In his book, Finding Darwin's God, Miller says that the expansion of space at the Big Bang was controlled within a tolerance of 1/(1X10 to the power of 1 million). Without this degree of fine tuning, the universe would have collapsed on itself and we would not be here. There would be nothing rather than something. It is mathematical proof of God's design. If there is a God who designs the universe, as Miller claims, it makes perfect sense to belief that the Creator also designed life.
The thing I've always hated about this (this being the mousetrap analogy) is that, it missed the point entirely. Sure a mousetrap might not function missing it's parts, but a block of wood by itself can still have a use, as can a lever, or a spring.
It's as though Behe thinks evolution is about all parts of the body doing the same function and same thing all the time. Look at shark teeth (which is also their skin) to see how stupid that idea is.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
7:21 "The trial demonstrated the collapse of intelligent design as a theory." 'Scuze me, I thought the scientific method was what was used to determine what is scientific and what is not. Again, Miller totally capitulates in his position of a scientist & gleeflly accepts a nonscientist, a political appointee, as the one who decides what is science and what is not. How sad. How desperate.
Gee, if i.d. has collapsed as a theory, I wonder why more & more scientists are coming out agains it?
@LoricaLady "Gee, if i.d. has collapsed as a theory, I wonder why more & more scientists are coming out agains it?" You just answered you own question. You're not very bright are you? It never was a real theory to begin with. It's just pseudoscience that you fundamentalists cling to because you think it supports your religion.
@LoricaLady Yes, the Scientific Method IS what determines science.
And in the SUPREME COURT trial of 1987, Creationism is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
ID uses supernatural causation, which is Creationism, and Judge Jones III pointed this out on page 64 of the 139 page document for the Dover Trial decision.
Shut the hell up, already. You clearly dont know anything about science or what you are promoting.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
6:40 Miller said the i.d. proponents "relished" the trial & "were very excited" that there was a conservative judge. His humble, unsubstantiated opinions. Maybe the i.d. proponents realized that a politically appointed judge, whether he calls himself a Republican or Democrat, is still a pol-i-ti-cal appointee. Maybe they weren't so naive as to think there is much difference between the Rs & Ds. Maybe they don't rely on politics for "answers" about science the way Miller does. Cont.
@LoricaLady The rich lawyer, Phillip Johnson , who made up ID stated "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" and stated ID is not science.
There would have been no trial if you bigots had not tried for force ID, which you admit is not science, just tarted up creationism, into schools.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: If you notice I am not responding to some posters, they know they are on ignore. My time is too limited for those who use personal insults, name calling, false accusations of lying, gross obscenities & sometimes sexual harrassment. Experience has taught me that responses to any such only escalates the virulence of what is basically verbal abuse. I will respond to those very, very few YT evo fans who are objective, civil & science based.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. They present natural selection as evo when it is not. We're to asuuuume, fill in the blanks, believe their speculations, that because finches' beaks show an ALREADY built in ability to change - within built in limits - some day they aren't going to be finches at all, but will climb up Darwin's Tree of Life & be something more! 0 is testable, repeatable or observable in any of this so it's NOT science. It's based on faaaith. Thus teaching evolution violates the 1st amendment. Cont.
@LoricaLady "0 is testable, repeatable or observable in any of this so it's NOT science. It's based on faaaith. Thus teaching evolution violates the 1st amendment."
You've been corrected on this time and time again, LoricaLady. Ignoring the corrections will not make them go away no matter how much you want them to, girl. And teaching evolution violates the 1st amendment? Hah! That one's so richly hilarious! XD
Keep spouting your nonsense girl like, I said why expel what can be easily debunked?
@LoricaLady "some day they aren't going to be finches at all, but will climb up Darwin's Tree of Life & be something more!"
This is really the most important thing you have said - it should you are totally scientifically illiterate (and smugly so) - you have absolutely no idea what evolution is about otherwise you would not regurgitate such inane drivel
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. Another ex. of how evolutionists do matrix-think is by actually violating the 1st Amendment themsleves, while accusing creationists of doing so. They take a fragment of bone & weave stories about it. Though there is no scientific way to show the animal ever produced any progeny different from itself, they declare it as ev-i-dence (!) of a transitional form. They talk about billions of "missing links" as if they're a fact & never say how to tell them from "never existed" links. Cont.
@LoricaLady I'll just repeat the quote of Phillip Johnson here.
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
And you think it's your "evolutionists" who are pushing propaganda here? Please, it's been made abundantly clear that it IS the creationists who don't give a damn about the first amendment, based on the Wedge Strategy. You said you haven't read it, I implore you to do so so you can see YOUR side's dishonesty.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@PrincePhoenicis OK, since you haven't been as virulent in your insults as the rest, I will respond. I don't give a flying hoot about the wedge document. I did look over it briefly. Y'all seem to think it is the be all & end all of the i.d. movement. I read extensively & had never even heard of it. To me all the ranting about the Wedge Document is just a red herring. Whatever it says or does not say about morality has zip to do with whether evo can stand up to logic & true science. Cont.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@PrincePhoenicis Y'all also seem to think, as Miller at least pretends to, that Johnson is the head honcho of the i.d. movement. He had some interesting things to say about how the theory of evo fails in terms of the rules of evidence & logic - which areas he is competent to speak on as a law professor. But the real battle is being fought in the areas of science, with creationist scientists who increase all the time. He's entitled to his opinion, though I prefer to stick to logic & science.
@LoricaLady Again, you FUCKING moron. Phillip Johnson FOUNDED the Discovery Institute.
He is the one who stated the whole thing, little one. I know you dont do research, so thats why you continue to fail in this area. I suggest you start doing some work though, because 8+ months of complete failure must seriously be hard to live with.
@LoricaLady "He had some interesting things to say about how the theory of evo fails in terms of the rules of evidence & logic - which areas he is competent to speak on as a law professor."
More lies.
Johnson's creation is the Wedge Strategy - read the grubby little theorcratic rag for yourself. Johnson even later claims ID is not science.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@PrincePhoenicis I would be happy to continue to debate with you, but you always revert to verbal abuse after awhile, & that gets so tiresome, plus it's certainly not the way to have objective, science oriented discussionis. Bye & back to ignore again.
@LoricaLady Stop lying, LoricaLady, no one is impressed by your ignorance.
I keep laughing at you because you dont even know about the 1987 supreme court trial, you have no clue what happened during the Dover trial, and you have no idea how ID even started or what is going on in the group itself now.
You are completely and utterly clueless about everything regarding Intelligent Design, both for and against it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. Again, the evolutionists as usual are stating things exactly the opposite of reality. Every day they go into their intelligently high tech labs, using blue prints already present in nature, & "intelligently" (?) designed programs to help them support evo. All they do is show that i.d. is needed even to rearrange the components of life, while even w/i.d. they can't create a single living cell or cause a simple fruit fly to stop being a fruit fly & become something else. Cont.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. In the Dover trail Judge Jones made this statement regarding his decision, "We have addressed the seminal issue of whether intelligent design is science." Based on his humble, non scientifically trained, opiinion, he decided that intelligent design is not science. From there he goes onto say that i.d. violates the establishment clause. But what law gives a politically appointed, nonscientist judge, to say what is science and what is not for the populace? There is no such law. Cont.
@LoricaLady the wealthy non science trained lawyer, Phillip Johnson states a goal of ID is : "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
Obviously that is not science. Why dont you sort that out with Johnson before you write more les?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
6:11 "The trial...for proponents of i.d., in front of a conservative judge..." Here is more propaganda. What does "conservative" mean? Simply that he was a repulican? Why is his so-called conservativism mentioned? What does it have to do with science? Why aren't scientific qualification given for this pol-i-ti-cal appointee? Why, because he has none! Why doesn't any one explain why this man gets to tell the populace what is science & what is not? And by what legal authority? Cont.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: If you notice I am not responding to some posters, they know they are on ignore. My time is limited and anyway it is unproductive to the true purposes of science to spend time "debating" with those who use personal insults, name calling, gross obscenities & in some cases sexual harrassment. After many months of debating I know that such behaviors only become more virulent. I am happy to debate with those who are civil, objective and science based & will ignore the rest.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
5:20 I think it is appropriate here to refer to "The New Monkey Trial", harkening to the Scopes trial. In that trial a tooth was used as "evidence" for evolution. It was claimed the tooth was that of an intermediary form between ape and man. Some people - this pattern continues today in museums, Nat'l Geog etc. - took this fragment of a fossil & did elaborate art work based on it, showing the "primitive" man's full body. Years later folk learned the tooth belonged to an extinct pig! Cont.
The illustration you are referring to was of Java Man in the Illustrated London News which carriied the story “reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist's brilliant imaginative genius.” Your pig eference related to a tooth fossil of Nebraska Man which was misidentified and then correctly identified by scienists (obviously not by lazy creationists like you)
Dont mindlessly copy from Answers in Genesis - it is as dishonest as you
TO ANYONE INTERESTED. If you notice I am not responding to the poster below, they know the reason why. I cannot spend my limited time "debating" with those who use personal insults, name calling, gross obscenities & in one case, sexual harrassment. Experience has shown that any responses to those kinds of replies only increases their virulence. I am happy to debate with anyone who can be science based, objective and civil.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. I do not personally advocate pushing religion per se in the classroom. This happened to me in hi school & it turned me in the opposite direction due to the way it was presented. However, from what I have generally seen in the i.d. movement, they want simply to present the sci-en-tif-ic ev-i-dence for intelligent design in contrast to the evidence for evolution & let the students see what the pros & cons are for both. Evolutionists want to go to court to stop any mention of i.d. Cont.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. The 1st Amendment was written primarily to prevent a state religion, such as Rome had and has. Now, there are many defintions of religion with one being a system of cultural beliefs, based on faith, held by ardent followers. There ya go: evolution. It's based on nothing but assumptions, theoreticals, logical fallacies & some outright lies, including phony art works. It has loyal followers who believe on faith it is true. Miller et al are trying to make it the STATE religion. Cont.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
3:59 As usual evo-evangelists tell it exactly the opposite of the way it really is. First of all the 1st Amendment was never written to keep the Creator out of the classroom. What was that we were taught to memorize, that Jefferson wrote to the King of England? Oh, yeal, "We are "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights..." Jefferson, though he was not a Christian, encouraged public schools should be established primarily so that children could learn to read the Bible. Cont.
Chapter Three: God is the answer Sub Part 1: Evidence of Creation "Genesis in Bible" Sub Part 2: There is no crocoduck or Dog turning into cat Sub Part 3: Everything from nothing is not possible, God did it
Chapter Four: Why ID is better Sub Part 1: Just God did it Sub part 2: You just have to read bible Sub part 3: Don't ask and just believe or go to hell
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
3:29 I have learned not to accept, at all, what Miller says as necessary, uh, accurate. 1st he uses 1 vague quote from a law professor to claim that "advocateS" of creation say they don't have what it takes to put i.d. into the text books. Here he is complaining about i.d. being in the text books. Self contradiction, false accusation = unreliable source.
@LoricaLady The Discovery Institute wants you to believe , as science, that the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe, their God, impregnated himself into a Jewish virgin , had himself born then eventually tortured & murdered, then resurrected himself because that was the best idea He could come up with to forgive some prehistoric woman who stole an apple from a magic tree at the behest of a talking snake.
2:28 The Dover Trial again. Earlier Miller complained about creationists getting involved in politics & sniffed that scientists should stay above it. Yet he has been politicing this whole time & constantly crows about Dover. There a non science trained politically appointed federal judge, with no legal basis, told the populace what was science & what was not. Miller totally capitulated in his role as a scientist. He wants the state to force evolution on the resistng populace. Cont.
@LoricaLady More lies from the Discovery Institute's stooge.
ID is politically driven pseudoscientific nonsense, made up by the wealthy non science trained
lawyer, Phillip Johnson who states a goal of ID is : "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
Is that science? Of course not - it is bullshit , masquerading as science for the dimwitted.
It is evangelical ignorance - they want you to be ignorant, not just them
@LoricaLady "He wants the state to force evolution on the resistng populace." What a load of crap!
In schools , the science thatr is taught should be based on what scientists do you imbecile. Johnson, who made up the ID nonsense, admits ID is not science - yet you liars are trying to force that upon students in science classes.
You are a hypocrite & a liar. You make real Christians look stupid.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I see someone has been trying to partially get my posts Expelled by pushing "hide" on all of them. Whatever is he afraid people might see? The truth is the truth and you can't change it. May those see who have eyes to see and those with potty mouths & verbal abuse get the eyes to see - along with a true understanding of logic, critical thinking and real science.
@LoricaLady .............as long as your understanding of science is what is dictated by Phillip Johnson and conforms with one of his objectives of ID : "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God."
So brilliant Christian scientists , such as Lemaitre, are abused/called non-Christians/ ridiculed because their work confliucts with the delusions of a small group of intellectually lazy bigots
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: If you notice I am ignoring the posters below, they know they are on an "ignore list." I have limited time and no time for "debate" with people who name calling, use personal insults &/or gross obscenities or are sexually harrassing. Such behaviors are antithetical to the true purposes of science. I have noticed such patterns invariably increase, & any discussion of science degenerates even further, if the communication is not discontinued.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
0:59 Woo hoo! Love seeing the info on the chart. What could it mean that the U.S. is the most opposed to evolution of all those other countries? We have more money, therefore more access to the net, to sites, books, CDs, etc. which have proliferated to debunk evolution. Our literacy rate helps too. Over all, no country has more opportunity to analyze both sides of the issues than the U.S.A. In spite of generations of school indoctrination, most still think for themselves. Woo hoo! Cont.
@LoricaLady Well of course we all know that determining how reality works is determined by the popular vote of the public don't we? Instead of making up what sounds good, consider what Miller is saying. It's a successful PR campaign. It's not science. Now tell me how I'm a bad boy and you're not talking to me anymore...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@foxlake02 (Wondered when this particular Miller guard dog would show up.) For the 7th time - for anyone else's benefit - I do not "debate" with people such as Foxtake, who: Use personal insults, name call, falsely accuse me of lying, make sexually harrassing remarks & tell someone who sent me a basically porno post - appropos to no science whatsoever - "Good job."
@brospec I wear my IGNORE/DELETE as a badge of honor. I remember telling her how ignorant she is and I remember telling her she lied when she distorted my post about doctors. Not sure about the sexual harassing remark though. Maybe that was when I politely asked her to get her head out of her ass. Looks like you will be getting yours soon too.
@LoricaLady "What could it mean that the U.S. is the most opposed to evolution of all those other countries?" The Taliban are as opposed to evolution as you are........and they worship a deranged mass murdering psychopath of a god ....just like you & Johnson do.
@LoricaLady Are you totally deranged? Look at the start of he video - Johnson , a wealthy lawyer , who cooked up ID "theory" , admits it has no scientific basis. In Johnsons "Wedge Strategy" he states one of the goals of ID is :
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God." ................ and you & Johnson & your ilk are trying to pass this bullshit off as science!!!!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cont. The chapters in the book follow this pattern: What your textbook says about the origin of microorganisms/What we really know about the origin of microorganisms, What your text book says about/What we really know about....The Geologic Record, Origin of Humans, Natural Selection and Evolution, etc. etc. If MIller doesn't know what the "intelligent design movement" is really saying & doing, should we listen to him? If he does know, should we listen to him? Cont.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
0:40 "Now despite these scientific failures..." As usual for an evolutionists no actual data is presented as evidence. I don't know what the rest of Johnson's quote said, but I know there are many scientists who have written materials for school children, debunking evolution. They no way say, Believe it because it's in the Bible either. The usual pattern is to tell exactly what evo is claiming, then compare that to the actual. scientific evidence. One example is Evolution Exposed. Cont.
@LoricaLady Yes folks, get your children to read the scientifically illiterate drivel in "Evolution Exposed" and they can grow up to be smugly ignorant, bigoted hillbillies - just like the dishonest Loricalady
@LoricaLady Stop fucking lying, you ignorant fool.
Vomiting your propaganda wont convince anyone, especially when you blatantly lie to everyone's face and insulting our intelligence.
You are a fucking fool, LoricaLady, and everyone is laughing at you.
I am pleased that you have been frightened off of other, more popular channels though. Good to see you are withdrawing to a small little corner here. Couldn't handle dozens of people laughing at you every day, eh?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
00:01 Cont. from Vid 1 Miller said Johnson is considered to be the godfather of the i.d. movement. I have studied the "movement" for years & never heard anyone referring to him like that. One would get the impression from that single quote that Johnson thinks evo has validity. Wrong. He writes books teaching people how to debunk it using logic and the rules for evidence such as he taught in law school. Of course if Miller had real amunition, he wouldn't have to try to deceive anyone. Cont.
@LoricaLady Anyone wanting to understand ID should read the "Wedge Strategy" - it is readily available on line. ID has nothing to do with science - it is founded by wealthy fundamentalist Christians whose limited scientific knowledge conflicts, in their minds, with contemporary science (including physics, biochemistry, astronomy, geology, geography etc etc) ID is an attempt to destroy science (and the majority of Christians who have no problem with it) and force a bigoted theocracy...
@brospec ......... to cater for the smug ignorance of its followers such as Johnson. The objectives of thev Wedge Strategy , authored by the wealthy lawyer Johnson is , inter alia : - To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science. - To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
@brospec LoricaLady has been informed of the "Wedge Strategy" before. This is one of her tactics. She will pretend she is ignorant about things that people have told her about many times. Wait till she starts quote mining Stephen J Gould. If it doesn't fit her dogma, her fingers go into her ears.
@RockSmithStudio yes, Theodosius Dobzhansky & R.A Fisher were two important contributors to the modern evolutionary synthesis & both were Christians, I think the bible is not a book of literal history & science but is symbolic. A process of evolution over 4 billion years makes life more wonderful not less. The evidence for evolution is so clear that it is illogical to deny it and so it is extraordinary that at this stage of the 21st century, literal creationism seems to be gaining popularity.
"The utter collapse of ID as anything remotely resembling anything" The judge ruled that ID isn't science, but that Irreducible Complexity, which is the heart of ID, was falsified. Now, how does one falsify something that isn't science? And what was the "proof" that it had been falsified?
MOVE TO EXHIBIT B(ehe):
Evolution can't explain the flagella that is "unbelievably complex" (Miller). "Now why is that?" Because you can wear a broken mousetrap on your tie, silly!
@gamesbok Miller merely showed that he could come up with things to do with a broken mousetrap. (Spitwad launcher, paperweight, and dorky tie clasp--wow!) That doesn't answer the irreducible complexity of the whole--which he acknowledges at the beginning of one his YouTube clips.
But, I suppose you won't see this and this conversation is futile.
@MorganMarvinson I cannot be held responsible for you failure to understand either Miller's or Behe's arguement.
Irreducible Complexity hasn't been an issue since HJ Muller's 1918 paper.
Behe failed on the flageellium, the blood clotting system, the Immune system and every other kite he's flown. That's why his own department has issued a public statement distancing themselves from his views.
@gamesbok I see that this is futile. Miller did not address the issue of irreducible complexity, he did some silly grandstanding with a broken mousetrap on his tie.
His suggestion about the Type III secretory system has fallen flat under investigation. He has not provided any logical explanation how the flagella could develop on its own--nor the blood clotting cascade, nor the complexities of the immune system.
What is claimed of evolution is magic and Catholic Miller practices slight of hand.
@gamesbok To do what it claims, it either needs a miracle or magic. Since it rejects the One who wrote the laws of nature and can use them to perform miracles, it is left only with magic.
"Evolution in (Brownian) Space" is just more evolutionary slight of hand.
I like watching the broom float around and mop the floor by itself in Cinderella too. ;)
Pallen MJ, Matzke NJ. From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella. 4:10 2006 NATURE REVIEWS MICROBIOLOGY 784-790
and
Liu RY, Ochman H. Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system. 104:17 2007 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 7116-7121
@MorganMarvinson the blood clotting cascade has been discussed a lot, and examples shown of systems with missing parts that work perfectly well for the organism involved. Miller was demonstrating with the mousetrap that you dont need all of it for it to be useful, so If an organism developed the base and a wire loop, it could be useful, then add a spring, still useful, add a catch and mousetrap. That illustrates that it could have been built in steps and been useful.
@SqueakerAlpha "That illustrates that it could have been built in steps [by a very clever inventor] and been useful." Yes, I'd agree, with the insertion I've made to your statement. It's a lot easier to illustrate with a mousetrap because most of the pieces CAN be used for something else and are very simple. Not so with the blood clotting cascade, nor with the bacterial flagella. Naming uses for a deconstructed mousetrap doesn't tell how it was invented. It didn't come from a spitwad launcher.
@MorganMarvinson you dont need a designer and you seem to have missed that there are much simpler blood clotting systems that include parts of the human one. All that evolution requires is that at each stage a change is useful or at least not harmful or it gets removed from the gene pool.
This isn't baseball. It's about dealing with the issues of science. Putting up scoreboards takes away from the issue and lends weight to the idea that truth is based on who's in dominance.
ID is limited in a way that evolution isn't--it has to deal with data. Evolution can float one imaginary scenario after another, and as long as it isn't questioned by the masses, internal debate isn't reported to the public. If one imagined scenario in evolution falls on hard times, no problem, just come up with another--like amazingly designed flagella arising from poison injectors that look like one part of the flagella.
There's nothing to say you can't make such stuff up, is there?
No, Dr. Miller, ID hasn't proposed a full-feature fantasy like evolution. They ask specific questions and present specific data on the obvious nature of design. And ID has a specific limitation that evolution doesn't have--it has to stick to the data. In evolutionary theory, if one imagined scenario falls on hard times, just float some other crazy idea for origins--like turning a venom injector into an amazingly designed rotary outboard motor.
To elaborate: Nylon as a material did not exist until recently and when it was created no organism could digest it, so the fact that some bacteria can now digest nylon is proof that evolution is occurring even as we speak.
yes, I already said I read it, and I don't accept it. I can't accept a thesis that is neither coherent nor capable of making predictions that validate it over Evo- from what I do understand, much of what you cite can easily be explained in light of natural selection and mutation.
and evolution is neither incomplete, nor outdated-its case is too air-tight. I must, respectfully, reject you hypothesis, until you peer review it in a credible scientific organization, and it is accepted by it.
The range of cloting factors still does not justify the common ancestry of all life forms. Atheism is not Biology. Atheism is not science. It is unnecessary accept the science fiction of the common ancestry of all life forms before finding cures and solving the problems of life.
Miller's work is fallacious and misguided. It is sad to see how many people are unaware how he misunderstands the Dover court case, Behe's argument & fails to refute him.
like I said: submit this to peer review, and let actual professionals decide if you are right. if you are among the 10% who can publish at any one time, don't worry, they probably will be open minded, but if your hypothesis fails, come back and fess up.
as I said, I'm not buying your idea-I need a more accurate prediction, unique to your idea. "time mechanism" is irrelevent, as evo can and does work quickly.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yeah, there maybe 4 billion years possibility to evolve to become new species but nature doesn't permit that process. The preset pattern or process of nature is keeping the change to its limited or permissible way. Or in short, million to change, million times to correct the change.
No one can't peer review a new theory since no existing theory can guide the reviewers to deny or accept the new theory.
I would be shocked to learn if you've actually watched any of DonExodus2's videos; if you had you would have already known how much is wrong with everything you're saying.
I posit that you know nothing about evolution, and are unqualified to claim anything at all.
"No evolution is really happening." let me compare this to a similar statement.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Bill Clinton
Now the problem with a lie is layered. 1) it destroys any credibility with respect to people who know the truth....in this case, educated people. 2) It shows that you are inept at making any form of truthful conversation and thereby invalidates all claims. 3) It pisses people off.
Your idea, not a theory, your idea does nothing to benefit science.
[Fr. p. 2032 of "Webster's Unabridged Dictionary" -- 1967-- science / L "scientia" knowledge, fr. "scient-," "sciens" (pres. part. of "scire" to know) 1 a : possession of knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding : knowledge as a personal attribute] That's science. It means "to know." There are innumerable means by which to learn. The derivation of the word "science" doesn't mention tenured "professors"; "peer review" nor "consensus."
the most perfect existence is necessary existence. it has nothing to do with us, ony with god. it means the most perfect kind of existence is that which could not not be. as for your argument against perfection, it simply begs the question. we can further infer that god can know ideals objectively while we cannot. and i dont get my notions of godhood from silly scipture only logic.
yes ok that is my argument but it fully supported by a priori reasoning. as for the rest of it.. what? are you gonna argue semantics with me? dont waste my time if thats all youve got to say
my argument is not a semantic one, it is an a priori ontological argument. your objection to it is just silly semantics, so yes, that is all weve been arguing over.
Your argument is wrong because it makes no sense. The reason I thought it made no sense is because of the semantics. You have proven that it just doesn't make sense at all.
just because YOU dont understand it doesnt mean it doesnt make any sense. there is no possible world in which god does not exist. he exists necessarily in all possible worlds. any way the world could have been must have included god. that is all that statement means. its like saying there is no way in any possible world could 2 plus 2 equal 5.
The problem with your argument is that you don't say WHY. We know WHY 2 plus 2 equals 4. WHY is god necessary to create all worlds? Science has shown that he is not necessary. Didn't you take earth science in high school?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
OH MY GOD. you dont read the things i say. i didnt say create all worlds, i said he exists in all possible worlds. i mean world in a broad sense. there is no way that anyhitng existing could not include god because he is the most perfect thing thinkable. the most perfect thing would have perfect existence, because that would make it more perfect than something that did not have perfect existence. perfect existence is necessary existence.. ie. existence in all possible worlds.
So the reason god exists is because he can exist under any circumstance? I'm not trying to ARGUE what you just said, I'm trying to understand it more clearly.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
any way the world could have been would still have to include god. it might not have included you or me but it would have to include god. because he exists out of coneptual necessity
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
thats ridiculous. 81 divided by 9 equals 9 neessarily but when i was ignorant of that fact as a 5 year old i could have easily asserted that it was false. same with atheists.. they just havent thought about it enough or dont want to. most atheists dont want to believe in god because they have dogma and so do you wahahahahazha
Your assertions are rather ridiculous. You are obviously the one with the dogma. Your position is that "God must exist because he can't not exist." It's mere SPECULATION. There is no mathematical proof that god is necessary. 7 times 7 will always equal 49. Just because you say perfect existence is necessary doesn't make it TRUE. You speculate and speculate but don't provide EVIDENCE.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i have explained this argument like 80 times to you. its tiring. god existence can be shown thorugh logic and conceptual analysis. logical deductions are not speculation, they cant be false! thats how logic works, take a class in it. read again, the whole thing, like 50 times. then comment again... once you understand. seriously.
well youll have to say why. people like science so the idea of something being determined a priori just seems wrong because it doesnt coincide with the values they assume. but tell me tha fallacy or the false premise. or why existence cant be determined a priori -- thats what id really like ot know.
i dont give a shiz niz about evolution but i can know god exists because if he did he would be the mos prefect existing thing. the most perfect existence is necessary existence therefore, god must exist necessarily
perfection is speculation for you because you cant really know it. its too great for you to even comprehend but god can ocmprehend because he is perfect and he is god.
you are wrong and god is right. god is right because he is perfect so he must be right. just because people disagree about something doesnt make it subjective. i might say that boulder weighs a thousand pounds and you might say, "no, no way. that boulder MUST weigh a million pounds." but you only say that because you dont have a scale and i do. same with god.. you cant measure perfection objectively because you dont have the capacity. god does.
Do you know for a fact that god has the capacity? Where does it say in scripture (assuming that you're a Christian)?
Your analogy is incorrect because that is mathematically provable. The definition of perfect is "conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type." Different things are ideal to different people, meaning that it is subjective. Something that is ideal to god doesn't have to be ideal to me.
I just wish that Miller would give up his beliefs in Christianity. Then he would be even MORE respectable (not that he isn't already). Don't think I have a problem with people having their own individual spirituality, but why hold on to the obviously false mythologies of ancient people? I'm an atheist, but I have no problem with the idea of Deism as espoused by Jefferso
How can you have Biology classes without Evolution being studied in it?
HimesInu 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In his book, Finding Darwin's God, Miller says that the expansion of space at the Big Bang was controlled within a tolerance of 1/(1X10 to the power of 1 million). Without this degree of fine tuning, the universe would have collapsed on itself and we would not be here. There would be nothing rather than something. It is mathematical proof of God's design. If there is a God who designs the universe, as Miller claims, it makes perfect sense to belief that the Creator also designed life.
achilles197474 9 months ago
The thing I've always hated about this (this being the mousetrap analogy) is that, it missed the point entirely. Sure a mousetrap might not function missing it's parts, but a block of wood by itself can still have a use, as can a lever, or a spring.
It's as though Behe thinks evolution is about all parts of the body doing the same function and same thing all the time. Look at shark teeth (which is also their skin) to see how stupid that idea is.
bersaba 11 months ago
@bersaba Further on, evoltion doesnt concern itself with the use of thing, but the disadvantage.
Ko252 11 months ago
Nice.
aerycksmusic 11 months ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Continuing on at 3rd video in this series...
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Go right ahead, we will follow and destroy you just as easily as all the other times and places in the last six months.
Managing damage control over your disinformation is easy because you dont even know how to defend yourself.
Bring it on, little one, you will be decimated.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
7:21 "The trial demonstrated the collapse of intelligent design as a theory." 'Scuze me, I thought the scientific method was what was used to determine what is scientific and what is not. Again, Miller totally capitulates in his position of a scientist & gleeflly accepts a nonscientist, a political appointee, as the one who decides what is science and what is not. How sad. How desperate.
Gee, if i.d. has collapsed as a theory, I wonder why more & more scientists are coming out agains it?
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady "Gee, if i.d. has collapsed as a theory, I wonder why more & more scientists are coming out agains it?" You just answered you own question. You're not very bright are you? It never was a real theory to begin with. It's just pseudoscience that you fundamentalists cling to because you think it supports your religion.
foxlake02 1 year ago 15
@LoricaLady Yes, the Scientific Method IS what determines science.
And in the SUPREME COURT trial of 1987, Creationism is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
ID uses supernatural causation, which is Creationism, and Judge Jones III pointed this out on page 64 of the 139 page document for the Dover Trial decision.
Shut the hell up, already. You clearly dont know anything about science or what you are promoting.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 14
This comment has received too many negative votes show
6:40 Miller said the i.d. proponents "relished" the trial & "were very excited" that there was a conservative judge. His humble, unsubstantiated opinions. Maybe the i.d. proponents realized that a politically appointed judge, whether he calls himself a Republican or Democrat, is still a pol-i-ti-cal appointee. Maybe they weren't so naive as to think there is much difference between the Rs & Ds. Maybe they don't rely on politics for "answers" about science the way Miller does. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady The rich lawyer, Phillip Johnson , who made up ID stated "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" and stated ID is not science.
There would have been no trial if you bigots had not tried for force ID, which you admit is not science, just tarted up creationism, into schools.
You are a liar and a hypocrite
brospec 1 year ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: If you notice I am not responding to some posters, they know they are on ignore. My time is too limited for those who use personal insults, name calling, false accusations of lying, gross obscenities & sometimes sexual harrassment. Experience has taught me that responses to any such only escalates the virulence of what is basically verbal abuse. I will respond to those very, very few YT evo fans who are objective, civil & science based.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. They present natural selection as evo when it is not. We're to asuuuume, fill in the blanks, believe their speculations, that because finches' beaks show an ALREADY built in ability to change - within built in limits - some day they aren't going to be finches at all, but will climb up Darwin's Tree of Life & be something more! 0 is testable, repeatable or observable in any of this so it's NOT science. It's based on faaaith. Thus teaching evolution violates the 1st amendment. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady "0 is testable, repeatable or observable in any of this so it's NOT science. It's based on faaaith. Thus teaching evolution violates the 1st amendment."
You've been corrected on this time and time again, LoricaLady. Ignoring the corrections will not make them go away no matter how much you want them to, girl. And teaching evolution violates the 1st amendment? Hah! That one's so richly hilarious! XD
Keep spouting your nonsense girl like, I said why expel what can be easily debunked?
PrincePhoenicis 1 year ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady "some day they aren't going to be finches at all, but will climb up Darwin's Tree of Life & be something more!"
This is really the most important thing you have said - it should you are totally scientifically illiterate (and smugly so) - you have absolutely no idea what evolution is about otherwise you would not regurgitate such inane drivel
brospec 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. Another ex. of how evolutionists do matrix-think is by actually violating the 1st Amendment themsleves, while accusing creationists of doing so. They take a fragment of bone & weave stories about it. Though there is no scientific way to show the animal ever produced any progeny different from itself, they declare it as ev-i-dence (!) of a transitional form. They talk about billions of "missing links" as if they're a fact & never say how to tell them from "never existed" links. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady I'll just repeat the quote of Phillip Johnson here.
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
And you think it's your "evolutionists" who are pushing propaganda here? Please, it's been made abundantly clear that it IS the creationists who don't give a damn about the first amendment, based on the Wedge Strategy. You said you haven't read it, I implore you to do so so you can see YOUR side's dishonesty.
PrincePhoenicis 1 year ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@PrincePhoenicis OK, since you haven't been as virulent in your insults as the rest, I will respond. I don't give a flying hoot about the wedge document. I did look over it briefly. Y'all seem to think it is the be all & end all of the i.d. movement. I read extensively & had never even heard of it. To me all the ranting about the Wedge Document is just a red herring. Whatever it says or does not say about morality has zip to do with whether evo can stand up to logic & true science. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@PrincePhoenicis Y'all also seem to think, as Miller at least pretends to, that Johnson is the head honcho of the i.d. movement. He had some interesting things to say about how the theory of evo fails in terms of the rules of evidence & logic - which areas he is competent to speak on as a law professor. But the real battle is being fought in the areas of science, with creationist scientists who increase all the time. He's entitled to his opinion, though I prefer to stick to logic & science.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Again, you FUCKING moron. Phillip Johnson FOUNDED the Discovery Institute.
He is the one who stated the whole thing, little one. I know you dont do research, so thats why you continue to fail in this area. I suggest you start doing some work though, because 8+ months of complete failure must seriously be hard to live with.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 14
@LoricaLady "He had some interesting things to say about how the theory of evo fails in terms of the rules of evidence & logic - which areas he is competent to speak on as a law professor."
More lies.
Johnson's creation is the Wedge Strategy - read the grubby little theorcratic rag for yourself. Johnson even later claims ID is not science.
brospec 1 year ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@PrincePhoenicis I would be happy to continue to debate with you, but you always revert to verbal abuse after awhile, & that gets so tiresome, plus it's certainly not the way to have objective, science oriented discussionis. Bye & back to ignore again.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Stop lying, LoricaLady, no one is impressed by your ignorance.
I keep laughing at you because you dont even know about the 1987 supreme court trial, you have no clue what happened during the Dover trial, and you have no idea how ID even started or what is going on in the group itself now.
You are completely and utterly clueless about everything regarding Intelligent Design, both for and against it.
Just shut your face. Its for your own good.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 17
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. Again, the evolutionists as usual are stating things exactly the opposite of reality. Every day they go into their intelligently high tech labs, using blue prints already present in nature, & "intelligently" (?) designed programs to help them support evo. All they do is show that i.d. is needed even to rearrange the components of life, while even w/i.d. they can't create a single living cell or cause a simple fruit fly to stop being a fruit fly & become something else. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. In the Dover trail Judge Jones made this statement regarding his decision, "We have addressed the seminal issue of whether intelligent design is science." Based on his humble, non scientifically trained, opiinion, he decided that intelligent design is not science. From there he goes onto say that i.d. violates the establishment clause. But what law gives a politically appointed, nonscientist judge, to say what is science and what is not for the populace? There is no such law. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady the wealthy non science trained lawyer, Phillip Johnson states a goal of ID is : "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
Obviously that is not science. Why dont you sort that out with Johnson before you write more les?
brospec 1 year ago 7
@LoricaLady "There is no such law"
You FUCKING imbicile!!!
I JUST fucking cited it for you, you stupid son of a bitch.
EDWARDS vs AGUILLARD, 1987. The SUPREME Court, fucker.
Deal with it.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 5
I dont care if you are ignoring what I say, LoricaLady, I'm going to expose your ignorance on every channel you vomit upon.
Your intellectual diarrhea will not be tolerated. Stop lying, or you will have to deal with people laughing at you for the rest of your life.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
6:11 "The trial...for proponents of i.d., in front of a conservative judge..." Here is more propaganda. What does "conservative" mean? Simply that he was a repulican? Why is his so-called conservativism mentioned? What does it have to do with science? Why aren't scientific qualification given for this pol-i-ti-cal appointee? Why, because he has none! Why doesn't any one explain why this man gets to tell the populace what is science & what is not? And by what legal authority? Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady "what legal authority?"
It's called the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
foxlake02 1 year ago 7
@LoricaLady Loke foxlake02 said, read the god damned Establishment Clause.
Its the first damn line in the FIRST Amendment. I suggest you read it.
Dont be such a god damned fool.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 6
And, just for your further embarrass the hell out of you, not like it takes much effort:
Edwards vs Aguillard, 1987, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
"Teaching creationism in public schools is unconstitutional because it attempts to advance a particular religion."
Shut your damn mouth, LoricaLady, and do some research before you continue speaking. Why I say this is because its for your own good.
Stop contributing to the stereotype of the hillbilly Christian, and leave.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: If you notice I am not responding to some posters, they know they are on ignore. My time is limited and anyway it is unproductive to the true purposes of science to spend time "debating" with those who use personal insults, name calling, gross obscenities & in some cases sexual harrassment. After many months of debating I know that such behaviors only become more virulent. I am happy to debate with those who are civil, objective and science based & will ignore the rest.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
5:20 I think it is appropriate here to refer to "The New Monkey Trial", harkening to the Scopes trial. In that trial a tooth was used as "evidence" for evolution. It was claimed the tooth was that of an intermediary form between ape and man. Some people - this pattern continues today in museums, Nat'l Geog etc. - took this fragment of a fossil & did elaborate art work based on it, showing the "primitive" man's full body. Years later folk learned the tooth belonged to an extinct pig! Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady More of your pathetic sleazy lies.
The illustration you are referring to was of Java Man in the Illustrated London News which carriied the story “reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist's brilliant imaginative genius.” Your pig eference related to a tooth fossil of Nebraska Man which was misidentified and then correctly identified by scienists (obviously not by lazy creationists like you)
Dont mindlessly copy from Answers in Genesis - it is as dishonest as you
wildcrazygoats 1 year ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
TO ANYONE INTERESTED. If you notice I am not responding to the poster below, they know the reason why. I cannot spend my limited time "debating" with those who use personal insults, name calling, gross obscenities & in one case, sexual harrassment. Experience has shown that any responses to those kinds of replies only increases their virulence. I am happy to debate with anyone who can be science based, objective and civil.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. I do not personally advocate pushing religion per se in the classroom. This happened to me in hi school & it turned me in the opposite direction due to the way it was presented. However, from what I have generally seen in the i.d. movement, they want simply to present the sci-en-tif-ic ev-i-dence for intelligent design in contrast to the evidence for evolution & let the students see what the pros & cons are for both. Evolutionists want to go to court to stop any mention of i.d. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. The 1st Amendment was written primarily to prevent a state religion, such as Rome had and has. Now, there are many defintions of religion with one being a system of cultural beliefs, based on faith, held by ardent followers. There ya go: evolution. It's based on nothing but assumptions, theoreticals, logical fallacies & some outright lies, including phony art works. It has loyal followers who believe on faith it is true. Miller et al are trying to make it the STATE religion. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady "Miller et al are trying to make it the STATE religion"
What a load of crap. In science classes, teach the science that scientists use. ID is not science according to your mentor Phillip Johnson.
Your lies & sloppy research have been exposed repeatedly
brospec 1 year ago 14
This comment has received too many negative votes show
3:59 As usual evo-evangelists tell it exactly the opposite of the way it really is. First of all the 1st Amendment was never written to keep the Creator out of the classroom. What was that we were taught to memorize, that Jefferson wrote to the King of England? Oh, yeal, "We are "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights..." Jefferson, though he was not a Christian, encouraged public schools should be established primarily so that children could learn to read the Bible. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
Creationism textbook:
Chapter One: Darwin is Evil
Chapter Two: Why Evolution is a big lie
Chapter Three: God is the answer Sub Part 1: Evidence of Creation "Genesis in Bible" Sub Part 2: There is no crocoduck or Dog turning into cat Sub Part 3: Everything from nothing is not possible, God did it
Chapter Four: Why ID is better Sub Part 1: Just God did it Sub part 2: You just have to read bible Sub part 3: Don't ask and just believe or go to hell
Conclusion: God did it
MattleSystem 1 year ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
3:29 I have learned not to accept, at all, what Miller says as necessary, uh, accurate. 1st he uses 1 vague quote from a law professor to claim that "advocateS" of creation say they don't have what it takes to put i.d. into the text books. Here he is complaining about i.d. being in the text books. Self contradiction, false accusation = unreliable source.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Another lie. You didnt even bother watching the video
wildcrazygoats 1 year ago 5
Comment removed
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Seems you didnt bother watching the video - at 3.33 it is not about what you claim....mistake or another lie?
Tell the interns at Discovery Institute who write this crap for you to try a little harder - perhaps they mixed up the videos
wildcrazygoats 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady The Discovery Institute wants you to believe , as science, that the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe, their God, impregnated himself into a Jewish virgin , had himself born then eventually tortured & murdered, then resurrected himself because that was the best idea He could come up with to forgive some prehistoric woman who stole an apple from a magic tree at the behest of a talking snake.
What was His second best idea I wonder
wildcrazygoats 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2:28 The Dover Trial again. Earlier Miller complained about creationists getting involved in politics & sniffed that scientists should stay above it. Yet he has been politicing this whole time & constantly crows about Dover. There a non science trained politically appointed federal judge, with no legal basis, told the populace what was science & what was not. Miller totally capitulated in his role as a scientist. He wants the state to force evolution on the resistng populace. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady More lies from the Discovery Institute's stooge.
ID is politically driven pseudoscientific nonsense, made up by the wealthy non science trained
lawyer, Phillip Johnson who states a goal of ID is : "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
Is that science? Of course not - it is bullshit , masquerading as science for the dimwitted.
It is evangelical ignorance - they want you to be ignorant, not just them
wildcrazygoats 1 year ago 11
@LoricaLady Just be silent, little one. No one is buying into your bullshit lies.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 8
@LoricaLady "He wants the state to force evolution on the resistng populace." What a load of crap!
In schools , the science thatr is taught should be based on what scientists do you imbecile. Johnson, who made up the ID nonsense, admits ID is not science - yet you liars are trying to force that upon students in science classes.
You are a hypocrite & a liar. You make real Christians look stupid.
wildcrazygoats 1 year ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I see someone has been trying to partially get my posts Expelled by pushing "hide" on all of them. Whatever is he afraid people might see? The truth is the truth and you can't change it. May those see who have eyes to see and those with potty mouths & verbal abuse get the eyes to see - along with a true understanding of logic, critical thinking and real science.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady .............as long as your understanding of science is what is dictated by Phillip Johnson and conforms with one of his objectives of ID : "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God."
So brilliant Christian scientists , such as Lemaitre, are abused/called non-Christians/ ridiculed because their work confliucts with the delusions of a small group of intellectually lazy bigots
brospec 1 year ago 4
Comment removed
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: If you notice I am ignoring the posters below, they know they are on an "ignore list." I have limited time and no time for "debate" with people who name calling, use personal insults &/or gross obscenities or are sexually harrassing. Such behaviors are antithetical to the true purposes of science. I have noticed such patterns invariably increase, & any discussion of science degenerates even further, if the communication is not discontinued.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
0:59 Woo hoo! Love seeing the info on the chart. What could it mean that the U.S. is the most opposed to evolution of all those other countries? We have more money, therefore more access to the net, to sites, books, CDs, etc. which have proliferated to debunk evolution. Our literacy rate helps too. Over all, no country has more opportunity to analyze both sides of the issues than the U.S.A. In spite of generations of school indoctrination, most still think for themselves. Woo hoo! Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Well of course we all know that determining how reality works is determined by the popular vote of the public don't we? Instead of making up what sounds good, consider what Miller is saying. It's a successful PR campaign. It's not science. Now tell me how I'm a bad boy and you're not talking to me anymore...
foxlake02 1 year ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@foxlake02 (Wondered when this particular Miller guard dog would show up.) For the 7th time - for anyone else's benefit - I do not "debate" with people such as Foxtake, who: Use personal insults, name call, falsely accuse me of lying, make sexually harrassing remarks & tell someone who sent me a basically porno post - appropos to no science whatsoever - "Good job."
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Yeah, that's what I thought. :/
foxlake02 1 year ago 6
@foxlake02 Seems that you are on the naughty list. Dont expect a Christmas card from the Discovery Institute :)
brospec 1 year ago 7
@brospec I wear my IGNORE/DELETE as a badge of honor. I remember telling her how ignorant she is and I remember telling her she lied when she distorted my post about doctors. Not sure about the sexual harassing remark though. Maybe that was when I politely asked her to get her head out of her ass. Looks like you will be getting yours soon too.
foxlake02 1 year ago 18
@LoricaLady "What could it mean that the U.S. is the most opposed to evolution of all those other countries?" The Taliban are as opposed to evolution as you are........and they worship a deranged mass murdering psychopath of a god ....just like you & Johnson do.
brospec 1 year ago 9
@LoricaLady Are you totally deranged? Look at the start of he video - Johnson , a wealthy lawyer , who cooked up ID "theory" , admits it has no scientific basis. In Johnsons "Wedge Strategy" he states one of the goals of ID is :
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God." ................ and you & Johnson & your ilk are trying to pass this bullshit off as science!!!!!
brospec 1 year ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cont. The chapters in the book follow this pattern: What your textbook says about the origin of microorganisms/What we really know about the origin of microorganisms, What your text book says about/What we really know about....The Geologic Record, Origin of Humans, Natural Selection and Evolution, etc. etc. If MIller doesn't know what the "intelligent design movement" is really saying & doing, should we listen to him? If he does know, should we listen to him? Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
0:40 "Now despite these scientific failures..." As usual for an evolutionists no actual data is presented as evidence. I don't know what the rest of Johnson's quote said, but I know there are many scientists who have written materials for school children, debunking evolution. They no way say, Believe it because it's in the Bible either. The usual pattern is to tell exactly what evo is claiming, then compare that to the actual. scientific evidence. One example is Evolution Exposed. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Yes folks, get your children to read the scientifically illiterate drivel in "Evolution Exposed" and they can grow up to be smugly ignorant, bigoted hillbillies - just like the dishonest Loricalady
wildcrazygoats 1 year ago 30
@LoricaLady Stop fucking lying, you ignorant fool.
Vomiting your propaganda wont convince anyone, especially when you blatantly lie to everyone's face and insulting our intelligence.
You are a fucking fool, LoricaLady, and everyone is laughing at you.
I am pleased that you have been frightened off of other, more popular channels though. Good to see you are withdrawing to a small little corner here. Couldn't handle dozens of people laughing at you every day, eh?
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
00:01 Cont. from Vid 1 Miller said Johnson is considered to be the godfather of the i.d. movement. I have studied the "movement" for years & never heard anyone referring to him like that. One would get the impression from that single quote that Johnson thinks evo has validity. Wrong. He writes books teaching people how to debunk it using logic and the rules for evidence such as he taught in law school. Of course if Miller had real amunition, he wouldn't have to try to deceive anyone. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 year ago
@LoricaLady Anyone wanting to understand ID should read the "Wedge Strategy" - it is readily available on line. ID has nothing to do with science - it is founded by wealthy fundamentalist Christians whose limited scientific knowledge conflicts, in their minds, with contemporary science (including physics, biochemistry, astronomy, geology, geography etc etc) ID is an attempt to destroy science (and the majority of Christians who have no problem with it) and force a bigoted theocracy...
brospec 1 year ago 3
@brospec ......... to cater for the smug ignorance of its followers such as Johnson. The objectives of thev Wedge Strategy , authored by the wealthy lawyer Johnson is , inter alia : - To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science. - To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
- without any scientific basis.
brospec 1 year ago 3
@brospec LoricaLady has been informed of the "Wedge Strategy" before. This is one of her tactics. She will pretend she is ignorant about things that people have told her about many times. Wait till she starts quote mining Stephen J Gould. If it doesn't fit her dogma, her fingers go into her ears.
foxlake02 1 year ago 10
@foxlake02 She sure is amazingly ignorant & dishonest......I am sure that the Discovery Institute has far more capable interns than her.
brospec 1 year ago 8
@LoricaLady Your complete ignorance of who Phillip Johnson is in relation to the Discovery Institute only shows how much of a moron you are.
Well done, idiot.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago 7
Comment removed
LoricaLady 1 year ago
vote bot got at this vid
TaNgLeD2121 1 year ago
2:50, I would vandalize the shit out of that sign.
EclecticSceptic 1 year ago
Ken Miller symbolizes how Christians can accept evolution too! I am so glad that there are people like that.
RockSmithStudio 1 year ago
@RockSmithStudio yes, Theodosius Dobzhansky & R.A Fisher were two important contributors to the modern evolutionary synthesis & both were Christians, I think the bible is not a book of literal history & science but is symbolic. A process of evolution over 4 billion years makes life more wonderful not less. The evidence for evolution is so clear that it is illogical to deny it and so it is extraordinary that at this stage of the 21st century, literal creationism seems to be gaining popularity.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
"The utter collapse of ID as anything remotely resembling anything" The judge ruled that ID isn't science, but that Irreducible Complexity, which is the heart of ID, was falsified. Now, how does one falsify something that isn't science? And what was the "proof" that it had been falsified?
MOVE TO EXHIBIT B(ehe):
Evolution can't explain the flagella that is "unbelievably complex" (Miller). "Now why is that?" Because you can wear a broken mousetrap on your tie, silly!
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson THe mousetrap analogy was Behe's, not Miller's. Miller mearly showed that it fails.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok Miller merely showed that he could come up with things to do with a broken mousetrap. (Spitwad launcher, paperweight, and dorky tie clasp--wow!) That doesn't answer the irreducible complexity of the whole--which he acknowledges at the beginning of one his YouTube clips.
But, I suppose you won't see this and this conversation is futile.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson I cannot be held responsible for you failure to understand either Miller's or Behe's arguement.
Irreducible Complexity hasn't been an issue since HJ Muller's 1918 paper.
Behe failed on the flageellium, the blood clotting system, the Immune system and every other kite he's flown. That's why his own department has issued a public statement distancing themselves from his views.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok I see that this is futile. Miller did not address the issue of irreducible complexity, he did some silly grandstanding with a broken mousetrap on his tie.
His suggestion about the Type III secretory system has fallen flat under investigation. He has not provided any logical explanation how the flagella could develop on its own--nor the blood clotting cascade, nor the complexities of the immune system.
What is claimed of evolution is magic and Catholic Miller practices slight of hand.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Evolution doesn't need magic, whereas your hypothesis..........
Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum
Copyright 2003 by N. J. Matzke
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok To do what it claims, it either needs a miracle or magic. Since it rejects the One who wrote the laws of nature and can use them to perform miracles, it is left only with magic.
"Evolution in (Brownian) Space" is just more evolutionary slight of hand.
I like watching the broom float around and mop the floor by itself in Cinderella too. ;)
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.'
Pallen MJ, Matzke NJ. From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella. 4:10 2006 NATURE REVIEWS MICROBIOLOGY 784-790
and
Liu RY, Ochman H. Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system. 104:17 2007 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 7116-7121
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok plus de magie
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson the blood clotting cascade has been discussed a lot, and examples shown of systems with missing parts that work perfectly well for the organism involved. Miller was demonstrating with the mousetrap that you dont need all of it for it to be useful, so If an organism developed the base and a wire loop, it could be useful, then add a spring, still useful, add a catch and mousetrap. That illustrates that it could have been built in steps and been useful.
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
@SqueakerAlpha "That illustrates that it could have been built in steps [by a very clever inventor] and been useful." Yes, I'd agree, with the insertion I've made to your statement. It's a lot easier to illustrate with a mousetrap because most of the pieces CAN be used for something else and are very simple. Not so with the blood clotting cascade, nor with the bacterial flagella. Naming uses for a deconstructed mousetrap doesn't tell how it was invented. It didn't come from a spitwad launcher.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson you dont need a designer and you seem to have missed that there are much simpler blood clotting systems that include parts of the human one. All that evolution requires is that at each stage a change is useful or at least not harmful or it gets removed from the gene pool.
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
@SqueakerAlpha "Simpler blood clotting systems" can we get by with less? Any evidence that we ever did?
Read Michael J. Behe's paper:
In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade
and the paper
Misrepresenting Michael Behe's Arguments for Irreducible Complexity of the Blood Clotting Cascade
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago 3
@MorganMarvinson You missed the point, there is nothing ''irreducible''.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz That's it. Ignore it and it will go away.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This isn't baseball. It's about dealing with the issues of science. Putting up scoreboards takes away from the issue and lends weight to the idea that truth is based on who's in dominance.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson how does one falsify something that isn't science?
All they did was prove ID is not science so it can't be taught in science class.
You don't have to prove something wrong that has never been proven anyway.
gregrutz 1 year ago
ID is limited in a way that evolution isn't--it has to deal with data. Evolution can float one imaginary scenario after another, and as long as it isn't questioned by the masses, internal debate isn't reported to the public. If one imagined scenario in evolution falls on hard times, no problem, just come up with another--like amazingly designed flagella arising from poison injectors that look like one part of the flagella.
There's nothing to say you can't make such stuff up, is there?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
No, Dr. Miller, ID hasn't proposed a full-feature fantasy like evolution. They ask specific questions and present specific data on the obvious nature of design. And ID has a specific limitation that evolution doesn't have--it has to stick to the data. In evolutionary theory, if one imagined scenario falls on hard times, just float some other crazy idea for origins--like turning a venom injector into an amazingly designed rotary outboard motor.
There's nothing to say you can't, is there?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
lmao YECtards and their damn votebots
LaingGod 2 years ago
@ interrelation: Nylon-eating bacteria.
I win.
To elaborate: Nylon as a material did not exist until recently and when it was created no organism could digest it, so the fact that some bacteria can now digest nylon is proof that evolution is occurring even as we speak.
Nuzzlemeister 2 years ago 28
That's great. I will have to check these out. Irreducable complexity and Nylon-eating bacteria.
philnoll 2 years ago
Nylon eating bacteria? Thats crazy dude.....gotta admit that is beyond cool. What is next carbon fiber eating bacteria? lol
umrahsahab 1 year ago
I think the best way to explain the diversities of life is Interrelation Theory. See here...
w3 interrelation-theory com
interrelation 2 years ago
your theory is incoherently presented, and I don't see any evidence you give that can't be explained by evolution via natural selection.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
There is none for evoluton since it is incomplete.
interrelation 2 years ago
wut?
Albukhshi 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes, evolution theory is already obsolete.
See
w3 interrelation-theory com
interrelation 2 years ago
yes, I already said I read it, and I don't accept it. I can't accept a thesis that is neither coherent nor capable of making predictions that validate it over Evo- from what I do understand, much of what you cite can easily be explained in light of natural selection and mutation.
and evolution is neither incomplete, nor outdated-its case is too air-tight. I must, respectfully, reject you hypothesis, until you peer review it in a credible scientific organization, and it is accepted by it.
Albukhshi 2 years ago 2
yours is an idea, not a theory, and it's bullshit
cperez1000 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
The range of cloting factors still does not justify the common ancestry of all life forms. Atheism is not Biology. Atheism is not science. It is unnecessary accept the science fiction of the common ancestry of all life forms before finding cures and solving the problems of life.
Miller's work is fallacious and misguided. It is sad to see how many people are unaware how he misunderstands the Dover court case, Behe's argument & fails to refute him.
All will find out at the website in my profile.
prffsrx 2 years ago
I'm shocked this only has a three star rating! Votebots? I gave it 5 stars!
skathay 2 years ago 2
It is votebots, Im on the phone with tfoot right now
DonExodus2 2 years ago
@skathay 5 stars here as well
TaNgLeD2121 1 year ago
How can such an outwardly looking advanced country, still be arguing about such issues. Is over half of the USA retarded? This is scary shit.
Munro1Man 2 years ago 5
Yes... Yes it is.
verzen 2 years ago
same way people in my mother's homestate (Ohio) has a radiohost who divides people's votes by sin XD (see part 1)
Albukhshi 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I think you need to understand that TOE is obsolete and incorrect since time mechanism kills TOE. That means, no evoluton is really happening.
interrelation 2 years ago
" since time mechanism kills "
what, 4 billion years isn't enough?
like I said: submit this to peer review, and let actual professionals decide if you are right. if you are among the 10% who can publish at any one time, don't worry, they probably will be open minded, but if your hypothesis fails, come back and fess up.
as I said, I'm not buying your idea-I need a more accurate prediction, unique to your idea. "time mechanism" is irrelevent, as evo can and does work quickly.
Albukhshi 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yeah, there maybe 4 billion years possibility to evolve to become new species but nature doesn't permit that process. The preset pattern or process of nature is keeping the change to its limited or permissible way. Or in short, million to change, million times to correct the change.
No one can't peer review a new theory since no existing theory can guide the reviewers to deny or accept the new theory.
w3 interrelation-theory com
interrelation 2 years ago
I would be shocked to learn if you've actually watched any of DonExodus2's videos; if you had you would have already known how much is wrong with everything you're saying.
I posit that you know nothing about evolution, and are unqualified to claim anything at all.
pyxlated 2 years ago 4
"No evolution is really happening." let me compare this to a similar statement.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Bill Clinton
Now the problem with a lie is layered. 1) it destroys any credibility with respect to people who know the truth....in this case, educated people. 2) It shows that you are inept at making any form of truthful conversation and thereby invalidates all claims. 3) It pisses people off.
Your idea, not a theory, your idea does nothing to benefit science.
sgtbigs22 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
[Fr. p. 2032 of "Webster's Unabridged Dictionary" -- 1967-- science / L "scientia" knowledge, fr. "scient-," "sciens" (pres. part. of "scire" to know) 1 a : possession of knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding : knowledge as a personal attribute] That's science. It means "to know." There are innumerable means by which to learn. The derivation of the word "science" doesn't mention tenured "professors"; "peer review" nor "consensus."
procommenter 3 years ago
ID - EPIC FAIL
Stonedgamer87 3 years ago 2
Ken Miller Owns
AbdielAbiram 3 years ago 2
(to mohamedbongfish)
Again:
"the most perfect existence is necessary [for our?] existence". Why so?
DeflocculatedDentist 3 years ago
the most perfect existence is necessary existence. it has nothing to do with us, ony with god. it means the most perfect kind of existence is that which could not not be. as for your argument against perfection, it simply begs the question. we can further infer that god can know ideals objectively while we cannot. and i dont get my notions of godhood from silly scipture only logic.
mohamedbongfish 3 years ago
Your argument is literally "God must exist because he can't not exist."
Ideals are subjective by definition (at least this usage of the word ideal... which has nothing to do with plato's view of the universe).
You probably just need to use better non-subjective words.
DeflocculatedDentist 3 years ago
yes ok that is my argument but it fully supported by a priori reasoning. as for the rest of it.. what? are you gonna argue semantics with me? dont waste my time if thats all youve got to say
mohamedbongfish 3 years ago
Your reasoning, quite frankly, is stupid. We've been arguing semantics the entire time if you haven't noticed.
DeflocculatedDentist 3 years ago
my argument is not a semantic one, it is an a priori ontological argument. your objection to it is just silly semantics, so yes, that is all weve been arguing over.
mohamedbongfish 3 years ago
Your argument is wrong because it makes no sense. The reason I thought it made no sense is because of the semantics. You have proven that it just doesn't make sense at all.
DeflocculatedDentist 3 years ago
im sorry youre having such trouble grasping these concepts :(
mohamedbongfish 3 years ago
"God must exist because he can't not exist?" I don't think anyone can gasp that concept because it doesn't make any fucking sense....
DeflocculatedDentist 3 years ago
just because YOU dont understand it doesnt mean it doesnt make any sense. there is no possible world in which god does not exist. he exists necessarily in all possible worlds. any way the world could have been must have included god. that is all that statement means. its like saying there is no way in any possible world could 2 plus 2 equal 5.
mohamedbongfish 3 years ago
The problem with your argument is that you don't say WHY. We know WHY 2 plus 2 equals 4. WHY is god necessary to create all worlds? Science has shown that he is not necessary. Didn't you take earth science in high school?
DeflocculatedDentist 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
OH MY GOD. you dont read the things i say. i didnt say create all worlds, i said he exists in all possible worlds. i mean world in a broad sense. there is no way that anyhitng existing could not include god because he is the most perfect thing thinkable. the most perfect thing would have perfect existence, because that would make it more perfect than something that did not have perfect existence. perfect existence is necessary existence.. ie. existence in all possible worlds.
mohamedbongfish 3 years ago
So the reason god exists is because he can exist under any circumstance? I'm not trying to ARGUE what you just said, I'm trying to understand it more clearly.
DeflocculatedDentist 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
any way the world could have been would still have to include god. it might not have included you or me but it would have to include god. because he exists out of coneptual necessity
mohamedbongfish 3 years ago
If god existed out of conceptual necessity, there wouldn't be atheists in the first place.
DeflocculatedDentist 3 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
thats ridiculous. 81 divided by 9 equals 9 neessarily but when i was ignorant of that fact as a 5 year old i could have easily asserted that it was false. same with atheists.. they just havent thought about it enough or dont want to. most atheists dont want to believe in god because they have dogma and so do you wahahahahazha
mohamedbongfish 3 years ago
Your assertions are rather ridiculous. You are obviously the one with the dogma. Your position is that "God must exist because he can't not exist." It's mere SPECULATION. There is no mathematical proof that god is necessary. 7 times 7 will always equal 49. Just because you say perfect existence is necessary doesn't make it TRUE. You speculate and speculate but don't provide EVIDENCE.
DeflocculatedDentist 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i have explained this argument like 80 times to you. its tiring. god existence can be shown thorugh logic and conceptual analysis. logical deductions are not speculation, they cant be false! thats how logic works, take a class in it. read again, the whole thing, like 50 times. then comment again... once you understand. seriously.
mohamedbongfish 3 years ago
Cause if you keep repeating something stupid, you know that eventually it will be right.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago 2
honestly the ongotoligcal argument is just horrible HORRIBLE
danielyeh 3 years ago
well youll have to say why. people like science so the idea of something being determined a priori just seems wrong because it doesnt coincide with the values they assume. but tell me tha fallacy or the false premise. or why existence cant be determined a priori -- thats what id really like ot know.
mohamedbongfish 3 years ago
lol do you're own damn research i'm not your fucking babysitter.
its not very hard since the ontological argument is pretty well critiqued
danielyeh 3 years ago
if you dont know, how can you say its so horrible?
mohamedbongfish 3 years ago
i do know.
danielyeh 3 years ago
gimme a name.
mohamedbongfish 3 years ago
hmm.. i guess you dont know.
mohamedbongfish 2 years ago
lol the shittiest explanation possible. ahahaha
circular reasoning at its best
danielyeh 3 years ago
@mohamedbongfish
if you move the idea from a god to, say, a "perfect" tropical island, the "logic" still ostensibly holds, even if it contradicts physical reality.
clearly, there is something wrong with the line of reasoning.
pyr666 1 year ago
i dont give a shiz niz about evolution but i can know god exists because if he did he would be the mos prefect existing thing. the most perfect existence is necessary existence therefore, god must exist necessarily
mohamedbongfish 3 years ago
Perfection is kind of speculation, though. The phrase "one man's trash is another man's treasure" kind of disproves that notion.
Ken Miller is a catholic, though. Science doesn't mean you have to stop believing in god, it just means that you don't have to believe in god.
DeflocculatedDentist 3 years ago
perfection is speculation for you because you cant really know it. its too great for you to even comprehend but god can ocmprehend because he is perfect and he is god.
mohamedbongfish 3 years ago
That is god's version of perfect and not mine. Do you see what I mean? Perfection is an opinion.
"the most perfect existence is necessary [for our?] existence". Why so?
DeflocculatedDentist 3 years ago
you are wrong and god is right. god is right because he is perfect so he must be right. just because people disagree about something doesnt make it subjective. i might say that boulder weighs a thousand pounds and you might say, "no, no way. that boulder MUST weigh a million pounds." but you only say that because you dont have a scale and i do. same with god.. you cant measure perfection objectively because you dont have the capacity. god does.
mohamedbongfish 3 years ago
Do you know for a fact that god has the capacity? Where does it say in scripture (assuming that you're a Christian)?
Your analogy is incorrect because that is mathematically provable. The definition of perfect is "conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type." Different things are ideal to different people, meaning that it is subjective. Something that is ideal to god doesn't have to be ideal to me.
DeflocculatedDentist 3 years ago
Ken Miller: American Hero
mpsmith47304 3 years ago
and somewhat of a Canadian hero
Quionic7 3 years ago
I had surgery that removed my gallbladder. Am I not going to work any more?! Oh no!
EndlessVoids 3 years ago
Yep, you have a good point.
hollabackitsobi 3 years ago
I just wish that Miller would give up his beliefs in Christianity. Then he would be even MORE respectable (not that he isn't already). Don't think I have a problem with people having their own individual spirituality, but why hold on to the obviously false mythologies of ancient people? I'm an atheist, but I have no problem with the idea of Deism as espoused by Jefferso