Ken Miller on Cob County Warning Stickers

[ThePregnancySlaves]

Fanatical plans are plots, as are conspiracies, with confederates & culprits whose actions are capricious. Of what does anything depend? Which door is not hinged on lynch pins? You can't gauge the reason, nor the genius, in things genuine as these curios are en-cased in the terror & evolvement of a fine-top salt grass that is a perennial drop-seed grass, with open panicles, that clumps densely.

[Mortison77577]

Comparing warning stickers for evolution to warning stickers for other areas of science doesn't seem like a fair comparison because the other areas of science are much more well supported and understood than evolution is.

[logsdonj]

@Mortison77577 Evolution has been heavily scrutinized for 150 years due to its challenging of a literal reading of the bible's creation story. It has been strengthened by all these challenges. Whether or not evolution happens isn't even a question. It's observable fact. You can google terms such as "observed cases of speciation" or "transitional fossils" and see tangible evidence. The only people who still dispute evolution are those who are (a) willfully ignorant or (b) lying.

[Mortison77577]

@logsdonj

Within biology evolutionary theory has not been heavily scrutinized. They try to cover up the problems with the theory. The challenges have cast doubt on the efficacy of the mutation/selection mechanism, but biologists have tried to cover that up. The fact that in some way evolution has happened is pretty well established, but the mechanisms are not. The observed cases of speciation don't establish that large-scale evolutionary changes could take place by the same means.

[logsdonj]

@Mortison77577 Curious, you started your statement with "Within biology." Was that just the way you decided to word the sentence, or are you implying that evolution has been heavily scrutinized OUTSIDE the field of biology? Because that wouldn't make any sense to me.

Secondly, you acknowledge that speciation has happened. How is it so unbelievable that large-scale evolutionary changes have occurred? That's like saying it is possible to take a step, but impossible to walk a mile.

[Mortison77577]

@logsdonj

Evolutionary theory has been criticized by lots of people who are not professional biologists, but has not been criticized by many people within biology within the last 30 years. Going from speciation to major evolutionary changes is an unjustified extrapolation. The involve different types of changes, so it's not justified to extrapolate from one to another. It would like saying that climbing to the top of a tree means it's possible to reach earth's orbit.

[logsdonj]

@Mortison77577 You do acknowledge that the various strata of soil show less complex life slowly moving up toward more complex life, until a sudden mass extinct occurs...upon which less complex life once again becomes more complex life? I'm just trying to get a sense for your view here. If you at least can agree that evolution is by far the best explanation we have, I can live with that. Being critical of the theory doesn't bother me until someone tries to fill in the gap with the supernatural

[Mortison77577]

@logsdonj

I think it's true that in some way evolution did take place and that the current theory is the least inadequate explanation that they have. But they can't claim to know exactly how it works because the current theory is inadequate to explain that. And the small changes that they can demonstrate are not adequate to explain the large changes that have apparently happened. In addition, supernatural explanations don't really count as real explanations.

[logsdonj]

@Mortison77577 Alright, we agree more than we disagree. I respect your skepticism.

[Mortison77577]

@logsdonj

Thanks. You're a lot better than bunch of other evolutionists who just start cursing at me when I say that there's anything wrong with evolutionary theory.

[imikewillrockyou]

The difference is nobody in the scientific community questions Newtonian Physics. However, there are some well known scientists openly questioning Darwin. And not only question but many outright REJECT most of Darwinian theory. That's a serious problem people like Miller want to ignore.

watch?v=YnzcnTIZFQw&feature=re­lated

[Munro1Man]

Everybody questioned Newtonian physics. That's what lead to the more precise and so far more correct Einsteinian model of gravity. We found that Newtons work on the very large or very small scale.

The fact is out of the total number of scientists a small number of them question the theory of evolution. How many of them do it on religious grounds? 90% 95%? What does that tell you?

No one has yet provided proof against the theory or just like Newtons it would be dropped for a better model.

[imikewillrockyou]

Except that we can quantify Newtonian physics and Einstein's Relativity. What happens when we put numbers on Darwin? At present it is assumed that 99.99% of all species are extinct. Not because we have found those fossils but because Macro Evolution requires that many missing fossils. And yet upwards of 80% of current living species are represented in the fossil record, some dating 400 million years. Thus we have empirical evidence the fossil record is not 99.99% incomplete. Do the math.

[Munro1Man]

Liar. Atlas of creation claims 80% of current living species are in the fossils. This is simply not so. It is a revelation when a living fossil is found, can you name any?

[imikewillrockyou]

Sure how about the horseshoe crab, almost every fish on the planet and upwards of 70% birds which are rare fossils. Living fossils are the most common so get a clue. So common in fact they are mostly worthless and of course never make the news. Here go refute this guy. Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1985, p. 189. He was the first to rain on the TOE party way back then. Just that alone completely put the concept to rest. Sorry.

[Munro1Man]

Well done. You have proved that you dont even know the definition of living fossil. I dont need to refute Dr Denton, the scientific community already has. This is why the phenomenon of the non acceptance of the theory is restricted to the Arab world and the USA. Wonder why?

[imikewillrockyou]

Ok fossils of living species you're splitting hairs. And nobody has refuted the information I am citing from Dr. Denton's research and that is all that counts in this discussion. Based on what is the fossil record 99.99% incomplete? Clearly false. Do you realize that if the fossil record is even 2% complete macro evolution is completely falsified? Maybe you have an explanation for this problem other than your blind faith that "some scientist" must? Well?

[imikewillrockyou]

"Everybody questioned Newtonian physics'"

You know that is a very good point I agree. I think Darwin is very similar to Newton in many ways. Much of Darwinian science will survive but like Newton much has already been overturned. And are you suggesting that if someone has a religious or atheistic bias they cannot do science? That's is well understood as a logical fallacy. And it doesn't matter what percentage of scientists question a theory. Only a few questioned the flat earth at one time.

[Munro1Man]

Liar.

[imikewillrockyou]

Care to be more specific?

[logsdonj]

@imikewillrockyou Those well-known scientists that reject Darwin's theory need to write a paper and submit it to the peer-review process. If they find testable evidence that can falsify evolution, then they would be the first to do so since its inception. That would be a distinguished achievement and would elevate them to fame and fortune. What's stopping them?

[logsdonj]

@imikewillrockyou Those well-known scientists that reject Darwin's theory need to write a paper and submit it to the peer-review process. If they find testable evidence that can falsify evolution, then they would be the first to do so since its inception. That would be a distinguished achievement and would elevate them to fame and fortune. What's stopping them?

[Mortison77577]

@logsdonj

Some not so well-known scientists have written stuff criticizing evolutionary theory and not just creationists or ID proponents. It wasn't necessarily testable though. They probably got a little fame and fortune, but not much.

[imikewillrockyou]

@logsdonj It is assumed that 99.99% of all species are extinct. Not because we have found those fossils but because Macro Evolution requires that many missing fossils. And yet upwards of 80% of current living species are represented in the fossil record, some dating 400 million years! Thus we have EMPIRICAL evidence the fossil record is not 99.99% incomplete! Thus we know those needed missing animals never existed. Study carefully what I just wrote and the lights might come on for you.

[logsdonj]

@imikewillrockyou What's your source for these numbers?

[imikewillrockyou]

@logsdonj Dr. Denton's book. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis 1985. But you can do a little percentage verification on your own. Take a random sample of common plants and animals known today and just do an internet search to see what percentage you come up with. It's easy to find a fossil of just about everything alive today. Just depends on what you are checking. Fish have a high percentage while birds, for example, have a lower percentage. Even as little as 1% is a major problem..

[rolfaalberg]

@imikewillrockyou

Your argument implying that the fossil record somehow is evidence that science has got it all wrong is based on some highly dubious assumptions.

May I suggest your knowledge of palaeontology and understanding of evolutionary theory is somewhat incomplete?

[truvelocity]

@rolfaalberg A lot of people think that evolution is only about things that happened in the distant past. That it's all about fossils. And that it has no relevance to what is going on today. I'd suggest looking at the Wikipedia article on "Long-Term Evolution Experiment with Escherichia Coli". But it is unreasonable to expect that any one experiment can cover all features of a large field like evolution.

[nekftw]

morality is an evolutionary effect, you can find morality in wolf packs, and other animal groups that live together, morality is given by SOCIETY not by invisible magical skydaddys

[DeadFishFactory]

Either you gave yourself a "thumbs up" or some dipshit conspiracy theory-loving motherfucker rated you up, asshole.

[WeedGreenPowerRanger]

Hence why all your comments get downrated. When are you going to learn?

[procommenter]

Something to foil maniacs? SCIENTIFICALNESS MAKES FOR DOLE--The attacks on 9/11/01 were false flag operations by the U.S. govt. The citrus industry has retreated further south in Florida due to the large number of hard freezes since the late 1980's.

[Onithyr]

"The attacks on 9/11/01 were false flag operations by the U.S. govt."

So not only are you a creationist (who believes that evolution is simply a conspiracy made up by evil scientists) but you're also a 9/11 truther? Well I guess if you believe one crazy conspiracy theory...

[procommenter]

???

[Onithyr]

"???"

!!!

[procommenter]

Slavery benefited the kinglets, chieftains & potentates of 18th century Africa. The enslavement of Negroes was a cooperative effort between white & black men.

Lincoln was the tyrant who ended federalism.

The New World Order owes much to the schizophrenic Lincoln.

[Onithyr]

"Lincoln was the tyrant who ended federalism.

The New World Order owes much to the schizophrenic Lincoln."

Wait, so your endorsing slavery now?

[DeadFishFactory]

And you're a fucking moron. Killing anyone based on their sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, or religion (or lack there-of) is total bullshit. Asshole.

[Morthagg]

Morality is not owned by religion, procommenter. In fact, I think it is even a little disgusting when you base your moral principles solely on what a book/person/God tells you. That has nothing to do with being good and kind, that is only obedience. I don't need a God to be my conscience, I have one of my own. It grows naturally. Like feet.

On the vid: That would be a good sticker indeed.

[procommenter]

Things exist beyond human detection. Certainly we cannot see, hear & feel all. The physical laws of the universe are interpreted/translated by us, not transliterated.

[DeadFishFactory]

And that's your defense for a god? Your logic can apply to any god of any religion: Zeus, Odin, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. You fail, dipshit.

[lolll666]

if it can be detected then the only thing that stops our ability to detect it is a) knowledge of the subject, and b) tools for detection, or lackthereof. don't be so naive to think that we have detected first-hand with our eyes everything we know now. we wouldn't even know what a cell is without tools, and through our tools, anything that exists can likely and will likely be eventually recorded assuming we survive long enough to do so

[procommenter]

Philosophy is no basis for scientific research. When science embraces philosophy we get religion. The U.S. govt., and its funded institutions, have adopted a culturally-Marxist philosophy, i.e.: the promotion of sacred victims' groups, animal rights, infanticide, pragmatism; while demeaning the bed-rock concepts of self-sovereignty/self-determin­ation/self-defense, jury trials, fatherhood, personhood, sound money and property rights that make & keep free societies free.

[TheProf1988]

'Philosophy is no basis for scientific research'

so stp talking about a philosophy on a science video and stop misrepresenting well known scientific facts as philosophy

[jbz3]

uh the philosophy of science and philosophy of logic are absolutely the basis for science. No logic, no science. PhD even means doctor of philosophy.

The basis for scientific testing at all is modus tolens.

Philosophy of science isn't religion because it's based on observation, not faith. And yes, evolution is based on observations. These observations are so much fact that no creationist would even deny.

If you're going to throw out logic, please don't vote against my freedom to education.

[procommenter]

The dream of Darwin's congregation is the consecration of civil authority above all else.

[TheProf1988]

'The dream of Darwin's congregation is the consecration of civil authority above all else. '

yes, because biologists secretly want to take over the world...

[procommenter]

Biology = life science. Evolutionists are not scientists, although they pretend to be.

[TheProf1988]

'Biology = life science. Evolutionists are not scientists, although they pretend to be.'

evolution is the backbone of modern biology, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolutionary theory.

evolution unites the fields of genetics, palaeontology, morphology and evo-devo.

luckily it is scientists who define who is a scientist and who is not, according to education. not by listening to rambling fundamentalists.

[procommenter]

You rely too heavily on luck. Apply yourself. Serious students of science don't stake their education on dumb luck.

[TheProf1988]

But i am applying myself, i am in higher education, i work hard and like all budding scientists understand that all claims be based on evidence. (thats why i study evolution- a field verified by THOUSANDS of observation)

and ive just found out where you get that crap about vit b17 curing cancer from ;)

[procommenter]

Your personal problems, though they mean the world to you, hold no fascination for me.

[TheProf1988]

dont ask if you dont want to know

[jjccccc]

science and religion are ideas made up by men they both go out of date and new ideas come along if you dont like it, get over it, its a fact lol

[bobthecat420]

The difference is when science is presented with a new idea, knowledge can change according to what the evidence supports. Religion does not change, rather it denies new ideas that challenge it.

[elmdia]

I beg to differ- religion in fact changes frequently.

If there were not disagreements in religion, there wouldn't be as many religions, or sects within religions, as there are.

Within the Catholic church, Vatican II in the 1960s RADICALLY changed the way mass is held and even challenged some of the closer held traditional Catholic beliefs- and it was certainly not the first council to do so.

[02917321]

I love it. Maybe we can put those stickers on the bible that say "Of course, this may all be bullshit"!

[UNFFwildcard]

"Warning: The contents of this book contain references to a supernatural entity and related phenomena. While this book may be genuially awe enspiring, life saving, and devine, inappopriate use may result in offensive rallies at funerals, referring to people as 'they', fighting them over here, fighting them over there, belief in a young earth, and slanderous holier then thou behaviour contradictory to the messages taught in this book'

[lukezrox]

lmao

and age of science and reason is dawning. religion will burn in hell for all eternity for its tyranny on the intellectual mind in the past. we are free. we have come out of plato's cave and we see light.

[lolll666]

"religion will burn in hell for all eternity"

couldn't help but laugh at that

[Erech01]

now ken miller sticker is somthing i wouldl ik to see on text books aswel, its teaching the children to keep an open mind on EVERYTHING adnot just singling out somthing casue what afew people think to be true

[TheBigGameHunter1]

What about a sticker for the bible? What would it say?

This is a story book, It has been proven to be inaccurate and contradicts itself and it is WRONG. There is NO evidence for any God! (Jews know their god did NOT change to christian god). The bible is just NOT true!

What else should it include?

[Erech01]

who could play behe then? my thoughts are along the lines of 'marvin the martian'??since it must be aliens who designed us?

[Erech01]

cause the flying squirrel in a way has half a wing, creationists often ask where livin transtions are, wll there are many specific ones, who know, maybe in afew more hundred year the walking catfish may spend moe and more time on land and is evolving to become a land dweller (very possibly anyway)

[Erech01]

yeah.....how do you know that?? ever heard of the walking catfish? there are many fish which can pull themselves along on land living to this day!!!

[dabuddha669]

non-living to living in;t evolution, it's abiogenesis. and think about how many goddamn atoms there are in the universe, in fact don't. there are too many to even try to think of any such number. you're telling me that somewhere allong the lines some atoms didn't combine to make a retardedly simple organism?

[Erech01]

there are many transitional forms:/

tiktaalik

ambulocetus

and many may more, i have a website with over 100 seperate transitional forms, if you want i can e-mail you the link? or you could search in book and on the internet for yourself

[Di66en6ion]

More personal attacks instead of responding to the video, good show of your religious values.

[DeadFishFactory]

Hey asshole, if you did your fucking homework or can read, then you would know there are "transitionary" forms, asshole. I've seen people name those fossils for you, and the internet has tons and tons of them. Fucking asshole doesn't ever learn.

[dabuddha669]

yes, you can say that. but i want to just know the argument for somebody that says that evolution is unscientific bc it cannot be tested. i guess i should ask them what they mean by testable too.

[DeadFishFactory]

Evolution is testable. Find a bunny rabbit in the pre-cambrian period and evolution is completely blown out of the water. Find a frog giving birth to a cow and evolution is blown out of the water. There are so many ways to disprove evolution, but no such evidences have been found, yet.

[drwickieno1]

what an idiot?

[Erech01]

yep, darwin hmself listed many ways in which evolution could be diprooven, 150 years later, not one of them found, remember that ALOT of research has been done on this what are the odds (if evolution is not true) that not one of these things has ot been found?

150 years, not one peice of evidence has been presented to counter evolution (that is a fact), if it had the finder would win the nobel proze, and lets face it, any scientist would jump at that chance

[dabuddha669]

natural selection can be tested. but the whole eventually an ape evolves to a human is a proves too long to really test. i'm pro-evolution and have a pretty deep understanding of it, however, on a macro scale only natural selection can be tested. trust me, i'm in favor of your argument, it's just that it can be observed not tested. there is certainly a lot of evidence, but testable? idk about that

[Kurpalac]

You are in a purely semantic argument. Testable must be defined. Evolution can be tested. Speciation depends on definition used, but can be achieved quickly through artificial selection. Some dogs are no longer able to interbreed, even though they share a recent common ancestor. Where our 1 pair of chromosomes went is another test. Semantics...

[Erech01]

genome sequencing is a test of speciation.....

[dabuddha669]

gravity you can test. you can't understand it. evolution you can't test on a macro scale, but you can understand it. a theory never becomes a fact, theories are base on facts. theory is a possible explanation for given evidence. there is certainly evidence and explanations for evolution. the non-life to life is not evolution, so that's not a whole in the theory of evolution

[PROCLAIMEROFTRUTH]

hey, you're right. I forgot about the monkey to man evolero tester; model 42DHA that Wal-Mart sells. Man, what was I thinking about.oooops... i forgot i'm toooo stupid to think by myself. how do I get out of here?

[PROCLAIMEROFTRUTH]

>>>You want to teach creation myth do it in a religious class or a comparative religion class with creation myths of other religions...it has no business being in a science classroom...

I mean unless you want to subject the bible for testing and peer review...

same with evolution. If it has to be taught it should be taught in history classes. it has no business being in science. It is simply historical study.

[PROCLAIMEROFTRUTH]

>>>>>If your going to be critical of something at least understand what your talking about...

you beat me to it. I was going to tell you the same thing about the bible.

[PROCLAIMEROFTRUTH]

Fairy tales? you mean like scum turning into 75 trillion cell human beings, dinosaurs turning into birds, monkeys into men, frogs into princes, and the biggest of them all.... whales walking around on dry land (before they decided to "evolve back" into the ocean from whence they came.

Man you just can't get a better fairy tale than that.

[PROCLAIMEROFTRUTH]

Hell, English would suffice.

[PROCLAIMEROFTRUTH]

>>>Only if it causes you to have things called thoughts...

egads, I realize evolutionary teachings dont allow for those, so I'll be very careful.

[PROCLAIMEROFTRUTH]

what an idiot. doesn't know the difference between gravity and evolutionary theory? wow. some leader. no wonder these folks are way out there.

gravity you can test. evolution is nothing more than the study of the past. amazing.

[DeadFishFactory]

Evolution can be tested. You're just too stupid to understand it.

[PROCLAIMEROFTRUTH]

>>>>>Evolution can be tested. You're just too stupid to understand it.

now thats funny rat thar...i dont care who you are...thats funny as hell.

[robsdumbmovies]

Before we go in to why you think evolution is untestable, let me ask you, how would you test gravity?

[AbedeuS]

Nice vid :)

[imbok]

Creationism is the laughingstock of the intelligent, educated, modern world.

[PROCLAIMEROFTRUTH]

wow, thats not saying much? snobbish intellectuals who seldom cross the street or so much as move around town, yet set on thrones of judgement with all their worldly knowledge. this is suppose to cause concern?

[JokerZED]

Perfect

[ShadowJedi187]

owned!

[Stanley1969]

Many thanks for posting. It is deeply depressing to see how ignorant some people on here are about philosophy of science 101.