Real flagella require tens of thousands of proteins of around forty varieties to be carefully arranged. They are constucted according to a precise programme, governed by feed back and quality control. I'm killing myself laughing at the stupidly simplistic "Matzke's pathway" to flagellar "evolution".
If I showed you a cartoon of a Smurf emerging from a blob of modeling clay, would you take that as evidence for the origins of human beings?
The Darwinian fundamentalist can do nothing other than interpret fossil evidence, no matter how contrary to any materialistic theory of evolution, as evidence FOR that theory evolution. If tomorrow Darwinist palaeontologists finally admit to huge unbridgeable gaps in the fossil record, they will conclude that "evolution" is a wonderfully powerful and mysterious force - but still a fact.
Evolution is a model based NOT on experimental verification and validation, but rather on personal preferences. God is NOT religion; He IS...period. Folks don't like Intelligent Design as this inevitably reduces to THEMSELVES being involved in the equation...that.THEY ARE DESIGNED. Like Ken Miller (pseudo-scientist at Brown University), they will go through ANY lengths to avoid the obvious. TOO BAD...real science CLEARLY indicates the presence of a MASTER DESIGNER...and Father.
"Evolution is a model based .... on personal preferences"
Like any devoted religious believers, Darwinists view the world through the lens of THEIR particular faith based assumptions. We need to thanks to Phillip E. Johnson for identifying "philosophical naturalism" as the fundamental dogma that underwrites Darwinian theory, other naturalistic evolutionary theories and materialistic science in general.
@IDtaksovr "Like any devoted religious believers, Darwinists"
Wow! You have retreated back to the comfort of your own videos agreeing with your sheep. I'm so disappointed that you won't come back out and argue/debate with us 'Darwinists'. Admittedly, I miss your arguments. Granted, I'm sure it's tough being manhandled by educated people, but why does that stop you now?
It's more important to inform the next generation about the evidence for intelligent design, than to debate endlessly with those for whom no amount of evidence will make a difference e.g. due to rigid philosophical presuppositions. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of ID, yet it will take generations to change entrenched worldviews
"Science advances one funeral at a time" -- Max Planck
@IDtaksovr "to debate endlessly with those for whom no amount of evidence will make a difference"
Hummm... That's not true at all. In fact, I'll admit right here and now in an effort to quell such nonsense: There could very well be an intelligent designer/s that has designed all life. I would even extrapolate this presupposition: There could very well be an ID'er who designed EVERYTHING. Can you quote 1 reputable/published scientist or scholar (etc) who claims that ID is impossible?
@IDtaksovr "next generation about the evidence for intelligent design"
Is that what your doing?? All I read is patting each other on the back for agreement on: ID = good, evolution = bad intermixed with the occasional: That's not evidence for evolution (no matter what the proposed evidence). Are you or EJsigstrat (or any proponent for ID) actually engaged in ID research? What evidence has your hard work and research unearthed? Unlikely any productivity since ID isn't even a theory.
@IDtaksovr "It's more important to inform the next generation about the evidence for intelligent design"
Perhaps I'm not being fair...So what should be done? In an ideal IDtaksvr world, what programs should be put into place or what changes should be made to see your vision come to fruition? For example, what would an ID lab exercise look like in a science class? If this is honestly your goal/end game, then you must have SOME ideas. Right?
@IDtaksovr "to debate endlessly with those for whom"
No replies for my questions last week?? Even when I agree with a few of your points? O.K., I'll leave you alone IDtaksovr. I thought I could squeeze that debate out of you, but I need to start listening to your deafening silence. Apparently, somewhere along the way, you've lost the will to defend ID. Perhaps you should change your Youtube name to IDisovr?
@cliffordanthonypaiva "Evolution is a model based NOT on experimental verification and validation, but rather on personal preferences."
Interesting claim but not uncommon. How familiar are you with the sciences? Could your sentiments toward evolutionary theory be extrapolated to other scientific theories? For example, is plate tectonic theory ALSO devoid of "experimental verification and validation"? Could you apply your claims to atomic theory as well? Why or why not?
Evolutionists and atheists are just an enigma to me. I'm amazed how people just assume that Darwinism explains everything. My contention is that it explains nothing. Throw your largest bucket of Legos into a tornado and see what you end up with. Do it 89 trillion times and see what u end up with. It is utter nonsense. Those who deny creationism are weak minded fools, destined for eventual enlightenment that will be embarrassing beyond their comprehension.
Darwinian theory may seem stupid, if you come at the evidence without any philosophical baggage or preconceptions, but it looks a whole lot better if you have already signed up to the creed of "naturalism". Having sworn allegiance to the faith based notion that the universe is a self enclosed system of cause and effect, with no purposive or intelligently guided forces in operation, something like Darwinian theory quickly becomes the "best" explanation out of a bad bunch.
If you arbitrarily assume naturalism dogmatically at the outset, and arbitrarily rule out any possibility of intelligent design at the outset, then Darwinian theory is not going to look nearly as bad as it otherwise might. With ID safely ruled out a priori, massive evidential problems with Darwinian theory become "exiting challenges" for generations of eager Darwinians in future. Ruling out the main traditional competitor to a theory is one way to win an argument.
@assym2006 Except he does exist, and evolution is impossible. See I make statements without backing them up too.
To any rational person, this is more than enough to convince them evolution is just a joke of a scientific theory. You should be embarrassed you accept it without looking into its flaws.
@assym2006 - Nick Matzke's pathway featured in the vid not only hasn't been replicated but it cannot happen because all the so-called "homologies" featured are the result of using default BLAST search settings. Aside from that there is more evidence to suggest that the TTSS is not a predecessor to the rotary flagellum but rather evolved as the result of the flagellum losing parts.
If a biological feature requires an adaptation that is by itself deleterious, then it probably won't happen.
Much like those theists who still think the earth is 6k years old. By willingly ignoring things that niether contradict their relgion nor have any serious flaws in them, it becomes fanaticism.
There is a good qeustion to ask in all this, not what is the probability of something like this coming about randomly, but WHY is the suggestion it is designed hard to swallow? You see, it is not the persuit of science, it is trying to hold together something they wasted their lives preaching.
"WHY is the suggestion it is designed hard to swallow"
Design is hard for the present scientific orthodoxy to swallow, not because it is in any way contrary to, or in conflict with science, but simply because materialistic science "cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door". Please google the full quote by the geneticist Richard Lewontin in his book review ( of materialist cosmologist Carl Sagans book "The Demon-Haunted World")
Oh man, my grammer was a mess. Sorry I've been up till 5 AM 3 nights ina row, its starting to come out in my typing. I meant to say in my 3rd comment, that their intolerance is of any other religion's account of how life originated. It seems unthinkable to them that Life could have been designed, no matter how obvious it is. It seems more likely somehow that a series of convoluded and mysterious events sounds more credible than design. This is called religious ignorance.
"It seems unthinkable to them that Life could have been designed, no matter how obvious it is"
It IS unthinkable to the dogmatic naturalist. "Naturalists", who dominate the scientific establishment nowadays, have come to an unofficial agreement not to tolarate any explanation that appeals to purpose or design. The orthodoxy is enforced using the scientific "peer review" system, that, while intended to spot genuine errors, also serves to filter out "deviant ideologies"
Ironically, Darwinian evo theory is steeped in extra-scientific assumptions, including a number of theological ones. Darwin himself advanced a number of positive theological claims in his book "The Origin of Species", for why God would (in his opinion) choose to work exclusively via impersonal natural laws, rather than supervise and guide the emergence of species towards a preconceived and intended goal. See "Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species"
@IDtaksovr So I have been hearing a little bit about "life created from scratch" in the lab, and basicaly just getting dissiniformation. Venter is the name of a biologist who apparently was able to sort of create his own genome and insert it into another cell, and this genome can now reproduce. I don't doubt something like that could br possible, but where is this claim of life from scratch, I still havent found anything on it.
Venter was able to intelligently synthesize one of the simplest genomes of a single celled organism, and after spending tens of millions of pounds on research, to successfully insert that DNA into an organism that had its DNA removed earlier. This is NOTHING like achieving the impossible task of creating "life from scratch". In doing so, Venter proved that highly intelligent agents can plagiarise the works of superior Intelligent Agents
(ctd) Due to the enormous technical difficulty involved in merely transplanting the plagiarized, synthesised DNA strand (into a pre-existing organism), which had to be precisely constructed according to the original plan for the experiment to work, Venter actually makes the case that without considerable intelligence at your disposal, such organisms would never arise in nature due to blind and purposeless processes acting on inert matter.
just reading now "signature in the cell" by stephen c meyer, fascinating book, also another really smart young earth creationist who gives talks is " Dr Karl Wieland guys a genius
Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe is another great book that leaves you wondering why any intelligent person still maintains faith in the power of random mutations and natural selection to explain life's diversity and complexity.
Evolution is largly fictious. I don't pretend to say it has no merit, and isn't interesting, it is even plausible when taken at face value. But when looking at complexity it just falls apart.
"Evolution" is an extremely slippery term, with meanings that range from the undisputed and banal, to the vastly speculative and unsupported. Darwinists frequently equivocate on the meaning of "evolution", in order to carry an argumnet by confusion i.e. they demonstrate the trivial, and then claim it as evidence for the profound. See "The Meanings of Evolution" by Meyer and Keas.
No fossils exist and even if they did exist, it is arbitrary. God created man and apes, let's say if it is infact the reality he did create everything just for a momment. If he created Humans, and apes, what would make it implossible he also created other apes and less homined creatures? Really, there is no contradiction there. And the bottom line is if humans evolved from a less homined creature they would stillbe around in some form, but the closest is apes, and they are nowhere near us.
"Common descent" is ASSUMED a priori, by Darwinian evolutionists, and thereafter, all fossil finds are interpreded and arranged strictly in accordance with that crucial going in assumption. The patterns of common descent so "discovered" (actually, they are imposed) are then presented as EVIDENCE for common descent. i.e. evidence produced on the assumption of common descent, is presented as evidence for CD. This is blatant circular reasoning.
@IDtaksovr Of course, I see no reason to beleive evolution. Until we see one organism change into another, it is little more than a hypothesis, not even theory. I have pretty much had it up to here with it, but I might just read the book. They change the goal posts more often than any theist does.
If you ask any Darwinist for the most spectacular direct observation of the power of random mutation and natural selection to create novelty, you not get a human brain, a wing, an eye, a feather, or even a flagellum. You will instead be presented with some quirky new bacterial function that arises from some fairly trivial and statistically probable random mutations after many thousands of generations. Beyond that, the major claims are based on mere inference.
@IDtaksovr I never said fossils don't exist, just on clerification. I simply said no fossils pertaining to human ancestry exist, but that isn't entirely true. Some do, but the gaps between are so massive both physiologicaly and chronologicaly its pretty much a dumb statement to say we are related any further than we are related to a sea sponge. We are related because we have the same CREATOR, and he used the same DNA pattern design for us all.
I agree. While some fossils exist that may certainly be construed as belonging to a human evolutionary sequence, these fossils can be fitted into a small suitcase, and everything from their reconstruction (often from a few bone scraps), to their placement in the evolutionary scheme, is inferred based on the assumption that common descent is an undisputible fact, and that common design must be ruled out as an explanation for similarities.
@IDtaksovr Oh come now, I'm sure they must have one ape skeletons somewhere.... As far as information increase. I'm sure you have heard of the apparently "altered" video where they ask Richard Dawkins about any mutation increasing information. They always pull out some inchorent nonesense about the mot miniscule of change that I can't refute by shear obscurity. But the thing is, if informaiton is increased, we need to see information being added, and then information being added on top of that.
Great video. The real issue here, is not how could it have evolved, because any creative solution may be plausible to some, but why are they trying to assert it was not God? I ask you this because it is damning to the evolutionary theory. Why is this theory being asserted? Oh pardon me this "fact". Could it be they have an agenda? Could it be theres more money in teaching evolution? Could it be they don't want to admit they were wrong? All these factors and not a decent answer.
Materialistic science, like any established church, has only one demand: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. For various philosophical and theological reasons, to explain something "scientifically", has become synonomous with providing an explanation that is strictly devoid of intelligence or purpose i.e. strictly "natural". There are no objective reasons why this must be so, but the assumption of "naturalism" has become the sacred cow of todays scientific orthodoxy
@IDtaksovr "explanation that is strictly devoid of intelligence"
U know this isn't true. Scientists in biology are ALWAYS referring to design. Even ur buddy Dawkins will apply the concept of design on organisms. U're talking about goal orientated ID applied to organisms. There is a difference. Science is interested in more than explanation. Did you end our debate at:
Was "The Inner Life of a Cell" Plagiarized by "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?
@blaisingm I didn't see the rest of you arguement, but you can't honestly think you made a point with your last statement can you? "Scientists in biology are ALWAYS referring to design. Even ur buddy Dawkins will apply the concept of design on organisms. U're talking about goal orientated ID applied to organisms" You should be mature enough to know by now what "kind" of design we are talking about.
No one except the ignorant is claiming evolution is chance. The user cdk007 has a video explaining how the flagellar motor could've evolved via actual mechanisms
Unfortunately, the video by cdk007 is idiotic, in its utterly simplistic, wishfully speculative and desperately grasping, untestable and highly imaginative Darwinian "just-so " story telling. To put it another way, the very best computer simulations of flagellar assembly and operation are crude caricatures of the true complexity of the flagellum as it exists today. By comparison, evolutionary accounts of the flagellum are utterly preposterous.
@IDtaksovr Flagellum is catch 22 for Christianity. If you say it had to be designed then you say God deliberately created the bacteria which cause so much misery & suffering, also God never told anyone the cure, Jesus never either, in fact he said don't bother washing hands before eating (Mark7). If you say well flagellum could evolve after the fall, then everything else could evolve since it is very complex so the Bible is proven false. There could be a good god who takes everyone to heaven.
If ID proves reliably that intelligent causation has been in operation in the universe, then we must go with the SCIENCE. Having established that ID may be reliably inferred, it is the problem of THEOLOGIANS and PHILOSOPHERS to deal with the implications of the science.
Theological arguments concerning whether flagellated creatures can do us harm, are no more relevant to the question of whether ID is true, than than arguments concerning the existence of sharp teeth in other animals.
@IDtaksovr I thought Behe conceded that the flagellar motor could have evolved. See Ken Miller.It will be interesting to see if the evidence firms up. Could you imagine a hypothetical situation where a god magically creates good bacteria which then go to the dark side?Are bad bacteria just in wrong place? What about Genesis 3v16 claiming that God deliberately made childbirth more difficult. Surely a cruel thing to do? Did people compare to easier animal births or to an imaginary perfect Eden
I imagine a world in thich materialists and atheists spend their lives using theology to counter observation and evidence. While believers are turning into something like scientists (I'm tempted to say "evolving"), the Darwinists are becoming a dogmatic religious order.
Why not be the first person to present me with a detailed, testable model, showing the Darwinian evolution of the bacterial flagellum. Then it really doesn't matter what Behe says.
@zytigon Cruel? Well, if you told someone, Don't touch the stove, and then they touched the stove and are then burned, how is that cruel? That is all that happened, sin is introduced, and "bad" things happen, IMAGINE THAT. You screw up with simple instructions and something not good happens. OR hell, maybe he did do it, its a punishment, what more explanation do you want, its a punishment, meaning you displeased someone and have conseqeunces, the word cruel has nothing to do with it.
@MagnusCattus Well an all knowing good God could have done all that was necessary to prevent disaster- even destroyed Earth before Adam & Eve erred. I think it is more likely that Bible has people going to hell because people don't like the idea of going the same place as those who have done serious crime. People think it will help law & order to threaten a hell. Jesus would only be a hero if he took everyone to heaven. Bible says do not condemn but condemns most, contradiction?
@zytigon Hell is not Biblical. You cannot burn eternally, because the act of burning completlty destroys. rather, you burn, and are in turn destroyed for eternity. A simple misdirection used by Satan. The fact you brought up hellfire confirms my earlier statements about atheists. That is a totally emotional response, and by rights it is justified. But could it be, someone has manipulated the churches into preaching this Dogma of hellfire? Something to ponder on. And no such fossils exist.
It is strange how materialists automatically divert to clumsy, un-nuanced attacks on traditional religion whenever major problems with their Victorian theory of biological origins are highlighted. I have noted this behaviour with amusement for years. Surely a genuine "scientist", having no ulterior motive than to discover the truth, ought to welcome challenges to their pet theories and assumptions, and should wish to respond to such challenges in the coin of SCIENCE
@IDtaksovr You seem to be an intelligent fellow, and I leave it up to men like you to accomplish the science aspect of defending God, and my focus is on the Bible so I defend it as profoundly as I can. In a way I envy you, but I have learned a few tricks here and there myself. You probably have already read volumes on this, but I think DNA is another interesting and obvious indication of design. The so called "junk DNA" that so long was overlooked, is now recognised as "a gold mine".
It is important to recognise that worship of the "product" (i.e. the material universe) has replaced worship of the Producer. Science worship has replaced worship of God. Scientists are the new secular "priesthood". In this increasingly confused and misguided time, even moral judgements are often justified by reference to some scientific principle. Given the degree to which our society is being indoctrinated into the cult of scientism, all believers need be informed
@IDtaksovr INterestingly enough i was thinking about writing about that subject, the cult of science would be a good term. Heres the thing. All the necesseities of a religion exist within the scientific realm. We have a God-that being science(in the case of evolution it be mutation/selection, since it can accomplish anything, no matter how miraculous) It has a form of worship, that being hurbris and atheistic lifestyle. It has an ecclesiarchal party, scientisits. it has churches-labs.
"Science" can be a force for good, provided it operates within the theistic worldview. e.g. Science is bringing us as close as possible to establishing the existence of the transcendent God of theism, using publically accessible knowledge. Theism provides a Divine mandate to use the products of science responsibly. The problem arises when "science" is taken to be the sole provider of reliable knowledge, and scientists start behaving like a priestly cast i.e. "scientism"
@IDtaksovr More on its worship. The worship and veneration of what one would like to call advancement. Everything must have a "scientific" answer, and the qualified is, that for some reason transcendant reality cannot exist. IE, God or heavenly creatures. It even has its own form of religious ignorance/intolerance. That would be the rejection of any form of other religion to account for like origninating. You can see in the case of global warming too, this ignorance is displayed.
"Everything must have a "scientific" answer, and the qualified is, that for some reason transcendant reality cannot exist."
Professor Phillip E. Johnson brilliantly identified "naturalism" as the going in assumption of modern science, in his book "Darwin on Trial". His book explains in laymans terms how science has morphed from being an unbridled search for the truth, into the seach for the best naturalistic explanations i.e. explanations that exclude design or purpose
IDtaksovr, you're starting to hurt my feelings when you abandoned our debate well over a month ago. Can't we still be friends and continue our debate? Would you do me the service of explaining WHY you abandoned our debate?
@IDtaksovr I'd like to point out, im not saying global warming isnt a reality, but all the evidence to the negative of this claim has been thrown out much like all the evidence for ID is ignored and swept under the rug, hoping no one will find it. But now I really don't know what to think on the issue of global warming. I've seen with my own eyes the planet seems to be warming, but on the other hand these zealots are preaching it so now I can't be sure anymore.
Comparing the evo controversy to that over GW is a good example. Both communities combine uncontroversial claims, with highly disputed ones. we get presented with the solid stuff, but then get told to accept the whole package in order to stay in the club. It has been known for decades that scientists often go to extreme lengths, such as this, in order to defend their "paradigm" e.g. Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" shows this clearly.
@IDtaksovr I dont understand what you mean by GW. Science can be a force for good, infact it usually is, unfortunatly, just as SOME muslims or SOME christians interpret meanings differently and some how end up with a whole lot of deaths, Science ends up doing the same thing, that is misinterpreting. I am not comparing the "evils" of naturalism to that of some theists because there is no comparison, BUT the concept and the lying is present.
@MagnusCattus Anyway homosapien evolved from a troupe of protoApes. Culture evolves. Keep going back & you will see people indistinguishable from other primates. Have you tried R. Dawkins, ' The ancestors tail' it is good. Eternal Torture is against the Geneva convention. Would a God who sent most people to be tortured just for thinking the Bible sounds like fiction be worthy of worship? If all things are possible for God then why not take everyone to heaven- make new; 2Cor15v17
@zytigon your comment about mark 7:2. No, you're wrong. He was emphasising the pharisees adherence to tradition that was arbitrary to what the Bible actualy said. In this case washing your hands was part of the Old testament, that is why the pharisees even commented on it. It is very likely they that they did wash, just not to the elbows as was the tradition. They possibly also did not wash propperly because they were tired, from healing all day at the docks. 2 verses earlier.
@zytigon He then goes on in detail to describe what defiles a man, is from the inside not the outside. He was using an illustration; the pharisees thought someone defiled for not washing to an exact custom, was not simply dirty but had in some manner sinned. Jesus was explaining this was arbitrary to the Bible, at least to the degree they used it, and even if not, Jesus was bringing about a better covanent anyways. So, he explained it is by your actions, and thoughts you become defiled.
@zytigon I could probably go on for awhile about why you are wrong, but I would like you to know I do not wish to deride you, and apologise if it came accross as such. You have, limited knowledge of the scriptures... is that accurate to say? I can't fault you for that, but I hope this opened your eyes a bit. Sometimes doing research is good, even in the case of the Bible.
@MagnusCattus Thanks for your interesting apologetics. Jesus could have said, "Washing hands in clean water before eating / medical procedures / helping childbirth is beneficial to health as it reduces risk from harmful bacteria." However nowhere is Jesus recorded saying such, Maybe cause he didn't know. It was a primitive pre scientific society. They guessed at even basic stuff. Mk 7 has Jesus being quite negative. Premature deaths could have been prevented if J explained germs
@zytigon Or it wasn't imporatant? whats 80 years vs an eternity. How could he have explained Germs, what would the primitives at the time have understood about it? ya good come back. God chooses not to know the outcome of certain events, because it defeats the purpose of having said events. If he had KNOWN adam and eve would sin, he wouldn't have bothered creating them, so he didn't know. If you want to say thats not all knowing by my geust, it doesn't help you at all.
"If you say it had to be designed then you say God deliberately created the bacteria which cause so much misery & suffering"
There are many theological replies to this ancient theological objection. The point is that SCIENCE now appears unambiguously to point towards a designing intelligence, so theologians will be forced to address the theological consequences. Despite the "problem of natural evil", ID takes us closer, not further from establishing the God of theism
Throughout my professional life and training, I can count on one hand the number of times in which evolutionary theory has been alluded to in any measure. This is primarily in comparative studies and animal models, which require considerable contrivances in order to maintain as a systematic methodology.
The simple fact is that Darwinian evolution is not needed as a basis of understanding for most biologically-related specialties. If anything, it introduces complications and inconsistencies.
You are absolutely correct. This point was well made by the late Philip S. Skell e.g. "Why Do We Invoke Darwin? - Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology by "
Darwinian theory has no heuristic value for serious biological research and is useful only to people who make a living from extending Darwinian theory through speculations such as:
"Standing Up to Fight: Does It Explain Why We Walk Upright and Why Women Like Tall Men?"
CONT--3 And the amazing amounts energy that was use to create the the universe,to control and manipulate such energy into the elements as we see in the universe,I cannot see it happening by chance.One reason is this.For example imagine seeing an atomic bomb releasing its energy as it ascends into the sky as a mushroom.Now ask yourself could mankind get that kind of energy that was released and put that kind of energy back into atomic particles.WHAT KIND OF FORCE WOULD YOU NEED TO DO THIS.
CONT--4 Here we are only talking about a small atomic bomb.Now consider.What kind of force would it take to control and manipulate at the beginnings of creation of the universe with the VAST amounts of energy into atomic particleS and then organize it into the universe we see.I can only agree with Einstein who said that "God does not play dice".I see purposeful design.
Cont --5 A point that must be made clear here is when discussing the visible and invisible.We are discussing the universe,visible and invisible. NOT the invisible realm of the Creator.
"What kind of force would it take to control and manipulate at the beginnings of creation of the universe with the VAST amounts of energy into atomic particleS and then organize it into the universe we see."
See my favourited video: "Roger Penrose Fine Tuning." This is the most spectacular example of this kind of fine tuning that I have comne across."
It is ironic that the evidence for extreme fine-tuning of the laws, constants and initial conditions of the universe was discovered by research within a supposedly materialistic framework.
The above simulations of the flagellum are extremely crude and dumbed down. Real flagella are operated (and initially built) by processes whose complexity boggles the mind. I think that a biochemist who believe that random mutation and natural selection adequately explains the origin of the flagellum, and a host of other cellular machines and systems, would need to leave their brain at the door when entering a science lab.
@IDtaksovr Of all the "creationists scientists" that were asked to testify at the Kitzmiller vs.Dover trial, Michael Behe was the only one that didn't chicken out and irreducible complexity was the only argument he had. The cheif science witness Ken Miller, destroyed Behe's argument using the same bacterial flagellum example that Behe used. He showed how the individual parts of the flagellum do have uses. After that Behe had nothing.Check ou his vid watch?v=m2alpk8PUd4&feature=related
@IDtaksovr Comparing organisms to cars is like comparing apples and plastic oranges. Cars don't have genes or reproductive systems so they can't mate, have offspring, and pass their genes to down to their baby cars with slight differences to themselves. If smart cars could reproduce then in a million years it is possible they could be monster trucks. We don't know how life started, but that doesn't mean your god exists and he did it. It also doesn't change the evidence that supports evolution.
You are begging the questiuon by assuming that just because organism can self replicate, they will inevitably evolve irreducibly complex machinery. This is pure faith. The fact that one or two components within IC machines could perfom other functions says nothing about if or how they came to exist within the full IC system in the first place.
@IDtaksovr Evolution doesn't try to tell us how life came into existence, that is abiogenesis which has not been proven yet. Evolution only addresses heretable change and it has been proven. The fossil record shows us that life started off as very simple single celled organisms and stayed simple for a very long time. Eventually more complex single celled organisms arose, then multicellular oganisms, then complex multicellular organisms etc etc. Organisms got increasingly complex over time.
"Evolution doesn't try to tell us how life came into existence."
Behe addresses the failure of Darwinian theory to account for the evolution of irreducibly complex biochemistry. Miller points to components that could (theoretically) have had some other function, but fails to provide any detailed accounts of how the parts could have come about in the first place and how they came together. Behe is right. We have no detailed testable models. (BTW This is nothing to do with abiogenesis.)
@IDtaksovr There are a lot of things that the theory of evolution fails to explain and after that humiliating and embarassing pounding that Behe took on the stand, he will never be stupid enough to try and adress those failures in a court of law ever again. There are however, many things that evolution does explain. It doesn't matter if we don't know how it all started or how some of the parts came together. It does not change the massive amounts of evidence we have to support evolution.
"after that humiliating and embarassing pounding that Behe took on the stand"
By failing to provide any of the evidence against Behe's claims and resorting to personal attacks, you only humiliate yourself. I am offering you the chance to provide a single example showing the Darwinian evolution of an irreducibly complex structure. Behe asks for "detailed testable models". Dozens were allegedly presented at Dover, if the hype is to believed. Just show me one such example.....
@IDtaksovr That is not a personal attack, that is simply stating the truth. When presented with huge amounts of published papers supporting evolution Behe would just deny it all without any further explanation making it obvious that he had not even read any of the evidence submitted. When it came time to go to court in Kansas, Behe refused to testify. If you know about the detailed testable models why ask me about them? If there are testable models great if not, it doesn't change anything.
"When presented with huge amounts of published papers supporting evolution"
But we weren't talking about evidence for "evolution", were we. We were discussing the very specific failure of the Darwinian mechanism to account for the emergence of irreducibly complex biochemical systems. Where is the evidence in that mountain of papers that were dumped in front Behe? Where are the detailed testable models that address his specific challenge?. Can you provide me with a single paper?
@IDtaksovr I am not a biologist but the biologists I've talked to say the term irreducibly complex does not exist in biology. That term was invented by creationists and is used exclusively by creationists. Ken miller showed that parts of the flagellum do have functions, that alone proves Behe's example of irreducible complexity was wrong regardless of how the parts came together. Other examples of IC like the human eye have also been proven wrong. I don't have to go any farther.
"biologists I've talked to say the term irreducibly complex does not exist in biology"
Behe is a biochemist and has coined the term "irreducible complexity", so it does exist in biology. An IC structure is one consisting of multiple component parts, all of which are required for a function to be achieved. Please ask these biologists who are advising you to suggest a paper showing detailed testable models of how such biochemical systems could emerge by the Darwinian process.
@IDtaksovr One religiously motivated biochemist invents and uses a term so that means it exists in biology? No. Behe's work is rejected by his colleagues. Behe will never get anything published in a reputable scientific journal because his work cannot survive the peer review process. Behe will never again take the stand to try and defend creationism in court against other proffesional biologists. Behe will only preach his flawed concepts to the creationist choir. That is all I need to know.
Checkm out Behe's latest peer reviewed paper supporting the ID position:
"Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and 'The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution", arguing that "the most common adaptive changes seen ... are due to the loss or modification of a pre-existing molecular function."
@IDtaksovr Wow, he did get something published. Good for him. Too bad that same Dec. issue also had an article called "Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience" The article states that,"IC as described by Michael Behe, is a conveniently vague concept. IC advocates use the grey areas in the concept's definition to evade criticism from evolutionary biologists". He got a new idea published and an old idea demolished in the same issue!
So you were wrong about your claim that: "Behe will never get anything published in a reputable scientific journal because his work cannot survive the peer review..." and that "irreducibly complex does not exist in biology" That's nice! But I'm still waiting for the crucial papers demonstrating that Darwinian processes really can produce irreducibly complex structtures, from the Dover trial. You can't provide me with a single paper, can you?
IDtaksovr, while jmg94 was incorrect about Dr Behe not being published, he was correct about Dr Behe's publications as far as evidence supporting ID goes. Being written by Dr Behe does not make it a paper supporting the ID position. A testable hypothesis about ID and supporting research makes it a paper supporting the ID position.
Why should scientists bother to refute Dr Behe's opinion when he has not bothered to make a testable hypothesis and test it? If he won't research it, why should they?
@IDtaksovr Yes I was wrong about Behe getting published but I stand by my statement that irreducible complexity is bogus and another article in that very same publication explains why IC is pseudoscience. No I won't give you the papers (which are not crucial) that you want because as Iv'e said before. Even if evolution (not Darwinism) can't explain everything, evolution still has overwhelming evidence everywhere to back it up. ID has not a shred of evidence anywhere to back it up.
@IDtaksovr Let's look at what Behe published, "For 40 years, scientists have used quickly reproducing bacteria and viruses to watch evolution in action in the laboratory". I agree 100%. "Behe points out that, these adaptive mutations come in three varieties: those that result in a loss of function, a modification of function, or a gain of a new function" Sounds like evolution to me. "the vast majority are loss-of-function mutations". So what? that is still proof of evolution if he is right.
@IDtaksovr U of Chicago Bio prof Jerry Coyne said, "While Behe's study is useful in summarizing how adaptive evolution has operated over the short term in bacteria and viruses in the lab, it's far less useful in summarizing how evolution has happened over the long term in bacteria, viruses, or in eukaryotes in nature. In this sense it says nothing about whether new genes and gene functions have been important in the evolution of life". To simulate nature you need time and contact with other DNA
"Behe's study is useful in summarizing how adaptive evolution has operated over the short term in bacteria and viruses in the lab"
Behes paper looks at the very best observed examples of adaptive change by natural selection acting on random mutations in the wild that we have. e.g. his paper involves a careful analysis of all the mutations known to have occurred in the astronomically large malaria populations, and finds them to be trivial. Coyne is twisting the truth. Check for yourself.
@IDtaksovr No Behe's paper looks mostly at examples of evolution in the lab, not in nature. Coyne states. "In virtually none of the experiments summarized by Behe was there the possibility of adapting the way that many bacteria and viruses adapt in nature: by the uptake of DNA from other microbes". " In relatively short-term lab experiments there has simply not been enough time to observe the accumulation of complex FCTs" . To simulate nature requires time and interaction with other DNA.
"Behe's paper looks mostly at examples of evolution in the lab, not in nature"
Behe adresses the very BEST evidence we have to date, from nature and from the lab, for the ability of NS and RM to generate irreducibly complex structures. See: "The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution: A reply to Jerry Coyne". If you have any further evidence of the creative power of the Darwinian mechanism operating in the wild that Behe missed, lets see it. Perhaps it's in all those elusive Dover papers?
@IDtaksovr Irreducibly complexity is pseudoscience. See my last comment. As far as bacteria generating new complex structures, how about nylon eating bacteria, Nylonase? Faced with such an obvious production of a new gene with a novel function, creationists tried to claim this was a loss of information, That of course didn't fly, as the nylonases are exquisitely specific, act on no known amide bond other than the nylon beta amide bond, and have no relationship to any known protease.
After around a dozen posts, you have finally produced a single example of NS and RM evolving an "irreducibly complex" structure. Before giving Behe's reply to the nylonase example, can you assure me that this is the best example you have of the Darwinian process allegedly evolving a novel, irreducibly complex function.
@IDtaksovr Irreducible complexity is pseudoscience. Read the article in the Dec issue of The Quarterly review of Biology just below Behe's article to try and get that point through your thick skull. There is no Darwinian process, it is called evolution. No I don't know if Nylonase is the best example of evolution and I don't care. It doesn't matter. Adding or removing one pebble from a mountain of evidence does not change anything. Evolution is still a fact and ID is still pure fantasy.
"There is no Darwinian process, it is called evolution"
Saying that "evolution" happened only raises the question: why did it happen? and what do you mean by "evolution"? Some ID proponents, like Behe, believe that "evolution" happened, but also that there is no evidence that the principal materialistic mechanism put forward (i.e. RM and NS) is sufficient to account for IC structures. The very best examples put forward, like nylonase, involve trivial modifications to existing structures
@IDtaksovr We don't need to know why evolution happened happened to know that it happened. The fossil record alone proves chronologically that life started out very simple and got more complicated and more diversified over time Today we can witness evolution happening and it is not all with loss of function mutations like Behe claims. Either evolution is a fact or your creator is still creating to this day. I predict "Continous Creation" will be the next christian craze after ID finally dies.
As Behe states: "Those enzymes are very simple ones which simply hydrolyze precursors to nylon. That’s a very simple task, which can be done even by small organic catalysts". Gaining the ability to hydrolize a molecule is impressive, but it pales into insignificance, compared to the unfathomably complex IC systems that Behe discusses in Darwins black box. Behe was right about the failure of Darwinian processes. The Dover trial evidence against IC was an excercise in courtroom theatrics.
@IDtaksovr Behe He has been caught being deceitful, misquoting, fudgeing the truth, and drawing misguided conclusions in the past so I can't trust what he states as the Dec issue of The Quartery review of biology proves in the article just below Behe's new futile argument. Because I'm not a biologist,I look to what the whole biological community is saying and the biological community overall says that Darwin's Black Box, IC, and Behe's latest study all had lies and or elements of deceit in them.
"Because I'm not a biologist,I look to what the whole biological community is saying.."
So you admit to being a blind follower? How can you be sure that you aren't merely passing on propaganda, if you know little of biology? You are ignoring the fact that the Darwinian community (rather than the whole biological community) is saying nothing about the Darwinian evolution of IC biochemical systems, because ther is nothing to say. Where are all the RELEVANT papers addressing Behe's point?
@IDtaksovr Yes I am blindly following 99.9% of the biological community and you are blindly following the other .1%. Your ingoring the fact that IC is pseudoscience and you are still ingnoring the fact that evolution is supported by a mountain of evidence from many different scientific disciplines. Attacking one point in one field of science that evolution can't explain, accomplishes nothing. Even if everything that you and Behe say is right, (LMAO!) evolution is still an indisputable fact.
"Yes I am blindly following 99.9% of the biological community"
Correction. You are blindly following 1% of the biological community, because 99% of biologists are engaged in serious research into unravelling the unfathomable complexity of life as it is today, and 1% are engaged in the far more speculative question of how those unfathomably complex lifeforms came to be in the first place. You, like the 99% of biologists, are a blind follower. This is the fallacy of arguing from authority
@IDtaksovr No the argument from authority argues that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. That is what creationists do. I am not saying that the vast majority of biologists are correct because they are the majority. I'm saying they are right because they possess all the evidence and they win in the halls of academia and in the courtroom. It is prudent to go with the ones that always win.
"I'm saying they are right because they possess all the evidence and they win in the halls of academia and in the courtroom. It is prudent to go with the ones that always win"
I'm glad that you have retracted your claim that we should support Darwinism and reject ID on the basis of an appeal to the current biological "consensus". BTW. If they (i.e the Darwinists) possess all the evidence, then where is the evidence that the Darwinian mechanism can evolve irreducibly complex structures?
The vast majority of the biological community (those who don't study evolution) have been fooled by the shameless propaganda and misrepresentations being directed at Behes irreducible complexity argument. Behe is an evolutionists. He believes in "evolution". He accepts that many facts support evolution. He points out the complete lack of evidence for the assertion that the Darwinian mechanism can evolve IC systems. Have a quiet think about that
@IDtaksovr Have a quiet think about this shit for brains. Evolution is supported by evidence from almost every field of science. Evolution has the entire fossil record, archaeology, paleontology, anthropology, radio isotope measuring, embryology, taxonomy, DNA science, geographical distribution etc. etc.. Evolution has everything on it's side you stupid fucking asshole. Even if IC was true and not obviously bullshit, it doesn't fucking matter. I know you can't be this stupid. Fuck off you liar.
"Evolution is supported by evidence from almost every field of science.."
LOL. Decide what you are arguing for kid. Behe accepts much of the evidence for evolution. e.g. he believes in common descent, as do many ID proponents. More importantly, he shows that the principle mechanism put forward as an explanation for that evolution i.e. the Darwinian mechanism, has never been observed to produce anything remotely like an irreducibly complex system. You guys believe that on pure faith!
@JCrownwell I kept the discussion civil for as long as I could but it is hard when the other person keeps on bringing up the same point that is shot down repeatedly and tells outright lies like "biologists have been fooled by shameless propaganda and misrepresentations" or that evolution is "a dying theory" when the fact is that evolution gets stronger every day and creationism still has nothing after 2000+ years. How can you be civil and respectful to someone who lies like that?
"you stupid f***ng asshole. Even if IC was true and not obviously bullshit, it doesn't f***ing matter. I know you can't be this stupid. F*** off you liar."
Who would've thought that presenting the facts about a centuries old and equally defunct theory of origins would have provoked such a beautiful coping response. Really, get out much?
"Behe He has been caught being deceitful, misquoting, fudgeing the truth, and drawing misguided conclusions"
That's merely an assertion. You have been fooled, by much rhetoric and hype, into believeng that loads of evidence exists, for the ability of the mutation and selection mechanism, to produce irreducibly complex structures. If such evidence really did exist, would it not be neatly packaged by the Darwinists, so that every loyal follower of Darwinism on the net can pass it around?
@IDtaksovr That's not an assertion, it is a consensus of the vast majority of biologists including a Christian named Ken Miller, the scientist who embarassed and humiliated Behe on the witness stand so bad that he will never show his lying face in a courtroom to defend creationism again. Maybe you should have taken Behe's place at that Kansas trial. Anyway, I'm done repeating myself. You know that IC is BS. You know that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and you don't care. Goodbye.
"Ken Miller, the scientist who embarassed and humiliated Behe on the witness stand"
You continue to embarrass yourself, through your inability to present the actual evidence that allegedly refutes Behes claim; that Darwinian evolution cannot explain the emergence of irreducibly complex structures. And Behe is not arguing against "evolution". Behe believes that "evolution" is a fact, but fact that the principle materialistic explanation, i.e. Darwinism, has completely failed to explain.
@IDtaksovr If you can keep repeating yourself then so can I. Irreducible complexity is pseudoscience. Irreducible complexity is pseudoscience. See the Dec issue of Quarterly Review of Biology. See the Dec issue of Quarterly Review of Biology. It's like asking evolution to explain leprechauns. So if Behe accepts evolution, what is he saying? That microevolution is true and macroevolution is false and God ceated the fossil record to throw us off? On second thought, don't. Good bye forever IDisovr
You're passing on and repeating assertions that you can't support with evidence. Don't you realise that in doing so, you are behaving like every religious "fundie" in history? If irreducible complexity is no obstacle to Darwinian evolution then prove me wrong. Quarterly Review of Biology may have published a diatribe against Behe's work, in penance for publishing his original article, but where's the meat? Where are the detailed testable models?
@IDtaksovr OK no more mister nice guy. I've kept civil up till now but no more you fucking retard. I am quoting the same science journal that you are using to brag up Behe. You thought you were so fucking smart that you found a reputable science journal that Behe got something published in. As it turns out his article is irrelevant because those studies don't simulate nature and another article in the same fucking issue exposes Behe's deceit about IC. It doesn't get any better than that.
"you fucking retard.....his article is irrelevant because those studies don't simulate nature..."
As Behe points out in a reply to the Quarterly Review article, not only do some of his examples come from the field, but also, the examples of evolution by mutation and selection chosen by him are the VERY BEST that the Darwinists have to offer. If you have better examples, lets see them. I can't wait. BTW your language suggests that you have already lost the argument.
"That's not an assertion, it is a consensus of the vast majority of biologists."
People appeal to consensus as a desperate last resort. You could have provided evidence that natural selection operating on random muatations can produce irreducibly complex systems. Instead your reply was: "i don't know anything about biology, but the consensus of opinion supports me". It's easy to see why this argument is a fallacy. Flat earth theory was once the scientific consensus ... and is was false
@IDtaksovr If you want detailed testable models of how biomechanical systems can emerge, ask a biologist. Creationists want a full complete explanation for everything including a fossil from every species that has ever existed which is impossible. We can only work with the evidence that we have. My point is even if we can't explain everything, including how every biomechanical system emerged, that does nothing to support ID/creationism and it doesn't hurt the theory of evolution one tiny bit.
"you want detailed testable models of how biomechanical systems can emerge, ask a biologist"
You may not be a biologist, but if Behe really had taken a "humiliating and embarassing pounding" on account of a false claim that "their are no detailed testable models showing how Darwinian processes can build IC structures", don't you believe that examples would be circulated by the Darwinists. dozens of papers were dumped in from of Behe, allegedly refuting him. I'm only asking you for one.
IDtaksovr, where is the peer reviewed research supporting his challenge? For that matter, where is Dr Behe's research to support his claim? If he didn't think it was important enough to make a testable hypothesis and test it, why should anyone else bother?
Of course a few did bother, and you still haven't addressed their work in /all_comments?v=GkdRdik73kU.
@JustAnotherMutant I stand corrected. Behe seemed to get the most attention though. I would really like to know why Demski and Meyer thought it wasn't worth their time to go to court and defend ID being taught in the classroom when they spend all of their time trying to tell eveyone that evolution is a lie that and ID is supported by scientific evidence. By refusing to testify, Demski and Meyer are either admitting that their arguments are false, or that they don't care what children are taught.
I was just thinking that some people mock the idea of an eternal Creator,that God has always been,always existing through the eons of time.Because as humans we have not yet grasp what it means to be eternal,something that has always existed.And yet they CAN believe that life somehow all life came from non-life at sometime in the universe,and yet they cannot explain it,cannot prove it,but still accept it with no proof of HOW really happened.
"...some people mock the idea of an eternal Creator,that God has always been,always existing through the eons of time."
Scientists know consider space and time to be interrelated, but theists have believed, for several hundred years, that the universe was created WITH time, rather than IN time, by a Creator that stands outside time and is not subject to it. Like space and matter, time is seen part of the creation. Scientists now believe that even time began at a finite point .
@IDtaksovr One concept that I am very intrested in is that of space Itself.Was space, there BEFORE Creation or was space created along with universe with the rest of Creation.I have my reasons for asking these questions.One reason is,we know that space is INVISIBLE to us humans.Most people would consider space as nothing and yet without it, the physical universe would not exist,no time as we know it,no energy as we know it,no light, no matter, ect. The point is that the physical universe Cont
Cont --1 exists within the invisible creation which cannot be seen by the human eye. In fact if you were to combine all matter and energy of universe into one block,I would guess that over 99 percent of the universe is space that would be invisible to the human eye.The point without going into more details,much of the universe is in fact invisible to us humans.There many invisible forces,laws and energys,some of these we use ourselves everyday.(If you want to join in feel free to discuss)CONT-
Cont--2 We live in a physical world,but we are surrounded by a visible and invisible universe.If the physical universe came from the invisible,what was the FIRST CAUSE. How come the universe is a masterpiece of organization,in the laws of physics,in the design in nature.The strong and weak nuclear forces,gravity,
electromagnetism ect.What I percieve is an invisible,super intelligent beyond human understanding.But there is more When I see the universe and the powers of Creation,CONT-
CONT-3 And the amazing amounts energy that was use to create the the universe,to control and manipulate such energy into the elements as we see in the universe,I cannot see it happening by chance.One reason is this.For example imagine seeing an atomic bomb releasing its energy as it ascends into the sky as a mushroom.Now ask yourself could mankind get that kind of energy that was released and put that kind of energy back into atomic particles.WHAT KIND OF FORCE WOULD YOU NEED TO DO THIS. CONT
CONT-3 And the amazing amounts energy that was use to create the the universe,to control and manipulate such energy into the elements as we see in the universe,I cannot see it happening by chance.One reason is this.For example imagine seeing an atomic bomb releasing its energy as it ascends into the sky as a mushroom.Now ask yourself could mankind get that kind of energy that was released and put that kind of energy back into atomic particles.WHAT KIND OF FORCE WOULD YOU NEED TO DO THIS. Cont
@DandBMonk - "How, without the rotor and all being created simultaneously with the stem cause the organism to move away?"
"The rotor was there first. What is your background in all this?"--This was your response to my question. What you're missing is...the rotor would have no function and no reason without the flagella stem, hook, crank, etc. So no...the rotor couldn't come first unless you can find an alternative function.
Actually, this is only true, in a sense (that is why I removed that post. The "rotor" was the Tol-Pol system which moves protons across the cell membrane (used in the secretory system).
This evidence has been around for quite some time, and it is quite conclusive. Yet still these false debates about Evolution and ID linger on, and videos like this get 36 views. No one can deny THAT much at least is by design. Notice I did not use the word "intelligent"... there is nothing intelligent about any of this discourse. All I can do is ask... what by god is wrong with people that they cannot see what is right in front of their eyes?
It is not that some people can't see that the flagellum requires top-down design, but that they won't. The scientific community currently embraces a single pseudo-religious dogma called "naturalism". Naturalism is the idea that nothing interferes intelligently in the universe, which is a closed system of cause and effect. No matter how vastly improbable and obviously designed something is, it must somehow be interpreted according to this naturalistic dogma.
@IDtaksovr - "It is not that some people can't see that the flagellum requires top-down design, but that they won't."
The flagella has been shown to to have evolved from a simpler secretory system. Science has shown this in intricate detail. Perhaps looking at real micrographs of the flagella would show you that it is not a machine. per se, but a biological system. Trying to use science to confirm a worldview is dishonest, especially if you have not taken the time to learn the science.
The evolution of the flagellum from the TTSS remains unsupported speculation. "real micrographs of the flagella" reveall it to be a machine that differs from our own machines only insofar as it is technically far, far superior. BTW please tell Richard Dawkins that he is being dishonest for using science to confirm his atheistic worldview.
1) No scientist is claiming the flagellum came about by chance.
2) A testable model for the evolution of the flagellum has been developed by Nick Matzke.
3) A quick search on PubMed will reveal many articles that deal with the origin of flagellum.
But hey, don't let facts ruin your day. ;-D
DebunkingID 5 days ago
@assym2006
"youtube vid SdwTwNPyR9w"
Real flagella require tens of thousands of proteins of around forty varieties to be carefully arranged. They are constucted according to a precise programme, governed by feed back and quality control. I'm killing myself laughing at the stupidly simplistic "Matzke's pathway" to flagellar "evolution".
If I showed you a cartoon of a Smurf emerging from a blob of modeling clay, would you take that as evidence for the origins of human beings?
IDtaksovr 1 month ago
@assym2006
"Every fossil is proof of evolution."
Of course it is - to a true believer......
The Darwinian fundamentalist can do nothing other than interpret fossil evidence, no matter how contrary to any materialistic theory of evolution, as evidence FOR that theory evolution. If tomorrow Darwinist palaeontologists finally admit to huge unbridgeable gaps in the fossil record, they will conclude that "evolution" is a wonderfully powerful and mysterious force - but still a fact.
IDtaksovr 1 month ago
Evolution is a model based NOT on experimental verification and validation, but rather on personal preferences. God is NOT religion; He IS...period. Folks don't like Intelligent Design as this inevitably reduces to THEMSELVES being involved in the equation...that.THEY ARE DESIGNED. Like Ken Miller (pseudo-scientist at Brown University), they will go through ANY lengths to avoid the obvious. TOO BAD...real science CLEARLY indicates the presence of a MASTER DESIGNER...and Father.
cliffordanthonypaiva 1 month ago
@cliffordanthonypaiva
"Evolution is a model based .... on personal preferences"
Like any devoted religious believers, Darwinists view the world through the lens of THEIR particular faith based assumptions. We need to thanks to Phillip E. Johnson for identifying "philosophical naturalism" as the fundamental dogma that underwrites Darwinian theory, other naturalistic evolutionary theories and materialistic science in general.
IDtaksovr 1 month ago
@IDtaksovr "Like any devoted religious believers, Darwinists"
Wow! You have retreated back to the comfort of your own videos agreeing with your sheep. I'm so disappointed that you won't come back out and argue/debate with us 'Darwinists'. Admittedly, I miss your arguments. Granted, I'm sure it's tough being manhandled by educated people, but why does that stop you now?
blaisingm 1 month ago
@blaisingm
"why does that stop you now?"
It's more important to inform the next generation about the evidence for intelligent design, than to debate endlessly with those for whom no amount of evidence will make a difference e.g. due to rigid philosophical presuppositions. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of ID, yet it will take generations to change entrenched worldviews
"Science advances one funeral at a time" -- Max Planck
IDtaksovr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IDtaksovr "to debate endlessly with those for whom no amount of evidence will make a difference"
Hummm... That's not true at all. In fact, I'll admit right here and now in an effort to quell such nonsense: There could very well be an intelligent designer/s that has designed all life. I would even extrapolate this presupposition: There could very well be an ID'er who designed EVERYTHING. Can you quote 1 reputable/published scientist or scholar (etc) who claims that ID is impossible?
blaisingm 1 month ago
@IDtaksovr "next generation about the evidence for intelligent design"
Is that what your doing?? All I read is patting each other on the back for agreement on: ID = good, evolution = bad intermixed with the occasional: That's not evidence for evolution (no matter what the proposed evidence). Are you or EJsigstrat (or any proponent for ID) actually engaged in ID research? What evidence has your hard work and research unearthed? Unlikely any productivity since ID isn't even a theory.
blaisingm 1 month ago
@IDtaksovr "It's more important to inform the next generation about the evidence for intelligent design"
Perhaps I'm not being fair...So what should be done? In an ideal IDtaksvr world, what programs should be put into place or what changes should be made to see your vision come to fruition? For example, what would an ID lab exercise look like in a science class? If this is honestly your goal/end game, then you must have SOME ideas. Right?
blaisingm 1 month ago
@IDtaksovr "to debate endlessly with those for whom"
No replies for my questions last week?? Even when I agree with a few of your points? O.K., I'll leave you alone IDtaksovr. I thought I could squeeze that debate out of you, but I need to start listening to your deafening silence. Apparently, somewhere along the way, you've lost the will to defend ID. Perhaps you should change your Youtube name to IDisovr?
blaisingm 1 month ago
@cliffordanthonypaiva "Evolution is a model based NOT on experimental verification and validation, but rather on personal preferences."
Interesting claim but not uncommon. How familiar are you with the sciences? Could your sentiments toward evolutionary theory be extrapolated to other scientific theories? For example, is plate tectonic theory ALSO devoid of "experimental verification and validation"? Could you apply your claims to atomic theory as well? Why or why not?
blaisingm 1 month ago
@assym2006 lol
MagnusCattus 1 month ago
Evolutionists and atheists are just an enigma to me. I'm amazed how people just assume that Darwinism explains everything. My contention is that it explains nothing. Throw your largest bucket of Legos into a tornado and see what you end up with. Do it 89 trillion times and see what u end up with. It is utter nonsense. Those who deny creationism are weak minded fools, destined for eventual enlightenment that will be embarrassing beyond their comprehension.
EJsigstrat 1 month ago
@EJsigstrat
Darwinian theory may seem stupid, if you come at the evidence without any philosophical baggage or preconceptions, but it looks a whole lot better if you have already signed up to the creed of "naturalism". Having sworn allegiance to the faith based notion that the universe is a self enclosed system of cause and effect, with no purposive or intelligently guided forces in operation, something like Darwinian theory quickly becomes the "best" explanation out of a bad bunch.
IDtaksovr 1 month ago
@EJsigstrat
If you arbitrarily assume naturalism dogmatically at the outset, and arbitrarily rule out any possibility of intelligent design at the outset, then Darwinian theory is not going to look nearly as bad as it otherwise might. With ID safely ruled out a priori, massive evidential problems with Darwinian theory become "exiting challenges" for generations of eager Darwinians in future. Ruling out the main traditional competitor to a theory is one way to win an argument.
IDtaksovr 1 month ago
@assym2006 Except he does exist, and evolution is impossible. See I make statements without backing them up too.
To any rational person, this is more than enough to convince them evolution is just a joke of a scientific theory. You should be embarrassed you accept it without looking into its flaws.
MagnusCattus 1 month ago
@assym2006 - What does god have to do with this discussion and do you have an excuse for why you cited an unrealistic path for flagellar evolution?
JeffreyHelix 1 month ago
@assym2006 - Nick Matzke's pathway featured in the vid not only hasn't been replicated but it cannot happen because all the so-called "homologies" featured are the result of using default BLAST search settings. Aside from that there is more evidence to suggest that the TTSS is not a predecessor to the rotary flagellum but rather evolved as the result of the flagellum losing parts.
If a biological feature requires an adaptation that is by itself deleterious, then it probably won't happen.
JeffreyHelix 1 month ago
Much like those theists who still think the earth is 6k years old. By willingly ignoring things that niether contradict their relgion nor have any serious flaws in them, it becomes fanaticism.
There is a good qeustion to ask in all this, not what is the probability of something like this coming about randomly, but WHY is the suggestion it is designed hard to swallow? You see, it is not the persuit of science, it is trying to hold together something they wasted their lives preaching.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
@MagnusCattus
"WHY is the suggestion it is designed hard to swallow"
Design is hard for the present scientific orthodoxy to swallow, not because it is in any way contrary to, or in conflict with science, but simply because materialistic science "cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door". Please google the full quote by the geneticist Richard Lewontin in his book review ( of materialist cosmologist Carl Sagans book "The Demon-Haunted World")
IDtaksovr 2 months ago
Oh man, my grammer was a mess. Sorry I've been up till 5 AM 3 nights ina row, its starting to come out in my typing. I meant to say in my 3rd comment, that their intolerance is of any other religion's account of how life originated. It seems unthinkable to them that Life could have been designed, no matter how obvious it is. It seems more likely somehow that a series of convoluded and mysterious events sounds more credible than design. This is called religious ignorance.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
@MagnusCa
"It seems unthinkable to them that Life could have been designed, no matter how obvious it is"
It IS unthinkable to the dogmatic naturalist. "Naturalists", who dominate the scientific establishment nowadays, have come to an unofficial agreement not to tolarate any explanation that appeals to purpose or design. The orthodoxy is enforced using the scientific "peer review" system, that, while intended to spot genuine errors, also serves to filter out "deviant ideologies"
IDtaksovr 2 months ago
@MagnusCat
Ironically, Darwinian evo theory is steeped in extra-scientific assumptions, including a number of theological ones. Darwin himself advanced a number of positive theological claims in his book "The Origin of Species", for why God would (in his opinion) choose to work exclusively via impersonal natural laws, rather than supervise and guide the emergence of species towards a preconceived and intended goal. See "Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species"
IDtaksovr 2 months ago
@IDtaksovr So I have been hearing a little bit about "life created from scratch" in the lab, and basicaly just getting dissiniformation. Venter is the name of a biologist who apparently was able to sort of create his own genome and insert it into another cell, and this genome can now reproduce. I don't doubt something like that could br possible, but where is this claim of life from scratch, I still havent found anything on it.
MagnusCattus 1 month ago
@MagnusCattus
"life created from scratch"
Venter was able to intelligently synthesize one of the simplest genomes of a single celled organism, and after spending tens of millions of pounds on research, to successfully insert that DNA into an organism that had its DNA removed earlier. This is NOTHING like achieving the impossible task of creating "life from scratch". In doing so, Venter proved that highly intelligent agents can plagiarise the works of superior Intelligent Agents
IDtaksovr 1 month ago
@MagnusCattus
(ctd) Due to the enormous technical difficulty involved in merely transplanting the plagiarized, synthesised DNA strand (into a pre-existing organism), which had to be precisely constructed according to the original plan for the experiment to work, Venter actually makes the case that without considerable intelligence at your disposal, such organisms would never arise in nature due to blind and purposeless processes acting on inert matter.
IDtaksovr 1 month ago
just reading now "signature in the cell" by stephen c meyer, fascinating book, also another really smart young earth creationist who gives talks is " Dr Karl Wieland guys a genius
dionstrezlecki 2 months ago
@dionstrezlecki
Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe is another great book that leaves you wondering why any intelligent person still maintains faith in the power of random mutations and natural selection to explain life's diversity and complexity.
IDtaksovr 2 months ago
And I have only ever heard of just a bit of information added onto already existing information.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
I meant to say lesser* homined creature.
I doubt they existed, but I wouldn't not be surprised if they did.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
Evolution is largly fictious. I don't pretend to say it has no merit, and isn't interesting, it is even plausible when taken at face value. But when looking at complexity it just falls apart.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
@MagnusCattus
"Evolution is largly fictious"
"Evolution" is an extremely slippery term, with meanings that range from the undisputed and banal, to the vastly speculative and unsupported. Darwinists frequently equivocate on the meaning of "evolution", in order to carry an argumnet by confusion i.e. they demonstrate the trivial, and then claim it as evidence for the profound. See "The Meanings of Evolution" by Meyer and Keas.
IDtaksovr 2 months ago
No fossils exist and even if they did exist, it is arbitrary. God created man and apes, let's say if it is infact the reality he did create everything just for a momment. If he created Humans, and apes, what would make it implossible he also created other apes and less homined creatures? Really, there is no contradiction there. And the bottom line is if humans evolved from a less homined creature they would stillbe around in some form, but the closest is apes, and they are nowhere near us.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
@MagnusCattus
"No fossils exist "
"Common descent" is ASSUMED a priori, by Darwinian evolutionists, and thereafter, all fossil finds are interpreded and arranged strictly in accordance with that crucial going in assumption. The patterns of common descent so "discovered" (actually, they are imposed) are then presented as EVIDENCE for common descent. i.e. evidence produced on the assumption of common descent, is presented as evidence for CD. This is blatant circular reasoning.
IDtaksovr 2 months ago
@IDtaksovr Of course, I see no reason to beleive evolution. Until we see one organism change into another, it is little more than a hypothesis, not even theory. I have pretty much had it up to here with it, but I might just read the book. They change the goal posts more often than any theist does.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
@MagnusCattus
If you ask any Darwinist for the most spectacular direct observation of the power of random mutation and natural selection to create novelty, you not get a human brain, a wing, an eye, a feather, or even a flagellum. You will instead be presented with some quirky new bacterial function that arises from some fairly trivial and statistically probable random mutations after many thousands of generations. Beyond that, the major claims are based on mere inference.
IDtaksovr 2 months ago
@IDtaksovr I never said fossils don't exist, just on clerification. I simply said no fossils pertaining to human ancestry exist, but that isn't entirely true. Some do, but the gaps between are so massive both physiologicaly and chronologicaly its pretty much a dumb statement to say we are related any further than we are related to a sea sponge. We are related because we have the same CREATOR, and he used the same DNA pattern design for us all.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
@MagnusCattus
I agree. While some fossils exist that may certainly be construed as belonging to a human evolutionary sequence, these fossils can be fitted into a small suitcase, and everything from their reconstruction (often from a few bone scraps), to their placement in the evolutionary scheme, is inferred based on the assumption that common descent is an undisputible fact, and that common design must be ruled out as an explanation for similarities.
IDtaksovr 2 months ago
@IDtaksovr Oh come now, I'm sure they must have one ape skeletons somewhere.... As far as information increase. I'm sure you have heard of the apparently "altered" video where they ask Richard Dawkins about any mutation increasing information. They always pull out some inchorent nonesense about the mot miniscule of change that I can't refute by shear obscurity. But the thing is, if informaiton is increased, we need to see information being added, and then information being added on top of that.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
Human nature is the real enemy of evolution.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
Great video. The real issue here, is not how could it have evolved, because any creative solution may be plausible to some, but why are they trying to assert it was not God? I ask you this because it is damning to the evolutionary theory. Why is this theory being asserted? Oh pardon me this "fact". Could it be they have an agenda? Could it be theres more money in teaching evolution? Could it be they don't want to admit they were wrong? All these factors and not a decent answer.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
@MagnusCa
Materialistic science, like any established church, has only one demand: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. For various philosophical and theological reasons, to explain something "scientifically", has become synonomous with providing an explanation that is strictly devoid of intelligence or purpose i.e. strictly "natural". There are no objective reasons why this must be so, but the assumption of "naturalism" has become the sacred cow of todays scientific orthodoxy
IDtaksovr 2 months ago
@IDtaksovr heh, "sacred cow" I like that one.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
@IDtaksovr "explanation that is strictly devoid of intelligence"
U know this isn't true. Scientists in biology are ALWAYS referring to design. Even ur buddy Dawkins will apply the concept of design on organisms. U're talking about goal orientated ID applied to organisms. There is a difference. Science is interested in more than explanation. Did you end our debate at:
Was "The Inner Life of a Cell" Plagiarized by "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?
Did u give up, and I 'won'?
blaisingm 2 months ago
@blaisingm I didn't see the rest of you arguement, but you can't honestly think you made a point with your last statement can you? "Scientists in biology are ALWAYS referring to design. Even ur buddy Dawkins will apply the concept of design on organisms. U're talking about goal orientated ID applied to organisms" You should be mature enough to know by now what "kind" of design we are talking about.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
No one except the ignorant is claiming evolution is chance. The user cdk007 has a video explaining how the flagellar motor could've evolved via actual mechanisms
gullly01 8 months ago
@gullly01
Unfortunately, the video by cdk007 is idiotic, in its utterly simplistic, wishfully speculative and desperately grasping, untestable and highly imaginative Darwinian "just-so " story telling. To put it another way, the very best computer simulations of flagellar assembly and operation are crude caricatures of the true complexity of the flagellum as it exists today. By comparison, evolutionary accounts of the flagellum are utterly preposterous.
IDtaksovr 7 months ago
@IDtaksovr Flagellum is catch 22 for Christianity. If you say it had to be designed then you say God deliberately created the bacteria which cause so much misery & suffering, also God never told anyone the cure, Jesus never either, in fact he said don't bother washing hands before eating (Mark7). If you say well flagellum could evolve after the fall, then everything else could evolve since it is very complex so the Bible is proven false. There could be a good god who takes everyone to heaven.
zytigon 4 months ago
@zytigon
If ID proves reliably that intelligent causation has been in operation in the universe, then we must go with the SCIENCE. Having established that ID may be reliably inferred, it is the problem of THEOLOGIANS and PHILOSOPHERS to deal with the implications of the science.
Theological arguments concerning whether flagellated creatures can do us harm, are no more relevant to the question of whether ID is true, than than arguments concerning the existence of sharp teeth in other animals.
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@IDtaksovr I thought Behe conceded that the flagellar motor could have evolved. See Ken Miller.It will be interesting to see if the evidence firms up. Could you imagine a hypothetical situation where a god magically creates good bacteria which then go to the dark side?Are bad bacteria just in wrong place? What about Genesis 3v16 claiming that God deliberately made childbirth more difficult. Surely a cruel thing to do? Did people compare to easier animal births or to an imaginary perfect Eden
zytigon 4 months ago
@zytigon
I imagine a world in thich materialists and atheists spend their lives using theology to counter observation and evidence. While believers are turning into something like scientists (I'm tempted to say "evolving"), the Darwinists are becoming a dogmatic religious order.
Why not be the first person to present me with a detailed, testable model, showing the Darwinian evolution of the bacterial flagellum. Then it really doesn't matter what Behe says.
IDtaksovr 4 months ago
@zytigon Cruel? Well, if you told someone, Don't touch the stove, and then they touched the stove and are then burned, how is that cruel? That is all that happened, sin is introduced, and "bad" things happen, IMAGINE THAT. You screw up with simple instructions and something not good happens. OR hell, maybe he did do it, its a punishment, what more explanation do you want, its a punishment, meaning you displeased someone and have conseqeunces, the word cruel has nothing to do with it.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
@MagnusCattus Well an all knowing good God could have done all that was necessary to prevent disaster- even destroyed Earth before Adam & Eve erred. I think it is more likely that Bible has people going to hell because people don't like the idea of going the same place as those who have done serious crime. People think it will help law & order to threaten a hell. Jesus would only be a hero if he took everyone to heaven. Bible says do not condemn but condemns most, contradiction?
zytigon 2 months ago
@zytigon Hell is not Biblical. You cannot burn eternally, because the act of burning completlty destroys. rather, you burn, and are in turn destroyed for eternity. A simple misdirection used by Satan. The fact you brought up hellfire confirms my earlier statements about atheists. That is a totally emotional response, and by rights it is justified. But could it be, someone has manipulated the churches into preaching this Dogma of hellfire? Something to ponder on. And no such fossils exist.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
@MagnusCattus
It is strange how materialists automatically divert to clumsy, un-nuanced attacks on traditional religion whenever major problems with their Victorian theory of biological origins are highlighted. I have noted this behaviour with amusement for years. Surely a genuine "scientist", having no ulterior motive than to discover the truth, ought to welcome challenges to their pet theories and assumptions, and should wish to respond to such challenges in the coin of SCIENCE
IDtaksovr 2 months ago
@IDtaksovr You seem to be an intelligent fellow, and I leave it up to men like you to accomplish the science aspect of defending God, and my focus is on the Bible so I defend it as profoundly as I can. In a way I envy you, but I have learned a few tricks here and there myself. You probably have already read volumes on this, but I think DNA is another interesting and obvious indication of design. The so called "junk DNA" that so long was overlooked, is now recognised as "a gold mine".
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
@MagnusCattu
It is important to recognise that worship of the "product" (i.e. the material universe) has replaced worship of the Producer. Science worship has replaced worship of God. Scientists are the new secular "priesthood". In this increasingly confused and misguided time, even moral judgements are often justified by reference to some scientific principle. Given the degree to which our society is being indoctrinated into the cult of scientism, all believers need be informed
IDtaksovr 2 months ago
@IDtaksovr INterestingly enough i was thinking about writing about that subject, the cult of science would be a good term. Heres the thing. All the necesseities of a religion exist within the scientific realm. We have a God-that being science(in the case of evolution it be mutation/selection, since it can accomplish anything, no matter how miraculous) It has a form of worship, that being hurbris and atheistic lifestyle. It has an ecclesiarchal party, scientisits. it has churches-labs.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
@MagnusCat
"Science" can be a force for good, provided it operates within the theistic worldview. e.g. Science is bringing us as close as possible to establishing the existence of the transcendent God of theism, using publically accessible knowledge. Theism provides a Divine mandate to use the products of science responsibly. The problem arises when "science" is taken to be the sole provider of reliable knowledge, and scientists start behaving like a priestly cast i.e. "scientism"
IDtaksovr 2 months ago
@IDtaksovr More on its worship. The worship and veneration of what one would like to call advancement. Everything must have a "scientific" answer, and the qualified is, that for some reason transcendant reality cannot exist. IE, God or heavenly creatures. It even has its own form of religious ignorance/intolerance. That would be the rejection of any form of other religion to account for like origninating. You can see in the case of global warming too, this ignorance is displayed.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
@MagnusCat
"Everything must have a "scientific" answer, and the qualified is, that for some reason transcendant reality cannot exist."
Professor Phillip E. Johnson brilliantly identified "naturalism" as the going in assumption of modern science, in his book "Darwin on Trial". His book explains in laymans terms how science has morphed from being an unbridled search for the truth, into the seach for the best naturalistic explanations i.e. explanations that exclude design or purpose
IDtaksovr 2 months ago
@IDtaksovr
IDtaksovr, you're starting to hurt my feelings when you abandoned our debate well over a month ago. Can't we still be friends and continue our debate? Would you do me the service of explaining WHY you abandoned our debate?
blaisingm 2 months ago
@IDtaksovr I'd like to point out, im not saying global warming isnt a reality, but all the evidence to the negative of this claim has been thrown out much like all the evidence for ID is ignored and swept under the rug, hoping no one will find it. But now I really don't know what to think on the issue of global warming. I've seen with my own eyes the planet seems to be warming, but on the other hand these zealots are preaching it so now I can't be sure anymore.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
@MagnusCattus
Comparing the evo controversy to that over GW is a good example. Both communities combine uncontroversial claims, with highly disputed ones. we get presented with the solid stuff, but then get told to accept the whole package in order to stay in the club. It has been known for decades that scientists often go to extreme lengths, such as this, in order to defend their "paradigm" e.g. Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" shows this clearly.
IDtaksovr 2 months ago
@IDtaksovr I dont understand what you mean by GW. Science can be a force for good, infact it usually is, unfortunatly, just as SOME muslims or SOME christians interpret meanings differently and some how end up with a whole lot of deaths, Science ends up doing the same thing, that is misinterpreting. I am not comparing the "evils" of naturalism to that of some theists because there is no comparison, BUT the concept and the lying is present.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
@MagnusCattus Anyway homosapien evolved from a troupe of protoApes. Culture evolves. Keep going back & you will see people indistinguishable from other primates. Have you tried R. Dawkins, ' The ancestors tail' it is good. Eternal Torture is against the Geneva convention. Would a God who sent most people to be tortured just for thinking the Bible sounds like fiction be worthy of worship? If all things are possible for God then why not take everyone to heaven- make new; 2Cor15v17
zytigon 2 months ago
@zytigon your comment about mark 7:2. No, you're wrong. He was emphasising the pharisees adherence to tradition that was arbitrary to what the Bible actualy said. In this case washing your hands was part of the Old testament, that is why the pharisees even commented on it. It is very likely they that they did wash, just not to the elbows as was the tradition. They possibly also did not wash propperly because they were tired, from healing all day at the docks. 2 verses earlier.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
@zytigon He then goes on in detail to describe what defiles a man, is from the inside not the outside. He was using an illustration; the pharisees thought someone defiled for not washing to an exact custom, was not simply dirty but had in some manner sinned. Jesus was explaining this was arbitrary to the Bible, at least to the degree they used it, and even if not, Jesus was bringing about a better covanent anyways. So, he explained it is by your actions, and thoughts you become defiled.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
@zytigon I could probably go on for awhile about why you are wrong, but I would like you to know I do not wish to deride you, and apologise if it came accross as such. You have, limited knowledge of the scriptures... is that accurate to say? I can't fault you for that, but I hope this opened your eyes a bit. Sometimes doing research is good, even in the case of the Bible.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
@MagnusCattus Thanks for your interesting apologetics. Jesus could have said, "Washing hands in clean water before eating / medical procedures / helping childbirth is beneficial to health as it reduces risk from harmful bacteria." However nowhere is Jesus recorded saying such, Maybe cause he didn't know. It was a primitive pre scientific society. They guessed at even basic stuff. Mk 7 has Jesus being quite negative. Premature deaths could have been prevented if J explained germs
zytigon 2 months ago
@zytigon Or it wasn't imporatant? whats 80 years vs an eternity. How could he have explained Germs, what would the primitives at the time have understood about it? ya good come back. God chooses not to know the outcome of certain events, because it defeats the purpose of having said events. If he had KNOWN adam and eve would sin, he wouldn't have bothered creating them, so he didn't know. If you want to say thats not all knowing by my geust, it doesn't help you at all.
MagnusCattus 2 months ago
@zytigon
"If you say it had to be designed then you say God deliberately created the bacteria which cause so much misery & suffering"
There are many theological replies to this ancient theological objection. The point is that SCIENCE now appears unambiguously to point towards a designing intelligence, so theologians will be forced to address the theological consequences. Despite the "problem of natural evil", ID takes us closer, not further from establishing the God of theism
IDtaksovr 2 months ago
Throughout my professional life and training, I can count on one hand the number of times in which evolutionary theory has been alluded to in any measure. This is primarily in comparative studies and animal models, which require considerable contrivances in order to maintain as a systematic methodology.
The simple fact is that Darwinian evolution is not needed as a basis of understanding for most biologically-related specialties. If anything, it introduces complications and inconsistencies.
JCrownwell 9 months ago
@JCrownwell
You are absolutely correct. This point was well made by the late Philip S. Skell e.g. "Why Do We Invoke Darwin? - Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology by "
Darwinian theory has no heuristic value for serious biological research and is useful only to people who make a living from extending Darwinian theory through speculations such as:
"Standing Up to Fight: Does It Explain Why We Walk Upright and Why Women Like Tall Men?"
IDtaksovr 9 months ago
Jesus Christ Is God
1. Jesus Christ fulfills o-v-e-r 200 Old Testament Messianic Prophecies ( Micah 5:2; etc.) Google Messianic Prophecies fulfilled by Jesus.
2. Jesus Christ makes 30 “I AM” statements in the Gospel of John.
Ex: “… for unless you believe that I am, you shall die in your sins.” (John 8:24)
Check the Gospel of John in the New Testament.
3. 17 Secular sources confirm that Jesus Christ walked the earth (Celsus, Tacitus, Lucian, etc.) Google Secular sources for Jesus.
GsliMaIiy 11 months ago
CONT--3 And the amazing amounts energy that was use to create the the universe,to control and manipulate such energy into the elements as we see in the universe,I cannot see it happening by chance.One reason is this.For example imagine seeing an atomic bomb releasing its energy as it ascends into the sky as a mushroom.Now ask yourself could mankind get that kind of energy that was released and put that kind of energy back into atomic particles.WHAT KIND OF FORCE WOULD YOU NEED TO DO THIS.
Gordenacama 1 year ago
CONT--4 Here we are only talking about a small atomic bomb.Now consider.What kind of force would it take to control and manipulate at the beginnings of creation of the universe with the VAST amounts of energy into atomic particleS and then organize it into the universe we see.I can only agree with Einstein who said that "God does not play dice".I see purposeful design.
Gordenacama 1 year ago
Cont --5 A point that must be made clear here is when discussing the visible and invisible.We are discussing the universe,visible and invisible. NOT the invisible realm of the Creator.
Gordenacama 1 year ago
@Gordenacama
"What kind of force would it take to control and manipulate at the beginnings of creation of the universe with the VAST amounts of energy into atomic particleS and then organize it into the universe we see."
See my favourited video: "Roger Penrose Fine Tuning." This is the most spectacular example of this kind of fine tuning that I have comne across."
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
@Gordenacama
"I cannot see it happening by chance...."
It is ironic that the evidence for extreme fine-tuning of the laws, constants and initial conditions of the universe was discovered by research within a supposedly materialistic framework.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
I see super intelligent design,far beyond us humans.
Gordenacama 1 year ago
@Gordenacama
The above simulations of the flagellum are extremely crude and dumbed down. Real flagella are operated (and initially built) by processes whose complexity boggles the mind. I think that a biochemist who believe that random mutation and natural selection adequately explains the origin of the flagellum, and a host of other cellular machines and systems, would need to leave their brain at the door when entering a science lab.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
@IDtaksovr Of all the "creationists scientists" that were asked to testify at the Kitzmiller vs.Dover trial, Michael Behe was the only one that didn't chicken out and irreducible complexity was the only argument he had. The cheif science witness Ken Miller, destroyed Behe's argument using the same bacterial flagellum example that Behe used. He showed how the individual parts of the flagellum do have uses. After that Behe had nothing.Check ou his vid watch?v=m2alpk8PUd4&feature=related
jmg94j 11 months ago
@jmg94j
"He showed how the individual parts of the flagellum do have uses"
The individual parts of a car have uses. Does that mean the car designed and assembled itself?
IDtaksovr 11 months ago
@IDtaksovr Comparing organisms to cars is like comparing apples and plastic oranges. Cars don't have genes or reproductive systems so they can't mate, have offspring, and pass their genes to down to their baby cars with slight differences to themselves. If smart cars could reproduce then in a million years it is possible they could be monster trucks. We don't know how life started, but that doesn't mean your god exists and he did it. It also doesn't change the evidence that supports evolution.
jmg94j 11 months ago
@jmg94j
"Cars don't have genes or reproductive systems"
You are begging the questiuon by assuming that just because organism can self replicate, they will inevitably evolve irreducibly complex machinery. This is pure faith. The fact that one or two components within IC machines could perfom other functions says nothing about if or how they came to exist within the full IC system in the first place.
IDtaksovr 11 months ago
@IDtaksovr Evolution doesn't try to tell us how life came into existence, that is abiogenesis which has not been proven yet. Evolution only addresses heretable change and it has been proven. The fossil record shows us that life started off as very simple single celled organisms and stayed simple for a very long time. Eventually more complex single celled organisms arose, then multicellular oganisms, then complex multicellular organisms etc etc. Organisms got increasingly complex over time.
jmg94j 11 months ago
@jmg94j
"Evolution doesn't try to tell us how life came into existence."
Behe addresses the failure of Darwinian theory to account for the evolution of irreducibly complex biochemistry. Miller points to components that could (theoretically) have had some other function, but fails to provide any detailed accounts of how the parts could have come about in the first place and how they came together. Behe is right. We have no detailed testable models. (BTW This is nothing to do with abiogenesis.)
IDtaksovr 11 months ago
@IDtaksovr There are a lot of things that the theory of evolution fails to explain and after that humiliating and embarassing pounding that Behe took on the stand, he will never be stupid enough to try and adress those failures in a court of law ever again. There are however, many things that evolution does explain. It doesn't matter if we don't know how it all started or how some of the parts came together. It does not change the massive amounts of evidence we have to support evolution.
jmg94j 11 months ago
@jmg94j
"after that humiliating and embarassing pounding that Behe took on the stand"
By failing to provide any of the evidence against Behe's claims and resorting to personal attacks, you only humiliate yourself. I am offering you the chance to provide a single example showing the Darwinian evolution of an irreducibly complex structure. Behe asks for "detailed testable models". Dozens were allegedly presented at Dover, if the hype is to believed. Just show me one such example.....
IDtaksovr 11 months ago
@IDtaksovr That is not a personal attack, that is simply stating the truth. When presented with huge amounts of published papers supporting evolution Behe would just deny it all without any further explanation making it obvious that he had not even read any of the evidence submitted. When it came time to go to court in Kansas, Behe refused to testify. If you know about the detailed testable models why ask me about them? If there are testable models great if not, it doesn't change anything.
jmg94j 11 months ago
@jmg94j
"When presented with huge amounts of published papers supporting evolution"
But we weren't talking about evidence for "evolution", were we. We were discussing the very specific failure of the Darwinian mechanism to account for the emergence of irreducibly complex biochemical systems. Where is the evidence in that mountain of papers that were dumped in front Behe? Where are the detailed testable models that address his specific challenge?. Can you provide me with a single paper?
IDtaksovr 11 months ago
@IDtaksovr I am not a biologist but the biologists I've talked to say the term irreducibly complex does not exist in biology. That term was invented by creationists and is used exclusively by creationists. Ken miller showed that parts of the flagellum do have functions, that alone proves Behe's example of irreducible complexity was wrong regardless of how the parts came together. Other examples of IC like the human eye have also been proven wrong. I don't have to go any farther.
jmg94j 11 months ago
@jmg94j
"biologists I've talked to say the term irreducibly complex does not exist in biology"
Behe is a biochemist and has coined the term "irreducible complexity", so it does exist in biology. An IC structure is one consisting of multiple component parts, all of which are required for a function to be achieved. Please ask these biologists who are advising you to suggest a paper showing detailed testable models of how such biochemical systems could emerge by the Darwinian process.
IDtaksovr 11 months ago
@IDtaksovr One religiously motivated biochemist invents and uses a term so that means it exists in biology? No. Behe's work is rejected by his colleagues. Behe will never get anything published in a reputable scientific journal because his work cannot survive the peer review process. Behe will never again take the stand to try and defend creationism in court against other proffesional biologists. Behe will only preach his flawed concepts to the creationist choir. That is all I need to know.
jmg94j 11 months ago
@jmg94j
"Behe will never get anything published"
Checkm out Behe's latest peer reviewed paper supporting the ID position:
"Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and 'The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution", arguing that "the most common adaptive changes seen ... are due to the loss or modification of a pre-existing molecular function."
IDtaksovr 11 months ago
@IDtaksovr Wow, he did get something published. Good for him. Too bad that same Dec. issue also had an article called "Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience" The article states that,"IC as described by Michael Behe, is a conveniently vague concept. IC advocates use the grey areas in the concept's definition to evade criticism from evolutionary biologists". He got a new idea published and an old idea demolished in the same issue!
jmg94j 11 months ago
@jmg94
"he did get something published. Good for him"
So you were wrong about your claim that: "Behe will never get anything published in a reputable scientific journal because his work cannot survive the peer review..." and that "irreducibly complex does not exist in biology" That's nice! But I'm still waiting for the crucial papers demonstrating that Darwinian processes really can produce irreducibly complex structtures, from the Dover trial. You can't provide me with a single paper, can you?
IDtaksovr 11 months ago
IDtaksovr, while jmg94 was incorrect about Dr Behe not being published, he was correct about Dr Behe's publications as far as evidence supporting ID goes. Being written by Dr Behe does not make it a paper supporting the ID position. A testable hypothesis about ID and supporting research makes it a paper supporting the ID position.
Why should scientists bother to refute Dr Behe's opinion when he has not bothered to make a testable hypothesis and test it? If he won't research it, why should they?
JustAnotherMutant 11 months ago
@IDtaksovr Yes I was wrong about Behe getting published but I stand by my statement that irreducible complexity is bogus and another article in that very same publication explains why IC is pseudoscience. No I won't give you the papers (which are not crucial) that you want because as Iv'e said before. Even if evolution (not Darwinism) can't explain everything, evolution still has overwhelming evidence everywhere to back it up. ID has not a shred of evidence anywhere to back it up.
jmg94j 11 months ago
@IDtaksovr Let's look at what Behe published, "For 40 years, scientists have used quickly reproducing bacteria and viruses to watch evolution in action in the laboratory". I agree 100%. "Behe points out that, these adaptive mutations come in three varieties: those that result in a loss of function, a modification of function, or a gain of a new function" Sounds like evolution to me. "the vast majority are loss-of-function mutations". So what? that is still proof of evolution if he is right.
jmg94j 11 months ago
@IDtaksovr U of Chicago Bio prof Jerry Coyne said, "While Behe's study is useful in summarizing how adaptive evolution has operated over the short term in bacteria and viruses in the lab, it's far less useful in summarizing how evolution has happened over the long term in bacteria, viruses, or in eukaryotes in nature. In this sense it says nothing about whether new genes and gene functions have been important in the evolution of life". To simulate nature you need time and contact with other DNA
jmg94j 11 months ago
@jmg94j
"Behe's study is useful in summarizing how adaptive evolution has operated over the short term in bacteria and viruses in the lab"
Behes paper looks at the very best observed examples of adaptive change by natural selection acting on random mutations in the wild that we have. e.g. his paper involves a careful analysis of all the mutations known to have occurred in the astronomically large malaria populations, and finds them to be trivial. Coyne is twisting the truth. Check for yourself.
IDtaksovr 11 months ago
@IDtaksovr No Behe's paper looks mostly at examples of evolution in the lab, not in nature. Coyne states. "In virtually none of the experiments summarized by Behe was there the possibility of adapting the way that many bacteria and viruses adapt in nature: by the uptake of DNA from other microbes". " In relatively short-term lab experiments there has simply not been enough time to observe the accumulation of complex FCTs" . To simulate nature requires time and interaction with other DNA.
jmg94j 11 months ago
@jmg94j
"Behe's paper looks mostly at examples of evolution in the lab, not in nature"
Behe adresses the very BEST evidence we have to date, from nature and from the lab, for the ability of NS and RM to generate irreducibly complex structures. See: "The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution: A reply to Jerry Coyne". If you have any further evidence of the creative power of the Darwinian mechanism operating in the wild that Behe missed, lets see it. Perhaps it's in all those elusive Dover papers?
IDtaksovr 11 months ago
@IDtaksovr Irreducibly complexity is pseudoscience. See my last comment. As far as bacteria generating new complex structures, how about nylon eating bacteria, Nylonase? Faced with such an obvious production of a new gene with a novel function, creationists tried to claim this was a loss of information, That of course didn't fly, as the nylonases are exquisitely specific, act on no known amide bond other than the nylon beta amide bond, and have no relationship to any known protease.
jmg94j 11 months ago
@jmg94j
"how about nylon eating bacteria, Nylonase?"
After around a dozen posts, you have finally produced a single example of NS and RM evolving an "irreducibly complex" structure. Before giving Behe's reply to the nylonase example, can you assure me that this is the best example you have of the Darwinian process allegedly evolving a novel, irreducibly complex function.
IDtaksovr 11 months ago 3
@IDtaksovr Irreducible complexity is pseudoscience. Read the article in the Dec issue of The Quarterly review of Biology just below Behe's article to try and get that point through your thick skull. There is no Darwinian process, it is called evolution. No I don't know if Nylonase is the best example of evolution and I don't care. It doesn't matter. Adding or removing one pebble from a mountain of evidence does not change anything. Evolution is still a fact and ID is still pure fantasy.
jmg94j 11 months ago
@jmg94j
"There is no Darwinian process, it is called evolution"
Saying that "evolution" happened only raises the question: why did it happen? and what do you mean by "evolution"? Some ID proponents, like Behe, believe that "evolution" happened, but also that there is no evidence that the principal materialistic mechanism put forward (i.e. RM and NS) is sufficient to account for IC structures. The very best examples put forward, like nylonase, involve trivial modifications to existing structures
IDtaksovr 11 months ago
@IDtaksovr We don't need to know why evolution happened happened to know that it happened. The fossil record alone proves chronologically that life started out very simple and got more complicated and more diversified over time Today we can witness evolution happening and it is not all with loss of function mutations like Behe claims. Either evolution is a fact or your creator is still creating to this day. I predict "Continous Creation" will be the next christian craze after ID finally dies.
jmg94j 11 months ago
@jmg94j
As Behe states: "Those enzymes are very simple ones which simply hydrolyze precursors to nylon. That’s a very simple task, which can be done even by small organic catalysts". Gaining the ability to hydrolize a molecule is impressive, but it pales into insignificance, compared to the unfathomably complex IC systems that Behe discusses in Darwins black box. Behe was right about the failure of Darwinian processes. The Dover trial evidence against IC was an excercise in courtroom theatrics.
IDtaksovr 11 months ago
@IDtaksovr Behe He has been caught being deceitful, misquoting, fudgeing the truth, and drawing misguided conclusions in the past so I can't trust what he states as the Dec issue of The Quartery review of biology proves in the article just below Behe's new futile argument. Because I'm not a biologist,I look to what the whole biological community is saying and the biological community overall says that Darwin's Black Box, IC, and Behe's latest study all had lies and or elements of deceit in them.
jmg94j 11 months ago
@jmg94j
"Because I'm not a biologist,I look to what the whole biological community is saying.."
So you admit to being a blind follower? How can you be sure that you aren't merely passing on propaganda, if you know little of biology? You are ignoring the fact that the Darwinian community (rather than the whole biological community) is saying nothing about the Darwinian evolution of IC biochemical systems, because ther is nothing to say. Where are all the RELEVANT papers addressing Behe's point?
IDtaksovr 11 months ago
@IDtaksovr Yes I am blindly following 99.9% of the biological community and you are blindly following the other .1%. Your ingoring the fact that IC is pseudoscience and you are still ingnoring the fact that evolution is supported by a mountain of evidence from many different scientific disciplines. Attacking one point in one field of science that evolution can't explain, accomplishes nothing. Even if everything that you and Behe say is right, (LMAO!) evolution is still an indisputable fact.
jmg94j 11 months ago
@jmg94j
"Yes I am blindly following 99.9% of the biological community"
Correction. You are blindly following 1% of the biological community, because 99% of biologists are engaged in serious research into unravelling the unfathomable complexity of life as it is today, and 1% are engaged in the far more speculative question of how those unfathomably complex lifeforms came to be in the first place. You, like the 99% of biologists, are a blind follower. This is the fallacy of arguing from authority
IDtaksovr 11 months ago
@IDtaksovr No the argument from authority argues that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. That is what creationists do. I am not saying that the vast majority of biologists are correct because they are the majority. I'm saying they are right because they possess all the evidence and they win in the halls of academia and in the courtroom. It is prudent to go with the ones that always win.
jmg94j 11 months ago
@jmg94j
"I'm saying they are right because they possess all the evidence and they win in the halls of academia and in the courtroom. It is prudent to go with the ones that always win"
I'm glad that you have retracted your claim that we should support Darwinism and reject ID on the basis of an appeal to the current biological "consensus". BTW. If they (i.e the Darwinists) possess all the evidence, then where is the evidence that the Darwinian mechanism can evolve irreducibly complex structures?
IDtaksovr 11 months ago
@jmg94
"evolution is still an indisputable fact"
The vast majority of the biological community (those who don't study evolution) have been fooled by the shameless propaganda and misrepresentations being directed at Behes irreducible complexity argument. Behe is an evolutionists. He believes in "evolution". He accepts that many facts support evolution. He points out the complete lack of evidence for the assertion that the Darwinian mechanism can evolve IC systems. Have a quiet think about that
IDtaksovr 11 months ago
@IDtaksovr Have a quiet think about this shit for brains. Evolution is supported by evidence from almost every field of science. Evolution has the entire fossil record, archaeology, paleontology, anthropology, radio isotope measuring, embryology, taxonomy, DNA science, geographical distribution etc. etc.. Evolution has everything on it's side you stupid fucking asshole. Even if IC was true and not obviously bullshit, it doesn't fucking matter. I know you can't be this stupid. Fuck off you liar.
jmg94j 11 months ago
@jmg94j
"Evolution is supported by evidence from almost every field of science.."
LOL. Decide what you are arguing for kid. Behe accepts much of the evidence for evolution. e.g. he believes in common descent, as do many ID proponents. More importantly, he shows that the principle mechanism put forward as an explanation for that evolution i.e. the Darwinian mechanism, has never been observed to produce anything remotely like an irreducibly complex system. You guys believe that on pure faith!
IDtaksovr 11 months ago
Comment removed
JCrownwell 9 months ago
@JCrownwell I kept the discussion civil for as long as I could but it is hard when the other person keeps on bringing up the same point that is shot down repeatedly and tells outright lies like "biologists have been fooled by shameless propaganda and misrepresentations" or that evolution is "a dying theory" when the fact is that evolution gets stronger every day and creationism still has nothing after 2000+ years. How can you be civil and respectful to someone who lies like that?
jmg94j 9 months ago
@jmg94j
"you stupid f***ng asshole. Even if IC was true and not obviously bullshit, it doesn't f***ing matter. I know you can't be this stupid. F*** off you liar."
Who would've thought that presenting the facts about a centuries old and equally defunct theory of origins would have provoked such a beautiful coping response. Really, get out much?
JCrownwell 9 months ago
@jmg94j
"Behe He has been caught being deceitful, misquoting, fudgeing the truth, and drawing misguided conclusions"
That's merely an assertion. You have been fooled, by much rhetoric and hype, into believeng that loads of evidence exists, for the ability of the mutation and selection mechanism, to produce irreducibly complex structures. If such evidence really did exist, would it not be neatly packaged by the Darwinists, so that every loyal follower of Darwinism on the net can pass it around?
IDtaksovr 11 months ago
@IDtaksovr That's not an assertion, it is a consensus of the vast majority of biologists including a Christian named Ken Miller, the scientist who embarassed and humiliated Behe on the witness stand so bad that he will never show his lying face in a courtroom to defend creationism again. Maybe you should have taken Behe's place at that Kansas trial. Anyway, I'm done repeating myself. You know that IC is BS. You know that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and you don't care. Goodbye.
jmg94j 11 months ago
@jmg94
"Ken Miller, the scientist who embarassed and humiliated Behe on the witness stand"
You continue to embarrass yourself, through your inability to present the actual evidence that allegedly refutes Behes claim; that Darwinian evolution cannot explain the emergence of irreducibly complex structures. And Behe is not arguing against "evolution". Behe believes that "evolution" is a fact, but fact that the principle materialistic explanation, i.e. Darwinism, has completely failed to explain.
IDtaksovr 11 months ago
@IDtaksovr If you can keep repeating yourself then so can I. Irreducible complexity is pseudoscience. Irreducible complexity is pseudoscience. See the Dec issue of Quarterly Review of Biology. See the Dec issue of Quarterly Review of Biology. It's like asking evolution to explain leprechauns. So if Behe accepts evolution, what is he saying? That microevolution is true and macroevolution is false and God ceated the fossil record to throw us off? On second thought, don't. Good bye forever IDisovr
jmg94j 11 months ago
@jmg94j
"Irreducible complexity is pseudoscience"
You're passing on and repeating assertions that you can't support with evidence. Don't you realise that in doing so, you are behaving like every religious "fundie" in history? If irreducible complexity is no obstacle to Darwinian evolution then prove me wrong. Quarterly Review of Biology may have published a diatribe against Behe's work, in penance for publishing his original article, but where's the meat? Where are the detailed testable models?
IDtaksovr 11 months ago
@IDtaksovr OK no more mister nice guy. I've kept civil up till now but no more you fucking retard. I am quoting the same science journal that you are using to brag up Behe. You thought you were so fucking smart that you found a reputable science journal that Behe got something published in. As it turns out his article is irrelevant because those studies don't simulate nature and another article in the same fucking issue exposes Behe's deceit about IC. It doesn't get any better than that.
jmg94j 11 months ago
@jmg94j
"you fucking retard.....his article is irrelevant because those studies don't simulate nature..."
As Behe points out in a reply to the Quarterly Review article, not only do some of his examples come from the field, but also, the examples of evolution by mutation and selection chosen by him are the VERY BEST that the Darwinists have to offer. If you have better examples, lets see them. I can't wait. BTW your language suggests that you have already lost the argument.
IDtaksovr 11 months ago
@jmg94j
"That's not an assertion, it is a consensus of the vast majority of biologists."
People appeal to consensus as a desperate last resort. You could have provided evidence that natural selection operating on random muatations can produce irreducibly complex systems. Instead your reply was: "i don't know anything about biology, but the consensus of opinion supports me". It's easy to see why this argument is a fallacy. Flat earth theory was once the scientific consensus ... and is was false
IDtaksovr 11 months ago
@IDtaksovr If you want detailed testable models of how biomechanical systems can emerge, ask a biologist. Creationists want a full complete explanation for everything including a fossil from every species that has ever existed which is impossible. We can only work with the evidence that we have. My point is even if we can't explain everything, including how every biomechanical system emerged, that does nothing to support ID/creationism and it doesn't hurt the theory of evolution one tiny bit.
jmg94j 11 months ago
@jmg94
"you want detailed testable models of how biomechanical systems can emerge, ask a biologist"
You may not be a biologist, but if Behe really had taken a "humiliating and embarassing pounding" on account of a false claim that "their are no detailed testable models showing how Darwinian processes can build IC structures", don't you believe that examples would be circulated by the Darwinists. dozens of papers were dumped in from of Behe, allegedly refuting him. I'm only asking you for one.
IDtaksovr 11 months ago
IDtaksovr, where is the peer reviewed research supporting his challenge? For that matter, where is Dr Behe's research to support his claim? If he didn't think it was important enough to make a testable hypothesis and test it, why should anyone else bother?
Of course a few did bother, and you still haven't addressed their work in /all_comments?v=GkdRdik73kU.
JustAnotherMutant 11 months ago
(bother in that they addressed the concept of IC itself, not the detailed pathways you want. )
JustAnotherMutant 11 months ago
jmg94j, actually, while Dr Dembski & Dr Meyer dropped out, I believe Dr Minnich was part of the DI back then.
JustAnotherMutant 11 months ago
@JustAnotherMutant I stand corrected. Behe seemed to get the most attention though. I would really like to know why Demski and Meyer thought it wasn't worth their time to go to court and defend ID being taught in the classroom when they spend all of their time trying to tell eveyone that evolution is a lie that and ID is supported by scientific evidence. By refusing to testify, Demski and Meyer are either admitting that their arguments are false, or that they don't care what children are taught.
jmg94j 11 months ago
I was just thinking that some people mock the idea of an eternal Creator,that God has always been,always existing through the eons of time.Because as humans we have not yet grasp what it means to be eternal,something that has always existed.And yet they CAN believe that life somehow all life came from non-life at sometime in the universe,and yet they cannot explain it,cannot prove it,but still accept it with no proof of HOW really happened.
Gordenacama 1 year ago
@Gordenacama
"...some people mock the idea of an eternal Creator,that God has always been,always existing through the eons of time."
Scientists know consider space and time to be interrelated, but theists have believed, for several hundred years, that the universe was created WITH time, rather than IN time, by a Creator that stands outside time and is not subject to it. Like space and matter, time is seen part of the creation. Scientists now believe that even time began at a finite point .
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
@IDtaksovr One concept that I am very intrested in is that of space Itself.Was space, there BEFORE Creation or was space created along with universe with the rest of Creation.I have my reasons for asking these questions.One reason is,we know that space is INVISIBLE to us humans.Most people would consider space as nothing and yet without it, the physical universe would not exist,no time as we know it,no energy as we know it,no light, no matter, ect. The point is that the physical universe Cont
Gordenacama 1 year ago
Cont --1 exists within the invisible creation which cannot be seen by the human eye. In fact if you were to combine all matter and energy of universe into one block,I would guess that over 99 percent of the universe is space that would be invisible to the human eye.The point without going into more details,much of the universe is in fact invisible to us humans.There many invisible forces,laws and energys,some of these we use ourselves everyday.(If you want to join in feel free to discuss)CONT-
Gordenacama 1 year ago
Cont--2 We live in a physical world,but we are surrounded by a visible and invisible universe.If the physical universe came from the invisible,what was the FIRST CAUSE. How come the universe is a masterpiece of organization,in the laws of physics,in the design in nature.The strong and weak nuclear forces,gravity,
electromagnetism ect.What I percieve is an invisible,super intelligent beyond human understanding.But there is more When I see the universe and the powers of Creation,CONT-
Gordenacama 1 year ago
Comment removed
Gordenacama 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CONT-3 And the amazing amounts energy that was use to create the the universe,to control and manipulate such energy into the elements as we see in the universe,I cannot see it happening by chance.One reason is this.For example imagine seeing an atomic bomb releasing its energy as it ascends into the sky as a mushroom.Now ask yourself could mankind get that kind of energy that was released and put that kind of energy back into atomic particles.WHAT KIND OF FORCE WOULD YOU NEED TO DO THIS. CONT
Gordenacama 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CONT-3 And the amazing amounts energy that was use to create the the universe,to control and manipulate such energy into the elements as we see in the universe,I cannot see it happening by chance.One reason is this.For example imagine seeing an atomic bomb releasing its energy as it ascends into the sky as a mushroom.Now ask yourself could mankind get that kind of energy that was released and put that kind of energy back into atomic particles.WHAT KIND OF FORCE WOULD YOU NEED TO DO THIS. Cont
Gordenacama 1 year ago
Comment removed
Gordenacama 1 year ago
@IDtaksovr I was looking at it from the view point of mankind,the way people see time.
I have often thought about that concept.One day we hope come to understand it more fully.
Gordenacama 1 year ago
@DandBMonk - "How, without the rotor and all being created simultaneously with the stem cause the organism to move away?"
"The rotor was there first. What is your background in all this?"--This was your response to my question. What you're missing is...the rotor would have no function and no reason without the flagella stem, hook, crank, etc. So no...the rotor couldn't come first unless you can find an alternative function.
DandBMonk 1 year ago
@DandBMonk - "The rotor was there first"
Actually, this is only true, in a sense (that is why I removed that post. The "rotor" was the Tol-Pol system which moves protons across the cell membrane (used in the secretory system).
CamW30 1 year ago
This evidence has been around for quite some time, and it is quite conclusive. Yet still these false debates about Evolution and ID linger on, and videos like this get 36 views. No one can deny THAT much at least is by design. Notice I did not use the word "intelligent"... there is nothing intelligent about any of this discourse. All I can do is ask... what by god is wrong with people that they cannot see what is right in front of their eyes?
Iconoclast421 1 year ago 3
@Iconoclast421
It is not that some people can't see that the flagellum requires top-down design, but that they won't. The scientific community currently embraces a single pseudo-religious dogma called "naturalism". Naturalism is the idea that nothing interferes intelligently in the universe, which is a closed system of cause and effect. No matter how vastly improbable and obviously designed something is, it must somehow be interpreted according to this naturalistic dogma.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago 2
@IDtaksovr - "It is not that some people can't see that the flagellum requires top-down design, but that they won't."
The flagella has been shown to to have evolved from a simpler secretory system. Science has shown this in intricate detail. Perhaps looking at real micrographs of the flagella would show you that it is not a machine. per se, but a biological system. Trying to use science to confirm a worldview is dishonest, especially if you have not taken the time to learn the science.
CamW30 1 year ago
@CamW30
The evolution of the flagellum from the TTSS remains unsupported speculation. "real micrographs of the flagella" reveall it to be a machine that differs from our own machines only insofar as it is technically far, far superior. BTW please tell Richard Dawkins that he is being dishonest for using science to confirm his atheistic worldview.
IDtaksovr 1 year ago
Comment removed
CamW30 1 year ago