This chick here just needs a couple of good days of sex and good food.
If I was the one to do it. She would know God very well. She would call his name many times..I would take one for the team. She is not hot. But needs servicing to find true faith...LOL
Hobbism : the Hobbesian theory that absolutism in government is necessary to prevent the war of each against all to which natural selfishness inevitably leads Mankind.
Medical care is a product. If it were subjected to the disciplines of the free market costs would decrease as quality improved. All working people are capitalists, in that possessing capital equates to meaningful freedom: the freedom to create slapping sounds in lieu of staying put and making babies. Good lawyers make caring attorneys in law offices across every province that is Canada, oh yeah!!!
Evolutionism demands a disconnection from reality. Its purpose is to numb, anesthetize, beleaguer & tranquilize. Logic, experience, morality, altruism can find no home, nor niche, in this inhuman, eugenics-based orthodoxy that purports a science (a knowledge) of an antiquity that realistically could not be. An antiquity populated by mutants in transition; weakened by their impossible plight of digits/appendages & internal organs irreconcilably at odds with the water, land & climate.
@BlackRaptor31 Isn't that exactly what you are doing, being insulting to some one you accuse of being insulting, and I suggest you get the facts there is not one thing that proves evolution, not one thing. In fact evolution is like a boat full of holes floating on the ocean and those that believe in it just keep trying to bail out the water. So what does that leave, lets see evolution or Intelligent Design? How did you miss all those scientists that believe in ID, Einstein for instance.
@Leehofooks Let me see, you say the court didn't support evolution. Let me see, the argument was either for Creationism or For Evolution and Evolution lost. That would seem to me to the court saying that one was SCIENCE and the other was a belief supported by some which isn't substantiated by anything factual or proveable. Before you start with Science not proving anything, one word. Fossils.
@azmildman cont--- So therefore evolution is not a science based on the definition of science, evolution falls entirely of the realm of a faith based system of belief, evolution has not been proven like gravity has been proven it's not a law, it's only a belief not a science fact, anyone can believe anything they want but that does not make it true. So if evolution is only a belief and Intelligent Design is only a belief, why not let both be taught in schools or have neither be taught in school
@angelgal707 "So therefore evolution is not a science"
I'm sorry, hillbilly, your willful ignorance does not change the facts-but it does prove how weak you are.
Your complete lack of understanding in science demonstrates exactly why education is key to solving the problem in this great country. Fools like you are like cancer, and as your ignorance spreads it infects the minds of our children.
Go back to handling snakes, please, and leave the thinking to those of us who are willing to learn.
Your adherence to the LIE that is Teach the Controversy is such bullshit. You dont want fairness, you want JUST your religion to be taught. Hypocritical fool! Would you want Greek creation stories taught along side yours as well?
How about we teach Alchemy in Chemistry, or Astrology in Astronomy class?
You bigots dont realize how telling it is when you single out evolution like that. Moron.
Such a shape people like you are smart enough to get on the computer.... its really amazing that you are smart enough to get here, considering your extraordinary extent of brain damage from your death cult.
Well-good of you to expose how foolish you are. Your intellectual healing process can begin... but only if you are willing, otherwise you will just waste your own time.
Such a shape people like you are smart enough to get on the computer.... its really amazing that you are smart enough to get here, considering your extraordinary extent of brain damage from your death cult.
Well-good of you to expose how foolish you are. Your intellectual healing process can begin... but only if you are willing, otherwise you will just waste your own time.
@Leehofooks The court supported Science being taught in a Science class room. Religious zealots want their religious beliefs taught in a Science class. SCIENCE. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences, systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Facts don't require faith.
@azmildman The common theory of evolution states that there was matter and energy already in existence that exploded about 15 billion years ago and it has exponded into the present state of the universe and that non living matter became biological life over those billions of years and evolved into life as we know it today. It started as the simplest form of life and became more complex as time went on and this is what is being taught as a science fact in schools today.
@azmildman cont--- Now in order for something to be a science fact it must follow certain rules, the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, testing and demonstration. Evolution has never been tested or shown to exist in any way shape or form in any living thing or in any remains (fossils) found in the earth and no scientist has ever been able to observe, test or demonstrate anything that even remotely corroborates the theory of evolution.
Surely Eugenie Scott realizes that she has distorted what the Dover School board voted. Anyone can read the decision for themselves and find that teaching Intelligent Design was not what they voted.
I cannot pretend to understand her reason for distorting the thrust of their decision, except that she is director of the national center for the support of evolution.
@bradandnicole Oh, okay, so you really are that retarded. Thanks for clarifying; now I know not to waste any more time on you, since arguing with idiots is obviously an exercise in futility.
Yes evilutionists and atheists,your so called smart scientists have basically now rejected the evilution of life and now are strongly trying to push on us now that aliens are responsible for life on earth but i suppose when you reject your creator,you will believe in anything lol.
@bradandnicole i'm 99.9% convinced at this point that you're a troll, being intentionally illiterate, ignorant, and just plain retarded. Having read YouTube comments for a few years now, however, that .01% will ever linger. But good job on trolling, if that's indeed the case; you certainly had me going for a little while.
@MaximusRelaximus Don't bother to argue with him, just report him for being an argumentative nuisance. The whole idea of Trolls is not to prove a point, since they don't have one, they just want to insult and make you angry. Kind of like the Republicans in congress.
@azmildman Well what does the Republicans in Congress have to do with it then if you are not doing exactly what you are saying not to do, trying to prove your point.
@angelgal707 If you have even watched one iota of what was said in congress by the Republican party about the president you wouldn't even ask that. LIARS are what they are and they try to argue without an argument, just insults, the same way internet trolls do. What part of that is hard to understand? This guy states lies as if they are reality for one of two reasons. He is either really that stupid OR he just wants to anger people who actually do read more than FAUX NEWS reports.
@bradandnicole Yours is a great reply, I also noticed that so many atheists scientist are trying to say we are now being created by some life out there in the Cosmos (aliens?) I think thats because they can't prove evolution and many scientists are themselves skeptics of Darwinism, I also find it Ironic that Darwin himself was religious and believed in God, You can argue with atheists all day long but it really is not about what started life with them it's about disproving a Creator.
@angelgal707"there is not one thing that proves evolution"
You are hereby guilty of breaking the commandments of your god by blatantly lying.
Typical Creationist fraudster: lie to everyone and ignore what they say in return. Your dependency on lies betrays your absolute fear of the truth. Sorry kiddo, but no one is going to pay attention to a habitual liar. You are excused from being taken seriously now. You may go-so feel free to leave and bask in your shame.
No wonder, angelgal707, you dont even know what Evolution is about. In your private message to me, you actually stated that the theory of Evolution speaks about the Big Bang.
Very pathetic. That is why we call you a liar: you dont have a clue.
Educate yourself, kiddo, before you keep embarrassing yourself on such a basic level.
Eugenie scott should be richard the dorkins partner they would make a great couple and they could then put there 2 brains together thinking and then we would have double the braindeads.spurting out there ancient mythilogical atheist evolution diatribe.
@bradandnicole " here ancient mythilogical atheist evolution diatribe. " I just LOVE how you've used 'ancient' there. Atheism, the ancient Myth. Evolution, probebly more ancienterest?
@bradandnicole If you're going to call two brilliant people "brain dead," it might be a good idea to at least do so in "language" that clearly shows you have the literacy of a drunken, retarded, glue-sniffing, paste-eating, short-bus-riding second grader.
@MaximusRelaximus Yeah they are brillant in there own minds lol but eugenie scott and richard dawkins are braindead atheists just like all atheists and evos.To say that there isnt a creator is insane and i am glad that i am with the majority who believe in a creator bitchboy.
Science is a study of environment we live in, but r things we r living in absolute? It appears so in our dimension, but is this it?No,we can't say this is it because we have a limitation--> we can never understand Infinity.If u live on a plane, can u understand a 3D life?NO. So if we live in a 4D life with boundary, we r bounded by infinity, just like a plane is an infinity to a straight line.How can u then say, there's no more dimension beyond this infinity?How can we say,then,there is no God?
From the many alternatives Eugenie lists it all sounds silly. However, Eugenie is mistaken in saying that it's ID or Evolution. Evolution is what happens to life. ID attributes the origins of life to a designer. If you believe life came from non-life, we do not say that non-life evolved. We say it began. This is what ID deals with, not as Eugenie is saying. She has set up a straw man that ID does not have.
Um... if she set up a strawman it was pointed toward the evolution side, because if ID deals with the origin of life, then the proper dichotomy would be ID vs. Abiogenesis.
@WeedGreenPowerRanger . I agree, she should have compared ID and Abiogenis, however, that is sledom done because abiogenesis is not something all science can agree upon.
Actually, if ID makes an end run around both abiogenesis and evolution, than she was only guilty of not being specific to -your- tastes.
The problem is that ID doesn't just take issue with Abiogenesis, so even if Eugenie was only interested in making this about the origins of life, the ID crowd commits the fallacy by drawing Evolution into it.
If they only paid attention to their star Behe, they'd only address how life got here, not the process of its change.
"however, that is sledom done because abiogenesis is not something all science can agree upon."
No, its just a science in its infancy, and not even many scientists keep up with discoveries like how to make Ribonucleotides, and the formation of rudimentary RNA molecules.
Abiogenesis isn't often cited because most Cdesign Proponentists dont know the difference and simply attack what they disagree with. Eugenie sometimes has to defend geology for the same reason.
I'm saying that the basis of the argument is a strawman committed by Cdesgn Proponentists, and it's not a strawman if her rhetoric is in response to that kind of stupidity.
@WeedGreenPowerRanger Not sure if I have the time to cover everything here. First I would not say Behe is the star. That would put you out of current ID thought by at least a year. I know of no ID crowd that draws evolution into ID. That would be a creation science arguement I suppose, but as with both sides, misrepresentations are common.
" I would not say Behe is the star. That would put you out of current ID thought by at least a year."
It was more of a jab than anything else. Regardless ID doesn't produce research, so I'm not wrong.
"I know of no ID crowd that draws evolution into ID. That would be a creation science arguement I suppose,"
I make no distinction. Cdesign Proponentists try to make ID sound as scientific as possible, when ID doesn't even have a functioning theory, and is purely an opposition stance.
@WeedGreenPowerRanger I can see that you make no distiction between Creation Science and ID. That would be your misunderstanding. They differer greatly, especially in young earth, evolution, and identity of the designer. Despite your ability to be quite wordy, you're not really saying much other than "na-uh". So far it's clear that you even understand what ID is. Explain it to me as you understand it.
Straight from the Discovery Institute, ID states that "Certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
The reason I make no distinction is because every single Cdesign Proponentist of note thinks that its the god of christianity, despite the claim that ID makes no indication of the identity of the designer.
Also, I'm sure you know what I'm getting at when I say "Cdesign Proponentist".
The only distinction between ID, and old earth creationism is the labeling of the Designer, and even then, you have Muslim creationists who toe the same line, but have a different label.
"They differer greatly, especially in young earth, evolution, and identity of the designer."
You're only making a distinction between YEC and ID.
Even if ID asserts that its only disagreement with evolution is the "undirectedness" of it, it still makes no case as to how you would tell the difference.
@WeedGreenPowerRanger Actually what I said was that Eugenie was saying evolution or ID, and ID was not in conflict with evolution. I haven't seen much from you since then. Well, lots of words, but not much other than to proclaim your belief that ID is wrong because it is believed by Christians. Of course with that truth I would have to say Abiogenesis is wrong because it believed by athiest.
" but not much other than to proclaim your belief that ID is wrong because it is believed by Christians"
I didn't say that, nor did I even come out and say "ID is wrong". I said that it has no viable Theory. Hence it isn't science, hence it's nothing more than conjecture.
Its funny how this conversation started with you declaring Eugenie had made a strawman, and you blatantly made one of my position.
Not only that, but you mitigated my entire position to one strawman.
"Actually what I said was that Eugenie was saying evolution or ID, and ID was not in conflict with evolution."
Because the concept that ID only disagrees with Abiogenesis would be correct inf that were the case, but ID clearly makes an attack on evolution, stating that "Undirected darwinian means" are incorrect.
At this point, ID and Evolution are in total conflict. She was correct.
"Actually what I said was that Eugenie was saying evolution or ID, and ID was not in conflict with evolution. "
You're getting mad at her because she hasn't addressed YOUR specific brand of ID. I hate to break it to you, but almost all of the ID proponents out there don't accept "Undirected" evolution.
@WeedGreenPowerRanger Not at all, it is not the evolution that is in conflict with ID, it is parts of Darwinian Evolution that is. Of course, you may next tell me that you only believe there is Darwinian Evolution. It wouldn't surprise me at this point. Glad to have cleared up the Christian thing. Just email me, you're wearing me out with these multiple posts.
"Not at all, it is not the evolution that is in conflict with ID, it is parts of Darwinian Evolution that is."
Its the undirected nature of which that is in conflict. The modern theory of evolution makes no indication that its directed by a higher force, and the ID asserts that this is so without any conclusive evidence that would allow us to tell the difference between an undirected evolution, and an ID evolution.
"Darwinian Evolution" is 150 years old. Get with the times.
" Of course, you may next tell me that you only believe there is Darwinian Evolution. It wouldn't surprise me at this point. "
Lovely passive agressive insult.
No, I subscribe to the modern theory of evolution. Another strawmen that Cdesign Proponentists like you love to do is get in an argument with a dead man, when the rest of us have moved on, as science does. All of us who watched Expelled laughed every time Stein said something critical of "Darwinism".
@WeedGreenPowerRanger okay this is going no where, we're just talking about what we think the other believes. If you should change your mind and want to email me and actually have a conversation, I pormise to play nice, and not give you a passive agressive bitch slap (lol)
As a policy I dont argue via email. I've actually maxed out the PM character limit a few times (Probably the equivalent of about 200 comment blocks in a single message). Once I even maxed the limit twice for a single message, and had to send 3 messages for one reply.
Either way, I think my point has been made. Anyone who chances upon reading this can see you lost : )
@WeedGreenPowerRanger This why I never talk to young people. They have no interest in the exchange of ideas, they tend to think this is some sort of video argumentation game where there is a winner or loser. You have made no points in my mind. I've watched you bowl along telling me what others believe and jumping to the ending, but you haven't had a discussion with me. You have had it with yourself.
@WeedGreenPowerRanger It's true just today I have said the very same thing to a 20 year old. You both convinced me that I should go back to that standard. If you wish to talk, instead of "win" for others to see and pleasure it brings you, feel free to email me. Otherwise, kiddo, continue your games with others.
@WeedGreenPowerRanger I'm wondering just how long you will argue with no arguement at hand. It seems to be more important to you than an actual debate on the issues.
Again, its not posting my comments on the main screen because I used quotes from you, and youtube's spam filter assumes that I'm spamming the page. My response is both in your inbox, and on the All Comments page.
(I had one guy the other day trying to act like I never addressed his comments because other people didn't immediately see them)
@WeedGreenPowerRanger Health is debate, under the proper conditions, but you clearly, as you stated, just wish to "win" that's not debate even under your terms.
Thats because you're disingenuous. We've established this. You also don't like being told that you're wrong, and like most Cdesign Proponentists, you'll gloss over that until someone twists your arm into accepting it.
Eugenie Scott was neither stupid, nor did she make a strawman, unless she was speaking to a specific kind of ID, which is a minority amongst its subscribers.
@WeedGreenPowerRanger Now you know why I said you just carried on an arguement with yourself. It was a straw man because of the reason I said it was because apparently, I am in what you call " a minority amongst its subscribers". But you ignored what I said and moved on to your preconcieved idea of what I would be thinking.
"But you ignored what I said and moved on to your preconcieved idea of what I would be thinking."
No, because I'm not defending your position, I'm defending Eugenie's. I gather that you accept evolution, which I have no quarrel with. The quarrel I have is acting like you have intellectual superiority over her because she didn't address your minority.
I never "went ahead", I told you that when she's addressing ID, she doesn't addressing ye Unnamed-God-Old-Earth-Creationist-Proponets.
@WeedGreenPowerRanger Eugenie thinks, apparently that, ID is the same as Creation science, I said that. She says it in almost every presentation she gives. She is mistaken, and so are you. Try this, and I'll look at your answer when I get back from the store. No one dismisses the big bang because we do not know where the singularity came from.......
"Eugenie thinks, apparently that, ID is the same as Creation science, I said that. She says it in almost every presentation she gives. She is mistaken, and so are you."
You DO know what I'm talking about when I call you "Cdesign Proponentist" right?
You do know that Creationism and ID have a nearly identical definitions, right? And that almost all proponents of ID identify themselves as theistic creationists, right?
Also ID is stuck with a regressive problem which necessitates belief in god.
"I've watched you bowl along telling me what others believe and jumping to the ending"
Which was what I was responding to in your comment. If you'd wanted to discuss the science, we could have discussed the science. We still can, if you want. Just don't tell me that I've spent the last 30 or so posts making no points, because thats all I've done. I've gone out of my way to respond to almost every line of text you produced.
You just don't like being told that you're wrong.
"You have made points that do not address my point of view on ID. thus no points of value in our conversation."
You've made no assertions about your point of view on ID. All you've done is told me where I'm wrong, told me that I don't even understand ID, and that I haven't made any points.
We can argue over ID if you want to. I'll even let you pick the first topic.
"Well, lots of words, but not much other than to proclaim your belief that ID is wrong because it is believed by Christians. Of course with that truth I would have to say Abiogenesis is wrong because it believed by athiest.'
I'm not an atheist. Thanks for giving me another false dichotomy built on a strawman, built on the mitigation of my entire position.
@WeedGreenPowerRanger Do you have anything to really say son? I try not to talk to people as young as you because it never really goes anywhere. Seems like under 30 tend to be so arrogant about their beliefs it is not possible to talk science.
Its funny that you say this, because I've met every single one of your arguments, and my posts seem to outnumber yours 3 to 1.
"Seems like under 30 tend to be so arrogant about their beliefs it is not possible to talk science."
Right back at ya. It seems that someone so willing to use an argument from authority, coupled with an argument from age isn't interested in talking science.
In case you haven't realized it, we haven't even touched on science yet, as our disagreement is entirely based in rhetoric, and labels.
Actually, I'm the only one who brought up anything scientific when I named several experiments that prove that the formation of RNA doesn't require a designer. (Before you say that the experiment proves they designed it, you need to look up the nature of experimentation, and also read the WIRED article on abiogenesis. quote "Spontaneously, and RNT formed!")
@WeedGreenPowerRanger She needs to address the issues only and not rationalize what some ID proponets who think they know what they are talking about get into. That would be answering stupidity with stupidity, so let's go your way,... it wasn't as much a straw man as stupidity then
I would say rhetorical defensiveness. I cant tell you how many times we "Evolutionists" have to make a strawman of our own position just to point out an even deeper flaw in the Cdesign Proponetist's logic.
This doesn't qualify as stupidity, the same way speaking very slowly to a small child isn't stupidity.
@gcnengineer And you are saying that a religious mythology (and all religions have mythology) should be taught in a SCIENCE CLASS as factual, provable knowledge and fact.
Why does this video have a rating of only 2.5 stars? Eugenie Scott usually gets rated higher than that. Was this video the victim of a votebot attack?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The old your just stupid argument doesn't work any more. Thank heaven for the Altenbeg 16 summit. How do you correct a 150 year old mistake? we'll see.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If you think my question was a stupid one, then I have to agree with you, and that is exactly why I asked it. Just maybe there are actually people out there who are willing to look at this theory in a critical way based on the observable evidence. That means thing we can see. There are extremist on both sides. The Kent Hovinds and the Eugenie Scott's. If you believe the words I'm using are big, then Ill try to use smaller ones if you want to get in to some of the finer points on the subject.
Its just blatantly obvious how frightened you Theists are.
Religion is failing on a global scale, and that leaves you with desperate attempts to bypass intellectual fairness and put your specific version of god in schools to brainwash children.
How pathetic. Cant convert with the old fire and brimstone, so you use lies and deception on an even greater scale.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
4 syllables very impressive. I was wrong about you old man. Your the only one talking theology, get mad at yourself I never mentioned metaphysics. pendejo.
@ThatOneQuestion Intelligent Design is not a religious opinion to everyone, Einstein himself believed in Intelligent Design and did not believe in religion, he said the more he studied the Cosmos the more he believed in a God, he called him the creator of the Cosmos or the God of the Cosmos. Atheists are always trying to use anything to prove there is NO God because they are the exact people that equate God and religion and think the two cannot be separated.
As far as to the question as to why u should or shouldn't read the transcripts. I would say that if u don't want to be informed then u don't have too be. I don't mean to be a smart ass but that's the only way I can answer your question logically.
Judges don't decide what science is. Thier not trained for that. Science is decided by time, curiosity, & predictable hypothesis, which is y macro evo fails. The theory is a mish mash of patched up wholes. This is know big secret. Every new theory gets attacked. This is part of the history of science. Evolution is the only theory on record as requiring the aid of judicial activism and scientist playing the roll of social engineering. It cant sail under its own wind. Its not about religion 4 me.
You should read the transcript. The language that your using about religious motivation was not what the Judge based his decision on. The textbook of Pandas and people was never part of any curriculum or lesson plans. It was about a statement that there was a book on the subject of ID in the library the same library that they keep the Harry Potter books I might add. The statement also read that if there was interest that it should be discussed with there parents. It was not going to be taught.
Fair enough, I was already aware of most of them but at least you have shown something. I believe the Scopes trial did not side with evolution so lets go to the next. Dover, What do u think about Dover? Do u really believe that there were lesson plans drawn out for the teaching of ID? I'm interested in trying to understand your knowledge and perspective of this particular case. Have u read the transcripts?
Let me get this right. I don't want to misquote u. Are u implying discussion on strengths and weaknesses of a theory demonstrates a thinly veiled religious motive. Can u give me a specific example of a school board or county or any other public school who is promoting religion in the class room please be specific give me an instance, name, or something to confirm your claim. What does motive have to do with scientific observation? I cant believe your that shallow. Is this about saving face?
Fair enough, on this we can agree with the exception what u consider bullshit. The only problem is that Scott and other pro atheist organizations will sue any one who teaches Darwin from a critical position the way Darwin proposed the theory because of the theological implications they believe exist. If your for teaching the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinism then u should be upset with the Academy. Look at their court docket sheet they have posted on there sites.
What does religion have to do with being able to critique the the theory openly and ask about strengths and weakness of it the way the scientist openly talk about it in the literature. To pretend that u can discuss it in philosophy in social studies but some how exclude it from science is silly. There's a philosophical nature to science also, its called scientific philosophy and its practiced by adults and children, the other bullshit is to make the adults feel good, Kids are smarter than that.
My position is it doesn't matter, again we grow up and formulate our own views. If your satisfied with understanding the world through the words of high school biology teachers then so be it.People who search for deeper truths will form their own conclusions. I did u did and they will. It's not the policy that bothers me its the way science is being treated as a religion were there are penalties to pay for blasphemy against theory all the other stuff will work itself out. Antiquated textbooks.
The discovery Institute is against teaching ID as a theory in class its to new, teachers are not informed enough to do it any justice. This is not about creation in classrooms this is about being able to openly critique theories because thats how science grows. I and many others do not want to force any metaphysical beliefs on people or make them compulsory. In my opinion that is anti Christian. Same goes for any other belief system including naturalism or secular humanism.
I guess it didn't thread. My point was u were exposed to religion as a baby a boy then a teenager in the intimate influential setting of loving family members FLESH AND BLOOD and u turned out alright, but u believe that others will be hurt or confused by openly critiquing Darwinism in the class because it's theological implications. In other words its the old IM smart enough to know the truth, but everyone else is not as smart as me.
Like I said before I don't believe in forcing a new theory down peoples throats. Time, curiosity, and predictive testability will confirm or reject the theory. Mendel had to go through the same monolithic guardians of the truth bullshit. I will tell you why I asked u that question of your childhood. You see, we are very egotistical creatures and we think that we always know whats best for other people however most people don't concern themselves with the education system until it affects there..
You believe there's a distinction between the National Academy of sciences and the National center for Education there run by the same people Scott is the director of National Academy of Sciences check out there k-12 education program. Do u know who kevin Padian is?I don't know were your getting your info from but I am against teaching Intelligent Design in public class rooms. So much for your esp skills. Just because I believe in it, I'm not going to force any one else too, again curious logic?
leeho Although tempted I'm not going to insult u because u have a different opinion,. Let me ask u a question were u raised by atheist parents and told to shun or marginalize people of faith. Maybe your conditioned to respond that way that's why I ask.
You seem to be confused about the dynamics that make up the historical sciences and the distinction between the non observable past and the observable past which can be documented with specified info in the form of writing, pics docs ,etc in the case of the holocaust we still have people alive who can confirm this. The non observable past does not have this luxury.
i have at least thirty to forty debates down loaded on my box, of scientist and researchers who have high degrees of learning credits to their names, scholars from both sides that have been showing up the last few years on college campuses and town halls to debate these points of contention, and some have even been atheist and agnostics Is my computer producing false images? again very amusing sense of logic u have there.
If there isn't any debate within the scientific community, then y is the the director of National Academy of SCIENCES which is Eugeneie Scott making a vid, along with all the other vids that she and the NAS made concerning this invisible non existent controversy. Is it a figment of my imagination?. Is the person in the vid a lay person disguising herself as scientist? Why do u think the NAS boycotted the Atenberg 16 comferrence last year? these men were anything but christian or creationist.
Your so convinced that u have spent several threads debating about it. This makes no sense. If the theory is so foolish why would u or anybody else waste their time debating it. Why would the Nas make so many openly hostile videos against ID.
If evolution does not concern itself with origins then what is the purpose of cause and effect science, again the dual standard is that Id has to specify the designer by 1st name, but evolutionist don't have to claim to understand the origin of life, what kind of dual logic is that?Im sure that U didn't know that protozoa which is supposed to be one of the most primordial of lifes domains actually has more genetic info than humans by orders of magnitude. Darwinism cannot explain or rectify this.
No there is another theory called abiogenesis which proposes to explain the origin of life. And also do u mean to say that IDists can simply say that designer did it but not say anything about the designer and we are supposed to accept that as science? Ah yes the more genes the more complex fallacy.clearly u know nothing about genetics
As far as your designer argument concerned it is not logically consistent with your ability to reason. The universe and everything in it is going from order to chaos its also called the law of entropy which is testable. And as far as logic, To entertain the notion of a more advanced civilization of ET's and to not think it could be possible for them to have abillity to engineer life seems very egotistical. How can u prove it was undirected.You have made statements that u cant back up.
Also the distinction about micro and macro evolution is ludicrous. Its like saying someone can walk 5 steps but not a 100. Given enough time small changes can acccumulate to produce variety and speciation( which is what i guess u mean by "macro" evolution)
By the way it was a couple of techs at Bell Labs that accidentally discovered the background radiation that lead to the theory of the big bang. No one has claimed to have discovered the big bang. It is a theory that cannot be tested empirically. When it comes to the historical sciences concerning cosmology, all we have are educated guesses.
I also believe that religious indoctrination as well as personnel world views should not be included in science classes. However Eugenie Scott has no room to talk, since she is one of the signers of the 3rd humanist manifesto which shamelessly imposes atheistic world views in high school science classes under the umbrella of empirical science.
What atheistic views? Science has no opinion on the existence of God since the concept of an omnipotent omniscient entity cannot be tested empirically. It is hilarious how scared fundamentalists are of science. on the other hand faith is not enough for them they want to use science to prove something that is inherently unprovable
I wasn't speaking of science. I was speaking of a human being named Eugenie Scott. Lets make the distinction clear. Some of our greatest theories Newtonian Physics Mendelian genetics, Pasture's fundamental principles of biology, Galileo's non geocentric universe and so forth were all constructs and observations made by the same religious people you speak of. Darwin has its place but is extremely limited in accountability for a macro evolutionary pathaway. You offer a sanitized version.
So what r u saying? just bcos Eugenie Scott is an atheist she should not teach science? And Scott has been very accomodating of religious views. She has said that evolution does not imply atheism and people should not confuse methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. I also do not get ur statements about religious scientists.They were great scientists precisely bcos they kept their religion out of science.
No, You're saying that not me. The role of the scientist is science not social engineering. If you think that Eugenie Scott is not involved in the religious fervor then I advise u to take a look at the Clergy Letter Project. Why would scientist as u say, want to impose there supposed scientific beliefs in religious dogma? Shouldn't religion be left to the theologians? Is it role of science to preach the meaning of life?
For some reason my threads didn't post. Check out the Seti project, Pan Spermia, and Micho Kaku's type three civilization theories. There all discussed and entertained in the scientific literature. Talk about double standards.
No its the IDists who have double standards. They are simply content to criticize evolution fallaciously. But they never offer any positive evidence in support of their hypothesis. Who is this designer, how did it create life, how to test it, where is the evidence, what predictions can it make. Evolution on the other hand fulfils all the criteria for a valid scienific theory.
Mutation theory can not account for the origin or even the step by step construct of this type of specificity. The mantra is that there is overwhelming evidence, but you have sited absolutely none and instead have relied on generalizations and philosophic arguments based on your personell views not anything testable.
No u r wrong. Eugenie Scott does not encourage atheistic views in science classrooms.And also most Christians accept evolution bcos of the evidence in favour of it not bcos someone is imposing it on them.And most Christians dont see any conflict betwen evolution and their beliefs. No science cant preach the meaning of life but that does not mean that religion has some sort of monopoly on morals or how people should live their lives
U obviously have not heard of the 3rd humanist manifesto, The clergy letter project, or her belief that molecule to man evolution does not require an intelligent agent. How does the scientist prove this. The second law states all ordered systems go from order to disorder.Things do not get more organized on there own according to empirical testable physics. Pasture proved scientifically that living things only come from other living things. Theres no pathway for unlimited variation in Genetics.
Good lord now u r saying evolution violates 2nd law of thermodynamics? It seems a waste to talk to u. Also i repeat i see absolutely no positive evidence for ID simply more fallacious criticisms for evolution. And u wonder why no decent bilogist takes ID seriously
I have offered several testable principles of biology and physics including names. Not only have u not been able to site your sources for Debunking Behe comment about IC. All you have done is call people ignorant. Is this what you regard as refutation, and your willing to put your faith in abiogenesis wich is a non testible therefore non scientifically empirical hypothesis. You have greater faith than me. The mantra doesn't work anymore.
I'm curious about the claim that Dr. Scott is for centralized government. Has she said that before, or is there some action she's taken that makes you think this? I would concede that she is an activist, but I'm confused about the comment about centralized control.
well, if a clergyman discovered the "big bang"*, then why not?
as long as they accept the theory of evolution as put down by Darwin, wallace, and al-jahith, and keep their religion out of school. if you meant by "clergymen" as those crazy ted-haggard style clergy, then fuck no! keep them from the science classes, they can' teach reality even if the universe depended on it.
if people would just stop being so arrogant and admit that there might be the least bit of mistake on their thinking, everyone would be happier
levilisko 2 months ago
This chick here just needs a couple of good days of sex and good food.
If I was the one to do it. She would know God very well. She would call his name many times..I would take one for the team. She is not hot. But needs servicing to find true faith...LOL
wthjrtx1 3 months ago
Hobbism : the Hobbesian theory that absolutism in government is necessary to prevent the war of each against all to which natural selfishness inevitably leads Mankind.
ScientificalnessUSA 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Medical care is a product. If it were subjected to the disciplines of the free market costs would decrease as quality improved. All working people are capitalists, in that possessing capital equates to meaningful freedom: the freedom to create slapping sounds in lieu of staying put and making babies. Good lawyers make caring attorneys in law offices across every province that is Canada, oh yeah!!!
ScientificalnessUSA 6 months ago
Evolutionism demands a disconnection from reality. Its purpose is to numb, anesthetize, beleaguer & tranquilize. Logic, experience, morality, altruism can find no home, nor niche, in this inhuman, eugenics-based orthodoxy that purports a science (a knowledge) of an antiquity that realistically could not be. An antiquity populated by mutants in transition; weakened by their impossible plight of digits/appendages & internal organs irreconcilably at odds with the water, land & climate.
ScientificalnessUSA 7 months ago
@ScientificalnessUSA Protip: before arguing against something.... know what you arguing against...
Dextomus 6 months ago
Yes,the old Intelligent Design as supported by Behe had collapsed. The new Intelligent Design is now in Youtube.
MrIntelligentdesign 9 months ago
@BlackRaptor31 Isn't that exactly what you are doing, being insulting to some one you accuse of being insulting, and I suggest you get the facts there is not one thing that proves evolution, not one thing. In fact evolution is like a boat full of holes floating on the ocean and those that believe in it just keep trying to bail out the water. So what does that leave, lets see evolution or Intelligent Design? How did you miss all those scientists that believe in ID, Einstein for instance.
angelgal707 1 year ago
@Leehofooks Let me see, you say the court didn't support evolution. Let me see, the argument was either for Creationism or For Evolution and Evolution lost. That would seem to me to the court saying that one was SCIENCE and the other was a belief supported by some which isn't substantiated by anything factual or proveable. Before you start with Science not proving anything, one word. Fossils.
azmildman 1 year ago
@azmildman Fossils have not proven one solitary fact.
angelgal707 1 year ago
@azmildman cont--- So therefore evolution is not a science based on the definition of science, evolution falls entirely of the realm of a faith based system of belief, evolution has not been proven like gravity has been proven it's not a law, it's only a belief not a science fact, anyone can believe anything they want but that does not make it true. So if evolution is only a belief and Intelligent Design is only a belief, why not let both be taught in schools or have neither be taught in school
angelgal707 1 year ago
@angelgal707 "So therefore evolution is not a science"
I'm sorry, hillbilly, your willful ignorance does not change the facts-but it does prove how weak you are.
Your complete lack of understanding in science demonstrates exactly why education is key to solving the problem in this great country. Fools like you are like cancer, and as your ignorance spreads it infects the minds of our children.
Go back to handling snakes, please, and leave the thinking to those of us who are willing to learn.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
"So if evolution is only a belief..."
The profound ignorance is astounding!
Your adherence to the LIE that is Teach the Controversy is such bullshit. You dont want fairness, you want JUST your religion to be taught. Hypocritical fool! Would you want Greek creation stories taught along side yours as well?
How about we teach Alchemy in Chemistry, or Astrology in Astronomy class?
You bigots dont realize how telling it is when you single out evolution like that. Moron.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Fossils have not proven one solitary fact. "
Such a shape people like you are smart enough to get on the computer.... its really amazing that you are smart enough to get here, considering your extraordinary extent of brain damage from your death cult.
Well-good of you to expose how foolish you are. Your intellectual healing process can begin... but only if you are willing, otherwise you will just waste your own time.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
Fossils have not proven one solitary fact?
Such a shape people like you are smart enough to get on the computer.... its really amazing that you are smart enough to get here, considering your extraordinary extent of brain damage from your death cult.
Well-good of you to expose how foolish you are. Your intellectual healing process can begin... but only if you are willing, otherwise you will just waste your own time.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@Leehofooks The court supported Science being taught in a Science class room. Religious zealots want their religious beliefs taught in a Science class. SCIENCE. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences, systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Facts don't require faith.
azmildman 1 year ago
@azmildman The common theory of evolution states that there was matter and energy already in existence that exploded about 15 billion years ago and it has exponded into the present state of the universe and that non living matter became biological life over those billions of years and evolved into life as we know it today. It started as the simplest form of life and became more complex as time went on and this is what is being taught as a science fact in schools today.
angelgal707 1 year ago
@azmildman cont--- Now in order for something to be a science fact it must follow certain rules, the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, testing and demonstration. Evolution has never been tested or shown to exist in any way shape or form in any living thing or in any remains (fossils) found in the earth and no scientist has ever been able to observe, test or demonstrate anything that even remotely corroborates the theory of evolution.
angelgal707 1 year ago
Surely Eugenie Scott realizes that she has distorted what the Dover School board voted. Anyone can read the decision for themselves and find that teaching Intelligent Design was not what they voted.
I cannot pretend to understand her reason for distorting the thrust of their decision, except that she is director of the national center for the support of evolution.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
Yeah troll whatever!.You keep on following stupid old evo hags like eugenie and believing in myths like evilution lol douchbag
bradandnicole 1 year ago
@bradandnicole Oh, okay, so you really are that retarded. Thanks for clarifying; now I know not to waste any more time on you, since arguing with idiots is obviously an exercise in futility.
MaximusRelaximus 1 year ago
Yes evilutionists and atheists,your so called smart scientists have basically now rejected the evilution of life and now are strongly trying to push on us now that aliens are responsible for life on earth but i suppose when you reject your creator,you will believe in anything lol.
bradandnicole 1 year ago
@bradandnicole i'm 99.9% convinced at this point that you're a troll, being intentionally illiterate, ignorant, and just plain retarded. Having read YouTube comments for a few years now, however, that .01% will ever linger. But good job on trolling, if that's indeed the case; you certainly had me going for a little while.
MaximusRelaximus 1 year ago
@MaximusRelaximus Don't bother to argue with him, just report him for being an argumentative nuisance. The whole idea of Trolls is not to prove a point, since they don't have one, they just want to insult and make you angry. Kind of like the Republicans in congress.
azmildman 1 year ago
@azmildman Well what does the Republicans in Congress have to do with it then if you are not doing exactly what you are saying not to do, trying to prove your point.
angelgal707 1 year ago
@angelgal707 If you have even watched one iota of what was said in congress by the Republican party about the president you wouldn't even ask that. LIARS are what they are and they try to argue without an argument, just insults, the same way internet trolls do. What part of that is hard to understand? This guy states lies as if they are reality for one of two reasons. He is either really that stupid OR he just wants to anger people who actually do read more than FAUX NEWS reports.
azmildman 1 year ago
@bradandnicole Yours is a great reply, I also noticed that so many atheists scientist are trying to say we are now being created by some life out there in the Cosmos (aliens?) I think thats because they can't prove evolution and many scientists are themselves skeptics of Darwinism, I also find it Ironic that Darwin himself was religious and believed in God, You can argue with atheists all day long but it really is not about what started life with them it's about disproving a Creator.
angelgal707 1 year ago
@angelgal707 "so many atheists scientist are trying to say..."
No they are not, you lying fool.
Evolution is a proven fact, kiddo, and it has been directly observed today. It can be continually demonstrated as well.
Yes, Darwin was going to be a minister, but what he found on his journey destroyed his faith because he could not deny the facts.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@angelgal707"there is not one thing that proves evolution"
You are hereby guilty of breaking the commandments of your god by blatantly lying.
Typical Creationist fraudster: lie to everyone and ignore what they say in return. Your dependency on lies betrays your absolute fear of the truth. Sorry kiddo, but no one is going to pay attention to a habitual liar. You are excused from being taken seriously now. You may go-so feel free to leave and bask in your shame.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
No wonder, angelgal707, you dont even know what Evolution is about. In your private message to me, you actually stated that the theory of Evolution speaks about the Big Bang.
Very pathetic. That is why we call you a liar: you dont have a clue.
Educate yourself, kiddo, before you keep embarrassing yourself on such a basic level.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@angelgal707 you obviously know nothing of atheism. It is not a philosophical position.
boc1953 8 months ago
Eugenie scott should be richard the dorkins partner they would make a great couple and they could then put there 2 brains together thinking and then we would have double the braindeads.spurting out there ancient mythilogical atheist evolution diatribe.
bradandnicole 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bradandnicole " here ancient mythilogical atheist evolution diatribe. " I just LOVE how you've used 'ancient' there. Atheism, the ancient Myth. Evolution, probebly more ancienterest?
wimscheers 1 year ago
@bradandnicole If you're going to call two brilliant people "brain dead," it might be a good idea to at least do so in "language" that clearly shows you have the literacy of a drunken, retarded, glue-sniffing, paste-eating, short-bus-riding second grader.
MaximusRelaximus 1 year ago
@MaximusRelaximus Yeah they are brillant in there own minds lol but eugenie scott and richard dawkins are braindead atheists just like all atheists and evos.To say that there isnt a creator is insane and i am glad that i am with the majority who believe in a creator bitchboy.
bradandnicole 1 year ago
is it working yet?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
its not showing your comments either
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
Is youtube just going to cockblock all of my comments on here?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
hmm. it didn't even let that comment appear... oh well. you've got my replies in your inbox....
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
Science is a study of environment we live in, but r things we r living in absolute? It appears so in our dimension, but is this it?No,we can't say this is it because we have a limitation--> we can never understand Infinity.If u live on a plane, can u understand a 3D life?NO. So if we live in a 4D life with boundary, we r bounded by infinity, just like a plane is an infinity to a straight line.How can u then say, there's no more dimension beyond this infinity?How can we say,then,there is no God?
musikpal 1 year ago
From the many alternatives Eugenie lists it all sounds silly. However, Eugenie is mistaken in saying that it's ID or Evolution. Evolution is what happens to life. ID attributes the origins of life to a designer. If you believe life came from non-life, we do not say that non-life evolved. We say it began. This is what ID deals with, not as Eugenie is saying. She has set up a straw man that ID does not have.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
Um... if she set up a strawman it was pointed toward the evolution side, because if ID deals with the origin of life, then the proper dichotomy would be ID vs. Abiogenesis.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger . I agree, she should have compared ID and Abiogenis, however, that is sledom done because abiogenesis is not something all science can agree upon.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
Actually, if ID makes an end run around both abiogenesis and evolution, than she was only guilty of not being specific to -your- tastes.
The problem is that ID doesn't just take issue with Abiogenesis, so even if Eugenie was only interested in making this about the origins of life, the ID crowd commits the fallacy by drawing Evolution into it.
If they only paid attention to their star Behe, they'd only address how life got here, not the process of its change.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
"however, that is sledom done because abiogenesis is not something all science can agree upon."
No, its just a science in its infancy, and not even many scientists keep up with discoveries like how to make Ribonucleotides, and the formation of rudimentary RNA molecules.
Abiogenesis isn't often cited because most Cdesign Proponentists dont know the difference and simply attack what they disagree with. Eugenie sometimes has to defend geology for the same reason.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
I'm saying that the basis of the argument is a strawman committed by Cdesgn Proponentists, and it's not a strawman if her rhetoric is in response to that kind of stupidity.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger Not sure if I have the time to cover everything here. First I would not say Behe is the star. That would put you out of current ID thought by at least a year. I know of no ID crowd that draws evolution into ID. That would be a creation science arguement I suppose, but as with both sides, misrepresentations are common.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
" I would not say Behe is the star. That would put you out of current ID thought by at least a year."
It was more of a jab than anything else. Regardless ID doesn't produce research, so I'm not wrong.
"I know of no ID crowd that draws evolution into ID. That would be a creation science arguement I suppose,"
I make no distinction. Cdesign Proponentists try to make ID sound as scientific as possible, when ID doesn't even have a functioning theory, and is purely an opposition stance.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger I can see that you make no distiction between Creation Science and ID. That would be your misunderstanding. They differer greatly, especially in young earth, evolution, and identity of the designer. Despite your ability to be quite wordy, you're not really saying much other than "na-uh". So far it's clear that you even understand what ID is. Explain it to me as you understand it.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
Straight from the Discovery Institute, ID states that "Certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
The reason I make no distinction is because every single Cdesign Proponentist of note thinks that its the god of christianity, despite the claim that ID makes no indication of the identity of the designer.
Also, I'm sure you know what I'm getting at when I say "Cdesign Proponentist".
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger And I know scientists that reject ID yet are Christians. Would this make Abiogenesis the same as ID?
gcnengineer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gcnengineer
" And I know scientists that reject ID yet are Christians. Would this make Abiogenesis the same as ID?"
The same in what regard? elaborate on this point please.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
Youtube likes to delete my comments which contain your quotes, but it should still be in your inbox.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
The only distinction between ID, and old earth creationism is the labeling of the Designer, and even then, you have Muslim creationists who toe the same line, but have a different label.
"They differer greatly, especially in young earth, evolution, and identity of the designer."
You're only making a distinction between YEC and ID.
Even if ID asserts that its only disagreement with evolution is the "undirectedness" of it, it still makes no case as to how you would tell the difference.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
"Despite your ability to be quite wordy, you're not really saying much other than "na-uh"."
And you're not saying much other than "But SHE'S JUST WRONG!"
Even so, The Discovery Institute, and other ID organizations range from hardcore creationism, to the veiled abandonment of the original premise.
If ID accepts the premise of common ancestry, and natural selection, then its only position can be summed up one sentence.
"I disagree with abiogenesis."
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger Actually what I said was that Eugenie was saying evolution or ID, and ID was not in conflict with evolution. I haven't seen much from you since then. Well, lots of words, but not much other than to proclaim your belief that ID is wrong because it is believed by Christians. Of course with that truth I would have to say Abiogenesis is wrong because it believed by athiest.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
" but not much other than to proclaim your belief that ID is wrong because it is believed by Christians"
I didn't say that, nor did I even come out and say "ID is wrong". I said that it has no viable Theory. Hence it isn't science, hence it's nothing more than conjecture.
Its funny how this conversation started with you declaring Eugenie had made a strawman, and you blatantly made one of my position.
Not only that, but you mitigated my entire position to one strawman.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
"Actually what I said was that Eugenie was saying evolution or ID, and ID was not in conflict with evolution."
Because the concept that ID only disagrees with Abiogenesis would be correct inf that were the case, but ID clearly makes an attack on evolution, stating that "Undirected darwinian means" are incorrect.
At this point, ID and Evolution are in total conflict. She was correct.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
And you still havent elaborated on the question I asked you to elaborate on.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
"Actually what I said was that Eugenie was saying evolution or ID, and ID was not in conflict with evolution. "
You're getting mad at her because she hasn't addressed YOUR specific brand of ID. I hate to break it to you, but almost all of the ID proponents out there don't accept "Undirected" evolution.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger Not at all, it is not the evolution that is in conflict with ID, it is parts of Darwinian Evolution that is. Of course, you may next tell me that you only believe there is Darwinian Evolution. It wouldn't surprise me at this point. Glad to have cleared up the Christian thing. Just email me, you're wearing me out with these multiple posts.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
"Not at all, it is not the evolution that is in conflict with ID, it is parts of Darwinian Evolution that is."
Its the undirected nature of which that is in conflict. The modern theory of evolution makes no indication that its directed by a higher force, and the ID asserts that this is so without any conclusive evidence that would allow us to tell the difference between an undirected evolution, and an ID evolution.
"Darwinian Evolution" is 150 years old. Get with the times.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gcnengineer
". Just email me, you're wearing me out with these multiple posts."
No. Email arguments turn into books. This is somewhat organized, and it allows me to address specific quotes of yours.
That and it keeps your humiliation public :)
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
" Of course, you may next tell me that you only believe there is Darwinian Evolution. It wouldn't surprise me at this point. "
Lovely passive agressive insult.
No, I subscribe to the modern theory of evolution. Another strawmen that Cdesign Proponentists like you love to do is get in an argument with a dead man, when the rest of us have moved on, as science does. All of us who watched Expelled laughed every time Stein said something critical of "Darwinism".
Know why?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger okay this is going no where, we're just talking about what we think the other believes. If you should change your mind and want to email me and actually have a conversation, I pormise to play nice, and not give you a passive agressive bitch slap (lol)
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
Read my channel.
As a policy I dont argue via email. I've actually maxed out the PM character limit a few times (Probably the equivalent of about 200 comment blocks in a single message). Once I even maxed the limit twice for a single message, and had to send 3 messages for one reply.
Either way, I think my point has been made. Anyone who chances upon reading this can see you lost : )
Enjoy your day
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger This why I never talk to young people. They have no interest in the exchange of ideas, they tend to think this is some sort of video argumentation game where there is a winner or loser. You have made no points in my mind. I've watched you bowl along telling me what others believe and jumping to the ending, but you haven't had a discussion with me. You have had it with yourself.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
"This why I never talk to young people."
And I've never met an "Old person" who was so self serving as to assume that whatever you're referring to is simply a "young person" trait.
I've peeked at your comments, and I'm not the first person you've said this to.
Whatever makes you feel superior, gramps, but its extremely disingenuous, especially when its one of your stock replies for abandoning a debate.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger It's true just today I have said the very same thing to a 20 year old. You both convinced me that I should go back to that standard. If you wish to talk, instead of "win" for others to see and pleasure it brings you, feel free to email me. Otherwise, kiddo, continue your games with others.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
I made ONE reference to your losing the argument, because you proved yourself incorrect.
Why do you keep addressing this, unless it actually burns you?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger I'm wondering just how long you will argue with no arguement at hand. It seems to be more important to you than an actual debate on the issues.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
"I'm wondering just how long you will argue with no arguement at hand. It seems to be more important to you than an actual debate on the issues."
I've given you 3 opportunities to change the debate from you being wrong about Eugenie's accuracy, to something more substantive. Take them.
Otherwise, YOU seem more interested in telling me that we're not having an argument, and that I care more about winning or losing than ideas.
I'm just waiting for you, dude.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger What is the difference between not knowing the cause of the singularity, and not knowing the cause of the Designer? Back later
gcnengineer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gcnengineer
"What is the difference between not knowing the cause of the singularity, and not knowing the cause of the Designer?"
The difference is that the latter precludes a "Who" rather than a "how".
You add an unnecessary step to the equation based off of highly contestable evidence, at which point you replace one Unknown with another Unknown.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
Again, its not posting my comments on the main screen because I used quotes from you, and youtube's spam filter assumes that I'm spamming the page. My response is both in your inbox, and on the All Comments page.
(I had one guy the other day trying to act like I never addressed his comments because other people didn't immediately see them)
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
I replied to you 3 times. Youtube seems to be cockblocking my replies. They appear on the all comments page, and they should be in your inbox.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger Gone now?
gcnengineer 1 year ago
"They have no interest in the exchange of ideas, they tend to think this is some sort of video argumentation game where there is a winner or loser"
And why do you immediately assume that the two are mutually exclusive?
In a free exchange of ideas, sometimes there are ideas of equal merit, but other times there are ideas that are clearly wrong.
I don't know about you, but I have learned some of the most valuable things I know in the midst of argument. Debating is intellectually healthy.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger Health is debate, under the proper conditions, but you clearly, as you stated, just wish to "win" that's not debate even under your terms.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Health is debate, under the proper conditions, but you clearly, as you stated, just wish to "win" that's not debate even under your terms."
No, I didn't state that I just want to "Win". When I first said you lost, it was because you were incorrect. Should I keep repeating that point?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
"You have made no points in my mind."
Thats because you're disingenuous. We've established this. You also don't like being told that you're wrong, and like most Cdesign Proponentists, you'll gloss over that until someone twists your arm into accepting it.
Eugenie Scott was neither stupid, nor did she make a strawman, unless she was speaking to a specific kind of ID, which is a minority amongst its subscribers.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger Now you know why I said you just carried on an arguement with yourself. It was a straw man because of the reason I said it was because apparently, I am in what you call " a minority amongst its subscribers". But you ignored what I said and moved on to your preconcieved idea of what I would be thinking.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
"But you ignored what I said and moved on to your preconcieved idea of what I would be thinking."
No, because I'm not defending your position, I'm defending Eugenie's. I gather that you accept evolution, which I have no quarrel with. The quarrel I have is acting like you have intellectual superiority over her because she didn't address your minority.
I never "went ahead", I told you that when she's addressing ID, she doesn't addressing ye Unnamed-God-Old-Earth-Creationist-Proponets.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger Eugenie thinks, apparently that, ID is the same as Creation science, I said that. She says it in almost every presentation she gives. She is mistaken, and so are you. Try this, and I'll look at your answer when I get back from the store. No one dismisses the big bang because we do not know where the singularity came from.......
gcnengineer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Eugenie thinks, apparently that, ID is the same as Creation science, I said that. She says it in almost every presentation she gives. She is mistaken, and so are you."
You DO know what I'm talking about when I call you "Cdesign Proponentist" right?
You do know that Creationism and ID have a nearly identical definitions, right? And that almost all proponents of ID identify themselves as theistic creationists, right?
Also ID is stuck with a regressive problem which necessitates belief in god.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
"I've watched you bowl along telling me what others believe and jumping to the ending"
Which was what I was responding to in your comment. If you'd wanted to discuss the science, we could have discussed the science. We still can, if you want. Just don't tell me that I've spent the last 30 or so posts making no points, because thats all I've done. I've gone out of my way to respond to almost every line of text you produced.
You just don't like being told that you're wrong.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger You have made points that do not address my point of view on ID. thus no points of value in our conversation.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
"You have made points that do not address my point of view on ID. thus no points of value in our conversation."
You've made no assertions about your point of view on ID. All you've done is told me where I'm wrong, told me that I don't even understand ID, and that I haven't made any points.
We can argue over ID if you want to. I'll even let you pick the first topic.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gcnengineer
" You have made points that do not address my point of view on ID. thus no points of value in our conversation."
HELLOOOO MCFLY?
I responded to YOUR comment that was incorrect, and your comment had nothing to do with the substance of ID.
We've been on here talking about YOUR assertions about Eugenie's accuracy.
THATS what our conversation has been about.
Those ARE the points of value in this conversation.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger But if you wish to be the winner kiddo, then winner you are. I'll even send you a green participation ribbion if you'd like.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
"But if you wish to be the winner kiddo, then winner you are."
And if you wish to try to trump my intellect with your age, you're just showing everyone who sees this what kind of person you really are.
Not capable of argument, just "respect your elders" rhetoric.
Furthermore, I spent all of 1 sentence saying that you "Lost the argument", and you chose to respond to it twice. Did it burn you?
I've enjoyed the exchange of ideas. You provided none, and I gave you actual references.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gcnengineer
"Well, lots of words, but not much other than to proclaim your belief that ID is wrong because it is believed by Christians. Of course with that truth I would have to say Abiogenesis is wrong because it believed by athiest.'
I'm not an atheist. Thanks for giving me another false dichotomy built on a strawman, built on the mitigation of my entire position.
You've just lost the argument.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger Do you have anything to really say son? I try not to talk to people as young as you because it never really goes anywhere. Seems like under 30 tend to be so arrogant about their beliefs it is not possible to talk science.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
"Do you have anything to really say son?"
" I haven't seen much from you since then."
Its funny that you say this, because I've met every single one of your arguments, and my posts seem to outnumber yours 3 to 1.
"Seems like under 30 tend to be so arrogant about their beliefs it is not possible to talk science."
Right back at ya. It seems that someone so willing to use an argument from authority, coupled with an argument from age isn't interested in talking science.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
In case you haven't realized it, we haven't even touched on science yet, as our disagreement is entirely based in rhetoric, and labels.
Actually, I'm the only one who brought up anything scientific when I named several experiments that prove that the formation of RNA doesn't require a designer. (Before you say that the experiment proves they designed it, you need to look up the nature of experimentation, and also read the WIRED article on abiogenesis. quote "Spontaneously, and RNT formed!")
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger She needs to address the issues only and not rationalize what some ID proponets who think they know what they are talking about get into. That would be answering stupidity with stupidity, so let's go your way,... it wasn't as much a straw man as stupidity then
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
"She needs to address the issues only and not rationalize what some ID proponets who think they know what they are talking about get into."
1) She does address the issues, and 2) Why? The vast majority of Cdesign Proponetists think they know what they are talking about, and dont.
"That would be answering stupidity with stupidity,"
Sometimes answering someone's stupid assertion with a stupid answer makes them realize how stupid they're being. Doesn't make her stupid.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
"it wasn't as much a straw man as stupidity then"
I would say rhetorical defensiveness. I cant tell you how many times we "Evolutionists" have to make a strawman of our own position just to point out an even deeper flaw in the Cdesign Proponetist's logic.
This doesn't qualify as stupidity, the same way speaking very slowly to a small child isn't stupidity.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@gcnengineer And you are saying that a religious mythology (and all religions have mythology) should be taught in a SCIENCE CLASS as factual, provable knowledge and fact.
azmildman 1 year ago
@azmildman Not religion,....not at all. ID yes.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
Wow I like what she is saying 5 stars
fallbread 2 years ago
Why does this video have a rating of only 2.5 stars? Eugenie Scott usually gets rated higher than that. Was this video the victim of a votebot attack?
Vidar33 2 years ago 2
@Vidar33: Looking at the stats and data, it certainly looks that way. Stupid votebots.
Epitome613 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The old your just stupid argument doesn't work any more. Thank heaven for the Altenbeg 16 summit. How do you correct a 150 year old mistake? we'll see.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Sure why not.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Could it be possible that your predisposition to atheism is strongly influencing your views and possibly clouding your judgment?
benthemiester 2 years ago
"predisposition to atheism"
Wait wait wait, how stupid are you?
Predisposed not to believe in a Cosmic Jewish Zombie?
Laughable. Keep using big words, kid, it wont help you with this.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If you think my question was a stupid one, then I have to agree with you, and that is exactly why I asked it. Just maybe there are actually people out there who are willing to look at this theory in a critical way based on the observable evidence. That means thing we can see. There are extremist on both sides. The Kent Hovinds and the Eugenie Scott's. If you believe the words I'm using are big, then Ill try to use smaller ones if you want to get in to some of the finer points on the subject.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Intelligent Design doesn't have a theory, you silly little hillbilly, it has a religious opinion.
The Discovery Institute is a cowardly organization who is lying to you.
Dont be a sheep, moron, try to wake up.
Also, you shouldn't use big words when you dont understand them yourself.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago 14
Its just blatantly obvious how frightened you Theists are.
Religion is failing on a global scale, and that leaves you with desperate attempts to bypass intellectual fairness and put your specific version of god in schools to brainwash children.
How pathetic. Cant convert with the old fire and brimstone, so you use lies and deception on an even greater scale.
Way to fail, idiot. You are just too transparent.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
4 syllables very impressive. I was wrong about you old man. Your the only one talking theology, get mad at yourself I never mentioned metaphysics. pendejo.
benthemiester 2 years ago
You never mentioned metaphysics??
HAHAHHAHAH!!!
You stupid child, you dont have to-its blatantly obvious what you support!
You support bullshit propaganda and religious lies because you are too frightened that your Magic Man is losing the battle of intellect.
Ah, and a Spanish curse word. Wow, I'm so impressed! Thats probably one third of your vocabulary in that language picked up from high school. Gee.
ThatOneQuestion 2 years ago 4
Well said
fallbread 2 years ago
@ThatOneQuestion Intelligent Design is not a religious opinion to everyone, Einstein himself believed in Intelligent Design and did not believe in religion, he said the more he studied the Cosmos the more he believed in a God, he called him the creator of the Cosmos or the God of the Cosmos. Atheists are always trying to use anything to prove there is NO God because they are the exact people that equate God and religion and think the two cannot be separated.
angelgal707 1 year ago
@angelgal707 Appeal to Authority, dumbass. Nice job using a logical fallacy.
Religions DEFINE what a specific god is, you moron.
And yes, Intelligent Design is religion-THAT is a proven fact that came out of the Dover Trial.
Man, you really are an ignorant fuck.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@angelgal707 "Fossils have not proven one solitary fact."
Why do you say that? Do you even know what fossils are?
How can you possibly make such a willfully ignorant statement like that and pretend like you have any credibility??
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
As far as to the question as to why u should or shouldn't read the transcripts. I would say that if u don't want to be informed then u don't have too be. I don't mean to be a smart ass but that's the only way I can answer your question logically.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Judges don't decide what science is. Thier not trained for that. Science is decided by time, curiosity, & predictable hypothesis, which is y macro evo fails. The theory is a mish mash of patched up wholes. This is know big secret. Every new theory gets attacked. This is part of the history of science. Evolution is the only theory on record as requiring the aid of judicial activism and scientist playing the roll of social engineering. It cant sail under its own wind. Its not about religion 4 me.
benthemiester 2 years ago
You should read the transcript. The language that your using about religious motivation was not what the Judge based his decision on. The textbook of Pandas and people was never part of any curriculum or lesson plans. It was about a statement that there was a book on the subject of ID in the library the same library that they keep the Harry Potter books I might add. The statement also read that if there was interest that it should be discussed with there parents. It was not going to be taught.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Fair enough, I was already aware of most of them but at least you have shown something. I believe the Scopes trial did not side with evolution so lets go to the next. Dover, What do u think about Dover? Do u really believe that there were lesson plans drawn out for the teaching of ID? I'm interested in trying to understand your knowledge and perspective of this particular case. Have u read the transcripts?
benthemiester 2 years ago
Let me get this right. I don't want to misquote u. Are u implying discussion on strengths and weaknesses of a theory demonstrates a thinly veiled religious motive. Can u give me a specific example of a school board or county or any other public school who is promoting religion in the class room please be specific give me an instance, name, or something to confirm your claim. What does motive have to do with scientific observation? I cant believe your that shallow. Is this about saving face?
benthemiester 2 years ago
Fair enough, on this we can agree with the exception what u consider bullshit. The only problem is that Scott and other pro atheist organizations will sue any one who teaches Darwin from a critical position the way Darwin proposed the theory because of the theological implications they believe exist. If your for teaching the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinism then u should be upset with the Academy. Look at their court docket sheet they have posted on there sites.
benthemiester 2 years ago
What does religion have to do with being able to critique the the theory openly and ask about strengths and weakness of it the way the scientist openly talk about it in the literature. To pretend that u can discuss it in philosophy in social studies but some how exclude it from science is silly. There's a philosophical nature to science also, its called scientific philosophy and its practiced by adults and children, the other bullshit is to make the adults feel good, Kids are smarter than that.
benthemiester 2 years ago
My position is it doesn't matter, again we grow up and formulate our own views. If your satisfied with understanding the world through the words of high school biology teachers then so be it.People who search for deeper truths will form their own conclusions. I did u did and they will. It's not the policy that bothers me its the way science is being treated as a religion were there are penalties to pay for blasphemy against theory all the other stuff will work itself out. Antiquated textbooks.
benthemiester 2 years ago
The discovery Institute is against teaching ID as a theory in class its to new, teachers are not informed enough to do it any justice. This is not about creation in classrooms this is about being able to openly critique theories because thats how science grows. I and many others do not want to force any metaphysical beliefs on people or make them compulsory. In my opinion that is anti Christian. Same goes for any other belief system including naturalism or secular humanism.
benthemiester 2 years ago
I guess it didn't thread. My point was u were exposed to religion as a baby a boy then a teenager in the intimate influential setting of loving family members FLESH AND BLOOD and u turned out alright, but u believe that others will be hurt or confused by openly critiquing Darwinism in the class because it's theological implications. In other words its the old IM smart enough to know the truth, but everyone else is not as smart as me.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Like I said before I don't believe in forcing a new theory down peoples throats. Time, curiosity, and predictive testability will confirm or reject the theory. Mendel had to go through the same monolithic guardians of the truth bullshit. I will tell you why I asked u that question of your childhood. You see, we are very egotistical creatures and we think that we always know whats best for other people however most people don't concern themselves with the education system until it affects there..
benthemiester 2 years ago
You believe there's a distinction between the National Academy of sciences and the National center for Education there run by the same people Scott is the director of National Academy of Sciences check out there k-12 education program. Do u know who kevin Padian is?I don't know were your getting your info from but I am against teaching Intelligent Design in public class rooms. So much for your esp skills. Just because I believe in it, I'm not going to force any one else too, again curious logic?
benthemiester 2 years ago
leeho Although tempted I'm not going to insult u because u have a different opinion,. Let me ask u a question were u raised by atheist parents and told to shun or marginalize people of faith. Maybe your conditioned to respond that way that's why I ask.
benthemiester 2 years ago
You seem to be confused about the dynamics that make up the historical sciences and the distinction between the non observable past and the observable past which can be documented with specified info in the form of writing, pics docs ,etc in the case of the holocaust we still have people alive who can confirm this. The non observable past does not have this luxury.
benthemiester 2 years ago
reply posted
benthemiester 2 years ago
i have at least thirty to forty debates down loaded on my box, of scientist and researchers who have high degrees of learning credits to their names, scholars from both sides that have been showing up the last few years on college campuses and town halls to debate these points of contention, and some have even been atheist and agnostics Is my computer producing false images? again very amusing sense of logic u have there.
benthemiester 2 years ago
If there isn't any debate within the scientific community, then y is the the director of National Academy of SCIENCES which is Eugeneie Scott making a vid, along with all the other vids that she and the NAS made concerning this invisible non existent controversy. Is it a figment of my imagination?. Is the person in the vid a lay person disguising herself as scientist? Why do u think the NAS boycotted the Atenberg 16 comferrence last year? these men were anything but christian or creationist.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Your so convinced that u have spent several threads debating about it. This makes no sense. If the theory is so foolish why would u or anybody else waste their time debating it. Why would the Nas make so many openly hostile videos against ID.
benthemiester 2 years ago
I'm talking to air. I feel sorry for people like you.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Also panspermia is an explanation for origin of life on earth.evolution does not claim to explain origin of life
stevebr 2 years ago
If evolution does not concern itself with origins then what is the purpose of cause and effect science, again the dual standard is that Id has to specify the designer by 1st name, but evolutionist don't have to claim to understand the origin of life, what kind of dual logic is that?Im sure that U didn't know that protozoa which is supposed to be one of the most primordial of lifes domains actually has more genetic info than humans by orders of magnitude. Darwinism cannot explain or rectify this.
benthemiester 2 years ago
No there is another theory called abiogenesis which proposes to explain the origin of life. And also do u mean to say that IDists can simply say that designer did it but not say anything about the designer and we are supposed to accept that as science? Ah yes the more genes the more complex fallacy.clearly u know nothing about genetics
stevebr 2 years ago
As far as your designer argument concerned it is not logically consistent with your ability to reason. The universe and everything in it is going from order to chaos its also called the law of entropy which is testable. And as far as logic, To entertain the notion of a more advanced civilization of ET's and to not think it could be possible for them to have abillity to engineer life seems very egotistical. How can u prove it was undirected.You have made statements that u cant back up.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Also the distinction about micro and macro evolution is ludicrous. Its like saying someone can walk 5 steps but not a 100. Given enough time small changes can acccumulate to produce variety and speciation( which is what i guess u mean by "macro" evolution)
stevebr 2 years ago
Cunt pickle.
johnd94 2 years ago
By the way it was a couple of techs at Bell Labs that accidentally discovered the background radiation that lead to the theory of the big bang. No one has claimed to have discovered the big bang. It is a theory that cannot be tested empirically. When it comes to the historical sciences concerning cosmology, all we have are educated guesses.
benthemiester 2 years ago
I also believe that religious indoctrination as well as personnel world views should not be included in science classes. However Eugenie Scott has no room to talk, since she is one of the signers of the 3rd humanist manifesto which shamelessly imposes atheistic world views in high school science classes under the umbrella of empirical science.
benthemiester 2 years ago
What atheistic views? Science has no opinion on the existence of God since the concept of an omnipotent omniscient entity cannot be tested empirically. It is hilarious how scared fundamentalists are of science. on the other hand faith is not enough for them they want to use science to prove something that is inherently unprovable
stevebr 2 years ago
I wasn't speaking of science. I was speaking of a human being named Eugenie Scott. Lets make the distinction clear. Some of our greatest theories Newtonian Physics Mendelian genetics, Pasture's fundamental principles of biology, Galileo's non geocentric universe and so forth were all constructs and observations made by the same religious people you speak of. Darwin has its place but is extremely limited in accountability for a macro evolutionary pathaway. You offer a sanitized version.
benthemiester 2 years ago
So what r u saying? just bcos Eugenie Scott is an atheist she should not teach science? And Scott has been very accomodating of religious views. She has said that evolution does not imply atheism and people should not confuse methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. I also do not get ur statements about religious scientists.They were great scientists precisely bcos they kept their religion out of science.
stevebr 2 years ago
No, You're saying that not me. The role of the scientist is science not social engineering. If you think that Eugenie Scott is not involved in the religious fervor then I advise u to take a look at the Clergy Letter Project. Why would scientist as u say, want to impose there supposed scientific beliefs in religious dogma? Shouldn't religion be left to the theologians? Is it role of science to preach the meaning of life?
benthemiester 2 years ago
For some reason my threads didn't post. Check out the Seti project, Pan Spermia, and Micho Kaku's type three civilization theories. There all discussed and entertained in the scientific literature. Talk about double standards.
benthemiester 2 years ago
No its the IDists who have double standards. They are simply content to criticize evolution fallaciously. But they never offer any positive evidence in support of their hypothesis. Who is this designer, how did it create life, how to test it, where is the evidence, what predictions can it make. Evolution on the other hand fulfils all the criteria for a valid scienific theory.
stevebr 2 years ago
Mutation theory can not account for the origin or even the step by step construct of this type of specificity. The mantra is that there is overwhelming evidence, but you have sited absolutely none and instead have relied on generalizations and philosophic arguments based on your personell views not anything testable.
benthemiester 2 years ago
No u r wrong. Eugenie Scott does not encourage atheistic views in science classrooms.And also most Christians accept evolution bcos of the evidence in favour of it not bcos someone is imposing it on them.And most Christians dont see any conflict betwen evolution and their beliefs. No science cant preach the meaning of life but that does not mean that religion has some sort of monopoly on morals or how people should live their lives
stevebr 2 years ago
U obviously have not heard of the 3rd humanist manifesto, The clergy letter project, or her belief that molecule to man evolution does not require an intelligent agent. How does the scientist prove this. The second law states all ordered systems go from order to disorder.Things do not get more organized on there own according to empirical testable physics. Pasture proved scientifically that living things only come from other living things. Theres no pathway for unlimited variation in Genetics.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Good lord now u r saying evolution violates 2nd law of thermodynamics? It seems a waste to talk to u. Also i repeat i see absolutely no positive evidence for ID simply more fallacious criticisms for evolution. And u wonder why no decent bilogist takes ID seriously
stevebr 2 years ago
I have offered several testable principles of biology and physics including names. Not only have u not been able to site your sources for Debunking Behe comment about IC. All you have done is call people ignorant. Is this what you regard as refutation, and your willing to put your faith in abiogenesis wich is a non testible therefore non scientifically empirical hypothesis. You have greater faith than me. The mantra doesn't work anymore.
benthemiester 2 years ago
I'm curious about the claim that Dr. Scott is for centralized government. Has she said that before, or is there some action she's taken that makes you think this? I would concede that she is an activist, but I'm confused about the comment about centralized control.
junquegrrl 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Time to retire, Eugenie: "Answers in Genesis in Florence, Kentucky is as large as or perhaps by now even a little larger than Answers in Genesis."
WTF? AIG is even a little larger than AIG? Now I see why you believe in the macro theory of evolution.
Wwallace67 2 years ago
I'd love to see you do a public lecture without one slip-up. Prick.
HeroesFail 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ah, did I pick on your favorite anthropologist?
When will the NCDE get a biologist as its head?
Abbie Smith is out of the running since she just got stomped by Dr. Charles Jackson.
Wwallace67 2 years ago
Does anyone think the clergy should have any input in science classes teaching evolution?
benthemiester 2 years ago
well, if a clergyman discovered the "big bang"*, then why not?
as long as they accept the theory of evolution as put down by Darwin, wallace, and al-jahith, and keep their religion out of school. if you meant by "clergymen" as those crazy ted-haggard style clergy, then fuck no! keep them from the science classes, they can' teach reality even if the universe depended on it.
*a man named