This guy is a shame to his profession. Science is the branch which studies the nature of reality. It can only teach you about reality. Coming to such a conclusion invalids his reflexion being scientific.
Wonderfull!! yet again, Gods creation speaks for its self, it so obvious that DNA was created and designed to function the way it does, Darwin is dead and so is his theroy.
@Bigbiber89 Nice that you make retarded claims and never show your reasoning, as all retared atheists do, MY reasoning is that ALL LIVING THINGS CONTAIN INFORMATION< AND INFORMATION IS "NOT" A PART OF MATTER, it is a NON-MATIRAL entity, and uses CODE to determain HOW you are built, SHOW ME how INFORMATION arises from a purly MATIRAL source, DUMBASS!!
3:36 to 3:52 This really really really needs to be explained. What's with the sudden cut to question? Frustrating. What an absolutely nonsensical claim by the narrator.
@jinnwarior oh? embryology is still taught as fact even though it was proven WRONG in the 18th century. horse evolution is also taught and was proven WRONG years ago. vestigial body parts (the OPPOSITE of evolution, losing, not gaining) is still taught, also proven WRONG. Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at The British Museum of Natural History admitted that there are NO transitional fossils. believing evolution is believing in the tooth fairy
i think you might want to learn about what evolution actually describes, and what ideas it encompasses, before trying to prove it wrong. don't get caught up in old world philosophy.
@jinnwarior enlighten me. my point is that the lies i listed are still taught in schools & still taught as evolution. creationresearch . org/index . html & scienceagainstevolution . org/v5i10f . htm & dissentfromdarwin . org read these and study them well BEFORE you respond. don't dismiss them out of hand. Theo E.Agard, James Allan, Kevin Anderson, Steven Austin, Don Batten, are just a few scientists that reject evolution, geologist, physicist, microbiologist, etc. evolution = theory, NOT fact
@FlameGurl06 Ha ha ha HARDLEY. Christianity, besides being plagerized from the greeks and egyptians (look up Horus), has NOTHING as far as evidence to back up the claims they make. In fact, the bible is filled with MISinformation, such as a flat earth, the earth revolving around the sun, and not to mention the attrocies commited by god himself. Hardley "realizing how stupid" we are :) We laugh at the ignorace and hypocritical nature of theists...
This reminds me of the atheist Matt Dilahunty when he was studying the bible for over 20 years with the intent of going through seminary and then started to question the validity of his faith. When he used logic and reason and realized the claims of the bible failed to live up to their burden of proof, he finally realized how bullshit the Christian faith was and abandoned it on the side of the road.
All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
Science cant even make a simple protein!!!..its laughable..why when scientists break down simple chemicals they get more complex?..the same goes for amino acids.they have to be all LEFT handed...what a paradox..people are so brainwashed with this evolution darwin theory ..of Bullshit time and chance..Stubborn scientists.
@5tonyvvvv Yea but they have many degrees , which makes them know it all . It seems to be a licence that says im smarter then you and if you question me your a foolish moron. so guys like us should just shut up and accept whatever bullshit they put on the plate even though the bullshit keeps changing . Were not as smart as them so we shouldnt even breathe int he same room as them . They know it all were morons for raising any objections to them lol
Keeping an open mind is considered anti science in this day and age. Its much more convenient when we close our minds and comfort ourselves in an out dated evolutionary synthesis. When Kenyon was writing books on the theory of modern evolution he was considered a great scholar. When he started to question and critique the modern synthesis he became an enemy of science in the minds of the indoctrinated.
@benthemiester "Keeping an open mind is considered anti science in this day and age." Aawwww bullshit. All that science DOESN'T want to happen is for people to return to the dark ages (the period when THEISM ruled) LEGITIMATE questions arise out of evolution every day. For instance a question in evolution right now is "does natural selection play an important role in evolution, as previously indicated" NOT "is evolution real." Ask whatever you want, just don't be stupid about it....
"Aawwww bullshit. All that science DOESN'T want to happen is for people to return to the dark ages"
I think your confusing the word science with political activism like the ACLU or the NCSE. Science is not a thinking person who cares about history or politics. In fact it was actually theologians & priest who ushered in the modern sciences. Some of the most fundamental laws and principles were discovered by these same theologian scientist. For science it was an enlightened age.
@benthemiester "it was actually theologians & priest who ushered in the modern sciences." HA HA HA HA HA you MAY wanna brush up on your history there hommie. Galileo Galilei was ACTUALLY the father of science, and he was PERSECUTED by the church for his findings. "For science it was an enlightened age." And you MAY wanna look at some STATS on the dark ages. NOTHING scientific took place in that time, in fact, again, RELIGION PERSECUTED ANYONE who didn't agree with them....
@TacoBurgher327 cont..... He was never convicted of heresy and was put under house arrest & sent to live in a beautiful villa with servants. Years later even he admitted that he should not have gotten involved in church politics and was treated fairly. He was also allowed to have access to his lab and freely come and go. Even after this incident he still remained an honored guest of Popes and Cardinals at dinner parties and events. If you call that persecution, then please persecute me.
@TacoBurgher327 cont... put under house arrest for going back on a promise and getting involved in church politics, when he promised he would instead try to come up with a more precise mathematical formula that still needed some work. Again most of his accusers in public were his secular counter parts, and who even sought out the help of hostile inquisitors, and even they could not lay a finger on him because of his acceptance and admiration by important members of the church.
@TacoBurgher327 cont......In fact "The book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was published in 1632, with formal authorization from the Inquisition and papal permission" It was his secular counter parts that refused to even look in his telescope. He was
@TacoBurgher327 The "Galileo myth" I think it is you who should brush up on history. Galileo was a theologian and a devoutly religious man, and continued to be until his death. The Pope gave Galileo full permission to continue his studies on his non heliocentric model, but only cautioned him to get his math right since he had previously made a few errors.
@benthemiester ha ha yea now the story of galileo life is a myth to theists ha ha ha whatever dude. The Inquisition's ban on reprinting Galileo's works was lifted in 1718, so say whatever you want, but FACTS speak louder then theists....
@TacoBurgher327 cont....if this indeed is the case, then that would seem to imply that the only people trustworthy enough to speak on the subject are agnostics. Unfortunately or fortunately, however you want to look at it, honesty and dishonesty are not exclusive to humans of any stripe including atheist and theist. I refuse to categorize and judge a whole group of people as liars just because they don't happen to share the same world view. If this is your schtick, then more power to you man.
@TacoBurgher327 cont... He was also free to come and go to his laboratory and continue science and did some great work. He also was an honored guest of Popes and Cardinals. He lived a life style better than 95% of the populace. Again I say, persecute me. People want to believes the dirt, the simple slogans and sound bites, but most refuse to actually study the subject. If your intellect is limited to believing that everything has to be broken down into an theism vs atheism paradigm, and
@TacoBurgher327 cont..... He was told to stick to science and not get involved in church doctrine. He was told try to confirm the Copernicus hypothesis with mathematics. They were worried in that he believed that the sun was responsible for the tides and was proven wrong. They wanted to make sure he was right before addressing the theological aspects. He was sent to a beautiful villa with a full staff of servants. This is a historical fact.
@TacoBurgher327 Forget about theism for a while and concentrate on history. Even critical historians understand this. You can even find articles in wikipedia that confirm that he had full permission and was even encouraged to carry on his work by the Pope and inquisition...............
@benthemiester The fact your sticking up for a cult that has tried on MANY occasions throughout history to demoralize the brilliant work of MANY scientists, shows how damaging it is AND how stupid some people actually are....
"In fact it was actually theologians & priest who ushered in the modern sciences" And you want to talk about history HA HA HA HA
@TacoBurgher327 "The fact your sticking up for a cult that has tried on MANY occasions throughout history to demoralize the brilliant work of MANY scientists"
@TacoBurgher327 Here is a short list of just some of the theologian scientist that started the modern sciences. You have been brainwashed... Roger Bacon, Robert Grosseteste, Thomas Bradwardine, William of Ockham, Jean Buridan, Nicole Oresme, Nicholas of Kues Otto Brunfels, William Turner, Johannes Kepler, René Descartes, Pierre Gassendi, Blaise Pascal
Juan Caramuel y Lobkowitz, Nicolas Steno, Robert Boyle, Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo, Gregor Mendel, Colin.
@TacoBurgher327 cont...These universities evolved from much older Christian cathedral schools and monastic schools, and it is difficult to define the date at which they became true universities, although the lists of studia generalia for higher education in Europe held by the Vatican are a useful guide" Wikipedia and sourced.
@TacoBurgher327 cont....studying these texts and theorizing over the new insights they brought. At the same time, an important new kind of higher learning institution was being developed: the university.
The first institutions generally considered to be universities were established in Italy, France, and England in the late 11th and the 12th centuries for the study of arts, law, medicine, and theology.......
@TacoBurgher327 During the Renaissance of the 12th century, interest in the study of nature was revitalized through an intense translation movement aimed at Greek and Arabic scientific texts. Monastic and cathedral schools took a leading role in........
@benthemiester Ok, keep writing novels about things i never stated. Ha ha i never said theists COULDN'T be scientists. I could care less what people do/believe, i think it's a little childish, and its a fact christianity plagiarized their ENTIRE religion off the egyptians and greek gods, but what the hell are you even trying to prove? That theism DIDN'T murder, enslave, and condemn people for believing differently? Well, your wrong.....
"In fact it was actually theologians & priest who ushered in the modern sciences" And you want to talk about history HA HA HA HA" "Ha ha i never said theists COULDN'T be scientists"
I never said that either. I said that the first to usher in the modern sciences were theologians, priest and monks.
You can find this fact in any reputable encyclopedia. Your response above shows that you havent got a clue.
This is why you cannot cite evidence for your claims.
@TacoBurgher327You1st claimed that this was a anti scientific cult. Since you could not provide evidence you now are resorting to offering red herring arguments pertaining to plagiarism or historical injustices which happen to be apart of our human history. Personally I wouldn't mind talking about this, but judging from your previous responses concerning the last 700 hundred years of history, I cant expect you to have any different knowledge or attitude based on the last 3000 years of history.
@benthemiester Im glad you keep bashing something i have never said. I never stated scientists couldn't be theologists, so i don't know WHY you insist on acting like that's what i said with "some of the theologian scientist that started the modern sciences"
If you want examples of theology hindering scientific growth, then i recomend lookin up what "The Dark Ages" were.
You try to knock my intelligence, yet you continue to argue something i've never said.....
@TacoBurgher327 You tried and failed to make a claim that Galileo was persecuted for his science when true history tells us he was given full permission to do science including the copernicus hypotheses, but got in trouble for going back on a promise not to publicly get involved in church politics.
Galileo believed in creation even though telic design vs naturalism had already been contemplated by scholars for thousands of years by that time. So by your definition Galileo was a cultist.
@TacoBurgher327 I can back up everything I have said, but you have not been able to offer one verifiable citation. I also included "A scientific dissent (Dissent From Darwin)" which is a list which continues to grow and is on line for everyone to see.
I got your point, but you cant seem to back it up with any credible evidence. You are repeating a mantra that you have been spoon-fed all your life without actually researching the subject. It is the neo Darwinian synthesis that has set us back.
@benthemiester You make a lot of assumptions about my life and what i have and have not researched... "It is the neo Darwinian synthesis that has set us back." ha ha yea, that's why we have seen applications AFTER the theory of evolution came out, right? That's why "everything in biology only makes sense in the light of evolution," right? Yea, what a set back, with one hundred years of new vaccines for the sick, and the understanding of how we came to form here. F it all, right?
@benthemiester "You1st claimed that this was a anti scientific cult. " Yes, and it is. Anyone, even today, who believes the bible over REAL data and facts is part of an anti scientific cult. Darwin's origins of species came out in 1859... It took religion over one hundred years to admit something we KNEW, and STILL, most christians don't and WON'T understand evolution based on THEIR truth "god made us." If that's not an ANTI scientific cult, i dunno what is.
@TacoBurgher327 cont...... If you want proof you can watch my posted video of evo devo Stuart Newman, who along with hundreds if not thousands of others scientist from around the globe are trying to extend the evolutionary synthesis, because they now realize how limited it is in explanatory powers. The Video Is entitled
"Will the Real Theory of Evolution Please Stand Up" You can also read the findings of the Altenberg 16 summit. In MIT press which is a highly respected academics press.
@TacoBurgher327 cont.....the world, and published publicly for all to see.
Even evo devo/evolutionary development biologist are now challenging the orthodoxy of the neo Darwinian synthesis and many of its central dogmas including the limitations of natural selection as a creative or dominant force. Even the hardcore evolutionist Massimo Pigliucci is calling for a relaxation of many of the assumptions of the neo Darwinian synthesis.
@TacoBurgher327 cont....way he never meant for it to be. Today even the neo Darwinian synthesis is dying the death of a thousand cuts. Its not just creationist and ID theorist anymore, but more and more mainstream scientist and scholars like James Shapiro, Phillip Skell, Bradley Monton and an ever growing list of dissenter now over eight hundred strong and constantly growing, representing all different back grounds including atheist and agnostics from all over the country and
@TacoBurgher327 cont...... Every one knows that neo Darwinist hijacked Mendel's work and synthesized, or what some would call piggy back it onto the neo Darwinian synthesis. You can find this in any encyclopedia, and even though Mendel's work was first ignored for fifty years and In fact, Mendel did not even agree with Darwin's theory, but by then, Mendel was already dead and had no say in how others would fuse his work in a
As for the dark ages please provide an example of the church hindering science. As for Darwin, are you kidding? Classical Darwinism was abandon 80 years ago. Darwin was found to be wrong about most things, including his famous Pangenesis blunder. It was actually the Christian monk Gregor Mendel who's Law of inheritance that became the modern standard. Clasical Darwinism had to be replace with Neo Darwinism because of all of Darwin's errors. (Neo meaning new)..........
@benthemiester But AGAIN, i understand you theists don't deal to hard with FACTS and PROOF ha ha, and hence, why you WOULD be ignorant to how damaging theology was and still is to the homo sapien species.
"I think your confusing the word science with political activism" And THIS is hilarious, because WHY do you think theism started? Not because of power and control or anything along those lines. NOOOO ha ha ha ha ignorant fools....
@TacoBurgher327 What is being challenged right now is the modern synthesis itself, as well as its central dogmas, including the limitations of natural selection, random mutation and its inability to explain life as we know it.
You can still believe in evolution as a concept if you wish, but as a theory its dying the death of a thousand cuts and is now even being openly challenged by some evolution development biologist/ evo devo's, as we speak.
@benthemiester "You can still believe in evolution as a concept " No one is "believing" in evolution ha ha its a name for a process we observe. Just like gravity. AND, just like gravity, it's not FULLY understood, but NO biologist is stating "evolution doesn't happen." Evolution, or mutations in species, have been observed and documented.
This "but as a theory its dying the death of a thousand cuts" Also doesn't make sense as a theory only needs ONE piece of evidence to disprove it....
Ha !! - Judging by this new description and the link you posted, it looks like you're a convert away from creationism... When did this occur - Own up ! - Was it during our discussion?
@Tobytrim " it looks like you're a convert away from creationism"
Whatever you need bro. I know this is hard for you since you've continued to troll it shows me darwinism and scientism at its finest =p Thank for that .
The first 20 second is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO mind boggingly STUPID. are they trying to debunk evolution here, or abiogenesis? Why the hell are these idiots conflating evolution and abiogenesis? That is RETARDED. In terms of evolution, NO ONE GIVES A DAMN how life started, just that once it got on earth, evolution took over. Remember poster of this vid, evolution is NOT the explanation of the origin of LIFE, but the origin of SPECIES. Dont forget that
@crackerkiller89 If abiogenesis was answered today and accepted , evolutionists would jump on that and stroke it till it turned red. Just because abiogensis is still a question mark today makes you wanna stay away ? I dont blame you . But once abiogenisis is established watch how many darwinsits jump on it and use it . Double standards, cherry pick what you like =p when its convienant for you
@yourboycal " Just because abiogensis is still a question mark today makes you wanna stay away "
Who want's to stay away?? Sientists are working on it as we speak , and there are some good hypothesese regarding it. However there is no clear description of the exact chemical pathway that began life on this planet
But it is chemistry, NOT biological evolution.
Why do you want to cling to an unrelated theory ? A red herring? Is it because evolution is too strong for you to to deal with?
@Tobytrim "Sientists are working on it as we speak , and there are some good hypothesese regarding it."
I know billy , my point is darwinists stay away from this because its still being worked on . The day you see in headlines abiogensis answered you will see darwinists use this point to there full advantage. They are iffy about it and want to stay away just incase it fails , but the day is suceeds they will be all over . like fat kid with a cheeseburger
@yourboycal "darwinists stay away from this because its still being worked on" What the hell are darwinists??
If you want to label an accepter of a certain science by adding "ist" or "ism" to those who come up with testable theory in it, the word for biological evolution would have1000's of letters in it!
Abiogenesis scientists will be happy to tell you what they have so far. I'll be happy to discuss what I know about it.
IT STILL has nothing to do with the complexity of life!
Strict believers in darwins theory who push it no matter what . They dun care for truth they just care about delivering theworld from evil(god) to good (darwinian) theory. They use the good science in evolution and mix it with bad science to push there ideologys no matter how absurd , baseless or fabricated evidence is involved. This is evolutionists vs darwinists . science vs scientism ;)
@Tobytrim "If you want to label an accepter of a certain science by adding "ist" or "ism" to those who come up with testable theory in it, the word for biological evolution would have1000's of letters in it!"
No you missed the point . I believe in good science , not tained science . I believe in good religion . not extreamist religion . There is a differnce my good man. But your to narrow minded to care , to you its all the same
@Tobytrim "Abiogenesis scientists will be happy to tell you what they have so far. I'll be happy to discuss what I know about it.
IT STILL has nothing to do with the complexity of life!"
Right now it has nothing to do with the complexity of life . because it has no answers nor results . Once they do . you will see darwinists jump on it and stroke it 3 days from sunday . They will use it like its going out of fashion. only because its in there intrest at that point .
@Tobytrim "It has not, as yet, defined the exact series of events that brought it about,"
Just like darwinism .
"You seem to lack the ability to get this,after several explanations - is this deliberate? "
You seem not to read my posts about linking abiogensis before and after its value. Right now its worthless once its worth something will you jump on it ?? yes or no . i asked simple questions you keep avoiding . is this deliberate? Of course not i wont insult your intelligence =)
@yourboycal " Right now its worthless once its worth something will you jump on it ??"
Worthless to whom?? ot to the scientists who are working on the chemical origins of life .
Yes...I agree that it is useless to explain the diversity of life. Evolution explains that!
When the research leads to a cohesive theory of abiogenesis, it may well explain more about evolution - and vice versa - that's how science works - It fills in the gaps in human knowledge, without settling on "god did it"
@yourboycal " once its worth something will you jump on it ?? yes or no . i asked simple questions you keep avoiding"
Jump on it for what??? This isn't even a lucid question.
Are you asking that, if it extendes the theory of evolution back through to it's chemical origins, that I won't offer that evidence to any creationist still stubbornly stupid enough to deny observable tested fact?
Yeah - Damn right!!
But as I pointed out : - Evolution doesn't require abiogenesis to validate it!
@Tobytrim "Jump on it for what??? This isn't even a lucid question.
Are you asking that, if it extendes the theory of evolution"
They will use as extention once its shown . but now they wont even talk about it and try to stay away because they know how far feteched it is . Do you claim it will extend ? is that your hope ?
@yourboycal " you will see darwinists jump on it and stroke it 3 days from sunday "
You still haven't defined what you are calling "darwinists" - Every scientist working inthe relevent fields accepts Mendelian/Darwinian evolution. Even Kenyon here!
If a chemical pathway is provided to explain life and replicated in a lab.
Scientists wil say it explains abiogeniesis - evolution is already explained.
If you're referring to atheists, it wil be just one less reason to believe in "gods"
@Tobytrim "You still haven't defined what you are calling "darwinists" "
Another example of not reading my posts and hitting reply. Good sir I have defined darwinists for you many posts before . Remember what you said earlier about others reading this ? Well here is another example of how you trolls like to hit reply before reading a persons comment.
@yourboycal "Good sir I have defined darwinists for you many posts before "
No you bloody haven't!!
Except for the piss poor attempt just now! You need to give me an example of what you are calling Darwinists? What are they?
Do they cut into church sermons, or annoy people on their doorstep like religious nuts? Do they have a Church? Do they just hand out leaflets in the streets?
Who are Darwinists? Do you mean the scientists who are researching related fields?
@Tobytrim "Every scientist working inthe relevent fields accepts Mendelian/Darwinian evolution"
Yea the ones who havnt been "Expelled" right? Or the ones who are to afraid to talk about alternatives ? Or the ones to afraid to speak intelligent design and lose grants?
@yourboycal "the ones who havnt been "Expelled"" Anyone who want's to provide evidence to challenge the theory of evolution.wouldn't be expelled
- If successful, they would be heroes!
Any one who challenges it without evidence and tries to teach unsupported speculation to kids without encouraging the same testability that formed the theory in the first place, isn't just unfair, -he is not a scientist, and ought to be expelled from the scientific community!
@Tobytrim "Anyone who want's to provide evidence to challenge the theory of evolution.wouldn't be expelled"
Then that movie lied? Dont you see how suicidal it is for your carrer to even bring it up ? What kinda dogma indoctrination is this ?
"from the scientific community"
You see even scientists who are against the grain are not part of your scientific community ? you just label him as not a scientist? because of his views looool silly rabbit.
@Tobytrim " Any one who challenges it without evidence "
Why not stop the fear mongering ? so they can get grants and funding for there reserach ? Expelled shows that clearly i know it hurts the darwinists but hey truth hurts rite
@yourboycal Expelled?? You mean that garbage by Ben Stein??
Ok ...I'll bite....Why do you think this rubbish, produced by an intellectually dishonest ignoramus, is going to hurt a scientific theory that has been upheld by every single piece of relevent , new, scientific information in the last 150 years ?That has millons of individual data point, and hundreds of thousands of peer review observations to confirm it ?
That informs data used by medical and forensic science? Ha!
@Tobytrim "That has millons of individual data point, and hundreds of thousands of peer review observations to confirm it ? "
Expelled wasnt there to refute evolution , it was there to show the ugly side of scientism. What happens when you dare try and talk about ID or creationism.
@Tobytrim "You seem to be even more dishonest than Stein!! "
Another baseless claim .. Keep bringing them on you've got quite the list now .
" if "Expelled" isn't about refuting evolution, why did YOU bring it up ? "
To show you my problem with science today . The ugly side scientism.. Which darwinists hold on to tight =) This was very obvious if you pull your ego out your ass?
@yourboycal" To show you my problem with science today . The ugly side scientism" Ha ha!! "Scientism"??? You seem to have latched on to a fictional word invented by the great Isaac Asminov , an atheist, in a novel called "Foundation"
Do you mean science?
What have you got against science?
In fact, what have you got against people who accept science?
Why don't you give my an example of science that you think is "dogma"?
Give me single claim by scientists that you think is "dishonest"
@Tobytrim "Ha ha!! "Scientism"??? You seem to have latched on to a fictional word invented by the great Isaac Asminov , an atheist, in a novel called "Foundation"
Why call out the word scientism now ? when i've used it so many times before? Is it because your running out of places to hide? Silly rabbit trix are for kids
@Tobytrim "Whatever Stein says, or even proves can't change that fact."
The documentary speaks for it self . Ben just had to ask the questions and wait for answers . I know it hurts . but hey atleast it will make more scientists and insitutions more open minded and not fire guys who want to look into alternate views.... Keep trolling and avoiding my good man im here all day paid on the clock =)
@Tobytrim "Expelled?? You mean that garbage by Ben Stein??"
1) Did ben put a gun to there head when he asked a question ???
2) Did ben put a gun to there head to answer bens way???
The documentary speaks for it self . Your telling me grown brilliant scientific minds were fooled when they got asked the questions and the answers they gave??
@yourboycal "Did ben put a gun to there head when he asked a question ??? "
No but he didn't research their answers -They were exposed as lies later.
No he didn't need to - The way he wanted them to answer the question suited their whinge!
One of them , for example, was caught , dishonestly trying to get some ID propaganda through peer review. And he wasn't even on the faculty of the institution he says he was fired from!!
@Tobytrim "No but he didn't research their answers -They were exposed as lies later"
Actually no they werent exposed as lies. He asked questions got answers and its all on video. Reserach their answers??? who are you kidding ? WE saw what we say in the documentary . Its simple you just didnt like the outcome
@yourboycal" WE saw what we say in the documentary" No you saw what somebody claimed in this sordid little film - Lol !! What was uncovered by later research was an embarrassment to Stein. I have already pointed out what!
He even made very basic childish mistakes about the theory...But also about the details described by the "victims" in the interviews.
He was handed his arse in later interviews.
Did you see the pasting the critics gave that laughable piece of shit by the way.?
@Tobytrim "No he didn't need to - The way he wanted them to answer the question suited their whinge!"
Another weak attempt . Again nobody put a gun to these scientists heads . ARe you calling these brilliant minds fools for answering the questions? Why not just refuse the interview?? Do you understand the consequences of agreeing to be interviewed?
@yourboyca"lARe you calling these brilliant minds fools for answering the questions?" Interesting though...Who are these brilliant minds and what do you think they said to validate Steins cause
@Tobytrim "One of them , for example, was caught , dishonestly trying to get some ID propaganda through peer review."
Its sad they have to resort to such tactics just to get there voices heard ? Thankfully expelled exposes this sort of scientism and information supression
@yourboycal Why not stop the fear mongering ? so they can get grants and funding for there reserach" Do you really think these guys have any research in mind?
Ok...Ill bite again..,. What is the research they can do...What have they come up with so far?
All I've ever heard ID proponent posit, is their own personal belief - It's religion "
Didn't you read or hear the verdict of the a christian, republican judge at theDover/ Kitmiller trial?
@yourboycal"Yes i did and how the creationists minipulated and lied was unacceptable" Do you realise that Behe isn't a creationist and he argued the same ID point as Kenyon is trying to make there?:
@Tobytrim "Do you realise that Behe isn't a creationist and he argued the same ID point as Kenyon is trying to make there?:
You have just Pawned yourself!!! "
First off there are many scientists who are creationists that dont admit it for personal reasons . 2) creationists minipulating was from the the case. Please dont quote mine . This is a silly tactic i've seen many darwinists and creationists use. You should be ashamed.
@yourboycal" First off there are many scientists who are creationists that dont admit it for personal reasons" Behe Is being handed his arse daily by the scientific community What reason would he need to hide his creationist..
He's been asked directly and he accepts common ancestry of hmans and te oter apes. You can't get any more "Darwinist" - That's a matter of record!
@yourboycal "Darwinists" don't quote mine, they QUOTE. Creationists quote mine! The difference being, when I QUOTE, I will source it, so you can check the exact context and the validity of it.
For example:
"The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications." (Judge Jones summing up - Dover kitzmiller p87)
@Tobytrim "The difference being, when I QUOTE, I will source it, so you can check the exact context and the validity of it."
Changing topics again sigh =/ ... you wanted to know what i have a problem with . i told you many times . I gave you examples as to why . I am very well aware of the judge jones dover case. The quote mine was not for this . you've just twisted it to bring it to this . This is another failed attempted of character assination. I'll wait for your next troll comment=)
@yourboycal Why are you so quite now ? =) Trying to change the topic at hand just shows me how weak your arguments are , all it shows is you have no where else to hide . Its just trolling now . i would say you wasted my time , but then conversations with people are the best way to come together =)
"After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community". [pp. 88-89 - Judge Jones - Dover /Kitzmiller summing up)
@Tobytrim "After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory "
Sure pal . no problem . Now back to scientism and darwinism which was what was at hand. But your trolled off to change topics so i wont go back to it . Sorry =)
@yourboycal "Why change the topic good sir ? Are you that mad you have no arguments left?"
No I'm quite happy trying to get you to explain why you feel that you can imagine up some people made "isms"nto describe fictional beliefs that attribute to them .
I may backtrack later though, to get you to acknowledge that you were wrong when you said Dover Kitzmiller didn't find ID as "not science"
@Tobytrim "No I'm quite happy trying to get you to explain why you feel that you can imagine up some people made "isms"nto describe fictional beliefs that attribute to them ."
You dont want to hear explainations , you wouldnt be trolling if you were . the isms is part of scientism. Many scientists are aware of this and im sure are not proud of it . But just like religion it has its bad seeds
@Tobytrim "Only because it couldn't in any honest way. Stein is a creationist though isn't he?"
Whats it matter when the documentary is what were talking about ? You should ask stein what he believes in . But please dont change topic stay on the documentary
@yourboycal ". But please dont change topic stay on the documentary "
Why? it was a red herring of yours.... I destroyed any relevence of it before you even brought it up.
Scientists who disagree with ANY scientific theory INCLUDING evolution can publish. No-one in the scientific community can argue with testable evidence Science bases on authority or opinions , but testable evidence.
Whatever Stein says, or even proves can't change that fact.
@Tobytrim " I destroyed any relevence of it before you even brought it up"
You thought you did .
"Scientists who disagree with ANY scientific theory"
WRONG again
"Whatever Stein says, or even proves can't change that fact.
So what is your problem with testability? "
Again you missed the point . Please read the posts im not typing it out again for you . You've proven you dont read posts before hitting reply so i'll forgive you this time =)
@Tobytrim "Didn't you read or hear the verdict of the a christian, republican judge at theDover/ Kitmiller trial?"
Yes i did and how the creationists minipulated and lied was unacceptable and i give creationists shit for this also . I dont just give darwinists shit i talk to alot of creationists also and challenge them
@yourboyca"lYes i did and how the creationists minipulated and lied was unacceptable" Then what is your problem? Darwinian/ Mendelian evolution is supported by testable science, or it wouldn;t exist as a theory .
No claim made by Kenyon he is,,,,,Nor by Stein.
Is your argument against testable science?
You seem to be arguing against yourself!
You are aware that the Kitzmiller judge also ruled ID as "not science" either, because it isn't testable science?
@yourboycal" My problem is darwinists who use good science for scientism" OK. so you've latched on to a fictitious word that you want to attach your own personal meaning to.
What do you think this "scientism" coven or "sect" is about? Explain??
Incidently, what is the singular noun "scientist?? Lol!!
You are starting to read like someone with a psychotic paranoid persecution complex... I mean really creepy!
@yourboycal"My problem is darwinists who use good science for scientism" What are "Darwinists" using Good science for? Mendelian/Darwinism IS good science!! - It's the most strongly supported by testable evidence of ANY theory EVER proposed by science.- Or can you show me otherwise?
You will have to resort to testable science there too!!
Sorry, but you really are talking bollocks - And round in circles doing it!! - Lol!!
@yourboycal All science is testability ! A theory doesn't sustain if it doesn't survive rigorous sceptical testing by peer experts with a vested interest in falsifying the theory.
Why have you got a proplem with that?
I shouldn't have to draw answers out of you liketeeth. you're a pretty gutless debater.
What is your problem with Science???
You haven't made this clear!! What I've just described IS science!!
You don't seem to understand how scientific community works!!
@Tobytrim "You seem to be arguing against yourself!
You are aware that the Kitzmiller judge also ruled ID as "not science" either, because it isn't testable science?"
Wrong again , you just assume that because you refuse to accept the answers i give you . You've made me repeat over and over again , with you keep twisting and quote mining your way through. THis is very shameful . But you could care less right =)
@yourboycal ". "Wrong again , you just assume that because you refuse to accept the answers i give you"
Really? Explain?
I refuse to accept your answers because I can't get a straight one from you!! Do I really need to trawl through judge Jones' summing up , to show you I'm NOT wrong? You are simply contradicted me you have offered no reasoning or evidence
What is wrong with testable science rejecting unsupported declarations of faith? _ You STILL haven't answered!!
" refuse to accept your answers because I can't get a straight one from you!!"
Scientism +darwinism is my problem. Tainting good science. This the how many times i've said this ??
"Do I really need to trawl through judge Jones' summing up , to show you I'm NOT wrong? You are simply contradicted me you have offered no reasoning or evidence"
Do ask you wish good sir nobody has a gun to your head here
@yourboycal "Scientism +darwinism is my problem. Tainting good science. This the how many times i've said this"
This isn't explaining anything - It's making a bald accusation.Without any reasoning, evidence or foundation.
Who are they and how do you think they are "tainting science"??
Give me an example of a "Darwinist" or a Scientismist" and explain how they are tainting good science? What is Darwinism - who are these "Darwinist" have they even got a web page?
@Tobytrim "This isn't explaining anything - It's making a bald accusation.Without any reasoning, evidence or foundation."
Actually that was for your other post . Quote mining again are we ? That was referring to what im against. I've made that post plus both definitions. Please continue to troll .
@Tobytrim This isn't explaining anything - It's making a bald accusation.Without any reasoning, evidence or foundation.
Its because its another example of quote mining good sir . You take quotes from one post and try to tie it with another . Again failboat but its okay =) Were here to learn rightÉ
@Tobytrim "What is wrong with testable science rejecting unsupported declarations of faith? _ You STILL haven't answered!! "
I have answered you didnt like my answers. Im sorry Please re-read the posts and stop trolling. Your running out of things to hide behind . Thats very obvious by your comments now . =)
@Tobytrim "Ha ha!! you're the one who's trolling which is really stupid , as you are the one who posted this silly vid!!"
Well if you have problems with the video why not send me a list of all the parts you have problems with and i can add annoations if your claims are true?
" suspect you may be trying to set up an excuse to block me...So I'll press you for a straight answer."
Oh no i dont want to block you .. i want everyone to see how darwinists troll
What is the difference between them and people who simply accept science as a good explaination for natural causation over superstition?"
Good sir .. Please read the posts again . Im not entertaining you with the same questions over and over again . Again if you do not like my answer im sorry , but i will not mold it to what you want. It doesnt work that way
@yourboycal .." Please read the posts again . Im not entertaining you with the same questions over and over again "
I honestly haven't found any explanation for what you what a "Darwinist" is over someone who open mindedly accepts the theory of evolution based on evidence.
Nor what the hell a Scientism practitioner is?
Can you paste the answer to your next response?
As they are your PERSONAL words, I can't google them!
How can I evaluate your premise if I don't know what you're saying?
@Tobytrim "I honestly haven't found any explanation for what you what a "Darwinist" is over someone who open mindedly accepts the theory of evolution based on evidence.È
@yourboycal "Many scientists are aware of this and im sure are not proud of it"
Ha ha!! is this how you are going to weasel out of this???? Is this what you were claiming your point was all along??? I agree with the above statement - who the hell wouldn't?
OK....So what are you saying a Darwinist is? And why are you using the name of a great pioneer of science and the positer of the most successful theory in Science to describe a dishonest scientist?
@Tobytrim "Ha ha!! is this how you are going to weasel out of this???? Is this what you were claiming your point was all along???"
There not proud of scientism ? Obviously good sir . Scientism is the dark cloud over science . Why would anyone be proud of it ? Why do you think im so against it ? Why call it weaseling out ?? are you running out of argument ? is that your hope =p
@yourboycal "now your back on your other made up word.
What is "scientism". Are you describing a dishonest use of science? If you are are, are you saying that scientists who accept, research, or publish on biological evolution are somehow dishonest, or tainting science? Are you saying "Darwinists" are prone to dishonesty?
@Tobytrim "You seem to be afraid to make ANY point.
What are you afraid of? "
ITs just to see your blood boil. you looking for an excuse to leave =p But im not given you any, you've trolled and you know it . Your just bleeding out now ... keep trolling =p haha
@yourboycal " no - I don't need an excuse to leave.....I could have done that with my head high , as soon as you couldn't respond to my question.
But I'm not trolling, and I'm staying on to prove it to you and giving you a chance to save face.
Just answer the question. If I leave this thread without you showing that you CAN answer, you lose your chance to leave this debate without being shamed. I don't know if you're sober now or lucid. But you have much to lose on your own thread!
This guy is a shame to his profession. Science is the branch which studies the nature of reality. It can only teach you about reality. Coming to such a conclusion invalids his reflexion being scientific.
maximemeis111 2 weeks ago
@marigolds44
pffffthaha how high do you have to be to even do something like that
jinnwarior 1 month ago
Wonderfull!! yet again, Gods creation speaks for its self, it so obvious that DNA was created and designed to function the way it does, Darwin is dead and so is his theroy.
squallion777 2 months ago
@squal "o obvious that DNA was created and designed to function the way it does," Not really everything speaks against.
Bigbiber89 1 month ago
@Bigbiber89 Nice that you make retarded claims and never show your reasoning, as all retared atheists do, MY reasoning is that ALL LIVING THINGS CONTAIN INFORMATION< AND INFORMATION IS "NOT" A PART OF MATTER, it is a NON-MATIRAL entity, and uses CODE to determain HOW you are built, SHOW ME how INFORMATION arises from a purly MATIRAL source, DUMBASS!!
Tired of arguing with dumbass people!!
squallion777 1 month ago
3:36 to 3:52 This really really really needs to be explained. What's with the sudden cut to question? Frustrating. What an absolutely nonsensical claim by the narrator.
ynthrepic 4 months ago
Good video and very good remarks in your intro
Galmozzi99 6 months ago
doubting the origins of life is fair game. doubting evolution is doubting gravity.
jinnwarior 7 months ago
@jinnwarior Lemme know when we find that gravaton ;)
yourboycal 7 months ago
@jinnwarior oh? embryology is still taught as fact even though it was proven WRONG in the 18th century. horse evolution is also taught and was proven WRONG years ago. vestigial body parts (the OPPOSITE of evolution, losing, not gaining) is still taught, also proven WRONG. Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at The British Museum of Natural History admitted that there are NO transitional fossils. believing evolution is believing in the tooth fairy
ztztzyzy 3 weeks ago
@ztztzyzy
i think you might want to learn about what evolution actually describes, and what ideas it encompasses, before trying to prove it wrong. don't get caught up in old world philosophy.
jinnwarior 3 weeks ago
@jinnwarior enlighten me. my point is that the lies i listed are still taught in schools & still taught as evolution. creationresearch . org/index . html & scienceagainstevolution . org/v5i10f . htm & dissentfromdarwin . org read these and study them well BEFORE you respond. don't dismiss them out of hand. Theo E.Agard, James Allan, Kevin Anderson, Steven Austin, Don Batten, are just a few scientists that reject evolution, geologist, physicist, microbiologist, etc. evolution = theory, NOT fact
ztztzyzy 3 weeks ago
When evolutionism worshipers start bashing Christianity thats an ungraceful way of saying they realize they are stupid. I love it!
FlameGurl06 9 months ago
@FlameGurl06 Ha ha ha HARDLEY. Christianity, besides being plagerized from the greeks and egyptians (look up Horus), has NOTHING as far as evidence to back up the claims they make. In fact, the bible is filled with MISinformation, such as a flat earth, the earth revolving around the sun, and not to mention the attrocies commited by god himself. Hardley "realizing how stupid" we are :) We laugh at the ignorace and hypocritical nature of theists...
TacoBurgher327 6 months ago
This reminds me of the atheist Matt Dilahunty when he was studying the bible for over 20 years with the intent of going through seminary and then started to question the validity of his faith. When he used logic and reason and realized the claims of the bible failed to live up to their burden of proof, he finally realized how bullshit the Christian faith was and abandoned it on the side of the road.
berner 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
Science cant even make a simple protein!!!..its laughable..why when scientists break down simple chemicals they get more complex?..the same goes for amino acids.they have to be all LEFT handed...what a paradox..people are so brainwashed with this evolution darwin theory ..of Bullshit time and chance..Stubborn scientists.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Yea but they have many degrees , which makes them know it all . It seems to be a licence that says im smarter then you and if you question me your a foolish moron. so guys like us should just shut up and accept whatever bullshit they put on the plate even though the bullshit keeps changing . Were not as smart as them so we shouldnt even breathe int he same room as them . They know it all were morons for raising any objections to them lol
yourboycal 1 year ago
Keeping an open mind is considered anti science in this day and age. Its much more convenient when we close our minds and comfort ourselves in an out dated evolutionary synthesis. When Kenyon was writing books on the theory of modern evolution he was considered a great scholar. When he started to question and critique the modern synthesis he became an enemy of science in the minds of the indoctrinated.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Keeping an open mind is considered anti science in this day and age." Aawwww bullshit. All that science DOESN'T want to happen is for people to return to the dark ages (the period when THEISM ruled) LEGITIMATE questions arise out of evolution every day. For instance a question in evolution right now is "does natural selection play an important role in evolution, as previously indicated" NOT "is evolution real." Ask whatever you want, just don't be stupid about it....
TacoBurgher327 6 months ago
@TacoBurgher327
"Aawwww bullshit. All that science DOESN'T want to happen is for people to return to the dark ages"
I think your confusing the word science with political activism like the ACLU or the NCSE. Science is not a thinking person who cares about history or politics. In fact it was actually theologians & priest who ushered in the modern sciences. Some of the most fundamental laws and principles were discovered by these same theologian scientist. For science it was an enlightened age.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester "it was actually theologians & priest who ushered in the modern sciences." HA HA HA HA HA you MAY wanna brush up on your history there hommie. Galileo Galilei was ACTUALLY the father of science, and he was PERSECUTED by the church for his findings. "For science it was an enlightened age." And you MAY wanna look at some STATS on the dark ages. NOTHING scientific took place in that time, in fact, again, RELIGION PERSECUTED ANYONE who didn't agree with them....
TacoBurgher327 6 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 cont..... He was never convicted of heresy and was put under house arrest & sent to live in a beautiful villa with servants. Years later even he admitted that he should not have gotten involved in church politics and was treated fairly. He was also allowed to have access to his lab and freely come and go. Even after this incident he still remained an honored guest of Popes and Cardinals at dinner parties and events. If you call that persecution, then please persecute me.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 cont... put under house arrest for going back on a promise and getting involved in church politics, when he promised he would instead try to come up with a more precise mathematical formula that still needed some work. Again most of his accusers in public were his secular counter parts, and who even sought out the help of hostile inquisitors, and even they could not lay a finger on him because of his acceptance and admiration by important members of the church.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 cont......In fact "The book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was published in 1632, with formal authorization from the Inquisition and papal permission" It was his secular counter parts that refused to even look in his telescope. He was
benthemiester 6 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 The "Galileo myth" I think it is you who should brush up on history. Galileo was a theologian and a devoutly religious man, and continued to be until his death. The Pope gave Galileo full permission to continue his studies on his non heliocentric model, but only cautioned him to get his math right since he had previously made a few errors.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester ha ha yea now the story of galileo life is a myth to theists ha ha ha whatever dude. The Inquisition's ban on reprinting Galileo's works was lifted in 1718, so say whatever you want, but FACTS speak louder then theists....
I know how important facts are to you theists!!
TacoBurgher327 6 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 cont....if this indeed is the case, then that would seem to imply that the only people trustworthy enough to speak on the subject are agnostics. Unfortunately or fortunately, however you want to look at it, honesty and dishonesty are not exclusive to humans of any stripe including atheist and theist. I refuse to categorize and judge a whole group of people as liars just because they don't happen to share the same world view. If this is your schtick, then more power to you man.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 cont... He was also free to come and go to his laboratory and continue science and did some great work. He also was an honored guest of Popes and Cardinals. He lived a life style better than 95% of the populace. Again I say, persecute me. People want to believes the dirt, the simple slogans and sound bites, but most refuse to actually study the subject. If your intellect is limited to believing that everything has to be broken down into an theism vs atheism paradigm, and
benthemiester 6 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 cont..... He was told to stick to science and not get involved in church doctrine. He was told try to confirm the Copernicus hypothesis with mathematics. They were worried in that he believed that the sun was responsible for the tides and was proven wrong. They wanted to make sure he was right before addressing the theological aspects. He was sent to a beautiful villa with a full staff of servants. This is a historical fact.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 Forget about theism for a while and concentrate on history. Even critical historians understand this. You can even find articles in wikipedia that confirm that he had full permission and was even encouraged to carry on his work by the Pope and inquisition...............
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester The fact your sticking up for a cult that has tried on MANY occasions throughout history to demoralize the brilliant work of MANY scientists, shows how damaging it is AND how stupid some people actually are....
"In fact it was actually theologians & priest who ushered in the modern sciences" And you want to talk about history HA HA HA HA
TacoBurgher327 6 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 "The fact your sticking up for a cult that has tried on MANY occasions throughout history to demoralize the brilliant work of MANY scientists"
Please give me some examples.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 Here is a short list of just some of the theologian scientist that started the modern sciences. You have been brainwashed... Roger Bacon, Robert Grosseteste, Thomas Bradwardine, William of Ockham, Jean Buridan, Nicole Oresme, Nicholas of Kues Otto Brunfels, William Turner, Johannes Kepler, René Descartes, Pierre Gassendi, Blaise Pascal
Juan Caramuel y Lobkowitz, Nicolas Steno, Robert Boyle, Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo, Gregor Mendel, Colin.
I can cite many more.
benthemiester 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TacoBurgher327 All you have is mantra, and no evidence to support your claim.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 cont...These universities evolved from much older Christian cathedral schools and monastic schools, and it is difficult to define the date at which they became true universities, although the lists of studia generalia for higher education in Europe held by the Vatican are a useful guide" Wikipedia and sourced.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 cont....studying these texts and theorizing over the new insights they brought. At the same time, an important new kind of higher learning institution was being developed: the university.
The first institutions generally considered to be universities were established in Italy, France, and England in the late 11th and the 12th centuries for the study of arts, law, medicine, and theology.......
benthemiester 6 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 During the Renaissance of the 12th century, interest in the study of nature was revitalized through an intense translation movement aimed at Greek and Arabic scientific texts. Monastic and cathedral schools took a leading role in........
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester Ok, keep writing novels about things i never stated. Ha ha i never said theists COULDN'T be scientists. I could care less what people do/believe, i think it's a little childish, and its a fact christianity plagiarized their ENTIRE religion off the egyptians and greek gods, but what the hell are you even trying to prove? That theism DIDN'T murder, enslave, and condemn people for believing differently? Well, your wrong.....
TacoBurgher327 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TacoBurgher327
"In fact it was actually theologians & priest who ushered in the modern sciences" And you want to talk about history HA HA HA HA" "Ha ha i never said theists COULDN'T be scientists"
I never said that either. I said that the first to usher in the modern sciences were theologians, priest and monks.
You can find this fact in any reputable encyclopedia. Your response above shows that you havent got a clue.
This is why you cannot cite evidence for your claims.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@TacoBurgher327You1st claimed that this was a anti scientific cult. Since you could not provide evidence you now are resorting to offering red herring arguments pertaining to plagiarism or historical injustices which happen to be apart of our human history. Personally I wouldn't mind talking about this, but judging from your previous responses concerning the last 700 hundred years of history, I cant expect you to have any different knowledge or attitude based on the last 3000 years of history.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester Im glad you keep bashing something i have never said. I never stated scientists couldn't be theologists, so i don't know WHY you insist on acting like that's what i said with "some of the theologian scientist that started the modern sciences"
If you want examples of theology hindering scientific growth, then i recomend lookin up what "The Dark Ages" were.
You try to knock my intelligence, yet you continue to argue something i've never said.....
TacoBurgher327 6 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 You tried and failed to make a claim that Galileo was persecuted for his science when true history tells us he was given full permission to do science including the copernicus hypotheses, but got in trouble for going back on a promise not to publicly get involved in church politics.
Galileo believed in creation even though telic design vs naturalism had already been contemplated by scholars for thousands of years by that time. So by your definition Galileo was a cultist.
benthemiester 6 months ago
According to your definition, Isaac Newton, Fred Hoyle, Gregor Mendel were all cultist. Einstein believed in a higher power was he a cultist also?
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester Keep writing novels and missing the point..... typical theist!
TacoBurgher327 6 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 I can back up everything I have said, but you have not been able to offer one verifiable citation. I also included "A scientific dissent (Dissent From Darwin)" which is a list which continues to grow and is on line for everyone to see.
I got your point, but you cant seem to back it up with any credible evidence. You are repeating a mantra that you have been spoon-fed all your life without actually researching the subject. It is the neo Darwinian synthesis that has set us back.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester You make a lot of assumptions about my life and what i have and have not researched... "It is the neo Darwinian synthesis that has set us back." ha ha yea, that's why we have seen applications AFTER the theory of evolution came out, right? That's why "everything in biology only makes sense in the light of evolution," right? Yea, what a set back, with one hundred years of new vaccines for the sick, and the understanding of how we came to form here. F it all, right?
TacoBurgher327 6 months ago
@benthemiester "You1st claimed that this was a anti scientific cult. " Yes, and it is. Anyone, even today, who believes the bible over REAL data and facts is part of an anti scientific cult. Darwin's origins of species came out in 1859... It took religion over one hundred years to admit something we KNEW, and STILL, most christians don't and WON'T understand evolution based on THEIR truth "god made us." If that's not an ANTI scientific cult, i dunno what is.
TacoBurgher327 6 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 cont...... If you want proof you can watch my posted video of evo devo Stuart Newman, who along with hundreds if not thousands of others scientist from around the globe are trying to extend the evolutionary synthesis, because they now realize how limited it is in explanatory powers. The Video Is entitled
"Will the Real Theory of Evolution Please Stand Up" You can also read the findings of the Altenberg 16 summit. In MIT press which is a highly respected academics press.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 cont.....the world, and published publicly for all to see.
Even evo devo/evolutionary development biologist are now challenging the orthodoxy of the neo Darwinian synthesis and many of its central dogmas including the limitations of natural selection as a creative or dominant force. Even the hardcore evolutionist Massimo Pigliucci is calling for a relaxation of many of the assumptions of the neo Darwinian synthesis.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 cont....way he never meant for it to be. Today even the neo Darwinian synthesis is dying the death of a thousand cuts. Its not just creationist and ID theorist anymore, but more and more mainstream scientist and scholars like James Shapiro, Phillip Skell, Bradley Monton and an ever growing list of dissenter now over eight hundred strong and constantly growing, representing all different back grounds including atheist and agnostics from all over the country and
benthemiester 6 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 cont...... Every one knows that neo Darwinist hijacked Mendel's work and synthesized, or what some would call piggy back it onto the neo Darwinian synthesis. You can find this in any encyclopedia, and even though Mendel's work was first ignored for fifty years and In fact, Mendel did not even agree with Darwin's theory, but by then, Mendel was already dead and had no say in how others would fuse his work in a
benthemiester 6 months ago
@TacoBurgher327
As for the dark ages please provide an example of the church hindering science. As for Darwin, are you kidding? Classical Darwinism was abandon 80 years ago. Darwin was found to be wrong about most things, including his famous Pangenesis blunder. It was actually the Christian monk Gregor Mendel who's Law of inheritance that became the modern standard. Clasical Darwinism had to be replace with Neo Darwinism because of all of Darwin's errors. (Neo meaning new)..........
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester But AGAIN, i understand you theists don't deal to hard with FACTS and PROOF ha ha, and hence, why you WOULD be ignorant to how damaging theology was and still is to the homo sapien species.
"I think your confusing the word science with political activism" And THIS is hilarious, because WHY do you think theism started? Not because of power and control or anything along those lines. NOOOO ha ha ha ha ignorant fools....
TacoBurgher327 6 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 What is being challenged right now is the modern synthesis itself, as well as its central dogmas, including the limitations of natural selection, random mutation and its inability to explain life as we know it.
You can still believe in evolution as a concept if you wish, but as a theory its dying the death of a thousand cuts and is now even being openly challenged by some evolution development biologist/ evo devo's, as we speak.
benthemiester 6 months ago
@benthemiester "You can still believe in evolution as a concept " No one is "believing" in evolution ha ha its a name for a process we observe. Just like gravity. AND, just like gravity, it's not FULLY understood, but NO biologist is stating "evolution doesn't happen." Evolution, or mutations in species, have been observed and documented.
This "but as a theory its dying the death of a thousand cuts" Also doesn't make sense as a theory only needs ONE piece of evidence to disprove it....
TacoBurgher327 6 months ago
Ha !! - Judging by this new description and the link you posted, it looks like you're a convert away from creationism... When did this occur - Own up ! - Was it during our discussion?
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim " it looks like you're a convert away from creationism"
Whatever you need bro. I know this is hard for you since you've continued to troll it shows me darwinism and scientism at its finest =p Thank for that .
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal" darwinism and scientism at its finest "
OK ....But I'm only after the truth that you seem to be afraid to give me.
Is that what you mean by "Darwinism" and "Scientism"?
Are they people who hound dishonest people like you till they get the truth?
Tobytrim 1 year ago
The first 20 second is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO mind boggingly STUPID. are they trying to debunk evolution here, or abiogenesis? Why the hell are these idiots conflating evolution and abiogenesis? That is RETARDED. In terms of evolution, NO ONE GIVES A DAMN how life started, just that once it got on earth, evolution took over. Remember poster of this vid, evolution is NOT the explanation of the origin of LIFE, but the origin of SPECIES. Dont forget that
crackerkiller89 1 year ago
@crackerkiller89 If abiogenesis was answered today and accepted , evolutionists would jump on that and stroke it till it turned red. Just because abiogensis is still a question mark today makes you wanna stay away ? I dont blame you . But once abiogenisis is established watch how many darwinsits jump on it and use it . Double standards, cherry pick what you like =p when its convienant for you
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal " Just because abiogensis is still a question mark today makes you wanna stay away "
Who want's to stay away?? Sientists are working on it as we speak , and there are some good hypothesese regarding it. However there is no clear description of the exact chemical pathway that began life on this planet
But it is chemistry, NOT biological evolution.
Why do you want to cling to an unrelated theory ? A red herring? Is it because evolution is too strong for you to to deal with?
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "Sientists are working on it as we speak , and there are some good hypothesese regarding it."
I know billy , my point is darwinists stay away from this because its still being worked on . The day you see in headlines abiogensis answered you will see darwinists use this point to there full advantage. They are iffy about it and want to stay away just incase it fails , but the day is suceeds they will be all over . like fat kid with a cheeseburger
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal "darwinists stay away from this because its still being worked on" What the hell are darwinists??
If you want to label an accepter of a certain science by adding "ist" or "ism" to those who come up with testable theory in it, the word for biological evolution would have1000's of letters in it!
Abiogenesis scientists will be happy to tell you what they have so far. I'll be happy to discuss what I know about it.
IT STILL has nothing to do with the complexity of life!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "What the hell are darwinists??"
Strict believers in darwins theory who push it no matter what . They dun care for truth they just care about delivering theworld from evil(god) to good (darwinian) theory. They use the good science in evolution and mix it with bad science to push there ideologys no matter how absurd , baseless or fabricated evidence is involved. This is evolutionists vs darwinists . science vs scientism ;)
yourboycal 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "If you want to label an accepter of a certain science by adding "ist" or "ism" to those who come up with testable theory in it, the word for biological evolution would have1000's of letters in it!"
No you missed the point . I believe in good science , not tained science . I believe in good religion . not extreamist religion . There is a differnce my good man. But your to narrow minded to care , to you its all the same
yourboycal 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "Abiogenesis scientists will be happy to tell you what they have so far. I'll be happy to discuss what I know about it.
IT STILL has nothing to do with the complexity of life!"
Right now it has nothing to do with the complexity of life . because it has no answers nor results . Once they do . you will see darwinists jump on it and stroke it 3 days from sunday . They will use it like its going out of fashion. only because its in there intrest at that point .
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal"because it has no answers nor results "
No..., as I pointed out, The theory of evolution stands on it's own! It doesn't need abiogenesis to explain what it explains.
Aiogenesis is attempting to explain the chemical origin of life.
It has not, as yet, defined the exact series of events that brought it about,
though they can show the possibility of most of these processes currently
You seem to lack the ability to get this,after several explanations - is this deliberate?
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "It doesn't need abiogenesis to explain what it explains."
You telling me when abiogensis is answerd darwinists wont use it ?
yourboycal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yourboyca"lYou telling me when abiogensis is answerd darwinists wont use it ?"
Who the hell are "darwinists" and what do you think they can use it for? You don't seem to have any understanding of science.
Do you think it's propaganda? - Or even a "matter of opinion? Lol!!
What a numbnut!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "It has not, as yet, defined the exact series of events that brought it about,"
Just like darwinism .
"You seem to lack the ability to get this,after several explanations - is this deliberate? "
You seem not to read my posts about linking abiogensis before and after its value. Right now its worthless once its worth something will you jump on it ?? yes or no . i asked simple questions you keep avoiding . is this deliberate? Of course not i wont insult your intelligence =)
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal " Right now its worthless once its worth something will you jump on it ??"
Worthless to whom?? ot to the scientists who are working on the chemical origins of life .
Yes...I agree that it is useless to explain the diversity of life. Evolution explains that!
When the research leads to a cohesive theory of abiogenesis, it may well explain more about evolution - and vice versa - that's how science works - It fills in the gaps in human knowledge, without settling on "god did it"
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "Worthless to whom?? ot to the scientists who are working on the chemical origins of life"
Worthless to the darwinists who have told me it means nothing . These arent my words these are the darwinists good sir.
"Yes...I agree that it is useless to explain the diversity of life. Evolution explains that"
No evolution only paints part of the picture , there are more things at work . You see how your mind is made up ? =p
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal " once its worth something will you jump on it ?? yes or no . i asked simple questions you keep avoiding"
Jump on it for what??? This isn't even a lucid question.
Are you asking that, if it extendes the theory of evolution back through to it's chemical origins, that I won't offer that evidence to any creationist still stubbornly stupid enough to deny observable tested fact?
Yeah - Damn right!!
But as I pointed out : - Evolution doesn't require abiogenesis to validate it!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "Jump on it for what??? This isn't even a lucid question.
Are you asking that, if it extendes the theory of evolution"
They will use as extention once its shown . but now they wont even talk about it and try to stay away because they know how far feteched it is . Do you claim it will extend ? is that your hope ?
yourboycal 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "Evolution doesn't require abiogenesis to validate it!"
No just requires macro evolution observable data.
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal " you will see darwinists jump on it and stroke it 3 days from sunday "
You still haven't defined what you are calling "darwinists" - Every scientist working inthe relevent fields accepts Mendelian/Darwinian evolution. Even Kenyon here!
If a chemical pathway is provided to explain life and replicated in a lab.
Scientists wil say it explains abiogeniesis - evolution is already explained.
If you're referring to atheists, it wil be just one less reason to believe in "gods"
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "You still haven't defined what you are calling "darwinists" "
Another example of not reading my posts and hitting reply. Good sir I have defined darwinists for you many posts before . Remember what you said earlier about others reading this ? Well here is another example of how you trolls like to hit reply before reading a persons comment.
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal "Good sir I have defined darwinists for you many posts before "
No you bloody haven't!!
Except for the piss poor attempt just now! You need to give me an example of what you are calling Darwinists? What are they?
Do they cut into church sermons, or annoy people on their doorstep like religious nuts? Do they have a Church? Do they just hand out leaflets in the streets?
Who are Darwinists? Do you mean the scientists who are researching related fields?
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@yourboycal" Good sir I have defined darwinists for you many posts before"
Do you simply mean ANYONE who accepts the scientific theory of evolution?
Which is pretty much every educated person in the world , outside of a few religious nutcases.
And I would call them educated exactly!! Lol!!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "Do you simply mean ANYONE who accepts the scientific theory of evolution?"
After all the times i've cleared it up you still assume this ? its to bad
"Which is pretty much every educated person in the world , outside of a few religious nutcases.
And I would call them educated exactly!! Lol!!
Thats all you got eh ?
yourboycal 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "Every scientist working inthe relevent fields accepts Mendelian/Darwinian evolution"
Yea the ones who havnt been "Expelled" right? Or the ones who are to afraid to talk about alternatives ? Or the ones to afraid to speak intelligent design and lose grants?
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal "the ones who havnt been "Expelled"" Anyone who want's to provide evidence to challenge the theory of evolution.wouldn't be expelled
- If successful, they would be heroes!
Any one who challenges it without evidence and tries to teach unsupported speculation to kids without encouraging the same testability that formed the theory in the first place, isn't just unfair, -he is not a scientist, and ought to be expelled from the scientific community!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "Anyone who want's to provide evidence to challenge the theory of evolution.wouldn't be expelled"
Then that movie lied? Dont you see how suicidal it is for your carrer to even bring it up ? What kinda dogma indoctrination is this ?
"from the scientific community"
You see even scientists who are against the grain are not part of your scientific community ? you just label him as not a scientist? because of his views looool silly rabbit.
yourboycal 1 year ago
@Tobytrim " Any one who challenges it without evidence "
Why not stop the fear mongering ? so they can get grants and funding for there reserach ? Expelled shows that clearly i know it hurts the darwinists but hey truth hurts rite
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal Expelled?? You mean that garbage by Ben Stein??
Ok ...I'll bite....Why do you think this rubbish, produced by an intellectually dishonest ignoramus, is going to hurt a scientific theory that has been upheld by every single piece of relevent , new, scientific information in the last 150 years ?That has millons of individual data point, and hundreds of thousands of peer review observations to confirm it ?
That informs data used by medical and forensic science? Ha!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "Expelled?? You mean that garbage by Ben Stein??"
See this would be the reaction to anyone who got exposed . naturally they will say this , if it has merit or not
"Why do you think this rubbish, produced by an intellectually dishonest ignoramus"
Again one mans garbage is another mans gold. Its only rubbish because it exposes the ugly side of your belief system
yourboycal 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "That has millons of individual data point, and hundreds of thousands of peer review observations to confirm it ? "
Expelled wasnt there to refute evolution , it was there to show the ugly side of scientism. What happens when you dare try and talk about ID or creationism.
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal "Expelled wasnt there to refute evolution"
Only because it couldn't in any honest way. Stein is a creationist though isn't he?
Don't you think that was his motive?
More to the point , if "Expelled" isn't about refuting evolution, why did YOU bring it up ? You are certainly trying to refute evolution!
You seem to be even more dishonest than Stein!!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "You seem to be even more dishonest than Stein!! "
Another baseless claim .. Keep bringing them on you've got quite the list now .
" if "Expelled" isn't about refuting evolution, why did YOU bring it up ? "
To show you my problem with science today . The ugly side scientism.. Which darwinists hold on to tight =) This was very obvious if you pull your ego out your ass?
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal" To show you my problem with science today . The ugly side scientism" Ha ha!! "Scientism"??? You seem to have latched on to a fictional word invented by the great Isaac Asminov , an atheist, in a novel called "Foundation"
Do you mean science?
What have you got against science?
In fact, what have you got against people who accept science?
Why don't you give my an example of science that you think is "dogma"?
Give me single claim by scientists that you think is "dishonest"
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "Ha ha!! "Scientism"??? You seem to have latched on to a fictional word invented by the great Isaac Asminov , an atheist, in a novel called "Foundation"
Why call out the word scientism now ? when i've used it so many times before? Is it because your running out of places to hide? Silly rabbit trix are for kids
yourboycal 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "Do you mean science?"
If i meant science iw ould say science. I said scientism for a reason.
"in fact, what have you got against people who accept science?"
Again trolling statement baseless =) But nice try.
"Why don't you give my an example of science that you think is "dogma"?
Global warming + climate gate. =*(
"Give me single claim by scientists that you think is "dishonest" "
the consences on global warming
yourboycal 1 year ago
@Tobytrim Why do you not answer my points insteading of constant topic changing ?
When you run out of argument you turn to my words ? thats i've been using all along
"scientism?"!?! is this new ? or is this your last defence?
yourboycal 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "Whatever Stein says, or even proves can't change that fact."
The documentary speaks for it self . Ben just had to ask the questions and wait for answers . I know it hurts . but hey atleast it will make more scientists and insitutions more open minded and not fire guys who want to look into alternate views.... Keep trolling and avoiding my good man im here all day paid on the clock =)
yourboycal 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "Expelled?? You mean that garbage by Ben Stein??"
1) Did ben put a gun to there head when he asked a question ???
2) Did ben put a gun to there head to answer bens way???
The documentary speaks for it self . Your telling me grown brilliant scientific minds were fooled when they got asked the questions and the answers they gave??
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal "Did ben put a gun to there head when he asked a question ??? "
No but he didn't research their answers -They were exposed as lies later.
No he didn't need to - The way he wanted them to answer the question suited their whinge!
One of them , for example, was caught , dishonestly trying to get some ID propaganda through peer review. And he wasn't even on the faculty of the institution he says he was fired from!!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "No but he didn't research their answers -They were exposed as lies later"
Actually no they werent exposed as lies. He asked questions got answers and its all on video. Reserach their answers??? who are you kidding ? WE saw what we say in the documentary . Its simple you just didnt like the outcome
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal" WE saw what we say in the documentary" No you saw what somebody claimed in this sordid little film - Lol !! What was uncovered by later research was an embarrassment to Stein. I have already pointed out what!
He even made very basic childish mistakes about the theory...But also about the details described by the "victims" in the interviews.
He was handed his arse in later interviews.
Did you see the pasting the critics gave that laughable piece of shit by the way.?
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "No you saw what somebody claimed in this sordid little film - Lol !!V"
Baseless , trolling.
"What was uncovered by later research was an embarrassment to Stein. I have already pointed out what!"
Actually was not am embarrsement to Stein it was to the person who was responsible.
"He even made very basic childish mistakes "
Every basic one eh ? More voodoo science?
"Did you see the pasting the critics gave that laughable piece of shit by the way.?"
hurt?
yourboycal 1 year ago
@Tobytrim :"if "Expelled" isn't about refuting evolution, why did YOU bring it up ?"
Now your gonna ask this ? after your failed attemptes to debunk it ? This is pretty sad good sir .
yourboycal 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "No he didn't need to - The way he wanted them to answer the question suited their whinge!"
Another weak attempt . Again nobody put a gun to these scientists heads . ARe you calling these brilliant minds fools for answering the questions? Why not just refuse the interview?? Do you understand the consequences of agreeing to be interviewed?
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal" Another weak attempt "
A weak attempt at what? You're off on a red herring here.
If absolutely every sordid claim this piece of rubbish made was true. I debunked it's point at the beginning.
They had no peer review evidence to cite - so they obviously weren't sacked for disagreeing with the scientific community.
Science is about testable evidence
What did they have or what do you have?
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "f absolutely every sordid claim this piece of rubbish made was true. I debunked it's point at the beginning"
Just because in your mind it seems like debunking its a little differnt in reality sorry =/
"They had no peer review evidence to cite - so they obviously weren't sacked for disagreeing with the scientific community."
Peer review for a documentary ?? Was he doing an article or showing us the ugly side of scientism??
yourboycal 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "Science is about testable evidence
What did they have or what do you have?"
Yes i agree testable evidence . millions and billions year ago is not testable evidence its scientism.
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboyca"lARe you calling these brilliant minds fools for answering the questions?" Interesting though...Who are these brilliant minds and what do you think they said to validate Steins cause
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "Who are these brilliant minds and what do you think they said to validate Steins cause"
What do you believe steins cause was is the first question. Clearly you think he has an agenda .
yourboycal 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "One of them , for example, was caught , dishonestly trying to get some ID propaganda through peer review."
Its sad they have to resort to such tactics just to get there voices heard ? Thankfully expelled exposes this sort of scientism and information supression
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal Why not stop the fear mongering ? so they can get grants and funding for there reserach" Do you really think these guys have any research in mind?
Ok...Ill bite again..,. What is the research they can do...What have they come up with so far?
All I've ever heard ID proponent posit, is their own personal belief - It's religion "
Didn't you read or hear the verdict of the a christian, republican judge at theDover/ Kitmiller trial?
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "Why not stop the fear mongering ? so they can get grants and funding for there reserach"
Micheal Behe never fear mongered the guy int his video doesnt seem to be fear mongering? WHy the baseless claims???
"Do you really think these guys have any research in mind?"
I cant speak for them i do not know them , darwinists make leaps of faith not me.
"All I've ever heard ID proponent posit, is their own personal belief - It's religion " to hear about it .
Thats all u wanna hear
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal"Yes i did and how the creationists minipulated and lied was unacceptable" Do you realise that Behe isn't a creationist and he argued the same ID point as Kenyon is trying to make there?:
You have just Pawned yourself!!!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "Do you realise that Behe isn't a creationist and he argued the same ID point as Kenyon is trying to make there?:
You have just Pawned yourself!!! "
First off there are many scientists who are creationists that dont admit it for personal reasons . 2) creationists minipulating was from the the case. Please dont quote mine . This is a silly tactic i've seen many darwinists and creationists use. You should be ashamed.
yourboycal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yourboycal" First off there are many scientists who are creationists that dont admit it for personal reasons" Behe Is being handed his arse daily by the scientific community What reason would he need to hide his creationist..
He's been asked directly and he accepts common ancestry of hmans and te oter apes. You can't get any more "Darwinist" - That's a matter of record!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@yourboycal "Darwinists" don't quote mine, they QUOTE. Creationists quote mine! The difference being, when I QUOTE, I will source it, so you can check the exact context and the validity of it.
For example:
"The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications." (Judge Jones summing up - Dover kitzmiller p87)
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "The difference being, when I QUOTE, I will source it, so you can check the exact context and the validity of it."
Changing topics again sigh =/ ... you wanted to know what i have a problem with . i told you many times . I gave you examples as to why . I am very well aware of the judge jones dover case. The quote mine was not for this . you've just twisted it to bring it to this . This is another failed attempted of character assination. I'll wait for your next troll comment=)
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal Why are you so quite now ? =) Trying to change the topic at hand just shows me how weak your arguments are , all it shows is you have no where else to hide . Its just trolling now . i would say you wasted my time , but then conversations with people are the best way to come together =)
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal Or try this:-
"After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community". [pp. 88-89 - Judge Jones - Dover /Kitzmiller summing up)
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory "
Sure pal . no problem . Now back to scientism and darwinism which was what was at hand. But your trolled off to change topics so i wont go back to it . Sorry =)
yourboycal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yourboycal" Sure pal . no problem . Now back to scientism and darwinism which was what was at hand."
Do I accept that as your conceding the point about Judge Jones ruling ID as non scienc?
You said I was wrong remember?
If so, we can certainly get back to my umpteenth request for you to explain the difference between this madeup word "scientism" and real .
Can you cite me a single person who admits to being a practitioner of this "scientism"?
Or is it some you just imagine they do?
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim Why change the topic good sir ? Are you that mad you have no arguments left?
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal "Why change the topic good sir ? Are you that mad you have no arguments left?"
No I'm quite happy trying to get you to explain why you feel that you can imagine up some people made "isms"nto describe fictional beliefs that attribute to them .
I may backtrack later though, to get you to acknowledge that you were wrong when you said Dover Kitzmiller didn't find ID as "not science"
You still haven't conceded or challenged that!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "No I'm quite happy trying to get you to explain why you feel that you can imagine up some people made "isms"nto describe fictional beliefs that attribute to them ."
You dont want to hear explainations , you wouldnt be trolling if you were . the isms is part of scientism. Many scientists are aware of this and im sure are not proud of it . But just like religion it has its bad seeds
yourboycal 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "Only because it couldn't in any honest way. Stein is a creationist though isn't he?"
Whats it matter when the documentary is what were talking about ? You should ask stein what he believes in . But please dont change topic stay on the documentary
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal ". But please dont change topic stay on the documentary "
Why? it was a red herring of yours.... I destroyed any relevence of it before you even brought it up.
Scientists who disagree with ANY scientific theory INCLUDING evolution can publish. No-one in the scientific community can argue with testable evidence Science bases on authority or opinions , but testable evidence.
Whatever Stein says, or even proves can't change that fact.
So what is your problem with testability?
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim " I destroyed any relevence of it before you even brought it up"
You thought you did .
"Scientists who disagree with ANY scientific theory"
WRONG again
"Whatever Stein says, or even proves can't change that fact.
So what is your problem with testability? "
Again you missed the point . Please read the posts im not typing it out again for you . You've proven you dont read posts before hitting reply so i'll forgive you this time =)
yourboycal 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "I refuse to accept your answers because I can't get a straight one from you!!
"
You've got plenty of answers you just dont like to read them before hitting reply =)
yourboycal 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "Don't you think that was his motive?"
Again , i asked you this question but you refuse to answer and trying to switch it without another failed response.
yourboycal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yourboycal" Again , i asked you this question but you refuse to answer"
What question ? I don't dodge questions - Ask it again if you think I'm dodging it!!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "More to the point , if "Expelled" isn't about refuting evolution, why did YOU bring it up ? You are certainly trying to refute evolution!"
Again trolling . This is to show you the ugly side of darwinism and scientism that pleagues good science today.
yourboycal 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "Didn't you read or hear the verdict of the a christian, republican judge at theDover/ Kitmiller trial?"
Yes i did and how the creationists minipulated and lied was unacceptable and i give creationists shit for this also . I dont just give darwinists shit i talk to alot of creationists also and challenge them
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboyca"lYes i did and how the creationists minipulated and lied was unacceptable" Then what is your problem? Darwinian/ Mendelian evolution is supported by testable science, or it wouldn;t exist as a theory .
No claim made by Kenyon he is,,,,,Nor by Stein.
Is your argument against testable science?
You seem to be arguing against yourself!
You are aware that the Kitzmiller judge also ruled ID as "not science" either, because it isn't testable science?
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "Then what is your problem? Darwinian/ Mendelian evolution is supported by testable science, or it wouldn;t exist as a theory ."
My problem is darwinists who use good science for scientism. I've said this far to many times but you refuse to accept .
yourboycal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yourboycal" My problem is darwinists who use good science for scientism" OK. so you've latched on to a fictitious word that you want to attach your own personal meaning to.
What do you think this "scientism" coven or "sect" is about? Explain??
Incidently, what is the singular noun "scientist?? Lol!!
You are starting to read like someone with a psychotic paranoid persecution complex... I mean really creepy!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yourboycal"My problem is darwinists who use good science for scientism" What are "Darwinists" using Good science for? Mendelian/Darwinism IS good science!! - It's the most strongly supported by testable evidence of ANY theory EVER proposed by science.- Or can you show me otherwise?
You will have to resort to testable science there too!!
Sorry, but you really are talking bollocks - And round in circles doing it!! - Lol!!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "Is your argument against testable science?"
Again trolling statement. When i've made this clear many times . No.
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal All science is testability ! A theory doesn't sustain if it doesn't survive rigorous sceptical testing by peer experts with a vested interest in falsifying the theory.
Why have you got a proplem with that?
I shouldn't have to draw answers out of you liketeeth. you're a pretty gutless debater.
What is your problem with Science???
You haven't made this clear!! What I've just described IS science!!
You don't seem to understand how scientific community works!!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "You seem to be arguing against yourself!
You are aware that the Kitzmiller judge also ruled ID as "not science" either, because it isn't testable science?"
Wrong again , you just assume that because you refuse to accept the answers i give you . You've made me repeat over and over again , with you keep twisting and quote mining your way through. THis is very shameful . But you could care less right =)
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal ". "Wrong again , you just assume that because you refuse to accept the answers i give you"
Really? Explain?
I refuse to accept your answers because I can't get a straight one from you!! Do I really need to trawl through judge Jones' summing up , to show you I'm NOT wrong? You are simply contradicted me you have offered no reasoning or evidence
What is wrong with testable science rejecting unsupported declarations of faith? _ You STILL haven't answered!!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "eally? Explain?"
read the posts.
" refuse to accept your answers because I can't get a straight one from you!!"
Scientism +darwinism is my problem. Tainting good science. This the how many times i've said this ??
"Do I really need to trawl through judge Jones' summing up , to show you I'm NOT wrong? You are simply contradicted me you have offered no reasoning or evidence"
Do ask you wish good sir nobody has a gun to your head here
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal "Scientism +darwinism is my problem. Tainting good science. This the how many times i've said this"
This isn't explaining anything - It's making a bald accusation.Without any reasoning, evidence or foundation.
Who are they and how do you think they are "tainting science"??
Give me an example of a "Darwinist" or a Scientismist" and explain how they are tainting good science? What is Darwinism - who are these "Darwinist" have they even got a web page?
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "This isn't explaining anything - It's making a bald accusation.Without any reasoning, evidence or foundation."
Actually that was for your other post . Quote mining again are we ? That was referring to what im against. I've made that post plus both definitions. Please continue to troll .
yourboycal 1 year ago
@Tobytrim This isn't explaining anything - It's making a bald accusation.Without any reasoning, evidence or foundation.
Its because its another example of quote mining good sir . You take quotes from one post and try to tie it with another . Again failboat but its okay =) Were here to learn rightÉ
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal" You take quotes from one post and try to tie it with another"
I haven't a clue what accusation your making now. Will you explain this?
What's your point? Are you just trying to get off this subject?
The question I was asking is :-
What are you calling "Darwinism"? You used the term a lot. You should be able to say what YOU mean by it, and what you find wrong with it?
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "What is wrong with testable science rejecting unsupported declarations of faith? _ You STILL haven't answered!! "
I have answered you didnt like my answers. Im sorry Please re-read the posts and stop trolling. Your running out of things to hide behind . Thats very obvious by your comments now . =)
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal" Please re-read the posts and stop trolling. Your running out of things to hide behind"
Ha ha!! you're the one who's trolling which is really stupid , as you are the one who posted this silly vid!!
I suspect you may be trying to set up an excuse to block me...So I'll press you for a straight answer.
What is Scientism?
What is the difference between them and people who simply accept science as a good explaination for natural causation over superstition?
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "Ha ha!! you're the one who's trolling which is really stupid , as you are the one who posted this silly vid!!"
Well if you have problems with the video why not send me a list of all the parts you have problems with and i can add annoations if your claims are true?
" suspect you may be trying to set up an excuse to block me...So I'll press you for a straight answer."
Oh no i dont want to block you .. i want everyone to see how darwinists troll
yourboycal 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "What is Scientism?
What is the difference between them and people who simply accept science as a good explaination for natural causation over superstition?"
Good sir .. Please read the posts again . Im not entertaining you with the same questions over and over again . Again if you do not like my answer im sorry , but i will not mold it to what you want. It doesnt work that way
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal .." Please read the posts again . Im not entertaining you with the same questions over and over again "
I honestly haven't found any explanation for what you what a "Darwinist" is over someone who open mindedly accepts the theory of evolution based on evidence.
Nor what the hell a Scientism practitioner is?
Can you paste the answer to your next response?
As they are your PERSONAL words, I can't google them!
How can I evaluate your premise if I don't know what you're saying?
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "I honestly haven't found any explanation for what you what a "Darwinist" is over someone who open mindedly accepts the theory of evolution based on evidence.È
You didnt read the posts , clearly your lying
yourboycal 1 year ago
@Tobytrim ÈNor what the hell a Scientism practitioner is?
Can you paste the answer to your next response?
As they are your PERSONAL words, I can't google them!
How can I evaluate your premise if I don't know what you're saying?
You do know what im saying you chose to close your ears and yell blah blah i cant hear you =)
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal "Many scientists are aware of this and im sure are not proud of it"
Ha ha!! is this how you are going to weasel out of this???? Is this what you were claiming your point was all along??? I agree with the above statement - who the hell wouldn't?
OK....So what are you saying a Darwinist is? And why are you using the name of a great pioneer of science and the positer of the most successful theory in Science to describe a dishonest scientist?
You have backpedalled!!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "Ha ha!! is this how you are going to weasel out of this???? Is this what you were claiming your point was all along???"
There not proud of scientism ? Obviously good sir . Scientism is the dark cloud over science . Why would anyone be proud of it ? Why do you think im so against it ? Why call it weaseling out ?? are you running out of argument ? is that your hope =p
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal Keep trolling buddy im having pizza for dinner =)
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal "now your back on your other made up word.
What is "scientism". Are you describing a dishonest use of science? If you are are, are you saying that scientists who accept, research, or publish on biological evolution are somehow dishonest, or tainting science? Are you saying "Darwinists" are prone to dishonesty?
If so, what is your argument for this.
You seem to be afraid to make ANY point.
What are you afraid of?
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "You seem to be afraid to make ANY point.
What are you afraid of? "
ITs just to see your blood boil. you looking for an excuse to leave =p But im not given you any, you've trolled and you know it . Your just bleeding out now ... keep trolling =p haha
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal " no - I don't need an excuse to leave.....I could have done that with my head high , as soon as you couldn't respond to my question.
But I'm not trolling, and I'm staying on to prove it to you and giving you a chance to save face.
Just answer the question. If I leave this thread without you showing that you CAN answer, you lose your chance to leave this debate without being shamed. I don't know if you're sober now or lucid. But you have much to lose on your own thread!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@Tobytrim "But I'm not trolling, and I'm staying on to prove it to you and giving you a chance to save face.
Just keep trying to cover up the comments =) . You see these kinda moments with youtube trolls is classic. THere stuck and looking for a