@studentofthegospel Apparently public school at least makes an attempt to provide you with the uptodate accurate facts whereas homeschooling teaches you things like "Christians discovered the sciences" BS.
Other functions work. But the fleggelum dosnt work. It can no longer act as a motor. Thats like saying when you take an engine out a car the car still works because the radio still turns on. Its ridiculous.
Second, as I demonstrated out in the video, several parts of the flagellum can be removed and still operate just fine, thus completely refuting Strobles complexity argument.
Third, a car without a engine can still function as a cart. This is a classic example of evolution, making existing mechanisms develop more effective operations. The sources we provided in the video demonstrate the same thing for the flagellum.
@Feredir28 It dose not function as a motor any more. Miller said there are other protein sequences that still work even after taking 40 parts away. But it no longer acts as a "flagellum" (my bad on the typo)LOL. And as far as the car. You sound like a used car salesmen. Youll say the car dosnt have an engine but you can still use it as a cart.LOL So go ahead and buy it.
@ScholarVisual You missed the point entirely. As I said in the video, some parts can be removed AND STILL OPERATE as a flagellum (such as the L-ring or P-ring).
A car without an engine may not be appealing to you, me or anyone, that does not matter, the point is the ecosystem does not care either way. All natural selection cares about is adaptation, which I applied to the car: a mechanism that is used for transportation develops a better operation system.
@Feredir28 Fine take away the wheels.Then youll say it can be used for a house. The point is that a car without wheels or an engine dosnt function as a car.And those protein sequences miller is talking about have nothing to do with the propulsion of a cell.Just like a car radio has nothing to do with the movement of the car.To say a car works because the radio works is fallacious. And Thats what miller is doing.Because there's functions within a flagellum that work dosnt mean the flagellum works
@ScholarVisual Why do you keep going on with bloody Miller? What part of the flagellum still operates with several pieces missing are you not getting?
I will say only this: natural selection does not have a goal, so motors for cells is not a "plan" just a biological development. If we can demonstrate a flagellum's evolution (which we can) then the debate is over.
Irreducibly complexity's core argument is if any 1 piece can be removed, and yet it still works, its not irreducible.
@Feredir28 I keep going on with miller because everybody says hes the one to debunk irreducible complexity. Your actually using 2 fallacies. A strawman and equivocation. The equivaction is using the term works or working funcitions. I have cells in my body. But they are not human. The flagellum has protein sequences in its makeup, but they are not flagellum. If you take away one peice from a flagellum the flagellum dosnt work. The things inside flagellum that still work are not flagellum.
@ScholarVisual I am baffled by your ability to continuing to allow info fly over your head. And you dare accuse me of committing a straw man you are the one who brought up the car (a non-living organism incapable of passing down genetic variance).
I already stated clearly, if you take out the L-ring or the P-ring in the flagellum, it still operates, which just destroyed your statement "the flagellum dosn't work" (TYPO AGAIN). Yet, somehow, you seem incapable of processing this.
@Feredir28 The strawman miller is attacking is the statement that no functions work if you take one piece away. Behe said the flagellum dosnt work if you take one piece away. Not all functions. And hes right. That goes back to the car analogy. The radio inside of a car is not a car. If you take away the wheels the car no longer functions as a car. So the flagellum is irreducibly complex. So now are you saying irreducibly complex things can evolve?
@ScholarVisual I just told you that we have taken several pieces away from the flagellum, and YET IT STILL OPERATES AS A FLAGELLUM. Re-read that whole sentence. Based on this, you and Behe's complexity argument are dead in the water. The debate ends there.
No, the flagellum is not irreducibly complex, did you not hear me in the video mention the Matzke model???? Nothing Behe has provided is irreducible.
@Feredir28 If you take away a p-ring or L-ring the flagellum will not work.Even anti-intelligent design scientists agree that the flagellum will not propel the cell if missing one of these rings.Thats why Miller focused on the protein sequences inside the flagellum instead of saying nonsense like it can still propel a cell without a P or L ring.The Matzke model dosnt prove the flagellum is not I C. Its an attempt to prove I C can evolve. So the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex.
@ScholarVisual yes it can still work, your claims are baseles. Scientists already know and demonstrated that the removal of pieces can still operate, especially the flagellum, immune system, and likewise.
Have you taken a look at the Matzke model at all? His reports in 2003 show that the removal of the L-ring does not harm its function. Likewise, once the flagellum can be explained how it evolved, pseudoscience intelligent design scammers have nothing left to say but whine.
@DeJay14 we don't care if he has ever interviewed an atheist. We only take note that he only interviews people that already hold his biased presupposition.
@Feredir28 then you should have said in the case for the creator he never interviews anyone that doesn't agree with his so called biased opinion, but you didn't IN THIS VIDEO YOU STATED he never ever interviews people that disagree with him well YOUR WRONG he does and besides this video isn't impressive judging by your statements you just found this video and made this rebuttal you probably as biased as you accuse strobel since you've never read strobels work if you did you wouldn't say that
@DeJay14 I have read his book case for christ, I found it rather embarrassing. In this video, Strobel said "I interviewed him for my book [meaning the Case for a Creator]" and we replied he never interviews anyone who does not share his biased position throughout this video, meaning THIS book (Case for a creator) which Strobel bases this ENTIRE video we are addressing. He interviews J. Wells, Behe, Stephen Meyer, Robin Collins, Guillermo Gonzales and Jay Wesley Richards... each share his bias.
@DeJay14 again still in the context of this entire video. He @ 1:09 was commenting on that throughout this whole Strobel video we had to watch, we noted everyone he interviewed for this book, and they all share his bias. So Chattiest is correct to point this out that Strobel is biased.
on the footage on metal callled History of Metal, they interviewed Gaahl, lead vocalist at that time, and he stated that what inspires him is Satan, If Satan exist then God exist, if God Exist, Creation is true. Exorcism are act of the Devil, if the Devil exist God exist, if God Exist, Creation exist. So and so.
Go back to play guitar, play pokemon or xbox and leave this complex stuff to professinoals, The same way Fanatic Bible readers use some Chapter Verse bla bla bla to tell you something thats what you do, using a small paragraph of a book to try to make an absolute truth, . Also you bad guys, if you are SO metal (Judging by the clothes and guitars) may heard of the band Gorgoroth ....
You guys are a bunch of low life scumbags without any idea of what the hell you are talking about, I am not a lee strobel follower or anything but I've seen his videos, and what he says is concrete evidence about what he says, If you guys make videos like this, make sure to post where the hell you got that ignorant information from, because I can say IM god, but definitively im not, Same way as you, you can say all that bunch of horsecrap, but that is a fool speaking.
That those fuckers like ALWAYS use some totally false analogies...?????
I used to be roman-catholic for 20 years and it was people like this that drove me away and made me totally ashamed to have been on the same team for so long...
Strobel needs to interview Ken FUCKING Miller for his next FUCKING book. What an ignorant DOUCHE BAG Strobel is. Its actually painful just to sit through a few minutes of his BULLSHIT...
Lee Strobel seems to ignore the whole of the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial and its seering judgement on Intelligent Design and Michael Behe - whose cross-examination was hilarious for his ignorance.
Again gentleman you have done an excellent job - thank you for your hard work. This is very important stuff you're doing especially with regard to Lee Strobel as he goes around parading himself as some kind of former atheist convert. This guy is a mega-church numbnut who lies at the drop of a hat. again good work.
Seriously? Homeschooling is brainwashing, but public school is not?
studentofthegospel 1 week ago
@studentofthegospel Apparently public school at least makes an attempt to provide you with the uptodate accurate facts whereas homeschooling teaches you things like "Christians discovered the sciences" BS.
Feredir28 1 week ago
Other functions work. But the fleggelum dosnt work. It can no longer act as a motor. Thats like saying when you take an engine out a car the car still works because the radio still turns on. Its ridiculous.
ScholarVisual 4 weeks ago
@ScholarVisual First of all, its "flagellum."
Second, as I demonstrated out in the video, several parts of the flagellum can be removed and still operate just fine, thus completely refuting Strobles complexity argument.
Third, a car without a engine can still function as a cart. This is a classic example of evolution, making existing mechanisms develop more effective operations. The sources we provided in the video demonstrate the same thing for the flagellum.
Feredir28 3 weeks ago
@Feredir28 It dose not function as a motor any more. Miller said there are other protein sequences that still work even after taking 40 parts away. But it no longer acts as a "flagellum" (my bad on the typo)LOL. And as far as the car. You sound like a used car salesmen. Youll say the car dosnt have an engine but you can still use it as a cart.LOL So go ahead and buy it.
ScholarVisual 3 weeks ago
@ScholarVisual You missed the point entirely. As I said in the video, some parts can be removed AND STILL OPERATE as a flagellum (such as the L-ring or P-ring).
A car without an engine may not be appealing to you, me or anyone, that does not matter, the point is the ecosystem does not care either way. All natural selection cares about is adaptation, which I applied to the car: a mechanism that is used for transportation develops a better operation system.
Feredir28 3 weeks ago
@Feredir28 Fine take away the wheels.Then youll say it can be used for a house. The point is that a car without wheels or an engine dosnt function as a car.And those protein sequences miller is talking about have nothing to do with the propulsion of a cell.Just like a car radio has nothing to do with the movement of the car.To say a car works because the radio works is fallacious. And Thats what miller is doing.Because there's functions within a flagellum that work dosnt mean the flagellum works
ScholarVisual 3 weeks ago
@ScholarVisual Why do you keep going on with bloody Miller? What part of the flagellum still operates with several pieces missing are you not getting?
I will say only this: natural selection does not have a goal, so motors for cells is not a "plan" just a biological development. If we can demonstrate a flagellum's evolution (which we can) then the debate is over.
Irreducibly complexity's core argument is if any 1 piece can be removed, and yet it still works, its not irreducible.
Feredir28 3 weeks ago
@Feredir28 I keep going on with miller because everybody says hes the one to debunk irreducible complexity. Your actually using 2 fallacies. A strawman and equivocation. The equivaction is using the term works or working funcitions. I have cells in my body. But they are not human. The flagellum has protein sequences in its makeup, but they are not flagellum. If you take away one peice from a flagellum the flagellum dosnt work. The things inside flagellum that still work are not flagellum.
ScholarVisual 3 weeks ago
@ScholarVisual I am baffled by your ability to continuing to allow info fly over your head. And you dare accuse me of committing a straw man you are the one who brought up the car (a non-living organism incapable of passing down genetic variance).
I already stated clearly, if you take out the L-ring or the P-ring in the flagellum, it still operates, which just destroyed your statement "the flagellum dosn't work" (TYPO AGAIN). Yet, somehow, you seem incapable of processing this.
Feredir28 3 weeks ago
@Feredir28 The strawman miller is attacking is the statement that no functions work if you take one piece away. Behe said the flagellum dosnt work if you take one piece away. Not all functions. And hes right. That goes back to the car analogy. The radio inside of a car is not a car. If you take away the wheels the car no longer functions as a car. So the flagellum is irreducibly complex. So now are you saying irreducibly complex things can evolve?
ScholarVisual 3 weeks ago
@ScholarVisual I just told you that we have taken several pieces away from the flagellum, and YET IT STILL OPERATES AS A FLAGELLUM. Re-read that whole sentence. Based on this, you and Behe's complexity argument are dead in the water. The debate ends there.
No, the flagellum is not irreducibly complex, did you not hear me in the video mention the Matzke model???? Nothing Behe has provided is irreducible.
Feredir28 3 weeks ago
@Feredir28 If you take away a p-ring or L-ring the flagellum will not work.Even anti-intelligent design scientists agree that the flagellum will not propel the cell if missing one of these rings.Thats why Miller focused on the protein sequences inside the flagellum instead of saying nonsense like it can still propel a cell without a P or L ring.The Matzke model dosnt prove the flagellum is not I C. Its an attempt to prove I C can evolve. So the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex.
ScholarVisual 3 weeks ago
@ScholarVisual yes it can still work, your claims are baseles. Scientists already know and demonstrated that the removal of pieces can still operate, especially the flagellum, immune system, and likewise.
Have you taken a look at the Matzke model at all? His reports in 2003 show that the removal of the L-ring does not harm its function. Likewise, once the flagellum can be explained how it evolved, pseudoscience intelligent design scammers have nothing left to say but whine.
Feredir28 3 weeks ago
"Isn't that fuckin' amazing?" LMAO you guys rock!
barrett314 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
01:10 he has he interviewed athiest before i doubt any of you have ever read any of strobels books
DeJay14 1 year ago
@DeJay14 we don't care if he has ever interviewed an atheist. We only take note that he only interviews people that already hold his biased presupposition.
Feredir28 1 year ago
@Feredir28 but he DIDNT read the case for faith
DeJay14 1 year ago
@DeJay14 this seminar is not based on the case for faith is it? its the case for a creator.
Feredir28 1 year ago
@Feredir28 then you should have said in the case for the creator he never interviews anyone that doesn't agree with his so called biased opinion, but you didn't IN THIS VIDEO YOU STATED he never ever interviews people that disagree with him well YOUR WRONG he does and besides this video isn't impressive judging by your statements you just found this video and made this rebuttal you probably as biased as you accuse strobel since you've never read strobels work if you did you wouldn't say that
DeJay14 1 year ago
@DeJay14 I have read his book case for christ, I found it rather embarrassing. In this video, Strobel said "I interviewed him for my book [meaning the Case for a Creator]" and we replied he never interviews anyone who does not share his biased position throughout this video, meaning THIS book (Case for a creator) which Strobel bases this ENTIRE video we are addressing. He interviews J. Wells, Behe, Stephen Meyer, Robin Collins, Guillermo Gonzales and Jay Wesley Richards... each share his bias.
Feredir28 1 year ago
@Feredir28 1:09 to 1:13 i believe it is
DeJay14 1 year ago
@DeJay14 again still in the context of this entire video. He @ 1:09 was commenting on that throughout this whole Strobel video we had to watch, we noted everyone he interviewed for this book, and they all share his bias. So Chattiest is correct to point this out that Strobel is biased.
Feredir28 1 year ago
lol
IrishMinja 1 year ago
This is rubbish...but hey, everyone's an expert on the internet. No education required.
cryogeneric 1 year ago 2
Great Job quote mining creationists!
supersmash43 1 year ago
on the footage on metal callled History of Metal, they interviewed Gaahl, lead vocalist at that time, and he stated that what inspires him is Satan, If Satan exist then God exist, if God Exist, Creation is true. Exorcism are act of the Devil, if the Devil exist God exist, if God Exist, Creation exist. So and so.
whitemagicwizard 1 year ago
Go back to play guitar, play pokemon or xbox and leave this complex stuff to professinoals, The same way Fanatic Bible readers use some Chapter Verse bla bla bla to tell you something thats what you do, using a small paragraph of a book to try to make an absolute truth, . Also you bad guys, if you are SO metal (Judging by the clothes and guitars) may heard of the band Gorgoroth ....
whitemagicwizard 1 year ago
AND YES! He have interviews with people who DON'T AGREE WITH HIM!, Including atheist and Islam people.
whitemagicwizard 1 year ago
You guys are a bunch of low life scumbags without any idea of what the hell you are talking about, I am not a lee strobel follower or anything but I've seen his videos, and what he says is concrete evidence about what he says, If you guys make videos like this, make sure to post where the hell you got that ignorant information from, because I can say IM god, but definitively im not, Same way as you, you can say all that bunch of horsecrap, but that is a fool speaking.
whitemagicwizard 1 year ago
That those fuckers like ALWAYS use some totally false analogies...?????
I used to be roman-catholic for 20 years and it was people like this that drove me away and made me totally ashamed to have been on the same team for so long...
martialme84 1 year ago
Strobel needs to interview Ken FUCKING Miller for his next FUCKING book. What an ignorant DOUCHE BAG Strobel is. Its actually painful just to sit through a few minutes of his BULLSHIT...
jambimon 1 year ago
Lee Strobel seems to ignore the whole of the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial and its seering judgement on Intelligent Design and Michael Behe - whose cross-examination was hilarious for his ignorance.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
Again gentleman you have done an excellent job - thank you for your hard work. This is very important stuff you're doing especially with regard to Lee Strobel as he goes around parading himself as some kind of former atheist convert. This guy is a mega-church numbnut who lies at the drop of a hat. again good work.
TheDarwinman 1 year ago
FIRST
also nice job
MrEnrique223 1 year ago