Conclusive evidence of bias and lies by evolutionists about ID & Peer Review

[TruthIsLife7]

@pilgrimpater You seem not to understand that MUCH science rests on inferences. Nobody ever observed the Big Bang (which I agree with). We use inferences from movements now to infer that. There are far more inferences as well as direct evidences for God than the Big Bang.

On fossil order, the flood is why we should see a simple to complex order. Watch Dr. Wise and MAKE SURE to see Dr. Silvestru (from ~36:00) in my playlist evidence for the flood here:

user/TruthIsLife7#g/c/14FDE276­E5C97E24

[TruthIsLife7]

@pilgrimpater To understand the difference between published creationist concepts of speciation/natural selection, etc. which were published decades and centuries before Darwin's and based on Genesis, watch this short video, which also has several important insights on the philosophy of science.

Evolution is a fact. Darwinisn't isn't.

watch?v=Q6U29Hvjl4c

There are many scientific limits to evolution that make it impossible as an explanation for the entire variety of life.

[pilgrimpater]

7:50 Why would the conclusion of a peer reviewed paper include the word "perhaps"? Isn't "perhaps" an admission of speculation? I'm really sorry about beinging up this old, as of yet, unanswered chestnut but I have to ask "who designed the designer?" which only exasperates the ID issue claim.

Besides maybe the Myer should consult a Palaeontologist/Geologist to identify WHAT happened (according to current findings) rather than worrying HOW it MAY have happened.

[TruthIsLife7]

@pilgrimpater How many peer reviewed papers have you read? I have a part time job of editing them and used to work for Yonsei University doing that (one of the top universities in Korea). Many papers often use perhaps or leave room for other explanations and nearly all talk about further research needing to be done.

I've told you before, that chestnut is a problem for atheism and other views, but not Christianity since God always existed. Stop using straw man.

[TruthIsLife7]

@TruthIsLife7 When ALL the evidence points to a designer of life and NONE, as in ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, ZIPPO can show any evidence of complex functioning systems like kinesins and reproduction systems and metabolism systems developing without any intelligent influence and ALL cases we know of like that, mechanical or biological, have intelligence behind them, the science is completely one sided for creation in that area (and in many other areas as well).

[pilgrimpater]

@TruthIsLife7 "When ALL the evidence points to a designer of life " Absolutely nothing points to design other than your wishful thinking.

"kinesins and reproduction systems" Yet the fossil sequence shows that these were not "introduced" in one single act of creation or do you claim evolution is true but it was designed? Designed for what? 99% of species to become extinct?

"ALL cases we know of like that, mechanical or biological, have intelligence behind them," Baseless slogan.

[TruthIsLife7]

@pilgrimpater ALL cases of complex functioning systems originate either from biogenesis or intelligent design. ALL. If you say that isn't scientific evidence, you really don't know anything about science or how it often uses inferences as evidence. There is no baseless slogan. ALL observed cases originate from intelligence. FACT.

Straw man. Creation science doesn't predict that all forms of life should be in the fossils at the same place. Get informed instead of being duped.

[pilgrimpater]

@TruthIsLife7 "ALL cases of complex functioning systems originate either from biogenesis or intelligent design." Another slogan. Please provide evidence. Just because WE design things, it doesn't mean that everything is designed. At what stage do you thing design came in? At abiogenesis? In which case every species must be locked up in the so called code including gene duplication.

[pilgrimpater]

@TruthIsLife7 "Straw man. Creation science doesn't predict that all forms of life should be in the fossils at the same place. Get informed instead of being duped. "

Yes it does, If all life appeared in one hit then there would be no sequence. What we observe over geological time is 1st sponges appearing before 1st jawless fish and so on for jawed fish, tetrapods, amphibians, reptiles and birds/mammals. Please explain how this fits in with instant creation or post flood.

[Casshyr]

@TruthIsLife7 Life has intelligence, yes. This intelligence has to come from God. WRONG. This logic is on the borderline of "since science can't give us the answer, this means God did it!"

[Redshield666]

The anti-theists are getting desperate when they have to lie on national TV. I see even the whore of Darwinism, herself, isn't above a bald-face lie when the chips are down.

No matter. The world's destiny has been decided. A few bitter infidels aren't going to change what must be.

[TruthIsLife7]

@ProofPleez I pity the people you talk to. Delusions are when you fight against reality and facts. Atheism has consistently done that for almost it's entire history. If you think 500 chars on youtube you is an argument, you're very naive. Btw, I'm currently in a debate on a major atheist website.

Project Steve has nothing to do with math. It's a collection of people who have been indoctrinated with only one view and never investigated evidence for a different view. Appeal to authority.

[ApatheticOmniscience]

@TruthIsLife7 Atheism =/= Evolution. I really wish you would get that right as it erodes your credibility as a resource.

[TruthIsLife7]

@ApatheticOmniscience Where have I EVER claimed that atheism equals evolution. Nowhere. But, they DO have a very close connection as in evolution is a major factor in causing people to become atheists..and even major atheists and evolutionists agree with that.

[ApatheticOmniscience]

@TruthIsLife7 You seem to group atheists and evolutionists within the same reprehensible category. This portrays fallacious reasoning considering the fact that a lot of people (including scientists) do in fact accept evolution and their religion simultaneously. Evolution is compatible not only with the Christian God but also with theism in general. So don't base an argument against evolution by claiming that it's related to a philosophy that you don't agree with.

[TruthIsLife7]

@ApatheticOmniscience Creationists pioneered limited evolution long before Darwin. But, universal common descent &the Bible are mutually exclusive. Only by amputating legs of one or the other or living in major cognitive dissonance can this be done. As the atheist Dr. Provine puts it:

“As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.”

[ApatheticOmniscience]

@TruthIsLife7 Well I'm just stating that evolution is compatible with theism. However, I will point out that there are a few large Christian sects who embrace the concept. So if you disagree with its compatibility, it would rather be an issue on theology.

[ProofPleez]

They would have done the same thing if he let a paper on flat earth concepts get published.

[TruthIsLife7]

@ProofPleez MAJOR problem with your assertion. Creation science has more evidence and more evidence of different kinds confirming it than the Big Bang (which I support) and universal common descent (which has speculative evidence and MUCH refuting it). You have been duped by stupid myths propagated largely by atheists that don't have any the slightest concern for following the evidence where it leads OR informing you of the many scientific confirmations that we have for creation science.

[ProofPleez]

@TruthIsLife7 I encourage you to look up the definition of the word delusion. You are text book. You have chosen to disregard the mountains of evidence that has been accumulated for the last 150 years. I could explain it to you but I can't understand it for you. This video fails, your argument fails and those that cannot or will not accept evidence fail.

[TruthIsLife7]

@ProofPleez You obviously are totally unaware of what creation science is, or the fact that 1000s of scientists are rejecting universal common descent as scientifically feasible or that numerous versions of universal common descent have been 100% falsified and abandoned even by neo-Darwinians. If you had lived 150 years ago, you'd have been on the side of those claiming that spontaneous generation was an established fact. You need to think for yourself, not just have faith in dogma.

[TruthIsLife7]

@ProofPleez This video is only by an amateur and demonstrates the fact that Darwinians constantly lie about creation science and ID.

For evidence, start here with a seminar on the vast evidence that exists for a global flood by Dr. Silvestru, an internationally respected geologist:

wwwDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=L-­BaMAt4dnE

Start at 36:00. From ~54:00 there's a very good section on catastrophic plate tectonics.

There are many more like this in my creation seminars playlist & others.

[ProofPleez]

@TruthIsLife7 Please refer to above suggestion for defining delusion. While you are looking stuff up....check out project Steve.

[TruthIsLife7]

@ProofPleez Um, I lecture in linguistics. YOU need to understand what delusions are...they often happen when you ban evidence a priori because you've decided on your conclusions before investigating evidence. This is exactly what atheists and evolutionists do using methodological naturalism. Most intellectual Christians for centuries as wellas many atheists and scientists, just followed the evidence to Christianity.

Project Steve is an appeal to authority.

Next.

[TruthIsLife7]

@ProofPleez I'll bet almost anything that neither you nor any scientist on the project steve list even has the integrity to be able to define creation science accurately. I've only met ONE out of 1,000+ atheists who can do so so far. If you don't even know what something is and you are deprived of the evidence supporting it by people with dogma who hate following evidence wherever it leads (atheists and methodological naturalists)...then it's hopeless for you to make an intelligent judgement.

[matrixlone]

I dont get it logically speaking could'nt you say things are designed?

[TruthIsLife7]

@matrixlone Yes, you most certainly can and all the evidence points in that direct..to design by intelligence, which based on much evidence is the God of the Bible.

[buffboynick]

@CamW30

Actually Dr. Michael Behe has NUMEROUS peer-reviewed scientific journals on PubMed.

All are listed on the bottom of his Wikipedia page evoTARD.

Are you illiterate?????

It sucks when pesky facts get in the way, doesnt it?

[CamW30]

@buffboynick - "Actually Dr. Michael Behe has NUMEROUS peer-reviewed scientific journals on PubMed."

Again using Wikipedia as your science source? No scientist uses Wikipedia. FRAUD.

Check PubMed. Behe has 5 articles published; none mention ID. 3 of them are author replies. So, 2 peer-reviewed articles is NUMEROUS? FRAUD

ANSWER THIS QUESTION or you're a FRAUD:

What is the significance of homeobox-family genes falling into nested hierarchies in various sequential species throughout history?

[buffboynick]

@CamW30

As stated in past comments evoTARD, Wikipedia typically has all PubMed journals and other scientific sources listed in the reference section on the bottom, therefore its a perfect place to find all info related to the desired topic (all links to scientific journals)

Number 2.....

I am not required to talk to you or answer ANY of your questions.

Now answer some of mine.....

How did Dr . Sean Pitman expose the fallacy of the ERV argument? (hint...it involves hot spots)

You're a FOOL

[CamW30]

@buffboynick - "I am not required to talk to you or answer ANY of your questions."

Of course you are not required to answer my simple question. It is because YOU LIED ABOUT HAVING 2 DEGREES.

WHAT A LOSER!

"Wikipedia typically has all PubMed journals and other scientific sources listed in the reference section on the bottom"

Why not use PubMed directly, then it weeds out peer-reviewed & pulled papers.

NOT A SCIENTIST, HUH?

[buffboynick]

@CamW30

The only one consistently shown "lying" is you sir

Having a bachelors degree in molecular biology and being a working "scientist" are 2 separate things Cammy-TARD

Also.....I have given you the names of numerous scientists that reject evolution and you dismiss them, so why even bother with your idiocy???

[CamW30]

@buffboynick - "Having a bachelors degree in molecular biology and being a working "scientist" are 2 separate things"

LOL, back-pedal!

It is obvious that you are not a working scientist, but you said that you have a Masters Degree in Molecular Biology. I gave you a question out of an undergraduate textbook. FRAUD!

"I have given you the names of numerous scientists that reject evolution"

Those "scientists" aren't biologists. Would you let a computer scientist take out your kidney?

[buffboynick]

@CamW30

Number 1....Cammy FRAUD.....I have NEVER said I have a "masters" in Biology ANYWHERE on Youtube (another one of your LIES)

and if you have evidence of that then site ANY example

Number 2.....ERVs "prove" evolution the way the bacteria in my nose "proves" I "Magically evolved" from bacteria.

ERVS are one of MANY straw-mans used by the evolutionist.

No one denies DNA similarities you fallible TWIT. Scientists denied "shared ancestry" because there is no CHLCA or DNA evidence of it.

[CamW30]

@buffboynick - "ERVS are one of MANY straw-mans used by the evolutionist."

Funny, even a BSc in molecular biology would know the evidence provided by ERVs for evolution.

Hmm... Need I say: FRAUD!

"no CHLCA or DNA evidence of it."

2 words: Chromosome 2.

CAN'T ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTION, HUH?

(you don't need to be a "working scientist" to know the answer, just a BSc)

WHAT ABOUT THE MIT DEGREE????????

[buffboynick]

@CamW30

Once again DNA similarities and chromosome pairing shows more evidence of genetic hybridization then the MYTH of evolution. (Lloyd Pye)

The same with the ERV argument.

If you clowns had any cohesive arguments (like actual shared ancestors and observed mutations capable of macroevolutionary transformations) then you wouldnt consistently wheel out the same old tired straw mans over and over.

Where is that pesky CHLCA hiding?

Did he magically remove himself from the fossil record?

[CamW30]

@buffboynick - You keep changing the question when you are owned on a topic. I am done with you & your lying about your credentials (MIT, indeed!; even a BSc is questionable).

You are just a SHALLOW LIAR, who tries to sound more intelligent than you are (INSECURE, MUCH?).

I'VE STEPPED IN PUDDLES DEEPER THAN YOU (I'm done, loser).

[CamW30]

@buffboynick - "(Lloyd Pye)"

Again, NO EVIDENCE, just the ramblings of some conspiracy nut, with no scientific credibility.

"Where is that pesky CHLCA hiding?"

More evidence that he doesn't have scientific credentials (or integrity).

[buffboynick]

@CamW30

We all know no CHLCA has ever (nor will ever be found)

The closet thing to it is Ardi (and ardi is NOT the CHLCA)

Maybe that's why evoTARDS staged hoaxes like Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man (desperately trying to prove Darwin's RACIST lie of evolution)

Scientists also never reached any consensus on Homo Erectus and Homo Heidelbergensis being "shared ancestors" either.

Just more examples of trial and error in genetic engineering among the hominid chain.

Uh oh.....ev-LIE-ution FAIL

[CamW30]

@buffboynick - "why even bother with your idiocy"

Because you are trying to learn from me so that you can use the knowledge against less educated people who believe science is actually more correct than creatards. I see that you stop using flawed arguments AFTER I expose them.

SO, IT IS YOUR TURN TO ANSWER THE QUESTION

or fess-up to lying about your credentials.

(can't find the answer on Wikipedia, huh? That is why it is on final exams.

[CamW30]

@buffboynick - "How did Dr . Sean Pitman expose the fallacy of the ERV argument?"

Okay, if you promise to answer mine, next. (Although, why an MD would be considered an expert in genetcs is beyond me).

As for the identified 'hot spots' containing integration sites used up to 280 times more frequently than predicted mathematically, Pitman mistook locus specificity with the ability for ERVs to be inserted anywhere in the genome. Besides EvoGenVideos already debunked this chimp thing on YT.

[CamW30]

@buffboynick - "Dr . Sean Pitman"

Need I go further? We share 10s of thousands of ERVs with chimps. Pitman's statements were made prior to the human genome being sequenced, yet creatards (yes, those religious guys that you don't believe in), still use it as evidence that chimps & humans couldn't be related, when the evidence actually states the opposite (as the genome maps show).

NOW ANSWER MY SIMPLE QUESTION!

[benthemiester]

I have read the article and I can only say, she is lying. Its like the old saying, "who are you going to believe..... me, or your lying eyes"? She has made a very lucrative career supporting the neo Darwinian synthesis and she is not about to give up that gravy train. She even refuses to support the findings of the Altenburg 16 and the new proposed extended synthesis because of its challenges to many of the central dogmas that have been taught as fact for the last 80+ years.

[TruthIsLife7]

@CamW30 Um, Meyer's paper was reviewed by 3 experts before being published and was top notch. Dr. Sternberg agreed & has documents on his website (see link in notes) in the "the Smithsonian Controversy" section documenting the grossly unfair persecution he endured because of publishing 1 paper that had good evidence. The design argument has never been refuted. ALL evidence from mechanical and biological fields shows that complex functioning cell type design ALWAYS comes from intelligence. ALL.

[gamesbok]

@TruthIsLife7 Great, all you need now is a mechanism for this metaphysical 'designer' to impliment his design.

[buffboynick]

@gamesbok

That already exists, its called "lab-induced hybridization" and is one of the many forms of genetic engineering used by the "designers" (not God, but extraterrestrials)

The "designers" are seen all over the globe constantly (mass UFO sightings). The same beings that terraformed this planet around 4 BILLION years ago and have been bringing life here, altering life here, and studying life here ever since.

Exogenesis and Exogenic engineering

[CamW30]

@buffboynick - "Exogenesis and Exogenic engineering"

For a guy who "claims" to have degrees in physics (MIT) & molecular biology you are really ignorant of the methods used in these disciplines.

Didn't we expose you for what you are; A FRAUD!

(He can't even answer simple questions about his specialties).

What is your real profession?

Google: "buff-boy definition"

[TruthIsLife7]

@er876897 If you just accept everything the scientific establishment says without analyzing the evidence on both sides for yourself in depth, you are just a sheep who dishonors the legacy of almost all the pioneers of science, including Darwin (I admire him for his willingness to question establishments, but he was conclusively wrong on MANY points and many major and minor concepts of evolution have been rejected by ALL scientists as pseudoscience and it continues to happen.)

[types10000]

@TruthIsLife7

"If you just accept everything the scientific establishment says without analyzing the evidence on both sides for yourself in depth, you are just a sheep "

- doing your own research is always important HOWEVER if you lack the skills necessary for the task then it is important to realize that the scientific method IS THE BEST and MOST WELL EVIDENCED truth finding mechanism IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY.

- it is not an 'establishment'

[TruthIsLife7]

@er876897

A) It is 100% false that any judge has ever proven creation science or ID unscientific at any time. They've used POLITICS and perversions of science to engage in a priori dogma. That's all. Here's an example. Let's say that I convinced judges to think that science could never make any conclusions about evolution&then they judged evolution unscientific due to that. Would that in any way be legitimate? No. That would only be unfair and anti-science a priori bias.

[er876897]

@TruthIsLife7 That would be unfair, but this case is completely different because your trying to bring something into the education system that has no solid testable evidence. Just because you say "They've used POLITICS and perversions of science to engage in a priori dogma" does not make the statement true. It is untrue. You are part of the minority that actually thinks there is some sort of conspiracy going on here. There is NOT. The judge made the right decision based on the evidence.

[TruthIsLife7]

If you exclude anything apriori,you are only demonstrating bias and dogma, not anything scientific.

B) I am well able to admit I am wrong&have done so a number of times.

C) All are biased to some degree. But, it is very rare for an evolutionist to be objective precisely because almost none of them have ever studied the evidence in depth on both sides as Darwin insisted was crucial to make any informed decision. The majority of educated creationists have done that&thus are much more objective.

[er876897]

@TruthIsLife7 I am not excluding anything at all. I have yet to see any paper that devises an experiment for which the most likely (or only) cause must be God. I have no prejudice, I just follow evidence. Until I see some sort of reasonable research on ID then I will not push for it to be taught in schools.

[er876897]

@TruthIsLife7 What do you mean scientists don't study the evidence on both sides. Of course they do, that is all they do. They follow the evidence and search for the naturalistic cause, as opposed to your suggestion to also include the possibility that god did it. If god did do it, then they would eventually come to that conclusion. Thus far, there is no evidence,no experiment that can ONLY be explained by ID. All ID has done was fabricate alternatives to phenomena that can already be explained

[TruthIsLife7]

D) Dr. Wernher von Braun,1st NASA director&most responsible for putting men on the moon,said.

"...as I became exposed to the law&order of the universe,I was literally humbled by its unerring perfection. I became convinced that there must be a divine intent behind it all... My experiences with science led me to God.They challenge science to prove the existence of God.But must we really light a candle to see the sun?”&“There simply cannot be a creation without some kind of Spiritual Creator.”

[TruthIsLife7]

@PostITnoteGUY I don't think you understand the situation.BEFORE Dr. Meyer's paper was published, Dr. Sternberg submitted it to 3 experts for peer review.Why is it so hard for atheists to be honest about facts? MANY papers on Bible science/creation science/ID have gone through peer review&been been published. This can't be disputed.It's fact.I listed just a few sites listing some examples in the notes. There are many more. In most areas, the evidence for creation science outweighs its rivals.

[TruthIsLife7]

@PostITnoteGUY I have ~14,000 comments from atheists in recent years. I can't count how many say there have been no papers published by creationists/IDers. But, your allegation is every bit as false as that one.

The rationalizing is all being done by atheists and evolutionists. They are afraid of a fair playing field since they know the evidence supports creation science MUCH more strongly in many areas. So, they've asked politicians, judges and non-scientists to intervene and

[TruthIsLife7]

ban creation science for POLITICAL reasons APRIORI instead of competing on a fair playing field.his is a DIRE perversion of the scientific method,following the evidence wherever it leads and destroys any possibility of objective science Evolution has a lot in common with astrology and alchemy. Creation science has nothing to do with those ideas. See my definition of creation science on my channel page and watch the Genesis Conflict series linked at the end for an intro to creation science.

[TruthIsLife7]

@er876897 You're trying to get me to play on a fixed playing field that is extremely biased in favor of atheists. I know some Christians fall into that irrational and anti-science trap, but you can assure yourself that I am not one of them. Real science that has benefitted humanity most NEVER EVER bans ideas A PRIORI as atheists are explicitly trying to pervert and distort it. This is one of the most heinous violations of objectivity and science ever in history. Frankly, it's a crime.

[er876897]

@TruthIsLife7 Changing the subject, not responding yet.

[TruthIsLife7]

@er876897 I have not made false statements or been off topic.The absolute CRUX & FIRST issue is whether you can ban ideas you are biased against before testing them using the scientific method.Atheists think so.Evolutionists think so.The dover judge thought so.But,it is 100% indisputable that this is blatant dogma that destroys objectivity&the foundations of science&I will not retract that. To agree with atheists on this makes anyone a complete enemy of science.

[TruthIsLife7]

I WILL agree that the judge ruled ID was not science based on a perverted and false definition of science that atheists promote, one that was NEVER accepted by any major pioneer of science & one that is an explicit enemy of objectivity (he may be sincere, but he's been lied to and compromised the historical facts and truths of science and been duped into following the subjective dogma of atheists instead of the way genuine objective science has always ALWAYS been done).

[er876897]

@TruthIsLife7 So you admit that ID was proven false by a judge in a court of law. That is all i wanted you to admit before we move on to another topic because i remember you saying "Neither ID nor creation has ever been proven unscientific in courts." Then you so vigilantly defended it that false claim. You have all the right in the world to to disagree with the decision, but before I enter a debate with someone I just needed to know that they are able to admit if they were wrong, like you.

[er876897]

Has or is there such thing as "genuine objective science"? Who is conducting this type of science? Is it the overwhelming majority of scientists who believe in evolution and NOT ID?

Why is it that you trust these scientists that brought a man to the moon using genuine objective science, but you so quick to assert they must be wrong about Evolution. Biased? pwnge

So basically you are saying that there is such a thing as genuine objective science that is likely built by scientists who reject ID

[TruthIsLife7]

@PostITnoteGUY Sorry,but YOU are wrong on both points.Many people claimed that no paper was published. Now that quite a few have been (see the notes),evolutionists are shifting the goal posts AS USUAL. It's also blatant deceit that Dr. Meyer's paper was not properly reviewed. See Dr. Sternberg's website on the Smithsonian controversy. Dr. Meyer's paper was reviewed by 3 professionals, just like other papers. Don't trust information from critics. It'll make you foolish. Go to original sources.

[gamesbok]

@TruthIsLife7 Can you name these reviewers?

[er876897]

@TruthIsLife7 You are right in one sense in that the court case itself was not about deciding whether or not ID was scientific, but the reason that ID is now banned from being taught is because it was decided that ID is not scientific. Again, whether or not you agree with this ruling does NOT change the ruling itself.

You can disagree with ruling all you want but you have to face the facts; ID is banned because the judge found that it was unscientific, and that is what happened. PERIOD.

[TruthIsLife7]

@er876897 How do you define whether something is scientific or not by the way? The scientific processes and pioneers say NOTHING about excluding divine ideas from science. NOTHING. Be careful on how you define what is scientific. It must be applied to what you think and believe also.

[TruthIsLife7]

@er876897 Your own quote proves the judge is biased. Science for centuries was perfectly fine with accepting testable claims regarding the supernatural and that's how it progressed the most and fastest. Even into the 1950s or so you could find testable claims about the supernatural in scientific works like Johns Hopkins (see the notes in this video). To ban anything testable, is BIAS and DOGMA, not science. Creation science and ID have more testable evidence in most areas than evolution.

[er876897]

@TruthIsLife7 Your getting off topic here, my first reply was that ID was decided to be unscientific in the courts. That was my claim, and you claimed it was not. I then showed you direct quotes from the decision that proves that ID WAS decided to be unscientific in courts.

So, before we move on, are you willing to retract your statement "Neither ID nor creation has ever been proven unscientific in courts." Whether you think the judges decision is biased is irrelevant.

[TruthIsLife7]

The judges view is absolutely crucial. It deals explicitly with prejudice and bias and this judge should have recused himself because he was violating the foundations of science as well as its history. To have a fair judgement, a judge most not be biased and this one is explicitly biased against the very proposition that is being judged. I don't know how anyone can not see this.

[TruthIsLife7]

@er876897 No, I am most certainly not getting off topic. Even your own quotes verify what I've said,

"(1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;"

a) This foolish dogma of not allowing testable things in science that point to Divinity was never a part of science for centuries. It's only in recent decades that this happened. Naturalism has ALWAYS been a part of Christian science.But ONLY atheism denies free thought in science.

[er876897]

@TruthIsLife7 You are off topic indeed. I asked if you would admit that your statement was FALSE and you have not done so. The fact is, again, for the third time, ID was was ruled not to be taught in schools by a judge in good standing because he claimed that ID was not scientific. That is a fact. That is history. That is what happened. Do you admit that that is what happened? Whether you agree with the judge or not is IRRELEVANT. Lets resolve this topic before we move on to others.

[er876897]

@TruthIsLife7 The reason I am pushing for you to retract your earlier statement is because I am sick and tired of proving a point, or disproving a fact, etc.. only for the person to just dodge it and move onto another topic. It seems every time I make a point against a theist they just go on to change the subject again and again just as you are doing. I am not asking that you admit that ID is unscientific, just that it was ruled not allowed to be taught on account that it is unscientific.

[TruthIsLife7]

ERVs have been answered LONG ago...I talked personally to a non-Christian microbiologist and he said it's not uncommon at all for virii to insert themselves at the same point in different species...and PTERVS debunk ERVS anyway...by the same principles...NONE of this is direct evidence anyway.

Transitional fossils???Oh my stars...location proves NOTHING about descent whatsoever. Visit your local cemetery to verify this for yourself.

[TruthIsLife7]

Very briefly:

1) Biogenesis (pioneered by a creationist based on the Bible) has far more evidence than abiogenesis.

2) Evidence from design is powerful logical evidence...NO EVIDENCE of complex functioning developing from unintelligence exists(such as kinesins,transportation systems,communication systems(DNA), etc.

3) Creationist natural selection is testable...no levels of Darwinian evolution are directly testable.

4) Nearly everything in nature has function including Vestigial organs&junkdna.

[TruthIsLife7]

@1ProudFemaleAtheist I've given you information to check out, you refuse and were not interested in facts in the past. This playlist is a good overview

view_play_list?p=0F4C0511B7DFC­4C7

The Genesis Conflict linked in the 1st video is VERY good and by a former atheist with a Ph.D. in zoology just as ignorant as you are now, but who followed the evidence and became a creationist DUE to evidence. But, you haven't shown any interest in facts before. I don't have time for deceit.

[noliesundead]

to bad thats not a peer reviewed journal. when you only have other creationist backing you up the reviewing going to be askew

[TruthIsLife7]

@noliesundead Too bad you don't understand what peer review is. And by your standard, nothing from evolutionists count at all...since it's only evolutionists peer reviewing each other. Will the atheist double standards NEVER EVER cease? That's all atheism is built on, fallacy after fallacy after fallacy. I've heard them for decades and they will destroy the majority of science if applied consistently. But, see the notes for peer reviewed papers in many places, including some secular ones.

[noliesundead]

@TruthIsLife7 .since it's only evolutionists peer reviewing each other.....No its biologist, genealogist, paleontologist, I don't know what a evolutionist is......(I Think you're making words up) Will the atheist double standards NEVER EVER cease?........When did i mention atheist? Why are you connecting evolution to atheism? Their unrelated.

On a side note Meyers has a PH.D in philosophy not taxonomy, so he is out of his field of expertise

and his paper ignores alot of other papers

[TruthIsLife7]

@noliesundead Read a dictionary once in a while. Biologist, evolutionist, paleontologist, creationist...notice anything unique about the endings of those words?

Sorry, but atheism and evolution are not unrelated. Even Dawkins and Provine state that they have strong connections (they aren't the same of course). Meyers has a Ph.D. in the philosophy of SCIENCE and if you don't know that some scientists publish in different fields&that most papers ignore other papers, you're ignorant.

[noliesundead]

@TruthIsLife7 how about you tell me what you think a "evolutionist" (other than a word created by creationist)

atheism and evolution are not unrelated. i did not say they where not, but bringing up one does not equal bringing up the other.

Even Dawkins....who cares what he says, he does not talk for all atheist. no one does. Meyers has a Ph.D. in the philosophy of SCIENCE...which is not a applied science it rest in the fields of an historian or as philosopher.

[TruthIsLife7]

@noliesundead Above you said about evolution and atheism "Their unrelated." Now you say you didn't say that.

The philosophy of science is NOT a historical field..it is a crucial foundation for every applied science field. Without it, you simply can't do science at all.

If you don't know what an evolutionist is,you really need to go back to elementary school. A biologist is someone who studies and researches (sometimes teaches) biology.An evolutionist studies-researches the myth of evolution.

[noliesundead]

@TruthIsLife7 Above you said about evolution and atheism "Their unrelated.".....sorry about that.... i stick to "Their unrelated." ....someone must have been talking to me in the real world.

The philosophy of science is NOT a historical field.....but it is a philosophical one. thus it has a very limited effect on anything since its not a applied science.

evolutionist..a student to a theory of evolution. the creationist are still the inventors of the word.

[TruthIsLife7]

@noliesundead Sorry, but no the creationists didn't invent the term "evolutionist". The term goes back to ~1859. It's in the dictionary. But, it doesn't matter who invented it. It's an accurate term.

About "unrelated", Dr. Will Provine a Cornell biologist-evolutionist, states,

“As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.”

[noliesundead]

@TruthIsLife7 belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.” ...wow the no true scotsman. explain ken miller, evolutionist and catholic, again no one speaks for the atheistic other then the atheist, and their are plenty of atheist who dont believe in evolution.

and where did you get that quote from? i liked to check if your quote mining

[noliesundead]

@TruthIsLife7 An evolutionist studies-researches the myth of evolution. but evolution is not a myth. its been proven by the aforementioned biologist, and paleontologist, taxonomists, geneticist, zoologist, and botanist.

and can make testable predictions. (something Teleonomy can't and has yet to do). and on a side note. the claims by stein in expelled have been debunked by several people so why cite it.

[TruthIsLife7]

@noliesundead Evolution has been "proven"?Boy have you been deceived.The only way it's been proven is the way steady state, spontaneous generation, lamarckism, pangenesis, transmutationism, recapitulation, exogenesis and orthogenesis have been "proven".In most areas,creation science has stronger&more numerous proofs and confirmed predictions than even the modern synthesis of evolution does. You probably don't even know that natural selection was part of creation science LONG before Darwin.

[noliesundead]

@TruthIsLife7 some scientists publish in different fields&that most papers ignore other papers....yeah but their finding can be adapted(or fit) to relevant field. his can not. it ignores all the findings before his, and makes no predictable conclusion, and has not been demonstrated to work. theirs a reason he is not published in a secular journal. you can't use an unproven to answer unknowns

[TruthIsLife7]

@noliesundead WOW! EVERY SINGLE STATEMENT you've made so far is completely false.

-Meyers paper isn't the only one.

-It does NOT IGNORE ALL other papers (like all papers it ignores some, since NO paper cites all papers in the field),

-ID DOES make predictions and has confirmations.

-ID papers HAVE been been demonstrated to work countless times and FAR more than ANY rival.

-They HAVE been published in secular journals.

You've been very badly lied to

[er876897]

Haha that was Stephen Meyers paper, the one he published in 2004. Just a year before ID was proven to be unscientific in the courts. I can't believe people are still bringing up this article. ID is not science.

[TruthIsLife7]

@er876897 Neither ID nor creation has ever been proven unscientific in courts. In fact, Pasteur following creation science theory, debunked spontaneous generation in one of the most stunning debunkings of pseudoscience ever in history.

ID and creation have been banned from classrooms SOLELY for political reasons (distortions of church and state) which ignore literally billions of scientific confirmations. This undermines the scientific fundamental of following the evidence where it leads.

[er876897]

@TruthIsLife7 I quote page 43 of the judges 139 page decision "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."

[er876897]

(PART 3/3)

it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena."

[er876897]

@TruthIsLife7 (PART 2/3)

by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below,

[TruthIsLife7]

It's deceitful to say that the criticisms of evolution have been refuted...not true on any level. Even evolutionists have abandoned countless major and minor claims regarding evolution & also atheism because they've been debunked: Steady state, spontaneous generation, lamarckism, pangenesis, transmutationism, recapitulation, exogenesis, orthogenesis. The modern synthesis has BIG problems and some evos are abandoning it too...PE is almost 100% faith..how many falsifications do you need???

[TruthIsLife7]

It is blatant deceit of the worst order to say that creation science and ID have not generated peer reviewed publications...this is deceit or dire ignorance on the order of saying the holocaust never happened.

He is completely wrong on the idea that science has been only the search for natural causes since the 16th century. Indisputably wrong. NOTHING in the scientific method says we have to ban supernatural causation. The ONLY question is whether it's testable or has confirmed predictions.

[er876897]

@TruthIsLife7 Also, (PART 1/3)

Page 64 of 139 "After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science

[TruthIsLife7]

Um, the spider comment is just below. It's a good one. The web comes from intelligence, not mindless forces.

[owensphil]

EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT VIDEO!!!



[TruthIsLife7]

@owensph Thx.l There are atheists & agnostics with integrity who know what it means to do objective scientific inquiry and who realize that the scientific establishment isn't infallible and who realize that when you censor and ban all testable evidence against your view, real genuine science isn't being done at all. Camw30 doesn't understand this. If his approach were followed, almost no innovations would ever have occurred in scientific history.

[BjornSeverinLarsen]

About Stephen Meyers conclussion in his paper, i think he actually makes a good point. He says that the design explanation is the probably the most causally adequate to explain the cambrain explosion. Well yes, but how would the hypothesis look? Remember that a scietific hypothesis needs to be falsifyable. How would a divine intelligent design hypothesis be falsifyable, when it is impossible to disproof the exsistence of God?

[TruthIsLife7]

Since when does location prove ancestry?Any graveyard can show us many cases where this is just false.We also have homological structures rising from completely different organs in the body, which seriously damages this as an evidence for evolution. Intelligent programmers use similar programming language for similar computing purposes. We see no examples of languages with receivers&senders arising without intelligence. The weight of evidence is very clear here & elsewhere.

[BjornSeverinLarsen]

@TruthIsLife7 No we don't see information programming without intelligence, cos we do it - and we consider ourselves as intelligent. But just cos we do it, doesn't mean by default everything which sorta looks like something we could program, would be done by an intelligence. Like this example, the spider web is amazing. An amazing construct, amazingly resilient and strong - but is it there intelligence behind this amazing thing? How are we to know?

[TruthIsLife7]

@BjornSeverinLarsen re: the spider web, we know 100% for certain intelligence is behind it,spider intelligence. We've seen&observed this. But,this is only a geometrical pattern, not a functioning system. There are certain cases of geometry arising by natural forces (who started them tho).But in geometry&esp. in complex functioning systems w/moving parts,information exchange,etc.the weight of evidence points conclusively in one direction,ID.But, we should always be open to new evidence.

[BjornSeverinLarsen]

@TruthIsLife7 New evidence, well yes we should. I've been reviewing the topics around information in the genes, that Meyers talks about. There seem to be a misunderstanding about what genews actually are. The functionality of genes are not measured by their information amount, but by the complexity of specific functions. That mutation detracts information from the genepool (if it even does that) doesn't really matter, since corn have 10 times as much info than us, but is not more complex than us

[BjornSeverinLarsen]

@TruthIsLife7 2nd - So unless you would argue that corn are alot more advanced than we are, you need to examine the claim that the functionality of genes are based on the amount of information lodged in the DNA. If Meyer got this wrong, then i don't really understand his comments about the morphology novelty in new forms - like the evolution of the spine etc. Besides it is rather well understood how these forms develope. See Concordance new vid - too complex for me to explain.

[BjornSeverinLarsen]

@TruthIsLife7 3rd This allso put the whole programming analogy in question. If the proponents of this analogy could misunderstand these basic facts about DNA, then what else could they misunderstand? I will let more qualified people do that for me, like concordance and AronRa, since im only interested in natural science, not educated in the area. The 4 possible combinations in the DNA (GSTA - or whatever) might seem like digital code, but is it? Has it been prooved that it functions like that?

[BjornSeverinLarsen]

The remainder of this review will suggest that there are such reasons. In so doing, it may also help explain why the issue of teleology or design has reemerged within the scientific discussion of biological origins ( and why some scientists and philosophers of science have considered teleological explanations for the origin of form and information despite strong methodological prohibitions against design as a scientific hypothesis (Gillespie 1979, Lenior 1982:4) to be continued

[BjornSeverinLarsen]

@BjornSeverinLarsen The comment was a copy/ paste from the article, i cut out some references, to make it fit the limitations of characters in the comment box. It is part of the last part before the conclusion. Stephen Meyer says it pretty well here, why it is hard to use intelligent design as a scientific theory. It isn't. It is really really hard to make a hypothesis where the answer is given before hand. The answer being: God did it! To investigate design is possible, but to prove, hard.

[BjornSeverinLarsen]

@BjornSeverinLarsen 2nd part - Not even hard, but probably impossible, scientifically. Cos i am wondering, how would one proof that God designed the DNA strand of every being on the planet intelligently? It is the same as trying to proof God doesn't exsist. We can't proof these things, so it will allways be up to the assumptions (that we as humans neccesarily needs to make, to make sense of our world around us) that we make, to make up the gap of knowledge that we lack.

[TruthIsLife7]

@BjornSeverinLarsen @BjornSeverinLarsen Abiogenesis, Evolution &the act of creation have the same problem actually. The origin of life&its evolution are historical events. Science deals with things you can repeat and test. It is limited & sometimes helpless in what it can prove historically. Evolutionists claim that locations of fossils, homology, genetics, etc. are evidence. ALL of these are better as evidence for creation & none are direct proof of universal common descent.

[TruthIsLife7]

@BjornSeverinLarsen One more thing...I'm gathering a list of many articles that support ID or creation science. As above, it's difficult for science to prove historical events conclusively (for BOTH sides). But, you can check some hypotheses. Biogenesis, Cambrian explosion, Creationist natural selection, DNA, polystrate fossils, soft tissue in DNA&many others put the weight of evidence SOLIDLY in the designer camp. Then we can use the historical method to determine the identity of the designer.

[CamW30]

Paper 3: "Information Extraction from a Hamming Oracle"

This was not peer-reviewed; it was from a symposia. It wasn't published in a journal. Again, Google title & see RationalWiki for critique. "[The paper] is a magnificent paper illustrating the art of obfuscation disguised as "science".

If this is the best that you got, please just give up and stop wasting my time.

[TruthIsLife7]

@CamW30 The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington IS a journal&Meyers paper WAS peer reviewed. Why lie? Are you not aware that before you can even present at most symposia or conferences, that you make proposals and they must be reviewed and accepted by other professionals in the field? It’s a bit different than a journal, true, but it’s still a peer-review. If you don't know this, I seriously question whether you have ever worked in academia.

[CamW30]

@TruthIsLife7 - "The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington IS a journal&Meyers paper WAS peer reviewed. Why lie?"

The critiques clearly show that the peer-review by this journal are not up to the standards of most peer-review.

"at most symposia"

Symposia peer review is not near as stringent as that of the prestigious journals.

"I seriously question whether you have ever worked in academia."

I could care less what you "think".

[TruthIsLife7]

The experiment will decide whether the hypothesis is true OR not. Creationists never work this way

-

This is a blatant lie and I proved it conclusively. Creationists have changed their hypotheses. You know next to nothing about creation science&its numerous empirical tests&hypotheses,so many of which have been confirmed. You are not competent to make an informed judgement because you refuse to read-watch elite creationists with ph.ds. in science fields, many times from Ivy league Universities.

[CamW30]

@TruthIsLife7 - "This is a blatant lie and I proved it conclusively"

Whatever, dude. Science shows you to wrong.

"elite creationists with ph.ds. in science fields, many times from Ivy league Universities."

Argument from authority; & poor authority at that. It is so sad that you have to stoop to this to try to make your point.

You want to convince me; do the science in a way that it will be published in "Nature" or "Science". Stop whinging about how unfair the system is.

[TruthIsLife7]

"You want to convince me; do the science in a way that it will be published in "Nature" or "Science". Stop whinging about how unfair the system is."

--

Um...CamW30, Dr. Gentry's work was published in BOTH Nature and Science. You need to stop being an ostrich and do objective investigation of BOTH sides...something that has caused tremendous progress in the history of science. Dr. Meyer's work on ID was also published in the Smithsonian's journal & more&more are getting into journals. See notes.

[CamW30]

@TruthIsLife7 - " Dr. Gentry's work was published in BOTH Nature and Science."

How many years ago was that? Last one in 1984; what no follow-up to defend his position? Did you read the critiques of Gentry's work about those articles?

"Dr. Meyer's work on ID was also published"

You have been repeatedly told of the Sternberg controversy regarding this article. Who are you trying to fool in using this as a peer-reviewed article.

"See notes."

Are the rest of the same calibre as the above?

[TruthIsLife7]

CamW30 um...

A) You & this guy are perverting the definition of science. If something follows the scientific method & has confirmations of hypothesis, it is scientific PERIOD. This doesn’t necessarily mean it is true. Some scientific ideas that were peer reviewed at the highest levels have later been found to be not true for a variety of reasons. You are confusing the definitions of scientific & accepted truth.

B) Age has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with whether something is scientific or not.

[CamW30]

@TruthIsLife7 - "If something follows the scientific method & has confirmations of hypothesis, it is scientific PERIOD"

So, why don't the creation scientists do this? Again, the evidence is online that they are trying to change the way science is done by the scientific community. Behe said as much at the Dover trial.

"Age has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with whether something is scientific or not."

With that logic, the ether theory is valid. Seriously, stay away from scientific discussions.

[TruthIsLife7]

Excuse me, but the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239). The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C. This is NOT some podunk journal as you deceitfully claimed. It's one of the most respected in the country and THIS is where Meyer's article was published (AND it was peer reviewed as well before being published). Lying isn't intelligent.

[TruthIsLife7]

CamW30, Here's the testimony from Dr. Sternberg himself from his website wwwDOTrichardsternbergDOTorg. "I authorized “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” by Dr. Stephen Meyer to be published in the journal after passing peer-review. Because Dr. Meyer’s article presented scientific evidence for intelligent design in biology, I faced retaliation, defamation, harassment, and a hostile work environment..." Do you have any integrity to admit facts CamW30?

[CamW30]

@TruthIsLife7 - "Dr. Meyer's work on ID was also published in the Smithsonian's journal & more&more are getting into journals."

You are grasping at straws, dude. See:

watch?v=9X50lH-XxHI

on how the peer-review process works.

[TruthIsLife7]

After that it's pure stupidity. Of COURSE they don't come to evolution conferences and present there. NEWSFLASH...THEY DON'T BELIEVE in evolution. And they're not going to do ph.ds. in a concept they don't think passes scientific muster (evolution) & consider pseudoscience. There isn't a cell of logic anything past 6:00. By that logic, no evolutionist is a scientist unless they present at a creationist conference...that you are duped by such lunacy speaks volumes.

[TruthIsLife7]

…one of the most crucial areas that all scientists should be required to understand well before doing even a single experiment. Most people try to compare evolution to some act of creation. This is a fundamental violation of science since they don’t even deal with the same scientific question. It’s like trying to make photosynthesis and gravity enemies.

E) The video you recommend is FAR more of a problem for evolutionists than it is for creationists. I knew & agree with most up to 6:00.

[TruthIsLife7]

C) Sternberg(evolutionist)details persecution he went thru on his site. Dr. Noam Chomsky of MIT explains how establishments of all types try to ban evidence for rival views. You’re promoting propaganda&censorship of evidence. You are not doing any real science.

D) He lies about IDers. Quite a few are experts in the relevant fields dealing with ID. Dr. Veith with a Ph.D. in zoology is one of many IDers with an appropriate degree. Meyer has a degree from Cambridge in the philosophy of science

[CamW30]

Also; have you checked the "peer-reviewed" papers on your own list? Do I need to tell you the problems with each?

"The coherence of an engineered world":

Printed by a fringe journal with a non-accredited peer-review panel.

"Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo's Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,"

Obscure journal with several mistakes. Google title & pick "naontiotamiDOTcom

Why can't creationists just do the science?

[TruthIsLife7]

Creationists do science just fine. They pioneered the scientific method&most branches of science&have made astounding contributions to science. Atheists just can't stand it when the evidence points to a designer&lie,distort &use double standards (like you did to start) instead of following the evidence. Why do you defend something that is only a death wish for all, tooth and nail? Most atheists have emotional reasons and distorted images of God which are the reason they are so bitter.

[CamW30]

One can check out the "research" on-line & see what "real" scientists think about it & WHY it is lacking. Just Google the paper name & choose the Wikipedia result. Paper name:

"The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories"

Why do the "scientists" at the Discovery Institute always blatantly lie & deceive? If this is the best example creationists have for a peer-reviewed article on ID, then they are in more trouble than I thought.

[CamW30]

So, so sad. What crap! Full of lies and ad hominem attacks. When creationists can't do the science properly, they cry foul. They say it is because they believe in god, not because their research is pure crap.

The 1st paper has been "scientifically" critiqued as been poorly researched. Sorry, the "poor me" defence doesn't hold any water. Also, creationists start their own journals & do their own peer-review. So, sad!

Should we say that their are no peer-reviewed papers on ID that are not crap?