Looks like that guy is the one who doesn't know anything about the subject. He doesn't realize that 99% of the reputable scientists accept evolution as true, and that the nutters who say otherwise are just a crazy fringegroup? Boy has he been deluded, the poor guy.
The only place evolution is not a fact is in religious peoples minds, but other than that it is a fact to the rest of the world. great vid. most people don't understand what a scientific theory.
Christians think of a theory as random thoughts of how things are or how things work, not that they must go through a peer review system to test said theory to see if it is a fact. on top of this scientific theorys are always being tested when new data is found.
A tiny detail you maybe want to add if you do make more videos in the future is the concept of hypothesis, but that is not quite as important though - stil 5/5 ^^
so called intelligent design has had it day in court in the USA by a judge appointed by Bush a christian Judge , in the Dover case
and what happened . the evidence for evolution was so overwhelming and every argument against it was blown away ,the the judge stated that ID was not a science and just religion based on no evidence .
that is a fact! ID is not science the law has said so .
I like the way you say "the how" at 1:43. Huge turn on! I bet you did that on purpose just to sound stylish in your speech. But then you did the thing with your nose at 2:46. =-(
''OK, prove that objects make information and you will get a Nobel prize.''
Making and new information. Can you establish a positive ontology for both these terms?
The problem with you and most creationist is that they don't care about science or the truth or the advancement of humanity.
All creationists seem to care about is attacking anything that challenges what their favorite holy book says, no matter how inane, inaccurate and immoral said holy books are.
For your own benefit, here's a quick semantics tip:
Empirical: 1. Pertaining to or based on experience. 2. Pertaining to, derived from, or testable by observations made using the physical senses or using instruments which extend the senses. 3. Verifiable by means of scientific experimentation.
Tangible: 1. able to be touched or felt; perceptible by the sense of touch; palpable 2. possible to be treated as fact; real or concrete 3. comprehensible by the mind; understandable
''Muslim teaching is basically the same and it is only 1400 years old. Buddhism is idolatry.''
This is agin another utter lie. I challenge you to find a Muslim who believes that Jesus is the only way to Heaven.
Your half-assed claim about Buddhism is not only offensively stupid but condescendent, Mr.Seek.
Furthermore, I am pretty much sure they would say the same thing about YOUR religion as well. In fact, every other religion would claim theirs as true and others as idolatry.
''There is no other account that covers everything that happened although there are over 200 accounts of the same flood.''
Now this is a lie. If we believe the account made in the bible, Noah and his family were the only ones to have survived this flood. How on Earth could there be any more accounts except theirs?
Any other account would be made several generations after them and wouldn't be first hand.
And this isn't even the biggest problem. How do you fit millions of animals in on boat?
''Intelligent design doesn't have to address anything other than the observable fact of design and that is a lot more than evolution can say.''
Then what is taking so long for the creationist scientists (oxymoron here) to produce even ONE peer reviewed scientific paper? You'd think that 2000 years would be enough...
Also, what if they discover that in the end, the Muslim creationism account was the true one? Or the Buddhist one? Ect..
Creationism isn't exclusive to your religion Mr.Seek.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Ever read the Bible? It's pointless to try to top what the Bible says. The most that we can do is agree with it. The first mention of Christ was 6010 years ago. Dinosaurs were also described. The flood event was also described. Environmental changes in the earth were also described.
There is no other account that covers everything that happened although there are over 200 accounts of the same flood.
Muslim teaching is basically the same and it is only 1400 years old. Buddhism is idolatry.
You forgot to mention that an flat Earth supported by pillars and encase in a watery dome is also described. Talking donkey, snakes, virgin births, etc.
''There is plenty of peer reviewed science that shows that evolution, of more than 200,000 proteins in particular, is absolutely impossible. Look it up.''
I am sure that there are also many early peer reviewed scientific papers saying that you can't put water ablaze.
Does that mean that combustion is false because of that?
There are also people that say that dragons could not breath fire but are you really so sure of that? That is a lot more possible than objects and proteins making themselves or being made without the information to make them.
You just said yourself that water burns.
Check this out! A fire breathing dragon is more likely than evolution billions of times over!!! LOL!!!
Mulsims came into existence no more than some 1400 years ago. The first mention of Christ was 6010 years ago give or take a few years. The "tangible and emperical evidence" is that "it is written". "It is written" is much more powerful than you know.
It is true that there is peer reviewed science that shows that evolution is absolutely impossible. Creation is not a claim because it is an observable fact. The evidence shows there is a Designer/Creator/God. Who that Creator is, is for us to investigate. I already have my convictions as to who the Creator is. The Creator would not be so mean as to make us and then not show His face. He would find a way to show us His face even though we are not even worthy of it. Put two and two together.
''There is plenty of peer reviewed science that shows that evolution, of more than 200,000 proteins in particular, is absolutely impossible. Look it up.''
Wow! Can you please, give me the link to even one of these papers?
Great video. I have only two quibbles. Substantiation isn't really relevant to being called a scientific theory. One could refer to scientific theories that are tentative or highly speculative theory (string theory, M-theory), or even rejected (phlogiston). The decisive property is coherence - a manner of understanding a domain of physical phenomena that allows one to explain and (at least theoretically) predict. "Theory" doesn't connote uncertainty, but it doesn't connote confidence either.
My second quibble is petty, but anyway: Only a very tiny subset of the physical regularities science detects are enshrined as "laws." A law might not even refer to directly detectable physical regularities. The point of a law is that it crystallizes a single salient relationship from which all manner of other relationships (especially the specific and tangible, hence testable) can be deduced (usually mathematically derived).
Soooo, just wondering. From which country do you hail? I don't want to guess because it might only insult you lol. I know I don't like people assuming I'm American so you probably wouldn't want some one assuming you're... Scottish? Irish? British? Israeli? lol. Just out of curiosity.
You display intellectual dishonesty of such high level that I am starting to wonder if you aren't just acting this irrational on purpose. A prank perhaps?
You know I brought up Poe's law a long time ago, but I don't think he knows what it is. At least he never responded to the question of if he was jerking us around. I've seen him on other boards though, his arguments don't really seem to change much.
''The truth is that the real truth is just too shocking for you to realize there is more basis for intelligent design than you thought.''
For the love of Mike! I lost interest in your vacuous discourse a month ago. When someone will win the Nobel for Intelligence design, then I'll consider it as something more than a fairytale.
There is no glory for saying or doing the right thing in an evil world. If you haven't realized that by now, you need to realize that people of the world don't want to know the real truth. You are evidence of that yourself.
Listen Mr.Hide I was a christian for most of my life. I found that if you take your "truth" and applied it to real life that it failed on moral, scientific, and logical levels. The only level it was left with is the imaginary level, and it isn't very strong there.
A true Christian, by definition, never becomes anything else. You just lied. The God's true word does work on every level except the imaginary level. The imaginary level is reserved for evolutionists because evolution is nothing more than imagination and giving the credit (glory) to objects.
You and you creationists are so happy with your genealogies, you like 'em so much you have two. Waaaaaait a second how can one person have two genealogies.
If you aren't going to bring any evidence or peer reviewed scientific papers to support ID, I really don't need to hear more about your broken disc arguments.
This video's comments backlog is sufficient for that.
It is too bad that common sense and observable intelligent design is not good enough for you. There is plenty of peer reviewed science that shows that evolution, of more than 200,000 proteins in particular, is absolutely impossible. Look it up.
What you have seen is nothing more than the variation of species from preexisting designs. That is NOT evolution. It is a credit to the preexisting design that has variations.
''Stop trippin' and get back to reality. The Bible is actual recorded history that has been proven hundreds of times over.''
Put your money where you mouth is, by whom? If you are going to invoke Josephus or Tacitus, I am stopping you right here, their writings have been doctored by Christians.
Geologists prove the authenticity of Scripture every time they find another ancient city from information contained in the Bible. Christians did not even have possession of Josephus' writings and there were too many copies for anyone to change anything. You have very poor information.
Each of your arguments failed to convince the scientific community. Why don't you go get your science credentials and go help your creation scientists friends if you are so adamant that ID is true?
Why if ID is so obvious and true, haven't we seen anyone winning the Nobel for it yet? Why isn't it a science yet? Why aren't we deriving practical uses from it? Why hasn't it spawned new science fields yet?
''I have said repeatedly that Intelligent Design would teach that life forms are designed. It would not make an assertion as to who the Designer is.''
Basically, it would teach that God done it. This has no explanatory power at all.
''I have already told you that to agree with ID, you have to agree that there is a Designer/Creator/God and the court system is not ready to do that because it is an objective declaration by a court that there is a Designer/Creator/God.''
I am sorry Mr. Seek, but this is a total non sequitur.
Beliefs don't inform reality. It is the other way around.
What the ID proponents had to do is present the evidence that corroborates their beliefs and their claims.
No court decision is able to change digital intelligent design. They can make a hundred determinations and digital intelligent design will still be digital intelligent design.
If the courts want to exist in denial that's their problem. I'm sure that I could make a case but I have nothing to do with any (illegal) intent or preconceived determination by the courts that may exist.
We have to go where evidence leads us and for 6000 years intelligent design has been the best explanation because of the fact that everything reproduces after its design. Intelligent design as such is the only science that has not needed to change. ID has been around longer than the courts.
''We have to go where evidence leads us and for 6000 years intelligent design has been the best explanation because of the fact that everything reproduces after its design.''
If the evidence is so obvious where is the ID theory? The god theory, or why isn't ID a science yet?
What will it teach in schools? What applications can we derive from it?
are you talking with Seekmosttoprophesy? LOL I've been going back and forty for a few days now with him I dont think he understands his theory destroys God besides just evolution. If you look down he already admits ID is only theology not science then he goes on to say it cannot be denied as science. personally I think he might be a bit coo coo LOL
Yeah, I'm arguing the guy. I was the person that responded to his stupidity first. If I remember correctly, he was calling evoltuion "just a theory"; something I found funny on a video explaining what a theory is.
ID has been a fact for 6000 years and it not about to become falsified.
ID curriculum would be only that there is a Designer. That's it.
Who that Designer is, would not be speculated in the classroom. That is a discussion of theology. The possibilities are objects, nature (which is the same thing as objects) Abraham's God, Buddha's god (whoever that is), Mohammed's Allah (which is the Arab version of the God of Israel) etc.
Yeah, and who is the judge that wants to put his career in jeopardy by reversing so many determinations? The wave of public opinion has to be a lot stronger especially among the scientists themselves to want to jeopardise their scientific careers.
ID is nothing more and nothing less than the fact that we are intelligently designed. Our design is of an intelligent origin because it is what gives us the intelligence that we have. To deny that is to deny the obvious truth. Even IF it was nature!
I have already told you that to agree with ID, you have to agree that there is a Designer/Creator/God and the court system is not ready to do that because it is an objective declaration by a court that there is a Designer/Creator/God.
Naturalism does not have intelligence so it cannot produce intelligence. Only intelligence can replicate intelligence. Objects do not have intelligence. The courts cannot prove that objects have intelligence. This means they have avoided the real issues.
As I said before, you have enterd an infinite regression. Maybe you don't get it, if it takes intelligence to make intelligence, then there are infinite intelligent beings made before we were made.
We have come to the end of all nonsense. To date, no algorithm has ever been able to make a life form. The proves that evolution is totally and utterly impossible billions of times over. Take this fact and show all your teachers that evolution is utter nonsense.
"To date" is a key word in that statement. Besides that, you are now arguing abiogenisis. Evolution only deals with life after it got here. When I was in highschool, last year, abiogenisis was not taught. Remember what you are arguing against.
No, I do not have to agree that the Creator was Created because there is absolutely nothing in the entire known universe that is greater than our Designer/Creator/God.
The same basic interchangeable designed elements that cause life to function are the same basic interchangeable designed elements of the entire universe.
''No, I do not have to agree that the Creator was Created because there is absolutely nothing in the entire known universe that is greater than our Designer/Creator/God.''
This world is not for us Christians and that is the reason why you don't see us trying to control everything like people in this world do.
Our only concern is that the truth is told and if evolution gets in the way of that objective, we have to expose the speculation, conjecture, imagination and other false information. It's that simple.
Then why aren't you arguing againsy organized religion? Some of it has to be speculation, conjecture, imagination, and false information. You can tackle objective evidence another day.
You gave me a nod in the sidebar. That was a nice thing to do. But if you think it removes your name from my book of vengeance you will get a nasty shock one day. Moo ha ha, as Vincent Price would say.
Honestly, Phil, what does it take to get removed from that book of yours? You wouldn't be mean to a poor defenceless , more importantly, very sweet girl now would you???
I have been discussing and debating with you for a long time now Mr.Seek. I have asked you time and time again to point me to the evidence that supports ID or creationism.
So far, you presented even less than the people who were defending it in the court case I mentioned (I really though Michael Behe would astonish us).
Is that evidence that ID is false? Not exactly. It simply shows that when it really mattered, defenders of ID failed to put their money where their mouth were.
It was not so much about whether ID was true or not. That was not even considered. It was more about whether religious people were using ID to get their version of Creation into the classroom. It was a clear and obvious attempt to call their version of Creation, intelligent design. Still intelligent design is far more scientific than evolution. Intelligent design, after all, is observable digital information on the nanoscale that is six feet long! It is observable and it always recopies itself.
If they had proven that ID was valid, the court would be declaring that there's a Creator. Don't you think that's far too much burden to place on one man to prove that? He was out numbered and it's not justice and it's not a determination of truth. Everyone has far too much to lose to allow the determination that there's a Creator. That is the reason the verdict was copied word for word from evolutionist propaganda. No one wanted to face the outcome of that kind of verdict. So the truth suffers.
Let's say that "Nature" is the intelligent designer. You have to show how the things of Nature (objects) are intelligent. You can start your own belief that objects make information and you can give credit to objects for everything that they have given you. It doesn't make a very good argument but that is one supposed possibility of an intelligent designer.
This doesn't account for the utterly failure of the proponent in US courts. They are much more knowledgeable scientifically than both of us and failed not once,or twice, but 17 times.
If they couldn't defend their position against a supposedly false theory in front of the legal system, how are they going to do so in front of the scientific community?
''Still intelligent design is far more scientific than evolution.''
I have a question I like to ask to ID defenders.
Let's admit for the sake of discussion that ID is taught in schools. What would its curriculum be composed of, assuming it would receive three two hours sessions per week?
It would not have anything about theology because that is a matter of the congregations, churches, synagogues mosques or whatever.
The only thing that ID says is that there is an Intelligent Designer. Who that Intelligent Designer is depends on what belief a person has. Still the fact remains that we do have visible evidence of an Intelligent Designer/Creator/God who is greater than every known thing in the entire known universe.
You obviously don't understand the purpose of science. It is about explaining nature, finding practical applications (something we have asked for but you seem unable to do so), saying how when and why.
''The variation of species is a part of the preexisting design.''
So if I understand, according to you evolution is moot, but is somehow part of your ID preexisting design?
Or did the intelligent designer magically poof the species into adapting to their environment? Or maybe it changed them on a whim? Or did it just to give us more stuff to name? Or to further make it less obvious he exists?
Evolution and mutation has nothing to do with anything that we see. Good evolution and good mutations do not happen. The ONLY change in the preexisting design is a degradation of the preexisting information that is of an intelligent origin.
Beneficial mutations have been pointed out to you, one that you can't really argue is the mutation found in Europe that can prevent AIDS. Other examples include perfect pitch, nylon digesting bacteria, and adaptation to high and low temperatures by E. coli. Some changes are useful.
You would think that the mutation to prevent AIDS would have been found in Africa. The fact that it was not, means that it was more than likely coincidental. Neither nylon or bacteria or pitch nor e coli will ever change into a cat. The variation of species is from the preexisting design that was already there.
Actually it popping up in Europe is evidence that mutations are random. With creationists use of strawmen I sometimes wonder if they really do disagree with evolution, or if there is some passage in the bible that I haven't heard against strawmen.
No Mr, Seek. It is not know well because even the defender of this hypothesis don't know what it is about.
ID is basically a negative claim against the theory of evolution.
It doesn't answer anything at all like, how did the intelligent designer designed, why he did it, when he did it and most importantly what is that designer.
What you seem to be oblivious to Mr. Seek is that you can't explain a mystery by invoking an even bigger one. This isn't science.
I try, lol! But I really want to understand their motivation, to know what their reasons are.
No one can be this gung-ho on a position without any good reason (at least I hope).
I have never been confronted to fundamentalists before getting online. Most theist I met so far were very moderate and rational, albeit when it comes to religion.
We do have them in Canada too but they tend to be more on the west side of our country, around Alberta.
Evolution has no evidence. ID is not a counter claim to evolution because intelligent design has been around for 6000 years. Evolution is the counter claim for Creation and it is evolution that is losing out faster than you know.
It doesn't matter who what how why or when the Designer designed and made us (other than showing the validity of historical records that we have of Creation), the only thing that does matter is that we were designed and that we were Created because it is a fact.
Creation/ID is the counterclaim against everyother creation story that came around before it, we have records of them.
If the specifics don't matter, then it is not scientific. There is no evidence that we are created, your DNA is not similar to dust nor does dust always have DNA. Creation is as much fact as the magical teapot floating above your head, don't bother looking for it because it's invisible.
''ID is not a counter claim to evolution because intelligent design has been around for 6000 years.''
Then way isn't it a science yet? Are the ID scientist so lazy, incompetent or scrambling to find evidence that the can't submit even ONE peer reviewed scientific paper?
If ID is true, please, name me one scientific field that has been created out of it. Also tell me how it explains vestigial genes for teeth in chicken and legs for whales?
''ID is not a counter claim to evolution because intelligent design has been around for 6000 years.''
Then please, for the love of Mike, explain what ID is! For weeks you've been arguing that evolution is moot because of x,y,z, thus making ID true (which is a blatant lie), but you have yet to say what is ID's claims? What would it curriculum be made of it it were taught in a science class?
ID is nothing more than the fact that our design is of an intelligent origin. No one is insisting on who that Designer is but it is clear that He is greater than every known thing in the entire known universe. To deny this is to deny the facts. You can believe whatever you want but the facts are facts and facts are what have to be taught in schools. Evolution is not a fact so it has NO place in our school systems. Evolution is a belief not an observable fact like intelligent design is.
Actually you, and everyone I have seen arguing for it, claim it to be the Judeo-Christian God. Evolution is observed, and proven to a near undenible point.
I have a question about ID. Assuming it is science, what would falsify it? All things in science are falsifiable, so what would do it for ID?
Looks like that guy is the one who doesn't know anything about the subject. He doesn't realize that 99% of the reputable scientists accept evolution as true, and that the nutters who say otherwise are just a crazy fringegroup? Boy has he been deluded, the poor guy.
Mithcoriel 1 year ago
The only place evolution is not a fact is in religious peoples minds, but other than that it is a fact to the rest of the world. great vid. most people don't understand what a scientific theory.
Christians think of a theory as random thoughts of how things are or how things work, not that they must go through a peer review system to test said theory to see if it is a fact. on top of this scientific theorys are always being tested when new data is found.
noproofforjesus 2 years ago 2
are you really blind? how type and make your vids?
nlytend1 2 years ago
watch?v=en5wzmZ1Q0I
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
Comment removed
RythymJunkie 2 years ago
Comment removed
RythymJunkie 2 years ago
@Atheistblindchick therefore evolution is merely a hypothesis?
bornbythesea 1 year ago
Good video, short, and to the point :)
A tiny detail you maybe want to add if you do make more videos in the future is the concept of hypothesis, but that is not quite as important though - stil 5/5 ^^
GronTheMighty 2 years ago 3
EVOLUTION*IS*FACT,holy*shit*these*people*are*dumb
IRONMAN357 2 years ago
Evolution is fact to those whom
understand it, fiction to the rest.
thevoiceofreason02 2 years ago
so called intelligent design has had it day in court in the USA by a judge appointed by Bush a christian Judge , in the Dover case
and what happened . the evidence for evolution was so overwhelming and every argument against it was blown away ,the the judge stated that ID was not a science and just religion based on no evidence .
that is a fact! ID is not science the law has said so .
crissyhowes 2 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
God and creation are compatible with some or all of modern scientific theory.
crowmagnit 3 years ago
I like the way you say "the how" at 1:43. Huge turn on! I bet you did that on purpose just to sound stylish in your speech. But then you did the thing with your nose at 2:46. =-(
crowmagnit 3 years ago
Did you see The Inauguration today? Did you see when the two priest prayed. What did you think?
crowmagnit 3 years ago
I thought ... what a waste of time.
draagon66 2 years ago
''OK, prove that objects make information and you will get a Nobel prize.''
Wow! I see what you are doing there! Using my very own sarcasm/observation on me!
''The entire unbelieving world is waiting for that proof.''
If you consider your neck of the wood as the whole world, then you are not only an ignoramus but a chauvinistic one at that.
In all seriousness, if ID is so obvious and supported by mountains of evidence, why didn't anyone win the Nobel for it yet?
wynd2007 3 years ago
''OK, prove that objects make information and you will get a Nobel prize.''
Making and new information. Can you establish a positive ontology for both these terms?
The problem with you and most creationist is that they don't care about science or the truth or the advancement of humanity.
All creationists seem to care about is attacking anything that challenges what their favorite holy book says, no matter how inane, inaccurate and immoral said holy books are.
wynd2007 3 years ago
For your own benefit, here's a quick semantics tip:
Empirical: 1. Pertaining to or based on experience. 2. Pertaining to, derived from, or testable by observations made using the physical senses or using instruments which extend the senses. 3. Verifiable by means of scientific experimentation.
Tangible: 1. able to be touched or felt; perceptible by the sense of touch; palpable 2. possible to be treated as fact; real or concrete 3. comprehensible by the mind; understandable
wynd2007 3 years ago
''Muslim teaching is basically the same and it is only 1400 years old. Buddhism is idolatry.''
This is agin another utter lie. I challenge you to find a Muslim who believes that Jesus is the only way to Heaven.
Your half-assed claim about Buddhism is not only offensively stupid but condescendent, Mr.Seek.
Furthermore, I am pretty much sure they would say the same thing about YOUR religion as well. In fact, every other religion would claim theirs as true and others as idolatry.
wynd2007 3 years ago
''There is no other account that covers everything that happened although there are over 200 accounts of the same flood.''
Now this is a lie. If we believe the account made in the bible, Noah and his family were the only ones to have survived this flood. How on Earth could there be any more accounts except theirs?
Any other account would be made several generations after them and wouldn't be first hand.
And this isn't even the biggest problem. How do you fit millions of animals in on boat?
wynd2007 3 years ago
''Intelligent design doesn't have to address anything other than the observable fact of design and that is a lot more than evolution can say.''
Then what is taking so long for the creationist scientists (oxymoron here) to produce even ONE peer reviewed scientific paper? You'd think that 2000 years would be enough...
Also, what if they discover that in the end, the Muslim creationism account was the true one? Or the Buddhist one? Ect..
Creationism isn't exclusive to your religion Mr.Seek.
wynd2007 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ever read the Bible? It's pointless to try to top what the Bible says. The most that we can do is agree with it. The first mention of Christ was 6010 years ago. Dinosaurs were also described. The flood event was also described. Environmental changes in the earth were also described.
There is no other account that covers everything that happened although there are over 200 accounts of the same flood.
Muslim teaching is basically the same and it is only 1400 years old. Buddhism is idolatry.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
This line of reasoning is fallacious. Your book isn't any more evidence than any other holy book.
If it were, it would've been substantiated with tangible evidence eons ago.
wynd2007 3 years ago
You forgot to mention that an flat Earth supported by pillars and encase in a watery dome is also described. Talking donkey, snakes, virgin births, etc.
wynd2007 3 years ago
"Ever read the Bible?"
Yes.
"The most that we can do is agree with it."
Only if we are brainless.
"Dinosaurs were also described."
No they weren't.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago 14
''There is plenty of peer reviewed science that shows that evolution, of more than 200,000 proteins in particular, is absolutely impossible. Look it up.''
I am sure that there are also many early peer reviewed scientific papers saying that you can't put water ablaze.
Does that mean that combustion is false because of that?
wynd2007 3 years ago
There are also people that say that dragons could not breath fire but are you really so sure of that? That is a lot more possible than objects and proteins making themselves or being made without the information to make them.
You just said yourself that water burns.
Check this out! A fire breathing dragon is more likely than evolution billions of times over!!! LOL!!!
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
''You just said yourself that water burns.''
If this is what you believe my analogy meant, then I am sorry to inform you that you are a moron Mr. Seek.
Pay attention and read it again.
wynd2007 3 years ago
''I know that there are many assumptions about the Bible that are totally false. I have seen a lot of evidence that what the Bible says is true.''
So what? Muslims can say the very thing about their Quran. That doesn't make their book anymore true than yours.
Tangible and empirical evidence would be great.
wynd2007 3 years ago
Mulsims came into existence no more than some 1400 years ago. The first mention of Christ was 6010 years ago give or take a few years. The "tangible and emperical evidence" is that "it is written". "It is written" is much more powerful than you know.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
''The "tangible and emperical evidence" is that "it is written". "It is written" is much more powerful than you know.''
And you know this is an utter lie. Your book isn't any more ''tangible'' evidence than the Odyssey is evidence that Greek gods existed.
wynd2007 3 years ago
''The "tangible and emperical evidence" is that "it is written". "It is written" is much more powerful than you know.''
Just because something is written doesn't mean it is true. In the real world, claims need to stand on their own merits.
Using you fallacious logic, one could claim for instance that Spiderman only because there is a written record of such character.
Also, any other religion could also claim their's as true because of their holy books...Oh wait, they actually do!
wynd2007 3 years ago
''There is plenty of peer reviewed science that shows that evolution, of more than 200,000 proteins in particular, is absolutely impossible.''
Even if this claim of yours is true, in what way does it make Creationism, or what I call it, magic man done it, true?
Disproving A doesn't make B true.
wynd2007 3 years ago
It is true that there is peer reviewed science that shows that evolution is absolutely impossible. Creation is not a claim because it is an observable fact. The evidence shows there is a Designer/Creator/God. Who that Creator is, is for us to investigate. I already have my convictions as to who the Creator is. The Creator would not be so mean as to make us and then not show His face. He would find a way to show us His face even though we are not even worthy of it. Put two and two together.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
''There is plenty of peer reviewed science that shows that evolution, of more than 200,000 proteins in particular, is absolutely impossible. Look it up.''
Wow! Can you please, give me the link to even one of these papers?
wynd2007 3 years ago
Just do a search on the impossibility of proteins.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
''Just do a search on the impossibility of proteins. ''
And I would recommend you a research on intellectual honesty.
wynd2007 3 years ago
The Law of Evolution would simply be "Things Evolve" :)
Teirusu155 3 years ago
How about the law that objects do not make information?
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
You are not allowed to pull laws out of your ass, science just doesn't work that way.
westfalla 3 years ago 2
OK, prove that objects make information and you will get a Nobel prize. The entire unbelieving world is waiting for that proof.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
''How about the law that objects do not make information?''
How about the law that wishing things into existence is highly illogical and impossible?
wynd2007 3 years ago
Great video. I have only two quibbles. Substantiation isn't really relevant to being called a scientific theory. One could refer to scientific theories that are tentative or highly speculative theory (string theory, M-theory), or even rejected (phlogiston). The decisive property is coherence - a manner of understanding a domain of physical phenomena that allows one to explain and (at least theoretically) predict. "Theory" doesn't connote uncertainty, but it doesn't connote confidence either.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 years ago
My second quibble is petty, but anyway: Only a very tiny subset of the physical regularities science detects are enshrined as "laws." A law might not even refer to directly detectable physical regularities. The point of a law is that it crystallizes a single salient relationship from which all manner of other relationships (especially the specific and tangible, hence testable) can be deduced (usually mathematically derived).
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 years ago
Great video! 5 out of 5 and favorite!
soulinite 3 years ago
Very good example and great explination
metalorg 3 years ago
Soooo, just wondering. From which country do you hail? I don't want to guess because it might only insult you lol. I know I don't like people assuming I'm American so you probably wouldn't want some one assuming you're... Scottish? Irish? British? Israeli? lol. Just out of curiosity.
VitaminTMan 3 years ago
cool video and clearly put! you sound so poorly thought, hope your better now ^^
ss3012a 3 years ago
Poorly thought?
Koujinkamu 3 years ago
"Poorly thought?"
I think they meant "poorly, though"
ProcInc 3 years ago
You display intellectual dishonesty of such high level that I am starting to wonder if you aren't just acting this irrational on purpose. A prank perhaps?
If it is one, ah-ah, good one Mr.Seek.
wynd2007 3 years ago
Now on the other hand, if you are being serious, Ay Chihuahua!!
wynd2007 3 years ago
You know I brought up Poe's law a long time ago, but I don't think he knows what it is. At least he never responded to the question of if he was jerking us around. I've seen him on other boards though, his arguments don't really seem to change much.
westfalla 3 years ago
The truth is that the real truth is just too shocking for you to realize there is more basis for intelligent design than you thought.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
''The truth is that the real truth is just too shocking for you to realize there is more basis for intelligent design than you thought.''
For the love of Mike! I lost interest in your vacuous discourse a month ago. When someone will win the Nobel for Intelligence design, then I'll consider it as something more than a fairytale.
Goodnight Mr.Seek
wynd2007 3 years ago
There is no glory for saying or doing the right thing in an evil world. If you haven't realized that by now, you need to realize that people of the world don't want to know the real truth. You are evidence of that yourself.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
''The truth is that the real truth is just too shocking for you to realize there is more basis for intelligent design than you thought.''
Of course! And it is the bad scientists and the evil judges who conspired together to rule ID out 17 times in a row from the courts of justice.
Playing the victim card is useless and a very weak strategy.
wynd2007 3 years ago
The ONLY victims here are those who believe that objects make information.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Listen Mr.Hide I was a christian for most of my life. I found that if you take your "truth" and applied it to real life that it failed on moral, scientific, and logical levels. The only level it was left with is the imaginary level, and it isn't very strong there.
westfalla 3 years ago
A true Christian, by definition, never becomes anything else. You just lied. The God's true word does work on every level except the imaginary level. The imaginary level is reserved for evolutionists because evolution is nothing more than imagination and giving the credit (glory) to objects.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
''The Bible covers history going back 6000 years.''
The belief that the Earth is flat is even older than your bible. Does it make it true?
wynd2007 3 years ago
There is no real evidence of any history of any people using real genealogies that is older than 6010 years.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
You and you creationists are so happy with your genealogies, you like 'em so much you have two. Waaaaaait a second how can one person have two genealogies.
westfalla 3 years ago
One genealogy is through the mother and the other is through the person that married the mother.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
If you aren't going to bring any evidence or peer reviewed scientific papers to support ID, I really don't need to hear more about your broken disc arguments.
This video's comments backlog is sufficient for that.
wynd2007 3 years ago 2
It is too bad that common sense and observable intelligent design is not good enough for you. There is plenty of peer reviewed science that shows that evolution, of more than 200,000 proteins in particular, is absolutely impossible. Look it up.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
The theory of evolution and abiogenesis are two separate entities, Mr.Seek.
wynd2007 3 years ago
The theory of evolution and abiogenesis are two separate entities and evolution is MORE impossible than "abiogenesis".
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
It's so impossible that we've seen it...
westfalla 3 years ago
What you have seen is nothing more than the variation of species from preexisting designs. That is NOT evolution. It is a credit to the preexisting design that has variations.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Substantiate this with a peer reviewed scientific paper please Mr. Seek. Unless you can, you are again pulling things out of your rear end.
wynd2007 3 years ago
Why hasn't ID been accepted as a science yet? Why haven't new science field been build upon it? Why haven't anybody won a Nobel for it yet?
wynd2007 3 years ago
You can't have evolution without life forms and you still can't have evolution anyway without billions of consecutive abiogenesises.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
saying that evolution doesn't work because of x,y,z is moot. This doesn't prove ID is true. This is a false dichotomy.
You are consistently committing logical fallacies after the other.
wynd2007 3 years ago
''You can't have evolution without life forms and you still can't have evolution anyway without billions of consecutive abiogenesises.''
Educate yourself. Speak to your local biologist.
wynd2007 3 years ago
If you don't know the many incongruencies of the bible, then you should shut up and read your stupid book instead of preaching it.
westfalla 3 years ago
I know that there are many assumptions about the Bible that are totally false. I have seen a lot of evidence that what the Bible says is true.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Using the bible to prove a godis is as ludicrous as using an issue of Spiderman to prove that superheroes exist.
wynd2007 3 years ago
Stop trippin' and get back to reality. The Bible is actual recorded history that has been proven hundreds of times over.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
''Stop trippin' and get back to reality. The Bible is actual recorded history that has been proven hundreds of times over.''
Put your money where you mouth is, by whom? If you are going to invoke Josephus or Tacitus, I am stopping you right here, their writings have been doctored by Christians.
wynd2007 3 years ago
Geologists prove the authenticity of Scripture every time they find another ancient city from information contained in the Bible. Christians did not even have possession of Josephus' writings and there were too many copies for anyone to change anything. You have very poor information.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
The story of Ulysses is even older than the Bible, does it make it true?
wynd2007 3 years ago
Each of your arguments failed to convince the scientific community. Why don't you go get your science credentials and go help your creation scientists friends if you are so adamant that ID is true?
wynd2007 3 years ago
''Evolution is the only thing that I know of that is incongruent.''
Arguments from ignorance or incredulity are gross fallacies.
wynd2007 3 years ago
''Stop saying silly things.''
Educate yourself. Speak to biologists.
wynd2007 3 years ago
Why if ID is so obvious and true, haven't we seen anyone winning the Nobel for it yet? Why isn't it a science yet? Why aren't we deriving practical uses from it? Why hasn't it spawned new science fields yet?
wynd2007 3 years ago
Intelligent design is as old as the hills so no one will ever get any credit for it.
I have said that repeatedly too.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
''Intelligent design is as old as the hills so no one will ever get any credit for it.
I have said that repeatedly too.''
The universe is billions of years old and people get Nobel prizes all the time for figuring out new things about it.
wynd2007 3 years ago
The age of the universe is irrelevant to the age of life on earth.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
You still haven't told me what would ID teach if it were given a class...
wynd2007 3 years ago
I have said repeatedly that Intelligent Design would teach that life forms are designed. It would not make an assertion as to who the Designer is.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
''I have said repeatedly that Intelligent Design would teach that life forms are designed. It would not make an assertion as to who the Designer is.''
Basically, it would teach that God done it. This has no explanatory power at all.
It doesn't say how, when, why he done it.
wynd2007 3 years ago
Intelligent design doesn't have to address anything other than the observable fact of design and that is a lot more than evolution can say.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
ID has been defeated 17 times. 17. Why?
wynd2007 3 years ago
Is it because all the ID defenders were using the same arguments you are doing right now?
wynd2007 3 years ago
It is called fear and denial. That is the reason why a court cannot recognize the fact of intelligent design.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
''It is called fear and denial. That is the reason why a court cannot recognize the fact of intelligent design.''
It is called gross incompetence on the ID proponents part simply as that.
wynd2007 3 years ago
''I have already told you that to agree with ID, you have to agree that there is a Designer/Creator/God and the court system is not ready to do that because it is an objective declaration by a court that there is a Designer/Creator/God.''
I am sorry Mr. Seek, but this is a total non sequitur.
Beliefs don't inform reality. It is the other way around.
What the ID proponents had to do is present the evidence that corroborates their beliefs and their claims.
You know how it went down...
wynd2007 3 years ago
Beliefs do determine court decisions but not the truth.
Nothing was proven. It is nothing more than a decision by the court and it proves nothing.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
''Nothing was proven. It is nothing more than a decision by the court and it proves nothing.''
You don't get the point Mr. Seek. If ID was undisputable true, it wouldn't have miserabely failed 17 times in a row.
It also wouldn't have failed to convince the scientific community as well.
wynd2007 3 years ago
''Nothing was proven. It is nothing more than a decision by the court and it proves nothing.''
One thing was proven by these caese: using your line of reasoning is doomed from the start.
wynd2007 3 years ago
It is evolution is the belief that is on shaky ground right now and not intelligent design.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
You don't understand the logic of intelligent design.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
''You don't understand the logic of intelligent design.''
And apparently the ID defenders don't as well given the poor work they did defending it 17 times in a row.
wynd2007 3 years ago
only one person showed up to defend ID when it went to court
GodKillerAtheist 3 years ago
It easy to be pissed when a decision doesn't go your way. The problem isn't that it didn't go your way in rare separate instances. It did 17 times.
wynd2007 3 years ago
No court decision is able to change digital intelligent design. They can make a hundred determinations and digital intelligent design will still be digital intelligent design.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
''No court decision is able to change digital intelligent design.''
And ID will still not be a science or part of any school curriculum. :)
wynd2007 3 years ago
why are you trolling on this issue?
have u this feeling that you have found the truth that no one else sees?
or could it just be that u are one jackass
Darusdei 3 years ago
Here are a few more hypothetical questions for you Mr.Seek.
Do you feel that you would fare any better would a round 18 to the ID vs. theory of evolution trials eventually comes around?
Based on all the arguments you brought in, do you feel you have enough grounds to establish ID as a legitimate science?
wynd2007 3 years ago
If the courts want to exist in denial that's their problem. I'm sure that I could make a case but I have nothing to do with any (illegal) intent or preconceived determination by the courts that may exist.
We have to go where evidence leads us and for 6000 years intelligent design has been the best explanation because of the fact that everything reproduces after its design. Intelligent design as such is the only science that has not needed to change. ID has been around longer than the courts.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
''We have to go where evidence leads us and for 6000 years intelligent design has been the best explanation because of the fact that everything reproduces after its design.''
If the evidence is so obvious where is the ID theory? The god theory, or why isn't ID a science yet?
What will it teach in schools? What applications can we derive from it?
wynd2007 3 years ago
ID is not a theory. It is observable evidence in digital form that is six feet long.
What will be taught in schools is digital intelligent design whether anyone likes it or not.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
You need to listen to what this video has to say instead of just spilling your ignorance like you've been doing for weeks.
The scientific definition of the word theory is well explained.
wynd2007 3 years ago
ID is an attempt to answer the question why.
ID won't be taught in schools, becuase it has been disproven multiple times.
westfalla 3 years ago
are you talking with Seekmosttoprophesy? LOL I've been going back and forty for a few days now with him I dont think he understands his theory destroys God besides just evolution. If you look down he already admits ID is only theology not science then he goes on to say it cannot be denied as science. personally I think he might be a bit coo coo LOL
GodKillerAtheist 3 years ago
Yeah, I'm arguing the guy. I was the person that responded to his stupidity first. If I remember correctly, he was calling evoltuion "just a theory"; something I found funny on a video explaining what a theory is.
westfalla 3 years ago
I kinda feel bad for him how brainwashed he is its sad LOL
GodKillerAtheist 3 years ago
''Face the fact of intelligent design.''
If it is a fact, where are the scientific peer reviewed papers supporting it? Why isn't ID a science yet?
Claiming that there is evidence isn't the same as presenting them. Out with them already!
You still didn't tell me what would the ID curriculum would be like if it were to be taught in class.
wynd2007 3 years ago
ID has been a fact for 6000 years and it not about to become falsified.
ID curriculum would be only that there is a Designer. That's it.
Who that Designer is, would not be speculated in the classroom. That is a discussion of theology. The possibilities are objects, nature (which is the same thing as objects) Abraham's God, Buddha's god (whoever that is), Mohammed's Allah (which is the Arab version of the God of Israel) etc.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
I vote for the FSM.
westfalla 3 years ago
Again, 17 straight loss in courts and ID still isn't a science.
The losses are again, not evidence that ID is false, simply that its defenders are either ill prepared, incompetents or even liars.
What does ID claims? What would be taught in and ID class?
wynd2007 3 years ago
Yeah, and who is the judge that wants to put his career in jeopardy by reversing so many determinations? The wave of public opinion has to be a lot stronger especially among the scientists themselves to want to jeopardise their scientific careers.
ID is nothing more and nothing less than the fact that we are intelligently designed. Our design is of an intelligent origin because it is what gives us the intelligence that we have. To deny that is to deny the obvious truth. Even IF it was nature!
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
You have just entered an infinite regression. Congratulations, you just shot your argument in the face.
westfalla 3 years ago
Wow, that's the hallmark of a sore loser here lol!
Like I told you before, had the decisions been in ID's favor, every creationist would be rubbing it in atheists' faces.
Are also doubting the integrity of the US justice system? Why?
wynd2007 3 years ago
Not one, not twice, not thrice, but 17 times. From 1968 to 2005, ID has always been defeated.
Do you claim that all these judges through all these decades to be in cahoots?
How do you explain that the ID proponents lost their cases every time when you claim the evidence in its favor are so obvious...
wynd2007 3 years ago
I have already told you that to agree with ID, you have to agree that there is a Designer/Creator/God and the court system is not ready to do that because it is an objective declaration by a court that there is a Designer/Creator/God.
Naturalism does not have intelligence so it cannot produce intelligence. Only intelligence can replicate intelligence. Objects do not have intelligence. The courts cannot prove that objects have intelligence. This means they have avoided the real issues.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
As I said before, you have enterd an infinite regression. Maybe you don't get it, if it takes intelligence to make intelligence, then there are infinite intelligent beings made before we were made.
westfalla 3 years ago
We have come to the end of all nonsense. To date, no algorithm has ever been able to make a life form. The proves that evolution is totally and utterly impossible billions of times over. Take this fact and show all your teachers that evolution is utter nonsense.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
"To date" is a key word in that statement. Besides that, you are now arguing abiogenisis. Evolution only deals with life after it got here. When I was in highschool, last year, abiogenisis was not taught. Remember what you are arguing against.
westfalla 3 years ago
you must also agree that that creator was created
GodKillerAtheist 3 years ago
No, I do not have to agree that the Creator was Created because there is absolutely nothing in the entire known universe that is greater than our Designer/Creator/God.
The same basic interchangeable designed elements that cause life to function are the same basic interchangeable designed elements of the entire universe.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
''No, I do not have to agree that the Creator was Created because there is absolutely nothing in the entire known universe that is greater than our Designer/Creator/God.''
Prove it.
wynd2007 3 years ago
Show me something that is able to replicate the intelligent designs of life forms.
You prove it!
There is nothing greater than the Designer and maker of life forms.
Stop saying silly things.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
yes and you think the whole entire universe was created ...SO.........can you grasp the fucking point?????
either Evolution is false and there is no god just creators that create each other
or
Evolution is correct and God is real
GodKillerAtheist 3 years ago
Evolution does not happen.
That has been established repeatedly.
There is one Creator of everything.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
''Evolution does not happen.
That has been established repeatedly.
There is one Creator of everything.''
ID isn't a science. It has been defeated 17 times in a row. It isn't considered seriously by the scientific community.
wynd2007 3 years ago
This world is not for us Christians and that is the reason why you don't see us trying to control everything like people in this world do.
Our only concern is that the truth is told and if evolution gets in the way of that objective, we have to expose the speculation, conjecture, imagination and other false information. It's that simple.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Yeah guys prop 8 never happened...
Then why aren't you arguing againsy organized religion? Some of it has to be speculation, conjecture, imagination, and false information. You can tackle objective evidence another day.
westfalla 3 years ago
Christianity has always been based on historical information and observed intelligent design. There is nothing false about that to be corrected.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Multiple biblical incongruencies, historical incongruencies, and God (by his standards) deserves to go to hell. This all needs to be explained soon.
westfalla 3 years ago
Evolution is the only thing that I know of that is incongruent.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Evolution is the only thing that I know of that is incongruent.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
''Christianity has always been based on historical information and observed intelligent design. There is nothing false about that to be corrected.''
Spider man as well is based on historical information.
wynd2007 3 years ago
You gave me a nod in the sidebar. That was a nice thing to do. But if you think it removes your name from my book of vengeance you will get a nasty shock one day. Moo ha ha, as Vincent Price would say.
philhellenes 3 years ago
*shudder*
Honestly, Phil, what does it take to get removed from that book of yours? You wouldn't be mean to a poor defenceless , more importantly, very sweet girl now would you???
Atheistblindchick 3 years ago
I have been discussing and debating with you for a long time now Mr.Seek. I have asked you time and time again to point me to the evidence that supports ID or creationism.
So far, you presented even less than the people who were defending it in the court case I mentioned (I really though Michael Behe would astonish us).
Is that evidence that ID is false? Not exactly. It simply shows that when it really mattered, defenders of ID failed to put their money where their mouth were.
wynd2007 3 years ago
It was not so much about whether ID was true or not. That was not even considered. It was more about whether religious people were using ID to get their version of Creation into the classroom. It was a clear and obvious attempt to call their version of Creation, intelligent design. Still intelligent design is far more scientific than evolution. Intelligent design, after all, is observable digital information on the nanoscale that is six feet long! It is observable and it always recopies itself.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Much of the court case was about the validity of ID. In fact, if they could have proven ID then evolution wouldn't be in classrooms.
westfalla 3 years ago
If they had proven that ID was valid, the court would be declaring that there's a Creator. Don't you think that's far too much burden to place on one man to prove that? He was out numbered and it's not justice and it's not a determination of truth. Everyone has far too much to lose to allow the determination that there's a Creator. That is the reason the verdict was copied word for word from evolutionist propaganda. No one wanted to face the outcome of that kind of verdict. So the truth suffers.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
The truth suffers whenever YECs are allowed to speak.
westfalla 3 years ago
Face the fact of intelligent design.
Let's say that "Nature" is the intelligent designer. You have to show how the things of Nature (objects) are intelligent. You can start your own belief that objects make information and you can give credit to objects for everything that they have given you. It doesn't make a very good argument but that is one supposed possibility of an intelligent designer.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
This doesn't account for the utterly failure of the proponent in US courts. They are much more knowledgeable scientifically than both of us and failed not once,or twice, but 17 times.
If they couldn't defend their position against a supposedly false theory in front of the legal system, how are they going to do so in front of the scientific community?
wynd2007 3 years ago
''Still intelligent design is far more scientific than evolution.''
I have a question I like to ask to ID defenders.
Let's admit for the sake of discussion that ID is taught in schools. What would its curriculum be composed of, assuming it would receive three two hours sessions per week?
wynd2007 3 years ago
It would not have anything about theology because that is a matter of the congregations, churches, synagogues mosques or whatever.
The only thing that ID says is that there is an Intelligent Designer. Who that Intelligent Designer is depends on what belief a person has. Still the fact remains that we do have visible evidence of an Intelligent Designer/Creator/God who is greater than every known thing in the entire known universe.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
You obviously don't understand the purpose of science. It is about explaining nature, finding practical applications (something we have asked for but you seem unable to do so), saying how when and why.
westfalla 3 years ago
Speaking of bad theories..About that religion...
unholyfreak911 3 years ago
''The variation of species is a part of the preexisting design.''
So if I understand, according to you evolution is moot, but is somehow part of your ID preexisting design?
Or did the intelligent designer magically poof the species into adapting to their environment? Or maybe it changed them on a whim? Or did it just to give us more stuff to name? Or to further make it less obvious he exists?
What does this claim even means Mr.Seek?
wynd2007 3 years ago
''Microbiology is intelligent design.''
If microbiology is ID, then why isn't ID a science yet?
You keep pushing out these oxymoron of such magnitude...
wynd2007 3 years ago
Evolution and mutation has nothing to do with anything that we see. Good evolution and good mutations do not happen. The ONLY change in the preexisting design is a degradation of the preexisting information that is of an intelligent origin.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Beneficial mutations have been pointed out to you, one that you can't really argue is the mutation found in Europe that can prevent AIDS. Other examples include perfect pitch, nylon digesting bacteria, and adaptation to high and low temperatures by E. coli. Some changes are useful.
westfalla 3 years ago
You would think that the mutation to prevent AIDS would have been found in Africa. The fact that it was not, means that it was more than likely coincidental. Neither nylon or bacteria or pitch nor e coli will ever change into a cat. The variation of species is from the preexisting design that was already there.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Actually it popping up in Europe is evidence that mutations are random. With creationists use of strawmen I sometimes wonder if they really do disagree with evolution, or if there is some passage in the bible that I haven't heard against strawmen.
westfalla 3 years ago
Intelligent design is not known so well because people are in denial and they are not looking at the facts.
It is the age old problem that people have of understanding. Understanding is to let go of the wrong idea (depart from evil).
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
No Mr, Seek. It is not know well because even the defender of this hypothesis don't know what it is about.
ID is basically a negative claim against the theory of evolution.
It doesn't answer anything at all like, how did the intelligent designer designed, why he did it, when he did it and most importantly what is that designer.
What you seem to be oblivious to Mr. Seek is that you can't explain a mystery by invoking an even bigger one. This isn't science.
wynd2007 3 years ago
Great comments and I admire your patience. Talking to a creationist can be like banging your head against a wall.
Secular8 3 years ago
I try, lol! But I really want to understand their motivation, to know what their reasons are.
No one can be this gung-ho on a position without any good reason (at least I hope).
I have never been confronted to fundamentalists before getting online. Most theist I met so far were very moderate and rational, albeit when it comes to religion.
We do have them in Canada too but they tend to be more on the west side of our country, around Alberta.
wynd2007 3 years ago
Mr.Seek actually made my day when he said flu is just flu. It reminded me of Mrs. Palin's remark of the fruit fly.
wynd2007 3 years ago
Evolution has no evidence. ID is not a counter claim to evolution because intelligent design has been around for 6000 years. Evolution is the counter claim for Creation and it is evolution that is losing out faster than you know.
It doesn't matter who what how why or when the Designer designed and made us (other than showing the validity of historical records that we have of Creation), the only thing that does matter is that we were designed and that we were Created because it is a fact.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Creation/ID is the counterclaim against everyother creation story that came around before it, we have records of them.
If the specifics don't matter, then it is not scientific. There is no evidence that we are created, your DNA is not similar to dust nor does dust always have DNA. Creation is as much fact as the magical teapot floating above your head, don't bother looking for it because it's invisible.
westfalla 3 years ago
''ID is not a counter claim to evolution because intelligent design has been around for 6000 years.''
Then way isn't it a science yet? Are the ID scientist so lazy, incompetent or scrambling to find evidence that the can't submit even ONE peer reviewed scientific paper?
If ID is true, please, name me one scientific field that has been created out of it. Also tell me how it explains vestigial genes for teeth in chicken and legs for whales?
wynd2007 3 years ago
''ID is not a counter claim to evolution because intelligent design has been around for 6000 years.''
Then please, for the love of Mike, explain what ID is! For weeks you've been arguing that evolution is moot because of x,y,z, thus making ID true (which is a blatant lie), but you have yet to say what is ID's claims? What would it curriculum be made of it it were taught in a science class?
wynd2007 3 years ago
ID is nothing more than the fact that our design is of an intelligent origin. No one is insisting on who that Designer is but it is clear that He is greater than every known thing in the entire known universe. To deny this is to deny the facts. You can believe whatever you want but the facts are facts and facts are what have to be taught in schools. Evolution is not a fact so it has NO place in our school systems. Evolution is a belief not an observable fact like intelligent design is.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Actually you, and everyone I have seen arguing for it, claim it to be the Judeo-Christian God. Evolution is observed, and proven to a near undenible point.
I have a question about ID. Assuming it is science, what would falsify it? All things in science are falsifiable, so what would do it for ID?
westfalla 3 years ago
If you could prove that DNA is not digital information that would falsify intelligent design.
LOL!!!
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago