT. But, as I once was, you're confused. You're in the matrix. I got out. You can too. Seriously read the othe scientists. Plz.
@LoricaLady Oh Oh Gardener68, "You seem like a very nice guy, actually" she said. Do we consider this as sexual harrassment as well in US???
I am killing sorry...
Back to your idea. Based on your previous posts.
Fish to another fish specie, OK, so lizard to crocodile OK, cat to tiger OK, wolf to dog, OK, chicken to ostriches OK, ape to human, OK! All of them do not need any new legs, just small changes in phenotype!
So I should say that if u think all of them are OK, u are evolutionist
Lungfish are fish that can breath air watch?v=ZUsARF-CBcI
Consider the benefits to a lungfish or mudskipper type fish and the lack of predation being the first into the new territory. There's the safety of eggs to consider, the lack of competition for food.
Yet look on the lung fish. Ponder yon unoccupied land wherein no fish nor lion has ever tread. How safe it is for thine eggs. How unthreatened one is by the usual TEETH! with food below water and safety above, the shore is a wondrous place.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@ExtantFrodo "Why does the lung fish seem to be the transitional species?" "Seem to be" is true evo talk. Anomalies occur in nature. To claim they are transitions is baseless. Where are the transitions between the lung fish and plain ol' fish? Oh, 'scuze me, I remember, uh there aren't enough fossils (billionis found worldwide) or,oh yeal, It all happened soooo long ago.
The lung fish is fully formed & functional for it's purposes. An "emerging" lung fish & "emerging" parts would not be.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@ExtantFrodo NEWS FLASH: It doesn't happen slowly. It doesn't happen at all. You have to belieeeve, have faaaith that it happened, in the never to be seen, tested or observed murky long ago & far away la la land of evolution. Your comparison of a natural land bridge to even one single cell in a human body, which is full of nano tecnology machines & is as complex as a block of factories, does not show a deep understanding of how biological processes exist and must operate.
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: If you see I am not replying to some posters, they know they are on the ignore list. It is counterproductive to the true purposes of science to "debate" with people who follow me from one vid series to another using personal insults, name calling, false accusations of lying & sometimes even sexual harrassment. I have seen that even mild & patient responses just increase the virulence. I will debate with those who are civil and objective.
@LoricaLady You should say that you have nothing better to reply! Because my statement is valid in genetic!
Furthermore, if evolution was as you think it is, let say suddenly four legs appear to a fish! It will be consider as not viable by the parent or the rest of the community. Then it will be killed or left without help.
The kind of thing which happen in the past with human! if you look different you are killed or consider as a devil creation.
If you want to see magic, ok you can still pray god!
but this is not evolution, this is magic!
This is not the scientific theory, this is the creationist point of view... you are obsessed by the creationist claims, but this can't be proved by evolution, because it is not evolution!
A new leg or a new wing does not appear! like the mouse trap! it is buit with additional functional elements during a long period...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@MattleSystem Cont. Look at the fruit fly experiments which they claim shows evo but shows the opposite as usual. At least 1000 generations were bombarded with radiation to make them mutate & they did. None were more viable than the originals, most were deformed or born dead & every last one of them stayed a fruit fly. Was any new DNA created? Of course not. "One step is one gradual change." Change to turn a fin into a leg has to involved innumerable, syn-chron-ous changes. Cont.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@MattleSystem Cont. You either don't get that yet, or you are into denial. Let's say by some amazing, statistically ridiculous accident, a fish suddenly you get a fin with "better articulation" for moving like a leg. So what? How could evo drive that leg synchronously so that it matches the other leg? While it had that anomaly, anyway, it would actually be LESS functional. There is no benefit to have a fin that is kinda sorta a leg. It only works in evo fairy tales. Cont.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@MattleSystem Not for your benefit for you have already heard it often befo:e, but for any others. I do not get into relgion here as it turns into a red herring. It IS a red herring. Regardless of what anyone believes about the Bible & creation, evo simply does not stand up to the ev-i-dence. The evidence is that things are irreducibly complex and that i.c. only comes about, only can come about, through intelligent design. You can call that YHWH or the flying spaghetti monster. 'Sup to you.
@LoricaLady "irreducibly complex " I have heard already this before... And "evo simply does not stand up to the ev-i-dence" is wrong...Because you never provided any kind of evidence that can disprove evolution and surely one small evidence that your thesis is correct.
No religion there, fine! But No anti thesis to Evolution from your part! And excuse me but if you watch the vids around youtube about ID, you always get the religions stuff and the Evil Darwinism...
@LoricaLady the thermodynamic law, the Flood, the hydroplate theory and all this kind have only one purpose. They want to prove god and not disprove evolution. If a part of them want really to disprove evolution, they need to do more their homeworks and read a bit more than Hovind, Comfort and Behe...
irreducbility complex! So what? i should say! does that need something magic or just a bit more research from your part???
The lazy part and theist will choose the 2d for sure...
@LoricaLady You can't see it! You want to make the list of beneficial mutation observed only for human! Go ahead!
The specie appear generally when a group is isolated from others...
I don't know why I continue to teach you something that you don't want to undertsand! because instead of saying it is not true, pure speculation! You need to clarify your thesis! If you have just "irrecductibility" then we have just " Evolution" with all the supports for real world.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@MattleSystem I will respond to you this time, for the benefit of any others who might be fooled by the disinformation. Nothing that you are saying is backed up by any actual ev-i-dence. "The tranmission of the mutation..." There is no evidence that mutations lead to new DNA info but plenty that they lead to defects. The mutation you speak of is the usual theoretical not based on any evidence. "In the next 1000th generation..." Where is the evidence for this? The evidence is the opposite.
Cont ..ACGTAGCAAAGTCCG, the exon disappear and you have a complete new code for protein, a new function! The transmission of this "mutation" is maybe good for survival.In the next 10000th generation, you have another change, beneficial as well, etc,
skeleton with real bones, better articulation, stronger muscle! One step is one gradual change!
After100 gradual changes in few millions years, you have two front legs!
Two is enough to creep, the next two is for the next miilion years!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@MattleSystem Those letters are just the usual theoretical gobbledegook from evo lit. "And you have a new code for protein." Bull. Where is the evidence? Did they see that with the fruit fly experiment? Have they seen it anywhere? "The transmission of this [purely theoretical, never observed, tested or repeated as in true science] new mutation is maybe...." There ya go. Spoken like a true evo lit: fan "Maybe...could...we believe...we propose a model..." It's not science. It's b.s.
@LoricaLady Come on! you want to see the reality! ok! Lets go!
a codon is related to a protein! a codon is 3 nucleotides. During mitose and meiose you have crossing, mutation, combination. a small part is viable, some has no effect on the individual when it is viable, but it could lead to kind of tolerance ofr the lactose as example.
The protein, the DNA combination is the basement of the phenotype! so multiple changes can lead to a phenotype change!
Cont. The fact that evolutionists ever use NS, and they frequently do, as an example of evolution tells you one of two things: They don't understand how genes & DNA work & so you shouldn't be listening to them, OR They do understand but are deceiving people & so you shouldn't be listening to them.
Cont. For such astronomically numerable changes to occur you would need to break the laws of probability - you would need new DNA, new information, constantly along the way. Think about it. Per evo a fish gets a bump or a spot on it's fin that will one day turn it into a leg. That bump will be useless. How is evo going to drive it to completion to a leg thru reshuffling genes? There is nothing in the DNA giving info on how to form a leg! So therefore you see that NS is not evolution.
Cont. Shuffling &/or losing things that are already in place, i.e. genes as seen in NS, isn't creating something new. It can't lead to any kind of new DNA strands giving new info, a new genus. Therefore you will not get any kind of climb up Darwin's so called Tree of Life with NS. To go from moleducles to man you'd need constant REengineering of life forms, not just at the outer, visible, levels, but thru their nerves, cells, veins, bones etc. & all changes would need to be in synch. Cont.
Cont. No one is arguing that new species come into existence all the time. There are 200 or so species of bees. But, they are all...bees! All those bacteria that change this way or that, which are hailed as examples of evolution, all stay bacteria.
Natural selection is not evo. The genes are like a deck of cards. You can reshuffle some. You can lose some so that only those with the same loss interbreed - and get new species. You can get new "card" games but you don't get checkers. Cont.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: If you notice I am not responding to the posters below, they know the reason why. I do not spend my limited time "debating" with those who use personal insults, name calling, gross obscenities, & in one case sexual harrassment. Such things defeat the true purposes of science. Also, I have noticed that responses to such replies only causes those behaviors to become more virulent. I will respond to anyone who sticks to science & logic & is civil & objective.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. There are too many scientists to count who most certainly are NOT saying intelligent design is a scientific failure! They use science from a plethora of fields to defend it and to debunk evolution. Gee, if Miller isn't knowledage and/or honest about that (and the fact that he only has one vague quote from his so called "advocateS" indicates he most likely knows very well) I wonder why? Could it be because lots of decieving propaganda is needed to support evolution's party line? Cont.
@LoricaLady Until you acknowledge the significance of the FOUNDER to Intelligent Design and what he has to say, you simply continue to demonstrate your profound ignorance, as usual.
@LoricaLady Sorry, hon, but 0.02% of the community of biologists hardly counts as a large scientific majority. That means out of the 3.5 million biologists with doctorates in the appropriate fields, only around 700 accept intelligent design.
Besides, WHY do you reject evolution when acceptance of natural selection does not make belief in Christianity null? Ken Miller is a Catholic, Robert Bakker is an Evangelical and Theodosius Dobzhansky was an Orthodox Christian.
@gardener68 My freind, not one thing you said refers to the actual sceintific evidence relating to this vid. Natural selection certainly does not make any religious system null & void since it has 0 to do with evoltution tho it is falsley presented as evidence for evo. NS seeelects from what is already available in the gene pool. Mendell told all about that. But with NS bees stay bees & peas stay peas. For molecules to man "evolution" you need new DNA info. NS doesn't do that.
@LoricaLady But genes DO change, therefore new "information" is added (or subtracted). The evidence is that birds still have genes for teeth and we still have genes for tails, they're just turned "off". Also, we know that animals speciate because we've seen it happen, and yes always to something like the parent stock. What else would they be?
Lifeforms were NEVER expected to give rise to a fundamentally different lifeform, that would violate the laws of evolution.
@gardener68 Btw there are no "laws of evolution." There are laws for many things, like gravity, like biogenesis which says life must come from life (flying in the face of the primal pond theories which have 0 evidence but are still taught to little children as fact). But there are no laws of evolution. Evoltuion is based on one speculation piled on another, often - like the primal pond theory - defying the true laws of science. It is a bunch of logical fallacies taught to the naive public.
@LoricaLady "defying the true laws of science" I wonder what are YOUR true laws of science???
Oh yes of course! Law one! The first cause without cause! Law two! Creation from nothing! Law three! Irreductible complexity of Graduate school knowledge! Law four YHWM is love...Law five! Burn in hell if you don't like that!
Law of Intelligent Design with Low intelligence but Big Designer....
You try the 100$ prayor! It does not work! try the 500$! You should get some stickers with a dinosaur!
@LoricaLady In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well substantiated, well-supported, well documented explanation for their observations. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. Laws describe, and theories explain. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the best explanation for the fact of evolution.
@foxlake02 Amazing how creationists claim the scientific high ground in biology/geology/astronomy/paleontology etc etc but their argument does not get past infantile rants about what the word "theory" means
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@foxlake02 For the 12th time, for the benefit of of any it might help, I do not "debate" with those who follow me from vid series to vid series, not content to just replay evo spin, but who also feel it necessary to use personal insults, name calling, false accusations of lying, gross obsenities, sexual harrassment, and telling someone who sent me a porno post, re 0 science, "Good job."
@LoricaLady Funny how you are not debating me unless you think you have something to show me how wrong I am on another channel. Too bad you didn't know what you was talking about again. :(
@gardener68 See my replies to your post below. Sorry, was in a hurry & just filled in the blank boxes instead of clicking on your handle. Careless mistake.
@LoricaLady It's okay, you got on my channel comments :)
Anyway, "no laws of evolution"? Are you kidding me. Just as in physics or geology, there are certain principles in evolutionary biology which are always applicable and confirmed in any condition. Evolutionary theory has many laws which are the support on which it stands, and none of them support a hypothesis of supernatural intervention. Charles Darwin himself discovered three: biodiversity, natural selection, and gradualism.
@gardener68 Name one law of evolution. Enlighten me. Free my mind from "lying, politically driven creationist information." Darwin never discovered anything. He never showed the origin of any species. He gave a lot of armchair speculations (not even originally his own ideas) with zip data to back them up. The finch beaks were seasonal & reverse depending on the weather. There is no evidence the finches ever were or will be anything but finches. Darwin showed no evidence for "gradualism".
@LoricaLady "He gave a lot of armchair speculations (not even originally his own ideas) with zip data to back them up."
I see. I have a vision of Darwin , sailing to the Galápagos Islands in his armchair.
Lets do some real research - get some funding from Phillip Johnson, round up some creationist herpetologists & launch an expedition searching for talking snakes.
The journal , Nature, will be delighted to publish - isnt this the peer review support you crave?
@gardener68 There is no law of gradualism. It is a theory. Biodiversity has been known since people have had eyes to see it. I wonder if you read, or understood, what I said about natural selection. It has nothing to do with evolution. That is a farce. How can the genes for a fish fin be turned into a leg through natural selection which only...selects...from what is in the gene pool, or eliminates it. Tell me where a fish is going to get DNA strands of info to tell it how to build a leg?
@LoricaLady DNA is just a serie of Adenosine, Thyrosine, Glutamine, Citosine and Uranine for ARN. So just a serie of 4 letters, one combination of letters give one functional protein, if you remove, or add, you change completely the sequence and have other protein function. Of course not the entire sequence, just the one between exon, the intron...
So you build a leg gradualy, by this kind a gradual change by one letter only in your DNA.
@gardener68 Cont. Tell me how blind accidental evolutionary chance is going to take a worthless bump or dot on a fin & turn it into a leg. Oh, not just a leg, but two legs that match in front & two legs that are different, but complimentary, that match in the back? Where is it going to get the previously non existent DNA plans for legs - and oh all 4 must develop syn-chron-ously or the animal will be lopsided & handicapped. Where is the DNA info for that & new nerves, muscles, cells, etc,?
@LoricaLady Ah yes, now we come to the meat of this discussion. as I said I hate the format, but anyway. First, gradualism is real because it has been observed, both in diversification within a species (i.e. breeding) but also in observed instances of speciation. New species have emerged within the last half century, that is new populations of organisms which have become separated, developed new traits from genetic drift, and then become unable to interbreed with the parent population.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@gardener68 Sometimes I feel people aren't reading my posts. Are you? I have already acknowledged that no one is aruging about speciation. I think I commented that there are over 200 species of bees. But they all stay bees. You are mistaken to say "creationists say this never happens," You tell me to read up on Darwin. I read, & analyze right here on YT, evo lit all the time. It is you, friend, who have only read one side. If you read both sides you would not make such statements. Cont.
@LoricaLady Yep! She is right there! She accepts the evolution inside the same kind of animal! So she accepts only what it is Evolution in micro scale! Nevertheless Creationists do not understand that this "speciation" is exactly what can happen in only few years, and can be assumed to be bigger at big time scale of million years.
And why can we assume that! Because of the fossil database! From a kind to another kind with different gradual change in the phenotype!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@gardener68 Be so bold as to practice what you preach. You tell me to read the other side. I've done that in spades. You need to do the same. Perhaps start with some of my favorited videos. The one on thermodynamics has some great quotes from evolutionists. Then maybe go to Our Solar System, Evidence For Creation. See if you can refute anything those scientists are saying, between you & you. In evo lit, count the "might...could...we believe" statements. Learn your logical fallacies, too.
@LoricaLady "The one on thermodynamics has some great quotes from evolutionists. Then maybe go to Our Solar System, Evidence For Creation" Those vids are completely ridicule. Thermodynamic, the 2d law is against evolution, AhAh Ah! if it is the case it is against god as well, because he is order, the best one apparently... so what.... The solar system and the comet returns, the fact that venus is turning other direction, Pluto not on the ecliptic... So what about the evidence of creation.? None
They just speak in the void! And what they have to say is just "Look it does not match to the evolution model..." Without going into detail... Oh but wait! there is another book who did this kind of statement. It starts with ", Bereishit bara Elohim"...
Not so much details, but who cares, he did it... that's fine for us...And it is pure scientific evidence of course because all the rest is wrong apparently...
The big evidence for creation, is the invisible creator..
@MattleSystem I love hearing creationist thermodynamics - obviously they must also think that the growth of a crystal or a snowflake or an embryo into an adult violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics
@gardener68 Cont. Try to understand that fish, for ex., have DNA strands of info for fish parts only. Period. None have DNA for legs. The strands of DNA contain more information than what you find in a library. Shuffling genes through NS will get you different looking fish, sometimes new species of them. It will never, ever, cause legs DNA to develop. DNA has the blueprint, the instructions for building an animal. N.S. CANNOT create DNA. DNA is just there - or not. N.S.= evo is a lie.
Also, Stephen Gould also discovered the principles of evolutionary economics and punctuated equalibrium. These are well understood and repeatable observations which allow biologists to understand how evolution works.
This is not speculation. Please read something other than the politically driven creationist information. Unfortunately, they are lying to their readers.
@gardener68 With gradualism they say, "Well, it all happened so sloooowly that's why all the links are missing." Gould spoke himself, to Dr. Colin Patterson, of the lack of transitional fossils. So he MADE UP the P.E. theory with no evidence whatsoever. You don't need evidence, you see, because with P.E. things happened so faaaast, there IS no evidence! It's the evoultionists who are lying & politically driven friend, and scamming people big time. Your tax dollars at work.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: If you notice I am not responding to some posters, I use my limited time to debate with those who are really debating,or at least trying to do so. Name calling, personal insults, gross obscenities etc. put people onto an "ignore list." The posters below know this. However, some of them have been following me around from vid to vid spitting obscenities and less than kind remarks. Some people just get really upset when you try to demonstrate they are not ape kids. Shrug.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
9:20 MIller szys "Even the advocates of intelligent design admit that it is a scientific failure. What "advocates", plural, does he mention? He only names P. Johnson, a lawyer whose primary purpose has been to show the problems with logic and evidence presented by evo & not really the scientific aspects of i.d.. One quote is given, Johynson's humble opinion. Does it use the word "failure"? No. Another transparent desperate deception by an evolutionist. (Cont. on Vid. 2 of this series.)
I told you before, and I tell you again, LoricaLady, your lies and ignorance will not be tolerated.
YOU have the obsession with Ken Miller. If you cant deal with it properly, you should seek psychological help with your obsession.
Through this, and about 10 other channels in the past, everyone can demonstrate how you dont have a god damned clue about this topic. As with other channels, I wonder how long it will be before you are asked to leave because of your habitual lies.
Governing Goals * To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. * To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
..........and they try to pass this nonsense off as science
@paulspydar They do. They are too cowardly to say so, but choose to beat around the bush with "designer". Notice how its always a singular designer who exists outside of reality and isn't abiding by the laws of nature.
@LoricaLady What he means when he says ID is a scientific failure is because it has nothing to even offer to submit the bare minimum hypthesis to submit. Thats why its a failure. There is nothing to even consider as evidence. The so called "creationist scientists" have nothing to present to the scientific community. So instead, they want to skip over the whole scientific method.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
9:03 Let's see, he's complaining about creationists appealing to school boards & state legislatures, yet he constantly crows & lectures about the Dover trial as if it were a scieintific setting. Again, he also has implied strongly that the issue should be brought before the Supreme Court so that dissenters from evo "would be in bad straits." Typical evo double talk & double think. And it just slides right by the devoted and believing evo fans.
@LoricaLady but between "we come from a common ancester and all living forms are linked by Evolution process" and " We are all the product of a intelligent being flying in the sky with lightning getting out from his hand"...
Everybody can see that one one them is less scientific just with the obvious conclusion... Especially when this conclusion is supported by just the faith of theist which is not the case for Evolution.
if you cannot see the picture of the 80%, then you should see something else! If it is the case give us your puzzle pieces!
Of course ID has only a puzzle for kid with 2 pieces, GOD and irreductible complexcity! So easy! but it does not fit to the Box of LIFE. Sorry! try again!
liar really! I can admit that it is difficult to understand without a video footage about 110 millions years old. But as for geology, evolution is based on concept and logic based on fossils, and time scale.
So because you don't see a dinosaur claiming that a asteroid fell down on eart 65 Ma, does not mean that all geological evidences concluded to a big lie.
Evolution is like picture of the puzzle! Even if you have only 80% of the pieces, you can recognize the picture!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
8:40 "Their idea is a little bit more like this." That is a lie and he knows it and again, he is using the propaganda technique of ridicule to "poison the well" before he gets into any "science." Robert Gentry is a nuclear physicist and one of many, like those in Expelled, who report that their articles have the peer review door shut on them if there is even a hint of creationism. He got peer reviewed, favorably, on plutonium halos until someone caught on the halos indicate a young earth.
@LoricaLady Listen sweetie : plutonium does not exist in nature : no, the tiktaaliks didnt eat it all , it is a man made element. So there is no such thing as a plutonium halo
@LoricaLady "That is a lie and he knows it and again, he is using the propaganda technique of ridicule to "poison the well"" - you vicious dishonest bigot. Read Johnson's Wedge Strategy - you can get it from one of the interns at Discovery Institute : "Intelligent Design" is antiscience political fascism masquerading as science for the superstitious, the intellectually lazy and the very very stupid
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. Don't know for certain, but I assume Miller's mousetrap for a bizarre tie clip "debunk" of intelligent design was probably peer reviewed. He said himself that the mouse trap was designed for catching mouse. The fact that he could clip it on his tie, using "intelligently" designed actions had zip to do with anything about catching mice. The whole thing was absurd. He even took some parts off the trap & claimed - no ev-i-dence, just theories as usual - it could still catch mice.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. Tiktaalik was highly evo peer reviewed, hailed as a "transitional" fossil, headed for land. Problem was some showed up alive. They look just like...fish & have no chance of, or anatomy for, any kind of movement from water to land. Then there were the peer reviewed peppered moth articles where the moth's color was hailed as an ex. of evo due to industrial air pollution. But it was discovered that variety of coloring had always been present for that species. The list goes on . Cont.
@LoricaLady "Tiktaalik was highly evo peer reviewed, hailed as a "transitional" fossil, headed for land. Problem was some showed up alive. "
Oh really?? Tell us where we can see one of the living Tiktaaliks. To me , this statement is one of those regularly regurgitated creationist "outright lies".
(perhaps this is your cue to run away , in a huff, and refuse to answer any more questions - your usual tactic when you have been found telling lies. And you have the nerve to accuse others)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@wildcrazygoats Oh crumb, I did make a mistake, from typing too quickly. Put the word "coelacanth" where I said Tiktaalik. Nevertheless now that Tik has been mentioned. Notice the art works, especially one from a museum. Notice how the art works differ greatly. Notice that the museum 3D one show Tik w/muscular, long front fins for climbing onto land, tho the actual fossil shows tiny front fins & has no fossilized musculature. Notice that the body is pictured as being serpentine. Cont.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@wildcrazygoats Cont. Of course a serpentine body could more easily transfer from water to land. Problem is the fossil evidence no way supports it. "Out right lies?" Yes, evo is full of them & not all are in print, some are just lying pictures, a tradition Haeckle seems to have started that has never stopped. "Tell us one paper." That's a dodge If you know evo so well you know darned well that children were told the peppered was a transitional form, although it is no such thing.
@LoricaLady Typical dishonest tactics : make an outragrous dishonest claim; get all worked up in mock outrage when asked to justify the claim ; run and hide & refuse to discuss due to mock outrage; claim to win argument by default.
Can the Discovery Institute appoint a better intern as spokesperson - one who is actually familiar with science, one who is not so dishonest, one who is not a pompous bigot who gives real Christians a bad name.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@brospec You are on ignore. Again, it is impossible to have a serious scientific debate with someone who falsely accuses one of lying. If you don't know that peppered moths were taught as "transitional forms" then you didn't do your research. I can't help you with that. I do have a problem with trying to type too quickly in the mornings when I am trying to do this and get other things done too, which explains the typo for "pulonium." I am certainly not your "sweetie". Bye!
@LoricaLady No such thing as "pulonium" But in this case , I dont think you are being dishonest - jusy lazy. So tell us , if peppered moths are claimed by biologists as "transitional forms" , what species are they supposed to be transitional between? Or perhaps its easier for you to admit you have no idea what you are talking about
@brospec She has said many times before that she thinks she knows more about science than any other scientist.
Its quite amazing to see how prideful and arrogant she is. There is absolutely no reason for her arrogance, and her mentality and knowledge keep demonstrating that.
@ThatOneQuestion Creationists seem to be a strange mixture of dishonesty, smug ignorance, pride & scientific illiteracy...........they think USA has lost its way & will be recreated great by embracing God, removing anything that conflicts with their literal interpretation of the Bible and buildng a theocracy.
@brospec Yes, its sad-they have lost their way completely. They dont represent their religion what so ever.
What they do represent are their own self-destructive ambitions: pride, arrogance, anger, etc.
They dont follow religion because of the religion, they claim a religion so they can use it as a tool to attack others, because of their own insecurities.
They are frauds. They are liars. They dont even know what their religion is about.
@brospec Exactly. LoricaLady is obsessed with Miller in particular, the reason for which I can only guess. Maybe she asked him a question in a Q&A session and was completely embarrassed, or something like that.
Its pretty sad to see people like her demonstrate their psychosis.
I keep laughing at her when she was speaking to me early on. One time, she asked me to only reply to one channel, instead of the 9 she was commenting on at the time, because her boyfriend didn't like it. Just wow.
@LoricaLady Arrogant little bitch, you cant keep lying to everyone and expect to get away with it.
Just get over your obsession with Ken Miller, little one. You will not escape your own stupidity, but its funny how you arn't satisfied with your own religion.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@wildcrazygoats "You usual tactic when you have been found telling lies." What in Heavens name are you talking about? I made a mistake & said that I meant to type Coelacanth, not Tiktaalik. Further all I said, mistakenly, about Tiktaalik (though as indicated it is the same kind of fraud) is true about Coelacanth. It is impossible to debate with one who accuse falsley accuses you of lying. It is a double problem since they are the ones lying. Why you are now on ignore & lost the challenge.
@LoricaLady "Then there were the peer reviewed peppered moth articles where the moth's color was hailed as an ex. of evo due to industrial air pollution. But it was discovered that variety of coloring had always been present for that species"
It sounds like you never bothered to read the papers - tell us one paper where it claimed that the variety of colouring had not always been present.
(Hint : read a real journal , dont just regurgitate what Phillip Johnson tells you - like Tiktaalik)
7:58 Here Miller makes totaly faith based statements. Well, actually the 1st faith based statement we are expected to buy is that people who do peer reviews are unbiased or even extremely knowledgeable. According to Miller if you have a new scientific idea all you have to do is submit it for peer review & then you go for a scientific consensus & then "automatically" the good idea will wind up in textbooks & schools. In other words, trust the system, their system, the one they guard so well.
@LoricaLady "In other words, trust the system, their system, the one they guard so well."
"their system"???The same system that applies in medicine, mathematics, literature, theology, history, economics etc -.all fields where contemporary research is published in peer reviewed journals.
What would you like to replace the peer reviewed system with?
Does you objection derive from rational thinking or is it just sour grapes because of creationisms failure to do any credible research?
@brospec ....cont ......would you like a list of projects that you can pass onto the Discovery Institute that could prove creationism.......many are quite easy ?
Remember that science rewards radical research that totally overturns the scientific orthodoxy.......you know, things like the Nobel Prize
@brospec "Science rewards radical research that totally overturns the scientific orthodoxy." Faith based statement. Not supported by history. The Nobel Prize is kinda like "peer reviews". We are to accept on faith that they don't have an agenda, or any concern about being politically correct, or that their belief systems might be threatened. Get down to science. Get to the vid when Miller finally (!)talks "science" & see if you can defend it & not just give a bunch of personal opiniions.
@LoricaLady "Faith based statement"????? Oh really??? So Nobel Prizes are not awarded for those who overturn orthodoxy???
So were Nobel Prizes wrongly awarded to Marie Curie or how about Robin Warren and Barry J. Marshall (didnt they totally overturn the medical orthodoxy - its OK - you can go look up who they are)
How about Muhammad Yunus or Thomas Mann? They really challenged orthodoxy
Rather than a meaningless chant , tell us who was wrongly given a Nobel Prize & who really deserved one?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@brospec I really don't think the purpose of this vid has anything to do with the Nobel Prize. That was typical of evo talk though because it is all purely theoretical. I'm not here to worry about the politics of the Nobel Prize but to demonstrate that one of evo's most famous defenders presents only pseudo science. Unfortunately, if he follows a previous pattern, it may be some time before he gets down to actual "science."
@LoricaLady "We are to accept on faith that they don't have an agenda, or any concern about being politically correct......"
I have peer reviewed scientific papers submitted for publication in refereed journals. Nobody asks you for your religion or your politics. Your claims of bias etc etc are exactly the same as those of the climate change denying industry, the tobacco industry, the alternative medicine industry - it seems easier to chant "bias" than actually do any constructive research
- you dont even seem to have any grasp on what peer review involves - there is a good Wiki article that you may like to read.
Peer reviewed journals do have certain problems - one being that there are so many (you claim that the process has been "replaced by scientists" is just dishonest) but you dont demonstrate any comprehension of the scientific process
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@wildcrazygoats I read evo peer reviewed articles & analyze them right here on YT not uncommonly. They are very predictable. One logical fallacy after another, and always, always, theoreticals presented as if they were scientific data. These words run rampant in evo peer reviews "might have...could...we propose a model...." Phony art work is common, and outright lies are by no means never seen. People who don't understand critical thinking bow to evo peer reviews & are so impressed. Sad.
@LoricaLady "I read evo peer reviewed articles & analyze them right here on YT not uncommonly. "
OK......tell us the title & publication journal for the last peer reviewed paper you read & reviewed.
As the peer review process does not stop at publication , but includes subsequent letters, revisions etc , what did you do to address the outright lies you claim to have found?
Show us the outright lies you claim to have found Did you write to the journal or just sit on it?
@brospec Cont. But don't hold your breath waiting for Miller to finally talk "science". In the last vid I watched, the 1st 1/2 hr of the 2 hr session was spent on propaganda & self promo, & a significant portion at the end was spent on politicizing. The in between parts were the usual logical fallacies and pure speculation presented as if ithey were hard core data. I have no doubt that is what is ahead in this vid. Hang in there - if you can be civil - & see if you can debunk my debunks.
@brospec I have no problem with the peer reviewed system if 1st, it isn't considered more important than it is. Again, Darwin didn't get peer reviewed, neither did Aristotle or Galileo. 2nd, I wouldn't have a problem with it if it weren't for problems shown in Expelled. The peer review system has already been replaced by scientists from every field who are publishing books & articles independently. You actually can think for yourseld based on the evidence that is presented, w/o "peers."
@LoricaLady "I wouldn't have a problem with it if it weren't for problems shown in Expelled."
And we wouldn't have a problem with Expelled itself if weren't a dishonest attempt to vilify the scientists who accept evolution and whatnot. Heck if it weren't, they would've interviewed Ken Miller himself in there! But it's been pointed out in a certain interview that they deliberately didn't interview Miller for a reason, and not a good one at that.
@LoricaLady Deleting your comments towards me doesn't hide them, girl.
You think it's fantasy when I say that they didn't put in Ken Miller because they're afraid of him? It's not, the producers EXPLICITLY said in an interview why they didn't interview Miller, and the reason is NOT an honorable one.
Heck, it might not even be Miller they're afraid of per see! Perhaps they're simply scared of the viewpoint that acceptance of Evolution needn't conflict with the belief in God! Speaking of which..
@LoricaLady You say that it's "dissenters" who are being expelled but I ask you LoricaLady, have you heard of Bruce Waltke? If you haven't? Take a look at this video.
watch?v=E0h82CWPwe0
Don't worry, it's only two minutes long. A well known Christian evangelist thrown out for accepting evolution.
@LoricaLady Heck you could search on Youtube and google Expelled Debunked as well as Expelled Exposed and learn why it's a fraud. But I've already read somewhere that you "didn't need to see another evolutionist video." You've been informed about this already, LoricaLady.
@PrincePhoenicis Oh gee, I wondered how long it would be before Miller's guard dogs showed up on this vid. You of course know you are on ignore for name calling & gross obscenities. I've learned that when evo buffs are given a 2nd chance they just get much worse so you will stay on ignore. Bark all you want. Y'all didn't get rid of me before & you won't get rid of me here. If the vid poster doesn&
ANYONE: If you see no reply to some posters they know they are on ignore for things like name calling, personal insults, gross obscenities & sometimes even sexual harrassment. Some of these folk seem to be evo vid watch dogs following me & others around with such tactics. I am happy to debate where true debate is possible, with those who are civil & objective.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE is from the Latin verb SCIRE : TO KNOW, and is NOT reliant upon: postulation, caricaturisation, supposition, proposition, theory, conjecture, speculation, assumption, hunch, intuition...
procommenter 3 months ago
E X C E L L E N T !
Thanks for putting this up.
ElzoSmid1 4 months ago
he really confuses me,i don't get the whole religious and scientific thing,maybe he is like me,knows it doesn't make sense but clings to it deep down.
sailornaruto39 5 months ago
Why is it that the vast majority of people who are Creationists and have science backgrounds aren't biologists?
HimesInu 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
n his book, Finding Darwin's God, Miller says that the expansion of space at the Big Bang was controlled within a tolerance of 1/(1X10 to the power of 1 million). Without this degree of fine tuning, the universe would have collapsed on itself and we would not be here. There would be nothing rather than something. It is mathematical proof of God's design. If there is a God who designs the universe, as Miller claims, it makes perfect sense to belief that the Creator also designed life.
achilles197474 9 months ago
2:50
aerycksmusic 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TO ANYONE: If you notice no reply to some posters, they know they are on ignore for following me (& others) around YT trying to Expell us thru: name calling, insults, false accusations, gross obscenities & sometimes even sexual harrassment. I am happy to debate with the very few who are civil & objective. Only.
LoricaLady 11 months ago
@LoricaLady Your normal reaction when your dishonesty & ignorance is pointed out.
You are really pathetic - you make Christians look like morons
wildcrazygoats 11 months ago
@LoricaLady Well, there you have it, the closed mind at work. Not that anyone actually follows her around YouTube, but rather she posts on basically every evolution video on this site and anyone who likes to watch lectures about evolution will invariably see her comment, but it's more interesting if she believes she's a victim in all of this and is being harassed. Fancy that. Either way, this is how creationists like to debate. They just close their ears to anything that doesn't agree with them.
BigMikeMcBastard 11 months ago
@BigMikeMcBastard I often analyze evo lit on YT & was prepared to analyze your chosen topic for you here, showing the usual logical fallacies, skewed facts & presentation of theories as data. However, I make it a point to avoid verbal abuse, to not reinforce it or waste my time with it. Think about this tho.. The Ecoli is still Ecoli. Dawkins attacks intelligent design by YHWH but not by aliens, as clearly shown in Expelled. (Rolling eyes.) Think about that too. Bye!
LoricaLady 11 months ago
@LoricaLady Intelligent design is intelligent design. Doesn't matter what the causative agent was. The point is that ID is based on faith and ignorance of science. It ignores all of the evidence that point to evolution being how things are as they are.
As for E. coli still being the same, the point is whether evolution is true. Evolution is the change in frequency of alleles in a population over time. It is proven correct. How about a chihuahua, though? They evolved from wolves. Are they wolves?
BigMikeMcBastard 11 months ago 2
@BigMikeMcBastard Sorry, perhaps I did not make myself clear. You are now on ignore. I have discovered that if I give second chances to those who are verbally abusive, sooner or later, & usually sooner, they revert right back to the trash talk. In fact, it gets more vehement. A neurosurgeon in Expelled remarked at how startled he was that not only did evolutionists not want him to speak his mind, but they were pretty nasty in their personal attacks on him. Ditto. That's not science. Finis
LoricaLady 11 months ago
@LoricaLady Expelled is a bad movie, Ben Stein is an idiot, and anyone who references it as a serious contribution to undermining evolution has a fundamental misunderstanding about science and is seriously lacking in a capacity for critical thinking.
BigMikeMcBastard 11 months ago 13
@BigMikeMcBastard "Intelligent design is intelligent design'
In fact the person who made up Intelligent Design , Phillip Johnson the scientifically illiterate lawyer doesnt even pretend that ID is science. In his "Wedge Strategy" he specifically states the goal of ID is :" To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God"
ie it is creationism masquerading as science. A dishonest scam
wildcrazygoats 11 months ago 2
@wildcrazygoats For sure. Ken Miller included a really fascinating history of ID in relation to creationism in another video. I don't think he got into it much in this one.
Either way, a scam is right. And whether people say aliens did it, or god(s) did it, or whatever, they're all the same.
BigMikeMcBastard 11 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
In The Name of Allah(God) The Most Gracious The Most Merciful
75:(36) Does man think that he will be left uncontrolled, (without purpose)?
(37) Was he not a drop of sperm emitted (in lowly form)?
(38) Then did he become a leech-like clot; then did (Allah) make and fashion (him) in due proportion.
(39) And of him He made two sexes, male and female.
(40) Has not He, (the same), the power to give life to the dead?
77705000000000000000 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
TO ANYONE: If you notice no-reply to some posters below, those Miller vid guard dogs (who've tracked me on YT for over a yr) & thers know they are on ignore for: personal insults, name calling, gross obscenities, false accusations about what I have said, campaigns to hide my posts & in the case of Foxlake, sexual harrassment & telling a poster who left a 0 science porno post Good job! Such behaviors are counterproductive to the true purposes of science. I will debate those who are being civil.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Great news LogicallyLazy - I found another deranged fundamentalist that makes you almost seem , well , just ignorant & stupid (but a little less so)
Have a look at "Jacobs: Birds Dying Because of DADT Repeal "
WTF is she wearing ...... a hollowed out psychedelic leopard?? And what does she do with those erotic beads (or is this a secret fundamentalist thing?) ????
brospec 1 year ago
@brospec .....Actually , I understand it is Sarah Palins mother channelling Wilma Flintstone
brospec 1 year ago
nobody i changing anyone's mind here. so shut up. let stupid people be stupid and ignorant if they please. that's the beauty (or downfall) to this country
CrossesAreForSquares 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
TO ANY INTERESTED: If you see no replies to some posters, they know they are on ignore. (Sometimes I do respond, however, for the benefit of others to clear up what I think is disinformation.) Quite a few of them follow me from vid series to vid series with personal insults, name calling, hiding my posts, falsely accusing me of lying, sometimes even sexual harrassment. Such behaviors are counterproductive to the true purposes of science. I am happy to debate with the very few civil ones.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
"sometimes even sexual harrassment" wow, there are really crazy people...
Anyway, about your acceptation of Evolution in the same kind, lets say fish to another fish, apparently you accept that statement without problem if the fish keep the fins, the respiratory system and the scales... So bigger or smaller it does not matter for you if they are another specie. You accept that!
So Ape and human are the same kind, they don't need new legs, or wings... so you can accept the same ancestor...;-)
MattleSystem 1 year ago 2
@LoricaLady no one is interested
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. Once again, where is it suddenly going to get the muscles & veins & nerves to make it "articulate" the right ways, with connections all over the body, includikng to the spine & the brain? You want me to believe that over countless eons - conveniently "too long ago to observe" - evo drove all those steps, and COORDINATED them - while useless? How could accidents drive a nub of a new vessel, or a nerve that doesn't quite reach the spine & brain yet ,to perfection while functionless? Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady "while useless?"
what a wonderful assumption. Let's see how many useless limbed members of species outperform those with limbs and still maintain an evolutionary pressure towards limb usage? None.
Sorry babe, only VIABLE members get to pass down their genes
"where is it suddenly going to get"
NEWS FLASH it doesn't happen suddenly.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ExtantFrodo Tho you are on the ignore list for verbal abuse, & will probably go right back on for more if you follow the usual pattern - for the benefit of any others I will respond to you. "While useless" is no assumption. "Emerging" veins that can't carry blood to an "emerging" limb, nerves that can''t yet carry messages for it, new "muscles" that are incomplete,, new cranial & spinal connections would all be useless until fully formed & fully INTERconnected. This should be obvious. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady It should be obvious to you that your arguments are straw. A body isn't a skyscraper that gets this part installed, then that part. It's during gestation that the set of available signals and the timing thereof establish cell differentiation patterns. A mutation for a sixth finger for instance doesn't set a mutation for the new set of bones, another mutation for the new set of veins etc and more mutations for the new way it connects to the rest of the body.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ExtantFrodo "A body isn't a skyscraper that gets this part installed, then that part." Your claim, not mine: "A mutation for the new veins...& more mutations for a new way it connects to the rest of the body..." What use are mutations for new veins until the nerves, bones & muscles are there & connected? An extra finger is a repetition of existing info, not analogous to new DNA for a fin turning into a leg, really 4 legs that have to keep "evolving" in synchrony - waiting for new mutations!
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady I don't get the idea you want to provide...You want the exact order of fins to leg... Consider that the fish has to move faster to readch the sea when it is dry season. The faster will be. this one a a specific code. it needs to go every year to the same place to give birth, every year same dry season. The next generation will have more survival! In this generation you have one with stronger fins cartilage...the next better articulation, the next a bigger fin, the next a larger fin
MattleSystem 1 year ago
the next better calcification, the next bones, the next stronger muscle, the next reduction of skin between bones, the next has legs. two legs in front!
So your nerve, your veins are already there, they just grow with the animal!
The synchrony is basically normal, because it is in the genome of fins, which are two all the times...
This rational step is what we can see in the fossil record, of course it is not complete! What the difference betwenn the stronger and the bigger fins...
MattleSystem 1 year ago
It can't be really seen! such as lactose tolerance between european and african, could you see the difference with just the skeleton!
It is the same in the fossil record, we have only the phenotype and not the genotype record that could explain why you are wrong.
But we do the experiment, we know that DNA is the basement of Evolution! But DNA is not conserved in fossils!Let see the rest of your comment! If it is still out of topic, I give up & laugh at for your stupidity & your dishonnesty
MattleSystem 1 year ago
@LoricaLady "An extra finger is a repetition of existing info"
standard creationist response. Honey, HOW DOES IT CONNECT? The blood vessels aren't set in a programmed pathway that sets it up as going specifically "through left pinky in such and such a path".
I was trying to point out that the gradual deformation from fin to leg requires even less generation by generation change than the addition of a new digit. At no point in the fin to leg transition does there have to be an "unconnected leg"
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ExtantFrodo If you want to believe in what is statistically absurd, unobserved and untested, help yourself. I don't like someone who has a past history of verbal abuse & also calls me "babe" & "honey." Let those see who have eyes to see and let those get them who want to come out of the matrix and learn what real science - and math - are. Goodbye.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady anything to avoid a real discussion eh hun?
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@LoricaLady This is precisely what creationists say cannot happen. Also, when referring to a fin becoming a leg, this is an argument from incredulity. The genes for bone growth were already there, but a population of lobe finned fish separated in an inland stream would be selected for development of fingers which confers advantages in this type of environment.
Also, limbs would always form in pairs because the genes for "mirror image" has been around for about three quarter of a billion years.
gardener68 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@gardener68 Creationists generally know far more about what is going on in the science word than evo fans. For example it is not just in the last half century that new species have evolved, there are new ones being found all the time. When you say things like "Darwin was a scientist" I'm sorry but you show you need to study one heck of a lot more - about evolutioin. Darwin's degree was in theology with some experience in nature observation. He never did anything using the scientific method.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady I have to go back to work and then class. I want to discuss this further, but I've no time. Please read The Voyage of the Beagle Round the World, The Origin of Species, and a basic biology textbook. I'm not saying this to be condescending, but to allow you to understand the depth to which you have been lied to by creationist apologetics. Darwin WAS a hard working scientist, but no one really follows him anymore. Biology has changed as new data has become available.
gardener68 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@gardener68 Darwin was not a scientist. He was an armchair theorist with a degree in theology who provided zip, zero, nada, not any data whatsoever to show any kind of origin of specie. He provided nothing but wild theories about finches based on seasonal beak changes. YOU read his books. Find where he showed any scientific basis for origin of any species. Find any ev-i-dence for his Tree of Life. There is nothing scientific in his writings. They are purely theories based on observations.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@gardener68 You say no one really follows Darwin any more. Then why are you recommending his book to me? Why does Miller tell folk to read Origin of Species & say "It is a great book!". There is much that Darwin said that evolutionists defend daily. He is an icon to them. You seem like a very nice guy, actually. Not like the usual, well, evo trash talkers on YT. But, as I once was, you're confused. You're in the matrix. I got out. You can too. Seriously read the othe scientists. Plz.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Oh Oh Gardener68, "You seem like a very nice guy, actually" she said. Do we consider this as sexual harrassment as well in US???
I am killing sorry...
Back to your idea. Based on your previous posts.
Fish to another fish specie, OK, so lizard to crocodile OK, cat to tiger OK, wolf to dog, OK, chicken to ostriches OK, ape to human, OK! All of them do not need any new legs, just small changes in phenotype!
So I should say that if u think all of them are OK, u are evolutionist
MattleSystem 1 year ago 2
@LoricaLady ""While useless" is no assumption."
Is it an assertion with no basis or evidence for it? Why does the lung fish seem to be a transitional species?
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
Lungfish are fish that can breath air watch?v=ZUsARF-CBcI
Consider the benefits to a lungfish or mudskipper type fish and the lack of predation being the first into the new territory. There's the safety of eggs to consider, the lack of competition for food.
Yet look on the lung fish. Ponder yon unoccupied land wherein no fish nor lion has ever tread. How safe it is for thine eggs. How unthreatened one is by the usual TEETH! with food below water and safety above, the shore is a wondrous place.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ExtantFrodo "Why does the lung fish seem to be the transitional species?" "Seem to be" is true evo talk. Anomalies occur in nature. To claim they are transitions is baseless. Where are the transitions between the lung fish and plain ol' fish? Oh, 'scuze me, I remember, uh there aren't enough fossils (billionis found worldwide) or,oh yeal, It all happened soooo long ago.
The lung fish is fully formed & functional for it's purposes. An "emerging" lung fish & "emerging" parts would not be.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ExtantFrodo NEWS FLASH: It doesn't happen slowly. It doesn't happen at all. You have to belieeeve, have faaaith that it happened, in the never to be seen, tested or observed murky long ago & far away la la land of evolution. Your comparison of a natural land bridge to even one single cell in a human body, which is full of nano tecnology machines & is as complex as a block of factories, does not show a deep understanding of how biological processes exist and must operate.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady You wound me. My comparison was the land bridge to a single IC protein complex. Not an entire cell.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: If you see I am not replying to some posters, they know they are on the ignore list. It is counterproductive to the true purposes of science to "debate" with people who follow me from one vid series to another using personal insults, name calling, false accusations of lying & sometimes even sexual harrassment. I have seen that even mild & patient responses just increase the virulence. I will debate with those who are civil and objective.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady You should say that you have nothing better to reply! Because my statement is valid in genetic!
Furthermore, if evolution was as you think it is, let say suddenly four legs appear to a fish! It will be consider as not viable by the parent or the rest of the community. Then it will be killed or left without help.
The kind of thing which happen in the past with human! if you look different you are killed or consider as a devil creation.
But with gradual change, you don't see it!
MattleSystem 1 year ago
I hope you will integrate the process now!
If you want to see magic, ok you can still pray god!
but this is not evolution, this is magic!
This is not the scientific theory, this is the creationist point of view... you are obsessed by the creationist claims, but this can't be proved by evolution, because it is not evolution!
A new leg or a new wing does not appear! like the mouse trap! it is buit with additional functional elements during a long period...
MattleSystem 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MattleSystem Cont. Look at the fruit fly experiments which they claim shows evo but shows the opposite as usual. At least 1000 generations were bombarded with radiation to make them mutate & they did. None were more viable than the originals, most were deformed or born dead & every last one of them stayed a fruit fly. Was any new DNA created? Of course not. "One step is one gradual change." Change to turn a fin into a leg has to involved innumerable, syn-chron-ous changes. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MattleSystem Cont. You either don't get that yet, or you are into denial. Let's say by some amazing, statistically ridiculous accident, a fish suddenly you get a fin with "better articulation" for moving like a leg. So what? How could evo drive that leg synchronously so that it matches the other leg? While it had that anomaly, anyway, it would actually be LESS functional. There is no benefit to have a fin that is kinda sorta a leg. It only works in evo fairy tales. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady "How could evo drive that leg synchronously so that it matches the other leg?"
Limb articulation is learned by the brain during gestation; not through evolutionary development.
"While it had that anomaly, anyway, it would actually be LESS functional."
You know this because you were there in that environment and know what challenges and pressures were imposed upon that species at that time?
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MattleSystem Not for your benefit for you have already heard it often befo:e, but for any others. I do not get into relgion here as it turns into a red herring. It IS a red herring. Regardless of what anyone believes about the Bible & creation, evo simply does not stand up to the ev-i-dence. The evidence is that things are irreducibly complex and that i.c. only comes about, only can come about, through intelligent design. You can call that YHWH or the flying spaghetti monster. 'Sup to you.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady
A landslide dumps a heap of boulders on a pile of dirt.
A rainstorm washes out the dirt from the middle of the pile.
As luck would have it an arch of rocks was formed that could not have formed by any known natural process (because it is irreducibly complex)
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@LoricaLady "irreducibly complex " I have heard already this before... And "evo simply does not stand up to the ev-i-dence" is wrong...Because you never provided any kind of evidence that can disprove evolution and surely one small evidence that your thesis is correct.
No religion there, fine! But No anti thesis to Evolution from your part! And excuse me but if you watch the vids around youtube about ID, you always get the religions stuff and the Evil Darwinism...
MattleSystem 1 year ago
@LoricaLady the thermodynamic law, the Flood, the hydroplate theory and all this kind have only one purpose. They want to prove god and not disprove evolution. If a part of them want really to disprove evolution, they need to do more their homeworks and read a bit more than Hovind, Comfort and Behe...
irreducbility complex! So what? i should say! does that need something magic or just a bit more research from your part???
The lazy part and theist will choose the 2d for sure...
MattleSystem 1 year ago
@LoricaLady You can't see it! You want to make the list of beneficial mutation observed only for human! Go ahead!
The specie appear generally when a group is isolated from others...
I don't know why I continue to teach you something that you don't want to undertsand! because instead of saying it is not true, pure speculation! You need to clarify your thesis! If you have just "irrecductibility" then we have just " Evolution" with all the supports for real world.
MattleSystem 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MattleSystem I will respond to you this time, for the benefit of any others who might be fooled by the disinformation. Nothing that you are saying is backed up by any actual ev-i-dence. "The tranmission of the mutation..." There is no evidence that mutations lead to new DNA info but plenty that they lead to defects. The mutation you speak of is the usual theoretical not based on any evidence. "In the next 1000th generation..." Where is the evidence for this? The evidence is the opposite.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
Loricalady want to see the information of the legs into the DNA of a fish.
Example, let say the following code is for the fins of the fish.
ACGTAGCTAAGTCCG= fin function
the CTA is an exon, so it will disappear, ACGTAG one part, AGTCCG 2d part. these make your fin
During the mitose or meiose, you have a crossing and you replace the CTA by a CAA.
ACGTAGCAAAGTCCG, the exon disappear and you have a comple to protein, a new function!
it is transmited to the next generation etc. Evolution!
MattleSystem 1 year ago
Cont ..ACGTAGCAAAGTCCG, the exon disappear and you have a complete new code for protein, a new function! The transmission of this "mutation" is maybe good for survival.In the next 10000th generation, you have another change, beneficial as well, etc,
skeleton with real bones, better articulation, stronger muscle! One step is one gradual change!
After100 gradual changes in few millions years, you have two front legs!
Two is enough to creep, the next two is for the next miilion years!
Easy!
MattleSystem 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MattleSystem Those letters are just the usual theoretical gobbledegook from evo lit. "And you have a new code for protein." Bull. Where is the evidence? Did they see that with the fruit fly experiment? Have they seen it anywhere? "The transmission of this [purely theoretical, never observed, tested or repeated as in true science] new mutation is maybe...." There ya go. Spoken like a true evo lit: fan "Maybe...could...we believe...we propose a model..." It's not science. It's b.s.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady " Have they seen it anywhere?"
search Lenski_results_challenge_creationism
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Come on! you want to see the reality! ok! Lets go!
a codon is related to a protein! a codon is 3 nucleotides. During mitose and meiose you have crossing, mutation, combination. a small part is viable, some has no effect on the individual when it is viable, but it could lead to kind of tolerance ofr the lactose as example.
The protein, the DNA combination is the basement of the phenotype! so multiple changes can lead to a phenotype change!
MattleSystem 1 year ago
Cont. The fact that evolutionists ever use NS, and they frequently do, as an example of evolution tells you one of two things: They don't understand how genes & DNA work & so you shouldn't be listening to them, OR They do understand but are deceiving people & so you shouldn't be listening to them.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
Cont. For such astronomically numerable changes to occur you would need to break the laws of probability - you would need new DNA, new information, constantly along the way. Think about it. Per evo a fish gets a bump or a spot on it's fin that will one day turn it into a leg. That bump will be useless. How is evo going to drive it to completion to a leg thru reshuffling genes? There is nothing in the DNA giving info on how to form a leg! So therefore you see that NS is not evolution.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
Cont. Shuffling &/or losing things that are already in place, i.e. genes as seen in NS, isn't creating something new. It can't lead to any kind of new DNA strands giving new info, a new genus. Therefore you will not get any kind of climb up Darwin's so called Tree of Life with NS. To go from moleducles to man you'd need constant REengineering of life forms, not just at the outer, visible, levels, but thru their nerves, cells, veins, bones etc. & all changes would need to be in synch. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
Cont. No one is arguing that new species come into existence all the time. There are 200 or so species of bees. But, they are all...bees! All those bacteria that change this way or that, which are hailed as examples of evolution, all stay bacteria.
Natural selection is not evo. The genes are like a deck of cards. You can reshuffle some. You can lose some so that only those with the same loss interbreed - and get new species. You can get new "card" games but you don't get checkers. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: If you notice I am not responding to the posters below, they know the reason why. I do not spend my limited time "debating" with those who use personal insults, name calling, gross obscenities, & in one case sexual harrassment. Such things defeat the true purposes of science. Also, I have noticed that responses to such replies only causes those behaviors to become more virulent. I will respond to anyone who sticks to science & logic & is civil & objective.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Funny, never knew creationists valued logic or were civilized.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. There are too many scientists to count who most certainly are NOT saying intelligent design is a scientific failure! They use science from a plethora of fields to defend it and to debunk evolution. Gee, if Miller isn't knowledage and/or honest about that (and the fact that he only has one vague quote from his so called "advocateS" indicates he most likely knows very well) I wonder why? Could it be because lots of decieving propaganda is needed to support evolution's party line? Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Until you acknowledge the significance of the FOUNDER to Intelligent Design and what he has to say, you simply continue to demonstrate your profound ignorance, as usual.
Do some research, or shut up.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 23
@LoricaLady Sorry, hon, but 0.02% of the community of biologists hardly counts as a large scientific majority. That means out of the 3.5 million biologists with doctorates in the appropriate fields, only around 700 accept intelligent design.
Besides, WHY do you reject evolution when acceptance of natural selection does not make belief in Christianity null? Ken Miller is a Catholic, Robert Bakker is an Evangelical and Theodosius Dobzhansky was an Orthodox Christian.
gardener68 1 year ago
@gardener68 My freind, not one thing you said refers to the actual sceintific evidence relating to this vid. Natural selection certainly does not make any religious system null & void since it has 0 to do with evoltution tho it is falsley presented as evidence for evo. NS seeelects from what is already available in the gene pool. Mendell told all about that. But with NS bees stay bees & peas stay peas. For molecules to man "evolution" you need new DNA info. NS doesn't do that.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady But genes DO change, therefore new "information" is added (or subtracted). The evidence is that birds still have genes for teeth and we still have genes for tails, they're just turned "off". Also, we know that animals speciate because we've seen it happen, and yes always to something like the parent stock. What else would they be?
Lifeforms were NEVER expected to give rise to a fundamentally different lifeform, that would violate the laws of evolution.
gardener68 1 year ago
@gardener68 Btw there are no "laws of evolution." There are laws for many things, like gravity, like biogenesis which says life must come from life (flying in the face of the primal pond theories which have 0 evidence but are still taught to little children as fact). But there are no laws of evolution. Evoltuion is based on one speculation piled on another, often - like the primal pond theory - defying the true laws of science. It is a bunch of logical fallacies taught to the naive public.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady "defying the true laws of science" I wonder what are YOUR true laws of science???
Oh yes of course! Law one! The first cause without cause! Law two! Creation from nothing! Law three! Irreductible complexity of Graduate school knowledge! Law four YHWM is love...Law five! Burn in hell if you don't like that!
Law of Intelligent Design with Low intelligence but Big Designer....
You try the 100$ prayor! It does not work! try the 500$! You should get some stickers with a dinosaur!
MattleSystem 1 year ago
@LoricaLady In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well substantiated, well-supported, well documented explanation for their observations. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. Laws describe, and theories explain. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the best explanation for the fact of evolution.
foxlake02 1 year ago 11
@foxlake02 Amazing how creationists claim the scientific high ground in biology/geology/astronomy/paleontology etc etc but their argument does not get past infantile rants about what the word "theory" means
wildcrazygoats 1 year ago 4
@wildcrazygoats Its like every creationist argument is a parody of an Edward Current video
wildcrazygoats 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@foxlake02 For the 12th time, for the benefit of of any it might help, I do not "debate" with those who follow me from vid series to vid series, not content to just replay evo spin, but who also feel it necessary to use personal insults, name calling, false accusations of lying, gross obsenities, sexual harrassment, and telling someone who sent me a porno post, re 0 science, "Good job."
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Funny how you are not debating me unless you think you have something to show me how wrong I am on another channel. Too bad you didn't know what you was talking about again. :(
Guess I'm back to ignore/delete.
foxlake02 1 year ago 3
@gardener68 See my replies to your post below. Sorry, was in a hurry & just filled in the blank boxes instead of clicking on your handle. Careless mistake.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady It's okay, you got on my channel comments :)
Anyway, "no laws of evolution"? Are you kidding me. Just as in physics or geology, there are certain principles in evolutionary biology which are always applicable and confirmed in any condition. Evolutionary theory has many laws which are the support on which it stands, and none of them support a hypothesis of supernatural intervention. Charles Darwin himself discovered three: biodiversity, natural selection, and gradualism.
gardener68 1 year ago
@gardener68 Name one law of evolution. Enlighten me. Free my mind from "lying, politically driven creationist information." Darwin never discovered anything. He never showed the origin of any species. He gave a lot of armchair speculations (not even originally his own ideas) with zip data to back them up. The finch beaks were seasonal & reverse depending on the weather. There is no evidence the finches ever were or will be anything but finches. Darwin showed no evidence for "gradualism".
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady "Darwin never discovered anything."
You ignorant dishonest little bitch. Spewing your lies again.
Apart from evolution , Darwin originated & published a lot of original research in botany.
Only the most dishonest bigoted creationists deny it.
You really are a nasty piece of work - an insult to Christianity
brospec 1 year ago
@LoricaLady "He gave a lot of armchair speculations (not even originally his own ideas) with zip data to back them up."
I see. I have a vision of Darwin , sailing to the Galápagos Islands in his armchair.
Lets do some real research - get some funding from Phillip Johnson, round up some creationist herpetologists & launch an expedition searching for talking snakes.
The journal , Nature, will be delighted to publish - isnt this the peer review support you crave?
wildcrazygoats 1 year ago 6
@gardener68 There is no law of gradualism. It is a theory. Biodiversity has been known since people have had eyes to see it. I wonder if you read, or understood, what I said about natural selection. It has nothing to do with evolution. That is a farce. How can the genes for a fish fin be turned into a leg through natural selection which only...selects...from what is in the gene pool, or eliminates it. Tell me where a fish is going to get DNA strands of info to tell it how to build a leg?
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady DNA is just a serie of Adenosine, Thyrosine, Glutamine, Citosine and Uranine for ARN. So just a serie of 4 letters, one combination of letters give one functional protein, if you remove, or add, you change completely the sequence and have other protein function. Of course not the entire sequence, just the one between exon, the intron...
So you build a leg gradualy, by this kind a gradual change by one letter only in your DNA.
This is not a farce, this is a law of Genetic.
MattleSystem 1 year ago
@MattleSystem You don't create a new DNA sequence from no where and you include in the genome! if you really think that, it is ridicule.
And I just tell you what I have learned in genetic 10 years ago... I am not even a specialist, but this is the obvious mecanism!
By the way, a CELL turning into HUMAN, it is POSSIBLE!
We are all a product one cell .
The only part we don't know is how really everything happen at the beginning! But DNA explains evolution by itself.
MattleSystem 1 year ago
@gardener68 Cont. Tell me how blind accidental evolutionary chance is going to take a worthless bump or dot on a fin & turn it into a leg. Oh, not just a leg, but two legs that match in front & two legs that are different, but complimentary, that match in the back? Where is it going to get the previously non existent DNA plans for legs - and oh all 4 must develop syn-chron-ously or the animal will be lopsided & handicapped. Where is the DNA info for that & new nerves, muscles, cells, etc,?
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Ah yes, now we come to the meat of this discussion. as I said I hate the format, but anyway. First, gradualism is real because it has been observed, both in diversification within a species (i.e. breeding) but also in observed instances of speciation. New species have emerged within the last half century, that is new populations of organisms which have become separated, developed new traits from genetic drift, and then become unable to interbreed with the parent population.
gardener68 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@gardener68 Sometimes I feel people aren't reading my posts. Are you? I have already acknowledged that no one is aruging about speciation. I think I commented that there are over 200 species of bees. But they all stay bees. You are mistaken to say "creationists say this never happens," You tell me to read up on Darwin. I read, & analyze right here on YT, evo lit all the time. It is you, friend, who have only read one side. If you read both sides you would not make such statements. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Yep! She is right there! She accepts the evolution inside the same kind of animal! So she accepts only what it is Evolution in micro scale! Nevertheless Creationists do not understand that this "speciation" is exactly what can happen in only few years, and can be assumed to be bigger at big time scale of million years.
And why can we assume that! Because of the fossil database! From a kind to another kind with different gradual change in the phenotype!
MattleSystem 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@gardener68 Be so bold as to practice what you preach. You tell me to read the other side. I've done that in spades. You need to do the same. Perhaps start with some of my favorited videos. The one on thermodynamics has some great quotes from evolutionists. Then maybe go to Our Solar System, Evidence For Creation. See if you can refute anything those scientists are saying, between you & you. In evo lit, count the "might...could...we believe" statements. Learn your logical fallacies, too.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady "The one on thermodynamics has some great quotes from evolutionists. Then maybe go to Our Solar System, Evidence For Creation" Those vids are completely ridicule. Thermodynamic, the 2d law is against evolution, AhAh Ah! if it is the case it is against god as well, because he is order, the best one apparently... so what.... The solar system and the comet returns, the fact that venus is turning other direction, Pluto not on the ecliptic... So what about the evidence of creation.? None
MattleSystem 1 year ago
They just speak in the void! And what they have to say is just "Look it does not match to the evolution model..." Without going into detail... Oh but wait! there is another book who did this kind of statement. It starts with ", Bereishit bara Elohim"...
Not so much details, but who cares, he did it... that's fine for us...And it is pure scientific evidence of course because all the rest is wrong apparently...
The big evidence for creation, is the invisible creator..
MattleSystem 1 year ago 2
@MattleSystem I love hearing creationist thermodynamics - obviously they must also think that the growth of a crystal or a snowflake or an embryo into an adult violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics
wildcrazygoats 1 year ago 8
@gardener68 Cont. Try to understand that fish, for ex., have DNA strands of info for fish parts only. Period. None have DNA for legs. The strands of DNA contain more information than what you find in a library. Shuffling genes through NS will get you different looking fish, sometimes new species of them. It will never, ever, cause legs DNA to develop. DNA has the blueprint, the instructions for building an animal. N.S. CANNOT create DNA. DNA is just there - or not. N.S.= evo is a lie.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady I hate this tiny format! >:(
Also, Stephen Gould also discovered the principles of evolutionary economics and punctuated equalibrium. These are well understood and repeatable observations which allow biologists to understand how evolution works.
This is not speculation. Please read something other than the politically driven creationist information. Unfortunately, they are lying to their readers.
gardener68 1 year ago
@gardener68 With gradualism they say, "Well, it all happened so sloooowly that's why all the links are missing." Gould spoke himself, to Dr. Colin Patterson, of the lack of transitional fossils. So he MADE UP the P.E. theory with no evidence whatsoever. You don't need evidence, you see, because with P.E. things happened so faaaast, there IS no evidence! It's the evoultionists who are lying & politically driven friend, and scamming people big time. Your tax dollars at work.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: If you notice I am not responding to some posters, I use my limited time to debate with those who are really debating,or at least trying to do so. Name calling, personal insults, gross obscenities etc. put people onto an "ignore list." The posters below know this. However, some of them have been following me around from vid to vid spitting obscenities and less than kind remarks. Some people just get really upset when you try to demonstrate they are not ape kids. Shrug.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady "If you notice I am not responding to some posters, "
- i.e. the ones who catch you telling lies
brospec 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
9:20 MIller szys "Even the advocates of intelligent design admit that it is a scientific failure. What "advocates", plural, does he mention? He only names P. Johnson, a lawyer whose primary purpose has been to show the problems with logic and evidence presented by evo & not really the scientific aspects of i.d.. One quote is given, Johynson's humble opinion. Does it use the word "failure"? No. Another transparent desperate deception by an evolutionist. (Cont. on Vid. 2 of this series.)
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Phillip Johnson fucking founded the Discovery Institute you ignorant little shit.
Phillip Johnson wrote the Wedge Strategy.
He IS the authority on Intelligent Design, because he fucking made it happen. Just shut the fuck up already. You are too ignorant to be here.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 11
I told you before, and I tell you again, LoricaLady, your lies and ignorance will not be tolerated.
YOU have the obsession with Ken Miller. If you cant deal with it properly, you should seek psychological help with your obsession.
Through this, and about 10 other channels in the past, everyone can demonstrate how you dont have a god damned clue about this topic. As with other channels, I wonder how long it will be before you are asked to leave because of your habitual lies.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 9
@ThatOneQuestion From Johnson's Wedge Strategy:
Governing Goals * To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. * To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
..........and they try to pass this nonsense off as science
brospec 1 year ago 7
@ThatOneQuestion I thought I`D supporters say that GOD did it? :-)
paulspydar 1 year ago
@paulspydar They do. They are too cowardly to say so, but choose to beat around the bush with "designer". Notice how its always a singular designer who exists outside of reality and isn't abiding by the laws of nature.
Gee.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion yeah , talk about a "get out of jail free card!" well i`m off to get the stork theory taught in sex ed, :-)
paulspydar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady What he means when he says ID is a scientific failure is because it has nothing to even offer to submit the bare minimum hypthesis to submit. Thats why its a failure. There is nothing to even consider as evidence. The so called "creationist scientists" have nothing to present to the scientific community. So instead, they want to skip over the whole scientific method.
splicedenergy 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
9:03 Let's see, he's complaining about creationists appealing to school boards & state legislatures, yet he constantly crows & lectures about the Dover trial as if it were a scieintific setting. Again, he also has implied strongly that the issue should be brought before the Supreme Court so that dissenters from evo "would be in bad straits." Typical evo double talk & double think. And it just slides right by the devoted and believing evo fans.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady but between "we come from a common ancester and all living forms are linked by Evolution process" and " We are all the product of a intelligent being flying in the sky with lightning getting out from his hand"...
Everybody can see that one one them is less scientific just with the obvious conclusion... Especially when this conclusion is supported by just the faith of theist which is not the case for Evolution.
MattleSystem 1 year ago 5
if you cannot see the picture of the 80%, then you should see something else! If it is the case give us your puzzle pieces!
Of course ID has only a puzzle for kid with 2 pieces, GOD and irreductible complexcity! So easy! but it does not fit to the Box of LIFE. Sorry! try again!
MattleSystem 1 year ago
liar really! I can admit that it is difficult to understand without a video footage about 110 millions years old. But as for geology, evolution is based on concept and logic based on fossils, and time scale.
So because you don't see a dinosaur claiming that a asteroid fell down on eart 65 Ma, does not mean that all geological evidences concluded to a big lie.
Evolution is like picture of the puzzle! Even if you have only 80% of the pieces, you can recognize the picture!
MattleSystem 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
8:40 "Their idea is a little bit more like this." That is a lie and he knows it and again, he is using the propaganda technique of ridicule to "poison the well" before he gets into any "science." Robert Gentry is a nuclear physicist and one of many, like those in Expelled, who report that their articles have the peer review door shut on them if there is even a hint of creationism. He got peer reviewed, favorably, on plutonium halos until someone caught on the halos indicate a young earth.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady "plutonium halos " - more sloppy work. He claimed POLONIUM HALOS
"until someone caught on the halos indicate a young earth" - another lie
"children were told the peppered was a transitional form, " - another lie - as you should well know, no such claim has ever been made
"Notice the art works, especially one from a museum." - "one from a museum"???? So are you now whining about art fraud in some unnamed museum??
Stop pretending to be Christian with your pathetic lies
wildcrazygoats 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady Plutonium does not occur in nature - there is no such thing as a plutonium halo.
brospec 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Listen sweetie : plutonium does not exist in nature : no, the tiktaaliks didnt eat it all , it is a man made element. So there is no such thing as a plutonium halo
brospec 1 year ago 4
@LoricaLady "That is a lie and he knows it and again, he is using the propaganda technique of ridicule to "poison the well"" - you vicious dishonest bigot. Read Johnson's Wedge Strategy - you can get it from one of the interns at Discovery Institute : "Intelligent Design" is antiscience political fascism masquerading as science for the superstitious, the intellectually lazy and the very very stupid
wildcrazygoats 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. Don't know for certain, but I assume Miller's mousetrap for a bizarre tie clip "debunk" of intelligent design was probably peer reviewed. He said himself that the mouse trap was designed for catching mouse. The fact that he could clip it on his tie, using "intelligently" designed actions had zip to do with anything about catching mice. The whole thing was absurd. He even took some parts off the trap & claimed - no ev-i-dence, just theories as usual - it could still catch mice.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. Tiktaalik was highly evo peer reviewed, hailed as a "transitional" fossil, headed for land. Problem was some showed up alive. They look just like...fish & have no chance of, or anatomy for, any kind of movement from water to land. Then there were the peer reviewed peppered moth articles where the moth's color was hailed as an ex. of evo due to industrial air pollution. But it was discovered that variety of coloring had always been present for that species. The list goes on . Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady "Tiktaalik was highly evo peer reviewed, hailed as a "transitional" fossil, headed for land. Problem was some showed up alive. "
Oh really?? Tell us where we can see one of the living Tiktaaliks. To me , this statement is one of those regularly regurgitated creationist "outright lies".
(perhaps this is your cue to run away , in a huff, and refuse to answer any more questions - your usual tactic when you have been found telling lies. And you have the nerve to accuse others)
wildcrazygoats 1 year ago 6
@wildcrazygoats Perhaps the live Tiktaalik was actually one of Comforts crocoducks in a tiktaalik suit
brospec 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@wildcrazygoats Oh crumb, I did make a mistake, from typing too quickly. Put the word "coelacanth" where I said Tiktaalik. Nevertheless now that Tik has been mentioned. Notice the art works, especially one from a museum. Notice how the art works differ greatly. Notice that the museum 3D one show Tik w/muscular, long front fins for climbing onto land, tho the actual fossil shows tiny front fins & has no fossilized musculature. Notice that the body is pictured as being serpentine. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@wildcrazygoats Cont. Of course a serpentine body could more easily transfer from water to land. Problem is the fossil evidence no way supports it. "Out right lies?" Yes, evo is full of them & not all are in print, some are just lying pictures, a tradition Haeckle seems to have started that has never stopped. "Tell us one paper." That's a dodge If you know evo so well you know darned well that children were told the peppered was a transitional form, although it is no such thing.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Typical dishonest tactics : make an outragrous dishonest claim; get all worked up in mock outrage when asked to justify the claim ; run and hide & refuse to discuss due to mock outrage; claim to win argument by default.
Can the Discovery Institute appoint a better intern as spokesperson - one who is actually familiar with science, one who is not so dishonest, one who is not a pompous bigot who gives real Christians a bad name.
You are just Phillip Johnsons parrot
wildcrazygoats 1 year ago 2
@LoricaLady "children were told the peppered was a transitional form,"
now that is one of your "outright lies"
brospec 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@brospec You are on ignore. Again, it is impossible to have a serious scientific debate with someone who falsely accuses one of lying. If you don't know that peppered moths were taught as "transitional forms" then you didn't do your research. I can't help you with that. I do have a problem with trying to type too quickly in the mornings when I am trying to do this and get other things done too, which explains the typo for "pulonium." I am certainly not your "sweetie". Bye!
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady No such thing as "pulonium" But in this case , I dont think you are being dishonest - jusy lazy. So tell us , if peppered moths are claimed by biologists as "transitional forms" , what species are they supposed to be transitional between? Or perhaps its easier for you to admit you have no idea what you are talking about
brospec 1 year ago
@brospec She has said many times before that she thinks she knows more about science than any other scientist.
Its quite amazing to see how prideful and arrogant she is. There is absolutely no reason for her arrogance, and her mentality and knowledge keep demonstrating that.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 2
@ThatOneQuestion Creationists seem to be a strange mixture of dishonesty, smug ignorance, pride & scientific illiteracy...........they think USA has lost its way & will be recreated great by embracing God, removing anything that conflicts with their literal interpretation of the Bible and buildng a theocracy.
They are so so similar to the Taliban.
brospec 1 year ago
@brospec Yes, its sad-they have lost their way completely. They dont represent their religion what so ever.
What they do represent are their own self-destructive ambitions: pride, arrogance, anger, etc.
They dont follow religion because of the religion, they claim a religion so they can use it as a tool to attack others, because of their own insecurities.
They are frauds. They are liars. They dont even know what their religion is about.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 3
@ThatOneQuestion Yes - hence their deranged hatred of scientists like Miller. Hating in the same of God
brospec 1 year ago
@brospec Exactly. LoricaLady is obsessed with Miller in particular, the reason for which I can only guess. Maybe she asked him a question in a Q&A session and was completely embarrassed, or something like that.
Its pretty sad to see people like her demonstrate their psychosis.
I keep laughing at her when she was speaking to me early on. One time, she asked me to only reply to one channel, instead of the 9 she was commenting on at the time, because her boyfriend didn't like it. Just wow.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 3
@ThatOneQuestion Sad case......waste of neurones! Have a good day
brospec 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Arrogant little bitch, you cant keep lying to everyone and expect to get away with it.
Just get over your obsession with Ken Miller, little one. You will not escape your own stupidity, but its funny how you arn't satisfied with your own religion.
Grow the fuck up, you habitual liar.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@wildcrazygoats "You usual tactic when you have been found telling lies." What in Heavens name are you talking about? I made a mistake & said that I meant to type Coelacanth, not Tiktaalik. Further all I said, mistakenly, about Tiktaalik (though as indicated it is the same kind of fraud) is true about Coelacanth. It is impossible to debate with one who accuse falsley accuses you of lying. It is a double problem since they are the ones lying. Why you are now on ignore & lost the challenge.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady "Then there were the peer reviewed peppered moth articles where the moth's color was hailed as an ex. of evo due to industrial air pollution. But it was discovered that variety of coloring had always been present for that species"
It sounds like you never bothered to read the papers - tell us one paper where it claimed that the variety of colouring had not always been present.
(Hint : read a real journal , dont just regurgitate what Phillip Johnson tells you - like Tiktaalik)
brospec 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
7:58 Here Miller makes totaly faith based statements. Well, actually the 1st faith based statement we are expected to buy is that people who do peer reviews are unbiased or even extremely knowledgeable. According to Miller if you have a new scientific idea all you have to do is submit it for peer review & then you go for a scientific consensus & then "automatically" the good idea will wind up in textbooks & schools. In other words, trust the system, their system, the one they guard so well.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady "In other words, trust the system, their system, the one they guard so well."
"their system"???The same system that applies in medicine, mathematics, literature, theology, history, economics etc -.all fields where contemporary research is published in peer reviewed journals.
What would you like to replace the peer reviewed system with?
Does you objection derive from rational thinking or is it just sour grapes because of creationisms failure to do any credible research?
brospec 1 year ago
@brospec ....cont ......would you like a list of projects that you can pass onto the Discovery Institute that could prove creationism.......many are quite easy ?
Remember that science rewards radical research that totally overturns the scientific orthodoxy.......you know, things like the Nobel Prize
brospec 1 year ago 2
@brospec "Science rewards radical research that totally overturns the scientific orthodoxy." Faith based statement. Not supported by history. The Nobel Prize is kinda like "peer reviews". We are to accept on faith that they don't have an agenda, or any concern about being politically correct, or that their belief systems might be threatened. Get down to science. Get to the vid when Miller finally (!)talks "science" & see if you can defend it & not just give a bunch of personal opiniions.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady "Faith based statement"????? Oh really??? So Nobel Prizes are not awarded for those who overturn orthodoxy???
So were Nobel Prizes wrongly awarded to Marie Curie or how about Robin Warren and Barry J. Marshall (didnt they totally overturn the medical orthodoxy - its OK - you can go look up who they are)
How about Muhammad Yunus or Thomas Mann? They really challenged orthodoxy
Rather than a meaningless chant , tell us who was wrongly given a Nobel Prize & who really deserved one?
brospec 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@brospec I really don't think the purpose of this vid has anything to do with the Nobel Prize. That was typical of evo talk though because it is all purely theoretical. I'm not here to worry about the politics of the Nobel Prize but to demonstrate that one of evo's most famous defenders presents only pseudo science. Unfortunately, if he follows a previous pattern, it may be some time before he gets down to actual "science."
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady "We are to accept on faith that they don't have an agenda, or any concern about being politically correct......"
I have peer reviewed scientific papers submitted for publication in refereed journals. Nobody asks you for your religion or your politics. Your claims of bias etc etc are exactly the same as those of the climate change denying industry, the tobacco industry, the alternative medicine industry - it seems easier to chant "bias" than actually do any constructive research
wildcrazygoats 1 year ago
- you dont even seem to have any grasp on what peer review involves - there is a good Wiki article that you may like to read.
Peer reviewed journals do have certain problems - one being that there are so many (you claim that the process has been "replaced by scientists" is just dishonest) but you dont demonstrate any comprehension of the scientific process
wildcrazygoats 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@wildcrazygoats I read evo peer reviewed articles & analyze them right here on YT not uncommonly. They are very predictable. One logical fallacy after another, and always, always, theoreticals presented as if they were scientific data. These words run rampant in evo peer reviews "might have...could...we propose a model...." Phony art work is common, and outright lies are by no means never seen. People who don't understand critical thinking bow to evo peer reviews & are so impressed. Sad.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady "I read evo peer reviewed articles & analyze them right here on YT not uncommonly. "
OK......tell us the title & publication journal for the last peer reviewed paper you read & reviewed.
As the peer review process does not stop at publication , but includes subsequent letters, revisions etc , what did you do to address the outright lies you claim to have found?
Show us the outright lies you claim to have found Did you write to the journal or just sit on it?
wildcrazygoats 1 year ago 4
@brospec Cont. But don't hold your breath waiting for Miller to finally talk "science". In the last vid I watched, the 1st 1/2 hr of the 2 hr session was spent on propaganda & self promo, & a significant portion at the end was spent on politicizing. The in between parts were the usual logical fallacies and pure speculation presented as if ithey were hard core data. I have no doubt that is what is ahead in this vid. Hang in there - if you can be civil - & see if you can debunk my debunks.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brospec I have no problem with the peer reviewed system if 1st, it isn't considered more important than it is. Again, Darwin didn't get peer reviewed, neither did Aristotle or Galileo. 2nd, I wouldn't have a problem with it if it weren't for problems shown in Expelled. The peer review system has already been replaced by scientists from every field who are publishing books & articles independently. You actually can think for yourseld based on the evidence that is presented, w/o "peers."
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady "I wouldn't have a problem with it if it weren't for problems shown in Expelled."
And we wouldn't have a problem with Expelled itself if weren't a dishonest attempt to vilify the scientists who accept evolution and whatnot. Heck if it weren't, they would've interviewed Ken Miller himself in there! But it's been pointed out in a certain interview that they deliberately didn't interview Miller for a reason, and not a good one at that.
PrincePhoenicis 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Deleting your comments towards me doesn't hide them, girl.
You think it's fantasy when I say that they didn't put in Ken Miller because they're afraid of him? It's not, the producers EXPLICITLY said in an interview why they didn't interview Miller, and the reason is NOT an honorable one.
Heck, it might not even be Miller they're afraid of per see! Perhaps they're simply scared of the viewpoint that acceptance of Evolution needn't conflict with the belief in God! Speaking of which..
PrincePhoenicis 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@PrincePhoenicis "You think it's fantasy when I say that they didn't put in Ken Miller because they're afraid of him?"
Omitting Miller (or any of the other Christian scientists) from "Expelled" was just dishonest
brospec 1 year ago 4
@LoricaLady You say that it's "dissenters" who are being expelled but I ask you LoricaLady, have you heard of Bruce Waltke? If you haven't? Take a look at this video.
watch?v=E0h82CWPwe0
Don't worry, it's only two minutes long. A well known Christian evangelist thrown out for accepting evolution.
PrincePhoenicis 1 year ago 3
@LoricaLady Heck you could search on Youtube and google Expelled Debunked as well as Expelled Exposed and learn why it's a fraud. But I've already read somewhere that you "didn't need to see another evolutionist video." You've been informed about this already, LoricaLady.
PrincePhoenicis 1 year ago 3
@PrincePhoenicis Oh gee, I wondered how long it would be before Miller's guard dogs showed up on this vid. You of course know you are on ignore for name calling & gross obscenities. I've learned that when evo buffs are given a 2nd chance they just get much worse so you will stay on ignore. Bark all you want. Y'all didn't get rid of me before & you won't get rid of me here. If the vid poster doesn&