There is no need for an uninterested judge to decide matters he cannot understand well. Let biologists remove parts of bacterial flagellum and see it it will survive. Or find a living bacterial flagellum with missing parts.
@daogdaog " Or find a living bacterial flagellum with missing parts." - If you are smart enough to know that we have to find a living bacteria that has each missing part and is surviving, then why the hell do you not know they already have found them? - Simple... You don't want to know!
(2) with malaria, pregnancy, and liver disease. Nevertheless, physicians still use these worthless tests, assume that positive results mean HIV infection, and give their patients doom-diagnoses of "HIV-positive" or "AIDS". 'AIDS: A Death Cult' by John Lauritsen
(1) Neither of the "HIV-antibody" tests -- the Elisa or the Western Blot -- has ever been properly validated, which means that no one knows what their results mean. The tests are chemical reactions to antigens, which are substances that provoke an immune response. Many dozens of conditions can produce a positive result on these tests, including drug abuse, flu vaccinations, past infection
You know, I'm actually appreciative, in a way, that Creationists are die-hard critics of science. They spot (on occasion) fallacies of some things that are kind of iffy with science, and Science rises to the challenge of answering their question (so long as it isn't ludicrous, for example "prove for certain God didn't create the universe initially")
One positive thing about creationist criticisms like irreducible complexity is that they challenge us to view evolution through new paradigms. I can't help but wonder whether we would be so conscious of evolution's ability to create complex machinery if we didn't have creationists advancing ideas like irreducible complexity.
Don't get me wrong, I still think they're doing it in bad faith and with the intent to hinder the study of evolution, which is deplorable.
Funny how he doesn't say what would happen to this motor if you just took out one part, he picks a bigger number because he can come up with a use for it with the bigger number removed. Not very convincing. If it came into existence one step at a time then he should be able to take out just one step, the last step and prove it is still functional.
@davidphiliplewis You are no longer challenging the argument that the rotary flagellum is irreducible complex. You have moved the goal post to wanting to know every stage in it's development. The fact that science does not have all the answers does not mean God must have poofed it there. watch?v=As1HlmYeh7Q
1. I have not moved any goal posts to wanting to know EVERY stage of it's development, just the last one.
2. I am not saying God had anything to do with it, in fact I am an atheist.
Please just look at what I have said and don't jump to conclusions, there are other people in the world that question this theory besides religious wackos. Play the ball and not the man.
1. I have not moved any goal posts to wanting to know EVERY stage of it's development, just the last one.
2. I am not saying God had anything to do with it, in fact I am an atheist.
Please just look at what I have said and don't jump to conclusions, there are other people in the world that question this theory besides religious wackos. Play the ball and not the man.
@davidphiliplewis Ok, but you must see that the irreducibly complex arguments is debunked here. Maybe they don't know the last detail of this bacteria's evolution but they do know most of them. Look at the work Richard Lenski has been doing at Michigan State University with escherichia coli bacterium. Also there is evidence for complete sets of genes acquired by horizontal gene transfer in bacteria. Do you have a better theory?
@foxlake02 No I don't have a better theory or any theory. My opinion is that this is simply a battle between religion and science, both sides have not got a clue. I love science and we all benefit from science, I just think in this one area science is stretching the evidence because not to do so would leave room and justification for religion. (and we certainly don't want any more religion in the world)
@davidphiliplewis Well, like I said, I have reason to accept the science here. Biologists in this field are finding evidence that supports the theory of biological evolution. It does not exclude bacteria or their flagellum. I believe that using it as an example of "design" is just another example of distortion by religious fundamentalists. The whole argument boils down to it's complicated, it's soooo complicated, and did we say how complicated it is? Miller debunks that argument very well here.
@foxlake02 That is my whole point, the flagellum is complicated but theory of evolution is not. No matter how much you rack your brains you can't even "dream up" the most recent steps in forming this flagellum. The theory states an organism is formed in step by step increments, changes taking place by beneficial "random genetic mutations".
@davidphiliplewis There are many scientists that share my view about this subject but no doubt have seen the movie, "Expelled: No intelligence allowed" and wisely keep their mouths shut to avoid ruining their career and ending up on the job seeker market. It takes someone like me with nothing to lose to state the obvious: THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!
@davidphiliplewis The movie "Expelled" is silly propaganda. It has been thoroughly debunked. Any scientist is allowed to challenge current theory but he has to do it with evidence. Just saying they don't agree because their dogma disagrees with it should get them expelled. Did you even watch Ken Miller's explanations in this lecture? "The universe is more bizarre than our imaginations can conceive." Nasa astrophysicist Jon Morse
@foxlake02 I just want you to explain to me how the last step of the flagellum was formed as per Darwins Theory. Are we supposed to have "Faith" that it happened? Since we can't even dream up any possible fit with the theory then the theory should not be allowed to stand. To do anything else is not science. At least religion admits that it relies on faith, we expect better from science.
@davidphiliplewis There are many variations on the flagellum theme for propulsion in bacteria. Why would you exempt this form of life or this form of propulsion from biological evolution? Simply because you can't understand it? Maybe it's because you don't like the idea. How many components of this system found in other biological systems would it take to convince you? This sounds like creationists crying "there are no transitional fossils" and the requiring even more when they are found.
@foxlake02 I know there are many variations, all I am asking is for you explain how at least the last couple of steps of the evolutionary process as applies to the flagellum. Since the last steps happened the most recently surely it should be a cinch to explain what happened? A nuclear physicist has no problem explaining all the steps in fusion, the Theory of Evolution is supposed to be the most proven scientific theory yet the last few steps can't be explained? Is this science or faith?
@foxlake02 Watched it and guess what, it was way over my head! It's a known trick that to silence someone just speak in arcane language, see their eyes gloss over then they just go away and let the "experts" run things. By reading the comments it seems not many people are buying what the explanation is offering. As to my explanation, I don't have any, but I don't believe that evolution could have done it. BTW I didn't see any evidence that Behe agrees with this despite the claim.
@davidphiliplewis Yeah, a big conspiracy. It was made for a lay audience with only a cursory understanding of basic biology. I'm no expert but I have learned that reality is far more fascinating if you approach a subject with an open mind and a desire to learn instead of a desire to confirm your personal bias. Behe is not a creationist in the most literal sense. He accepts that man has evolved with other apes.
@davidphiliplewis So when you asked for an explanation for this biological system you didn't really want an answer at all did you? If that was the case you would do some research and find out if it's an accurate explanation or not. My guess is you will not. Either because of fear what you may find or just too lazy to take the effort. If it doesn't seem to confirm your bias, you're not interested. Easier and more comforting to say God poofed it there.
@foxlake02 The "answer" given in this poorly made presentation isn't an answer at all but just a lot of gobbledygook. And I am NOT saying god poofed it there, nice one trying to put words into my mouth. This flagellum is about as likely to have come about by a series of random genetic mutations as there are parallel universes which I guess you believe in as well.
@davidphiliplewis So what you are saying is that you have no idea but you know the professional biologists are wrong because you don't understand it and you are not about to try. Now I understand.
@foxlake02 You got it but change "The" professional biologists to "Some" professional biologists. The movie "Expelled" proves that the science mafia will come after you if you dare question this theory. For sure there would be a heck of a lot more dissent if the scientists weren't worried about being rubbed out. Oh also the "professionals" are always right? Only 12 years ago all the "professionals" were adamant we were heading for another ice age!
@foxlake02 BTW since you think the experts "know it all" you might find a book I read interesting: Wrong: Why experts* keep failing us--and how to know when not to trust them *Scientists, finance wizards, doctors, relationship gurus, celebrity CEOs, ... consultants, health officials and more by David H. Freedman. Maybe then you will understand why the "ordinary folks" don't swallow everything the experts tell us.
@davidphiliplewis Add clergy to that list and yes they can be wrong but I'm still using my computer and enjoying inexpensive food and using modern medicine. Professional biologists have convinced me that this is an example of biological evolution using evidence. If you don't want to at least learn what they are saying then don't bother arguing about it. "Expelled" was a load of crap. Any scientist can argue against accepted theory but he better have evidence to back it up. watch?v=p3QHsUS3Lp4
@foxlake02 Sure I am an advocate of science as well, it is all we have to try and make sense of this world. I watched the clip, very pedantic and a lot of it wasn't relevant to the movie. BTW any scientist can NOT argue against Evolutionary Theory since the Science Mafia will be after them, and guess who decides on the evidence? I heard a distinguished scientist the other day (Karl S. Kruszelnicki) say that we "don't have a clue" how the genetic information got in the DNA.
@davidphiliplewis A friend gave me "Expelled" to watch. I thought it may have some scientific evidence but not a single speck of evidence was presented. Only whining scientists who lost their job or didn't get a promotion because they were dishonest or not very good at their job. Stein twisted and distorted it to look as though they got persecuted. Very disappointing movie. No more gobbledygook from me. Do your own homework.
@foxlake02 But I am sure you will have some gobbledygook clip you can show me how it could have happened as per the Theory. Also if the last couple of steps in the evolutionary process could be shown with this flagellum then for sure Ken Miller would have described it, but he didn't and I doubt if it's because he just likes to keep us guessing.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. Ditto the rotary motor. What use is it, why would it evolve from some "more primitive" bacteria as Miller assures y'all that it can? Why and how could accidental processes cause an initially useless bump of a rotary motor to evole - and remember it must be done SYNCHRONOUSLY with the also equally initially totally useless whip? It is absurd to think that blind, accidental processes could cause that to happen. It is a dataless & illogical scam to tell folk the whip & motor "evolved."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. Let's suppose that a "more primitive" bacteria (actually one that is simply suited to a different purpose) is gong to turn into the a bacteria, thru evo, that has a rotary motor and a whip that it turns. We are right back to start exactly. If the "earlier" bacteria has an "emerging" rotary whip, again just an accidental nub or wisp, so what? So why would evo drive the useless thing to completion? It needs the rotary whip, fully completed, fully connected, to go anywhere! Cont.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
...All of which also contain complete and completely connected interdependent parts, & are acting in specialized ways which are different from the bacteria that has the complex whip & rotary mechanism. Saying, Well, some bacteria aren't that complex, so just assuuume the more complex ones evolved from them, it's all so simple - has 0 evidence & is based on faith. It does not address the issue of irreducible complexity of the flagellar whip & motor but offers only a distraction, a red herring.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Though Miller states the obvious when he says that different kinds of bacteria exist, some somewhat similar to the bacteria flagellum. We are supposed to accept his word for it, believe on faith with absolutely no evidenec whatsoever, that different, and more primitive bacteria turned into the sophisticated bacterial flagelllum with it's rotary mechanism & whip. Do we ever see intermediate stages? An incomplete, or "emerging" whip or flagellum. No. What we see are only different bacteria..
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Why & how could accidents of nature, via "evolution", drive such parts to completion while they are initially useless. I suppose, as w Behe's ex., Miller would say Well the whip & the rotary motor were co opted from earlier function. Of course he would not have a single shred of scientific data to back that up. As always. Even the imagination cannot conceieve of how such complex parts could be built & assembled based on random "lucky" chances with initially totally uselessly "evolving" bits.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
0:10 Miller gives his opinion as scientific fact and he uses as backup a court case, a politcal situation, as his backup rarther than laboratory data.. I ask anyone to explain this to me about a bacterial flagellum. (I have my own variation on what Behe said & personally like it better.) Take a good look at the bacteria flagellum's whip & the rotary motor below. Plz A. any of these Qs.: What good would an "emerging" "evolving" whip or rotary be until fully formed and attached ? Cont.
@LoricaLady Even a small "emerging" whip would be an evolutionary advantage if the rest of the population had no whip at all. Different species of bacteria have different numbers and arrangements of flagella. In some species of bacteria two flagellar systems co-exist, using different sets of genes and different ion gradients for energy.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@foxlake02 This is actually not for Foxlake, but I need to put a post here for it to be in the right sequence.
Foxlake is 1 of many Miller vid watchdogs who constantly follow me around YT with false accusations, insults, obscenities & even sexual harrassment (for ex. when one poster sent me a 0 science, 100% porno post Foxlake told him "Good job!"). I put those people on an ignore list. Howver, for you, anonymous lurker, to help combat the disinformatoin, I ask you to consider some things.
@LoricaLady Why would you start @foxlake02 if it wasn't addressed to me? Are you suggesting that there is only one form of flagellum in bacteria? What is it about my post that is dishonest. What have I ever said to you that was dishonest?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@foxlake02 Cont. 1. There is 0 ev-i-dence there even ever was an "emerging" whip. 2. There is 0 ev-idence that an "emerging" whip would be of any use whatsoever. "Would be" is the typicla evo talk, pure theories treated as if they are on a par with actual obserble data. An emerging whip would probably be just a bump. Even an accidental whip-like filiament will not cause the flagellum to move anywhere except in theory. 3. The whip needs a rotary motor, complete & completely connected.
@LoricaLady There is 0 evidence that God poofed all the different variations of bacterial flagellum into existence and yes, Miller IS talking "pure theories". Do you have a better one?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@foxlake02 Cont. Without the complerted and completely connected rotary motor, even a fully completed whip, much less some little dangling bump or filament, is going to be totally useless, even an impediment.
"Woujd be an evolutionary advantage" is always always paired with "if". And they are never paired with actual evidence. Again, how & why is evo going to drive a useless bump of a whip & a useless bump of a rotary motor to completion - & do it SYNCHRONOSLY? In evo fantasy land only...
@LoricaLady I can't believe you posted that. Like I just explained, there are many types of bacterial flagellum with different types of propulsion. Many have absolutely NOTHING to do with a "motor". You need to provide a theory for all the different variations on the same theme or admit you really don't know what you are talking about.
Yes Behe is so celebrated that the fellow professors have all put up evolution posters on their doors and he is shunned as a snake oil salesman. A real class act, . . NOT!
if you take away a person's heart, they cant survive. therefor, we are irreducibley complex. ha. its amazing that with all the knowledge in science and everything it has to offer, that there are people out there that can believe something that is so absurd. like ID
@pebi86 Not a strawman! Behe has admitted in debates before that irreducible complexity means that you cannot take parts away and still have some function.
It is not a fallacy if Behe stuffs straw down his own shirt.
1) We have NOT observed the bacterium flagelum making itself
2) He does NOT give a plausible explanation how this simple system could make itself. ALL he does is assert that part of the bacteria flagelum could have other uses.
THIS DOES NOT PROVE THAT MACRO EVOLUTION IS TRUE.
It is completely smoke and mirrors trick. Confuse the issue and sell the deception that Macro evolution is a "fact".
@theot58 Right, and he wasn't told to "show macroevolution is true" That has already been proven, nobody argues against it...rather nobody who has been educated argues that.
He did what he as asked to do: REFUTE Behe's irreducibility non-sense. He accomplished this with elegance.
"Macro Evolution is a belief that people hold"
Please pick up some lab equipment and prove us all wrong. We have a $2 Million Nobel prize and "King of Biology" throne waiting for you to show us this.
@theot58 By the way I am not being sarcastic about the Nobel. If you or anybody else can pick up some lab equipment and do Biochemical assays or pick up a computer and do ecological or paleontology studies to 'disprove' the current back-bone of biology that is the Theory of Evolution, you will be awarded a Nobel and be the most lauded figure in the Biological Sciences. In research and academia, we don't mind being wrong; but it is up to you to show us how we are wrong.
@Helge129 Can you please explain where I can find the documentation which proves Macro evolution to be true.
Frankly there have been so many times that evolutionists have made ambit claims about "mountains of evidence" etc that have turned out to be complete dud's - that I am skeptical. However I am happy to follow the evidence and let it speak for itself.
@Helge129 if "Speciation" is all you have - then I am really pissed off.
I have heard that bull so many times that it is not funny.
Evolutionists are violating the scientific method bigtime but not providing tangible, observable evidence - all they have is AMBIT CLAIMS AND FALSE LEADS
@theot58 Gah. Again that word "Evolutionist"...It is both wrong and misleading, because Evolution is not a system of beliefs, but pretty much The strongest scientific theory out there. I don't see how Evolutionary Biologists violate the scientific method, since they Do provide more than enough evidence.
Also Goddidit violates the scientific method in oh so many ways.
@theot58 And that's where you're wrong. It's been observed several times. For instance, the fact that peppered moths have evolved to fit the color of the trees in their habitat, or some species of mice to fit the sand/rock they live on proves that Evolution and Natural Selection happens.
"DARWINIAN/MACRO EVOLUTION IS A FAIRYTALE FOR GROWNUPS.
IT HAS NOT BEEN OBSERVED, MEASURED OR REPEATED - IT IS SIMPLY BELIEVED."
It has been observed and it is not a believe. Stop talking about pseudo science and stop talking about the creation dream. If the creation would be true science would already proved that. But in fact evolution is the only possible and proved explonation and I guess you know nothing about macro and micro evolution. Please read an article on Wikipedia first.
@theot58 I'm going to venture a guess that you won't buy the "transitional forms" argument, but there's that--as well as molecular genetic analyses which confirm the predictions made by evolution.
Ken Miller does not believe in "the biblical God", because if he did, he would understand that evolution, or rather the theory, is dead in the water, and that the Biblical God created life as we see it now, as described clearly in Genesis. As a "creatard" I'm entitled to this opinion! The evidence is overwhelming, And no amount of childish abuse from evolutards and atheists will shake me, or make me change my belief. Evolution and God are incompatible, period.
Nobody said that each part of the Flagellum Motor is not functional somewhere else. The argument is how did all 40 parts suddenly show up in the same place perfectly.
It's not like 2 (20 parts) systems just came together. That might be possible, but 40 parts just coming together, by small incremental changes? Come on!
@robertbrownell "The argument is how did all 40 parts suddenly show up in the same place perfectly."
An equally stupid argument. Nothing happens 'suddenly' in evolution.
"It's not like 2 (20 parts) systems just came together. That might be possible, but 40 parts just coming together, by small incremental changes? Come on!"
Why can you accept 20 but not 40? It's only 2 times more. Is the 20 somekind of a magic number or did you just make it up?
I was accepting 20 as more of a concession. The probability of 20 is probably still astronomically impossible.
Remember, if the argument is small incremental changes made it, then all these pieces showing up from other parts of the DNA, some created randomly, in the exact right spot, with no other bad DNA, that is NOT an incremental change, that's massive.
Wow, this was a failed attempt, to say the least. How conveniant! Let us not speak about the 3/4 of the parts, lets not speak out how each part has to be constructed, lets not speak about how the bacteria must swim, and cannot without the other parts....
Hahah Evolutionism is dieing like I thought it would back in 1st grade when my teacher couldn't even tell me what a species was. aaaahahahahahahahaha. Retards.
@jackalmate, Ken Miller isn't a "creatard" (retarded creationists) in the common sense of the word. He believes in the biblical God, sure, but no need to categorize him as such.
@Docta305 --I'm afraid you missed my point...I'm a great admirer of Ken Miller's, having even attended a couple of lectures he's given...my reference was to the erroneous conclusion that evolution is somehow in the process of dying out or becoming passe...the contary is true, it is the most entrenched systematic process in biology, driving a great many fields of investigation. The hoax of irreducible complexity has been exposed as gibberish, on the other hand...
I didn't miss your point and I'm glad that we can agree on Ken Miller's brilliance. He does what he can for the dying theory (evolutionism). After all, we must make a living. I'm sure he doesn't let his theological beliefs get in the way. No need to categorize him as a creatard, either.
@Docta305 Interesting notion that you and some other terribly ignorant creatards have that evolution is somehow a dying theory, since ID is a hoax and torn apart by Ken Miller at Dover. See the preceding insightful comment by DawnOfEos...there won't be any Nobel Prizes awarded for ID or creationism.
@spicychickenwing31, that is exactly my opinion of Dr. Ken Miller. J/k, I think he knows he's wrong, but stands by his primitive theory because of his economic interests. lol
@Docta305 How exactly is the theory of evolution a primitive theory when different fields of biology and chemistry have verified and revised it according to empirical evidence? The theory of evolution has never been stronger.
@Docta305 I don't "believe" it is or it isn't primitive. I know it isn't, since my initial 'belief' that it wasn't primitive led to my 'knowing' that it's not primitive by learning about it. My professor doesn't think it's primitive. My two postdoc co-workers don't think it's primitive. Not even the grad students and undergrads I work with think it's primitive. What separates them from the common individuals is that they actually verified it, which negates the necessity for a belief.
@Graemelamont wrong. Actually many bacteria have only type III secretory systems and no flagellum. MANY bacteria are IMMOTILE. it is not a life necessary function.
where did you study biology again? I'm a medical student what is your biological background that you made such a large error?
Hi there I am not a scientist nor have I got any formal education. Therefore be kind in your responses. I have often asked myself being brought up with the bible and all. Is it possible that the force or intent that is evolution , is in fact the intelligent designer? Maybe scientists need to be reminded that there was at time that science seriously stated that one would desintegrate when exceeding the speed of sound. And religion should remember that God was not in his expected place.
@sethisrafil Science itself makes no argument for for against the possibility of a "rule giver" of a sort because such claims are not scientific. Science seeks to explain the natural world through observation and natural law. Do you accept that we have free will, or does God directly cause extinction events and directly guide all human actions? If we do have free will, then God or any other diety does not guide or have intent through evolution.
@Kurpalac That is very interesting indeed. However I merely attempted to add another perspective here. And that is that the answer is not to be found in the incorrectness of either opinion. There is order and for it to be observed there has to be disorder. At least so I believe. If rule or the opposite thereoff exists as an absolute then per/conception would be static.I choose to believe it is dynamic. And therefore it has to be here at one time and there at another from our ability to perceive.
@PaladinConstantin Ridiculing my english? Please, you've made actual mistakes, I've made a typo. Speaking UK english doesn't absolve you from , oh, I don't know, speaking english? Knowing that I'm part American changes nothing lol.
@PaladinConstantin *Sigh* Again, perhaps you should go google a word. Start with addressed. Unless you are saying your comment is a direct insult? Nice call, I am a Canadian (I'm also an American).
@PaladinConstantin Just a typo, relax arm-chair thug. And it would be difficult to type comments using google. Why? Because you need to know the word to google it. Unless you'd rather google definitions until you get the right word? I digress. What is really, really illiterate, is your usage of the word illiterate. Notice, it means being unable to read? So while I can, and do make typos, you can't, and don't, know how to google definitions.
@PaladinConstantin Ouch, another illiterate! Fathom (1), a unit of measuremeant equal to 6 feet. Fathom (2), to understand, to define [usually in a negative]
Having a good vocabulary is a sign of intelligence.
@PaladinConstantin I know for a fact that anti-matter was not mentioned in the Bible.
Also, you seem to be citing the predictability of atomic behaviour as a sign of intelligent creation - this argument doesn't stand.
The ability to percieve patterns in nature is likewise not a sufficient argument for an intelligent creator - such a perception illusory, we project patterns onto the natural world. It is a weakness of the human mind.
@PaladinConstantin your patronising manner is no help at all. I have put forward my argument, that given the empirically verified set of facts laid out in evolutionary theory intelligent design cannot be true. That is an argument.
You, howevever, have none even had the good grace to put one forward yourself. Defend YOUR position.
@PaladinConstantin I could also say that you can't understand this the "intelligent designer's" mind as well. I could say that because you assume you know how an ID would work you think that there "must" be a designer when looking at nature (even though you have never seen someone "create" life nor do you have empirical evidence that supports this claim). Why jump to conclusions? Why speculate about something misunderstood by adding another layer of complexity to it and saying a being did it?
@PaladinConstantin Not really. It is rather obvious it is unintelligent and random (goosebumps? They appears to have the function of erecting the fur to keep the body warm. But we have lost the fur! So it appears to be function-less). Imperfection of the human eye :P (ever heard of floaters? Ever heard that eagle eyes pwn our own). So intelligent? If ID is true, more like incompetent!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This vid is an attempted snow job. Ken Miller's comments on the removed parts of the flagellum having a function is off point because the argument is that the parts of the flagellum don't have the PROPER function to make the flagellum work while not properly assembled in place. Michel Behe's thesis stands correct when honestly viewed. Read his book. It is very well done and so far unanswerable.
they are not off point at all he is demonstrating how the flagellum evolved it started not as a flagellum it had a different use that was beneficial then it evolved into a flegellum from that
@imsavd Are you kidding??? Behe was shot down in the Dover trial and admitted himself that the flagellum could have evolved through various stages with each part having a different function.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This is like saying a Toyota could fall together over thousands of years
because each of its 10,000 screws, piston rings, wires, cylinders, ect each had a function. So what.
The Toyota does not work because the parts are not assembled. Anybody want to speculate on how many eons would have to pass before this machine would "fall together" by random chance, even with agitation and a confined space? You KNOW it never would!! Admit it.
"This is like saying a Toyota could fall together over thousands of years
because each of its 10,000 screws, piston rings, wires, cylinders, ect each had a function. So what."
What a ridiculous nonsense. Nobody thinks that way except you.
"eons would have to pass before this machine would "fall together" by random chance, even with agitation and a confined space? You KNOW it never would!! Admit it."
Of course the toyota wouldn´t fall together randomly. What a stupid argument...
the toyota doesnt fall together because it isnt made from self-replicating chemicles. you are making an argument from ignorance, and the focus of this video was to show that the idea of irreducible complexity is wrong. your going to have to come up with a new idea if you want to disprove evolution, because IC has been thoroughly debunked for years.
A completely fallacious arguement from a scientific viewpoint. Just because we may find some use for ad portion of the flagellum is not to show how these parts would ever randomly mutate or "fall together" to form a complete flagellum. In the meantime, there is no propulsion system for the cell and it dies (or never was).
> But There is a DNA repair system created by GOD: This systems repairmans can imagine about 10 sentimeters diameter balls if we imagine dna as a rope. The repairmans finds damages when they occcurs, and repair them immediately.
---------------
What a shame the little repairmans don't fix the grammar in comments too.
We think without numbers. İf you think without numbers, there are billions of possibility. For example, in chess, you say "Queen has more value than pawn" This is a JUNK KNOWLEDGE !!! Because there is No NUMBER, and a player imagine endless posibilities: Queen has %10 more value than pawn, Queen has % 11 more value than..., Queen has one million times valus, etc. Player can NEVER take RİGHT DECİDES until he/she learns that Queen has 9 times more value than pawn !!!
İf a student learn about Natural election and SMALL CHANGİNGs (Mutations) without NUMBERS, The student can imagine that mutations and (as their result) evolution can be posible. Lets think with NUMBERS: İf we imagine DNA as a rope (at 1 centimeter diameter), length of a single cells DNA will be 8000 kilometers !!!
İn every day, 40000 damages occur along this 8000 kilometers rope in every single cell !!! But There is a DNA repair system created by GOD: This systems repairmans can imagine about 10 sentimeters diameter balls if we imagine dna as a rope. The repairmans finds damages when they occcurs, and repair them immediately. How do they this ? First they dedect damage types. After that, repairmans arrange molecules ATOM by ATOM !!! This is so comic :) Because atoms aranges atoms :)
There is only one difference: Arranging atoms are alive !!! How about repairing time ? How much time do you need to arrange 29 different colored balls ? A REPAİRMAN can do this job in ONE BİLLİONTH OF A SECOND. Your eyes can not see WRONG : making an atomic repair in ONE BİLLİONTH OF A SECOND !! ! We have billions of brain, we have millions of profesors, engineers, scientists . And we look only with admiration this repair system.
Millons of brain cant MAKE any single part of this system and evolutioners try to PERSUADE you to: This is posible with probablity. They are all mutations. There is no need an İNTELLİGENT DESİGNER (GOD) .
I ask EVOLUTİONERS: Lets think about DNA repairmans. İf there are excellent DNA repairmans who can repair a MUTATİON in ONE BİLLİONTH OF A SECOND how EVALUTİON can be posibble :) Research about Prof. Dr. Thomas Carell (German scientist) who found how a repairman repair a DNA damage.
yea you can remove your arm and use it as a stand for your wheelless car, but doesnt mean your arm was made for a stand for your car, im sorry but this argument is really stupid
I don't think you understand how evolution works. The flagella was first used for other purposes, then slowly changed slightly making it useful in other ways. It kept changing slightly over time to be what it is now.
The point is that the ID notion of irreducible complexity (that without every single part it is useless) is 100% wrong, and the flagella has use even in its intermediate stages.
@FloydsterUtube , Go read our history, start with the old testiment, The book of enouch, The writings of the anchent summerians, It makes evoulution and creation blend bueatifuly, We are uplifted by beins called gods.
THEORY is now, and has always been, a synonym of SUPPOSITION, CONJECTURE, GUESS. When genuine evidence is proffered then I'll believe it. I espouse no religion. "Atheism" = the death of free-thought; it strives to destroy all worship except humanism.
Theory is not at all a synonym of supposition or conjecture or guess. Read a science textbook.
A theory, as it is used in Science, is plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon. Theories make predictions that can be tested. Newton's theory of motion is an example. Einstein's theory of relativity, atomic theory - these are not "guesses", but prinicples that can be demonstrated in repeatable experiments. Evolution falls under the same category.
First he says that there is no way that the meager mind of man can understand the impetus of life, and then in the next post goes on to say that he knows that evolution could not have happened.
Religionists must apologize for the shortcomings of their orthodoxy. There are fossils. They support the fact that 98% of Earth's flora & fauna are extinct. I see no piety, nor humility, in the humanism of Satan's handmaidens. The evidence bore by Darwinists bears out that the impetus of life is unknown, and likely unknowable, to the meager mind of Man.
Whilst we're on the subject, could you point me in the direction of even one legitimate study that scientifically demonstrates the existence of a creator, determines that it is the deity of any particular mythology, and provides quantifiable elucidation as to its methods of creation? Just one credible study, one shred of observable, quantifiable evidence will do.
Science rules-out spiritual realities in history. Thus, their perpetual error is guaranteed.
It would mis-date the first whales..
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good." (Ge 1:21)
-"You propose that human beings are chemical-onlyites. That, of course, is nonsense."
-
-You propose a magic cloud made us, and THAT is nonsense (unless you back it up). We also made of protein, which many dont really consider chemicals. Fact of the matter is that we dont have any evidence souls even exist. Very likely, and I personally consider it, but you dont have a way to explain how they came to be.
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good." (Ge 1:21)
This begs the question, what if you take 25 parts away? 34? 16? Would it make something different, or am I thinking about this wrong?
technicallyabsurd 15 hours ago
There is no need for an uninterested judge to decide matters he cannot understand well. Let biologists remove parts of bacterial flagellum and see it it will survive. Or find a living bacterial flagellum with missing parts.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog " Or find a living bacterial flagellum with missing parts." - If you are smart enough to know that we have to find a living bacteria that has each missing part and is surviving, then why the hell do you not know they already have found them? - Simple... You don't want to know!
truvelocity 1 month ago
@truvelocity Have you tried removing that bacterial flagellum tail-like part then observed that it survived?
daogdaog 4 weeks ago
(2) with malaria, pregnancy, and liver disease. Nevertheless, physicians still use these worthless tests, assume that positive results mean HIV infection, and give their patients doom-diagnoses of "HIV-positive" or "AIDS". 'AIDS: A Death Cult' by John Lauritsen
TheFutureUnquiet 5 months ago
(1) Neither of the "HIV-antibody" tests -- the Elisa or the Western Blot -- has ever been properly validated, which means that no one knows what their results mean. The tests are chemical reactions to antigens, which are substances that provoke an immune response. Many dozens of conditions can produce a positive result on these tests, including drug abuse, flu vaccinations, past infection
TheFutureUnquiet 5 months ago
You know, I'm actually appreciative, in a way, that Creationists are die-hard critics of science. They spot (on occasion) fallacies of some things that are kind of iffy with science, and Science rises to the challenge of answering their question (so long as it isn't ludicrous, for example "prove for certain God didn't create the universe initially")
Boss5414 5 months ago
Ken Miller FTW. One of my favorite evolutionary biologists. :)
Drgamedood 5 months ago
Darwin preached eugenics. His orthodoxy entails it, ingratiates it, and requires congregants to further its aims
TheFutureUnquiet 7 months ago
@TheFutureUnquiet That's because humans are a scourge to this planet and must be eliminated.
redlionhart 5 months ago
One positive thing about creationist criticisms like irreducible complexity is that they challenge us to view evolution through new paradigms. I can't help but wonder whether we would be so conscious of evolution's ability to create complex machinery if we didn't have creationists advancing ideas like irreducible complexity.
Don't get me wrong, I still think they're doing it in bad faith and with the intent to hinder the study of evolution, which is deplorable.
YourLovelyMan 7 months ago
I absolutely do not support intelligent design/creationism, but what about the secretory system? Is that irreducibly complex?
cristiline93 8 months ago
Funny how he doesn't say what would happen to this motor if you just took out one part, he picks a bigger number because he can come up with a use for it with the bigger number removed. Not very convincing. If it came into existence one step at a time then he should be able to take out just one step, the last step and prove it is still functional.
davidphiliplewis 10 months ago
@davidphiliplewis You are no longer challenging the argument that the rotary flagellum is irreducible complex. You have moved the goal post to wanting to know every stage in it's development. The fact that science does not have all the answers does not mean God must have poofed it there. watch?v=As1HlmYeh7Q
foxlake02 10 months ago
@foxlake02
1. I have not moved any goal posts to wanting to know EVERY stage of it's development, just the last one.
2. I am not saying God had anything to do with it, in fact I am an atheist.
Please just look at what I have said and don't jump to conclusions, there are other people in the world that question this theory besides religious wackos. Play the ball and not the man.
davidphiliplewis 10 months ago
@foxlake02
1. I have not moved any goal posts to wanting to know EVERY stage of it's development, just the last one.
2. I am not saying God had anything to do with it, in fact I am an atheist.
Please just look at what I have said and don't jump to conclusions, there are other people in the world that question this theory besides religious wackos. Play the ball and not the man.
davidphiliplewis 10 months ago
@davidphiliplewis Ok, but you must see that the irreducibly complex arguments is debunked here. Maybe they don't know the last detail of this bacteria's evolution but they do know most of them. Look at the work Richard Lenski has been doing at Michigan State University with escherichia coli bacterium. Also there is evidence for complete sets of genes acquired by horizontal gene transfer in bacteria. Do you have a better theory?
foxlake02 10 months ago
@foxlake02 No I don't have a better theory or any theory. My opinion is that this is simply a battle between religion and science, both sides have not got a clue. I love science and we all benefit from science, I just think in this one area science is stretching the evidence because not to do so would leave room and justification for religion. (and we certainly don't want any more religion in the world)
davidphiliplewis 10 months ago
@davidphiliplewis Well, like I said, I have reason to accept the science here. Biologists in this field are finding evidence that supports the theory of biological evolution. It does not exclude bacteria or their flagellum. I believe that using it as an example of "design" is just another example of distortion by religious fundamentalists. The whole argument boils down to it's complicated, it's soooo complicated, and did we say how complicated it is? Miller debunks that argument very well here.
foxlake02 9 months ago
@foxlake02 That is my whole point, the flagellum is complicated but theory of evolution is not. No matter how much you rack your brains you can't even "dream up" the most recent steps in forming this flagellum. The theory states an organism is formed in step by step increments, changes taking place by beneficial "random genetic mutations".
davidphiliplewis 9 months ago
@davidphiliplewis There are many scientists that share my view about this subject but no doubt have seen the movie, "Expelled: No intelligence allowed" and wisely keep their mouths shut to avoid ruining their career and ending up on the job seeker market. It takes someone like me with nothing to lose to state the obvious: THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!
davidphiliplewis 9 months ago
@davidphiliplewis The movie "Expelled" is silly propaganda. It has been thoroughly debunked. Any scientist is allowed to challenge current theory but he has to do it with evidence. Just saying they don't agree because their dogma disagrees with it should get them expelled. Did you even watch Ken Miller's explanations in this lecture? "The universe is more bizarre than our imaginations can conceive." Nasa astrophysicist Jon Morse
foxlake02 9 months ago
@foxlake02 I just want you to explain to me how the last step of the flagellum was formed as per Darwins Theory. Are we supposed to have "Faith" that it happened? Since we can't even dream up any possible fit with the theory then the theory should not be allowed to stand. To do anything else is not science. At least religion admits that it relies on faith, we expect better from science.
davidphiliplewis 9 months ago
@davidphiliplewis There are many variations on the flagellum theme for propulsion in bacteria. Why would you exempt this form of life or this form of propulsion from biological evolution? Simply because you can't understand it? Maybe it's because you don't like the idea. How many components of this system found in other biological systems would it take to convince you? This sounds like creationists crying "there are no transitional fossils" and the requiring even more when they are found.
foxlake02 9 months ago
@foxlake02 I know there are many variations, all I am asking is for you explain how at least the last couple of steps of the evolutionary process as applies to the flagellum. Since the last steps happened the most recently surely it should be a cinch to explain what happened? A nuclear physicist has no problem explaining all the steps in fusion, the Theory of Evolution is supposed to be the most proven scientific theory yet the last few steps can't be explained? Is this science or faith?
davidphiliplewis 9 months ago
@davidphiliplewis No problem.
watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
What is your explanation?
foxlake02 9 months ago
@foxlake02 Watched it and guess what, it was way over my head! It's a known trick that to silence someone just speak in arcane language, see their eyes gloss over then they just go away and let the "experts" run things. By reading the comments it seems not many people are buying what the explanation is offering. As to my explanation, I don't have any, but I don't believe that evolution could have done it. BTW I didn't see any evidence that Behe agrees with this despite the claim.
davidphiliplewis 9 months ago
@davidphiliplewis Yeah, a big conspiracy. It was made for a lay audience with only a cursory understanding of basic biology. I'm no expert but I have learned that reality is far more fascinating if you approach a subject with an open mind and a desire to learn instead of a desire to confirm your personal bias. Behe is not a creationist in the most literal sense. He accepts that man has evolved with other apes.
foxlake02 9 months ago
@foxlake02 Not that I am a supporter of Behe but don't forget if Hitler says the sky is blue it still could be blue!
davidphiliplewis 9 months ago
@davidphiliplewis So when you asked for an explanation for this biological system you didn't really want an answer at all did you? If that was the case you would do some research and find out if it's an accurate explanation or not. My guess is you will not. Either because of fear what you may find or just too lazy to take the effort. If it doesn't seem to confirm your bias, you're not interested. Easier and more comforting to say God poofed it there.
foxlake02 9 months ago
@foxlake02 The "answer" given in this poorly made presentation isn't an answer at all but just a lot of gobbledygook. And I am NOT saying god poofed it there, nice one trying to put words into my mouth. This flagellum is about as likely to have come about by a series of random genetic mutations as there are parallel universes which I guess you believe in as well.
davidphiliplewis 9 months ago
@davidphiliplewis So what you are saying is that you have no idea but you know the professional biologists are wrong because you don't understand it and you are not about to try. Now I understand.
foxlake02 9 months ago
@foxlake02 You got it but change "The" professional biologists to "Some" professional biologists. The movie "Expelled" proves that the science mafia will come after you if you dare question this theory. For sure there would be a heck of a lot more dissent if the scientists weren't worried about being rubbed out. Oh also the "professionals" are always right? Only 12 years ago all the "professionals" were adamant we were heading for another ice age!
davidphiliplewis 9 months ago
@foxlake02 BTW since you think the experts "know it all" you might find a book I read interesting: Wrong: Why experts* keep failing us--and how to know when not to trust them *Scientists, finance wizards, doctors, relationship gurus, celebrity CEOs, ... consultants, health officials and more by David H. Freedman. Maybe then you will understand why the "ordinary folks" don't swallow everything the experts tell us.
davidphiliplewis 9 months ago
@davidphiliplewis Add clergy to that list and yes they can be wrong but I'm still using my computer and enjoying inexpensive food and using modern medicine. Professional biologists have convinced me that this is an example of biological evolution using evidence. If you don't want to at least learn what they are saying then don't bother arguing about it. "Expelled" was a load of crap. Any scientist can argue against accepted theory but he better have evidence to back it up. watch?v=p3QHsUS3Lp4
foxlake02 9 months ago
@foxlake02 Sure I am an advocate of science as well, it is all we have to try and make sense of this world. I watched the clip, very pedantic and a lot of it wasn't relevant to the movie. BTW any scientist can NOT argue against Evolutionary Theory since the Science Mafia will be after them, and guess who decides on the evidence? I heard a distinguished scientist the other day (Karl S. Kruszelnicki) say that we "don't have a clue" how the genetic information got in the DNA.
davidphiliplewis 9 months ago
@davidphiliplewis A friend gave me "Expelled" to watch. I thought it may have some scientific evidence but not a single speck of evidence was presented. Only whining scientists who lost their job or didn't get a promotion because they were dishonest or not very good at their job. Stein twisted and distorted it to look as though they got persecuted. Very disappointing movie. No more gobbledygook from me. Do your own homework.
foxlake02 9 months ago 10
@foxlake02 But I am sure you will have some gobbledygook clip you can show me how it could have happened as per the Theory. Also if the last couple of steps in the evolutionary process could be shown with this flagellum then for sure Ken Miller would have described it, but he didn't and I doubt if it's because he just likes to keep us guessing.
davidphiliplewis 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. Ditto the rotary motor. What use is it, why would it evolve from some "more primitive" bacteria as Miller assures y'all that it can? Why and how could accidental processes cause an initially useless bump of a rotary motor to evole - and remember it must be done SYNCHRONOUSLY with the also equally initially totally useless whip? It is absurd to think that blind, accidental processes could cause that to happen. It is a dataless & illogical scam to tell folk the whip & motor "evolved."
LoricaLady 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. Let's suppose that a "more primitive" bacteria (actually one that is simply suited to a different purpose) is gong to turn into the a bacteria, thru evo, that has a rotary motor and a whip that it turns. We are right back to start exactly. If the "earlier" bacteria has an "emerging" rotary whip, again just an accidental nub or wisp, so what? So why would evo drive the useless thing to completion? It needs the rotary whip, fully completed, fully connected, to go anywhere! Cont.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
...All of which also contain complete and completely connected interdependent parts, & are acting in specialized ways which are different from the bacteria that has the complex whip & rotary mechanism. Saying, Well, some bacteria aren't that complex, so just assuuume the more complex ones evolved from them, it's all so simple - has 0 evidence & is based on faith. It does not address the issue of irreducible complexity of the flagellar whip & motor but offers only a distraction, a red herring.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Though Miller states the obvious when he says that different kinds of bacteria exist, some somewhat similar to the bacteria flagellum. We are supposed to accept his word for it, believe on faith with absolutely no evidenec whatsoever, that different, and more primitive bacteria turned into the sophisticated bacterial flagelllum with it's rotary mechanism & whip. Do we ever see intermediate stages? An incomplete, or "emerging" whip or flagellum. No. What we see are only different bacteria..
LoricaLady 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We have absolutely irrefutable physical evidence all about evolution over on the GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum.
GoodScienceForYou 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why & how could accidents of nature, via "evolution", drive such parts to completion while they are initially useless. I suppose, as w Behe's ex., Miller would say Well the whip & the rotary motor were co opted from earlier function. Of course he would not have a single shred of scientific data to back that up. As always. Even the imagination cannot conceieve of how such complex parts could be built & assembled based on random "lucky" chances with initially totally uselessly "evolving" bits.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
0:10 Miller gives his opinion as scientific fact and he uses as backup a court case, a politcal situation, as his backup rarther than laboratory data.. I ask anyone to explain this to me about a bacterial flagellum. (I have my own variation on what Behe said & personally like it better.) Take a good look at the bacteria flagellum's whip & the rotary motor below. Plz A. any of these Qs.: What good would an "emerging" "evolving" whip or rotary be until fully formed and attached ? Cont.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady Even a small "emerging" whip would be an evolutionary advantage if the rest of the population had no whip at all. Different species of bacteria have different numbers and arrangements of flagella. In some species of bacteria two flagellar systems co-exist, using different sets of genes and different ion gradients for energy.
foxlake02 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@foxlake02 This is actually not for Foxlake, but I need to put a post here for it to be in the right sequence.
Foxlake is 1 of many Miller vid watchdogs who constantly follow me around YT with false accusations, insults, obscenities & even sexual harrassment (for ex. when one poster sent me a 0 science, 100% porno post Foxlake told him "Good job!"). I put those people on an ignore list. Howver, for you, anonymous lurker, to help combat the disinformatoin, I ask you to consider some things.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady Why would you start @foxlake02 if it wasn't addressed to me? Are you suggesting that there is only one form of flagellum in bacteria? What is it about my post that is dishonest. What have I ever said to you that was dishonest?
foxlake02 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@foxlake02 Cont. 1. There is 0 ev-i-dence there even ever was an "emerging" whip. 2. There is 0 ev-idence that an "emerging" whip would be of any use whatsoever. "Would be" is the typicla evo talk, pure theories treated as if they are on a par with actual obserble data. An emerging whip would probably be just a bump. Even an accidental whip-like filiament will not cause the flagellum to move anywhere except in theory. 3. The whip needs a rotary motor, complete & completely connected.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady There is 0 evidence that God poofed all the different variations of bacterial flagellum into existence and yes, Miller IS talking "pure theories". Do you have a better one?
foxlake02 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@foxlake02 Cont. Without the complerted and completely connected rotary motor, even a fully completed whip, much less some little dangling bump or filament, is going to be totally useless, even an impediment.
"Woujd be an evolutionary advantage" is always always paired with "if". And they are never paired with actual evidence. Again, how & why is evo going to drive a useless bump of a whip & a useless bump of a rotary motor to completion - & do it SYNCHRONOSLY? In evo fantasy land only...
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady I can't believe you posted that. Like I just explained, there are many types of bacterial flagellum with different types of propulsion. Many have absolutely NOTHING to do with a "motor". You need to provide a theory for all the different variations on the same theme or admit you really don't know what you are talking about.
foxlake02 10 months ago
Fantastic!
kaakoo 11 months ago
Yes Behe is so celebrated that the fellow professors have all put up evolution posters on their doors and he is shunned as a snake oil salesman. A real class act, . . NOT!
pumpstations 1 year ago
if you take away a person's heart, they cant survive. therefor, we are irreducibley complex. ha. its amazing that with all the knowledge in science and everything it has to offer, that there are people out there that can believe something that is so absurd. like ID
kiddhitta 1 year ago
37 people don't have a flagellum
drederprops 1 year ago
Oh dear!
Strawman alert!!! Especially at 4:27...
pebi86 1 year ago
@pebi86 Not a strawman! Behe has admitted in debates before that irreducible complexity means that you cannot take parts away and still have some function.
It is not a fallacy if Behe stuffs straw down his own shirt.
quaternio 11 months ago
Ken Miller is talking bull dressed as science.
1) We have NOT observed the bacterium flagelum making itself
2) He does NOT give a plausible explanation how this simple system could make itself. ALL he does is assert that part of the bacteria flagelum could have other uses.
THIS DOES NOT PROVE THAT MACRO EVOLUTION IS TRUE.
It is completely smoke and mirrors trick. Confuse the issue and sell the deception that Macro evolution is a "fact".
Macro Evolution is a belief that people hold.
theot58 1 year ago
@theot58 Right, and he wasn't told to "show macroevolution is true" That has already been proven, nobody argues against it...rather nobody who has been educated argues that.
He did what he as asked to do: REFUTE Behe's irreducibility non-sense. He accomplished this with elegance.
"Macro Evolution is a belief that people hold"
Please pick up some lab equipment and prove us all wrong. We have a $2 Million Nobel prize and "King of Biology" throne waiting for you to show us this.
DawnOfEos 1 year ago
@theot58 By the way I am not being sarcastic about the Nobel. If you or anybody else can pick up some lab equipment and do Biochemical assays or pick up a computer and do ecological or paleontology studies to 'disprove' the current back-bone of biology that is the Theory of Evolution, you will be awarded a Nobel and be the most lauded figure in the Biological Sciences. In research and academia, we don't mind being wrong; but it is up to you to show us how we are wrong.
DawnOfEos 1 year ago
@theot58 We've directly observed 'macroevolution', therefore it's a fact that it happens.
Helge129 11 months ago
@Helge129 Can you please explain where I can find the documentation which proves Macro evolution to be true.
Frankly there have been so many times that evolutionists have made ambit claims about "mountains of evidence" etc that have turned out to be complete dud's - that I am skeptical. However I am happy to follow the evidence and let it speak for itself.
Please tell me where it is
theot58 11 months ago
@theot58 for one, take a look at Speciation, which is what this so-called macro-evolution is actually called.
Helge129 11 months ago
@Helge129 if "Speciation" is all you have - then I am really pissed off.
I have heard that bull so many times that it is not funny.
Evolutionists are violating the scientific method bigtime but not providing tangible, observable evidence - all they have is AMBIT CLAIMS AND FALSE LEADS
theot58 11 months ago
@theot58 Gah. Again that word "Evolutionist"...It is both wrong and misleading, because Evolution is not a system of beliefs, but pretty much The strongest scientific theory out there. I don't see how Evolutionary Biologists violate the scientific method, since they Do provide more than enough evidence.
Also Goddidit violates the scientific method in oh so many ways.
Helge129 11 months ago
@Helge129 You are talking utter rubbish.
New Scientist ran an article in Feb 2010 called: Survival of the fittest theory: Darwinism's limits. It states
“Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical.
The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin's account of evolution is hardly considered. "
DARWINIAN/MACRO EVOLUTION IS A FAIRYTALE FOR GROWNUPS.
IT HAS NOT BEEN OBSERVED, MEASURED OR REPEATED - IT IS SIMPLY BELIEVED.
theot58 11 months ago
@theot58 And that's where you're wrong. It's been observed several times. For instance, the fact that peppered moths have evolved to fit the color of the trees in their habitat, or some species of mice to fit the sand/rock they live on proves that Evolution and Natural Selection happens.
Helge129 11 months ago
@theot58 Insults and shouting doesn't make you right either.
Helge129 11 months ago
@theot58
"DARWINIAN/MACRO EVOLUTION IS A FAIRYTALE FOR GROWNUPS.
IT HAS NOT BEEN OBSERVED, MEASURED OR REPEATED - IT IS SIMPLY BELIEVED."
It has been observed and it is not a believe. Stop talking about pseudo science and stop talking about the creation dream. If the creation would be true science would already proved that. But in fact evolution is the only possible and proved explonation and I guess you know nothing about macro and micro evolution. Please read an article on Wikipedia first.
TheRealDetoNato 11 months ago 3
@theot58 I'm going to venture a guess that you won't buy the "transitional forms" argument, but there's that--as well as molecular genetic analyses which confirm the predictions made by evolution.
SevenSixTwoNato 10 months ago
Ken Miller does not believe in "the biblical God", because if he did, he would understand that evolution, or rather the theory, is dead in the water, and that the Biblical God created life as we see it now, as described clearly in Genesis. As a "creatard" I'm entitled to this opinion! The evidence is overwhelming, And no amount of childish abuse from evolutards and atheists will shake me, or make me change my belief. Evolution and God are incompatible, period.
gillettsibert1 1 year ago
Comment removed
gillettsibert1 1 year ago
Ken Miller is one of the people I really admire for what he did at the Dover Trial.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
Wait, he has got the argument wrong.
Nobody said that each part of the Flagellum Motor is not functional somewhere else. The argument is how did all 40 parts suddenly show up in the same place perfectly.
It's not like 2 (20 parts) systems just came together. That might be possible, but 40 parts just coming together, by small incremental changes? Come on!
robertbrownell 1 year ago
@robertbrownell "The argument is how did all 40 parts suddenly show up in the same place perfectly."
An equally stupid argument. Nothing happens 'suddenly' in evolution.
"It's not like 2 (20 parts) systems just came together. That might be possible, but 40 parts just coming together, by small incremental changes? Come on!"
Why can you accept 20 but not 40? It's only 2 times more. Is the 20 somekind of a magic number or did you just make it up?
byteresistor 1 year ago
@byteresistor
I was accepting 20 as more of a concession. The probability of 20 is probably still astronomically impossible.
Remember, if the argument is small incremental changes made it, then all these pieces showing up from other parts of the DNA, some created randomly, in the exact right spot, with no other bad DNA, that is NOT an incremental change, that's massive.
robertbrownell 1 year ago
@robertbrownell
"The probability of 20 is probably still astronomically impossible."
No not impossible, please eductae yourself on why low proability is not a valid argument for anything let alone invisable magic thing did it.
If you want to argue it just always existed then just do that.
gorilla199uncensored 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robertbrownell why are you so retarded ? you dont understand, do you understand ?
this thing called evolution, you do not understand it, you are not clever enough.
sorry
mikesomething 1 year ago
Wow, this was a failed attempt, to say the least. How conveniant! Let us not speak about the 3/4 of the parts, lets not speak out how each part has to be constructed, lets not speak about how the bacteria must swim, and cannot without the other parts....
Hahah Evolutionism is dieing like I thought it would back in 1st grade when my teacher couldn't even tell me what a species was. aaaahahahahahahahaha. Retards.
Docta305 1 year ago
Comment removed
nightmarauder696 1 year ago
@Docta305 > How totally brilliant...just about what would be expected from a 1st grader creatard.
jackalmate 1 year ago
@jackalmate, Ken Miller isn't a "creatard" (retarded creationists) in the common sense of the word. He believes in the biblical God, sure, but no need to categorize him as such.
Docta305 1 year ago
@Docta305 --I'm afraid you missed my point...I'm a great admirer of Ken Miller's, having even attended a couple of lectures he's given...my reference was to the erroneous conclusion that evolution is somehow in the process of dying out or becoming passe...the contary is true, it is the most entrenched systematic process in biology, driving a great many fields of investigation. The hoax of irreducible complexity has been exposed as gibberish, on the other hand...
jackalmate 1 year ago
@jackalmate
I didn't miss your point and I'm glad that we can agree on Ken Miller's brilliance. He does what he can for the dying theory (evolutionism). After all, we must make a living. I'm sure he doesn't let his theological beliefs get in the way. No need to categorize him as a creatard, either.
Docta305 1 year ago
@Docta305 Interesting notion that you and some other terribly ignorant creatards have that evolution is somehow a dying theory, since ID is a hoax and torn apart by Ken Miller at Dover. See the preceding insightful comment by DawnOfEos...there won't be any Nobel Prizes awarded for ID or creationism.
jackalmate 1 year ago
@Docta305 Evolution isn't dying. I really don't know where you got that from, but it's simply not true.
Helge129 11 months ago
@Docta305 Says the retard who clearly is extremely ignorant of what the theory of evolution, let alone science is.
spicychickenwing31 1 year ago
@spicychickenwing31, that is exactly my opinion of Dr. Ken Miller. J/k, I think he knows he's wrong, but stands by his primitive theory because of his economic interests. lol
Docta305 1 year ago
@Docta305 How exactly is the theory of evolution a primitive theory when different fields of biology and chemistry have verified and revised it according to empirical evidence? The theory of evolution has never been stronger.
spicychickenwing31 1 year ago
@spicychickenwing31
Primitive for the very same reason you believe it is not. Quite ironic, your arument.
Docta305 1 year ago
@Docta305 I don't "believe" it is or it isn't primitive. I know it isn't, since my initial 'belief' that it wasn't primitive led to my 'knowing' that it's not primitive by learning about it. My professor doesn't think it's primitive. My two postdoc co-workers don't think it's primitive. Not even the grad students and undergrads I work with think it's primitive. What separates them from the common individuals is that they actually verified it, which negates the necessity for a belief.
spicychickenwing31 1 year ago
@spicychickenwing31
Summary?
Docta305 1 year ago
Ken miller is the chuck norris of evolutionary theory
TheLostGuitarist 1 year ago
What do you call a bacterium with no flagellum and only a Type III secretory system?...
A dead bacterium.
Therefore no function.
Graemelamont 1 year ago
@Graemelamont wrong. Actually many bacteria have only type III secretory systems and no flagellum. MANY bacteria are IMMOTILE. it is not a life necessary function.
where did you study biology again? I'm a medical student what is your biological background that you made such a large error?
TheLostGuitarist 1 year ago
@Graemelamont
See: Mycoplasma - no flagella
TheLostGuitarist 1 year ago
Comment removed
genracy 1 year ago
Hi there I am not a scientist nor have I got any formal education. Therefore be kind in your responses. I have often asked myself being brought up with the bible and all. Is it possible that the force or intent that is evolution , is in fact the intelligent designer? Maybe scientists need to be reminded that there was at time that science seriously stated that one would desintegrate when exceeding the speed of sound. And religion should remember that God was not in his expected place.
thnx
sethisrafil 1 year ago
@sethisrafil Science itself makes no argument for for against the possibility of a "rule giver" of a sort because such claims are not scientific. Science seeks to explain the natural world through observation and natural law. Do you accept that we have free will, or does God directly cause extinction events and directly guide all human actions? If we do have free will, then God or any other diety does not guide or have intent through evolution.
Kurpalac 1 year ago 4
@Kurpalac That is very interesting indeed. However I merely attempted to add another perspective here. And that is that the answer is not to be found in the incorrectness of either opinion. There is order and for it to be observed there has to be disorder. At least so I believe. If rule or the opposite thereoff exists as an absolute then per/conception would be static.I choose to believe it is dynamic. And therefore it has to be here at one time and there at another from our ability to perceive.
sethisrafil 1 year ago
@PaladinConstantin Ridiculing my english? Please, you've made actual mistakes, I've made a typo. Speaking UK english doesn't absolve you from , oh, I don't know, speaking english? Knowing that I'm part American changes nothing lol.
DirectInjected 1 year ago
@PaladinConstantin *Sigh* Again, perhaps you should go google a word. Start with addressed. Unless you are saying your comment is a direct insult? Nice call, I am a Canadian (I'm also an American).
DirectInjected 1 year ago
@PaladinConstantin Just a typo, relax arm-chair thug. And it would be difficult to type comments using google. Why? Because you need to know the word to google it. Unless you'd rather google definitions until you get the right word? I digress. What is really, really illiterate, is your usage of the word illiterate. Notice, it means being unable to read? So while I can, and do make typos, you can't, and don't, know how to google definitions.
DirectInjected 1 year ago
@PaladinConstantin Ouch, another illiterate! Fathom (1), a unit of measuremeant equal to 6 feet. Fathom (2), to understand, to define [usually in a negative]
Having a good vocabulary is a sign of intelligence.
DirectInjected 1 year ago
Hexagons are so like individual parts of a complex machine.
Antipropaganda100 1 year ago
@PaladinConstantin I'm well aware that a fathom is a unit of measurement. However, it has more than one meaning.
It is not I who is in need of a dictionary.
GeorgesBarras 1 year ago
@PaladinConstantin the semantic value of your comment is hard to fathom.
GeorgesBarras 1 year ago
@PaladinConstantin I know for a fact that anti-matter was not mentioned in the Bible.
Also, you seem to be citing the predictability of atomic behaviour as a sign of intelligent creation - this argument doesn't stand.
The ability to percieve patterns in nature is likewise not a sufficient argument for an intelligent creator - such a perception illusory, we project patterns onto the natural world. It is a weakness of the human mind.
There is no 'information' inherent within matter.
GeorgesBarras 1 year ago
@GeorgesBarras That is such a brilliant thing to say. thank you.
rehetbutler 1 year ago
@PaladinConstantin "intelligence stacks up from the lower levels up (atoms, quarks, etc)" you will have to expand on that.
GeorgesBarras 1 year ago
@PaladinConstantin your patronising manner is no help at all. I have put forward my argument, that given the empirically verified set of facts laid out in evolutionary theory intelligent design cannot be true. That is an argument.
You, howevever, have none even had the good grace to put one forward yourself. Defend YOUR position.
GeorgesBarras 1 year ago
@PaladinConstantin ID holds a position which is contrary to that which has been proved. It therefore cannot be true.
GeorgesBarras 1 year ago
@PaladinConstantin What's ingenious about it? It's an asanine theory that has been completely disproved.
GeorgesBarras 1 year ago
@PaladinConstantin I could also say that you can't understand this the "intelligent designer's" mind as well. I could say that because you assume you know how an ID would work you think that there "must" be a designer when looking at nature (even though you have never seen someone "create" life nor do you have empirical evidence that supports this claim). Why jump to conclusions? Why speculate about something misunderstood by adding another layer of complexity to it and saying a being did it?
saxoman1 1 year ago
@PaladinConstantin Not really. It is rather obvious it is unintelligent and random (goosebumps? They appears to have the function of erecting the fur to keep the body warm. But we have lost the fur! So it appears to be function-less). Imperfection of the human eye :P (ever heard of floaters? Ever heard that eagle eyes pwn our own). So intelligent? If ID is true, more like incompetent!
saxoman1 1 year ago
Advocates for intelligent design seem to be obsessed with the bacterial flagellum...
MusicHypno 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This vid is an attempted snow job. Ken Miller's comments on the removed parts of the flagellum having a function is off point because the argument is that the parts of the flagellum don't have the PROPER function to make the flagellum work while not properly assembled in place. Michel Behe's thesis stands correct when honestly viewed. Read his book. It is very well done and so far unanswerable.
imsavd 1 year ago
they are not off point at all he is demonstrating how the flagellum evolved it started not as a flagellum it had a different use that was beneficial then it evolved into a flegellum from that
bluechair5 1 year ago
Yes, the theory states that they cannot work as a flagellum. That proves absolutely nothing other than Lamarckism has been dealt yet enough blow!
karmiolz 1 year ago
@imsavd Are you kidding??? Behe was shot down in the Dover trial and admitted himself that the flagellum could have evolved through various stages with each part having a different function.
kusalaviro 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is like saying a Toyota could fall together over thousands of years
because each of its 10,000 screws, piston rings, wires, cylinders, ect each had a function. So what.
The Toyota does not work because the parts are not assembled. Anybody want to speculate on how many eons would have to pass before this machine would "fall together" by random chance, even with agitation and a confined space? You KNOW it never would!! Admit it.
imsavd 2 years ago
"This is like saying a Toyota could fall together over thousands of years
because each of its 10,000 screws, piston rings, wires, cylinders, ect each had a function. So what."
What a ridiculous nonsense. Nobody thinks that way except you.
"eons would have to pass before this machine would "fall together" by random chance, even with agitation and a confined space? You KNOW it never would!! Admit it."
Of course the toyota wouldn´t fall together randomly. What a stupid argument...
HeavyweightThinker 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Of course the toyota wouldn´t fall together randomly. ." My thoughts exactly.
So perhaps you have an explanation as to how we got the first simple cell?
imsavd 1 year ago
Why are you comparing machinery with biological systems?
MusicHypno 1 year ago 4
@MusicHypno Physcis and chemistry is the basis of everything. Man is nothing more than chemical engineering
ansaz14 11 months ago
the toyota doesnt fall together because it isnt made from self-replicating chemicles. you are making an argument from ignorance, and the focus of this video was to show that the idea of irreducible complexity is wrong. your going to have to come up with a new idea if you want to disprove evolution, because IC has been thoroughly debunked for years.
xander70769 2 years ago 4
@imsavd Organisms are totally different from machines in that they can develop themselves without realising it.
gunjpark 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gunjpark.. "Organisms are totally different from machines in that they can develop themselves without realising it."
Are you speaking here about cells, animals, or what?
imsavd 1 year ago
A completely fallacious arguement from a scientific viewpoint. Just because we may find some use for ad portion of the flagellum is not to show how these parts would ever randomly mutate or "fall together" to form a complete flagellum. In the meantime, there is no propulsion system for the cell and it dies (or never was).
imsavd 2 years ago
"not to show how these parts would ever randomly mutate or "fall together" to form a complete flagellum."
? Nobody proposes the idea that the parts could fall together to form a flagellum. So why do you question that??
"In the meantime, there is no propulsion system for the cell and it dies "
Cells without a flagellum don´t die since the flagellum is not necessary for survival. Most cell don´t have a any flagella.
HeavyweightThinker 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Someone said:
---------------
> But There is a DNA repair system created by GOD: This systems repairmans can imagine about 10 sentimeters diameter balls if we imagine dna as a rope. The repairmans finds damages when they occcurs, and repair them immediately.
---------------
What a shame the little repairmans don't fix the grammar in comments too.
paganaye 2 years ago
Our education system's missing part is NUMBERs.
zirkonyumzr 2 years ago
We think without numbers. İf you think without numbers, there are billions of possibility. For example, in chess, you say "Queen has more value than pawn" This is a JUNK KNOWLEDGE !!! Because there is No NUMBER, and a player imagine endless posibilities: Queen has %10 more value than pawn, Queen has % 11 more value than..., Queen has one million times valus, etc. Player can NEVER take RİGHT DECİDES until he/she learns that Queen has 9 times more value than pawn !!!
zirkonyumzr 2 years ago
İf a student learn about Natural election and SMALL CHANGİNGs (Mutations) without NUMBERS, The student can imagine that mutations and (as their result) evolution can be posible. Lets think with NUMBERS: İf we imagine DNA as a rope (at 1 centimeter diameter), length of a single cells DNA will be 8000 kilometers !!!
zirkonyumzr 2 years ago
İn every day, 40000 damages occur along this 8000 kilometers rope in every single cell !!! But There is a DNA repair system created by GOD: This systems repairmans can imagine about 10 sentimeters diameter balls if we imagine dna as a rope. The repairmans finds damages when they occcurs, and repair them immediately. How do they this ? First they dedect damage types. After that, repairmans arrange molecules ATOM by ATOM !!! This is so comic :) Because atoms aranges atoms :)
zirkonyumzr 2 years ago
There is only one difference: Arranging atoms are alive !!! How about repairing time ? How much time do you need to arrange 29 different colored balls ? A REPAİRMAN can do this job in ONE BİLLİONTH OF A SECOND. Your eyes can not see WRONG : making an atomic repair in ONE BİLLİONTH OF A SECOND !! ! We have billions of brain, we have millions of profesors, engineers, scientists . And we look only with admiration this repair system.
zirkonyumzr 2 years ago
Millons of brain cant MAKE any single part of this system and evolutioners try to PERSUADE you to: This is posible with probablity. They are all mutations. There is no need an İNTELLİGENT DESİGNER (GOD) .
I ask EVOLUTİONERS: Lets think about DNA repairmans. İf there are excellent DNA repairmans who can repair a MUTATİON in ONE BİLLİONTH OF A SECOND how EVALUTİON can be posibble :) Research about Prof. Dr. Thomas Carell (German scientist) who found how a repairman repair a DNA damage.
zirkonyumzr 2 years ago
I think he is describing Obamas brain.
darrellmellissa 2 years ago
yea you can remove your arm and use it as a stand for your wheelless car, but doesnt mean your arm was made for a stand for your car, im sorry but this argument is really stupid
vanityvideo 2 years ago
I don't think you understand how evolution works. The flagella was first used for other purposes, then slowly changed slightly making it useful in other ways. It kept changing slightly over time to be what it is now.
The point is that the ID notion of irreducible complexity (that without every single part it is useless) is 100% wrong, and the flagella has use even in its intermediate stages.
Ryausub 2 years ago
" Oh Goodie!!" Hehe... Epic
ladedk 2 years ago
If you mean free to be stupid then yes. Religion is the freedom to be ignorant of truth - I totally agree.
FloydsterUtube 3 years ago
@FloydsterUtube , Go read our history, start with the old testiment, The book of enouch, The writings of the anchent summerians, It makes evoulution and creation blend bueatifuly, We are uplifted by beins called gods.
darrellmellissa 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THEORY is now, and has always been, a synonym of SUPPOSITION, CONJECTURE, GUESS. When genuine evidence is proffered then I'll believe it. I espouse no religion. "Atheism" = the death of free-thought; it strives to destroy all worship except humanism.
procommenter 3 years ago
Theory is not at all a synonym of supposition or conjecture or guess. Read a science textbook.
A theory, as it is used in Science, is plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon. Theories make predictions that can be tested. Newton's theory of motion is an example. Einstein's theory of relativity, atomic theory - these are not "guesses", but prinicples that can be demonstrated in repeatable experiments. Evolution falls under the same category.
cdnrktsci 3 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dictionaries will have to be revised.
procommenter 3 years ago
"Dictionaries will have to be revised. "
Certainly not. Look up "scientific theory" and broaden your horizon.
Gilmaris 2 years ago
@cdnrktsci Thank you for staying on topic and being respectful.
Kurpalac 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Animals come into existence for reasons unknown, adapt, and die out. They don't begin as unicellular entities and "evolve" into whales.
procommenter 3 years ago
You gotta love Procommenter and his ignorance.
First he says that there is no way that the meager mind of man can understand the impetus of life, and then in the next post goes on to say that he knows that evolution could not have happened.
Just sheer dishonest religious protecting.
guyinjeep16 3 years ago 12
Right. His/her logic is completely absent.
msholmes 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Religionists must apologize for the shortcomings of their orthodoxy. There are fossils. They support the fact that 98% of Earth's flora & fauna are extinct. I see no piety, nor humility, in the humanism of Satan's handmaidens. The evidence bore by Darwinists bears out that the impetus of life is unknown, and likely unknowable, to the meager mind of Man.
procommenter 3 years ago
How does a non existant intelligence select?
lederereddy 3 years ago
can anyone point me to a video about fossil records that prove evolution?
therealallpro 3 years ago
lol...anyone else catch the sarcasm?
amchamp24 3 years ago
DonExodus2's Transitional Fossils 1-2
DonExodus2's Atavisms and Fossils
Aron-Ra's Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series
CDK007's playlist: Evidence for Evolution Against Creationism
Thunderf00t's Why Do People Laugh at Creationists? series
Thunderf00t's Creationism vs. Science
Coldwatermedia's Investigating Evolution: Embryological Evidence for Evolution
Endogenous Retroviruses: Proof of Evolution
ExaggeratedElegy 3 years ago
Whilst we're on the subject, could you point me in the direction of even one legitimate study that scientifically demonstrates the existence of a creator, determines that it is the deity of any particular mythology, and provides quantifiable elucidation as to its methods of creation? Just one credible study, one shred of observable, quantifiable evidence will do.
ExaggeratedElegy 3 years ago 3
theprof,
"if you cant observe, quantify and measure spirituality it means it does not exist"?
Only an irrationalist, such as non-omnisicient Dawkins, would pronounce such dogma.
Dawkins could have titled his text, "The God Delusion..MAYBE"...
..but that wouldn't pull the profits.
Observing the wonders of cell physiology is observing the RESULTS of spiritual brilliance.
:-)
trac4yt 3 years ago
boonw,
We can observe many things in the cells of human beings. But without spiritual realities, there is no living cells.
After 4 days dead..
"And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth." (Joh 11:43)
..pretty good handle on cell physiology.
:-)
trac4yt 3 years ago
'We can observe many things in the cells of human beings. But without spiritual realities, there is no living cells.'
if you cant observe, quantify and measure spirituality it means it does not exist
TheProf1988 3 years ago
boonw,
Because of the fall, the human being has limitations concerning immunity, aging, etc.
A laceration to the finger is far less threatening to cell physiology than an applied machete in the middle east.
Applying an antibiotic to the laceration to prevent bacterial growth, is NOT the foundational reality to the repair.
The laceration will not repair on a dead man's arm. The spiritual base is gone.
:-)
trac4yt 3 years ago
boonw,
Observing living cell physiology is observing the RESULTS of spiritual brilliance.
No scientist takes dead cell chemistry and creates living cells. The key to living cells has never been in the biochemistry.
The spiritual base must be there.
:-)
trac4yt 3 years ago
boonw,
Science rules-out spiritual realities in history. Thus, their perpetual error is guaranteed.
It would mis-date the first whales..
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good." (Ge 1:21)
:-)
trac4yt 3 years ago
@Trac4yt
-
-"You propose that human beings are chemical-onlyites. That, of course, is nonsense."
-
-You propose a magic cloud made us, and THAT is nonsense (unless you back it up). We also made of protein, which many dont really consider chemicals. Fact of the matter is that we dont have any evidence souls even exist. Very likely, and I personally consider it, but you dont have a way to explain how they came to be.
boonw 3 years ago
knight,
You've been fed an ILLUSION.
God created, and note the word, "kind"..
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good." (Ge 1:21)
:-)
trac4yt 3 years ago
@trac4yt
-
-"You've been fed an ILLUSION.
God created, and note the word, "kind""
-
-How do you explain the fossil record, ERV's, observed evolution, need for flu shots, fused chromosomes...
boonw 3 years ago