@tnafguy "ur voice is cracking b/c ur a young kid that makes way too many videos that talk about nothing. its DonExodus, enough said"
That "nothing" is called science, you should totally check it out. I mean you only owe every single aspect of your life to it, it's the least you could do.
realistic scenario. please respond. Congress decides that creation can be taught in high school but every major religion's creation myth must be taught. (not as a science class. as a mandatory religious studies class) christians get to jam their bullshit down everyone's throats but other religions (including paganism get to do the same)
do they take the offer or do they say it's not good enough knowing for a fact that it will out them as hypocritical douchebag retards?
This video is much ado about nothing. It's a minor situation purposely overblown in a pathetic attempt at discrediting Casey Luskin because, let's face it, you can;t refute his logic nor his reasoning when it comes to science.
Can someone give me some good material that supports punctuated equilibrium? I have tried to research this idea and I must admit it appears as desperation, not science. One more thing - during my years as an analytical biochemist, I never saw an opportunity to "shove things through" in publishing. How is that done? How does someone get published without proper peer review in a journal that requires proper peer review? Seems like the journal would be at fault, not the author(s)?Thanks
It's pretty straightforward to bully a paper through. But you have to know what you're doing, and have the resources. Of course, funding is the best lever to use, then prestige and notoriety.
I've been coauthor on papers that had comments from the reviewer like "this paper is absolutely not appropriate for the...(journal name)" . the principal author phoned the editor, and, as a special favor, got it published. there are other ways too.
as for your question looking for references on punctuated equalibrum.. well, about 2 seconds on google took me to the wikipage, which has references from which you may start.
i can't imagine why you had any difficulties. it was an absolutely fundamental search.
Can someone give me some good material that supports punctuated equilibrium? I have tried to research this idea and I must admit it appears as desperation, not science. Thanks
Good work. Fight on in the war against ignorance and religious totalitarianism.
In my own personal battle against ignorance, I need to learn how to download a YouTube video. I presumed that was not allowable. I read the instructions for mirroring, but I don't see how to download a video.
Ah I see 47 and counting is the number of Christians who apparently believe that lying to promote creationism is a good thing. I mean, of course, those that happened upon this video.
@HonestMan395 Mirroring is simply downloading the video in question, and uploading it on to your account. Be sure to include Mirror in the title, and "mirrored from X" so nothing bad happens :)
@PoolOfPeas Jesus Christ Almightly!!!....the sun has indeed risen every morning since your prophecy...I've checked every morning for seven months since you posted and it never fails to rise.....you are without doubt the true prophet!
@masala505 Haha, I'm not in the clear yet, there're still 5 months to go and Harold Camping is convinced the world will end on October 21. We've yet to see whether Jesus will side with me or him.
Lets get down to brass tacks MM. What are the properties of the designer? How do we test to see if the predictions made about the designer are correct? Science at work don't you agree?
Ok we all know you can't posit how ID explains anything. You will refuse to provide any evidence ID meets the requirements of science. Not a problem. ID supporters have no data just sophistic arguments.
@Zontor2 Why don't you ask an ID theorist? I am not one.
BTW, what data is there that evolution brought about change through natural selection? It isn't DATA, it is a way of interpreting data that uses design as its base for study, but posits that it really isn't designed.
@MorganMarvinson - Of course you're not an ID theorist, there is no theory for ID, nor hypothesis. As I stated earlier, ID offers no evidence and makes no predictions
As for the evidence for natural selection, there is far more than 500 characters in one of these or ten of these boxes can hold. Of course, I can tell you to go to Google or Yahoo and type in "evidence for evolution"
One thing you don't seem to know, or want to, is that natural selection is not the only driving force to evolution
@MorganMarvinson - There is no reason to think something is designed. So far everything in nature has been done to no plan just the interactions of various physical forces that while random, still conforms to ways the forces act and react in the world and universe
ID needs evidence FOR design which they have shown or done
If I were to say, "Runoff patterns in sand are due to little men directing the water flow as nothing that intricate could be natural", wouldn't I have to show the little men?
@sol3a1 One prediction of your Theory would be 'we would expect to see patterns if little men were directing the water. We see patterns therefore little men are directing the water'.
I know you see this "proof" for the BS it is. What is sad is this is the "proof" for ID and its circular reasoning is ignored by those who should know better.
On the flip side now my kids have to learn a new theory in the interests of academic freedom. :)
@MorganMarvinson what data is there that evolution brought about change through natural selection?"
The FACT that life adapts to the environment! This adaptation is not supernatural unless you can find some evidence of it being supernatural. Now, watch what you will do. Instead of finding some supernatural DATA to prove me wrong, you will just RUN AWAY so you don't have to admit I am right! That is sad; very sad!
What could scare you so badly? The tooth fairy or your God?
@MorganMarvinson You are presenting the conjecture of ID as the new paradigm. Support it with the data ID scientists have published. Start with the theory of ID or how it explains anything.
But like every other Creationist you can't present anything other than the bible in different wording as your proof. So I am not biting into the "raise the bar" argument. ID needs to put up or STFW. BTW I can't interpret the effect of gravity it is observable.
@MorganMarvinson We are discussing the new paradigm "ID" So explain how ID brought about change and how this mechanism can be observered. Debating the evidence for an established Theory is non-productive, unless there is compelling evidence that Theory is incorrect. Science has done this in the past, presented compelling evidence the current Theory is incorrect. ID needs to do the same.
Where else would Darwin's mouth breathers go if they couldn't post their tripe on youtube? Anyway, get used to being pissed off you bunch of drug pushing losers, the light of the information age has evaporated your theory.
@loonpolice1 Er....right enough, YouTube is like a ghetto for Darwin's mouth breathers (do you mean evolutionists?). God forbid that they might teach their tripe in schools, colleges and universities around the globe. Run and hide you believers in science, we have you cornered!
@jerrygreg2 Darwin's zombies don't like science, they like dollar bills. I don't know if you can call it "like", they're really not living creatures, more like jittering mud contraptions.
So this has been fun. MM, I want to pin you down on macro-evolution or I'll be doing nothing but chasing goal posts. So the sooner you actually codify what macro-evolution is, the sooner things can be answered on my side.
The three assumptions that ID makes, ie it ain't just 1:
1: There is deliberate design in nature. This one has never been shown. The patterns that one sees depends on how much of a micro-manager, and a poor designer their god is.
2: There is a designer (and it would seem only one). Again there is no evidence for this.
3: The designer is intelligent. Hmm, human lower back, eye (a squid's eye is a better design, no blind spot) and the blood vessels supplying the human heart says otherwise.
Speciation Part 6: chance of interbreeding between the groups is not possible.
The problem is the time it took. Even with PE, which is a short time as compared to geologic time, it would take many generations. So while a speciation event is taking place, there is no clean break until the groups are very different but you and other creationists would never accept it.
As I said, my example is a gross oversimplification of a speciation event. I used it to show that speciation is not a clean break
@sol3a1 "Even with PE" So where is the hard evidence in the fossil record that any kind of graduated change took place? And what is the theoretical model that "gradual changes over time" took place in the limited time spans in the fossil record via copy errors and do-or-die Natural Selection, when the record shows radical changes in very brief periods of time?
@MorganMarvinson: "So where is the hard evidence in the fossil record that any kind of graduated change took place?", sadly for you, there can never be. No matter what you are given, no matter what you are shown, nothing will penetrate that thick wall of ignorance you have around you.
Speciation Part 5: there will be some individuals, remember they are not all exactly the same, that could still possibly interbreed with the other group. A member of the "new species" with a rating of 1.0098, remember the average is still 1.0101, could still breed with individuals with a rating of 0.9999 or higher. That is generally how "ring species" come into existence albeit simplified
As the groups continue to diversify and grow apart and the "average" grows ever further then any, continued
Speciation Part4: opportunities which allows the drift to continue "higher". Over time the species changes from an average of 1.0000 to 1.0002 to 1.0005 and on up until it reaches 1.0101 where it is more than 0.01 different and can be called a new species.
Here's the tricky part, like I stated, there is no clear cut line for speciation for the group as different individuals have different genetic make up. While we could say the original group and the old group are different species, continued
Speciation Part 3: As the change becomes more pronounced, those individuals in the group who have a rating of 1.0000 or less generally start dying early before they can reproduce. I am not saying all will but the majority will have a rating of 1.0001 or higher. As evolution is genetic drift, the average value of the species goes from 1.0000 to 1.0002 with more individuals having a rating of higher than 1.0002 while those with 1.0000 off. The change continues to "reward", aka breeding (continued)
One of my favorite claims from the Creation/ID crowd (face it they are one in the same is the "great evolution conspiracy" that they say exists (which is only in their mind). There is no more a conspiracy vs Creation as there is a conspiracy vs astrology or crystal healing. When faced with junk and spurious claims, science and scientists ignore the noise from those quarters which present nothing new just rehashed, oft refuted claims that were defeated years ago.
We establish the definition of "Theory" is so broad when used by Behe any conjecture must be considered Theory. Ok I argue the Earth is flat and I want students to be exposed to the raging debate in Geology. The spherical Earth Theory is a Theory in Crises.
@Zontor2: The YECs and IDiots need to have the definition broad and completely ambiguous past the point of any real meaning. Allows them to have wiggle room to cover their inability to present a real argument. As for their never ending ability to teleport the goal posts to different regions, mostly from the lowest point in their intestines, sad that is all they have.
They can't defend their god past empty threats about punishment after death or that they will do their lard's work it can't
@Zontor2 "OK I argue the Earth is flat." You do realize that, as opposed to ID, which is backed by real scientists, no credentialed scientist is making an argument for a flat earth. Obviously that makes this a non-scientific debate. That aside, so what is your evidence for a flat earth?
@MorganMarvinson: "as opposed to ID, which is backed by real scientists", name them and let's look at not just what the "science degree is in", but what they've published while trying to fabricate evidence for ID.
Yes, I said fabricate clown. There is no evidence and all I get from you is hot air.
@Zontor2: I guess we teach other "controversies" and other theories: Alien abduction. Tin Foil underwear and government radio waves. Hollow Earth. We are all, okay just me, disembodied brains in a jar.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition.
@Zontor2 Behe got pushed into a corner by a bad example. BIG POINTS for the attorney, but it isn't an apples to apples comparison--and he knew it. (A better comparison would be the persistent mainstream theory regarding ether.)
The Design Inference is the natural and best explanation for exquisite design and digital programming. Evolutionists KNOW this to be true, which is why Dawkins and Crick went on record saying the evolutionist must intentionally override it. Why? Prior assumptions.
@MorganMarvinson Big points for the attorney? Behe was in the corner because ID isn't science. Behe is presented as an ID scientist and his "science" is used to undermine Evolution.
@Zontor2 "How ignorant are you of your own movement?" Do you find the name "MorganMarvinson" listed on the Discovery Institute credits? I take no responsibility for the movement. Why I post on behalf of Intelligent Design is because it raises the same questions that occur to me.
Behe is a capable scientist. He just isn't very quick on his feet. Miller is also a capable scientist, and he comes across well in public even though many of his points are contrived (e.g. the pile of papers).
Q Telling the readers of Pandas that you were a critical reviewer of that book is misleading, isn t it?
A I disagree. As I said, that s not the typical way that the term "critical reviewer" is used, but nonetheless, in my opinion I don t think it is misleading.
Why is this important. Read the cross-examination. Panda's and People is making claims about its scientific veracity that were established as misleading. Behe never corrected the misstatements.
Q What did you review and comment on, Professor Behe?
A I reviewed the literature concerning blood clotting, and worked with the editor on the section that became the blood clotting system. So I was principally
Well we can see the ID supporters can't provide a testable hypothesis. The best they can do is keep arguing that Evolution isn't supported by 150 years of science.
ID a "theory" in search of evidence.
If I am wrong then all it takes is one ID supporter to provide a testable hypothesis based on ID theory. Can we start with testing for the designer? That should be rather easy don't you think? I bet dimes to donuts the challenge will be side stepped with more sophistry.
@Zontor2 "ID a 'theory' in search of evidence." No, it is the way that scientists actually approach the study of any organism. If they don't approach it as designed, they cannot see how it works. If they actually approached it as a hodge podge of chance mutations, they shouldn't see design. ID is just being honest with the evidence. Design by "random mutation" is merely a dishonest cover story. (Don't bring in Natural Selection. That has nothing to do with the interior design of the DNA.)
@MorganMarvinson If they don't approach it as designed, they cannot see how it works."
You idiot, it was designed by natural forces................since there is no evidence of supernatural forces. NOW, you can run from the truth all you want, but it only shows how stupid you really are.
@MorganMarvinson More rhetoric no answers. Lets try again. ID is a new paradigm it has the burden of offering its testable theory.
Please state the testable theory. No one to date has presented a testable theory for ID. Ok here is something you can explain using ID theory. Why are men sexually aroused when the prostate gland is stimulated? Now since ID is science and it is a theory then it can posit an explanation. You refuse to answer any other questions maybe you will answer this one.
@MorganMarvinson I love how these idiots use 'design' as if it proves their stupid god. SADLY, it doesn't because design can be created by nature, which disproves their own god theory!
If you were ever curious about mysteries unsolved,all the truth burnt n' forgotten of the ancient world,if you ever looked for answers without your 21th century mask you would know there's A LOT missing, everywhere, and a lot being given as scientific truth to the masses.
you don't have to be part of nasa to doubt.
Stop bowing your head to everything that is elite source.
Support those who swim against the current, it may seem insane now
but alternative truth seekers are today's revolutionaries.
i wasnt even aware of this creationism moviment, but what caught my attention was this big wave against it.
we are stopless programmed by school since we were 4, through your young age have ever doubted any given truth?i bet u dint.there i get how sheeple get so upset over few cases when there's a possible update to the old absolute view.What is more scary than having a Fort like educational-system?its the most brilliant mind control toll ever.
"CrocoFox News present their newest data, pseudoscientifically documented, published on April 1st in the Crook-o-Duck Journal of the Institute of miraculous Discoveries!"
Them CroCoDuXX rock!
These truly fabulous chimers are just being CREATED by the CREATARD Actionists in this Institute of Crealogy, Truthology and G-dology in order to become presented to the amazed public with the clear intention to STUMP the evil Athi-ests and Evo-Delusionists and make them look very dumb in their panties!
To deny the fact of evolution, to deny the fact of common ancestry, to deny the fact that all life fits into a nested hierarchy that is LITERALLY a family tree; these are to deny reality, these are to deny the universe in which we live, these are to deny ourselves and our posterity the potential that evolution has given us. WE are survivors, WE are here, WE are now!
You've already demonstrated YOUR willingness to lie to kids in saying 3rd graders shouldn't be taught the web of life. This is immoral behavior, yet you apparently think it is justified. Slandering Casey Luskin because you don't agree with him is at best in bad taste.
No, your videos shouldn't be censored, but, as a teacher of science, you should be held to a higher standard than the every-day "potty mouth" Darwin supporter.
Based on the few of your videos I watched in which you repeatedly lie, deceive and express your bigotry, the people at Discovery Institute were probably outraged and not thinking clearly.
After all, you are protected by the Constitution to lie, deceive and disparage the people you hate.
If you were honest and truthful, this would not have happened.
@TheCountrySquire Apparently Don Exodus thinks misrepresenting certain aspects of science is justifiable to support evolutionary theory. I'm not certain he is even aware that he is doing so, though I confronted him with some of his misrepresentations on another of his anti-Christian videos. One misrepresentation is that all organic life boils down to a single tree. He may be unaware of research that shows the complicated genetic relationships of higher life forms, but he really has no excuse.
> " I confronted him with some of his misrepresentations on another of his anti-Christian videos."
He gives the appearance of presenting educational videos about science, but all his cheap shots at creationists show it is really about his own bigotry against theists and religion.
@TheCountrySquire He says in another video that he thinks making fun of Creationists and their teachings will make them change their mind. Were he accurate, I guess he'd have a point. People have zinged me with the truth before and forced me to face myself. The problem is, for him to really address real issues of creationism, he'd have to look at it from the Creationist's point of view. Apparently that is something he's afraid to do.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I already viewed one of your videos which showed how dishonest, malicious and factually wrong.
Your own lack of character was the only thing that came out perfectly clear.
As for your claims about the Discovery Institute, I am not familiar with the details. The only thing I am sure of is that YOU would not tell the truth if your life depended on it.
There are plenty of Pseudo-scientific organizations. MY favorite is the one that deals with 'perpetual motion' as an applied science. I wish the 'creationist' and the flat-earth people, the YEC, the geo-centrists, and the hollow earth folks could just get together and forge the ultimate forum and simply reject all material modernism and we can never hear a peep out of them again.
@warren52nz "Casey's eyebrows" Another example of trivial evidence for evolution. *rolleyes* I wonder what kind of "tree" we'd get if we shaped it according to eyebrow similarity. *winking smiley*
@RockyRacoon18 Watched the video and discovered the same propaganda people keep trying to feed me. I left a comment at that video. I don't care to waste any more time on the subject.
@MorganMarvinson " I don't care to waste any more time on the subject."
Yes I guessed that. I often find that religious people aren't interested in truth, it shakes their faith. The facts in that video are well established but, whatever...
@RockyRacoon18 "INTERESTED in the truth" That's the very reason I was gagged by the video. Redefining every fossil an "intermediate" doesn't fill in the gaps, nor does it answer for the sudden "origin" of all phyla in the Cambrian explosion, nor does it explain how major changes in taxonomy could occur by RM/NS within the brief spans of change in a column of stasis. Darwin proposed gradual change. Evolution brought about by multiple random point changes doesn't fit the record. Hopeful monster?
Sure it was a period of relatively rapid evolution but so what? Is that a good enough reason to throw out Evolution and substitute an imagined almighty, omnipotent, omni-absent Sky Daddy?
As for the meaning of "transitional", because Evolution happens in small steps, everything (in a changing environment) IS transitional. It happens in generational "chunks" but there are so many chunks you can consider it a continuum.
@RockyRacoon18 "100 million years" Apparently you are not taking into account that the supposed "change" of phenotype (upon which Natural Selection can only work; it cannot work on the genotype) took place only during very bands of that supposed period. The majority of the fossil record is not gradual change, but stasis.
@MorganMarvinson For your inconvenience, you prove yourself as a CroCoDuck, further, Evolution is a FACT. Did you understand the meaning of the retroviral genomes, that these became permanently INTEGRATED into the genome s and inherited, and serve as one indication for the truth of evolutionary trees?
@kleenex3000 I've heard the evolutionary story line, yes. But it doesn't totally make sense. First, because the high percentage of ERVs in the genome makes it questionable that they are what is assumed. 20% of the coding region is supposed to be made up of viral DNA that can only be passed on if it infects a sex cell. Remarkable! Then these regions that are supposed to be junk legacies end up being essential to DNA function. Then gorillas and chimps have ERVs that effected them but not humans.
@kleenex3000 What is also troubling is that viruses aren't injecting their DNA into the genome today. Fundamentally we must ask, where did the virus start? Exogenously or endogenously. A virus must form inside a host because it cannot reproduce without one.
You can say Evolution is a fact until the cows come home, but it is always a theory or a "research programme" (Popper) based on an inferential conjecture about the fossil record and variation within organisms.
@MorganMarvinson You are STUFFED with pseudscientific BS from the Discovery Dolt House. You do not know HOW scienctific forthcummings are established. Your desperate inane "REBUTTALS" can fairly be likened to the CLAIM that 2+2unequaling4 under certain, mysterious, sacred circumstances. The ERVs are ACCORDINGLY and APPROPRIATELY considered, to establish together with other findings unrefutable EVIDENCE.
Good to perceive that AT LEAST you accept the old Age of Earth,
@kleenex3000 Unfortunately, your diatribe reveals your inability to think the issues through that I have noted. The Discovery Institute is neither inane, nor a one stop shop for understanding science.
I haven't had a very positive impression from the missiles you have lobbed my way. If you were interested in dealing with the issues, it might be worth our while to continue. Since you obviously are not, please excuse me from further dialog.
@MorganMarvinson With all due respect I am actually NOT interested in your sophisticated speech that it is as crocoduckly influenced by the pseudosciencitfic rebuttal institute of insane Discoveries.
Now, go home, and feel warm and comfortable, with a nice crocoduck-on-the-roxx, that this spiritual beverage furthers your nice fantasies of (y)our ancestors, playing with big the Bronto- and -Stegosaurs in the swamps, and running away from the terrible Tyrannosaurus REX in the steppe.
Not only did organisms evolve, but their interaction would, ALSO.
Your flaw is that you are biased:
You DO NOT LIKE Evolution, and therefore you spew rebuttals that do not withstand scrutiny.
THEREfore I tell you "you do not understand Science" bcz for every new scientific observation there is other scientist that they do not GRANT the success and they absolutely ATTEMPT to iron out each and every weak point. It is called peer review.
@MorganMarvinson You are dishonestly ATTEMPTING to create "weak points of evolutionary theory" RASTHER THAN addressing your considerations to scierntist directly, you utter these on THIS place, with the hope in mind that there is no scientist becoming awarte that he refutes you with just one sentence.
YOu are an evolved, mutated PRIMATE (HerrenTier) with n=23 including a fused Chromosom Nr.2 that it originateD out of two chromosomes in ancestor Primate genomes n=24 whether you like it or NOT
@MorganMarvinson Then explain specific complexity or irreducible complexity and why the designer would choose a symbiotic relationship. In other words you will die without certain micro-organisms to digest your food. ID/Creationism is nothing more than an argument lacking any science it can't explain anything. Your right Evolution is a Theory, too bad you don't understand what a Theory is. You have a firm grasp of conjecture which is ID/Creationism.
@Zontor2 Evolution and ID are both inferences. That is all they can be since we are postulating about things long since accomplished. The question is: which explains observable evidence best. Advocates of ID ask if chance forces are the best explanation of exquisite engineering and/or programming.
That everything in the world should be symbiotically related is evidence of the design of the natural world. E.g., plants produce what animals need; animals produce what plants need.
@MorganMarvinson Chance? Natural selection is the opposite of chance. You cannot refute someone with straw man.
"That everything in the world should be symbiotically related is evidence of the design of the natural world."
Or maybe it's evidence of natural selection? The designer "hypothesis" has a series of flaws in it: where's the designer? And how can you postulate that everything in this world is designed if you don't know what non-design looks like?
@byteresistor The designer of evolution is random mutation. Natural Selection only gives a thumbs up or down to RM's "designs." In other words, NS is only "Quality Control," operating OUTSIDE the factory with no com link to the robots inside the factory that occasionally make a mistake.
"What non-design looks like ..." You make a good point. Everything ultimately is designed; it's just that a random pile of rocks or disassociated chemicals in a pool--unlike DNA--have no specific organization.
Yet you failed to ultimately get the point. I ask again: how can you say everything is designed if everything you see appears to be designed (to you) and thus you have no point of reference from non-design? Would we categorize species into males and females if there ever was only females around?
@byteresistor What is there about the natural world that would indicate that it ISN'T designed? I sometimes work with small children who put random colors on paper, leaving one to wonder if they had any design in mind before putting paint brush to paper. Is there anything in nature like that?
Moreover, are you unwilling to consider my comparison about the roles of RM and NS?
@MorganMarvinson What is it in the natural world that indicates the Earth is not flat? So you see a self organizing system and say its designed. Ok so what. You haven't posited and the entire ID community has never provided a testable theory. Lets start with extinction then I have asked this before. Show us a species that has replaced an extinct species. T-Rex there ya go lets pick that one.
@Zontor2 "What in the natural world ... not flat." Even the ancients knew the earth was curved. The Bible writer Isaiah speaks of the "circle of the earth." Go use your bogus flat earth argument with somebody else.
I'm puzzled. Why would the replacement of an extinct species tell you anything about ID? What are you assuming about ID?
@MorganMarvinson The argument isn't bogus. Circle and sphere are completely different. The designer must replace extinct species. ID can't explain the fossil record in any other way. So the designer should be replacing extinct species. Just show us one. You are naive, you don't understand the implication of your conjecture that the universe is designed.
@Zontor2 Either way--it isn't flat. The curvature of the earth is observable from earth as well as from space. The repeated use of the "flat earth" is a strawman except for a few fringe adherents. So argue it somewhere else--please!
Why must the designer replace an extinct species? There is no reason. It is simply extinct. It doesn't require replacement.
@MorganMarvinson If extinct species do not require replacement why are there living organisms on Earth today? All species eventually become extinct. Evolution says new species evolve. ID says they don't have to be replaced? Gee doesn't that mean the designer isn't doing their job? Flat Earth is not a straw man argument. How different would your view of the surface be if the Earth were not flat? The curvature is only viewable under certain circumstances.
@MorganMarvinson "......mall children who put random colors on....."
I don't think you know the definition of random. Children do not put random colors on paper. Sorry my child psychologist friend is unavailable and probably wouldn't get involved anyway. They have a reason for choosing the color. But why would the designer design a system that requires another organism to survive? You still haven't answered that question. Just claimed symbiosis is evidence of design.
@Zontor2 "Random colors" You apparently haven't worked with small children. I drew this from my own experience. A psychologist could come up with reason a child put brown, black and red on a paper to make an amorphous "rainbow" (his description), but he certainly couldn't project what he intended to draw, nor why he chose brown, black, and red (perhaps because closest to him). Thus, I use "random" in the sense that he put whatever color in whatever fashion on paper to fill his painting time.
@byteresistor "And how can you postulate that everything in this world is designed if you don't know what non-design looks like?"
Touche! All we ever get is more of the same. Its designed because the designer designed it that way. No matter how idiotic the design it was a purposeful design that the designer chose to design. How else could it have been designed?
@MorganMarvinson "That everything in the world should be symbiotically related is evidence of the design ......."
You have to be kidding right? We know its designed because we see its designed is the whole ID conjecture. Explain symbiosis using ID theory(?) supposition, conjecture whatever you want to call it. Use it to predict something rather than sophistic arguments stating nothing.
Evolution isn't an inference its mechanics are testable. Test ID and quit arguing.
@Zontor2 Obviously YOU aren't kidding, but you are naive. Evolution and ID are both inferences. Neither can be strictly tested except by the explanatory power of what they explain. While no one disagrees that variation within a species occurs, the mechanics of evolution are unpredictable.
With regard to symbiosis and ID, one can most naturally hypothesize that the same entity that designed one species, designed all others, with the teleological object of their contributing one to another.
@MorganMarvinson Then provide the testable hypothesis. You argue just like every other ID supporter scientists included. No science no experiment, just endless rhetoric saying nothing. Evolution is testable. So show us all the test of ID and end the debate!
Evolution is a testable Theory. So now the ball is in your court once again, where is the testable hypothesis of ID?
@Zontor2 Simply stating "evolution is a testable theory" does not make it so. All that can be tested is whether it adequately explains how organisms can change from one for to another in very narrow bands of "evolutionary" time (e.g. 10 million years for Pakicetus to change into a whale--that is radical transformation). It is woefully inadequate to explain this, which is why evolutionary scientists are attempting to reformulate it in the extended synthesis. The modern synthesis is inadequate.
@MorganMarvinson Simply stating Evolution is testable is vaild. I have asked repeatedly and other have asked repeatedly. Provide the tests for ID.
Please provide the tests for ID. You like every other ID "scientist" refuse to provide a testable hypothesis. You and every other ID "scientist" refuse to agree to any experiment to validate your hypothesis.
Pretty simple provide the test. Evolution is a testable theory and it has been tested repeatedly. Provide the test for ID.
@Zontor2 "Simply stating Evolution is testable is vaild [sic]." No, it is not. The only test of an inference like Evolution is its explanatory power. It can explain certain things (until all the evidence is considered, I might add), but it cannot explain many things--unless you call waving your hands and making assertions proof.
I am sorry, but it is the EMPEROR who has no clothes that is on trial.
You claim that evolution has been tested. By what rigorous test has it been proven true?
@Zontor2 I did several hours ago and asked you for the rigorous test to which evolution has been subjected.
Evolution is the theory that is now under fire--not intelligent design. Why? Because its proponents deny the obvious nature of amazing design and exquisite engineering and say it came into being by chance copy errors.
The burden of proof for such a wild idea rests with those of you who make it. Document one molecular machine that has been observed as coming into being from scratch.
@MorganMarvinson You have made a few familiar errors in your commentary. "EVolution is the theory that is now under fire..." It's not, at least not from biologists. "...its proponents...say it came into being by chance copy errors." They say no such thing. "The burden of proof for such a wild idea rests with those of you who make it." There are mountains of evidence that allowed the theory to survive the peer review process.
@alabamamanable "There are mountains of evidence that allowed the theory to survive the peer review process." A statement of a true believer. No, it is not the evidence that allows it to survive, but the belief that it HAD to work--despite major problems with the evidence. Yes, some evidence is "consistent" with the theory--until pressed for consistency.
@MorganMarvinson No, it didn't have to work dummy. The mountains of evidence all show evolution happens. Not one thing has proven it wrong in 150 years, keep trying.
@alabamamanable I assume you are familiar with the "wedge argument". That is what MM is doing. I choose not to go down the road of "raising the bar" ID supporters want it treated as science. Simple matter to me provide the science quite arguing its a 1st Amendment issue.
@MorganMarvinson The fact that you choose to ignore evidence does not call its existence into question. You are right about one thing though. Intelligent design is not under fire simply because all the previous shots hit square on, and it's been sunk. The concept that life evolves is the fact. The theory attempts to explain how and why it does.
@MorganMarvinson Please provide one test of ID. All you have done so far is use the wedge argument. More specifically you find one thing where Evolution isn't complete focus on the doubt and say ID must be correct. This isn't science. That is sophistry. Seems the only evidence in support of ID is sophistry.
Provide one test of ID that is all that is requested. Is it that hard to do the science using ID "theory"?
@Zontor2 Quit being a jerk. You made the claim that evolution has been tested over and over again. I have requested that you provide just one rigorous test to which it has been subjected. Until you at least attempt to provide it, you demonstrate that you do not understand the nature of a theory of inference. Both evolution and ID are theories of inference.
Yet, I gave you a test for ID five hours ago. (Besides, you have twisted Behe's testimony.) Where is your test for evolution?
@MorganMarvinson TEST EVOLUTION? Creationists claimed there were no ''land animal to whale'' transitional fossils. So using the theory of evolution and the geologic column scientists went out knowing where to look and found them.
Test, find a bunny fossil in Cambrian Period rocks.
@MorganMarvinson Jerk? You haven't provided a test. You affirmed the consequence. IC must be true for your test to be valid. Great now you can provide a test to validate IC. Thank you you are getting the hang of this. You posit something then you have to validate your hypothesis. Finally we are getting to the issue. Someone is going to provide a way to validate ID.
@tnafguy When will you realize that you're only embarrassing yourself in front of the grownups?
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
subbed
chicarbiomed 3 months ago
The discovery institute embarrasses itself by simply existing...
prospectoroftruth 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tnafguy "ur voice is cracking b/c ur a young kid that makes way too many videos that talk about nothing. its DonExodus, enough said"
That "nothing" is called science, you should totally check it out. I mean you only owe every single aspect of your life to it, it's the least you could do.
VanDammesCokeDealer 4 months ago
realistic scenario. please respond. Congress decides that creation can be taught in high school but every major religion's creation myth must be taught. (not as a science class. as a mandatory religious studies class) christians get to jam their bullshit down everyone's throats but other religions (including paganism get to do the same)
do they take the offer or do they say it's not good enough knowing for a fact that it will out them as hypocritical douchebag retards?
Imakoochan 4 months ago
This video is much ado about nothing. It's a minor situation purposely overblown in a pathetic attempt at discrediting Casey Luskin because, let's face it, you can;t refute his logic nor his reasoning when it comes to science.
ReturnOfTheJam 5 months ago
@ReturnOfTheJam BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
biggingeryeti 5 months ago
@ReturnOfTheJam Wrong, It is not science. ID is an argument for a god but let's call him a 'designer' so we can teach our creation story in schools.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@ReturnOfTheJam LOL....oh wait, you're serious?
Drgamedood 5 months ago
likelikelikelikelikelikelikelikelike Dammit DonExodus you give straight men a reason to question...
illumined1 5 months ago
Can someone give me some good material that supports punctuated equilibrium? I have tried to research this idea and I must admit it appears as desperation, not science. One more thing - during my years as an analytical biochemist, I never saw an opportunity to "shove things through" in publishing. How is that done? How does someone get published without proper peer review in a journal that requires proper peer review? Seems like the journal would be at fault, not the author(s)?Thanks
DrMarkPhillips 6 months ago
@DrMarkPhillips
It's pretty straightforward to bully a paper through. But you have to know what you're doing, and have the resources. Of course, funding is the best lever to use, then prestige and notoriety.
I've been coauthor on papers that had comments from the reviewer like "this paper is absolutely not appropriate for the...(journal name)" . the principal author phoned the editor, and, as a special favor, got it published. there are other ways too.
so always author, sometimes journal.
TheRealityofNature 5 months ago
@DrMarkPhillips
as for your question looking for references on punctuated equalibrum.. well, about 2 seconds on google took me to the wikipage, which has references from which you may start.
i can't imagine why you had any difficulties. it was an absolutely fundamental search.
TheRealityofNature 5 months ago
@DrMarkPhillips Stop embarrassing yourself. You're a doctor like Hovind's a doctor.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
Can someone give me some good material that supports punctuated equilibrium? I have tried to research this idea and I must admit it appears as desperation, not science. Thanks
DrMarkPhillips 6 months ago
Good work. Fight on in the war against ignorance and religious totalitarianism.
In my own personal battle against ignorance, I need to learn how to download a YouTube video. I presumed that was not allowable. I read the instructions for mirroring, but I don't see how to download a video.
CalifaJohn 9 months ago
Don't back down! FOX LIES!
mrthebillman 9 months ago
Ah I see 47 and counting is the number of Christians who apparently believe that lying to promote creationism is a good thing. I mean, of course, those that happened upon this video.
eswyatt 9 months ago
@eswyatt Be fair, they might be non-christians or quite possibly duplicate accounts to make their side seem larger.
GnarlyNewEngland 9 months ago
héy_pàsst_híêr_nét_réiñ_ábå_ïch_bíñ_sõ_éìñsåm_wïll_jemáñd_mït_mïã_schrèíbên
LoveaIsabelaa663 10 months ago
I would mirror it, but I don't know how.
Is there a U-tube tutorial? there is a lot I don't know about U-tube.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@HonestMan395 Mirroring is simply downloading the video in question, and uploading it on to your account. Be sure to include Mirror in the title, and "mirrored from X" so nothing bad happens :)
DirectInjected 9 months ago
Be fair, you have to thank the "Discovery" Institute for doing it.
If they hadn't, they wouldn't have made themselves look ridiculous, YET AGAIN! and I might never have got to know about the video about Casey luskin.
It's like having a free publicity agent.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
People who scoff at the creator and his creation were predicted in the bible thousands of years ago
MrNewkingjames 11 months ago
@MrNewkingjames How impressive. People actually anticipated that their lunatic mythology would be the subject of scorn? How amazingly prescient.
How's this for a prophecy: I predict a sunrise will occur every day for the next year. If I'm right, I'm clearly a prophet.
PoolOfPeas 11 months ago 39
@PoolOfPeas Unfortunately the sun does not rise, the earth rotates... lol.... just kidding. Great comment friend.
kailabreece 8 months ago
@PoolOfPeas Jesus Christ Almightly!!!....the sun has indeed risen every morning since your prophecy...I've checked every morning for seven months since you posted and it never fails to rise.....you are without doubt the true prophet!
masala505 4 months ago
@masala505 Haha, I'm not in the clear yet, there're still 5 months to go and Harold Camping is convinced the world will end on October 21. We've yet to see whether Jesus will side with me or him.
PoolOfPeas 4 months ago
@PoolOfPeas I'm convinced utterly that Jesus, God, and all his little angels will side with you....besides, Harold Camping is a fucking lunatic!
masala505 4 months ago
@MrNewkingjames So? It was a self defence mechanism to make sure people marched in lockstep
ThatKidWithTheVideos 11 months ago
Lets get down to brass tacks MM. What are the properties of the designer? How do we test to see if the predictions made about the designer are correct? Science at work don't you agree?
Zontor2 1 year ago
To Morgan:
Ok we all know you can't posit how ID explains anything. You will refuse to provide any evidence ID meets the requirements of science. Not a problem. ID supporters have no data just sophistic arguments.
Zontor2 1 year ago
@Zontor2 Why don't you ask an ID theorist? I am not one.
BTW, what data is there that evolution brought about change through natural selection? It isn't DATA, it is a way of interpreting data that uses design as its base for study, but posits that it really isn't designed.
Go figure.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson - Of course you're not an ID theorist, there is no theory for ID, nor hypothesis. As I stated earlier, ID offers no evidence and makes no predictions
As for the evidence for natural selection, there is far more than 500 characters in one of these or ten of these boxes can hold. Of course, I can tell you to go to Google or Yahoo and type in "evidence for evolution"
One thing you don't seem to know, or want to, is that natural selection is not the only driving force to evolution
sol3a1 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson - There is no reason to think something is designed. So far everything in nature has been done to no plan just the interactions of various physical forces that while random, still conforms to ways the forces act and react in the world and universe
ID needs evidence FOR design which they have shown or done
If I were to say, "Runoff patterns in sand are due to little men directing the water flow as nothing that intricate could be natural", wouldn't I have to show the little men?
sol3a1 1 year ago
@sol3a1 One prediction of your Theory would be 'we would expect to see patterns if little men were directing the water. We see patterns therefore little men are directing the water'.
I know you see this "proof" for the BS it is. What is sad is this is the "proof" for ID and its circular reasoning is ignored by those who should know better.
On the flip side now my kids have to learn a new theory in the interests of academic freedom. :)
Zontor2 1 year ago
@Zontor2 "On the flip side now my kids have to learn a new theory in the interests of academic freedom. :)" Sing it brother!
We'll teach them little green men who make the patterns in sand hating liars eat their words!
Sing hallucinogen!
sol3a1 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson what data is there that evolution brought about change through natural selection?"
The FACT that life adapts to the environment! This adaptation is not supernatural unless you can find some evidence of it being supernatural. Now, watch what you will do. Instead of finding some supernatural DATA to prove me wrong, you will just RUN AWAY so you don't have to admit I am right! That is sad; very sad!
What could scare you so badly? The tooth fairy or your God?
srexob715 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson You are presenting the conjecture of ID as the new paradigm. Support it with the data ID scientists have published. Start with the theory of ID or how it explains anything.
But like every other Creationist you can't present anything other than the bible in different wording as your proof. So I am not biting into the "raise the bar" argument. ID needs to put up or STFW. BTW I can't interpret the effect of gravity it is observable.
Zontor2 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson We are discussing the new paradigm "ID" So explain how ID brought about change and how this mechanism can be observered. Debating the evidence for an established Theory is non-productive, unless there is compelling evidence that Theory is incorrect. Science has done this in the past, presented compelling evidence the current Theory is incorrect. ID needs to do the same.
Zontor2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Trusted Naughty women dating site mworld5.info
ilenejyty 1 year ago
Where else would Darwin's mouth breathers go if they couldn't post their tripe on youtube? Anyway, get used to being pissed off you bunch of drug pushing losers, the light of the information age has evaporated your theory.
loonpolice1 1 year ago
@loonpolice1 Er....right enough, YouTube is like a ghetto for Darwin's mouth breathers (do you mean evolutionists?). God forbid that they might teach their tripe in schools, colleges and universities around the globe. Run and hide you believers in science, we have you cornered!
jerrygreg2 1 year ago
@jerrygreg2 Darwin's zombies don't like science, they like dollar bills. I don't know if you can call it "like", they're really not living creatures, more like jittering mud contraptions.
loonpolice1 1 year ago
@loonpolice1 And your point is?
jerrygreg2 1 year ago
@jerrygreg2 Rube Goldberg Darwinism had its day.
loonpolice1 1 year ago
@loonpolice1 So they teach creationism rather than evolution in American schools now? I really must try to keep up.
jerrygreg2 1 year ago
@loonpolice1 Irony, you are it.
Defenstrator 1 year ago
MorganMarvinson: Your arguments are weak and you position changes
1st: You were crowing about Chirality now you stopped.
2nd: You started with how Abiogenesis and Evolution are intertwined now you've changed
3rd: You don't say what are the demarcation for "macro" vs "micro" evolution so when examples are provided, you can say, "That ain't it"
4th: You bring up new terms that are not defined when it suits your purpose
5th: You'd rather be the grammar police than answer questions
You = Epic Fail
sol3a1 1 year ago
@sol3a1 Don't waste your breath. Morgan isn't going to provide any evidence of ID. All he can do is continuously question Evolution.
Zontor2 1 year ago
@Zontor2 - like Santa Claus, sometimes you have to humiliate the person who holds on to fantasies to get them to truly look at what they're spewing
But you are correct. MM can't think for himself and parrots the line "Evolution is a lie" as if he says it enough it will become true
sol3a1 1 year ago
So this has been fun. MM, I want to pin you down on macro-evolution or I'll be doing nothing but chasing goal posts. So the sooner you actually codify what macro-evolution is, the sooner things can be answered on my side.
sol3a1 1 year ago
The three assumptions that ID makes, ie it ain't just 1:
1: There is deliberate design in nature. This one has never been shown. The patterns that one sees depends on how much of a micro-manager, and a poor designer their god is.
2: There is a designer (and it would seem only one). Again there is no evidence for this.
3: The designer is intelligent. Hmm, human lower back, eye (a squid's eye is a better design, no blind spot) and the blood vessels supplying the human heart says otherwise.
sol3a1 1 year ago
@sol3a1 "eye" (So get a transplant.)
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson: "'eye' (So get a transplant.)"? Huh? Which one was that for?
sol3a1 1 year ago
Speciation Part 6: chance of interbreeding between the groups is not possible.
The problem is the time it took. Even with PE, which is a short time as compared to geologic time, it would take many generations. So while a speciation event is taking place, there is no clean break until the groups are very different but you and other creationists would never accept it.
As I said, my example is a gross oversimplification of a speciation event. I used it to show that speciation is not a clean break
sol3a1 1 year ago
@sol3a1 "Even with PE" So where is the hard evidence in the fossil record that any kind of graduated change took place? And what is the theoretical model that "gradual changes over time" took place in the limited time spans in the fossil record via copy errors and do-or-die Natural Selection, when the record shows radical changes in very brief periods of time?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson: "So where is the hard evidence in the fossil record that any kind of graduated change took place?", sadly for you, there can never be. No matter what you are given, no matter what you are shown, nothing will penetrate that thick wall of ignorance you have around you.
sol3a1 1 year ago
Speciation Part 5: there will be some individuals, remember they are not all exactly the same, that could still possibly interbreed with the other group. A member of the "new species" with a rating of 1.0098, remember the average is still 1.0101, could still breed with individuals with a rating of 0.9999 or higher. That is generally how "ring species" come into existence albeit simplified
As the groups continue to diversify and grow apart and the "average" grows ever further then any, continued
sol3a1 1 year ago
Speciation Part4: opportunities which allows the drift to continue "higher". Over time the species changes from an average of 1.0000 to 1.0002 to 1.0005 and on up until it reaches 1.0101 where it is more than 0.01 different and can be called a new species.
Here's the tricky part, like I stated, there is no clear cut line for speciation for the group as different individuals have different genetic make up. While we could say the original group and the old group are different species, continued
sol3a1 1 year ago
Speciation Part 3: As the change becomes more pronounced, those individuals in the group who have a rating of 1.0000 or less generally start dying early before they can reproduce. I am not saying all will but the majority will have a rating of 1.0001 or higher. As evolution is genetic drift, the average value of the species goes from 1.0000 to 1.0002 with more individuals having a rating of higher than 1.0002 while those with 1.0000 off. The change continues to "reward", aka breeding (continued)
sol3a1 1 year ago
One of my favorite claims from the Creation/ID crowd (face it they are one in the same is the "great evolution conspiracy" that they say exists (which is only in their mind). There is no more a conspiracy vs Creation as there is a conspiracy vs astrology or crystal healing. When faced with junk and spurious claims, science and scientists ignore the noise from those quarters which present nothing new just rehashed, oft refuted claims that were defeated years ago.
Creation was offed 150 years ago
sol3a1 1 year ago
We establish the definition of "Theory" is so broad when used by Behe any conjecture must be considered Theory. Ok I argue the Earth is flat and I want students to be exposed to the raging debate in Geology. The spherical Earth Theory is a Theory in Crises.
Zontor2 1 year ago
@Zontor2: The YECs and IDiots need to have the definition broad and completely ambiguous past the point of any real meaning. Allows them to have wiggle room to cover their inability to present a real argument. As for their never ending ability to teleport the goal posts to different regions, mostly from the lowest point in their intestines, sad that is all they have.
They can't defend their god past empty threats about punishment after death or that they will do their lard's work it can't
sol3a1 1 year ago
@Zontor2 "OK I argue the Earth is flat." You do realize that, as opposed to ID, which is backed by real scientists, no credentialed scientist is making an argument for a flat earth. Obviously that makes this a non-scientific debate. That aside, so what is your evidence for a flat earth?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson: "as opposed to ID, which is backed by real scientists", name them and let's look at not just what the "science degree is in", but what they've published while trying to fabricate evidence for ID.
Yes, I said fabricate clown. There is no evidence and all I get from you is hot air.
Yes, I'm laughing at you punk.
sol3a1 1 year ago
Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Apparently Behe accepts my Flat Earth Theory even though MM rejects it.
Zontor2 1 year ago
@Zontor2: I guess we teach other "controversies" and other theories: Alien abduction. Tin Foil underwear and government radio waves. Hollow Earth. We are all, okay just me, disembodied brains in a jar.
sol3a1 1 year ago
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition.
Zontor2 1 year ago
@Zontor2 Behe got pushed into a corner by a bad example. BIG POINTS for the attorney, but it isn't an apples to apples comparison--and he knew it. (A better comparison would be the persistent mainstream theory regarding ether.)
The Design Inference is the natural and best explanation for exquisite design and digital programming. Evolutionists KNOW this to be true, which is why Dawkins and Crick went on record saying the evolutionist must intentionally override it. Why? Prior assumptions.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson: "Behe got pushed into a corner by a bad example", yes it was a "bad example" as it was Behe's own argument!
See MM, the entire transcript of the Dover case can be read. Just go to your friendly search engine and type in Dover Transcripts.
Then you can choke down your Bovine Scatology you've been spreading.
sol3a1 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson It obviously can't be the natural and best explanation since there is no evidence for it. Lets not be silly.
Defenstrator 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Big points for the attorney? Behe was in the corner because ID isn't science. Behe is presented as an ID scientist and his "science" is used to undermine Evolution.
How ignorant are you of your own movement?
Zontor2 1 year ago
@Zontor2 "How ignorant are you of your own movement?" Do you find the name "MorganMarvinson" listed on the Discovery Institute credits? I take no responsibility for the movement. Why I post on behalf of Intelligent Design is because it raises the same questions that occur to me.
Behe is a capable scientist. He just isn't very quick on his feet. Miller is also a capable scientist, and he comes across well in public even though many of his points are contrived (e.g. the pile of papers).
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson So the answer is no or yes? You put quite a bit of effort in trying to avoid answering any questions don't you?
Zontor2 1 year ago
@Zontor2 Of course he avoids answering the questions. All that will actually do is point out the emptiness of his position
sol3a1 1 year ago
Q Telling the readers of Pandas that you were a critical reviewer of that book is misleading, isn t it?
A I disagree. As I said, that s not the typical way that the term "critical reviewer" is used, but nonetheless, in my opinion I don t think it is misleading.
Why is this important. Read the cross-examination. Panda's and People is making claims about its scientific veracity that were established as misleading. Behe never corrected the misstatements.
Zontor2 1 year ago
Q So you were reviewing your own work?
A I was helping review or helping edit or helping write the section on blood clotting.
Q Which was your own contribution?
A That s -- yes, that s correct.
Q That s not typically how the term "critical review" is used; would you agree with that?
A Yeah, that s correct.
Zontor2 1 year ago
Q What did you review and comment on, Professor Behe?
A I reviewed the literature concerning blood clotting, and worked with the editor on the section that became the blood clotting system. So I was principally
responsible for that section.
Zontor2 1 year ago
Tuesday Oct 18 2005 1:25PM Kiztmiller v Dover Cross of Behe
Q But you actually were a critical reviewer of 18 Pandas, correct; that s what it says in the acknowledgments 19 page of the book?
A That s what it lists there, but that does not mean that I critically reviewed the whole book and commented on it in detail, yes.
Zontor2 1 year ago
Well we can see the ID supporters can't provide a testable hypothesis. The best they can do is keep arguing that Evolution isn't supported by 150 years of science.
ID a "theory" in search of evidence.
If I am wrong then all it takes is one ID supporter to provide a testable hypothesis based on ID theory. Can we start with testing for the designer? That should be rather easy don't you think? I bet dimes to donuts the challenge will be side stepped with more sophistry.
Zontor2 1 year ago
@Zontor2 "ID a 'theory' in search of evidence." No, it is the way that scientists actually approach the study of any organism. If they don't approach it as designed, they cannot see how it works. If they actually approached it as a hodge podge of chance mutations, they shouldn't see design. ID is just being honest with the evidence. Design by "random mutation" is merely a dishonest cover story. (Don't bring in Natural Selection. That has nothing to do with the interior design of the DNA.)
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson If they don't approach it as designed, they cannot see how it works."
You idiot, it was designed by natural forces................since there is no evidence of supernatural forces. NOW, you can run from the truth all you want, but it only shows how stupid you really are.
DUMB ASS! WHAHAHAHAH
srexob715 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson More rhetoric no answers. Lets try again. ID is a new paradigm it has the burden of offering its testable theory.
Please state the testable theory. No one to date has presented a testable theory for ID. Ok here is something you can explain using ID theory. Why are men sexually aroused when the prostate gland is stimulated? Now since ID is science and it is a theory then it can posit an explanation. You refuse to answer any other questions maybe you will answer this one.
Zontor2 1 year ago
@Zontor2 You are asking me? Talk to an ID theorist.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson I love how these idiots use 'design' as if it proves their stupid god. SADLY, it doesn't because design can be created by nature, which disproves their own god theory!
srexob715 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson - ID is not a theory and not even an hypothesis. It is a postulate from ignorance
sol3a1 1 year ago
Is that Matt Dillahunty in the devil costume at the opening?
DarthHater100 1 year ago
If you were ever curious about mysteries unsolved,all the truth burnt n' forgotten of the ancient world,if you ever looked for answers without your 21th century mask you would know there's A LOT missing, everywhere, and a lot being given as scientific truth to the masses.
you don't have to be part of nasa to doubt.
Stop bowing your head to everything that is elite source.
Support those who swim against the current, it may seem insane now
but alternative truth seekers are today's revolutionaries.
siriuship 1 year ago
i wasnt even aware of this creationism moviment, but what caught my attention was this big wave against it.
we are stopless programmed by school since we were 4, through your young age have ever doubted any given truth?i bet u dint.there i get how sheeple get so upset over few cases when there's a possible update to the old absolute view.What is more scary than having a Fort like educational-system?its the most brilliant mind control toll ever.
siriuship 1 year ago
"CrocoFox News present their newest data, pseudoscientifically documented, published on April 1st in the Crook-o-Duck Journal of the Institute of miraculous Discoveries!"
Them CroCoDuXX rock!
These truly fabulous chimers are just being CREATED by the CREATARD Actionists in this Institute of Crealogy, Truthology and G-dology in order to become presented to the amazed public with the clear intention to STUMP the evil Athi-ests and Evo-Delusionists and make them look very dumb in their panties!
kleenex3000 1 year ago
To deny the fact of evolution, to deny the fact of common ancestry, to deny the fact that all life fits into a nested hierarchy that is LITERALLY a family tree; these are to deny reality, these are to deny the universe in which we live, these are to deny ourselves and our posterity the potential that evolution has given us. WE are survivors, WE are here, WE are now!
SanRafaelSwell 1 year ago
You've already demonstrated YOUR willingness to lie to kids in saying 3rd graders shouldn't be taught the web of life. This is immoral behavior, yet you apparently think it is justified. Slandering Casey Luskin because you don't agree with him is at best in bad taste.
No, your videos shouldn't be censored, but, as a teacher of science, you should be held to a higher standard than the every-day "potty mouth" Darwin supporter.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
"DISCOVERY INSTITUTE"
anagramises to
"VERY SET IDIOTIC NUTS".
Thank you for your time.
Infidelerious 1 year ago
Based on the few of your videos I watched in which you repeatedly lie, deceive and express your bigotry, the people at Discovery Institute were probably outraged and not thinking clearly.
After all, you are protected by the Constitution to lie, deceive and disparage the people you hate.
If you were honest and truthful, this would not have happened.
TheCountrySquire 1 year ago
@TheCountrySquire please prove your claims because the you lie shtick without showings facts of lying to back the claim is getting old.
janto58 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@janto58
> " please prove your claims because the you lie shtick without showings facts of lying to back the claim is getting old."
The proof is in YOUR inbox.
As for lying, don't assume I am anything like you.
I don't lie. Just because YOU disagree without cause, does not make me a liar.
TheCountrySquire 1 year ago
@TheCountrySquire Apparently Don Exodus thinks misrepresenting certain aspects of science is justifiable to support evolutionary theory. I'm not certain he is even aware that he is doing so, though I confronted him with some of his misrepresentations on another of his anti-Christian videos. One misrepresentation is that all organic life boils down to a single tree. He may be unaware of research that shows the complicated genetic relationships of higher life forms, but he really has no excuse.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
> " I confronted him with some of his misrepresentations on another of his anti-Christian videos."
He gives the appearance of presenting educational videos about science, but all his cheap shots at creationists show it is really about his own bigotry against theists and religion.
TheCountrySquire 1 year ago
@TheCountrySquire He says in another video that he thinks making fun of Creationists and their teachings will make them change their mind. Were he accurate, I guess he'd have a point. People have zinged me with the truth before and forced me to face myself. The problem is, for him to really address real issues of creationism, he'd have to look at it from the Creationist's point of view. Apparently that is something he's afraid to do.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Ah yes so easy to see the moat in thy brothers eye yet miss the log in thine own eye.
Zontor2 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I already viewed one of your videos which showed how dishonest, malicious and factually wrong.
Your own lack of character was the only thing that came out perfectly clear.
As for your claims about the Discovery Institute, I am not familiar with the details. The only thing I am sure of is that YOU would not tell the truth if your life depended on it.
TheCountrySquire 1 year ago
@TheCountrySquire I know of no lies. Perhaps you could enlighten us.
gamesbok 1 year ago
There are plenty of Pseudo-scientific organizations. MY favorite is the one that deals with 'perpetual motion' as an applied science. I wish the 'creationist' and the flat-earth people, the YEC, the geo-centrists, and the hollow earth folks could just get together and forge the ultimate forum and simply reject all material modernism and we can never hear a peep out of them again.
granddad2002 1 year ago
@granddad2002
i kinda like the perpetual motion people. as misguided as they are, they're actually making some crazy efficient machinery.
pyr666 1 year ago
Judging by Casey's eyebrows, I'd say he's a little more closely related to the other Great Apes than most.
Today's Ad Hominem attack. Care Factor ZERO.
LOL
warren52nz 1 year ago
@warren52nz "Casey's eyebrows" Another example of trivial evidence for evolution. *rolleyes* I wonder what kind of "tree" we'd get if we shaped it according to eyebrow similarity. *winking smiley*
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "Casey's eyebrows" Yeah just thought I'd throw in an arbitrary Ad Hominem attack for fun. No harm intended. 8^)
warren52nz 1 year ago
@warren52nz "Just for fun." I appreciate your honesty.
Just for fairness, you got a picture of you that we can compare to a Great Ape? *winking smiley*
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Haha. 8^)
Well as it turns out you can compare my face to any other human's to see the resemblance to Great Apes because humans ARE Great Apes!
It's expalined in detail here:
watch?v=PbcCiia1kYE
warren52nz 1 year ago
@warren52nz Come on! For fairness ... where's the picture?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Look in the mirror. 8^P
warren52nz 1 year ago
@warren52nz You have a mustache and a scar on your face?!!! Wow!
Now how does that compare with the Great Apes?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson You didn't watch the video obviously.
warren52nz 1 year ago
@warren52nz Sorry, no I'm watching a series now--Answering the New Atheism.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson OK, no problem. But this video really IS worth watching if you have any doubts about our ancestry and our place in the Tree of Life.
watch?v=PbcCiia1kYE
RockyRacoon18 1 year ago
@RockyRacoon18 Watched the video and discovered the same propaganda people keep trying to feed me. I left a comment at that video. I don't care to waste any more time on the subject.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson " I don't care to waste any more time on the subject."
Yes I guessed that. I often find that religious people aren't interested in truth, it shakes their faith. The facts in that video are well established but, whatever...
warren52nz 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Well it's exactly in line with what they say... Creationists aren't INTERESTED in the truth.
I can't understand a mindset where one doesn't care if what they believe is true or not. Are you THAT desperate for heaven?
"You can lead a Creationist to truth but you can't make them THINK".
Pityful....
RockyRacoon18 1 year ago
@RockyRacoon18 "INTERESTED in the truth" That's the very reason I was gagged by the video. Redefining every fossil an "intermediate" doesn't fill in the gaps, nor does it answer for the sudden "origin" of all phyla in the Cambrian explosion, nor does it explain how major changes in taxonomy could occur by RM/NS within the brief spans of change in a column of stasis. Darwin proposed gradual change. Evolution brought about by multiple random point changes doesn't fit the record. Hopeful monster?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson If you call 100 million years "sudden".
Sure it was a period of relatively rapid evolution but so what? Is that a good enough reason to throw out Evolution and substitute an imagined almighty, omnipotent, omni-absent Sky Daddy?
As for the meaning of "transitional", because Evolution happens in small steps, everything (in a changing environment) IS transitional. It happens in generational "chunks" but there are so many chunks you can consider it a continuum.
RockyRacoon18 1 year ago
@RockyRacoon18 "100 million years" Apparently you are not taking into account that the supposed "change" of phenotype (upon which Natural Selection can only work; it cannot work on the genotype) took place only during very bands of that supposed period. The majority of the fossil record is not gradual change, but stasis.
You ... and most evolutionists I talk to.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson For your inconvenience, you prove yourself as a CroCoDuck, further, Evolution is a FACT. Did you understand the meaning of the retroviral genomes, that these became permanently INTEGRATED into the genome s and inherited, and serve as one indication for the truth of evolutionary trees?
kleenex3000 1 year ago
@kleenex3000 I've heard the evolutionary story line, yes. But it doesn't totally make sense. First, because the high percentage of ERVs in the genome makes it questionable that they are what is assumed. 20% of the coding region is supposed to be made up of viral DNA that can only be passed on if it infects a sex cell. Remarkable! Then these regions that are supposed to be junk legacies end up being essential to DNA function. Then gorillas and chimps have ERVs that effected them but not humans.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@kleenex3000 What is also troubling is that viruses aren't injecting their DNA into the genome today. Fundamentally we must ask, where did the virus start? Exogenously or endogenously. A virus must form inside a host because it cannot reproduce without one.
You can say Evolution is a fact until the cows come home, but it is always a theory or a "research programme" (Popper) based on an inferential conjecture about the fossil record and variation within organisms.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson You are STUFFED with pseudscientific BS from the Discovery Dolt House. You do not know HOW scienctific forthcummings are established. Your desperate inane "REBUTTALS" can fairly be likened to the CLAIM that 2+2unequaling4 under certain, mysterious, sacred circumstances. The ERVs are ACCORDINGLY and APPROPRIATELY considered, to establish together with other findings unrefutable EVIDENCE.
Good to perceive that AT LEAST you accept the old Age of Earth,
4.44...4.51BillionY
kleenex3000 1 year ago
@kleenex3000 Unfortunately, your diatribe reveals your inability to think the issues through that I have noted. The Discovery Institute is neither inane, nor a one stop shop for understanding science.
I haven't had a very positive impression from the missiles you have lobbed my way. If you were interested in dealing with the issues, it might be worth our while to continue. Since you obviously are not, please excuse me from further dialog.
Morgan
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson With all due respect I am actually NOT interested in your sophisticated speech that it is as crocoduckly influenced by the pseudosciencitfic rebuttal institute of insane Discoveries.
Now, go home, and feel warm and comfortable, with a nice crocoduck-on-the-roxx, that this spiritual beverage furthers your nice fantasies of (y)our ancestors, playing with big the Bronto- and -Stegosaurs in the swamps, and running away from the terrible Tyrannosaurus REX in the steppe.
kleenex3000 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
You are based on wrong assumptions.
Not only did organisms evolve, but their interaction would, ALSO.
Your flaw is that you are biased:
You DO NOT LIKE Evolution, and therefore you spew rebuttals that do not withstand scrutiny.
THEREfore I tell you "you do not understand Science" bcz for every new scientific observation there is other scientist that they do not GRANT the success and they absolutely ATTEMPT to iron out each and every weak point. It is called peer review.
kleenex3000 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson You are dishonestly ATTEMPTING to create "weak points of evolutionary theory" RASTHER THAN addressing your considerations to scierntist directly, you utter these on THIS place, with the hope in mind that there is no scientist becoming awarte that he refutes you with just one sentence.
YOu are an evolved, mutated PRIMATE (HerrenTier) with n=23 including a fused Chromosom Nr.2 that it originateD out of two chromosomes in ancestor Primate genomes n=24 whether you like it or NOT
kleenex3000 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Then explain specific complexity or irreducible complexity and why the designer would choose a symbiotic relationship. In other words you will die without certain micro-organisms to digest your food. ID/Creationism is nothing more than an argument lacking any science it can't explain anything. Your right Evolution is a Theory, too bad you don't understand what a Theory is. You have a firm grasp of conjecture which is ID/Creationism.
Zontor2 1 year ago
@Zontor2 Evolution and ID are both inferences. That is all they can be since we are postulating about things long since accomplished. The question is: which explains observable evidence best. Advocates of ID ask if chance forces are the best explanation of exquisite engineering and/or programming.
That everything in the world should be symbiotically related is evidence of the design of the natural world. E.g., plants produce what animals need; animals produce what plants need.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Chance? Natural selection is the opposite of chance. You cannot refute someone with straw man.
"That everything in the world should be symbiotically related is evidence of the design of the natural world."
Or maybe it's evidence of natural selection? The designer "hypothesis" has a series of flaws in it: where's the designer? And how can you postulate that everything in this world is designed if you don't know what non-design looks like?
byteresistor 1 year ago
@byteresistor The designer of evolution is random mutation. Natural Selection only gives a thumbs up or down to RM's "designs." In other words, NS is only "Quality Control," operating OUTSIDE the factory with no com link to the robots inside the factory that occasionally make a mistake.
"What non-design looks like ..." You make a good point. Everything ultimately is designed; it's just that a random pile of rocks or disassociated chemicals in a pool--unlike DNA--have no specific organization.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "You make a good point"
"Everything ultimately is designed"
Yet you failed to ultimately get the point. I ask again: how can you say everything is designed if everything you see appears to be designed (to you) and thus you have no point of reference from non-design? Would we categorize species into males and females if there ever was only females around?
byteresistor 1 year ago
@byteresistor What is there about the natural world that would indicate that it ISN'T designed? I sometimes work with small children who put random colors on paper, leaving one to wonder if they had any design in mind before putting paint brush to paper. Is there anything in nature like that?
Moreover, are you unwilling to consider my comparison about the roles of RM and NS?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson What is it in the natural world that indicates the Earth is not flat? So you see a self organizing system and say its designed. Ok so what. You haven't posited and the entire ID community has never provided a testable theory. Lets start with extinction then I have asked this before. Show us a species that has replaced an extinct species. T-Rex there ya go lets pick that one.
Zontor2 1 year ago
@Zontor2 "What in the natural world ... not flat." Even the ancients knew the earth was curved. The Bible writer Isaiah speaks of the "circle of the earth." Go use your bogus flat earth argument with somebody else.
I'm puzzled. Why would the replacement of an extinct species tell you anything about ID? What are you assuming about ID?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson The argument isn't bogus. Circle and sphere are completely different. The designer must replace extinct species. ID can't explain the fossil record in any other way. So the designer should be replacing extinct species. Just show us one. You are naive, you don't understand the implication of your conjecture that the universe is designed.
Zontor2 1 year ago
@Zontor2 Either way--it isn't flat. The curvature of the earth is observable from earth as well as from space. The repeated use of the "flat earth" is a strawman except for a few fringe adherents. So argue it somewhere else--please!
Why must the designer replace an extinct species? There is no reason. It is simply extinct. It doesn't require replacement.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson If extinct species do not require replacement why are there living organisms on Earth today? All species eventually become extinct. Evolution says new species evolve. ID says they don't have to be replaced? Gee doesn't that mean the designer isn't doing their job? Flat Earth is not a straw man argument. How different would your view of the surface be if the Earth were not flat? The curvature is only viewable under certain circumstances.
Zontor2 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "......mall children who put random colors on....."
I don't think you know the definition of random. Children do not put random colors on paper. Sorry my child psychologist friend is unavailable and probably wouldn't get involved anyway. They have a reason for choosing the color. But why would the designer design a system that requires another organism to survive? You still haven't answered that question. Just claimed symbiosis is evidence of design.
Zontor2 1 year ago
@Zontor2 "Random colors" You apparently haven't worked with small children. I drew this from my own experience. A psychologist could come up with reason a child put brown, black and red on a paper to make an amorphous "rainbow" (his description), but he certainly couldn't project what he intended to draw, nor why he chose brown, black, and red (perhaps because closest to him). Thus, I use "random" in the sense that he put whatever color in whatever fashion on paper to fill his painting time.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@byteresistor "And how can you postulate that everything in this world is designed if you don't know what non-design looks like?"
Touche! All we ever get is more of the same. Its designed because the designer designed it that way. No matter how idiotic the design it was a purposeful design that the designer chose to design. How else could it have been designed?
Zontor2 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "That everything in the world should be symbiotically related is evidence of the design ......."
You have to be kidding right? We know its designed because we see its designed is the whole ID conjecture. Explain symbiosis using ID theory(?) supposition, conjecture whatever you want to call it. Use it to predict something rather than sophistic arguments stating nothing.
Evolution isn't an inference its mechanics are testable. Test ID and quit arguing.
Zontor2 1 year ago
@Zontor2 Obviously YOU aren't kidding, but you are naive. Evolution and ID are both inferences. Neither can be strictly tested except by the explanatory power of what they explain. While no one disagrees that variation within a species occurs, the mechanics of evolution are unpredictable.
With regard to symbiosis and ID, one can most naturally hypothesize that the same entity that designed one species, designed all others, with the teleological object of their contributing one to another.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Then provide the testable hypothesis. You argue just like every other ID supporter scientists included. No science no experiment, just endless rhetoric saying nothing. Evolution is testable. So show us all the test of ID and end the debate!
Evolution is a testable Theory. So now the ball is in your court once again, where is the testable hypothesis of ID?
Zontor2 1 year ago
@Zontor2 Simply stating "evolution is a testable theory" does not make it so. All that can be tested is whether it adequately explains how organisms can change from one for to another in very narrow bands of "evolutionary" time (e.g. 10 million years for Pakicetus to change into a whale--that is radical transformation). It is woefully inadequate to explain this, which is why evolutionary scientists are attempting to reformulate it in the extended synthesis. The modern synthesis is inadequate.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Simply stating Evolution is testable is vaild. I have asked repeatedly and other have asked repeatedly. Provide the tests for ID.
Please provide the tests for ID. You like every other ID "scientist" refuse to provide a testable hypothesis. You and every other ID "scientist" refuse to agree to any experiment to validate your hypothesis.
Pretty simple provide the test. Evolution is a testable theory and it has been tested repeatedly. Provide the test for ID.
Zontor2 1 year ago
@Zontor2 "Simply stating Evolution is testable is vaild [sic]." No, it is not. The only test of an inference like Evolution is its explanatory power. It can explain certain things (until all the evidence is considered, I might add), but it cannot explain many things--unless you call waving your hands and making assertions proof.
I am sorry, but it is the EMPEROR who has no clothes that is on trial.
You claim that evolution has been tested. By what rigorous test has it been proven true?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Sorry the burden of proof has been shifted to the one making the claim the universe is designed.
Please provide the testable hypothesis or provide a test of that hypothesis.
Zontor2 1 year ago
@Zontor2 I did several hours ago and asked you for the rigorous test to which evolution has been subjected.
Evolution is the theory that is now under fire--not intelligent design. Why? Because its proponents deny the obvious nature of amazing design and exquisite engineering and say it came into being by chance copy errors.
The burden of proof for such a wild idea rests with those of you who make it. Document one molecular machine that has been observed as coming into being from scratch.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson You have made a few familiar errors in your commentary. "EVolution is the theory that is now under fire..." It's not, at least not from biologists. "...its proponents...say it came into being by chance copy errors." They say no such thing. "The burden of proof for such a wild idea rests with those of you who make it." There are mountains of evidence that allowed the theory to survive the peer review process.
alabamamanable 1 year ago
1.
@alabamamanable "There are mountains of evidence that allowed the theory to survive the peer review process." A statement of a true believer. No, it is not the evidence that allows it to survive, but the belief that it HAD to work--despite major problems with the evidence. Yes, some evidence is "consistent" with the theory--until pressed for consistency.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson No, it didn't have to work dummy. The mountains of evidence all show evolution happens. Not one thing has proven it wrong in 150 years, keep trying.
gregrutz 1 year ago
2.
@alabamamanable The current theory of evolution has wedded REAL science with a philosophical assumption of naturalism that ignores the obvious.
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker
Dawkins, a smart man, denies the obvious. Why? The philosophical assumption.
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather EVOLVED." Francis Crick.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@alabamamanable I assume you are familiar with the "wedge argument". That is what MM is doing. I choose not to go down the road of "raising the bar" ID supporters want it treated as science. Simple matter to me provide the science quite arguing its a 1st Amendment issue.
Zontor2 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson The fact that you choose to ignore evidence does not call its existence into question. You are right about one thing though. Intelligent design is not under fire simply because all the previous shots hit square on, and it's been sunk. The concept that life evolves is the fact. The theory attempts to explain how and why it does.
alabamamanable 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson ID = Cration Science = Creation story = bible story
Every religion has a creation story.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Please provide one test of ID. All you have done so far is use the wedge argument. More specifically you find one thing where Evolution isn't complete focus on the doubt and say ID must be correct. This isn't science. That is sophistry. Seems the only evidence in support of ID is sophistry.
Provide one test of ID that is all that is requested. Is it that hard to do the science using ID "theory"?
Zontor2 1 year ago
@Zontor2You demand for ID what you merely assume for evolution.
I repeat, what rigorous test has been applied to evolution?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Again I repeat the burden of proof has been shifted to the one making the claim the universe is designed.
All you do and all the ID supporters do is attempt to shift the burden of proof to the Theory. You need to provide your evidence not your sophistry.
Zontor2 1 year ago
@Zontor2 Quit being a jerk. You made the claim that evolution has been tested over and over again. I have requested that you provide just one rigorous test to which it has been subjected. Until you at least attempt to provide it, you demonstrate that you do not understand the nature of a theory of inference. Both evolution and ID are theories of inference.
Yet, I gave you a test for ID five hours ago. (Besides, you have twisted Behe's testimony.) Where is your test for evolution?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson TEST EVOLUTION? Creationists claimed there were no ''land animal to whale'' transitional fossils. So using the theory of evolution and the geologic column scientists went out knowing where to look and found them.
Test, find a bunny fossil in Cambrian Period rocks.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Jerk? You haven't provided a test. You affirmed the consequence. IC must be true for your test to be valid. Great now you can provide a test to validate IC. Thank you you are getting the hang of this. You posit something then you have to validate your hypothesis. Finally we are getting to the issue. Someone is going to provide a way to validate ID.
Zontor2 1 year ago
@Zontor2 The test of intelligent design is to observe an organism build an irreducibly complex machine on its own.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson IC was shot down in Dover. Behe admitted under oath there is solid evidence flagellum is an evolved structure.
Ok back to you, you picked the wrong horse once again.
Provide the text.
Zontor2 1 year ago