Eugenie Scott - Intelligent Design Creationism 3of10

[ndrthrdr1]

Another votebot attack dumping fake Dislikes on videos that make creatards tremble in fear.

Click Like on this video! Screw those fundies!

[ScarletSacrieur]

How dare a science textbook be biased towards science >_>

[ScarletSacrieur]

How dare a science textbook be biased towards science >_>

[dilemmix]

Wow a lot of creationists (retards) have given these videos thumbs down.

[mfitzjarrald]

@dilemmix And there is another thumbs down...............

[benthemiester]

You need to lay off the sauce man.

[ThatOneQuestion]

Silly little child, if you cant do anything but lie to my face, why should I even bother listening to your bullshit?

You obviously dont know what you are talking about.

[benthemiester]

The guy below says it all. This is all they have.

[benthemiester]

Have you ever heard of a scientific theory that required the aid of judicial activism to keep it alive? Judges don't have the scientific knowledge to decide these questions. You know very little about American politics.Your a very amusing fellow to say the least

[ThatOneQuestion]

Oh you silly little fool!

Its not about if the judge can understand the science, its if the Dover school board had religious motivations. They did because the Discovery Institute pushed their book, Of Pandas and People, which PROVED those dumbasses were advocating religion in school.

What was the proof? After the Supreme Court made a verdict a while ago, the DI simply copied and pasted words to make it sound better.

ID is Creationism, dipshit. No two ways about it.

[ThatOneQuestion]

It is against the law to teach religion is schools like that.

The Dover school board members who hadn't already resigned over this bullshit were kicked out of office due to public outrage at putting religion into schools.

The Discovery Institute is guilty of trying to promote religion into schools through its deceitful propaganda book.

Not only that, but Behe was embarrassed on the stand.

[ThatOneQuestion]

Intelligent Design doesn't have any testable hypothesis to make. The only statement it tries to assert is that "We are too stupid to understand it, therefor MAGIC MAN did it."

Sorry, you ignorant child, that doesn't fly.

What the trial proved is that ID is religion.

There is no controversy to teach. Even if there were, we would have to include ALL religions, not just your specific one, idiot.

You have nothing, kid.

[ThatOneQuestion]

Also, are you actually implying that the Theory of Evolution required judicial support to keep it alive?

You dont have a god damned clue on what the trial was about, do you?

Its ignorant savages like you that confuse honest people looking for answers.

The trial wasn't about validating Evolution, it was about proving the religious ties behind the Dover board's propaganda bullshit.

You are a friggin moron.

[ThatOneQuestion]

Even if Evolution was invalidated tomorrow, that still wouldn't make the bullshit you are pushing true.

False Dichotomy, retard.

You would STILL have to PROVE your BS with EVIDENCE. You cant, because you rely on MAGIC and FAITH, not proof.

You can sit there and poke at your own strawmen all day, little boy, but you will NEVER escape the fallacies that will forever destroy your bullshit.

[benthemiester]

If you cant carry on an intelligent conversation and have to resort to name calling like a spoiled child, then please don't bother me anymore. I don't have time for sandbox arguments. However If you want to talk about science like grown men instead of children then let me know.

[ThatOneQuestion]

Intelligent conversation??

AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

You silly Theist! You dare talk about intelligent conversation when you support Intelligent Design??

You dont know the first thing about science, so no, I couldn't care what your propaganda bullshit says or what you think you know.

You havn't proven you are capable of speaking like an adult because you support blatant lies.

How can I trust a liar?

[ThatOneQuestion]

You, benthemiester, didn't have a clue what the Dover Trial was about.

You tried to use the Summit as some kind of validation for your bullshit claim about Evolution being a Scientific Theory in "crisis".

You took a look at my profile and made fun of my location, falling for the trap that lets me know you dont have anything left. I'm not from New Zealand, that is a trap for idiots like you to fall into Ad Hominems.

You have nothing.

[ThatOneQuestion]

Pathetic fools like you, benthemiester, arn't interested in intelligent conversation or a civil exchange of ideas.

You are a Theist supporting a propaganda war against a society turning away from your religion.

You will use lies and misinformation to attain your goals, NOT facts and CERTAINLY NOT anything intelligent.

Scum like you couldn't even validate your way out of freshmen geology classes.

Your Magic Man isn't real. Grow up you coward.

[ThatOneQuestion]

Since you went to my channel looking for things, why dont you go there again and look at my playlists.

Not the 3 featured ones, either.  I have 30+ other playlists.

One of them is the Fall of Intelligent Design, with 70 videos. The first few series alone invalidates any argument you could possibly have.

Now, as YOU called me a pindejo, you have no moral high ground to climb to, so dont even play that card, you intellectual insect.

[benthemiester]

Well, it's nice to be loved Thank you. I love you too. I never said people who didn't believe like I did were childlike. I said the drunk guy who cusses like a sailor was childlike.

[stevebr]

ID is a philosophy of ignorance. It has no place in science

[benthemiester]

I think this is your'es and many others strongest suit, which is to dismiss ID as philosophical ignorance. There seems to be one problem that u overlooked. It requires a philosophical statement like the one u just made.

[ThatOneQuestion]

Bullshit, benthemiester.

Science requires evidence.

ID has no evidence to support it, and infact can be debunked.

Stop trying to make your bullshit fairy tale something more than it is, and grow the hell up.

[benthemiester]

Evidence is a very subjective term. That's why the standard of empirical science is testability, something that can be observed repeated and falsified. Not something that is based on propositions and extrapolations which at best can only produce non verifiable hypothesis. Macro molecule to man Darwinism doesn't have this.That's why theses men of Altenberg are in the process of formulating a new synthesis because the one that's been taught for decades is futile, everyone who understands knows it.

[ThatOneQuestion]

"That's why the standard of empirical science is testability"

So how do you test for your Cosmic Jewish Zombie, you intellectual deficient??

You cant, because we invented gods to deal with our insecurities.

Keep bullshitting, little child, you simply dont have the education to even begin here.

[benthemiester]

Have you even heard of the Altenberg 16 summit?

[ThatOneQuestion]

Heard of the Dover Trial?

Intelligent Design is dead.

Get out of you, you intellectual insect. Take your lies with you.

[ThatOneQuestion]

And by the way, Luskin, from the Discovery Institute, is a complete fool and has been proven to be a lying sack of toad excrement, just like anyone else supporting ID:

watch?v=VpL1dmfVoGA

So dont even bother to try and bring that fool up.

ID is a failed attempt to get religion into schools and brainwash kids because yo u idiots cant do it any other way.

Grow the hell up.

[ThatOneQuestion]

I suggest you show me the conclusion statement the 16 signed and show me where the "crisis" is, you little liar.

Come on, fool, I DARE you.

Do YOU know what you are talking about?

[benthemiester]

I urge you to look at the Seti project. It is a scientific project that looks for design in the universe in the form of sequential radio frequencies with out claiming to have any knowledge of who sent out those signals. Pan Spermia is also another scientific hypothesis that entertains the notion of life being seeded by Et's. Francis Crick and many other evolutionist have also discussed this in the scientific literature. There seems to be a dual standard.

[stevebr]

no these are intersting hypotheses but there is no evidence for them certainly not as much as there is for evolution

[benthemiester]

Are u implying that Seti is religiously motivated, I mean, to spend billions on a project for which there is no evidence seem to be largely a faith based concept. Why isn't there opposition to Seti by rational sound minded evolutionist? Is it because their interesting ideas? Is this the standard we use to differentiate against ridicule?

[stevebr]

No it most certainly is not. and i acknowledge that it is an interesting idea which must be pursued and i personally believe that there are other life forms in the universe. But there is no firm evidence for it right now and it is in no way contradictory to evolutionary biology

[benthemiester]

I applaud you're honesty in admitting to your'e belief in Et's. To believe in something without material evidence is called faith, which leads me to conclude we are both men of faith.

[benthemiester]

You said the bacterial flagellum was debunked, can u provide a scientific paper that can explain the step by step process of the formation of this nano machine with out intelligent guidance. Russel Doolittle said the same about the blood clouting system in regards to Irreducible complexity. I corresponded with him and he could not provide me with the evidence. Name me the specific study. If u can't then I a have to regard your statement as something you have heard but don't quite understand.

[benthemiester]

reply posted

[johnd94]

Cunt pickle.

[benthemiester]

Ive been listening to these poeple for the last 25 years even when I once believed in the theory,and thought any one who didnt was foolish until I started hearing arguments made by people like A Wilder Smith and former evolutionist like Dean Kenyon, Michael Denton, and C Thaxton whether they were agnostic religous or athiest unfortunatly most people dont have a clue to how big the problems are growing in evolutional theory thats my opinion and your entitled to your own. never mentioned theology

[benthemiester]

cont.. the bacterial flagellum, the brain,specified sequential encoded informaton,sequential specific molecular recognition,the translation mechanism of genetic code,information content&biochemical function,relationships of binding, the mystery of chemical chirality, much less the plausibility of the 1st protien comming together by chance and many other examples then how can she say demonstrate this statement. Newton,Redi,Pasteur & many other men of faith never compromised Science for faith.

[Mithcoriel]

So what are your reasons?

The bacterial flagellum was debunked at the dover trial, I'm quite sure scientists have a fair understanding of how the brain evolved. What's wrong with the translation mechanism of DNA? As for the first protein, I think potholer54 made a comprehensive video on how that works. There are plenty of vids explaining the evolution of the eye.

[benthemiester]

I didnt know that you could debunk the bacterial flagelum I think your talking about Behes theory of irreducible complexity. Judges dont have the scientific training to establish or debunk scientific theories this will ultimatly be decided by researchers and universities even good theories take years to get accepted thats the way its supposed to be. As for the development of the eye sorry but there isnt a video long enough to explain dynamics that make up the eye much less how it evolved.

[Mithcoriel]

It wasn't the judge that debunked it, but the scientist.

Even if there isn't a video here describing the evolution of the eye in enough detail to us lay people: that doesn't change the fact the scientists know how it works.

[benthemiester]

If there isnt even enough detail for us lay people, how is it going to pass the test of scientist & specialist, have u ever seen her theory of the evolution of the eye, an un educated lay person can easily deduce the falsness of her claims with simple logic,,as far as dover there were scientist on both sides so it was obviously not decided by scientist, its called juducial interpretation of state constutional law. Mith I hope u know that ytube while entertaining is no substitute for research.

[Mithcoriel]

(1/2) I look forward to you showing me a video about what's wrong with the eye-model.

Your argument "if there isn't enough detail for lay people then it won't pass science tests" makes no sense. I'm saying: the scientists KNOW the details, but we don't. And even if they didn't, it's still no reason to assume a magic man dunnit, that's a God of the Gaps argument. It's still the most plausible to assume it evolved.

[benthemiester]

as far as eye vids wich is not the same as true research, I would start off with Eugenie Scotts model.

[Mithcoriel]

(2/2) "Dover: there were scientists on both sides".

If the trial had been about wether the earth was flat, there would also have been "scientists" on both sides. The creationists were not doing real science, just promoting their religious agenda.

"I hope u know that ytube while entertaining is no substitute for research. " Of course not. But I suspect you mean: "Hard scientific evidence on youtube is meaningless, when you can read creationist books and believe everything they say"

[benthemiester]

mit. I seriously doubt that even u could name me one scientist who believes in flat earth, or is this also a philosophical statement? I can guarentee, you cant back that statment up. I not sure wich model of eye evolution your talking about, but it really doesnt matter the burden of proof is not on me to disprove conjecture.The burden of proof falls on the person proposing the model. If u believe that this discussion is religously motivated, then who am I to take your security blanket away.

[johnedwards1968]

Yes Behe's theory of irreducible complexity was debunked!

[benthemiester]

Are you talking about Matzke's Brownian Model?

[stevebr]

Yeah irreducible complexity of the flagellum has already been debunked in the scientific community .Just bcos creationists are blind to it and wilfully ingnorant of it doesnt mean it is not true

[stevebr]

it seems all ur arguements are arguments from personal incredulity.If u were actually interested in evolution then u would take a course in it and try to study it in detail. Also it seems IDists only critique evolution they still havent provided any positive evidence for their claims, who the designer is, how he/she/it designed life, what predictions it makes and how they can be tested. It is just appalling intellectual dishonesty

[benthemiester]

If u know of someone who has published a paper explaining the the step by step process of unguided evolutionary dogma that can account for the bacterial flagellum, then I would love to see it. U seem to impose a higher standard for IDers than Darwinist. Are u implying that evolutionist can explain origins.The accountability of genomic information by Neo Darwinist has never been explained or quantified scientifically. Molecule to man Darwinism is based on extrapolations not empirical science.

[stevebr]

No it is u who imposes higher standards for evolution.I have yet to see any positive proof for Design. U cant keep criticizing evolution without providing any evidence for ID. Also evolution does not claim to explain origin of life. And just because evolution cant explain everything right now does not make it invalid. Atleast it provides a great framework on which future reaseach can be based. ID on the other hand says this is too tough to explain therefore an intelligent designer created it.

[benthemiester]

She admits that science have been trying to explain the origins of life and they havent succeded wich according to the defintion of empirical science means its not scientific. She then goes on to insinuated Darwin could explained how natural selection could produce complex structures, and instead of demonstrating the systematic development of the eye she invokes the magic word natural selection if science cannot explain the devlopment of the blood cascading system, the avion lung, feathers,

[TheProf1988]

'if science cannot explain the devlopment of the blood cascading system, the avion lung, feathers'

...it doesnt mean that a god did it.

'she invokes the magic word natural selection'

I think the reason it's called NATURAL selection is because it DOES NOT deal in magic.

'much less the plausibility of the 1st protien comming together by chance'

You didnt listen to this vid. NOT CHANCE but by a natural evolution of chemicals. (analagous to a natural evolution of magma)

[djarm67]

Michael Tsarion?

The theory of Atlantis?

R U Serious?

Get some help!!!!!

[godscuttingyoudown]

just like George Orwell aka Eric Blair, Maxwell too created an alias because he is part of a powerfull crime organizattion

as to not create tension between him and his family he decide to give himself an alias when he went public with his work

in the 1990's he began to mention he was born into a criminal family after confronted with issues about his identity

hes been warned many times to stay off that subject

but now that he has cancer hes been a little more courages to talk about it

[dilemmix]

@djarm67 Lol, indeed!

[djarm67]

Jordan Maxwell hey?

Jordan Maxwell A.K.A. Russell Pine?

BBCOA?

BBC Of America?

Better Book and Cassette Of America?

Federal District Court orders relating to internet spam to sell fraudulent international drivers licences?

What would Eugenie Scott want with this con artist? I'm sure she already has a licence!

[godscuttingyoudown]

once again another drone that beleives whatever Wikipedia says

maxwell registered merely as an employee of BBC of America. but it was not his company hence not responsible for company policy

he served as a research advisor.

unrelated parties not even connected to him who were illegally misusing BBCOA teachings to sell fake drivers-licenses, IN ANOTHER STATE, UNKNOWN AND UNAUTHORIZED TO BBCOA,

maxwell served as a "WITTNESS"

many people have taken, stolen and abused maxwells work

[djarm67]

I guess it's standard for anyone employed as a "research advisor" to take on an alias.

Why would he need to do that?

btw the federal trade commission is not wikipedia the last time I checked.

Explain this,

ftc(dot)gov/os/caselist/jordan­maxwell/jordanmaxwell(dot)shtm

Witness? This states "Defendant"

Can you name me another case where a "witness" was fined over $400K?

[djarm67]

I know you would not dump 1000 hours of research into one comment because it is quite clear that you have not performed 1000 hours of research.

What is your definition of a complete fossil record? Nothing more than a definition of "more"?

A record is a record whether it has 1 fossil or a million. It either supports the hypothesis or not. Every fossil we have ever found supports the hypothesis. If you disagree, please provide examples.

[djarm67]

Is this seriously the best you have to put forward? You put your fingers in your ears and go "La, La, La, La, there is no fossil record"

You are confusing education with creationist cult website indoctrination.

[godscuttingyoudown]

first off im not going to dump 1,000 of hours of research in one coment

second im not a creationist, i don't forllow them, i also know the evolutionist movment is heavily funded by the rothchilds and all major collages are controlled by freemasons

meaning if your research counters their beleifs your fired

and yes their is no complete fossile record, facts can't be disputed only denied.

people will wake up to the NEW WORLD ORDER

[godscuttingyoudown]

i never said there is no fossil records

you could'nt argue the facts i stated on hundreds of "incomplete" records but no "complete" one

she falsely infers their is one that can't be disputed

so what you do is you misconstrue my statement to only apear i am in fault

its amazing how scott will take on only the uncredible or phony shcolars but would never get into the ring with a jordan maxwell or micheal tsarion

just like the US that can't beat up Russia instead will pick on Iraq.

[godscuttingyoudown]

at 7:04 she talks about the "fossil recod".

for one their is no complete fossel recored

man has a collection of hundreds of fossil records, but not one of them is complete with hugh missing gaps whom people like Scott love to fill in by gluing one fossil record with another; refer to this "fossil record" as if their is one that is complete and unified

this is no diffrent from early scientists gluing dinosaure bones together from different species and creating a new animal 200 years ago.