Mogley, please stop your Spamming of this post. You have absolutely nothing to add in this post. You process no knowledge of interest for anyone who made it to fifth grade. All your arguments is based on peoples ignorance of science. Most of your arguments could be refuted by a Fifth grader. Your Copy-Paste approach of old and long ago refuted arguments is sad and pathetic. Please stop it.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
I HAVE GIVEN OVER A DOZEN LECTURES defending scientific creationism before evolutionist science faculty and students at colleges. At the end, I would open up for questions, comments, rebuttals. The science faculty, for the most part, was silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true. Some in the science faculty offered tricky rebuttals and I successfully answered them. It's those who don't know enough science that I've found the most challenging to convince.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a single cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food, we received in the womb, to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Are you seeking truth? Search for "Truth Contest" in Google and click the 1st result, then click on "The Present" to open it. It is not what you think it is.
Just the term "intellectual property" should have activated someones bullshit-siren.
What the f**k is intellectual property? "I had a thought, now none of you imbeciles are allowed to have the same thought!"? And how is their logo intellectual? Its a goddamn dna string and a Da Vinci drawing. Did they produce that drawing? No? *cough*copyright*cough*.
Casey Luskin also discriminates against new scientific approaches. after I sent him a 46 page scientific abstract, in which I claim it to be a mathematical proof for intelligent design?
Dear Mr. Ruiz Garcia, Greetings and thanks for your e-mail. I reviewed your material and determined that it is outside the scope of what we do at Discovery Institute. Thanks and all the best.
Sincerely, Casey Luskin
So what should be considered to be inside the scope of what they do at Discovery Institute????
You know Jesus is gonna beat your ass for talkin' smart.
And the Lord said unto thee, my laws shall superceed the laws and lawsuits of man, be they frivilous or unjust or shall they be in a poor attempt to censor video posts that do not praise my good name in thy most unholy realm of Youtube, and you shall smite the heathen with falsehoods and thy incompetent legal team, So sayeth the Lord. Amen. ---Bardus chapt.3 v.19
The Apostle Peter warned true believers in Jesus Christ that in the last days there would be those who would be willfully ignorant in other words dumb on purpose and they would deny that the Lord created all things in the heavens and under the heavens, Second Peter 3:4-5. These same people would also deny the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, Second Peter 3:3-4 and this would actually be a proof that we are in the days of His return.
How would you respond to the censoring of various scholars who have mentioned that "intelligent design" should be explored in a critical academic way. You as well as most of this side of the debate seems to think that a proper response is a bunch of purile name calling. For example you calling them "stupid", "idiots" et al. ALL OF YOU, creationists and the other side, come off as a bunch of pretensoius douchebags!!!
@xESOTERlC The Director of the Smithsonian Institute Museum of Natural History was censured for allowing a peer reviewed article to appear that didn't advocate ID but merely mentioned it. Ben Stein did a movie about Academic Censorship and ID. I am NOT saying that ID is even a viable theory, rather I am saying that this guy whining about censorship by the Discovery Institute comes across as whiny.
@mikescrofton Not ACCEPTING something to be true is not censoring. Having something REMOVED or covered up is. Such censorship SHOULD be opposed o.O I don't know about this "peer reviewed article"... how was it censored?
@xESOTERlC Scientest's who are afraid of losing tenure or being CENSURED (not censored) are in effect being censored by the scientific establishment. If you lose your job by merely mentioning ID how "free" are you to pursue an academic approach to ID
@mikescrofton you've already asserted that ID is not a viable theory, therefore it only stands to reason that such pursuits would not be funded.. if there WERE a peer-reviewed and accepted paper, they would receive funding(or not, dependent on investors, i suppose). However, there is no conspiracy. That's the POINT of peer-review. Scientists are just as keen to tear holes in others' hypotheses as they are to establish the accuracy of their own. the rest is hearsay and conjecture
He who loseth his 'job' by pursuing "an academic approach to ID" does not lose his 'job' as a result of pursuing "an academic approach to ID" - rather, such an admission of insanity is ample grounds for dismissal !
Santa Claus.......OK Douchebag lets use your "=" example. Santa Claus as a person did in fact exist as a third century Bishop in what is modern day Turkey. So inside the "myth" thier is a grain of truth. THAT IS MY POINT! If you walk around feeling superior and engaging in fascistic academic behavior you are no better than the dark age church. Free your mind and your ass will follow.
@mikescrofton If you're talking about who I think you are, he wasn't censured for allowing an article mentioning ID into the magazine through proper channels, he was disciplined for doing it because he snuck the article in, skipping parts of the typical process which every genuine article must undergo before making it into the magazine.
Also, ID is not only not a viable theory, it's not even a scientific hypothesis. ID isn't scientifically formulated, it's just religion in a lab coat.
@mikescrofton Yes Ive seen Ben Stien's movie and it was a disaster. Acedemic censorship CANT exist because studies are done independantly of review boards.The problem is that there ARE ZERO scientific studies verifying creation, and they admit that. Hell, its gone to court and all evidence was presented and the verdict from a CHRISTIAN, BUSH APPOINTED JUDGE was that creationism was NOT science. Thoughts?
Apply the theory of natural selection to the continuously changing environments and climates caused by plate tectonics. You then realize planet earth has the possibility to create new biological niches all the time and there fore evolution will never stop.
@Menak666 "make up the molecular machine are able to bond with each other based on laws of chemical bonding"... no, I am not neglecting them, I am using them to help proof the ID hypothesis. Chemical bonding in proteins happens in a very specific way, it is this specific type bonding sequences that is used to develop the algorithms that identify ID. (BTW - where do you think the laws of chemical bonding comes from; laws are there to direct, direction only comes from intelligence)
@Menak666 "evolution is not about the origin of life" ...agreed, you are correct, but the two theories are inextricably linked. A supernatural origin of life would render evolution false, as it would imply that evolution is divinely directed, not by chance as per current believe.
@heinno777 IC claims that the structure could not be assembled by evolution, no where does evolution say that each part has to be selected (from the beginning) to be part of some guided goal. There is nothing in evolution which would argue that sub-sets of structures could not combine, in fact that is exactly how they are proposed to develop such complex systems.
@CliffStamp “in fact that is exactly how they are proposed to develop such complex system” … take the flagellum, why would the filament develop by itself, to combine with the rest of the motor parts if a “propeller need” are not “known” by the cell’s DNA. I can accept the filament developing by chance, but I cannot accept that it could combine just by accident with the rest of the flagellum structures in the specified way required to form a motor.
@heinno777 Genetic drift can allow structures with no advantage of even a negative advantage to propagate. Essentially there is a period of huge growth where there is no selective pressure and thus even harmful or neutral mutations have the same probability of selection as positive. Then if the population crashes there is a chance that the remaining subset could actually be dominated by the neutral or even harmful mutations.
@CliffStamp "What exactly is this belief that fundamentally stops them from being able to properly"... you have to remember "properly" is defined by the persons who accept the conclusions. The findings is objective, but the conclusions is subjective.
@heinno777 No, science is based on objective analysis, that is what the methods are developed for, to remove the subjective judgment. For example regression analysis is used for an object measurement of correlation. Again, it is what it means to be scientific to use proper techniques of analysis to produce objective analysis, if you are subject to personal bias you have left science and entered into religion.
@CliffStamp "No, science is based on objective analysis, that is what the methods are developed for, to remove the subjective judgment" - the fact that you submit an hypothesis makes you subjective, it is human nature. Why do you think people like Dawkins and Gould have different opinions on information increase in the genome - they have the same data and the same findings available to them.
@heinno777 Are scientists subjective, yes, but the goal of the science method is to remove this subjective nature and generate knowledge. Peer review builds on this because there is still the possibility of mistake, so take the conclusion and submit it for independent verification, and then after publication it gets another round as other scientists will try to repeat the work, and pick and poke at the ideas until they break.
@heinno777 All ideas including evolution are subject to the same peer review process. The theory of evolution has advanced significantly since Darwin and has a number of conflicts, not everyone for example agrees with Dawkins that the gene itself is being selected as it is not "visible", only the genome. Then you have the biggest problem that we do not even know what all the genes do or how they do it.
@CliffStamp" the biggest problem that we do not even know what all the genes do or how they do it"... exactly, this is the area of knowlegde growth that will determine information truely only comes from mind (as is currenlty a law of nature) or if the law can be proven wrong.
@heinno777 Are you actually saying that once there is a model which shows how DNA was created, under natural conditions, that you will cease to believe in God.
@CliffStamp "model which shows how DNA was created, under natural conditions"... I am not sure, it will depend on the model. If it merely explains how the DNA molecules can be formed, probably not, but if the model explains how the information that direct the DNA string formation came about, it will be very hard to have a sound God Hypothesis. Also Abiogenesis will need to be modeld and observed without intelligence/design interference - just natural processes.
@CliffStamp "random mutation"... can only reorganise existing code to create new functionality and or morphology - cannot create new code. If there is no code for a single cellular organism to turn into a multi-cellular organism - mutations cannot create it - see the MESA algorithm form ISCID.
@heinno777 I really don't understand how you can assert random mutation can not produce code, random letter combination for example can easily produce any computer code (Fortran, C, Pascal, javascript, etc.).
Are you arguing that a random process can never form DNA, as once DNA is formed random change can obviously produce any combination required.
@CliffStamp "once DNA is formed random change can obviously produce any combination required" .... This is an assumption. There are mathematical models that proof this is not possible. Information is Information it is not matter nor energy - Norbert Wiener. Matter cannot tell a story (write new code). It is like cutting out all the letters of a newspaper and thoughing it on the table and requiring a new story (unknown story) that makes logical sence, and has a purpose.
@heinno777 The models are again not in peer reviewed literature, they are just unfounded assertions.
Yes that would be exactly true, you could throw up random letters and they will come down into words, a trivial example of a random producing information.
Note all the DNA in all the creatures in the world uses the exact same basic elements (letters if you will) how exactly would you define "new" information.
@CliffStamp - how exactly would you define "new" information.
For information to be identified as information the entity must:
•Contain symbols like letters/pictures or numbers
•Contain a pattern
•Must be meaningful (make sense)
•Be deliberate (formulated to convey an idea, fact, required action, thought)
•Must have purpose
Thus new information must have all of the above - random mutations by definition is not deliberate and have no purpose - therefore it is not new information.
@heinno777 Ok, you defined information to be a pattern which is formed with intent, that is circular logic. Obviously evolution excludes new information if you constrain in the definition that it can not come from a random source.
@heinno777 If you define information as having to come from intent (deliberate, purpose, etc.) then by definition it can not come from a random process.
But you can not use that definition to prove evolution can not produce information because you defined it that way, i.e. circular.
It would be like if I argued that violence can not solve conflicts, and I noted to prove that by definition that violence was a physical act which caused a conflict.
@CliffStamp "can not use that definition to prove evolution can not produce information because you defined it that way, i.e. circular" ... you are confusing a definition with a premises of argumentation. The definition of information is not an argument, it merely sets the criteria for what information is. I guess in that lies the core of our disagreement. Code without intention and purpose is not information.
@heinno777 Exactly and that is why it is circular, you have defined "... without intention and purpose is not information", well obviously then a random process can not create information by definition as the definition includes intent.
@CliffStamp "Exactly and that is why it is circular" - a definition cannot be circular, only reasoning can be circular. Information in the DNA fit the def:
•It contain symbols like letters: A,U,G,C
•Contain a pattern -Codons, sequences
•Is meaningful (can be interpreted by the protein building mechanisms in the cell and the human mind).
•Is deliberate - formulated to convey a required action, specific to the protein that needs to be synthesized
@heinno777 Yes, I was not saying the definition was circular but the argument.
You noted that DNA was proof of Creation because evolution can not produce information and DNA contains information, you then defined information as something being deliberately created (i.e. not random).
You defined information so as to directly support your assertion.
@heinno777 Just look at it this way, what would have to happen to a genome A, what change would be required (forget about how for a second) for you to be convinced there was new information in the changed genome B.
You have no idea what caused it, you are just comparing the two and looking at the effect of the change. What difference would you need to find to conclude, ok, there is new information in genome B.
@CliffStamp "What difference would you need to find to conclude, ok, there is new information in genome B".... maybe I should redifine my position: information in the cell can increase based on the variables allowed by the existing information already in the cell. Therefore variation within kinds happens - no argument. The FACT that there is not a single new phyla since the cambrian explosion provide empirical evidence that one kind have not evolved into another kind.
Note phyla is a completely arbitrary man-made separation. The only reason we have such divisions is the sparse nature of the taxonomic record. As more information is uncovered a much more sensible convention would be to use a clade based system in which case you would have to define kind to be a clad and the number of nodes would be the number of kinds.
@CliffStamp A Kind has many levels - it is simply a different classification system than mainstream taxonomy. Phyla might be a man made (grouping) but the fact that there 70 phyla's came about in 3 million years and none after that in 55 million years, should be clear historical evidence that evolution picture does not really look like we think it looks.
@heinno777 Well unless you can define it, then it is not useful to use it in an argument.
How can you support the assertion that evolution notes that phyla have to be continuously created?
Note the actual math behind evolution, the differential equations of population dynamics and mutations, show that evolution is drastically nonlinear and as creatures adapt and fill niches, then the diversity slows as there are no niches left to fill.
@CliffStamp "population dynamics and mutations, show that evolution is drastically nonlinear and as creatures adapt and fill niches" .... so accourding to evolution their might be another (better) human species evolving some day?
@heinno777 Now that is an interesting question, there are some species which have had almost no change in a very long time as they are very well adapted to their environment and there are also no ability for genetic drift to induce change (severe population crashes and blooms). Where will any species be in a 1000 years, a million, that is simply too complex for us to even begin to answer now aside from speculation.
@CliffStamp 'to answer now aside from speculation'... I think it make sence that in the way I understand evolution that there will be a better humans species thousands of years from now. I wonder what they will think of us (if we still exist). Accourding to creationist thinking, we will just get better within our kind - there will never be 2 kinds of human. I guess time will tel....
@heinno777 Considering how much of a struggle we currently have to find out how to be successful (how many help-self guru's exist) we are a blind man walking in a dark room at this stage. Assuming intelligence and empathy are favored to survive, we would be looked at with admiration and respect. I believe the internet and global communication will make a massive sociological impact and in even a hundred years we will be very different than we are now.
@CliffStamp 'Well unless you can define it' - "species" is also not clearly defined, but evolutionists claim the development of new species - did you know that a new species was never observed to have evolved in the last 150 years - yet hundreds had gone extict. Seems historical evidence supports creation philosophy.
@CliffStamp "new information there has to be a new kind formed".... not always, but generaly yes. There are mathematical models that help scientists understand weather or not a variable is possible based on the make-up of the existing genome. It still seems you are not clear on what I want to say about information, please see: watch?v=Oqm0jCIMSgY&feature=related for a more complete explanation.
@rocas511 "Where exactly are you getting your definitions?".....The definition was formulated by Prof. Dr. Werner Gitt - Head of the Department of Information Technology, German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology. It was published in a peer reviewed article: ‘Information: the third fundamental quantity’ November/December 1989 issue of Siemens Review (Vol. 56, No. 6)
@heinno777 I said he does not participate in the science of evolution, not that he does not participate in the field of science. If you want to contribute (either support or dispute) a scientific position then you research and publish, if you intentionally avoid that then you are not participating in the scientific process (in regards to that particular claim). You can still research in other areas but that again lends absolutely no support to any non-published, purely speculative claims.
@CliffStamp "said he does not participate in the science of evolution" - if one asks how the evolutionary processes creates a biomechanical design - is that not a contribution?
@heinno777 No, contribution is not making unfounded assertions, that is about as unscientific as you could be, the entire foundation of science comes back to a locus and observation, if you ignore this and just heckle from the sidelines that is not a contribution. If you wanted to contribute a refutation then there are means for that in the literature, that is what everyone who desires to contribute uses and it is exactly how evolution has advanced so much since Darwin.
@CliffStamp "contribution is not making unfounded assertions"... It seems you are not familiar with his work, he give very clear reasoning for his cliams. ID is to a large extend very misunderstood; you might want to take a look at: watch?v=neTwGPNhrYI not to convince you, just for a better understanding
@heinno777 I am familiar with it, and the concepts of IC and specific complexity. In fact as I have stated elsewhere, I believe it could actually be stated as a scientific hypothesis, similar to - evolution proceeds through a mechanism which selects neutral and even destructive variation in order to proceed towards a future positive reproductive goal.
@CliffStamp "I am familiar with it, and the concepts of IC and specific complexity" ... are you familiar with it in general terms or on a scientific level. Example, you spoke about computer modeling that shows that the bacterium flagellum could evolve without design, but are you aware of the MESA (monotonic evolutionary simulation algorithm) developed by the International Society of Complexity, Information and Design. This computer model shows that it is impossible.
@heinno777 Yes, I am aware of it, I have not studied the code. However there are papers in peer reviewed journals which show the exact opposite, that IC structures can be generated by natural evolution. Again if you want to contend that claim the scientific way to do it is ask for the model, verify the proper coding (or contend it) and post the contradictory simulations (being respectful you send them to the original author first).
@CliffStamp “that IC structures can be generated by natural evolution.” …. Some complex systems can, I agree with that, like the eye for instance, complex, but because it is systems that are combined, there is an evolutionary pathway possible. But if a system is IC there is no evolutionary pathway possible. The end result must be known, before the parts would combine in that way - evolutionists claim evolution is “blind”
@heinno777 Ok, how about this, what do you see as different between ID movement and the people who claim men in black, alien abductions, ghosts, dowsing, bigfoot, loch ness monster, spoon bending, etc. .
@CliffStamp "what do you see as different between ID movement and the people who claim men in black, alien abductions, ghosts, dowsing, bigfoot, loch ness monster, spoon bending, etc"... ridicule is not associated with logical debate, I would advise you not to do it engage in this, as it is a complete waste of time, nobody is impressed by it, and everybody knows it.
@CliffStamp.... “That was not ridicule, it was a perfectly valid question”…. I see the same correlation between the MIB/ghosts/aliens and the evolutionary science field that I see between the MIB/ghosts/aliens and the ID science fields. It is a non sense argument; and you know it – it has nothing to do with the topic.
@heinno777 Ok, that is a perfectly fine question, what is the difference between evolution research and application and the alien abduction research and application.
@CliffStamp... , "what is the difference between evolution research and application and the alien abduction research and application" - you will probably know the answer better than me.
@CliffStamp Eolution often get’s theories wrong and further research builds on the faulty assumptions of these studies – cases in point: the evolutionary theory pre-supposed that the human appendix, coccyx, pineal gland and thymus were vestigial organs remnants from previous functions earlier in human evolution – this was captured in all the medical studies and textbooks as “facts” for many years, but the opposite has now been discovered – they serve very real physiological purposes.
@heinno777 It would be expected that scientists make mistakes, the entire process of science is in fact designed with that in mind. Peer review is the correction method used, you are now citing its value and at the same time trying to defend why ID supporters should not use it. Do you not see the huge contradiction in your argument?
@CliffStamp "Peer review is the correction method used"... but what if the guys doing the peer reviewhave studied out of the same text books, and are making the same assumptions that you are.... nobody will spot the mistake
@heinno777 This goes back to your assumption that everyone in the peer reviewed process is either incompetent or intentionally biased. If this is the case then yes you will have stagnation of falsehoods. However why is it only the case with evolution and not every other aspect of science? And what do you propose as the alternative, that we eliminate peer review and we just vote on what is valid?
@CliffStamp "everyone in the peer reviewed process is either incompetent or intentionally biased'... I never said that; I am just saying that if you judge work based on what you have been tought, you will not find errors if what you have been tought is the same as what you are reviewing. "And what do you propose as the alternative:.....I am not against peer review, it is needed, but it has it's limitations, as scientists we should acknowledge this.
@heinno777 That is what biased means, you accuse the entire community of scientists who publish in support of evolution of a combination of attribute and diagnosis bias (the inability to analysis data to a correct conclusion due to a presupposed paradigm/conclusion). As a scientist where is the evidence for this assertion? Have you submitted even one refuting paper or even letter to the editor to correct the bias? That is how peer review corrects for mistakes.
@CliffStamp "Have you submitted even one refuting paper or even letter to the editor to correct the bias?" .... I am not in research. But there are several papers of this nature - examples:
- The Three Domains of life - A challenge to the universal Ancestor: P Pun, S Shoult
- Bits, Bites and Biology - What Evolutionary Algorithms don't teach us about biology: Eric Anderson (pointing out errors with AVIDA)
- Information as a Measure of Variation - W. Dembski
@heinno777 Are there papers in peer reviewed journals, PCID Journal stopped in 2005, and was created and maintained and reviewed for publication by ID fellows.
I could start an online journal tomorrow and start publishing papers supporting a flat earth (there is in fact a society, they have a web site, a newsletters, global members, etc. - though it is not obvious [to me] if they are sincere or not).
@heinno777 That is the point, there is a non-trivial sub-set of theologians who can not dispute creation by definition, there is no sub-set of scientists who can not dispute any scientific theory by definition. Thus what you are doing is drawing a random sample from an unconstrained set and comparing it to a constrained set, as a simple analogy you are saying because some is true for real numbers then it has to be true for integers (this is false the two sets do not have the same constraints).
@CliffStamp " (this is false the two sets do not have the same constraints)"... I do not agree with you reasoning here; how do you see the constraints to be different?
@heinno777 The set of all scientists has no constraint to accept evolution. You can by definition be a scientist and argue or contend any theory, thus any sample from the set is unbiased in regards to the strength of the theory.
The set of all theologians has constraints in that sub-sets are by definition accepting of creation models (all theists for example). Thus any sample is not an unbiased measure of the strength of the idea.
@CliffStamp "by definition accepting of creation models (all theists for example' ...there are deists that are theologians, and believe a deity created matter/time/space and natural laws, but played/plays no role in creation. They believe it all happens undirected by the laws of nature.
@heinno777 Yes, there are deists, that would be my point, that set (theologians), which by definition have to accept a specific conclusion. Scientists by definition do not have to accept any theory, model or law, thus they form an unbiased set (by definition - not in practice as they are just people) in regards to an scientific assertion being true or not.
@CliffStamp "Scientists by definition do not have to accept any theory, model or law, thus they form an unbiased set".. okay, I will accept that my comparison is incorrect, but the point still stands that just because the majority of people believe in something, does not make it true. If the biggest idiot in the world say a blue ball is blue and all everybody else say the ball is red, the idiot is still correct.
@heinno777 That is true, a show of hands proves nothing. For example the "stasis" in the fossil record is argued by Dawkins that it just happened at another location. But people like Gould argue is shows non-linear speciation. Eventually one side or the other will produce a very strong empirical argument and eventually the contention will be settled. Until that happens at most you can say is there is a significant dispute about what the data means exactly.
@CliffStamp ...“Until that happens at most you can say is there is a significant dispute about what the data means exactly”… and exactly how does this not apply to ID?
@heinno777 Because the people who argue string theory vs quantum gravity for example both publish, present papers at conferences, have departments, produce graduate students, etc. . They both contribute significantly to the body of knowledge known as science. If you want to contribute, you have to submit to peer review, the ID supporters do not.
@CliffStamp "ID supporters do not".... they will ... the theory is very young - any new concept takes time - Evolution theory also took quite a few years to get a foothold in mainstream science. The point is, they ID concept is growing - fast, there are new societies, discussion groups, books etc poping up all over. It will overtake evolution, as we progress in knowledge of the the biomechanics of the cell, information and design.
@heinno777 ID is not a new concept, it is creation. If you think it is not then write down the mathematical model which describes the two and show how it is different. The only thing ID did was remove god and leave it as an unknown so as to avoid the legal ruling that creation was not science. This is clear in the edition of Pandas where creation was replaced with ID in one printing.
@CliffStamp 'ID is not a new concept, it is creation"... I have to disagree - if it was religion agnostics like David Berlinski would not be involved with it - I do agree though that it has serious religious implications....
@CliffStamp " the exact same textbook aside from removing the word creation and replacing it with ID"... the same way you cannot remove biology from evolution you cannot remove ID from creation - they are different, but inextricably linked
@heinno777 Islam is growing faster than ID, this has no bearing on if it has any scientific validity. Everything you said about ID (societies, discussion, books, etc.) is much stronger for Islam than ID. Thus by your own argument everyone should abandon ID (which generally is promoted by Christians) and switch to Islam.
@CliffStamp "Islam is growing faster than ID" ....Islam is not a new scientific field, christianity is also growing faster than ID in eastern contries - you cannot compare religious growth with a new direction in science...
@heinno777 ID has a best the casual link to science, the people involved have degrees in science. People promoting Islam can make the exact same argument and in fact lecture constantly about the Quran as a scientific document. And again there is way more of them than the ID group, so what exctly is the objective criteria you are using to assess knowledge?
@umborriquitocomotu "what validity would your "proofs" have for a Hindu or a Buddhist".... I am ignorant re other religions. I suspect the idea that there is a creator is somehow hardwired into everybody - hence the fact that more than 85% of the worlds population believe in some sort of a creator/deity.
@umborriquitocomotu.."theists or ex-theists is irrelevant".... only if you are ignorant re the fields contend ... there is ESTABLISHED historical facts, like Jesus's existence and resurrection - all historians agrees - these guys studies theology for 7 years - they know the field - and their beliefs are grounded in sound facts and philosophy, not superstition. Unless you have studied theology - you cannot really comment re its validity
@heinno777 if apes had 50 and we had 44 at any point then evolution would have been fucked. the point is, humans have 23 chromosome pairs, apes have 24. 22 of the pairs are similar between humans and apes. the remaining two ape chromosomes appear to have joined, they are similar to each half of the remaining human chromosome. this is how we know it had to do with the apes 48 because we had 48 at one point in time, because we share an ancestor with these apes. idk how more clear this can be
@heinno777 So the fact that here you have a gene which (this is important) never existed at any point in the 4 billion years and suddenly after only a few generations it is suddenly there means nothing. If this helps you sleep at night then go for it. Personally, I think that's about as retarded (no offense) as saying a newbor
Mogley, please stop your Spamming of this post. You have absolutely nothing to add in this post. You process no knowledge of interest for anyone who made it to fifth grade. All your arguments is based on peoples ignorance of science. Most of your arguments could be refuted by a Fifth grader. Your Copy-Paste approach of old and long ago refuted arguments is sad and pathetic. Please stop it.
Gonzokid2 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 1 month ago
@Mogley52: "I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering."
The you're not a "conservative christian". You're a cherry-picking, religious whack-job.
mikefromwa 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I HAVE GIVEN OVER A DOZEN LECTURES defending scientific creationism before evolutionist science faculty and students at colleges. At the end, I would open up for questions, comments, rebuttals. The science faculty, for the most part, was silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true. Some in the science faculty offered tricky rebuttals and I successfully answered them. It's those who don't know enough science that I've found the most challenging to convince.
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
Mogley52 1 month ago
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a single cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food, we received in the womb, to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
Mogley52 1 month ago
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Are you seeking truth? Search for "Truth Contest" in Google and click the 1st result, then click on "The Present" to open it. It is not what you think it is.
WhyAreWeHere7 2 months ago
Creationism = Ignorance
LiamXaoh 2 months ago 6
@LiamXaoh Ignorance > Creationism
SeanathenII 3 weeks ago
@SeanathenII - good point.
Creationism knowledge + 5 = 4
LiamXaoh 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution is the only "scientific theory" that needs laws to protect it!"
co2isgoodal 3 months ago
Just the term "intellectual property" should have activated someones bullshit-siren.
What the f**k is intellectual property? "I had a thought, now none of you imbeciles are allowed to have the same thought!"? And how is their logo intellectual? Its a goddamn dna string and a Da Vinci drawing. Did they produce that drawing? No? *cough*copyright*cough*.
Kabitu1 3 months ago
Casey Luskin also discriminates against new scientific approaches. after I sent him a 46 page scientific abstract, in which I claim it to be a mathematical proof for intelligent design?
Dear Mr. Ruiz Garcia, Greetings and thanks for your e-mail. I reviewed your material and determined that it is outside the scope of what we do at Discovery Institute. Thanks and all the best.
Sincerely, Casey Luskin
So what should be considered to be inside the scope of what they do at Discovery Institute????
amarugarcia 3 months ago
Discovery Institute = OWNED.
squareatheist 3 months ago
"Attack lemming Casey Luskin" makes me kill myself laughing every time. XD
419Films 4 months ago
"the Discovery Destitute"
teddansonLA 4 months ago
yeah, but no, but yeah but who cares?
What is the difference between an atheist and a theist?
They both "think" they know best.
TCupUK 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tnafguy You are just pathetic.
Stevoukos 4 months ago
Attack Lemming!!! LMAO
Ahabite 4 months ago
You know Jesus is gonna beat your ass for talkin' smart.
And the Lord said unto thee, my laws shall superceed the laws and lawsuits of man, be they frivilous or unjust or shall they be in a poor attempt to censor video posts that do not praise my good name in thy most unholy realm of Youtube, and you shall smite the heathen with falsehoods and thy incompetent legal team, So sayeth the Lord. Amen. ---Bardus chapt.3 v.19
LegionnaireEtrangere 5 months ago
One of their secretaries had to type the word assclown
laserindie 6 months ago
I nearly shit myself at attack lemming
laserindie 6 months ago
Did they censor you for disagreeing with them or for name-calling?
philosophy7575 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WATCH OUT! YOU MIGHT WAKE UP WITH A "DINOSAUR HEAD" IN YOUR BED!LMFAO
tiamat1296 6 months ago
When I listened to the Discovery Institutes logic, I was deafened by silence.
phillippepe 7 months ago
Religion is a money making scam. They belong in prison
alexgreat 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Straw man fallacy check, Ad Homenim fallacy check...sound argument...yet to be seen.
Bahkti82 8 months ago
Straw man fallacy check, Ad Hominem fallacy check...sound argument...yet to be seen.
Bahkti82 8 months ago
You know I really loved the video and everything but I just couldn't hear you over how stupid the Discovery Institute is.
SevenRiderAirForce 8 months ago
Well done.
kailabreece 9 months ago
But did the discovery institute get permission from PBS to use their logo?
TheGreatRL 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Apostle Peter warned true believers in Jesus Christ that in the last days there would be those who would be willfully ignorant in other words dumb on purpose and they would deny that the Lord created all things in the heavens and under the heavens, Second Peter 3:4-5. These same people would also deny the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, Second Peter 3:3-4 and this would actually be a proof that we are in the days of His return.
stealthblack6 9 months ago
Intellectual property conflicts with property itself.
1) property rights are an extension of self ownership
2) intellectual property requires a mind to create it/contain it/express it
3) If someone wants to express something it comes from their mind (memory)
5) denying a right to express is a claim of ownership over another mind
4) claiming ownership over a part of someone else's mind conflicts with self ownership
5) Therefore Intellectual property conflicts with all property rights.
YW
MirageScience 9 months ago 3
You mean.. Christians... are LYING?
revjimbob 10 months ago
That car at the end is insane. Shows you how far they have to go to get an absurd idea heard.
Jeffersonwazright 10 months ago
have creationist been shagging sheep? my mind is boggling....
scarletharlot69 11 months ago
I want to say it's cognitive dissonance, but I really think they are just ridiculously stupid!
OpethNation 11 months ago
DI is the black hole of stupid - epic quote XD
n987 11 months ago
How would you respond to the censoring of various scholars who have mentioned that "intelligent design" should be explored in a critical academic way. You as well as most of this side of the debate seems to think that a proper response is a bunch of purile name calling. For example you calling them "stupid", "idiots" et al. ALL OF YOU, creationists and the other side, come off as a bunch of pretensoius douchebags!!!
mikescrofton 11 months ago
@mikescrofton What "censoring of various scholars who have mentioned..."? Not allowing ID to be taught in schools is not censorship.
xESOTERlC 11 months ago
@xESOTERlC The Director of the Smithsonian Institute Museum of Natural History was censured for allowing a peer reviewed article to appear that didn't advocate ID but merely mentioned it. Ben Stein did a movie about Academic Censorship and ID. I am NOT saying that ID is even a viable theory, rather I am saying that this guy whining about censorship by the Discovery Institute comes across as whiny.
mikescrofton 11 months ago
@mikescrofton Not ACCEPTING something to be true is not censoring. Having something REMOVED or covered up is. Such censorship SHOULD be opposed o.O I don't know about this "peer reviewed article"... how was it censored?
xESOTERlC 11 months ago
@xESOTERlC Scientest's who are afraid of losing tenure or being CENSURED (not censored) are in effect being censored by the scientific establishment. If you lose your job by merely mentioning ID how "free" are you to pursue an academic approach to ID
mikescrofton 11 months ago
@mikescrofton you've already asserted that ID is not a viable theory, therefore it only stands to reason that such pursuits would not be funded.. if there WERE a peer-reviewed and accepted paper, they would receive funding(or not, dependent on investors, i suppose). However, there is no conspiracy. That's the POINT of peer-review. Scientists are just as keen to tear holes in others' hypotheses as they are to establish the accuracy of their own. the rest is hearsay and conjecture
xESOTERlC 11 months ago
@mikescrofton
.
"an academic approach to ID" ?
What ?
= same as saying:
"an academic approach to Santa Claus"
He who loseth his 'job' by pursuing "an academic approach to ID" does not lose his 'job' as a result of pursuing "an academic approach to ID" - rather, such an admission of insanity is ample grounds for dismissal !
tellnet 11 months ago
@tellnet
Santa Claus.......OK Douchebag lets use your "=" example. Santa Claus as a person did in fact exist as a third century Bishop in what is modern day Turkey. So inside the "myth" thier is a grain of truth. THAT IS MY POINT! If you walk around feeling superior and engaging in fascistic academic behavior you are no better than the dark age church. Free your mind and your ass will follow.
mikescrofton 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mikescrofton
Mighty stuff Mickey .
You ALSO believe in Santa Claus.
And thanks for the compliments.
So nice to meet a pleasant idiot !
Forgive me .
I am still laughing at the suggestion:
"academic approach to ID"
.
tellnet 11 months ago
@mikescrofton If you're talking about who I think you are, he wasn't censured for allowing an article mentioning ID into the magazine through proper channels, he was disciplined for doing it because he snuck the article in, skipping parts of the typical process which every genuine article must undergo before making it into the magazine.
Also, ID is not only not a viable theory, it's not even a scientific hypothesis. ID isn't scientifically formulated, it's just religion in a lab coat.
pkemrin 11 months ago
@mikescrofton Yes Ive seen Ben Stien's movie and it was a disaster. Acedemic censorship CANT exist because studies are done independantly of review boards.The problem is that there ARE ZERO scientific studies verifying creation, and they admit that. Hell, its gone to court and all evidence was presented and the verdict from a CHRISTIAN, BUSH APPOINTED JUDGE was that creationism was NOT science. Thoughts?
slippy441 9 months ago
They probably just thought you would back down without challenging them. Fools!
biggingeryeti 11 months ago
What I'd like to know is...How is showing a logo theft of intellectual property? Using a logo and claiming it as your own is theft of property.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Trusted Naughty women dating site mworld5.info
ilenejyty 1 year ago
The higher-ups in the ID movement are the scum of the Earth.
HighCardWins 1 year ago
Theft of intellectual property? Since when has any of the Discovery Institute's property been intellectual?
TheIntolerantAtheist 1 year ago 109
I want an attack lemming.
kartorus 1 year ago
I don't have a problem with Christians. There are so few of them.
sol3a1 1 year ago 27
@sol3a1
Believe who believe in Jesus.....there are A LOT.
AceofDlamonds 4 months ago
funny how those supposedly "good" christians always have to resort to very dishonest methods to get someone to shut up...
83Hammerhead 1 year ago 3
Apply the theory of natural selection to the continuously changing environments and climates caused by plate tectonics. You then realize planet earth has the possibility to create new biological niches all the time and there fore evolution will never stop.
Arunfoyomoney 1 year ago
@Menak666 "make up the molecular machine are able to bond with each other based on laws of chemical bonding"... no, I am not neglecting them, I am using them to help proof the ID hypothesis. Chemical bonding in proteins happens in a very specific way, it is this specific type bonding sequences that is used to develop the algorithms that identify ID. (BTW - where do you think the laws of chemical bonding comes from; laws are there to direct, direction only comes from intelligence)
heinno777 1 year ago
@Menak666 "evolution is not about the origin of life" ...agreed, you are correct, but the two theories are inextricably linked. A supernatural origin of life would render evolution false, as it would imply that evolution is divinely directed, not by chance as per current believe.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 IC claims that the structure could not be assembled by evolution, no where does evolution say that each part has to be selected (from the beginning) to be part of some guided goal. There is nothing in evolution which would argue that sub-sets of structures could not combine, in fact that is exactly how they are proposed to develop such complex systems.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp “in fact that is exactly how they are proposed to develop such complex system” … take the flagellum, why would the filament develop by itself, to combine with the rest of the motor parts if a “propeller need” are not “known” by the cell’s DNA. I can accept the filament developing by chance, but I cannot accept that it could combine just by accident with the rest of the flagellum structures in the specified way required to form a motor.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 Genetic drift can allow structures with no advantage of even a negative advantage to propagate. Essentially there is a period of huge growth where there is no selective pressure and thus even harmful or neutral mutations have the same probability of selection as positive. Then if the population crashes there is a chance that the remaining subset could actually be dominated by the neutral or even harmful mutations.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CliffStamp "be dominated by the neutral or even harmful mutations' ... I can agree with that.
heinno777 1 year ago
Thanks for the info. I will mirror this video later.
macnutz 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "What exactly is this belief that fundamentally stops them from being able to properly"... you have to remember "properly" is defined by the persons who accept the conclusions. The findings is objective, but the conclusions is subjective.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 No, science is based on objective analysis, that is what the methods are developed for, to remove the subjective judgment. For example regression analysis is used for an object measurement of correlation. Again, it is what it means to be scientific to use proper techniques of analysis to produce objective analysis, if you are subject to personal bias you have left science and entered into religion.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "No, science is based on objective analysis, that is what the methods are developed for, to remove the subjective judgment" - the fact that you submit an hypothesis makes you subjective, it is human nature. Why do you think people like Dawkins and Gould have different opinions on information increase in the genome - they have the same data and the same findings available to them.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 Are scientists subjective, yes, but the goal of the science method is to remove this subjective nature and generate knowledge. Peer review builds on this because there is still the possibility of mistake, so take the conclusion and submit it for independent verification, and then after publication it gets another round as other scientists will try to repeat the work, and pick and poke at the ideas until they break.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "pick and poke at the ideas until they break".... are you talking evolution theory?
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 All ideas including evolution are subject to the same peer review process. The theory of evolution has advanced significantly since Darwin and has a number of conflicts, not everyone for example agrees with Dawkins that the gene itself is being selected as it is not "visible", only the genome. Then you have the biggest problem that we do not even know what all the genes do or how they do it.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp" the biggest problem that we do not even know what all the genes do or how they do it"... exactly, this is the area of knowlegde growth that will determine information truely only comes from mind (as is currenlty a law of nature) or if the law can be proven wrong.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 Are you actually saying that once there is a model which shows how DNA was created, under natural conditions, that you will cease to believe in God.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "model which shows how DNA was created, under natural conditions"... I am not sure, it will depend on the model. If it merely explains how the DNA molecules can be formed, probably not, but if the model explains how the information that direct the DNA string formation came about, it will be very hard to have a sound God Hypothesis. Also Abiogenesis will need to be modeld and observed without intelligence/design interference - just natural processes.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 The mechanism for growth of function would be random mutation and natural selection + genetic drift (etc.) .
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "random mutation"... can only reorganise existing code to create new functionality and or morphology - cannot create new code. If there is no code for a single cellular organism to turn into a multi-cellular organism - mutations cannot create it - see the MESA algorithm form ISCID.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 I really don't understand how you can assert random mutation can not produce code, random letter combination for example can easily produce any computer code (Fortran, C, Pascal, javascript, etc.).
Are you arguing that a random process can never form DNA, as once DNA is formed random change can obviously produce any combination required.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "once DNA is formed random change can obviously produce any combination required" .... This is an assumption. There are mathematical models that proof this is not possible. Information is Information it is not matter nor energy - Norbert Wiener. Matter cannot tell a story (write new code). It is like cutting out all the letters of a newspaper and thoughing it on the table and requiring a new story (unknown story) that makes logical sence, and has a purpose.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 The models are again not in peer reviewed literature, they are just unfounded assertions.
Yes that would be exactly true, you could throw up random letters and they will come down into words, a trivial example of a random producing information.
Note all the DNA in all the creatures in the world uses the exact same basic elements (letters if you will) how exactly would you define "new" information.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp - how exactly would you define "new" information.
For information to be identified as information the entity must:
•Contain symbols like letters/pictures or numbers
•Contain a pattern
•Must be meaningful (make sense)
•Be deliberate (formulated to convey an idea, fact, required action, thought)
•Must have purpose
Thus new information must have all of the above - random mutations by definition is not deliberate and have no purpose - therefore it is not new information.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 Ok, you defined information to be a pattern which is formed with intent, that is circular logic. Obviously evolution excludes new information if you constrain in the definition that it can not come from a random source.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp " that is circular logic".... why do you say that?
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 If you define information as having to come from intent (deliberate, purpose, etc.) then by definition it can not come from a random process.
But you can not use that definition to prove evolution can not produce information because you defined it that way, i.e. circular.
It would be like if I argued that violence can not solve conflicts, and I noted to prove that by definition that violence was a physical act which caused a conflict.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "can not use that definition to prove evolution can not produce information because you defined it that way, i.e. circular" ... you are confusing a definition with a premises of argumentation. The definition of information is not an argument, it merely sets the criteria for what information is. I guess in that lies the core of our disagreement. Code without intention and purpose is not information.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 Exactly and that is why it is circular, you have defined "... without intention and purpose is not information", well obviously then a random process can not create information by definition as the definition includes intent.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "Exactly and that is why it is circular" - a definition cannot be circular, only reasoning can be circular. Information in the DNA fit the def:
•It contain symbols like letters: A,U,G,C
•Contain a pattern -Codons, sequences
•Is meaningful (can be interpreted by the protein building mechanisms in the cell and the human mind).
•Is deliberate - formulated to convey a required action, specific to the protein that needs to be synthesized
•Has a purpose – create and sustain life
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 Yes, I was not saying the definition was circular but the argument.
You noted that DNA was proof of Creation because evolution can not produce information and DNA contains information, you then defined information as something being deliberately created (i.e. not random).
You defined information so as to directly support your assertion.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@heinno777 Just look at it this way, what would have to happen to a genome A, what change would be required (forget about how for a second) for you to be convinced there was new information in the changed genome B.
You have no idea what caused it, you are just comparing the two and looking at the effect of the change. What difference would you need to find to conclude, ok, there is new information in genome B.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "What difference would you need to find to conclude, ok, there is new information in genome B".... maybe I should redifine my position: information in the cell can increase based on the variables allowed by the existing information already in the cell. Therefore variation within kinds happens - no argument. The FACT that there is not a single new phyla since the cambrian explosion provide empirical evidence that one kind have not evolved into another kind.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 What exactly is a kind?
Note phyla is a completely arbitrary man-made separation. The only reason we have such divisions is the sparse nature of the taxonomic record. As more information is uncovered a much more sensible convention would be to use a clade based system in which case you would have to define kind to be a clad and the number of nodes would be the number of kinds.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp A Kind has many levels - it is simply a different classification system than mainstream taxonomy. Phyla might be a man made (grouping) but the fact that there 70 phyla's came about in 3 million years and none after that in 55 million years, should be clear historical evidence that evolution picture does not really look like we think it looks.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 Well unless you can define it, then it is not useful to use it in an argument.
How can you support the assertion that evolution notes that phyla have to be continuously created?
Note the actual math behind evolution, the differential equations of population dynamics and mutations, show that evolution is drastically nonlinear and as creatures adapt and fill niches, then the diversity slows as there are no niches left to fill.
(this is a gross simplification)
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "population dynamics and mutations, show that evolution is drastically nonlinear and as creatures adapt and fill niches" .... so accourding to evolution their might be another (better) human species evolving some day?
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 Now that is an interesting question, there are some species which have had almost no change in a very long time as they are very well adapted to their environment and there are also no ability for genetic drift to induce change (severe population crashes and blooms). Where will any species be in a 1000 years, a million, that is simply too complex for us to even begin to answer now aside from speculation.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp 'to answer now aside from speculation'... I think it make sence that in the way I understand evolution that there will be a better humans species thousands of years from now. I wonder what they will think of us (if we still exist). Accourding to creationist thinking, we will just get better within our kind - there will never be 2 kinds of human. I guess time will tel....
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 Considering how much of a struggle we currently have to find out how to be successful (how many help-self guru's exist) we are a blind man walking in a dark room at this stage. Assuming intelligence and empathy are favored to survive, we would be looked at with admiration and respect. I believe the internet and global communication will make a massive sociological impact and in even a hundred years we will be very different than we are now.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CliffStamp 'Well unless you can define it' - "species" is also not clearly defined, but evolutionists claim the development of new species - did you know that a new species was never observed to have evolved in the last 150 years - yet hundreds had gone extict. Seems historical evidence supports creation philosophy.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 So is your answer than in order for it to be new information there has to be a new kind formed?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CliffStamp "new information there has to be a new kind formed".... not always, but generaly yes. There are mathematical models that help scientists understand weather or not a variable is possible based on the make-up of the existing genome. It still seems you are not clear on what I want to say about information, please see: watch?v=Oqm0jCIMSgY&feature=related for a more complete explanation.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 Hmmm. Where exactly are you getting your definitions?
rocas511 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rocas511 "Where exactly are you getting your definitions?".....The definition was formulated by Prof. Dr. Werner Gitt - Head of the Department of Information Technology, German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology. It was published in a peer reviewed article: ‘Information: the third fundamental quantity’ November/December 1989 issue of Siemens Review (Vol. 56, No. 6)
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 I said he does not participate in the science of evolution, not that he does not participate in the field of science. If you want to contribute (either support or dispute) a scientific position then you research and publish, if you intentionally avoid that then you are not participating in the scientific process (in regards to that particular claim). You can still research in other areas but that again lends absolutely no support to any non-published, purely speculative claims.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "said he does not participate in the science of evolution" - if one asks how the evolutionary processes creates a biomechanical design - is that not a contribution?
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 No, contribution is not making unfounded assertions, that is about as unscientific as you could be, the entire foundation of science comes back to a locus and observation, if you ignore this and just heckle from the sidelines that is not a contribution. If you wanted to contribute a refutation then there are means for that in the literature, that is what everyone who desires to contribute uses and it is exactly how evolution has advanced so much since Darwin.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "contribution is not making unfounded assertions"... It seems you are not familiar with his work, he give very clear reasoning for his cliams. ID is to a large extend very misunderstood; you might want to take a look at: watch?v=neTwGPNhrYI not to convince you, just for a better understanding
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 I am familiar with it, and the concepts of IC and specific complexity. In fact as I have stated elsewhere, I believe it could actually be stated as a scientific hypothesis, similar to - evolution proceeds through a mechanism which selects neutral and even destructive variation in order to proceed towards a future positive reproductive goal.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "I am familiar with it, and the concepts of IC and specific complexity" ... are you familiar with it in general terms or on a scientific level. Example, you spoke about computer modeling that shows that the bacterium flagellum could evolve without design, but are you aware of the MESA (monotonic evolutionary simulation algorithm) developed by the International Society of Complexity, Information and Design. This computer model shows that it is impossible.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 Yes, I am aware of it, I have not studied the code. However there are papers in peer reviewed journals which show the exact opposite, that IC structures can be generated by natural evolution. Again if you want to contend that claim the scientific way to do it is ask for the model, verify the proper coding (or contend it) and post the contradictory simulations (being respectful you send them to the original author first).
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp “that IC structures can be generated by natural evolution.” …. Some complex systems can, I agree with that, like the eye for instance, complex, but because it is systems that are combined, there is an evolutionary pathway possible. But if a system is IC there is no evolutionary pathway possible. The end result must be known, before the parts would combine in that way - evolutionists claim evolution is “blind”
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 Ok, how about this, what do you see as different between ID movement and the people who claim men in black, alien abductions, ghosts, dowsing, bigfoot, loch ness monster, spoon bending, etc. .
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "what do you see as different between ID movement and the people who claim men in black, alien abductions, ghosts, dowsing, bigfoot, loch ness monster, spoon bending, etc"... ridicule is not associated with logical debate, I would advise you not to do it engage in this, as it is a complete waste of time, nobody is impressed by it, and everybody knows it.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 That was not ridicule, it was a perfectly valid question, what do you see as the difference. I do have a followup question as well.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp.... “That was not ridicule, it was a perfectly valid question”…. I see the same correlation between the MIB/ghosts/aliens and the evolutionary science field that I see between the MIB/ghosts/aliens and the ID science fields. It is a non sense argument; and you know it – it has nothing to do with the topic.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 Ok, that is a perfectly fine question, what is the difference between evolution research and application and the alien abduction research and application.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CliffStamp... , "what is the difference between evolution research and application and the alien abduction research and application" - you will probably know the answer better than me.
heinno777 1 year ago
@CliffStamp Eolution often get’s theories wrong and further research builds on the faulty assumptions of these studies – cases in point: the evolutionary theory pre-supposed that the human appendix, coccyx, pineal gland and thymus were vestigial organs remnants from previous functions earlier in human evolution – this was captured in all the medical studies and textbooks as “facts” for many years, but the opposite has now been discovered – they serve very real physiological purposes.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 It would be expected that scientists make mistakes, the entire process of science is in fact designed with that in mind. Peer review is the correction method used, you are now citing its value and at the same time trying to defend why ID supporters should not use it. Do you not see the huge contradiction in your argument?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "Peer review is the correction method used"... but what if the guys doing the peer reviewhave studied out of the same text books, and are making the same assumptions that you are.... nobody will spot the mistake
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 This goes back to your assumption that everyone in the peer reviewed process is either incompetent or intentionally biased. If this is the case then yes you will have stagnation of falsehoods. However why is it only the case with evolution and not every other aspect of science? And what do you propose as the alternative, that we eliminate peer review and we just vote on what is valid?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "everyone in the peer reviewed process is either incompetent or intentionally biased'... I never said that; I am just saying that if you judge work based on what you have been tought, you will not find errors if what you have been tought is the same as what you are reviewing. "And what do you propose as the alternative:.....I am not against peer review, it is needed, but it has it's limitations, as scientists we should acknowledge this.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 That is what biased means, you accuse the entire community of scientists who publish in support of evolution of a combination of attribute and diagnosis bias (the inability to analysis data to a correct conclusion due to a presupposed paradigm/conclusion). As a scientist where is the evidence for this assertion? Have you submitted even one refuting paper or even letter to the editor to correct the bias? That is how peer review corrects for mistakes.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "Have you submitted even one refuting paper or even letter to the editor to correct the bias?" .... I am not in research. But there are several papers of this nature - examples:
- The Three Domains of life - A challenge to the universal Ancestor: P Pun, S Shoult
- Bits, Bites and Biology - What Evolutionary Algorithms don't teach us about biology: Eric Anderson (pointing out errors with AVIDA)
- Information as a Measure of Variation - W. Dembski
etc...
-
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 Are there papers in peer reviewed journals, PCID Journal stopped in 2005, and was created and maintained and reviewed for publication by ID fellows.
I could start an online journal tomorrow and start publishing papers supporting a flat earth (there is in fact a society, they have a web site, a newsletters, global members, etc. - though it is not obvious [to me] if they are sincere or not).
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@heinno777 That is the point, there is a non-trivial sub-set of theologians who can not dispute creation by definition, there is no sub-set of scientists who can not dispute any scientific theory by definition. Thus what you are doing is drawing a random sample from an unconstrained set and comparing it to a constrained set, as a simple analogy you are saying because some is true for real numbers then it has to be true for integers (this is false the two sets do not have the same constraints).
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp " (this is false the two sets do not have the same constraints)"... I do not agree with you reasoning here; how do you see the constraints to be different?
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 The set of all scientists has no constraint to accept evolution. You can by definition be a scientist and argue or contend any theory, thus any sample from the set is unbiased in regards to the strength of the theory.
The set of all theologians has constraints in that sub-sets are by definition accepting of creation models (all theists for example). Thus any sample is not an unbiased measure of the strength of the idea.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "by definition accepting of creation models (all theists for example' ...there are deists that are theologians, and believe a deity created matter/time/space and natural laws, but played/plays no role in creation. They believe it all happens undirected by the laws of nature.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 Yes, there are deists, that would be my point, that set (theologians), which by definition have to accept a specific conclusion. Scientists by definition do not have to accept any theory, model or law, thus they form an unbiased set (by definition - not in practice as they are just people) in regards to an scientific assertion being true or not.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "Scientists by definition do not have to accept any theory, model or law, thus they form an unbiased set".. okay, I will accept that my comparison is incorrect, but the point still stands that just because the majority of people believe in something, does not make it true. If the biggest idiot in the world say a blue ball is blue and all everybody else say the ball is red, the idiot is still correct.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 That is true, a show of hands proves nothing. For example the "stasis" in the fossil record is argued by Dawkins that it just happened at another location. But people like Gould argue is shows non-linear speciation. Eventually one side or the other will produce a very strong empirical argument and eventually the contention will be settled. Until that happens at most you can say is there is a significant dispute about what the data means exactly.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp ...“Until that happens at most you can say is there is a significant dispute about what the data means exactly”… and exactly how does this not apply to ID?
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 Because the people who argue string theory vs quantum gravity for example both publish, present papers at conferences, have departments, produce graduate students, etc. . They both contribute significantly to the body of knowledge known as science. If you want to contribute, you have to submit to peer review, the ID supporters do not.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "ID supporters do not".... they will ... the theory is very young - any new concept takes time - Evolution theory also took quite a few years to get a foothold in mainstream science. The point is, they ID concept is growing - fast, there are new societies, discussion groups, books etc poping up all over. It will overtake evolution, as we progress in knowledge of the the biomechanics of the cell, information and design.
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 ID is not a new concept, it is creation. If you think it is not then write down the mathematical model which describes the two and show how it is different. The only thing ID did was remove god and leave it as an unknown so as to avoid the legal ruling that creation was not science. This is clear in the edition of Pandas where creation was replaced with ID in one printing.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp 'ID is not a new concept, it is creation"... I have to disagree - if it was religion agnostics like David Berlinski would not be involved with it - I do agree though that it has serious religious implications....
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 Ok, if ID is not creationism why does it use the exact same textbook aside from removing the word creation and replacing it with ID?
If it is not religion then who is the creator (and the answer has to be scientific for ID to be a scientific concept).
CliffStamp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CliffStamp " the exact same textbook aside from removing the word creation and replacing it with ID"... the same way you cannot remove biology from evolution you cannot remove ID from creation - they are different, but inextricably linked
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 Islam is growing faster than ID, this has no bearing on if it has any scientific validity. Everything you said about ID (societies, discussion, books, etc.) is much stronger for Islam than ID. Thus by your own argument everyone should abandon ID (which generally is promoted by Christians) and switch to Islam.
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@CliffStamp "Islam is growing faster than ID" ....Islam is not a new scientific field, christianity is also growing faster than ID in eastern contries - you cannot compare religious growth with a new direction in science...
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 ID has a best the casual link to science, the people involved have degrees in science. People promoting Islam can make the exact same argument and in fact lecture constantly about the Quran as a scientific document. And again there is way more of them than the ID group, so what exctly is the objective criteria you are using to assess knowledge?
CliffStamp 1 year ago
@umborriquitocomotu "what validity would your "proofs" have for a Hindu or a Buddhist".... I am ignorant re other religions. I suspect the idea that there is a creator is somehow hardwired into everybody - hence the fact that more than 85% of the worlds population believe in some sort of a creator/deity.
heinno777 1 year ago
@umborriquitocomotu.."theists or ex-theists is irrelevant".... only if you are ignorant re the fields contend ... there is ESTABLISHED historical facts, like Jesus's existence and resurrection - all historians agrees - these guys studies theology for 7 years - they know the field - and their beliefs are grounded in sound facts and philosophy, not superstition. Unless you have studied theology - you cannot really comment re its validity
heinno777 1 year ago
@heinno777 if apes had 50 and we had 44 at any point then evolution would have been fucked. the point is, humans have 23 chromosome pairs, apes have 24. 22 of the pairs are similar between humans and apes. the remaining two ape chromosomes appear to have joined, they are similar to each half of the remaining human chromosome. this is how we know it had to do with the apes 48 because we had 48 at one point in time, because we share an ancestor with these apes. idk how more clear this can be
ihmen 1 year ago
@umborriquitocomotu "Don't hold your breath" - regarding what?
heinno777 1 year ago
I'll go for the ladder that they're just stupid... I mean what are creationists if not stupid.
mrx0066600 1 year ago
@heinno777 So the fact that here you have a gene which (this is important) never existed at any point in the 4 billion years and suddenly after only a few generations it is suddenly there means nothing. If this helps you sleep at night then go for it. Personally, I think that's about as retarded (no offense) as saying a newbor