It was so good to read the transcript from this trial,especially during the cross examine on Michael Behe. You don't even have to be there to know how badly he was embarassed because his ideas on "irreducible complexity" are not only non-scientific, but his examples have tons of research and explanations that simply Behe wasn't willing to look at or accept. He looked a complete fool and revealed himself for what he is...a liar and a fraud.
This is not science vs religion as the brain-dead media portrays it. This is Information science vs Neo-Darwinian mythology. Good science vs bad science. Darwinism has to assume itself true to survive, intelligent design relies on empirical investigation in real-time.
narrow religious views cloud reason. The form of ID/creationism that is "preached' by people like you is not science but mysticism disguised as science and therefor does not belong in school. That is why they had this trial. that is why ID was defeated - because it is RELIGION. All this talk about aliens and whatever it is that you are postulating is a philisophical issue. The point is you think God did it. Not aliens, not comets, but God. And religion does not belong in public school.
"Macro-evolution by definition is just a lot of Micro-evolution"
That idea exist in your mind. Your assuming that it happens you have no proof. You have been told your whole life that there is plenty of evidence. Yet you have yet to provide any. As said before, I have no problem with evolution. That is to say, what we can prove empirically, such as small changes. The fossil record shows abrupt appearance long periods of stasis and only small changes brought on by natural selective pressures.
@benthemiester I dont have to present you with evidence- if you cant look up evidence for evolution then you are dumber than my 3rd grader. What is this 500 character box suppossed to be a classroom in which I give you a Basic science education? There is no doubt about evolution and this isnt a debate. I know you are desperate to bring back the Dark Ages but that just will not happen. You are not about science you are religious fanatic. You are not rational. You have a religious agenda admit it.
@mucephi1 Thats what they all say. I started researching this subject several years ago thinking that evolution was a scientific fact and I thought anyone who denied it was dumb or ignoring the evidence and once I found out how flimsy the evidence was I changed my mind. If macro evolution molecule to man is true, then no one has a clue to how it happened because the neo Darwinian synth is out dated & obsolete. Many scientist in the last few years have went on record as saying so.
@benthemiester The point is that creationism is not science because it does not answer anything. If your complaint is that evolution only explains 99% then that means 1% is all the wiggle room you have and providing an answer that just asks the same exact question again is no answer at all. I am not going to convince you of anything nor do I care to try. You are wrong and thats all. You say "many" scientists have gone on record. How is that a point when 1000 times as many have said is false?
@mucephi1 Right now many scientist are now saying that its possible life could have arrived here on comets. So should we just not ask because then we would have to find out where that life came from and deal with the same question of infinite regression. For that matter, lets give up on the origins of the universe question because we dont know what there was before space and time, or where the singularity came from. It seems your logic is a real science stopper. If its to hard lets not ask.
@benthemiester Relating the development of life within an existing universe composed of time and space is not the same thing as asking where the universe itself came from.
@mucephi1 "Relating the development of life within an existing universe composed of time and space is not the same thing as asking where the universe itself came from"
It deals with the same question of infinite regression which was your whole point. So should we give up on the possibility of pan spermia and please tell me why? I cant believe that if we found life on a comet, you would want to give up further inquiry because of the question of infinite regression.
@benthemiester I think infinite regression in terms of biology is not practical - that is Your position not mine. You are the one saying it goes on and on - I merely point out how that doesnt answer anything because life occurs in a universe with set physical laws within a set amount of time. You are comparing that to something in which the pysical laws are not understood and there is no location or time in which life can occur.
@mucephi1 "I think infinite regression in terms of biology is not practical"
Then whats your point? U stated that we would have ask the same question over & over. I didn't say that, you did. The point is that using your own logic we can never look for origins of anything because we'll always have to deal with infinite regression. Tell me where did life come from & how do you know it? Is your belief based on faith or do you have proof. You dont know so stop pretending. No one can prove this.
@benthemiester lol. Really? Seriously? I am pointing out that your 'logic' leads us to ask the same thing over and over. That is not MY point it is YOURS. I say life had a start and although that start has yet to be determined 100% does not mean life never started. You suggest that it never did-that previous to life was other life and so on. You dont even know what your own point is and thats sad. This ID thing is buried and dead anyway-defeated and never to return. Evolution is taught ID is not
@mucephi1 "You suggest that it never did-that previous to life was other life and so on"
No sir, read the threads, that was your argument not mine. You kept bringing up the so on and so on.
You must have short memory pal. All I asked was about seeding Mars and you took it and ran with it. You never could answer that if we found that comets seeded life on earth should would it be unscientific to keep inquiring because then we would have to ask were that life came from? Sorry but I not dumb.
@benthemiester Either the so on and so on exists or it doesnt- you are not asking if we should ask the question about what the origen of life is you are trying to promote a world view based upon your own. That is why you resort to cyclic arguments that go nowhere. Science of course seeks the truth subject to scrutiny. ID based on the idea that a god created life is not science. Any other suggestion you make is fine unless it is based upon physical laws not present in our current universe
@benthemiester If you want to believe in comet tossing aliens (and you are because you insist that the designer is intelligent not a random composition of elements delivered by and existing within a comet) that is fine with me but I just wanna know where the comet tossing aliens came from. Ultimately your answer becomes God and that is where it stops being science and becomes religion. God is supernatural and therefore can only be reached by faith - yes by definition. Your particularily....
@mucephi1 I dont believe in comet tossing aliens. Pan Spermia is a real hypothesis proposed by an atheist evolutionist not a creationist. The mans name was the late great Francis Crick, co discoverer of the DNA molecule. Many scientist have since revived this hypothesis. This is not my idea. This is a straw man argument because you dont have the balls to answer the question because you have forced yourself into a rock and a hard place. Many atheist also believe in SETI, astrology, Buddhism etc.
@benthemiester I have answered every question you have asked yet you wont even acknowledge or deny your religious views being the motivation for your "crusade" against accepted science. Your lack of a denial is surprising - either you are ashamed of your god or you dont believe in him to begin with and you are sincere- so which is it? Is your god a fool or is your god non existent because if hes the God I think you belong to (yes like a sheep) then he wont be too happy that you denied him. tsk.
@mucephi1 You have not answered my question. I asked you four times, if we found life on comets would you give up on scientific inquiry because then you would have to ask were that life came from, and so on, and so on?You may think you are but your are, not your not bullshitting anyone. If insulting God is your way of weaseling out of a discussion about science and scientific hypothesis, then I have to say that shows a sign of weakness.
@benthemiester I answered your question and ill answer it again. You ask me if we discovered that life was engineered and placed on comets would that end all scientific inquiry and I have said several times I have no problem with that - in other words no of course not. Sorry I didnt realize I had to spell out my response to you like a child. Why would it? Now that I have clearly answered your question let me say that this has nothing to do with the trial. Thats about religion in schools.
@mucephi1 By the way you have not asked me about my personel faith. You have just tried to bash Christianity.
I disagree with the atheism mind set but I dont condemn all atheist, or believe they belong grouped into one category because I try real hard not to be a bigot whether it be racially or religiously.
@mucephi1 "You ask me if we discovered that life was engineered and placed on comets would that end all scientific inquiry and I have said several times I have no problem with that - in other words no of course not"
I thought you said that it wasn't science because we would have to ask were that life came from and so on and so on. Why is this any different from the seeding Mars analogy? I thought you had a hatred for Comet throwing aliens. Your all over the place on this one.
In addition noone has insulted God at all - that is a subjective thing. Something you dont seem to be able to escape from and are thus incapable of objective scientific inquiry. Science is not subjective. The subject of God is a philisophical question and not a scientific one and never could nor should be. That is the point. I have never once insulted God in this conversation. You think I have because you are defensive and weak. Backed into a corner and forced to come to terms with your own BS.
@mucephi1 As for your last thread, I am currently receiving multiple threads from another with name very similar to yours. If I sent irrelevant thread to wrong person my apologies.
@benthemiester Also if it isnt your theory then why did you bring it up? Whats wrong didnt like my answer? See i dont have a problem with comet tossing aliens as long as they themselves are given an explanation - God is not an explanation God is not taught in public schools, thus ID is not taught in schools. See i will keep repeating this mantra until you either respond to it or give up and go away. between you and me I think you know you wont be doing either because either way you lose. Zzzzz..
@mucephi1 "Also if it isnt your theory then why did you bring it up? Whats wrong didnt like my answer?"
I brought it up because it a popular school of thought among many scientist today involved with origins, as well as astrobiologist, & is put forth as scientific endeavor. You did not answer the question. If you took the time to research pan spermia, aliens are only one part of the hypothesis. The other part is that natural process somewhere at some time allowed life to form on these comets.
@mucephi1 If you which to be paranoid and believe everything is a conspiracy then that is your choice. I believe all theories should be open to critique including neo Darwinism. I have not brought up religion but this seems to be your pet peeve not mine. There isn't one line of evidence that cant or hasn't already been refuted. This includes paleontology, genetics, biology or any other earth science. The ape human 99% genome and junkDNA myth are the latest to fall by the wayside.
A Chevy Impala and a Rolls Royce both have very similar automatic transmissions. If assume the truth of the assumption that the Chevy and the Rolls evolved from a common ancestor, then the similarity would be evidence for it. However, we KNOW for a FACT that in this case no ancestral history exists -- the correct explanation is that both cars happen to be equipped with transmissions manufactured by GM--by DESIGN, not "evolution." So homology is certainly no slam-dunk for your side.
@GospelHouseKat They're also designed by known mechanisms, we know automobiles are designed because we know we designed through actual tangible mechanisms. As is the case with evolution, we know biodiversity is the result of descent with modification through testable mechanisms. You don't have to assume anything, just the opposite, you just have to *not* be working from the presupposition that life was magically created. An erroneous analogy does not affect the veracity of homology in any way
The trial wasn't even about ID. It was about whether or not high school students could be told there was a book critical of Darwinism in the library. (GASP!) The judge unfortunately took it upon himself to make it into a circus with him as head clown.
@GospelHouseKat If by darwinism you mean evolution, there wasn't and it wasn't in the library it was being distributed. Of Panda's and People brings absolutely no valid argumentation against evolutionary theory whatsoever.
@GospelHouseKat That means no one has presented any thus far, it's technically possible. Just find a Permian poodle or an amphibian with more genetic homology to a mammal than any other amphibian.
@GospelHouseKat You keep wrongly asserting begging the question, homology is a falsifiable prediction of common descent. There is only a very specific genetic pattern we should find if common descent is true and we find it.
Of the bunch of them I find Dempsky to be them most repugnant. The existence of dempsky is a good argument against the existence of god. If there was a god Bill dempsky would have been a still-born glob of protoplasm that would have been promptly flushed down the toilet.
nature and science is so complex and certain things are nearly impossible to test and prove. In this case, to actually prove dawinism you would literally have to travel through the 4th dimension of time and watch speciation occur. This is impossible. With the overwhelming evidence on natural selection it is safe to say that darwinism is true. And to destroy the problem with it...i will answer the question of how cud a flagella randomly appear on a cell.. random mutation..we learned in biop 11;).
What makes me wonder the most is how creationists would only refer to a SPECIFIC supernatural intelligence. I'm not arguing that supporters of intelligent design are suppose to put *other* creator gods into consideration or something like that lol, it is just that, despite their attempts to use science to back up ID, their reference to a specific god of a specific religion is a clear proof that the whole thing is still, in a way, driven by religion or faith not by science.
Judge Jones was NOT required to rule on evolution. The job that he had was determining if Intelligent Design as presented by the school board was acceptable scientific theory. He found a religious motive rather than a secular reason, and that Pandas was a retread creationist book, not science.
Teach the controversy? Then we must teach the alternative to where babies come from. That is, the "Stork Theory" i.e. that storks deliver babies to human mothers.
Dembski talks about life evolving by "chance," but that's NOT how evolution works, and is a common misapprehension. The stresses on a species caused by selection itself (predation, disease, environmental changes, etc.) are what determine which individuals in a group survive and pass on their genes/traits. Thus, there is cause and effect for evolution, not just chance.
@Kameha413 yes, the evolution of the peppered moth is a good example of this. A selectioin presure was introduced which selected agaisnt the light form of the moth. Once this happend it became increasingly probable, every generation, that the population would be filled by a greater % of darker moths. Evolution is caused by a series of probable events, in the same sense that the income a casino earns is dependent on a series of probable events (the odds are always stacked in favour of the house).
like ive said before its an interesting couple of videos but they never allowed the ID proponents to defend their positions instead of letting them present their case and then have ken miller give his rebuttal in a fair debate you give both sides time to respond which Im sure the ID proponents have responded on the ID websites so if anyone is interested im sure the Gravitationalist user will be angry but who cares look at this up for yourslves he cant stop you all he can do is remove or respond
@DeJay14 How were ID proponents not allowed to present their case? They DID present a case, which was judged to be specious. You may not agree with the judgement, but the trial was conducted in a normal, straightforward manner. Are you saying there was some violation of legal procedure?
Yeah Dawkins has to engage in concocted stories about non-existing computer models for eye evolution to bolster his theory. Yet you don't hear his "scientific " cronies talk about that do you ? As for the alleged defeat at the trial.
The only thing that was defeated was the stupid actions of the Dover board. The activist judge couldn't even get the facts straight in his comment on Behe's immune system testimony.
Regardless of there being a creator or not darwin is still right. Evolution is what allows ecosystems to adjust and even thrive in different climates, without evolution ecosystems would be fixed and plants would always be the same even after millions of years, and that just sounds ridiculous.
To embark on lifelong humanist education, it’s reasonable to begin with early childhood. The Kochhar Humanist Education Center will draw on the expertise of both existing and start-up youth programs to create a national educational curriculum for humanist youth. Local groups have expressed strong interest in creating youth programs, but have not previously had the resources or understanding of how to properly launch their own programs.
@benthemiester The difference between reputable people and creationists is that people like E. Scott don't try to push their beliefs onto children in public school science classes. Unlike you bible thumpers, Scott is very honest in what she believes and why. She is very outspoken that her personal beliefs have no place in public school science classes. You, on the other hand, are a complete coward. You want your talking snake forced on the children as science, but won't admit it. You're a coward
@GeorgesBarras The ignorant don't really act out of ignorance, they act out of pure stupidity. There's nothing wrong with ignorance. Ignorance is simply the lack of knowledge, which means we're all ignorant about so many things. But the creationists don't stop with ignorance, they add arrogance to their ignorance, which gives us that great christian contribution to world culture called STUPIDITY. These people take great pride in their ignorance, and they want to keep us ignorant too.
Irreducible complexity is the ultimate argument from ignorance. 'I can't understand how this could have come about by natural means, therefore it must have come about by supernatural means'. This sort of mind-set has been an enormous road block to human progress.
Almost every phenomenon, for which a supernatural explanation has been postulated, has been later explained by real science, without the need for magic. Why would anyone assume that the flagellum is any different?
Demski had "intuitive" doubts about Darwinian evolutionary theory. Then he starts rolling dice and talking about "chance". That shows he's an ignorant idiot.
@RebelGuy95 you miss understood the wording. it was talking of existing organisms. Not the first one, however if you are interested, there are many hypothesises that make sense on how the first organisms came about perfectly naturally
The wording seems pretty clear, but if you're correct then that is even more of a blunder!
Once you have living organisms you have DNA and genes....DNA is subject to mutation randomly, as well as variations induced by ecosystemic change. In other words, once you have life ( at least the kind we see here on earth ) you inevitably and necessarily have evolution.
They don't think so though, for that is abiogenesis and bio-chemistry, etc., not evolutionary biology, the distinction is huge. The I.D. advocates have to basically take the side of a well-known creationist speaker, Dr. Hugh Ross.
The earth is far older than the 'christian' fundamentalist belief in a 6,000 year old planet, yet most of the life forms that have lived on this planet are now dead... They have to take a sort of "progressive creation" stance.
I go to Baylor University, the world's largest Baptist University (about 15,000 students). Dempski worked here a few years ago and was fired cuz HE'S A FUCKTARD. Baylor does not miss him at all.
Why can't the creationist thake the same route as everybody else who wants to be taken scriously by the scientific world via peer reviewing and not shoe horning themselves via some media hoopla, dishonest fucking cheaters!
How can Michael Behe think he can debunk all of evoution with this one little submarine organism. This thing is, as all other spieces, in the middle of a grand transformation to whatever will be needed in the future. Behe hasn't even understood the freaking idea on which his work is based. I'm stunned.
It's not like spieces evolve towards what we see today. Today is just a snapshot and tomorrow half of the spieces could be extinct while the rest fill the world. Irreducable complexity, my ass!
Why, why oh why do these creationists keep insisting that evolution is a matter of chance? What's wrong with their brains? Why is it so difficult for them to understand?
if evolution is false because so implausible (as Dembski would say). Then could we not say that a omnipotent god is even MORE false because it is more implausible?
If creationists worked half as harding looking for evidence for their theory as they did making up problems in another one, they might have some possible evidence by now.
Acording to Francis Collins, since the mapping of the human genome we only understand about one to two percent of DNA, and that's not enough info to build a phylogenomic tree, that was my original point in response to gorilla. that was the context, Thats all.
I never asked about abiogenesis or how life began. I asked how the DNA molecule evolved. Judge Jones who has made a lot of money on speaking engagements based on his decision is not a scientist he's a judge. Scientific theories are not decided by State judges or federal judges for that matter. Your speaking of politics, secular activism, and the school criteria adminstered by a specific state.
@Gravitationalist well you're right, afterall to gain the status of theory this idead must be suported with a huge amount of evidence and data and little to none that would go against it, therefore Intelligence Design is nothing more of an idea, i dont think i could call it an hypothesis because if i remember the flagella problem has already been refuted and addressed by biologists according to what i read already on the selfish gene or some other source , can't remember.
Sorry I clicked remove on your last comment instead of reply. You keep asking about DNA and I keep telling you we don't know. What is so hard to grasp about that?
@benthemiester One of the duties of a Federal judge is to receive and consider testimony and other evidence from the scientific community and come to a conclusion based on such evidence as to whether the specific piece of evidence is recognized as valid by the scientific community. Christians, of course, believe their primitive preachers, not real scientists, should decide what we should be allowed to believe. Science gives us medicine and life, the christians gave us the Dark Ages.
@ccp5150 Darwinism is the only known theory to require judicial legislation to validate it, Judges are not trained in science. The case was not filed by IDers but by the ACLU with the aid of the NSCE and others for just placing a sticker on a book informing students what a theory was, & to think critically of any theory. They were teaching Darwinism, not intelligent design. They left ID to the student and parents and if they wanted to learn of ID on their own, the school would not be involved.
@benthemiester Oh please! There's nothing wrong with being ignorant, especially about such complicated matters as science. But when you, as a shill for the hideous fundies behind the WEDGE DOCUMENT, add arrogance to your ignorance, when you take pride in ignoring the vast body of scientific verification of biological evolution, you become STUPID. Why are you so ashamed to admit what you believe? Why not take pride in your talking snake, your magic wand and your zombies?
@ccp5150 Its an anti materialist doc, not anti science. Have you ever heard of the third humanist manifesto & the secular humanist org that Eugenie Scott of the NSCE belongs to. A group that wants to do away with religious & spiritual faith of any kind through k through 12 education. Its on their web page. Schools are supposed to be neutral. Have you ever heard of the Clergy Letter Project brainchild of Eugenie Scott? Childish name calling is weak. I guarantee u wouldn't tell me that to my face.
@benthemiester Your profound dishonesty and hypocrisy does more to prove the idiocy of your creationist nonsense than anything I, or anyone else, could ever say. Why are you so ashamed to stand up for your beliefs? Is it because the Discovery Institute advises you and its other shills to never tell the truth behind your war on science? Is it because you know as well as we do that talking snakes, magic wands, witches and demons are nothing but fairy tales for the weak-minded? Why not tell us?
@benthemiester Do you think we can't read? Do you think we can't access the trial transcripts from the Dover trial posted all over the internet? Do you think we can't read the WEDGE DOCUMENT for ourselves? When you tell such silly lies like the ones you post here, you reveal yourself as the stupid shill you are. We know better. We know ID is nothing but creationism with a new science-y sounding name. We know you're nothing but a bible thumpin' fundie railing against things you can't understand.
@ccp5150 If you bothered to read the transcripts u would know that it wasn't about the Wedge doc. In fact Phillip Johnson wasn't even part of the trial.
The case was filed against a school district for placing sticker on book telling kids to think critically of any theory and that theories are not facts.The NSCE has said the very same thing in the past. If you think the trial was about the wedge doc your out of the loop. I consider internet bravado to be weak and weak minded.
@benthemiester The Dover trial came about because creationists, using the name Intelligent Design rather than creationism, tried to worm their silly superstitions into public school science classes. Parents of children, parents who understand that talking snakes and magic wands have no place in public schools sued to keep this nonsense out of science classes. Why are you so dishonest about what you believe? Do you think we don't know better? Shouldn't you be proud to be a bible thumper?
@benthemiester Why are you such a coward? Why won't you admit you believe the creationist nonsense in your little bible? Those of us with a little education and the ability to think for ourselves have no problem admitting we rely on the scientific method, and all the wonders it has brought us, to teach us about the world around us. But you're a coward. You also think we're so stupid that we can't see through your silly creationist nonsense. You want respect? Then stand up for your bible!
@ccp5150 Listen you little pussy If you want to talk to me man to man, my address is 3641 Sacramento ca 95827 Google map me, you will see a White truck in front and a camper parked on the right side of the house I live alone and I ain't hard to find son. My name is Ben.
Just ask for the vet that plays guitar. Your welcome any time if you have the balls. Come see me, I dare you. I challenge you to call me a coward to my face you little punk ass.
@benthemiester "little pussy" "little punk ass." It's always instructive to see what happens when you scratch a fundie and reveal what's really underneath. For centuries, christian simply rounded up anyone who dared point out their profound stupidity and tortured them to death. Now that their torture chambers are shut down, and since they lack the courage to tell us they believe in talking snakes, magic wands, and, of course, all those witches and demons, all they can do is thump that bible.
@ccp5150 I never claimed to be a saint or a creationist, either stop bugging with emails me or come and see me. The only thing I believe in is balls. Not old gay men.Ya that's right I grew up in LA and I have a sense of Gaydar. That's radar for old fags.
@benthemiester Of course you won't admit to being a creationist. You're a shill for the Discovery Institute. You're perfect for them. You're ignorant, and proud of it. You're arrogant ("I dunt need no science, god dun it!"), and you're incabable of understanding something as simple as biological evolution. So what does that leave you? Mindless attacks on those who call you what you are - an arrogant fundie filled with rage and reduced to nothing but silly insults. Thump that bible, thump it good
@benthemiester I have no doubt that you're a savagely violent person. I'm sure you're quite proud of your barbarism, especially since your superstition is founded on it. What I don't understand is why you're so afraid to stand up for what you obviously believe. We know you think snakes talk. We know you see witches and demons in your night sky. Why are you too cowardly to admit it? Why are you so ashamed to reveal to us the "truth" of your bible?
@ccp5150 "One of the duties of a Federal judge is to receive and consider testimony and other evidence from the scientific community and come to a conclusion based on such evidence as to whether the specific piece of evidence is recognized as valid by the scientific"........
No this is the job of scientific peer review & gaining a consensus. It sometimes takes decades. ID is now being published in peer review science Journals & is going through this process. Only time will tell. Not judges.
@benthemiester Bottom line is you had a chance to defend this absurdity in court and you chickened out. Of course running away allows you to complain about a Judge that previous to the trial was lauded by the ID contingent. Once it was obvious this baloney was going to be defeated you ran away in a weak attempt to maintain the "controversy" and attempt to discredit the Judge whom the ID people found so attractive at the start. In the end it was an epic Fail and ID should be buried forever.
being filled to the rafters and is happening all over the world and is getting bigger than it ever has. Science in the end will not be decided by activist Judges who have no science training. It will happen with the newer generation who haven't yet been conditioned to just shut up, don't ask questions and walk lock step. If this was a fairy tale, you yourself wouldn't even give it the time of day. If your concerned, you should be, because the times they are a changing.
@benthemiester Also why should I be "concerned" ? Have you taken up arms in preparation for the day when you will unleash your army of idiots on the world? Seriously- Filling up auditoriums? Eminem fills up auditorums too. Like him the people you are reaching arent exactly the most educated people in the world and thats what you want. The more people know the less they would fall for your snake oil. You are trying to deny our children a proper education just to "validate" yourself.
based on epigenetic models e.g. non gene centrism and self organization principles etc. It's already happening all over the world and yet still little is known about it by the general public.
He blames his own colleagues for the amount of public distrust and all the hand waiving that goes on. He is honest enough to say that people are being told to believe things that are simply not true. More and more are debating this subject now, and college auditoriums are
@mucephi1 cont...... evolutionary biologist criticized Dover, because he also believes the modern synthesis is seriously flawed, and he and his colleagues are calling for relaxing many of the grand assumptions of the current theory. The truth is that the neo Darwinian synthesis as taught is dead. That is why he along with the A16 summit, who's members are all prominent evolutionist themselves, are ushering in a new "extended synthesizes"
@mucephi1 I had a chance? How did I chicken out. I wasn't a defendant. Neo Darwinism is the only theory since Stalin's rule on Lysenkoism that required judicial activism to validate it. Although still a minority since the ruling, scientific Dissent for neo Darwinism has at least doubled, even by many atheist and agnostics, and they have done so publicly. Even Stuart Newman who is an..............
@benthemiester That is a misrepresentation. Evolution never required validation by anyone- it had already been validated. The trial was to prevent the illegal teaching of religious viewpoints in the public schools. The trial succeeded in stopping that illegal activity from occurring - thus confirming that intelligent design is nonsense. It doesnt take a super-genius to realize that suggesting a designer just leaves the question of how the designer was created and so on thus answering nothing.
@mucephi1 The trial was a dog & pony show. I challenge u to produce any lesson plans other than neo Darwinism that was going to be taught in the classroom. There exist none, because they never planned to teach any other lesson plan other than neo Darwinism. The controversy was about a sticker on books telling students to think critically about theories & that there was a book in the school library if any were interested in an alternative view, & they could read it at home with their parents.
Its a fancy name for nucleic acid, Deoxy Ribose for DNA and ribose for RNA its one of my favorite subjects, and how exactly does it prove evolution. Take a look at The Visualization of DNA posted by thowonk, and then explain to me any feasible systematic evolutionary scenario, and please be specific.
If Dawkins is so concerned about ID holding back science, then he could do the Neo Darwinist a big favor and dedicate a few years of his life to develop an empirical scientific theory that destroys ID and finaly settles the question. If macro evolution is a fact, he should find away of demonstrating it scientifically by testable means, instead of relying on an out dated nineteenth century untestable dogma that seems to be falling apart in light of twenty first century evidence.
@Gravitationalist if a court case determines science then I guess the scopes trial and others make evolutionary theory false besides intelligent design scientists have defended their claims and still do I just dont think you and others are interested in that you just want to see biased documentarys and call it a win
I g n o r a n c e of the current scientific research is not an argument. I don't think anyone wants to hold your fucking hand and explain it to you, so help yourself.
Like I said, I don't want to hold your damn hand. Creationists presume the truth then look for evidence to back it up and plug their fingers far into their ears to ignore everything else.
I never mentioned metaphysics, and your philosophy and language doesn't interest me. However since you mentioned it biblical archeology is a confirmed science, you don't have to believe me look it up.
@swisscheesepotatochi Adressed yes, but not debunked. He cant even prove his proposition that the T3SS is a precursor to the Bacterial flagellum. The literature states just the opposite. Even Miller agrees that if you knock out a component/protein off the BF it will not function.
@benthemiester He does not need to prove that it is...irreducible complexity simply states that a system is irreducibly complex if it cannot be reduced which in this case it has been reduced...please give me the source of that claim by kenneth miller...he did mention it will not function as a bacterial flagellum...In this case it can still function as the type three secretory system...
@benthemiester Macro-evolution by definition is just a lot of Micro-evolution. Do you read the stuff you write? Do you make this stuff up as you go? Seriously how stupid are the people you convice this crap is true?
@mucephi1 Not interested in your philosophical views. If your knowledgeable enough on subject to present evidence and articulate your reason for why it is evidence then please present it. As I have stated even other evolutionist are now publicly questioning the limitations of the Neo Darwinian synthesis and proposing an extended one. I have posted video of Newman interview where he discusses this in greater detail. As I said before even he criticizes the Dover trial.
@mucephi1 "Macro-evolution by definition is just a lot of Micro-evolution"
Not according to evolution friendly Wikipedia. Maybe you should do a little more research.
Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.
@benthemiester You should stick to playing guitar- at least you are good at that. In the end - by whatever definition - you are wrong because you dont suggest any alternative to evolution. Suggesting a designer is not science. Suggesting God does not answer any questions at all. The existence of God is subjective not objective - you cant prove what by definition (of supernatural) cannot be proven. Most Christians in the world have reconciled this fact but the YEC's are just out of thier minds.
@mucephi1 If a theory is flawed & there is poor evidence, then it is what it is, whether or not there is alternative explanation, & who ever said a designer had to be supernatural? If someday we're able to create & seed life on Mars & someday that life wondered about its origins, would it be unscientific for them to believe that an intelligent agent created them? How do u know a designer is not science & who can arbitrarily say what is allowed or not allowed in science? Science is not a person.
@benthemiester Why dont you understand? If we go out and seed Mars with life and it one day Evolves into a form capable of wondering about its own origins- how would discovering us answer that question? Where did WE come from? Its just asking the same question all over again its not answering anything at all. If in turn humans were seeded then who seeded us? And so on and so on till you get right back to the basic question of where did life come from. Evolution explains why there is diveristy..
@mucephi1 "If we go out and seed Mars with life and it one day Evolves into a form capable of wondering about its own origins- how would discovering us answer that question" It would answer who created them thats how, but that wasn't the question, in fact you failed to answer the question which was if we created life and if they one day asked themselves if they were created, would it be an unscientific question?
@benthemiester Its not the question that is the problem its your answer. Asking if they were created is science. Saying the answer is that they were created by something that was also created by something else and so on is not a scientific answer. It doesnt answer the question of the origin of life it doesnt even try to. It just offers endless repetition of the same question over and over.
@mucephi1 I knew you wouldn't be able to answer the question. You obviously dont understand cause and effect science. Tell me where did life come from? and please at least cite one piece of evidence that shows how life got here. Are you absolutely sure that comets didn't seed life? and if they did, I guess according to you, we should just give up since we would have to know how that life started and so on and so on. Again a major science stopper.
@benthemiester There is no debate on evolution I thought I said that- and Im not debating that here. You do not offer any contrary explanation at all- not one based on science because that science is already established. That is why the case was decided against creationists. The fact that every defendant of creationism (why bother with the ID moniker?) ran away when they had a chance to speak tells everything you need to know. The position has no defense - ID isnt even a position to begin with
@mucephi1 "There is no debate on evolution I thought I said that- and Im not debating that here"
I have almost one hundred debates among scientist on both sides of the coin downloaded from all over the world. To say that there is no debate is really like burying your head in the sand. If you look to the left you will see video after video of scholars debating this subject. This what I call denying a reality and pretending it doesn't exist while you yourself are debating it yet say your not.
@benthemiester You are responding to my statements before i am done making them- please at least let me finish a thought before you attack me with more of your propoganda. At least pretend you dont have an iron Clad religious agenda. Oh sorry - according to you its not religion. God isnt the creator then? Only an endless line of previously designed aliens? Is that what you are saying? Life never started? It was just continually re-designed with no origin ever? And you call that science?
@mucephi1 I have not attacked you. You have tried to insult me by calling me dumber than a third grader. You and I both know thats not true and if you read my responses you wouldn't keep repeating yourself. I have already adressed your questions. Just saying something is true doesn't make it so if you cant produce any empirical evidence. I was speaking of the fact that we were told that humans were 99% similar to chimps. This is false & the 2005 draft disproves it. Junk DNA is also a myth.
@benthemiester Ben you are wrong. You are intentionallly trying to decieve stupid people and I wont assist you in that. Im only responding because you keep giving me something to respond to. I keep making the same point because you refuse to address it or acknowledge its validity. If you actually were dumber than a 3rd grader then i could understand your point of view. Since you are not it follows that you understand you are full of it and that you have an agenda - a political/religious agenda
@mucephi1 Yes, stick to conspiracies and insults, and stay away from logic and especially this subject. You know full well the questions asked were valid. I answered every question you asked, even the hard ones, yet you know you have not answered mine, and after you have considering your own logic, you have no answer.
@benthemiester I dont understand what you are saying. Your position is that evolution is not true and we were made by an intelligence that itself was not made. You deny that you have a religious viewpoint and you deny God so who or what is this creator that itself is not created? my position is thats not science. you say it is. Am I missing something? ID was found to be religiously motivated and thus illegal. What am i not answering and why dont you answer my questions re your religious views?
@mucephi1 "Relating the development of life within an existing universe composed of time and space is not the same thing as asking where the universe itself came from"
Why use a double standard. We have to also ask what caused the universe? The singularity? What caused the singularity? another universe? And what caused that? and so on and so.
@benthemiester because we arent discussing the formation of the universe we are talking about the Dover trial- why it happenned and why it failed. Anything more you add is just a smoke screen to hide behind while you deny your God on one hand and promote him with the other. Thats your biz and your issue/problem not mine. You are free to believe what you want but attempting to pass off ID as anything other than religion when you wont even deny the religion part is pretty laughable. More....
@mucephi1 cont..... Not the simple view of life that Darwin had. Our DNA contains specified digital encoded information just like a computer program, only much more complex. We know that only intelligent agents can program specified Digital code. You have your own world view also, so should we only allow agnostics who are neutral to speak of science. Maybe you have a problem not being able to separate your world view from empirical science, but don't blame that weakness on everyone else.
From a metaphysical standpoint of course many ID proponents including myself believe that God created life (but not all ID proponents including atheist and agnostics) but that is a metaphysical non scientific discussion. Pan spermia can also apply to ID which is. ID doesn't claim to know who the designer is or even if he is a God or higher a technologically advanced civilization. ID is based on what better explains life as we now know it.
@mucephi1 Go take a a year to study and research the theory you believe in as in faith, and then hit me back when your able to defend it. Thanks good luck to you too, and thanks for the compliment earlier.
@benthemiester Intentionally attempting to decieve people and make them think there is a controversy where there is none is a serious crime imo. You know the truth but you choose to follow this illogical path that resolves nothing so that you can push theology. Most diehard theists even think your movement is baloney because it only represents a narrow religious viewpoint held by a small number of radical christians. Do you deny that promoting God is your goal? It certainly cant be science.
@mucephi1 "Its not the question that is the problem its your answer. Asking if they were created is science. Saying the answer is that they were created by something that was also created by something else and so on is not a scientific answer. etc"
I never added in the so on and so. You did. However cause and effect will eventually lead you to origins but you cant know until u start asking the questions. Just like genealogy ask the same question over and over.
Wow great words, that lad said. He couldn't of been more spot on. "The other side thinks that we are hopelessly misguided." Well except for one thing, the other side knows, not just thinks.
Is there a supernatural God?..or is the energy behind life and behind our universe a natural creative energy...I believe the evolutionary process of natural selection are also guided by a natural energy of our cosmos....how about mathematical proof? Search videos by superwhuffo1
It was so good to read the transcript from this trial,especially during the cross examine on Michael Behe. You don't even have to be there to know how badly he was embarassed because his ideas on "irreducible complexity" are not only non-scientific, but his examples have tons of research and explanations that simply Behe wasn't willing to look at or accept. He looked a complete fool and revealed himself for what he is...a liar and a fraud.
dallased25 6 months ago
Hasn't this been debunked a 100 times over.
Common. Give us something new to laugh at. This has gotten old.
Londron 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is not science vs religion as the brain-dead media portrays it. This is Information science vs Neo-Darwinian mythology. Good science vs bad science. Darwinism has to assume itself true to survive, intelligent design relies on empirical investigation in real-time.
pollychocker 7 months ago
again with the motor that is not a motor and has been debunk again and again. when does they learn
TheDuck1234 9 months ago
narrow religious views cloud reason. The form of ID/creationism that is "preached' by people like you is not science but mysticism disguised as science and therefor does not belong in school. That is why they had this trial. that is why ID was defeated - because it is RELIGION. All this talk about aliens and whatever it is that you are postulating is a philisophical issue. The point is you think God did it. Not aliens, not comets, but God. And religion does not belong in public school.
mucephi1 10 months ago
"Macro-evolution by definition is just a lot of Micro-evolution"
That idea exist in your mind. Your assuming that it happens you have no proof. You have been told your whole life that there is plenty of evidence. Yet you have yet to provide any. As said before, I have no problem with evolution. That is to say, what we can prove empirically, such as small changes. The fossil record shows abrupt appearance long periods of stasis and only small changes brought on by natural selective pressures.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester I dont have to present you with evidence- if you cant look up evidence for evolution then you are dumber than my 3rd grader. What is this 500 character box suppossed to be a classroom in which I give you a Basic science education? There is no doubt about evolution and this isnt a debate. I know you are desperate to bring back the Dark Ages but that just will not happen. You are not about science you are religious fanatic. You are not rational. You have a religious agenda admit it.
mucephi1 10 months ago
@mucephi1 Thats what they all say. I started researching this subject several years ago thinking that evolution was a scientific fact and I thought anyone who denied it was dumb or ignoring the evidence and once I found out how flimsy the evidence was I changed my mind. If macro evolution molecule to man is true, then no one has a clue to how it happened because the neo Darwinian synth is out dated & obsolete. Many scientist in the last few years have went on record as saying so.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester The point is that creationism is not science because it does not answer anything. If your complaint is that evolution only explains 99% then that means 1% is all the wiggle room you have and providing an answer that just asks the same exact question again is no answer at all. I am not going to convince you of anything nor do I care to try. You are wrong and thats all. You say "many" scientists have gone on record. How is that a point when 1000 times as many have said is false?
mucephi1 10 months ago
@mucephi1 Right now many scientist are now saying that its possible life could have arrived here on comets. So should we just not ask because then we would have to find out where that life came from and deal with the same question of infinite regression. For that matter, lets give up on the origins of the universe question because we dont know what there was before space and time, or where the singularity came from. It seems your logic is a real science stopper. If its to hard lets not ask.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester Relating the development of life within an existing universe composed of time and space is not the same thing as asking where the universe itself came from.
mucephi1 10 months ago
@mucephi1 "Relating the development of life within an existing universe composed of time and space is not the same thing as asking where the universe itself came from"
It deals with the same question of infinite regression which was your whole point. So should we give up on the possibility of pan spermia and please tell me why? I cant believe that if we found life on a comet, you would want to give up further inquiry because of the question of infinite regression.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester I think infinite regression in terms of biology is not practical - that is Your position not mine. You are the one saying it goes on and on - I merely point out how that doesnt answer anything because life occurs in a universe with set physical laws within a set amount of time. You are comparing that to something in which the pysical laws are not understood and there is no location or time in which life can occur.
mucephi1 10 months ago
@mucephi1 "I think infinite regression in terms of biology is not practical"
Then whats your point? U stated that we would have ask the same question over & over. I didn't say that, you did. The point is that using your own logic we can never look for origins of anything because we'll always have to deal with infinite regression. Tell me where did life come from & how do you know it? Is your belief based on faith or do you have proof. You dont know so stop pretending. No one can prove this.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester lol. Really? Seriously? I am pointing out that your 'logic' leads us to ask the same thing over and over. That is not MY point it is YOURS. I say life had a start and although that start has yet to be determined 100% does not mean life never started. You suggest that it never did-that previous to life was other life and so on. You dont even know what your own point is and thats sad. This ID thing is buried and dead anyway-defeated and never to return. Evolution is taught ID is not
mucephi1 10 months ago
@mucephi1 "You suggest that it never did-that previous to life was other life and so on"
No sir, read the threads, that was your argument not mine. You kept bringing up the so on and so on.
You must have short memory pal. All I asked was about seeding Mars and you took it and ran with it. You never could answer that if we found that comets seeded life on earth should would it be unscientific to keep inquiring because then we would have to ask were that life came from? Sorry but I not dumb.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester Either the so on and so on exists or it doesnt- you are not asking if we should ask the question about what the origen of life is you are trying to promote a world view based upon your own. That is why you resort to cyclic arguments that go nowhere. Science of course seeks the truth subject to scrutiny. ID based on the idea that a god created life is not science. Any other suggestion you make is fine unless it is based upon physical laws not present in our current universe
mucephi1 10 months ago
@benthemiester If you want to believe in comet tossing aliens (and you are because you insist that the designer is intelligent not a random composition of elements delivered by and existing within a comet) that is fine with me but I just wanna know where the comet tossing aliens came from. Ultimately your answer becomes God and that is where it stops being science and becomes religion. God is supernatural and therefore can only be reached by faith - yes by definition. Your particularily....
mucephi1 10 months ago
@mucephi1 I dont believe in comet tossing aliens. Pan Spermia is a real hypothesis proposed by an atheist evolutionist not a creationist. The mans name was the late great Francis Crick, co discoverer of the DNA molecule. Many scientist have since revived this hypothesis. This is not my idea. This is a straw man argument because you dont have the balls to answer the question because you have forced yourself into a rock and a hard place. Many atheist also believe in SETI, astrology, Buddhism etc.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester I have answered every question you have asked yet you wont even acknowledge or deny your religious views being the motivation for your "crusade" against accepted science. Your lack of a denial is surprising - either you are ashamed of your god or you dont believe in him to begin with and you are sincere- so which is it? Is your god a fool or is your god non existent because if hes the God I think you belong to (yes like a sheep) then he wont be too happy that you denied him. tsk.
mucephi1 10 months ago
@mucephi1 You have not answered my question. I asked you four times, if we found life on comets would you give up on scientific inquiry because then you would have to ask were that life came from, and so on, and so on?You may think you are but your are, not your not bullshitting anyone. If insulting God is your way of weaseling out of a discussion about science and scientific hypothesis, then I have to say that shows a sign of weakness.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester I answered your question and ill answer it again. You ask me if we discovered that life was engineered and placed on comets would that end all scientific inquiry and I have said several times I have no problem with that - in other words no of course not. Sorry I didnt realize I had to spell out my response to you like a child. Why would it? Now that I have clearly answered your question let me say that this has nothing to do with the trial. Thats about religion in schools.
mucephi1 10 months ago
@mucephi1 By the way you have not asked me about my personel faith. You have just tried to bash Christianity.
I disagree with the atheism mind set but I dont condemn all atheist, or believe they belong grouped into one category because I try real hard not to be a bigot whether it be racially or religiously.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@mucephi1 "You ask me if we discovered that life was engineered and placed on comets would that end all scientific inquiry and I have said several times I have no problem with that - in other words no of course not"
I thought you said that it wasn't science because we would have to ask were that life came from and so on and so on. Why is this any different from the seeding Mars analogy? I thought you had a hatred for Comet throwing aliens. Your all over the place on this one.
benthemiester 10 months ago
In addition noone has insulted God at all - that is a subjective thing. Something you dont seem to be able to escape from and are thus incapable of objective scientific inquiry. Science is not subjective. The subject of God is a philisophical question and not a scientific one and never could nor should be. That is the point. I have never once insulted God in this conversation. You think I have because you are defensive and weak. Backed into a corner and forced to come to terms with your own BS.
mucephi1 10 months ago
@mucephi1 As for your last thread, I am currently receiving multiple threads from another with name very similar to yours. If I sent irrelevant thread to wrong person my apologies.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester Also if it isnt your theory then why did you bring it up? Whats wrong didnt like my answer? See i dont have a problem with comet tossing aliens as long as they themselves are given an explanation - God is not an explanation God is not taught in public schools, thus ID is not taught in schools. See i will keep repeating this mantra until you either respond to it or give up and go away. between you and me I think you know you wont be doing either because either way you lose. Zzzzz..
mucephi1 10 months ago
@mucephi1 "Also if it isnt your theory then why did you bring it up? Whats wrong didnt like my answer?"
I brought it up because it a popular school of thought among many scientist today involved with origins, as well as astrobiologist, & is put forth as scientific endeavor. You did not answer the question. If you took the time to research pan spermia, aliens are only one part of the hypothesis. The other part is that natural process somewhere at some time allowed life to form on these comets.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@mucephi1 If you which to be paranoid and believe everything is a conspiracy then that is your choice. I believe all theories should be open to critique including neo Darwinism. I have not brought up religion but this seems to be your pet peeve not mine. There isn't one line of evidence that cant or hasn't already been refuted. This includes paleontology, genetics, biology or any other earth science. The ape human 99% genome and junkDNA myth are the latest to fall by the wayside.
benthemiester 10 months ago
A Chevy Impala and a Rolls Royce both have very similar automatic transmissions. If assume the truth of the assumption that the Chevy and the Rolls evolved from a common ancestor, then the similarity would be evidence for it. However, we KNOW for a FACT that in this case no ancestral history exists -- the correct explanation is that both cars happen to be equipped with transmissions manufactured by GM--by DESIGN, not "evolution." So homology is certainly no slam-dunk for your side.
GospelHouseKat 11 months ago
@GospelHouseKat They're also designed by known mechanisms, we know automobiles are designed because we know we designed through actual tangible mechanisms. As is the case with evolution, we know biodiversity is the result of descent with modification through testable mechanisms. You don't have to assume anything, just the opposite, you just have to *not* be working from the presupposition that life was magically created. An erroneous analogy does not affect the veracity of homology in any way
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
The trial wasn't even about ID. It was about whether or not high school students could be told there was a book critical of Darwinism in the library. (GASP!) The judge unfortunately took it upon himself to make it into a circus with him as head clown.
GospelHouseKat 11 months ago
@GospelHouseKat If by darwinism you mean evolution, there wasn't and it wasn't in the library it was being distributed. Of Panda's and People brings absolutely no valid argumentation against evolutionary theory whatsoever.
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Does that mean that Pandas presents none, or that no valid arguments are possibe?
GospelHouseKat 11 months ago
@GospelHouseKat That means no one has presented any thus far, it's technically possible. Just find a Permian poodle or an amphibian with more genetic homology to a mammal than any other amphibian.
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation As you may know, homology is a subjective exercise which assumes what it purports to prove. Anything beyond that?
GospelHouseKat 11 months ago
@GospelHouseKat You keep wrongly asserting begging the question, homology is a falsifiable prediction of common descent. There is only a very specific genetic pattern we should find if common descent is true and we find it.
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
Of the bunch of them I find Dempsky to be them most repugnant. The existence of dempsky is a good argument against the existence of god. If there was a god Bill dempsky would have been a still-born glob of protoplasm that would have been promptly flushed down the toilet.
Godlesspanther 11 months ago
nature and science is so complex and certain things are nearly impossible to test and prove. In this case, to actually prove dawinism you would literally have to travel through the 4th dimension of time and watch speciation occur. This is impossible. With the overwhelming evidence on natural selection it is safe to say that darwinism is true. And to destroy the problem with it...i will answer the question of how cud a flagella randomly appear on a cell.. random mutation..we learned in biop 11;).
samsonisdope 11 months ago
Darwinian. Darwinian. DARWINIAN.
...Damn. Just hearing Darwin's name with an "ian" suffix makes me cringe.
daangelo29 1 year ago
What makes me wonder the most is how creationists would only refer to a SPECIFIC supernatural intelligence. I'm not arguing that supporters of intelligent design are suppose to put *other* creator gods into consideration or something like that lol, it is just that, despite their attempts to use science to back up ID, their reference to a specific god of a specific religion is a clear proof that the whole thing is still, in a way, driven by religion or faith not by science.
daangelo29 1 year ago
Judge Jones was NOT required to rule on evolution. The job that he had was determining if Intelligent Design as presented by the school board was acceptable scientific theory. He found a religious motive rather than a secular reason, and that Pandas was a retread creationist book, not science.
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
The intelligent design is a truly the KILLER of MYTH of EVOLUTION .
algadykhalifa 1 year ago
Teach the controversy? Then we must teach the alternative to where babies come from. That is, the "Stork Theory" i.e. that storks deliver babies to human mothers.
MegaGayjesus 1 year ago
Life does not "progress by chance" it evolves by natural selection, please try to read Darwin before you idiots comment!
MegaGayjesus 1 year ago
Eww... "If just one other person believes what you believe, then you know you're not crazy."
dancingplatypus 1 year ago
Dembski talks about life evolving by "chance," but that's NOT how evolution works, and is a common misapprehension. The stresses on a species caused by selection itself (predation, disease, environmental changes, etc.) are what determine which individuals in a group survive and pass on their genes/traits. Thus, there is cause and effect for evolution, not just chance.
Kameha413 1 year ago
@Kameha413 yes, the evolution of the peppered moth is a good example of this. A selectioin presure was introduced which selected agaisnt the light form of the moth. Once this happend it became increasingly probable, every generation, that the population would be filled by a greater % of darker moths. Evolution is caused by a series of probable events, in the same sense that the income a casino earns is dependent on a series of probable events (the odds are always stacked in favour of the house).
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
excellent vid
CntrBrdr 1 year ago
like ive said before its an interesting couple of videos but they never allowed the ID proponents to defend their positions instead of letting them present their case and then have ken miller give his rebuttal in a fair debate you give both sides time to respond which Im sure the ID proponents have responded on the ID websites so if anyone is interested im sure the Gravitationalist user will be angry but who cares look at this up for yourslves he cant stop you all he can do is remove or respond
DeJay14 1 year ago
@DeJay14 How were ID proponents not allowed to present their case? They DID present a case, which was judged to be specious. You may not agree with the judgement, but the trial was conducted in a normal, straightforward manner. Are you saying there was some violation of legal procedure?
Kameha413 1 year ago
@Kameha413 I was referring to this video they let the ID people present what they believe and then the Darwinians get the last word
DeJay14 1 year ago
@DeJay14 If the ID case were stronger than it is, a rebuttal wouldn't be necessary.
Kameha413 1 year ago
Yeah Dawkins has to engage in concocted stories about non-existing computer models for eye evolution to bolster his theory. Yet you don't hear his "scientific " cronies talk about that do you ? As for the alleged defeat at the trial.
The only thing that was defeated was the stupid actions of the Dover board. The activist judge couldn't even get the facts straight in his comment on Behe's immune system testimony.
edwite777 1 year ago
Regardless of there being a creator or not darwin is still right. Evolution is what allows ecosystems to adjust and even thrive in different climates, without evolution ecosystems would be fixed and plants would always be the same even after millions of years, and that just sounds ridiculous.
LemonLimeLaughter 1 year ago
Eugenie Scott organization.
To embark on lifelong humanist education, it’s reasonable to begin with early childhood. The Kochhar Humanist Education Center will draw on the expertise of both existing and start-up youth programs to create a national educational curriculum for humanist youth. Local groups have expressed strong interest in creating youth programs, but have not previously had the resources or understanding of how to properly launch their own programs.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester The difference between reputable people and creationists is that people like E. Scott don't try to push their beliefs onto children in public school science classes. Unlike you bible thumpers, Scott is very honest in what she believes and why. She is very outspoken that her personal beliefs have no place in public school science classes. You, on the other hand, are a complete coward. You want your talking snake forced on the children as science, but won't admit it. You're a coward
ccp5150 1 year ago
The ignorant never cease to act out of ignorance, why don't they learn before they get indignant?
GeorgesBarras 1 year ago
@GeorgesBarras The ignorant don't really act out of ignorance, they act out of pure stupidity. There's nothing wrong with ignorance. Ignorance is simply the lack of knowledge, which means we're all ignorant about so many things. But the creationists don't stop with ignorance, they add arrogance to their ignorance, which gives us that great christian contribution to world culture called STUPIDITY. These people take great pride in their ignorance, and they want to keep us ignorant too.
ccp5150 1 year ago
Comment removed
hotjohn321 1 year ago
Irreducible complexity is the ultimate argument from ignorance. 'I can't understand how this could have come about by natural means, therefore it must have come about by supernatural means'. This sort of mind-set has been an enormous road block to human progress.
Almost every phenomenon, for which a supernatural explanation has been postulated, has been later explained by real science, without the need for magic. Why would anyone assume that the flagellum is any different?
hotjohn321 1 year ago
well at least this documentary acually lets them talk lol better than the nova version
DeJay17Revolution 1 year ago
how do they get people to do those cool walks like demski did lol
DeJay14 1 year ago
Demski had "intuitive" doubts about Darwinian evolutionary theory. Then he starts rolling dice and talking about "chance". That shows he's an ignorant idiot.
Stonewalljackson7 1 year ago
What the hell are they talking about? The content in this series is very inconsistent.
How could life evolve by chance? HUH?!
Once you have life you have reproduction, that coupled with genetic change over time ( which happens no matter how life arose ) is evolution.
Even the creators of this show seem to be confused with the fact that evolution does not even attempt to explain the origins of life.
You can't even have evolution without life being present first!
RebelGuy95 1 year ago
@RebelGuy95 you miss understood the wording. it was talking of existing organisms. Not the first one, however if you are interested, there are many hypothesises that make sense on how the first organisms came about perfectly naturally
DidntKnowWhatToPut1 1 year ago
The wording seems pretty clear, but if you're correct then that is even more of a blunder!
Once you have living organisms you have DNA and genes....DNA is subject to mutation randomly, as well as variations induced by ecosystemic change. In other words, once you have life ( at least the kind we see here on earth ) you inevitably and necessarily have evolution.
RebelGuy95 1 year ago
@RebelGuy95 Well infact, life started with RNA rather then DNA, look it up =)
DidntKnowWhatToPut1 1 year ago
They don't think so though, for that is abiogenesis and bio-chemistry, etc., not evolutionary biology, the distinction is huge. The I.D. advocates have to basically take the side of a well-known creationist speaker, Dr. Hugh Ross.
The earth is far older than the 'christian' fundamentalist belief in a 6,000 year old planet, yet most of the life forms that have lived on this planet are now dead... They have to take a sort of "progressive creation" stance.
RebelGuy95 1 year ago
"yapping terriers of ignorance" lol, that's a good line.
pyr666 2 years ago
I go to Baylor University, the world's largest Baptist University (about 15,000 students). Dempski worked here a few years ago and was fired cuz HE'S A FUCKTARD. Baylor does not miss him at all.
spideylover 2 years ago 5
Why can't the creationist thake the same route as everybody else who wants to be taken scriously by the scientific world via peer reviewing and not shoe horning themselves via some media hoopla, dishonest fucking cheaters!
heyawhaw 2 years ago 5
Because they have nothing to peer review.
No experiments. Just an observation.
I call it the Gap Claus.
You leave a plate of mince pies on the table on Xmas eve. The next morning, they're gone.
Santanists will claim that's proof of Santa Claus because there is no other explanation.
I say, even if Santa exists, you have not shown any proof that Santa did it whatsoever. There could be millions of other alternative explanations.
jazzx251 2 years ago 3
How can Michael Behe think he can debunk all of evoution with this one little submarine organism. This thing is, as all other spieces, in the middle of a grand transformation to whatever will be needed in the future. Behe hasn't even understood the freaking idea on which his work is based. I'm stunned.
It's not like spieces evolve towards what we see today. Today is just a snapshot and tomorrow half of the spieces could be extinct while the rest fill the world. Irreducable complexity, my ass!
heyawhaw 2 years ago
9:48, I'd bang her just because of her cause.
brmadman4455 2 years ago
Why, why oh why do these creationists keep insisting that evolution is a matter of chance? What's wrong with their brains? Why is it so difficult for them to understand?
dkt80 2 years ago
if evolution is false because so implausible (as Dembski would say). Then could we not say that a omnipotent god is even MORE false because it is more implausible?
Gemmabeta 2 years ago 4
Comment removed
8GrolschMan8 2 years ago
"It's only getting a hold amongst the part of the population that doesn't know anything." God I love Dawkins.
Boognish64 2 years ago
If creationists worked half as harding looking for evidence for their theory as they did making up problems in another one, they might have some possible evidence by now.
not really
rrpostalagain 2 years ago 3
I can't believe Dembski actually made it on TV with such a retarded idea.
tekproxy 2 years ago 2
Acording to Francis Collins, since the mapping of the human genome we only understand about one to two percent of DNA, and that's not enough info to build a phylogenomic tree, that was my original point in response to gorilla. that was the context, Thats all.
benthemiester 2 years ago
I never asked about abiogenesis or how life began. I asked how the DNA molecule evolved. Judge Jones who has made a lot of money on speaking engagements based on his decision is not a scientist he's a judge. Scientific theories are not decided by State judges or federal judges for that matter. Your speaking of politics, secular activism, and the school criteria adminstered by a specific state.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Read my last comment about DNA. If you think ID is a scientific theory all I can say is good luck with that. You're going to need it.
Gravitationalist 2 years ago
@Gravitationalist well you're right, afterall to gain the status of theory this idead must be suported with a huge amount of evidence and data and little to none that would go against it, therefore Intelligence Design is nothing more of an idea, i dont think i could call it an hypothesis because if i remember the flagella problem has already been refuted and addressed by biologists according to what i read already on the selfish gene or some other source , can't remember.
S2000fred 1 year ago
Sorry I clicked remove on your last comment instead of reply. You keep asking about DNA and I keep telling you we don't know. What is so hard to grasp about that?
WE DON'T KNOW!
Gravitationalist 2 years ago
@benthemiester One of the duties of a Federal judge is to receive and consider testimony and other evidence from the scientific community and come to a conclusion based on such evidence as to whether the specific piece of evidence is recognized as valid by the scientific community. Christians, of course, believe their primitive preachers, not real scientists, should decide what we should be allowed to believe. Science gives us medicine and life, the christians gave us the Dark Ages.
ccp5150 1 year ago
@ccp5150 Darwinism is the only known theory to require judicial legislation to validate it, Judges are not trained in science. The case was not filed by IDers but by the ACLU with the aid of the NSCE and others for just placing a sticker on a book informing students what a theory was, & to think critically of any theory. They were teaching Darwinism, not intelligent design. They left ID to the student and parents and if they wanted to learn of ID on their own, the school would not be involved.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Oh please! There's nothing wrong with being ignorant, especially about such complicated matters as science. But when you, as a shill for the hideous fundies behind the WEDGE DOCUMENT, add arrogance to your ignorance, when you take pride in ignoring the vast body of scientific verification of biological evolution, you become STUPID. Why are you so ashamed to admit what you believe? Why not take pride in your talking snake, your magic wand and your zombies?
ccp5150 1 year ago
@ccp5150 Its an anti materialist doc, not anti science. Have you ever heard of the third humanist manifesto & the secular humanist org that Eugenie Scott of the NSCE belongs to. A group that wants to do away with religious & spiritual faith of any kind through k through 12 education. Its on their web page. Schools are supposed to be neutral. Have you ever heard of the Clergy Letter Project brainchild of Eugenie Scott? Childish name calling is weak. I guarantee u wouldn't tell me that to my face.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Your profound dishonesty and hypocrisy does more to prove the idiocy of your creationist nonsense than anything I, or anyone else, could ever say. Why are you so ashamed to stand up for your beliefs? Is it because the Discovery Institute advises you and its other shills to never tell the truth behind your war on science? Is it because you know as well as we do that talking snakes, magic wands, witches and demons are nothing but fairy tales for the weak-minded? Why not tell us?
ccp5150 1 year ago
@benthemiester Do you think we can't read? Do you think we can't access the trial transcripts from the Dover trial posted all over the internet? Do you think we can't read the WEDGE DOCUMENT for ourselves? When you tell such silly lies like the ones you post here, you reveal yourself as the stupid shill you are. We know better. We know ID is nothing but creationism with a new science-y sounding name. We know you're nothing but a bible thumpin' fundie railing against things you can't understand.
ccp5150 1 year ago
@ccp5150 If you bothered to read the transcripts u would know that it wasn't about the Wedge doc. In fact Phillip Johnson wasn't even part of the trial.
The case was filed against a school district for placing sticker on book telling kids to think critically of any theory and that theories are not facts.The NSCE has said the very same thing in the past. If you think the trial was about the wedge doc your out of the loop. I consider internet bravado to be weak and weak minded.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester The Dover trial came about because creationists, using the name Intelligent Design rather than creationism, tried to worm their silly superstitions into public school science classes. Parents of children, parents who understand that talking snakes and magic wands have no place in public schools sued to keep this nonsense out of science classes. Why are you so dishonest about what you believe? Do you think we don't know better? Shouldn't you be proud to be a bible thumper?
ccp5150 1 year ago
@benthemiester Why are you such a coward? Why won't you admit you believe the creationist nonsense in your little bible? Those of us with a little education and the ability to think for ourselves have no problem admitting we rely on the scientific method, and all the wonders it has brought us, to teach us about the world around us. But you're a coward. You also think we're so stupid that we can't see through your silly creationist nonsense. You want respect? Then stand up for your bible!
ccp5150 1 year ago
@ccp5150 Listen you little pussy If you want to talk to me man to man, my address is 3641 Sacramento ca 95827 Google map me, you will see a White truck in front and a camper parked on the right side of the house I live alone and I ain't hard to find son. My name is Ben.
Just ask for the vet that plays guitar. Your welcome any time if you have the balls. Come see me, I dare you. I challenge you to call me a coward to my face you little punk ass.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "little pussy" "little punk ass." It's always instructive to see what happens when you scratch a fundie and reveal what's really underneath. For centuries, christian simply rounded up anyone who dared point out their profound stupidity and tortured them to death. Now that their torture chambers are shut down, and since they lack the courage to tell us they believe in talking snakes, magic wands, and, of course, all those witches and demons, all they can do is thump that bible.
ccp5150 1 year ago
@ccp5150 I never claimed to be a saint or a creationist, either stop bugging with emails me or come and see me. The only thing I believe in is balls. Not old gay men.Ya that's right I grew up in LA and I have a sense of Gaydar. That's radar for old fags.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Of course you won't admit to being a creationist. You're a shill for the Discovery Institute. You're perfect for them. You're ignorant, and proud of it. You're arrogant ("I dunt need no science, god dun it!"), and you're incabable of understanding something as simple as biological evolution. So what does that leave you? Mindless attacks on those who call you what you are - an arrogant fundie filled with rage and reduced to nothing but silly insults. Thump that bible, thump it good
ccp5150 1 year ago
@benthemiester I have no doubt that you're a savagely violent person. I'm sure you're quite proud of your barbarism, especially since your superstition is founded on it. What I don't understand is why you're so afraid to stand up for what you obviously believe. We know you think snakes talk. We know you see witches and demons in your night sky. Why are you too cowardly to admit it? Why are you so ashamed to reveal to us the "truth" of your bible?
ccp5150 1 year ago
@ccp5150 "One of the duties of a Federal judge is to receive and consider testimony and other evidence from the scientific community and come to a conclusion based on such evidence as to whether the specific piece of evidence is recognized as valid by the scientific"........
No this is the job of scientific peer review & gaining a consensus. It sometimes takes decades. ID is now being published in peer review science Journals & is going through this process. Only time will tell. Not judges.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Bottom line is you had a chance to defend this absurdity in court and you chickened out. Of course running away allows you to complain about a Judge that previous to the trial was lauded by the ID contingent. Once it was obvious this baloney was going to be defeated you ran away in a weak attempt to maintain the "controversy" and attempt to discredit the Judge whom the ID people found so attractive at the start. In the end it was an epic Fail and ID should be buried forever.
mucephi1 10 months ago
@mucephi1
cont.....
being filled to the rafters and is happening all over the world and is getting bigger than it ever has. Science in the end will not be decided by activist Judges who have no science training. It will happen with the newer generation who haven't yet been conditioned to just shut up, don't ask questions and walk lock step. If this was a fairy tale, you yourself wouldn't even give it the time of day. If your concerned, you should be, because the times they are a changing.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester Also why should I be "concerned" ? Have you taken up arms in preparation for the day when you will unleash your army of idiots on the world? Seriously- Filling up auditoriums? Eminem fills up auditorums too. Like him the people you are reaching arent exactly the most educated people in the world and thats what you want. The more people know the less they would fall for your snake oil. You are trying to deny our children a proper education just to "validate" yourself.
mucephi1 10 months ago
@mucephi1
cont......
based on epigenetic models e.g. non gene centrism and self organization principles etc. It's already happening all over the world and yet still little is known about it by the general public.
He blames his own colleagues for the amount of public distrust and all the hand waiving that goes on. He is honest enough to say that people are being told to believe things that are simply not true. More and more are debating this subject now, and college auditoriums are
benthemiester 10 months ago
@mucephi1 cont...... evolutionary biologist criticized Dover, because he also believes the modern synthesis is seriously flawed, and he and his colleagues are calling for relaxing many of the grand assumptions of the current theory. The truth is that the neo Darwinian synthesis as taught is dead. That is why he along with the A16 summit, who's members are all prominent evolutionist themselves, are ushering in a new "extended synthesizes"
benthemiester 10 months ago
@mucephi1 I had a chance? How did I chicken out. I wasn't a defendant. Neo Darwinism is the only theory since Stalin's rule on Lysenkoism that required judicial activism to validate it. Although still a minority since the ruling, scientific Dissent for neo Darwinism has at least doubled, even by many atheist and agnostics, and they have done so publicly. Even Stuart Newman who is an..............
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester That is a misrepresentation. Evolution never required validation by anyone- it had already been validated. The trial was to prevent the illegal teaching of religious viewpoints in the public schools. The trial succeeded in stopping that illegal activity from occurring - thus confirming that intelligent design is nonsense. It doesnt take a super-genius to realize that suggesting a designer just leaves the question of how the designer was created and so on thus answering nothing.
mucephi1 10 months ago
@mucephi1 The trial was a dog & pony show. I challenge u to produce any lesson plans other than neo Darwinism that was going to be taught in the classroom. There exist none, because they never planned to teach any other lesson plan other than neo Darwinism. The controversy was about a sticker on books telling students to think critically about theories & that there was a book in the school library if any were interested in an alternative view, & they could read it at home with their parents.
benthemiester 10 months ago
correction posted by tristmulus
benthemiester 2 years ago
Its a fancy name for nucleic acid, Deoxy Ribose for DNA and ribose for RNA its one of my favorite subjects, and how exactly does it prove evolution. Take a look at The Visualization of DNA posted by thowonk, and then explain to me any feasible systematic evolutionary scenario, and please be specific.
benthemiester 2 years ago
That's more along the lines of abiogenesis. No one knows how RNA and DNA came to be.
Gravitationalist 2 years ago
If Dawkins is so concerned about ID holding back science, then he could do the Neo Darwinist a big favor and dedicate a few years of his life to develop an empirical scientific theory that destroys ID and finaly settles the question. If macro evolution is a fact, he should find away of demonstrating it scientifically by testable means, instead of relying on an out dated nineteenth century untestable dogma that seems to be falling apart in light of twenty first century evidence.
benthemiester 2 years ago
"out dated nineteenth century "
LOL are you that ignorant?
Since has advanced a little since then!
DNA for one thing!
Do you know what DNA is?
It proves evolution on its own!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
ID was destroyed or are you not watching this video series? You can read the courts decision by googling Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
Gravitationalist 2 years ago
@Gravitationalist if a court case determines science then I guess the scopes trial and others make evolutionary theory false besides intelligent design scientists have defended their claims and still do I just dont think you and others are interested in that you just want to see biased documentarys and call it a win
DeJay17Revolution 1 year ago
I g n o r a n c e of the current scientific research is not an argument. I don't think anyone wants to hold your fucking hand and explain it to you, so help yourself.
tekproxy 2 years ago 15
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I think every one is ignorrant of the current research validating macro evolution, because it doesnt exist. Take your vikes and relax.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Like I said, I don't want to hold your damn hand. Creationists presume the truth then look for evidence to back it up and plug their fingers far into their ears to ignore everything else.
tekproxy 2 years ago 9
LOL, maybe would talk about the research that proves your stupid bible is a fairy tale book?
Do you pretend that its all real?
Or is your religious book false on so many things?
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
I never mentioned metaphysics, and your philosophy and language doesn't interest me. However since you mentioned it biblical archeology is a confirmed science, you don't have to believe me look it up.
benthemiester 2 years ago
I didn't know scientist did research on fairy tales but if you can site a body of work I would love to hear about it, but I won't hold my breath.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Maybe you heard of DNA, that proves no ark.
You have heard of DNA?
" biblical archeology "
So some of the places mentioned int he bible are real.
WOW does that eman all the bible is correct? (Ignroing the proof otherwise)
So all the brother Grims fairy tales are real (By your standard of evidnece) as they use real palce names!
LOL great logic on your part!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago 4
@benthemiester irreducible complexity was addressed by kenneth miller...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@swisscheesepotatochi Adressed yes, but not debunked. He cant even prove his proposition that the T3SS is a precursor to the Bacterial flagellum. The literature states just the opposite. Even Miller agrees that if you knock out a component/protein off the BF it will not function.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester He does not need to prove that it is...irreducible complexity simply states that a system is irreducibly complex if it cannot be reduced which in this case it has been reduced...please give me the source of that claim by kenneth miller...he did mention it will not function as a bacterial flagellum...In this case it can still function as the type three secretory system...
swisscheesepotatochi 1 year ago
@benthemiester Macro-evolution by definition is just a lot of Micro-evolution. Do you read the stuff you write? Do you make this stuff up as you go? Seriously how stupid are the people you convice this crap is true?
mucephi1 10 months ago
@mucephi1 Not interested in your philosophical views. If your knowledgeable enough on subject to present evidence and articulate your reason for why it is evidence then please present it. As I have stated even other evolutionist are now publicly questioning the limitations of the Neo Darwinian synthesis and proposing an extended one. I have posted video of Newman interview where he discusses this in greater detail. As I said before even he criticizes the Dover trial.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@mucephi1 "Macro-evolution by definition is just a lot of Micro-evolution"
Not according to evolution friendly Wikipedia. Maybe you should do a little more research.
Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester You should stick to playing guitar- at least you are good at that. In the end - by whatever definition - you are wrong because you dont suggest any alternative to evolution. Suggesting a designer is not science. Suggesting God does not answer any questions at all. The existence of God is subjective not objective - you cant prove what by definition (of supernatural) cannot be proven. Most Christians in the world have reconciled this fact but the YEC's are just out of thier minds.
mucephi1 10 months ago
@mucephi1 If a theory is flawed & there is poor evidence, then it is what it is, whether or not there is alternative explanation, & who ever said a designer had to be supernatural? If someday we're able to create & seed life on Mars & someday that life wondered about its origins, would it be unscientific for them to believe that an intelligent agent created them? How do u know a designer is not science & who can arbitrarily say what is allowed or not allowed in science? Science is not a person.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester Why dont you understand? If we go out and seed Mars with life and it one day Evolves into a form capable of wondering about its own origins- how would discovering us answer that question? Where did WE come from? Its just asking the same question all over again its not answering anything at all. If in turn humans were seeded then who seeded us? And so on and so on till you get right back to the basic question of where did life come from. Evolution explains why there is diveristy..
mucephi1 10 months ago
@mucephi1 "If we go out and seed Mars with life and it one day Evolves into a form capable of wondering about its own origins- how would discovering us answer that question" It would answer who created them thats how, but that wasn't the question, in fact you failed to answer the question which was if we created life and if they one day asked themselves if they were created, would it be an unscientific question?
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester Its not the question that is the problem its your answer. Asking if they were created is science. Saying the answer is that they were created by something that was also created by something else and so on is not a scientific answer. It doesnt answer the question of the origin of life it doesnt even try to. It just offers endless repetition of the same question over and over.
mucephi1 10 months ago
@mucephi1 I knew you wouldn't be able to answer the question. You obviously dont understand cause and effect science. Tell me where did life come from? and please at least cite one piece of evidence that shows how life got here. Are you absolutely sure that comets didn't seed life? and if they did, I guess according to you, we should just give up since we would have to know how that life started and so on and so on. Again a major science stopper.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester There is no debate on evolution I thought I said that- and Im not debating that here. You do not offer any contrary explanation at all- not one based on science because that science is already established. That is why the case was decided against creationists. The fact that every defendant of creationism (why bother with the ID moniker?) ran away when they had a chance to speak tells everything you need to know. The position has no defense - ID isnt even a position to begin with
mucephi1 10 months ago
@mucephi1 "There is no debate on evolution I thought I said that- and Im not debating that here"
I have almost one hundred debates among scientist on both sides of the coin downloaded from all over the world. To say that there is no debate is really like burying your head in the sand. If you look to the left you will see video after video of scholars debating this subject. This what I call denying a reality and pretending it doesn't exist while you yourself are debating it yet say your not.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester You are responding to my statements before i am done making them- please at least let me finish a thought before you attack me with more of your propoganda. At least pretend you dont have an iron Clad religious agenda. Oh sorry - according to you its not religion. God isnt the creator then? Only an endless line of previously designed aliens? Is that what you are saying? Life never started? It was just continually re-designed with no origin ever? And you call that science?
mucephi1 10 months ago
@mucephi1 I have not attacked you. You have tried to insult me by calling me dumber than a third grader. You and I both know thats not true and if you read my responses you wouldn't keep repeating yourself. I have already adressed your questions. Just saying something is true doesn't make it so if you cant produce any empirical evidence. I was speaking of the fact that we were told that humans were 99% similar to chimps. This is false & the 2005 draft disproves it. Junk DNA is also a myth.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester Ben you are wrong. You are intentionallly trying to decieve stupid people and I wont assist you in that. Im only responding because you keep giving me something to respond to. I keep making the same point because you refuse to address it or acknowledge its validity. If you actually were dumber than a 3rd grader then i could understand your point of view. Since you are not it follows that you understand you are full of it and that you have an agenda - a political/religious agenda
mucephi1 10 months ago
@mucephi1 Yes, stick to conspiracies and insults, and stay away from logic and especially this subject. You know full well the questions asked were valid. I answered every question you asked, even the hard ones, yet you know you have not answered mine, and after you have considering your own logic, you have no answer.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester I dont understand what you are saying. Your position is that evolution is not true and we were made by an intelligence that itself was not made. You deny that you have a religious viewpoint and you deny God so who or what is this creator that itself is not created? my position is thats not science. you say it is. Am I missing something? ID was found to be religiously motivated and thus illegal. What am i not answering and why dont you answer my questions re your religious views?
mucephi1 10 months ago
@mucephi1 "Relating the development of life within an existing universe composed of time and space is not the same thing as asking where the universe itself came from"
Why use a double standard. We have to also ask what caused the universe? The singularity? What caused the singularity? another universe? And what caused that? and so on and so.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester because we arent discussing the formation of the universe we are talking about the Dover trial- why it happenned and why it failed. Anything more you add is just a smoke screen to hide behind while you deny your God on one hand and promote him with the other. Thats your biz and your issue/problem not mine. You are free to believe what you want but attempting to pass off ID as anything other than religion when you wont even deny the religion part is pretty laughable. More....
mucephi1 10 months ago
@mucephi1 cont..... Not the simple view of life that Darwin had. Our DNA contains specified digital encoded information just like a computer program, only much more complex. We know that only intelligent agents can program specified Digital code. You have your own world view also, so should we only allow agnostics who are neutral to speak of science. Maybe you have a problem not being able to separate your world view from empirical science, but don't blame that weakness on everyone else.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@mucephi1 I thought u were interested in science?
From a metaphysical standpoint of course many ID proponents including myself believe that God created life (but not all ID proponents including atheist and agnostics) but that is a metaphysical non scientific discussion. Pan spermia can also apply to ID which is. ID doesn't claim to know who the designer is or even if he is a God or higher a technologically advanced civilization. ID is based on what better explains life as we now know it.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@mucephi1 Go take a a year to study and research the theory you believe in as in faith, and then hit me back when your able to defend it. Thanks good luck to you too, and thanks for the compliment earlier.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester Intentionally attempting to decieve people and make them think there is a controversy where there is none is a serious crime imo. You know the truth but you choose to follow this illogical path that resolves nothing so that you can push theology. Most diehard theists even think your movement is baloney because it only represents a narrow religious viewpoint held by a small number of radical christians. Do you deny that promoting God is your goal? It certainly cant be science.
mucephi1 10 months ago
@mucephi1 "Its not the question that is the problem its your answer. Asking if they were created is science. Saying the answer is that they were created by something that was also created by something else and so on is not a scientific answer. etc"
I never added in the so on and so. You did. However cause and effect will eventually lead you to origins but you cant know until u start asking the questions. Just like genealogy ask the same question over and over.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester "Just like genealogy ask the same question over and over"
Well good luck with that you are gunna need it.
mucephi1 10 months ago
Irreducible complexity means:" Its so complicated, that there MUST be a creator!"
Proof?None. Tests? None. Peer reviews?None.
ONLY words. As always for creationists.Nothing more to it.
It's really pathetic, how creationists try to disprove science by trying to find a hole in scientific methods.
NONE of them don't even try to PROVE their own so called "theory". Disgusting stupid arrogant people.
NotoHaters0 2 years ago 18
@NotoHaters0
To be fair, irreducible complexity, in the right hands, can serve as a good devil's advocate to keep scientists asking questions.
It's of course an entire different matter to use it as evidence in court and then being made to look like an idiot.
vinniechan 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins: "It is only getting a hold on those who don't know anything"
That's an ad hominen fallacy.
Dr4g0nSlayer 2 years ago
Wrong . Ad hominem is attacking the person INSTEAD OF making an argument.
Dawkins has made copious arguments against creationists.
Instulting someone after you have demolished their argument is noot ad hominem.
cfytcf 2 years ago 5
Irreducible complexity is not proof against evolution at all. If you think so, yo don't know enough about evolution. Those creationists are stupid.
Ludde365 2 years ago 8
Comment removed
bigblakblob2 2 years ago
Dawkins sure doesn't mince his words.
RPFS2008 2 years ago
Evolution is a fact, there is no debate offered.
TaNgEnTsHigh 2 years ago 9
Wow great words, that lad said. He couldn't of been more spot on. "The other side thinks that we are hopelessly misguided." Well except for one thing, the other side knows, not just thinks.
khallex 2 years ago
How can they claim they are scientific when once they reach something that they don't understand then they declare it cannot be evolution...
expatdk 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is there a supernatural God?..or is the energy behind life and behind our universe a natural creative energy...I believe the evolutionary process of natural selection are also guided by a natural energy of our cosmos....how about mathematical proof? Search videos by superwhuffo1
superwhuffo1 3 years ago
Darwin rocks!
bennysatini 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
How to become a Christian. Click on:
Godisreal101
GodIsReal101 3 years ago
P. Johnson says "impartially" . Yeah and who wouldn't believe some good xians? I wonder what garbage they're cooking up now?
DaxxFinsta 3 years ago
Dawkins is my hero!!
telboy1966manu 3 years ago
That was a really young Dawkins. lol
wildreams 3 years ago