"Steven Meyer is the author of a book, "How to get Intelligent Design into public school curriculum."
Really. Meyes has co-written two books on ID, neither of which is a tactical book advocating teaching ID, or of that title.
According to AGI (not AIG ;-)), David DeWolf wrote a 'legal brief' with that title. Wrong again. AGI was referring to a paper entitled, "Teaching the Origins Controversy: Science, Religion or Speech?" which was co-authored by Meyer and Mark Edward DeForrest.
so let me get this straight... you think it's more plausible that some intelligent agent or group of agents has been visiting our planet periodically for the past 3 billion years in order to make changes to the life that exists, so that life can continue to flourish??? and not only that, but you believe this agent(s) has also been very tedious about removing any trace of its existence?
Now we're getting into philosophy, but I can give you my opinion. The intervening entities are likely not aliens, or visitors from other galaxies. Life itself is not biological, but spiritual. Even heard the phrase, 'the ghost in the machine?' If not, Google it.
Biologic forms (primates) are vehicles for an earthbound experience. You, me and the guy next door are spirit based. When the body dies, we continue on in some realm.
So to answer your question, those 'agents' exist in cosmic space.
sounds like religion to me. and your attempt at masking it is no better than the countless other creationists like demski, behe, luskin, stein, etc. who have tried to argue that it isn't. why is it so hard to admit that? intelligent design is creationism. why not just be honest about it? you're not fooling anyone.
you have a flawed understanding of terms. Creationism says God created everything in the 6 LITERAL days mentioned in the bible. Intelligent design is supported by countless agnostics, Jews, Muslims, etc who believe merely that there indeed MUST be a creator. Many disagree on who or what that creator is.
any trace of its existence? information is at the beginning. it is present PRIOR to natural selection acting on random mutation [if you accept the very flawed theory of evolution]. information comes from minds. we know this from our God-given everyday experience. So, we see design and order in everything. Indeed we see God in everything. Romans 1:20-22 A creator would by necessity be outside of time/space/matter and therefore supernatural. I don't know why people have such a problem with this.
This paper by the way, available online in .PDF, discusses all sides of the issue of teaching origins and is worth a read. There is more content in that 72 pg free document than in many of the books on the subject.
Bottom line, Meyer never wrote a book with that title, so Miller misrepresented the facts.
The above mistatement, by the way, is at 1:03 on the Kenneth Miller at Case Western University video.
about the only thing miller misrepresented was the title of the book. it's titled: Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curriculum: A Legal Guidebook. however, it is just as miller described it. it's nothing more than a guidebook on how to get intelligent design taught in the high school science curricula.
" i like the way fox news has convinced so many people that anything left of fox news is "the liberal media".
So as a conservative, (I'm liberal on some things, moderate or concervative on others), you still go along with the 'agenda based' science community?
I don't like rocking the boat, but NS of RM is outdated, and flat wrong. Funding requirements, and naturalism as a 'rule of law' stiffle science, but I predict that that will change in the next few years.
yes. i go along with the agenda of teaching things which are verifiable. i don't believe in using things which are described as being "unknowable" in order to explain the unknown. and no, neither natural selection nor random mutation are outdated concepts. they are verifiable facts of science. i can see why you don't like rocking the boat.
Evolution of complex organs and body plans by random mutations, HOWEVER selected (traits most 'fit' *may* become fixed in a population) have NOT been verified.
It is conjecture based on extrapolation of observable 'adaptive' alterations.
Thus, while some aspects of evolution are verifiable, its major tenet is not, has NOT, and is thus falsified.
Evolution has been shown to be an adaptive mechanism only. No speciation its 'true' sense.
i'm not even sure i understand what you're trying to say. your response is so riddled with fallacies, it cannot be construed as a logical argument. if i may try and make sense of what you're trying to say, you think because (according to your belief) that speciation has not been witness, then evolution has been falsified. am i understanding you correctly?
That is correct. Ernst Mayr (1942) published details of how allopatric and sympatric speciation occurs (geographically isolated populations no longer able to reproduce).
These definitions of a type of speciation that were observable (fruit flies and others), have been used as proof of observable speciation.
It is moving the goal posts, however, since actual speciation (altered body plans, addition of complex organs) has not been observed.
well, that's why evolution is referred to as a theory. do you understand anything about science? theories do not prove anything, they merely offer explanations for naturally occurring phenomena. however, the theory must offer a testable hypothesis. nowhere in the theory of evolution does it say anything about "altered body plans" or "addition of complex organs" being observable in the lifetime of a human being. it is understood these processes take much longer.
But, and here's the caveat: ID postulates that at certain junctures (speciation event, fish to reptiles, reptiles to birds), information is added to the mix. We today (an evolving technology) can alter a genome by coding alterations. That constitutes the addition of information.
It is a viable hypothesis, based on that ability, for an intelligence (unknown, of course) to do the same.
Mutations as the source of 10 million or so species is less likely.
it's not a valid hypothesis because you're using the "unknowable" to explain the unknown. and furthermore, there is no observation of it on any level. you're making an assumption based on what we can do today through science, that this same process happened millions (even billions) of years ago by a being who left no trace of his existence. and furthermore, your "hypothesis" doesn't explain why information changes on its own in the form of random mutations.
Mutations occur due to transcription errors. MOST are deleterious, and degrade the progeny. A few, *damn* few, might confer a reproductive or survival advantage and becme fixed in a population. The reason is basically, that complex protein transcriptions/ sequences are subject to error.
But I predict that variations (hair/skin color, beak length, etc) are variants included within the genome, and NOT due to the above mentioned mutations.
Evolution is to aid survival, NOT to produce new species.
I'm a biomedical engineer, with an interest in evolution. I do accept evolution, but not its 'extrapolated' functions. It's observable at an 'adaptive' level, but extrapolated to multiple higher levels.
It's somewhat amusing, but frustrating, that the TOE is often compared to the TEG (gravity). That's like comparing what happens within a computer to what happens to a light bulb when turned on. Molecular attraction for one, multiple processes for the other.
that's ridiculous. evolution is the best explanation we have for our genome similarities with other organisms. what's even funnier is the fact that you deny this explanation, claiming a lack of evidence, for another "theory" which has NO supporting evidence. if you're satisfied with believing such foolishness, you're welcome to it.
Let me clarify. I accept the species change, along with genome homologies with ERVs, and anatomic homologies.
I accept the phylogenetic tree & common ancestry. However, I attribute speciation to genetic alterations by an intelligence, and more likely, muliple intelligences.
So for clarity, I retract " Evolution is ... NOT to produce species", but rephrase it as 'guided evolution', where new species are designed by an intelligence. Rather than an unguided process, I hypothesize gene tweaking.
I'm sittling here looking at it. All 595 pages! Now if I can just find the time to read it ...
Check out Meyer's thirty minute interview with Terry Jeffrey at cnsnews[.]com, a journalist who knows little on the subject, but who comes away from the interview a notch or two higher on the subject of DNA.
Whether most mutations are deleterious, beneficial, or neutral depends on the species.
In humans, for instance, a great deal of the DNA is junk. If a mutation occurs, it will most likely be there and, as this does not code for anything, the mutation will be neutral.
A certain pufferfish species has a comparable (to humans) number of actual genes, but one tenth as much DNA. In such an organism, a mutation is far more likely to have a charge.
I will accept that if a species has a larger amount of 'junk DNA', that a higher number of mutations could be neutral, rather than deleterious. What I won't readilly accept is that beneficial mutations occurre(d) that would build complexity or speciation stepwise.
The rationales for the above are too numerous to expound upon here, but my primary contention is that intermediate alterations to an eye (for example) would each have to confer a heritable survival or repro advantage. Very unlikely.
but there is no evidence of any guiding force other than natural selection. i don't get why it's so difficult to accept. your assumption that there is is based on nothing more than wishful thinking.
Complexity, symetries, synergistic systems, DNA coding are among the evidences.
The difficulty for the Darwinian narrative is the statistical improbability.
No wishful thinking involved; I don't care one way or the other. Remember, ID is not agenda basied (I want it to be true), but based on design inferences (evidence).
And finally, as stated, I accept evolution as an adaptive mechanism to aid in species survival, with the alterate hypothesis of genetic variety pre programmed in the genome.
you're using an appeal to ignorance argument. you're suggesting that just because you can't figure how those things would have developed via random mutation and natural selection, then they must be the result of a designer. strangely enough, they have all have valid explanations that can be proved. i.d. is not agenda based??? are you serious? you really don't think the purpose of i.d. is to get creationism into h.s. science? that's hilarious!!! no more man, you killing me!!! hahahaha!!!
An an engineer who understands cause and effect, and who has studied (ongoing) the embryogenesis process, the 'actual' creative mechanism, as well as evolutionary processes, I wouldn't call it 'an appeal to ignorance'.
There are, in fact, may evolution supporters that fit the 'appeal to ignorance' scenario, by accepting random natural processes as viable, simply because the scientific establishment says so.
Agenda based creationists exist, but thy are NOT IDers in its definitive sense.
dude... just be nice to people man... seriously. i mean... you're not even the one presenting rational arguments here. you just mock people for their educated beliefs. so unnecessary, pointless, easy, superfluous, mundane, done, spent, etc. it just gets SO old seeing people disrespecting others' opinions. Let's think about it: you believe that ;everything came from nothing, that though everything appears to be designed that in fact it is not - a mere outworking of pure randomness; that...
...we have no ultimate purpose; that love and hope and joy are all just meaningless emotions [oddly enough, emotions evolution needlessly 'selected' for???] So who should be mocked? The reality is that atheism is a hopeless, pointless, deeply sad philosophy. I choose peace... peace based on my experience, empirical evidence, and science.
dude, spare your misconceptions about atheism and science for people who buy into your b.s.
"you believe that everything came from nothing."
really? i only admit an unknowing of the origins of the universe. this is due to a lack of evidence. i'm certainly not going to assume that some goat herders who lived a few thousand years ago had a better understanding of the universe than the most brilliant scientists of today.
alright man... you clearly skipped kindergarten where they taught all about the golden rule. you cannot argue that atheism is bereft of any modicum of hope and meaning for life. its logical ends always result in depravity and utter sadness. you should read "the science of God" by gerald schroeder. it talks about how accurate those 'goat herders' actually were [you do know they lived in huge cities sometimes with millions of people, right?]. there's so much evidence for belief in the Bible.
golden rule? do unto others right? so it's alright for you to tell people who are atheists that their life has no meaning and the logical ends of atheism is depravity and utter sadness. and when throw this b.s. back in your face you accuse them of being rude. typical creationists tactics. insult everyone who doesn't agree with you, and when they respond by calling you an idiot, you cry, "persecution!"
how about just being nice. good way to live. and every word of what I said was truth, NOT some attempt to insult you. and i never cried persecution. i could not care less about what you think of me or any other believer. i just want you to think about the logic of your positions, and to understand there is peace in knowing God. so... i don't think you're an idiot, and I never said anything to incite you to anger. i was simply sharing truths i have come to understand.
how about not making jackass claims like saying the logical ends of atheism are depravity and utter sadness? think you can swing that? that's the problem with people like you. it is that you will make a statement like that, and think you're completely justified in saying something so blatantly arrogant and ignorant.
how is it arrogant? and instead of saying i just make claims you disagree with, assert your own views. you're hardly arguing here... just more ad hominem attacks. my claims hold water, and are backed up by history and present reality. atheism has no robust model for morality. that obviously does not mean atheists cannot be moral. naturalism cannot account for so much of our human experience. but you stake everything on some ridiculous idea that science can tell...
...you everything, and then when you get what i would consider to be incontrovertible evidence, you ignore it because it points to something outside of science.
incontrovertible evidence? such as what? a book which claims to be the word of god? a compilation of books written over 2000 years ago which is in contradiction to what science has already demonstrated to be false. the earth is not 6000 yrs. old, mad did not coexist with the dinosaurs, and a worldwide flood never took place. to suggest that any of these thngs are true, despite all the scientific evidence which proves otherwise, is the epitome of arrogance.
furthermore, you assertion that atheism has no robust model for morality is hilarious. as if christianity or any any other religion does? your holy which your moral code is derived from says parents should stone to death their disobedient children, gays should be put death, women should marry the men who rape them. sorry, i think i'll stick with atheism when it comes to morality.
"Steven Meyer is the author of a book, "How to get Intelligent Design into public school curriculum."
Really. Meyes has co-written two books on ID, neither of which is a tactical book advocating teaching ID, or of that title.
According to AGI (not AIG ;-)), David DeWolf wrote a 'legal brief' with that title. Wrong again. AGI was referring to a paper entitled, "Teaching the Origins Controversy: Science, Religion or Speech?" which was co-authored by Meyer and Mark Edward DeForrest.
What they are basically saying is that no, we do not want bananas served in schools, we want curved yellow fruit on the menu.
biggingeryeti 3 months ago
"Steven Meyer is the author of a book, "How to get Intelligent Design into public school curriculum."
Really. Meyes has co-written two books on ID, neither of which is a tactical book advocating teaching ID, or of that title.
According to AGI (not AIG ;-)), David DeWolf wrote a 'legal brief' with that title. Wrong again. AGI was referring to a paper entitled, "Teaching the Origins Controversy: Science, Religion or Speech?" which was co-authored by Meyer and Mark Edward DeForrest.
BeauLeeman 1 year ago
so let me get this straight... you think it's more plausible that some intelligent agent or group of agents has been visiting our planet periodically for the past 3 billion years in order to make changes to the life that exists, so that life can continue to flourish??? and not only that, but you believe this agent(s) has also been very tedious about removing any trace of its existence?
cristoballs 2 years ago
Now we're getting into philosophy, but I can give you my opinion. The intervening entities are likely not aliens, or visitors from other galaxies. Life itself is not biological, but spiritual. Even heard the phrase, 'the ghost in the machine?' If not, Google it.
Biologic forms (primates) are vehicles for an earthbound experience. You, me and the guy next door are spirit based. When the body dies, we continue on in some realm.
So to answer your question, those 'agents' exist in cosmic space.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
sounds like religion to me. and your attempt at masking it is no better than the countless other creationists like demski, behe, luskin, stein, etc. who have tried to argue that it isn't. why is it so hard to admit that? intelligent design is creationism. why not just be honest about it? you're not fooling anyone.
cristoballs 2 years ago
you have a flawed understanding of terms. Creationism says God created everything in the 6 LITERAL days mentioned in the bible. Intelligent design is supported by countless agnostics, Jews, Muslims, etc who believe merely that there indeed MUST be a creator. Many disagree on who or what that creator is.
adg1017 2 years ago
any trace of its existence? information is at the beginning. it is present PRIOR to natural selection acting on random mutation [if you accept the very flawed theory of evolution]. information comes from minds. we know this from our God-given everyday experience. So, we see design and order in everything. Indeed we see God in everything. Romans 1:20-22 A creator would by necessity be outside of time/space/matter and therefore supernatural. I don't know why people have such a problem with this.
adg1017 2 years ago
Hey! There's no William Shatner in this video. I was misled!!!!
underpantssquirrel 2 years ago
Thank you Ken Miller, keep up the education.
gregrutz 2 years ago
This paper by the way, available online in .PDF, discusses all sides of the issue of teaching origins and is worth a read. There is more content in that 72 pg free document than in many of the books on the subject.
Bottom line, Meyer never wrote a book with that title, so Miller misrepresented the facts.
The above mistatement, by the way, is at 1:03 on the Kenneth Miller at Case Western University video.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
about the only thing miller misrepresented was the title of the book. it's titled: Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curriculum: A Legal Guidebook. however, it is just as miller described it. it's nothing more than a guidebook on how to get intelligent design taught in the high school science curricula.
cristoballs 2 years ago
" i like the way fox news has convinced so many people that anything left of fox news is "the liberal media".
So as a conservative, (I'm liberal on some things, moderate or concervative on others), you still go along with the 'agenda based' science community?
I don't like rocking the boat, but NS of RM is outdated, and flat wrong. Funding requirements, and naturalism as a 'rule of law' stiffle science, but I predict that that will change in the next few years.
Albeit slowly, slowly ...
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
yes. i go along with the agenda of teaching things which are verifiable. i don't believe in using things which are described as being "unknowable" in order to explain the unknown. and no, neither natural selection nor random mutation are outdated concepts. they are verifiable facts of science. i can see why you don't like rocking the boat.
cristoballs 2 years ago
Evolution of complex organs and body plans by random mutations, HOWEVER selected (traits most 'fit' *may* become fixed in a population) have NOT been verified.
It is conjecture based on extrapolation of observable 'adaptive' alterations.
Thus, while some aspects of evolution are verifiable, its major tenet is not, has NOT, and is thus falsified.
Evolution has been shown to be an adaptive mechanism only. No speciation its 'true' sense.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
i'm not even sure i understand what you're trying to say. your response is so riddled with fallacies, it cannot be construed as a logical argument. if i may try and make sense of what you're trying to say, you think because (according to your belief) that speciation has not been witness, then evolution has been falsified. am i understanding you correctly?
cristoballs 2 years ago
That is correct. Ernst Mayr (1942) published details of how allopatric and sympatric speciation occurs (geographically isolated populations no longer able to reproduce).
These definitions of a type of speciation that were observable (fruit flies and others), have been used as proof of observable speciation.
It is moving the goal posts, however, since actual speciation (altered body plans, addition of complex organs) has not been observed.
I can provide links if you like.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
well, that's why evolution is referred to as a theory. do you understand anything about science? theories do not prove anything, they merely offer explanations for naturally occurring phenomena. however, the theory must offer a testable hypothesis. nowhere in the theory of evolution does it say anything about "altered body plans" or "addition of complex organs" being observable in the lifetime of a human being. it is understood these processes take much longer.
cristoballs 2 years ago
... these processes take much longer."
But, and here's the caveat: ID postulates that at certain junctures (speciation event, fish to reptiles, reptiles to birds), information is added to the mix. We today (an evolving technology) can alter a genome by coding alterations. That constitutes the addition of information.
It is a viable hypothesis, based on that ability, for an intelligence (unknown, of course) to do the same.
Mutations as the source of 10 million or so species is less likely.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
it's not a valid hypothesis because you're using the "unknowable" to explain the unknown. and furthermore, there is no observation of it on any level. you're making an assumption based on what we can do today through science, that this same process happened millions (even billions) of years ago by a being who left no trace of his existence. and furthermore, your "hypothesis" doesn't explain why information changes on its own in the form of random mutations.
cristoballs 2 years ago
Mutations occur due to transcription errors. MOST are deleterious, and degrade the progeny. A few, *damn* few, might confer a reproductive or survival advantage and becme fixed in a population. The reason is basically, that complex protein transcriptions/ sequences are subject to error.
But I predict that variations (hair/skin color, beak length, etc) are variants included within the genome, and NOT due to the above mentioned mutations.
Evolution is to aid survival, NOT to produce new species.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
i don't even know how to respond. it's as if you admit that evolution occurs but refuse to accept it.
cristoballs 2 years ago
I'm a biomedical engineer, with an interest in evolution. I do accept evolution, but not its 'extrapolated' functions. It's observable at an 'adaptive' level, but extrapolated to multiple higher levels.
It's somewhat amusing, but frustrating, that the TOE is often compared to the TEG (gravity). That's like comparing what happens within a computer to what happens to a light bulb when turned on. Molecular attraction for one, multiple processes for the other.
NDE's abilities are overly stated.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
that's ridiculous. evolution is the best explanation we have for our genome similarities with other organisms. what's even funnier is the fact that you deny this explanation, claiming a lack of evidence, for another "theory" which has NO supporting evidence. if you're satisfied with believing such foolishness, you're welcome to it.
cristoballs 2 years ago
Let me clarify. I accept the species change, along with genome homologies with ERVs, and anatomic homologies.
I accept the phylogenetic tree & common ancestry. However, I attribute speciation to genetic alterations by an intelligence, and more likely, muliple intelligences.
So for clarity, I retract " Evolution is ... NOT to produce species", but rephrase it as 'guided evolution', where new species are designed by an intelligence. Rather than an unguided process, I hypothesize gene tweaking.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
check out Stephen C. Meyer's new book, "The Signature in the Cell."
adg1017 2 years ago
I'm sittling here looking at it. All 595 pages! Now if I can just find the time to read it ...
Check out Meyer's thirty minute interview with Terry Jeffrey at cnsnews[.]com, a journalist who knows little on the subject, but who comes away from the interview a notch or two higher on the subject of DNA.
Now, back to Meyer's book ...
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
nice! I actually was at a talk of his recently in Olympia. phenomenal stuff going on in that area. enjoy!
adg1017 2 years ago
They're stated too often? Or are they overstated?
TheLastCoolName 2 years ago
Whether most mutations are deleterious, beneficial, or neutral depends on the species.
In humans, for instance, a great deal of the DNA is junk. If a mutation occurs, it will most likely be there and, as this does not code for anything, the mutation will be neutral.
A certain pufferfish species has a comparable (to humans) number of actual genes, but one tenth as much DNA. In such an organism, a mutation is far more likely to have a charge.
TheLastCoolName 2 years ago
I will accept that if a species has a larger amount of 'junk DNA', that a higher number of mutations could be neutral, rather than deleterious. What I won't readilly accept is that beneficial mutations occurre(d) that would build complexity or speciation stepwise.
The rationales for the above are too numerous to expound upon here, but my primary contention is that intermediate alterations to an eye (for example) would each have to confer a heritable survival or repro advantage. Very unlikely.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
but there is no evidence of any guiding force other than natural selection. i don't get why it's so difficult to accept. your assumption that there is is based on nothing more than wishful thinking.
cristoballs 2 years ago
Complexity, symetries, synergistic systems, DNA coding are among the evidences.
The difficulty for the Darwinian narrative is the statistical improbability.
No wishful thinking involved; I don't care one way or the other. Remember, ID is not agenda basied (I want it to be true), but based on design inferences (evidence).
And finally, as stated, I accept evolution as an adaptive mechanism to aid in species survival, with the alterate hypothesis of genetic variety pre programmed in the genome.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
you're using an appeal to ignorance argument. you're suggesting that just because you can't figure how those things would have developed via random mutation and natural selection, then they must be the result of a designer. strangely enough, they have all have valid explanations that can be proved. i.d. is not agenda based??? are you serious? you really don't think the purpose of i.d. is to get creationism into h.s. science? that's hilarious!!! no more man, you killing me!!! hahahaha!!!
cristoballs 2 years ago
An an engineer who understands cause and effect, and who has studied (ongoing) the embryogenesis process, the 'actual' creative mechanism, as well as evolutionary processes, I wouldn't call it 'an appeal to ignorance'.
There are, in fact, may evolution supporters that fit the 'appeal to ignorance' scenario, by accepting random natural processes as viable, simply because the scientific establishment says so.
Agenda based creationists exist, but thy are NOT IDers in its definitive sense.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
dude... just be nice to people man... seriously. i mean... you're not even the one presenting rational arguments here. you just mock people for their educated beliefs. so unnecessary, pointless, easy, superfluous, mundane, done, spent, etc. it just gets SO old seeing people disrespecting others' opinions. Let's think about it: you believe that ;everything came from nothing, that though everything appears to be designed that in fact it is not - a mere outworking of pure randomness; that...
adg1017 2 years ago
...we have no ultimate purpose; that love and hope and joy are all just meaningless emotions [oddly enough, emotions evolution needlessly 'selected' for???] So who should be mocked? The reality is that atheism is a hopeless, pointless, deeply sad philosophy. I choose peace... peace based on my experience, empirical evidence, and science.
adg1017 2 years ago
dude, spare your misconceptions about atheism and science for people who buy into your b.s.
"you believe that everything came from nothing."
really? i only admit an unknowing of the origins of the universe. this is due to a lack of evidence. i'm certainly not going to assume that some goat herders who lived a few thousand years ago had a better understanding of the universe than the most brilliant scientists of today.
cristoballs 2 years ago
alright man... you clearly skipped kindergarten where they taught all about the golden rule. you cannot argue that atheism is bereft of any modicum of hope and meaning for life. its logical ends always result in depravity and utter sadness. you should read "the science of God" by gerald schroeder. it talks about how accurate those 'goat herders' actually were [you do know they lived in huge cities sometimes with millions of people, right?]. there's so much evidence for belief in the Bible.
adg1017 2 years ago
golden rule? do unto others right? so it's alright for you to tell people who are atheists that their life has no meaning and the logical ends of atheism is depravity and utter sadness. and when throw this b.s. back in your face you accuse them of being rude. typical creationists tactics. insult everyone who doesn't agree with you, and when they respond by calling you an idiot, you cry, "persecution!"
cristoballs 2 years ago 2
how about just being nice. good way to live. and every word of what I said was truth, NOT some attempt to insult you. and i never cried persecution. i could not care less about what you think of me or any other believer. i just want you to think about the logic of your positions, and to understand there is peace in knowing God. so... i don't think you're an idiot, and I never said anything to incite you to anger. i was simply sharing truths i have come to understand.
adg1017 2 years ago
how about not making jackass claims like saying the logical ends of atheism are depravity and utter sadness? think you can swing that? that's the problem with people like you. it is that you will make a statement like that, and think you're completely justified in saying something so blatantly arrogant and ignorant.
cristoballs 2 years ago 4
how is it arrogant? and instead of saying i just make claims you disagree with, assert your own views. you're hardly arguing here... just more ad hominem attacks. my claims hold water, and are backed up by history and present reality. atheism has no robust model for morality. that obviously does not mean atheists cannot be moral. naturalism cannot account for so much of our human experience. but you stake everything on some ridiculous idea that science can tell...
adg1017 2 years ago
Actually christians and religious types have no robust model for morality.
If you're doing it to attain eternal reward, or belay eternal punishment, you don't have morality, you have fear of authority.
Atheists, who believe no such thing, are moral by definition.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago 5
...you everything, and then when you get what i would consider to be incontrovertible evidence, you ignore it because it points to something outside of science.
adg1017 2 years ago
incontrovertible evidence? such as what? a book which claims to be the word of god? a compilation of books written over 2000 years ago which is in contradiction to what science has already demonstrated to be false. the earth is not 6000 yrs. old, mad did not coexist with the dinosaurs, and a worldwide flood never took place. to suggest that any of these thngs are true, despite all the scientific evidence which proves otherwise, is the epitome of arrogance.
cristoballs 2 years ago 10
furthermore, you assertion that atheism has no robust model for morality is hilarious. as if christianity or any any other religion does? your holy which your moral code is derived from says parents should stone to death their disobedient children, gays should be put death, women should marry the men who rape them. sorry, i think i'll stick with atheism when it comes to morality.
cristoballs 2 years ago 13
Ah, no. You clearly don't understand the difference between atheism and nihilism.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Junk DNA is a myth. For evidence reference Stephen C. Meyer's newest book, or just do some research on the latest findings in molec. bio.
adg1017 2 years ago
"Steven Meyer is the author of a book, "How to get Intelligent Design into public school curriculum."
Really. Meyes has co-written two books on ID, neither of which is a tactical book advocating teaching ID, or of that title.
According to AGI (not AIG ;-)), David DeWolf wrote a 'legal brief' with that title. Wrong again. AGI was referring to a paper entitled, "Teaching the Origins Controversy: Science, Religion or Speech?" which was co-authored by Meyer and Mark Edward DeForrest.
BeauLeeman 2 years ago
Rude.
DiscoveryInstituteID 2 years ago
Great clip. Dr. Miller's entire presentation is bloody brilliant.
brandonbdx 3 years ago