@animefan2k9 If you knew anything about science or evolution you wouldn't think that. Your opinion is clearly not based on science education, but rather ignorant 3rd party propaganda. Evolution is an observed fact, which means you can see it for yourself. Evolution is not something people just believe in, we see it & thus know it is true. Check out my video on the guppy experiment. You'll see an example of evolution before our very eyes, & develop a better understanding of what evolution is.
I think this misses the point. Maybe some members of the DI have adequate qualifications & i wouldn't doubt that they may have some peer review papers to their names.
However, how many of these peer review papers either prove design or disprove evolution? I think we all know the answer and to give you a clue, you get the same result when you subtract variable x from x.
I watched your video, and then I rated your video, as per your request. 0:01
It is a piece of shit based on non-science. It is stupid beyond belief. Additionally, you have done more in less than 3 minutes to prove creationists are stupid than I could have done in a week.
Ya your an idiot.......Head in the sand, lets deny all them there horrible science and go back to a time when there was only christian science, and lets go the earth is flat, sickness is from evil gas, we are the center of everything, and its our little view based on how we choice to read a text, we do not care about possible translational errors or anything cause its the world of God and thats all that matters and science is evil if it goes against that small little box we have.
Wow!!! Talk about "intellectual dishonesty" ... You know exactly what was implied when DE stated the DI has never published ... You also know that they've never published anyhing relating to the issue at hand ... They can't ... You sir are a liar ...
It's sad that many of the articles are cited twice in this video - what's the point of that?
And as many previous comments have said, these publications aren't peer-reviewed, and I find it a little suspicious that you would bother to show in this video multiple references that were specifically debunked not too long ago (ie, Dover trial, irreducible complexity, etc).
DonE could have clarified his remarks, but I think anyone that knows his videos knows what he intended to mean by "published".
I just stumbled on this video and was gonna respond but it seems everyone has beaten me to it! Anyone can get published but only few get peer-review published but thanks for playing!
Typical. Don Exodus is referring to peer reviewed publications. Your mind filters that to read "being published by anyone." Hint: an article in a self published journal is not equal to being published in nature, Lancet, and so on.
I fail to see how Don E's claim of not being published when a handful of articles ARE published by someone, somewhere deserves more space than the title of this video takes up.
Seriously, even if he meant to speak a falsehood, the relative number and depravity of falsehoods put forward by Luskin make the Don E falsehood seem like truly a mote in his eye, compared to the redwood trunk sticking out of Luskin's face.
You wasted moments of my life making no point. Congratulations.
...I know the new tactic by IDiots is to gain some respectability by publishing some decent science articles that have very little to do with ID and then use that credibility to pretend ID is legitimitate. Behe and all the other "credible" IDiots have been intellectually destroyed in journals, courts, and every other place intelligence actually exists. Genesis is wrong. Deal with it.
Take some time and actually look at the crap articles you list. Most of them are from journals that no one has ever heard of it. On top of that there is an attempt by the writers to take studies that fully fall in line with evolution, but simply twist the interpretation to say that ID could have possibly been the cause. Nothing is positive evidence for ID, but simply attempts at negative evidence for evolution. Means absolutely nothing.
Oh wow, a few of their papers got published, that doesn't mean SHIT! They are still flat out wrong, the evidence is against them. By the way, biological precursor molecules have been seen in large quantities in interstellar gas clouds out in space, so don't try this "they had to come from pre-existing life" non-sense.
hehe studies on intelligent design, study of what ? pure theology not study, or maybe study of bible ? if you study bullshit whats are results of your study ?
OMG! Call the cops! DonE was wrong about some creationists who managed to get their crap published. I guess that means that all the evidence that has ever been dug up ,in the last 150 years is all false. Your the one who keeps saying that critics don't deal with the facts in your videos. Why don't you attack the science that DonE presents instead of this piddly crap. I don't care how often creationist nonsense is published. There are no facts to support creationism. Put up or shut up!
No, and maybe you're asking me to resurrect a rebuttal video to that claim that exposes the hocus pocus that Laura is performing there. You know I was banned from her blogtv site, don't you? I'm not allowed there and I was kicked out for merely stating, "there's no sound."
There is no reason to consider anything you say. Dembski published through IVY LEAGUE university, Cambridge and you're still hitting your head against the wall. You're one reason as to why evolution is being rejected my millions.
Why is it only on YT the public has this insatiable curiosity to know everything except what is worth knowing? I find it quite amusing you think two different people are the same person. But then again it doesn't surprise me, you believe we evolved from monkey's.
Due to your comment I'll assume ..... You hold no theology degree in religion, do not know the difference between Old and New Biblical Law(that would be Jewish and Christian), or the difference of what a Creationist, and Intelligent Designer's study. LOL
In all its glory, ignorance at times seems to be bliss. I only wish I cold lower myself to see the resemblance.
Anyway, have you seen Dprjone's MSF video ? Some background is being revealed on the comments about this organization... interesting stuff.
Dprjones keeps blocking and unblocking people who are revealing this info. and someone from the UK branch is asking one of these individuals to contact the branch... and to stop speaking publicly.
It brings to light why they waited so long to inform the public on who was going to be the recipient of funds. Although dprjones says it was due to TF being on vacation, however,TF hasn't been in the forefront of the program. Hummm. note: on the funding page many people leave notes that they have donated for a a good cause: to be saved from something called the Spaghetti Monster ;0]
An organization which raises money to save people from monsters. LOL Maybe now they aren't afraid of the dark?
You obviously have no degree in biology or any evolutionary related science, but that does't stop you from making some very boneheaded (and obviously incorrect) statements about evolution. Of course, it doesn't take a degree to understand basic scientific principles, and all you need for religion is gullibility - I mean, faith.
Imp, tell me about it. Try me. If I don't understand evolution please explain it to me. I've done more reading on the subject then you ever make in what's left of your life time. I used to live in a library.
I've already talked my head off to you trying to get you to understand the simplest of things, all you ever do is ignore, deny and over and over assert that you are correct. I'm sure you've heard the saying, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think."
You haven't seen abiogenesis. You don't have any solace in the fossil record. The bottom of the fossil record is the precambrian layer, which is composed of bottom sea dwellers, so it fits a fauna not a time period of yore, the mountains of fossils throughout the world say special sedimentary conditions that changed vastly the environment that was prior to it, thus testifying to a flood, and the genome project proves that the 98 percent similarity was concocted. You failed utterly.
All you ever do is ignore, deny and over and over again simply assert you are correct. The fossil record, and geologic processes, are very well understood. You are talking gibberish trying to make it fit within the confines of the bible. But I bet you know a geologist that . . . You seem to know a lot of people that just happen to relate to the topic at hand, and still you don't know shit.
You don't know my voice. But it's obvious that you care that I like you and nobody else. Right? And I guess I feel the same. I don't use my soft spoken voice in my videos.
You really are a simple creature. You do get RNA parts from the prehistoric world. It's ok I get it. Your belief structure is crashing down around you and you so desperately want to stay ignorant. By the way who is Laura?
Actually... yes you do. Look up the amazingly simple molecular structure of RNA bases and the organic compounds that make up "rocks and mineral scrapings." Someone fell asleep in biology and chemistry...
Furthermore there are many well known scientists who were never "published" in a journal before being proven. Instead it was through invention, discovery, or theory they were proven scientifically.
Let me explain peer reviews. Negative results even in published peer reviews usually are not part of the published review. Peer reviews do not prevent scientific fraud, hardly ever detects errors, and only modestly improves scientific quality. The researched communication already takes place through pre-printed deposits in archives and it's hardly even close to being transparent. So one must question whether these published scientists merits are based on pure creativity and discovery.
Actually I don't. Though it strikes me a little odd that rather than just refuting it, you (or the other person) direct your denial towards each other, i.e. "Look, they think I'm you!" As if communicating to the "other" boisters your claim that you aren't the "other". It's right up there with "I couldn't POSSIBLY be HER, I'm a GUY!"
The thing is, you've admitted to having other accounts, so the question is how MANY other accounts do you have?
A paper on "Chromosome rearrangement and transposable elements" as evidence for Intelligent design! Are you serious?!
I'll bet if I was actually read these papers, most of them will have nothing to do with Intelligent design. Just like the list of Scientists who have signed a petition saying they reject evolution. Most either don't know that they are on such a list, or repeatedly request that their name be taken off.
In the early 1800s Georges Cuvier wrote of correlation of parts." It's said that he used this notion of correlation of parts to argue against Lamarck and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire evolution.
Wow, you got me there. There is no way you could be her because you are a guy. And she's a girl. That is air tight logic. Nobody would ever misrepresent their gender on YT to hide their identity. Ever.
"how could you possibly know that the organism "appeared suddenly without any precursors"? Sounds like a good old argument from ignorance."
I'm ignorant? Humm... let's see.... I gave you the answer you are looking for below "(i.e. new species) tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any similar precursors. The Cambrian explosion is a prime example."
"Irreducible requires that the interim steps represent features which could not be considered assets and would neither be neutral or detrimental. To put it another way, the new feature would have to derive from a series of non-selectable steps.(macroevolution) Muller did NOT describe or predict "Irreducible" complexity." Muller describes complexity as working by gradual modifications of parts .The difference in Irreducible complexity is the required steps, not so much the parts."
Muller describes complexity as working by gradual modifications of parts . "thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the "interlocking action" of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, where originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former."
"Interlocking action" and "Irreductiable complexity" are not similar by any means.
Muller made the argument around 1925 that genetic processes would naturally lead to increasing complexity, cycles of gene duplication, and an addition to pathways would unavoidably lead to more and more steps.
The failure of genetics and chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development.
I give it an F in prediction, observation, and testability! I think you get what I'm saying...
The truth is scientists are increasingly skeptical that natural selection is the primary agent of evolutionary change.
This model has failed many of its predictions.
For instance: The failure of evolutionary biology to provide detailed evolutionary explanations for the origin of complex biochemical features The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution
The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for universal common descent
Similar parts found in different organisms. Many genes and functional parts not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms.
The "root" of the tree of life is a prime example.
Has the prediction of design been met in these areas scientifically? Yes.
High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures are commonly found.
2.Fossil Record Biological complexity~ (i.e. new species) tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any similar precursors. The Cambrian explosion is a prime example.
ID is a logical inference, based on data gathered from the natural world. The most extensive of data which is available, is testable and observed through ID is... complexity. Predictions have then been put to the test by observing the scientific data. Complexity has been observed, predicted and tested.
debate crusher. Give some examples of experimental data that are described or predicted by intelligent design. How could it be falsified. How could ID be used as a method of inquiry?-+
Even if you did have a valid point (you don't), the editing "techniques" used and the way you've presented it is rather rough. The poorly looped audio towards the end is a prime example.
There is a difference between book publishing and peer review. Also Don did make a mistake about the peer reviewed work. There is some peer review work for ID but there is so little of it making hard for someone to the work. Also there is much more peer reviewed work against ID than for it.
Don is just a dishonest man. He writes for Wikipedia and puts in statements like, "creationists use oop arts to prove creationism." He uses Wikipedia for evangelism.
Argument from equivocation. The implicit assumptions in Don Exodus statement is the publishing of creation science or intelligent design in its essences.
Everyone knows, some of these creationist scientists are actual published scientists. But the crux is creation science is not published in peer-reviewed journal (self-publishing do not count).
Only ONE of those papers you showed us was published after 2005. The significance of this is that ID was ruled as just a re-branding of creationism in the Dover Trial in December of 2005. That paper published in 2006 wasn't anything groundbreaking, either. Watch Thunderf00t's newest Why do People Laugh at Creationists? video.
There are a few members of the DI that published unremarkable things that didn't really cause a stir because they didn't attack evolution or climate change or whatever.
They ones that are provocative are published in some pretty vauge journals. Like what the fuck is the "international journal of fuzzy systems"
Whoa as of right now their website doesn't load so I guess their server technology is rather "fuzzy"
Exactly what I was thinking. Forums and pamphlets aren't my idea of being published either. I guess if that means I'm published then posting music on myspace and burning cd's means I have a record label.
So are you going to post a link to Dons video where he says this so we can have a look for ourselves, cos i think i have seen the vid in question and he wasnt reffering to the discovery institute but most likely Casey Luskin, as iam sure you know
Just a recap of what's going on. Don Exodus claimed that ID hasn't published. In response the evolutionists claimed that 1. the EigenFactor demonstrated that the papers aren't even reputable. So in essence Exodus lied in saying that ID wasn't published, but the oldest Biology journal in the world has been discredited by the EigenFactor, which was invented by a talkorigin activist. Ha, ha,ha, ha. Did you know I like entertainment?
Are we talking about evolution or abiogenesis? Anyway, tell me ONE evidence that would invalidate ID. Then explain why that evidence would invalidate it.
So you didn't find any? I though that ID was science. I'll give you one that you will like it: if you find a crocoduck (or crocoduck-like organism) in the fossil record, that would a serious blow against evolution. It would be impossible to place it in the tree of life.
I put on my ultra evolution thinking cap. Evolutionists already have an answer to that just as they don't see the Platypus a problem. They'd call it convergence.
Convergence would not explain it. The crocoduck is a mix of a reptile and a bird. Convergence is when two organism (or part of organism) look like similar, but they don't share an common ancestor.
I put forth convergence because it's just one absurd way that evolutionists like to make up stories. It's an absurd explanation. The on going theory is that reptiles came from birds. I don't see aproblem here. As long as you can make up a fantasy that sounds real you can buy it. Just as people believed that you could bank a ship in space by virtue of watching StarWars so the imagination is great with you.
You think convergence is a story, evolution is a lie, science actually supports the stuff YOU believe and you back up your statement by comparing it to a movie?
But you accept virgin birth, jesus coming back from the dead (hey, there's no body! that proves it!) a guy who puts two of ALL the animals of the earth on a big wooden boat, and just all sorts of magic, mayhem, incest and TESTS OF FAITH (you have to say that in a booming voice!)
This is not the place I defend the Bible, however, let me just say this, it's all based on Biblical prophecy. If you could find a prophecy that is unambiguous, clear as day light, and also too complicated to have been fulfilled by self fulfillment, then you have a case. Only God could tell the future.
Hmn. Prophecy? Refering to the frist coming, second coming, doomsday or something else? I have to say, when I read something like "unambiguous, clear as day light" probably the last thing I think of is the bible.
Anyway, seems pretty obvious that the only reason you object to evolution is because of the bible; you just don't think you sound as stupid if you claim science doesn't support evolution. I hate to break it to you, but it makes you sound even more stupid.
I highly suggest that you read before you criticize. First of all Read the book of Daniel. It spans a sequence of chain related kingdoms. Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and modern Europe. Revelation picks where Daniel ends.
I was a theistic evolutionist. I reject evolution on two grounds. The evidence is not there, secondly the only real evidence I thought was convincing was gill slits on human embryos. My text book distinctly said Gill slits, (not phyrangeal pouches, which is what later replaced it.) Some of the older 50's textbooks claim that the slits breathed and then closed up. I get a good chuckle out of that.
No, being Jewish is no problem with me. Many are from a Jewish background and don't know it. It's not good to eat certain animals. The Jews had special laws. I know atheists have problems with this, but this is because they don't understand the situation. God was preparing his land and his people for the Messiah. Judah was to be the nesting ground for the hero of the world, the savior. Which is why God was especially tight with his people.
I'm beginning to think you are the worlds biggest troll. You can't really believe the idiocy that you type here. Please tell me this is some Encyclopedia Dramatica joke.
Trolling my channel, eh? If you're going to come in here in condemnation, at least explain what you don't like and debate it. Otherwise don't leave a comment.
There is nothing to debate. I've watched several of your videos and read some of your "debates" in the comment section. I've come to the conclusion that you are either quite an idiot or you are a normal person trolling as a creationist. I merely hope it is the second.
Then I must inform you that in my annotation and in the comments section I have warned people of the likes of you who spew generic opinions, often just to try and sway people, while they are mindless one star drones who don't actually watch my videos. In other words, if you can't show you've watched my videos, you are to be ignored.
DebateCrusher says: "God was preparing his land and his people for the Messiah."
Why do you suppose god was so WRONG in his choice? The jews, afterall, roundly rejected, and continue to reject, jesus as messiah. Thus, it couldn't have mattered what foods jews ate in preparation for the coming of the messiah they so adamantly rejected...
You don't know the irony in the words you write, GetmeThere. YOu said, why did God choose the Jews even though they rejected Him? Fact is God chose you including every human being in this world, to have a permanent place in his future world. But you have roundly rejected and continue to resist Jesus as your messiah, Personally, I think he made a good decision and I hope you change your mind.
Do you know the difference between publishing a book/paper/review on current state of conflicts in the political, educational social-sphere vs publishing "scientific" arguments on creation science?
It is perfectly scientific to examine the causes, effects, impact and current state of social phenomenons. But it proves nothing and says nothing about the validity of creation science. Lol.
My gosh! God must exist! because I thought those article needed a miracle to get published. I didn't read them all but the first one: probably half of the article is quotation and the guy wrote it in first person... Seriously, I don't know how that thing got published... probably that's why I never heard about that Journal before...
What's this? Obscurantism? Making assertions, no reference, then condemnation. Sure, I believe you. That's why you had to use an "EingenFactor" that was devised by a young talkorigin, fight monger.
I didn't even know what you were talking about when you mentioned "EigenFactor" (I have heard about impact factor). I read the first paper (author: John A. Davison). And that paper is a piece of crap. That's why it's not published in other journal like JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY. Generally, you want to publish in the best journal you can, and that's all what he got. I don't write a detailed analysis because there is no enough space and it's not worthy.
Translated: "it was an article that had ID conclusions, and I hate that. So I discard the evidence. Oh yes, I saw abiogenesis and I believe that chemicals have magic powers. No intelligence us needed to work on chemicals. I believe irrationally for life to pop into existence, and I'm not bright."
3) I think that ID and evolution doesn't contradict each other. Why that magic man wouldn't create all organisms using evolution as a tool? Science cannot answer that question, but religion can, by just making up some story... and religion is very good at that.
You've demonstrated that it's possible for even scientists to be hacks and shills. Congratulations, but sadly that was already something we knew. If their science was good, it would win consensus. If you doubt this, consider how much longer your lifespan is than your ancestors. Consider how much more comfortable you are than they were. Science can do these amazing things because it's good at finding the truth of reality. We will see if what you claim is true turns out to be with time.
I use science. All the basic laws of science were established by real creationists. However, in the early days of science, Thomas Huxley and many other atheists of the Fabian society, determined to capture all the fields of study, in order to convert people to their socialist, atheistic world view.
DE is clearly talking about being published in peer reviewed journals and magazines. Published in the way scientists works are published. He is not talking about the popular pulp press.
Peer review is a good thing. If you had a theory as to why Bach quit writing music that had grand flourishes where his arms crossed over each other on the keyboard, an expert in the field would tell you that Bach quit these flourishes because he became to fat to do them. Experts are a good thing.
got some links to these papers and some links to the jounals there were published in? I would love to see them. You know there are differences in being published in good journals and bad journals.
It's not difficult to get a paper *published* if you submit it to enough conferences - eventually it will get accepted and will end up in the follow up "Proceedings of...." book.
It's also fairly easy to get a book published - just submit to enough publishers and don't give up.
However, it's not at all easy to get a paper published in a well respected, peer reviewed journal. Those are the papers which really matter!
Thunderf00t, DonExoduse2, cdk007, potholer54, dprjones, AronRa etc., the list goes on and on, they can and do list links that support their arguements.
But you can't? Hmmn. Or won't, why? Oh, *your* links would be too long. Sure.
You don't even link to the video of DE2 that you're commenting on. Why? Are you taking something out of context (again)?
evolution is non science but a religion of death that atheist worships
animefan2k9 2 months ago
@animefan2k9 If you knew anything about science or evolution you wouldn't think that. Your opinion is clearly not based on science education, but rather ignorant 3rd party propaganda. Evolution is an observed fact, which means you can see it for yourself. Evolution is not something people just believe in, we see it & thus know it is true. Check out my video on the guppy experiment. You'll see an example of evolution before our very eyes, & develop a better understanding of what evolution is.
AscendingParadigm 2 weeks ago
I think this misses the point. Maybe some members of the DI have adequate qualifications & i wouldn't doubt that they may have some peer review papers to their names.
However, how many of these peer review papers either prove design or disprove evolution? I think we all know the answer and to give you a clue, you get the same result when you subtract variable x from x.
pilgrimpater 4 months ago
The data Don Exodus using is however published. He, unlike the discovery institute, isn't claimimg to have new results.
truevoiceofsanity 4 months ago
I watched your video, and then I rated your video, as per your request. 0:01
It is a piece of shit based on non-science. It is stupid beyond belief. Additionally, you have done more in less than 3 minutes to prove creationists are stupid than I could have done in a week.
You are welcome.
-not a votebot.
PaulinaPaulino 7 months ago
Ya your an idiot.......Head in the sand, lets deny all them there horrible science and go back to a time when there was only christian science, and lets go the earth is flat, sickness is from evil gas, we are the center of everything, and its our little view based on how we choice to read a text, we do not care about possible translational errors or anything cause its the world of God and thats all that matters and science is evil if it goes against that small little box we have.
ASexyChef 1 year ago
Wow!!! Talk about "intellectual dishonesty" ... You know exactly what was implied when DE stated the DI has never published ... You also know that they've never published anyhing relating to the issue at hand ... They can't ... You sir are a liar ...
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
You should probably take down that annotation considering this video is in the video response section of a Donexodus2 video I was just watching.
lol...Are any of the peer review publications about intelligent design or on evolution? Is it just me or is this guy not getting the point?
dookiecheez 1 year ago
Just saying...the latest publication you showed was....2000???
I am not impressed with DI....not publishing an article in 10 years...tisk tisk
orge121 1 year ago
Yes..they are "published"...... I guess you also believe in the Harry Potter series because it got "published".
Do you not understand the difference between PEER REVIEWED publication and getting a publisher to print your book?
PEER REVIEW.
Additionally, you site Irreducable Complexity? Debunked YEARS ago. Could you be any more intellectually dishonest?
MrJmm999 1 year ago 12
Only a few of their reports were published and then torn apart. They lost!
Is this your evidence?
One star...
tomaselvis 1 year ago
Now cite one that's been a peer reviewed publication which is what Don meant by "published".
Moral of the story;
See misunderstandings
Hear misunderstandings
Speak misunderstandings
Then lie.
Feralus69 2 years ago 3
It's sad that many of the articles are cited twice in this video - what's the point of that?
And as many previous comments have said, these publications aren't peer-reviewed, and I find it a little suspicious that you would bother to show in this video multiple references that were specifically debunked not too long ago (ie, Dover trial, irreducible complexity, etc).
DonE could have clarified his remarks, but I think anyone that knows his videos knows what he intended to mean by "published".
bushonomics 2 years ago
I just stumbled on this video and was gonna respond but it seems everyone has beaten me to it! Anyone can get published but only few get peer-review published but thanks for playing!
wade46732 2 years ago
I can't believe I gave this guy a view. Oh well. One star.
pastorofdisaster60 2 years ago
Typical. Don Exodus is referring to peer reviewed publications. Your mind filters that to read "being published by anyone." Hint: an article in a self published journal is not equal to being published in nature, Lancet, and so on.
carlcartman 2 years ago
I fail to see how Don E's claim of not being published when a handful of articles ARE published by someone, somewhere deserves more space than the title of this video takes up.
Seriously, even if he meant to speak a falsehood, the relative number and depravity of falsehoods put forward by Luskin make the Don E falsehood seem like truly a mote in his eye, compared to the redwood trunk sticking out of Luskin's face.
You wasted moments of my life making no point. Congratulations.
AtheistdotEDU 2 years ago
...I know the new tactic by IDiots is to gain some respectability by publishing some decent science articles that have very little to do with ID and then use that credibility to pretend ID is legitimitate. Behe and all the other "credible" IDiots have been intellectually destroyed in journals, courts, and every other place intelligence actually exists. Genesis is wrong. Deal with it.
TeachScience101 2 years ago
Take some time and actually look at the crap articles you list. Most of them are from journals that no one has ever heard of it. On top of that there is an attempt by the writers to take studies that fully fall in line with evolution, but simply twist the interpretation to say that ID could have possibly been the cause. Nothing is positive evidence for ID, but simply attempts at negative evidence for evolution. Means absolutely nothing.
TeachScience101 2 years ago
Oh wow, a few of their papers got published, that doesn't mean SHIT! They are still flat out wrong, the evidence is against them. By the way, biological precursor molecules have been seen in large quantities in interstellar gas clouds out in space, so don't try this "they had to come from pre-existing life" non-sense.
freakyphysicsguy 2 years ago
hehe studies on intelligent design, study of what ? pure theology not study, or maybe study of bible ? if you study bullshit whats are results of your study ?
spinacznyc 2 years ago
OMG! Call the cops! DonE was wrong about some creationists who managed to get their crap published. I guess that means that all the evidence that has ever been dug up ,in the last 150 years is all false. Your the one who keeps saying that critics don't deal with the facts in your videos. Why don't you attack the science that DonE presents instead of this piddly crap. I don't care how often creationist nonsense is published. There are no facts to support creationism. Put up or shut up!
jmg94j 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Awesome video! I love watching evo's get called out on all their BS. Keep it up DC!
9pt9 2 years ago
You are the guy who went onto FactVsReligion's BlogTV and claimed to have a PhD in ALL of science, aren't you?
Heh, it really shows!
easuter 2 years ago 15
No, and maybe you're asking me to resurrect a rebuttal video to that claim that exposes the hocus pocus that Laura is performing there. You know I was banned from her blogtv site, don't you? I'm not allowed there and I was kicked out for merely stating, "there's no sound."
DebateFighter 2 years ago
BULLSHIT! You were posting as a troll and got banished for posting crap.
You need to quit lying.
13shadowwolf 2 years ago
"See the Truth, Hear the Truth, Speak the Truth." I love the irony in DC saying that in one of his videos.
DC, haven't we gone over you use of lies as misrepresentations before?
PatentPending3265 2 years ago
There is no reason to consider anything you say. Dembski published through IVY LEAGUE university, Cambridge and you're still hitting your head against the wall. You're one reason as to why evolution is being rejected my millions.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
The only reason evolution is being rejected by millions if cos of religion and lack of education.
Mossasan 2 years ago 2
ImpiousPuppy :
Why is it only on YT the public has this insatiable curiosity to know everything except what is worth knowing? I find it quite amusing you think two different people are the same person. But then again it doesn't surprise me, you believe we evolved from monkey's.
purpleorchid76 2 years ago
"only on YT the public has this insatiable curiosity to know everything except what is worth knowing?"
Like what?
"I find it quite amusing you think two different people are the same person"
No he thinks two different AVATARS are controlled by the same person
"But then again it doesnt surprise me, you believe we evolved from monkeys"
Is bio 101 one of those things that you deem not worth knowing?
You SEEM to be a creationist. Tell me, did you sacrifice a dove the last time you menstruated?
PatentPending3265 2 years ago
You're sick. You should immediately apologize for that.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
Why apologize? God commands it. Why apologize for asking if she follows the word of God?
PatentPending3265 2 years ago
Take a look at your last sentence. I'm seriously thinking about removing that sexist statement.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
PatentPending3265
Due to your comment I'll assume ..... You hold no theology degree in religion, do not know the difference between Old and New Biblical Law(that would be Jewish and Christian), or the difference of what a Creationist, and Intelligent Designer's study. LOL
purpleorchid76 2 years ago
I agree. PP is largely ignorant.ago
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
In all its glory, ignorance at times seems to be bliss. I only wish I cold lower myself to see the resemblance.
Anyway, have you seen Dprjone's MSF video ? Some background is being revealed on the comments about this organization... interesting stuff.
Dprjones keeps blocking and unblocking people who are revealing this info. and someone from the UK branch is asking one of these individuals to contact the branch... and to stop speaking publicly.
purpleorchid76 2 years ago
It brings to light why they waited so long to inform the public on who was going to be the recipient of funds. Although dprjones says it was due to TF being on vacation, however,TF hasn't been in the forefront of the program. Hummm. note: on the funding page many people leave notes that they have donated for a a good cause: to be saved from something called the Spaghetti Monster ;0]
An organization which raises money to save people from monsters. LOL Maybe now they aren't afraid of the dark?
purpleorchid76 2 years ago
No I haven't seen this. Can you go into some more detail?
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
You obviously have no degree in biology or any evolutionary related science, but that does't stop you from making some very boneheaded (and obviously incorrect) statements about evolution. Of course, it doesn't take a degree to understand basic scientific principles, and all you need for religion is gullibility - I mean, faith.
impiouspuppy 2 years ago
Imp, tell me about it. Try me. If I don't understand evolution please explain it to me. I've done more reading on the subject then you ever make in what's left of your life time. I used to live in a library.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
I've already talked my head off to you trying to get you to understand the simplest of things, all you ever do is ignore, deny and over and over assert that you are correct. I'm sure you've heard the saying, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think."
impiouspuppy 2 years ago 2
You haven't seen abiogenesis. You don't have any solace in the fossil record. The bottom of the fossil record is the precambrian layer, which is composed of bottom sea dwellers, so it fits a fauna not a time period of yore, the mountains of fossils throughout the world say special sedimentary conditions that changed vastly the environment that was prior to it, thus testifying to a flood, and the genome project proves that the 98 percent similarity was concocted. You failed utterly.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
oh oh oh hold you horses ( i love this horse analogy btw) you say something in the environement changed SO IT HAS TO BE THE FLOOD
I don't folow your logic, Is water the only factor of sedimentation? please don't jump to conculsion when that suit you case.
look it up, the pre-cambrian period saw major change in the oxygen ratio SO EVOLUTION MUST BE TRUE (sorry honest mistake, you did the same anyway)
kanchi2015 2 years ago
All you ever do is ignore, deny and over and over again simply assert you are correct. The fossil record, and geologic processes, are very well understood. You are talking gibberish trying to make it fit within the confines of the bible. But I bet you know a geologist that . . . You seem to know a lot of people that just happen to relate to the topic at hand, and still you don't know shit.
impiouspuppy 2 years ago 2
You love me, don't you?
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
Hate the ignorance, not the ignorant.
impiouspuppy 2 years ago 3
Yep.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
Don't jump to conclusions, just because I don't hate you doesn't mean I love you. For one thing, your voice is a turn off.
impiouspuppy 2 years ago 2
You don't know my voice. But it's obvious that you care that I like you and nobody else. Right? And I guess I feel the same. I don't use my soft spoken voice in my videos.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
Actually, back in May scientists recreated abiogenisis in the lab. But thanks for playing.
cowburn28 2 years ago 7
No, they did not.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
They recreated RNA.
cowburn28 2 years ago
They preexisting parts of RNA and put them back together again.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
Did you even read the article?
cowburn28 2 years ago
THE QUESTION IS DID YOU? You don't get RNA parts from rock and mineral scrapings.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
You really are a simple creature. You do get RNA parts from the prehistoric world. It's ok I get it. Your belief structure is crashing down around you and you so desperately want to stay ignorant. By the way who is Laura?
cowburn28 2 years ago
Actually... yes you do. Look up the amazingly simple molecular structure of RNA bases and the organic compounds that make up "rocks and mineral scrapings." Someone fell asleep in biology and chemistry...
xccmx 2 years ago
Uh, that got there from preestablished organic life. Now who was the one who fell asleep during bio and chem course?
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
So you're saying rocks came from life?
xccmx 2 years ago
Hopefully you'll get this all figured out before you graduate high school; it would be most beneficial to your life.
xccmx 2 years ago
Furthermore there are many well known scientists who were never "published" in a journal before being proven. Instead it was through invention, discovery, or theory they were proven scientifically.
purpleorchid76 2 years ago
My point? Just because you can't find it in a peer review doesn't mean it does not exist or that something has completely failed to provide answers.
purpleorchid76 2 years ago
Let me explain peer reviews. Negative results even in published peer reviews usually are not part of the published review. Peer reviews do not prevent scientific fraud, hardly ever detects errors, and only modestly improves scientific quality. The researched communication already takes place through pre-printed deposits in archives and it's hardly even close to being transparent. So one must question whether these published scientists merits are based on pure creativity and discovery.
purpleorchid76 2 years ago
Well Samten54, Creationists are like Snake-oil salesmen....
edd77 2 years ago
There are no peer reviewed scientific papers. Christian fundamentalists lie like lizards.
samten54 2 years ago
Not so. There are peer reviewed articles and you just won't accept them.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
It's not me it's the peers.
samten54 2 years ago
where are they?
ajgrovery 2 years ago
"No, I didn't say you're ignorant. I said that argument you quoted from the Discovery Institute is an argument from ignorance."
No you didn't.....
purpleorchid76 2 years ago
ImpiousPuppy still thinks I'm you. I guess we can't argue either way? :D
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
Actually I don't. Though it strikes me a little odd that rather than just refuting it, you (or the other person) direct your denial towards each other, i.e. "Look, they think I'm you!" As if communicating to the "other" boisters your claim that you aren't the "other". It's right up there with "I couldn't POSSIBLY be HER, I'm a GUY!"
The thing is, you've admitted to having other accounts, so the question is how MANY other accounts do you have?
impiouspuppy 2 years ago
and we were created by outside influence, be it god or "aliens"
choose your pick, but don't say "YOU KNOW FOR SURE"
where you there? when you were me in my past life and i was you, did you see the truth?
stfu moron.
zero1gmv 2 years ago
oh you are debunking dinosaurs on the ark.
what about reptiles? i mean, wasn't SOMEONE FROM NOAH'S FAMILY PREGNANT? with A REPTILE CHILD?
and we know certain RH-BLOOB is CONSIDERED REPTILIAN.
there's some fucking debunk for the debunk. and p.s. this video sucks.
zero1gmv 2 years ago
Time index 1:44
A paper on "Chromosome rearrangement and transposable elements" as evidence for Intelligent design! Are you serious?!
I'll bet if I was actually read these papers, most of them will have nothing to do with Intelligent design. Just like the list of Scientists who have signed a petition saying they reject evolution. Most either don't know that they are on such a list, or repeatedly request that their name be taken off.
helical4 2 years ago
Almost all these publications:
"Look, evolution may have a weakness, therefore intelligent design." - Captain False Dichotomy
Skandranonsg 2 years ago 2
What a petty video.
HailCthulhu 2 years ago 2
Hail Azathoth!
Power without purpose!
7omnia7 2 years ago
you son of a bitch
HailCthulhu 2 years ago
In the early 1800s Georges Cuvier wrote of correlation of parts." It's said that he used this notion of correlation of parts to argue against Lamarck and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire evolution.
He wasn't a "Nobel prize" winner but...
purpleorchid76 2 years ago
Some people still think I'm you. Can you prove that you are you and not me?
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
Unless being me is a bad thing, let them think what they want. ;0)
purpleorchid76 2 years ago
I'm a guy though.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
Maybe people wouldn't think you had different monikers if you *didn't* have multiple monikers.
Hmmmn, I wonder what ever happened to devotions00? 'She' seems to have dropped off the face of youtube. Did you forget the password DC?
impiouspuppy 2 years ago
Wow, you got me there. There is no way you could be her because you are a guy. And she's a girl. That is air tight logic. Nobody would ever misrepresent their gender on YT to hide their identity. Ever.
impiouspuppy 2 years ago 2
"how could you possibly know that the organism "appeared suddenly without any precursors"? Sounds like a good old argument from ignorance."
I'm ignorant? Humm... let's see.... I gave you the answer you are looking for below "(i.e. new species) tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any similar precursors. The Cambrian explosion is a prime example."
purpleorchid76 2 years ago
"Irreducible requires that the interim steps represent features which could not be considered assets and would neither be neutral or detrimental. To put it another way, the new feature would have to derive from a series of non-selectable steps.(macroevolution) Muller did NOT describe or predict "Irreducible" complexity." Muller describes complexity as working by gradual modifications of parts .The difference in Irreducible complexity is the required steps, not so much the parts."
purpleorchid76 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Muller describes complexity as working by gradual modifications of parts . "thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the "interlocking action" of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, where originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former."
purpleorchid76 2 years ago
Comment removed
purpleorchid76 2 years ago
"Interlocking action" and "Irreductiable complexity" are not similar by any means.
Muller made the argument around 1925 that genetic processes would naturally lead to increasing complexity, cycles of gene duplication, and an addition to pathways would unavoidably lead to more and more steps.
purpleorchid76 2 years ago
The failure of genetics and chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development.
I give it an F in prediction, observation, and testability! I think you get what I'm saying...
purpleorchid76 2 years ago
The truth is scientists are increasingly skeptical that natural selection is the primary agent of evolutionary change.
This model has failed many of its predictions.
For instance: The failure of evolutionary biology to provide detailed evolutionary explanations for the origin of complex biochemical features The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution
The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for universal common descent
......
purpleorchid76 2 years ago
votenixon: The predictions for ID were
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".
As you see below well, ID has made predictions, which are observed, and are testable.
purpleorchid76 2 years ago
And.... hello debatecrusher. I've been away from YT for some time. Seems you had your hands full...lol or is it I who's had my hands full?
(got your message) lol
purpleorchid76 2 years ago
3.Biochemical complexity / Laws of the Universe ~
Similar parts found in different organisms. Many genes and functional parts not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms.
The "root" of the tree of life is a prime example.
Has the prediction of design been met in these areas scientifically? Yes.
purpleorchid76 2 years ago
1. DNA Biochemical and Biological Functionality~
High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures are commonly found.
2.Fossil Record Biological complexity~ (i.e. new species) tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any similar precursors. The Cambrian explosion is a prime example.
purpleorchid76 2 years ago
votenixon:
ID is a logical inference, based on data gathered from the natural world. The most extensive of data which is available, is testable and observed through ID is... complexity. Predictions have then been put to the test by observing the scientific data. Complexity has been observed, predicted and tested.
purpleorchid76 2 years ago
Fact is, Don Exodus was wrong. The articles in this article are proved and you are dishonest.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
debate crusher. Give some examples of experimental data that are described or predicted by intelligent design. How could it be falsified. How could ID be used as a method of inquiry?-+
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago 2
DC doesn't know. Good luck getting an answer from him
edd77 2 years ago
Message of the video aside, this was poorly made.
Even if you did have a valid point (you don't), the editing "techniques" used and the way you've presented it is rather rough. The poorly looped audio towards the end is a prime example.
czxxx 2 years ago
There is a difference between book publishing and peer review. Also Don did make a mistake about the peer reviewed work. There is some peer review work for ID but there is so little of it making hard for someone to the work. Also there is much more peer reviewed work against ID than for it.
TromboneUSAlabama 2 years ago 2
Don is just a dishonest man. He writes for Wikipedia and puts in statements like, "creationists use oop arts to prove creationism." He uses Wikipedia for evangelism.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
"He writes for Wikipedia and puts in statements like, "creationists use oop arts to prove creationism." He uses Wikipedia for evangelism."
Show me
randomlylostperson 2 years ago 3
If you've seen any of his other vids, or read any responses, you should know by now that DebateCrusher never backs up anything he says.
impiouspuppy 2 years ago 3
Really?
...wow.. I wonder what it's like to be willfully stupid...
randomlylostperson 2 years ago 2
more like "creationists use poop arts to prove creationism"
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago 3
Argument from equivocation. The implicit assumptions in Don Exodus statement is the publishing of creation science or intelligent design in its essences.
Everyone knows, some of these creationist scientists are actual published scientists. But the crux is creation science is not published in peer-reviewed journal (self-publishing do not count).
eterna2 2 years ago 3
I had a PhD in science, i'm sure i would be able to understand.
MNICY 2 years ago
I had a degree in Chemistry, geology, psychology, and astro-economics.
JoeMaumah 2 years ago
Only ONE of those papers you showed us was published after 2005. The significance of this is that ID was ruled as just a re-branding of creationism in the Dover Trial in December of 2005. That paper published in 2006 wasn't anything groundbreaking, either. Watch Thunderf00t's newest Why do People Laugh at Creationists? video.
mancrushonhanksnow 2 years ago
There are a few members of the DI that published unremarkable things that didn't really cause a stir because they didn't attack evolution or climate change or whatever.
They ones that are provocative are published in some pretty vauge journals. Like what the fuck is the "international journal of fuzzy systems"
Whoa as of right now their website doesn't load so I guess their server technology is rather "fuzzy"
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago 2
Pseudoscience never gets published, agreed.
JoeMaumah 2 years ago 2
it's me, i'm tha doctor of science Ph.D. M.D. esq
VoteNixon2008 2 years ago
LOL.
1. I never denied a video response from you. Indeed, videos like the ones you post do wonders to further my point.
2. You have a PhD in "science"?
3. You confuse publishing a pamphlet with peer reviewed research. I would expect more of someone with a PhD in "science".
4. I have been published.
Thanks for the laugh. The last thing I would ever do is censor you- I want to give you a microphone!
DonExodus2 2 years ago 12
Exactly what I was thinking. Forums and pamphlets aren't my idea of being published either. I guess if that means I'm published then posting music on myspace and burning cd's means I have a record label.
FriendlyCougar 2 years ago 2
Wish I had a PhD in science
randomlylostperson 2 years ago
An excellent response from The Don. :)
Wyglyph 2 years ago
'greed
JoeMaumah 2 years ago
So are you going to post a link to Dons video where he says this so we can have a look for ourselves, cos i think i have seen the vid in question and he wasnt reffering to the discovery institute but most likely Casey Luskin, as iam sure you know
CarolineATRC 2 years ago
something fraudulent going on here methinks .!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
freezatron 2 years ago
you my friend, are a retard
rapzeh4 2 years ago
I heard you liek PhDs?
PunkCheerleaderBetch 2 years ago
anyone can publish a book
and published articles are rarely published by the discovery institute and when they are they are refuted and so not taken seriously
for a debate crusher you dont seem to do a lot of debating, just critisising
ajgrovery 2 years ago 4
nice puttin a comment on my channel which does not address what i said
again not a lot of debating goin on
ajgrovery 2 years ago
Just a recap of what's going on. Don Exodus claimed that ID hasn't published. In response the evolutionists claimed that 1. the EigenFactor demonstrated that the papers aren't even reputable. So in essence Exodus lied in saying that ID wasn't published, but the oldest Biology journal in the world has been discredited by the EigenFactor, which was invented by a talkorigin activist. Ha, ha,ha, ha. Did you know I like entertainment?
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
Are we talking about evolution or abiogenesis? Anyway, tell me ONE evidence that would invalidate ID. Then explain why that evidence would invalidate it.
vladimirck 2 years ago
That's like saying, "give me just ONE evidence that would invalidate evolution. Then explain why that evidence would invalidate it. Then you laugh.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
So you didn't find any? I though that ID was science. I'll give you one that you will like it: if you find a crocoduck (or crocoduck-like organism) in the fossil record, that would a serious blow against evolution. It would be impossible to place it in the tree of life.
vladimirck 2 years ago
I put on my ultra evolution thinking cap. Evolutionists already have an answer to that just as they don't see the Platypus a problem. They'd call it convergence.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
Convergence would not explain it. The crocoduck is a mix of a reptile and a bird. Convergence is when two organism (or part of organism) look like similar, but they don't share an common ancestor.
vladimirck 2 years ago
I put forth convergence because it's just one absurd way that evolutionists like to make up stories. It's an absurd explanation. The on going theory is that reptiles came from birds. I don't see aproblem here. As long as you can make up a fantasy that sounds real you can buy it. Just as people believed that you could bank a ship in space by virtue of watching StarWars so the imagination is great with you.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
You think convergence is a story, evolution is a lie, science actually supports the stuff YOU believe and you back up your statement by comparing it to a movie?
But you accept virgin birth, jesus coming back from the dead (hey, there's no body! that proves it!) a guy who puts two of ALL the animals of the earth on a big wooden boat, and just all sorts of magic, mayhem, incest and TESTS OF FAITH (you have to say that in a booming voice!)
But evolution is fantasy.
impiouspuppy 2 years ago
This is not the place I defend the Bible, however, let me just say this, it's all based on Biblical prophecy. If you could find a prophecy that is unambiguous, clear as day light, and also too complicated to have been fulfilled by self fulfillment, then you have a case. Only God could tell the future.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
Hmn. Prophecy? Refering to the frist coming, second coming, doomsday or something else? I have to say, when I read something like "unambiguous, clear as day light" probably the last thing I think of is the bible.
Anyway, seems pretty obvious that the only reason you object to evolution is because of the bible; you just don't think you sound as stupid if you claim science doesn't support evolution. I hate to break it to you, but it makes you sound even more stupid.
impiouspuppy 2 years ago 2
I highly suggest that you read before you criticize. First of all Read the book of Daniel. It spans a sequence of chain related kingdoms. Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and modern Europe. Revelation picks where Daniel ends.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
I was a theistic evolutionist. I reject evolution on two grounds. The evidence is not there, secondly the only real evidence I thought was convincing was gill slits on human embryos. My text book distinctly said Gill slits, (not phyrangeal pouches, which is what later replaced it.) Some of the older 50's textbooks claim that the slits breathed and then closed up. I get a good chuckle out of that.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
But when you read that it's a sin to mix fabrics, or eat shellfish, you think to yourself "hey, there must be something to this!!"
I'd like to go on, but my partner is feeling ignored . . .
impiouspuppy 2 years ago 2
Your partner is being ignored, however shellfish are bottom eaters. They eat poop. Also, those Mosaic laws pertain to the Jews. Are you a Jew?
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
Is being Jewish a problem for you?
Many fish are bottom dwellers that eat "poop", rabbits eat their own excrement, but the bible says it's ok to eat them.
impiouspuppy 2 years ago 2
No, being Jewish is no problem with me. Many are from a Jewish background and don't know it. It's not good to eat certain animals. The Jews had special laws. I know atheists have problems with this, but this is because they don't understand the situation. God was preparing his land and his people for the Messiah. Judah was to be the nesting ground for the hero of the world, the savior. Which is why God was especially tight with his people.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
I'm beginning to think you are the worlds biggest troll. You can't really believe the idiocy that you type here. Please tell me this is some Encyclopedia Dramatica joke.
choupick 2 years ago 8
Trolling my channel, eh? If you're going to come in here in condemnation, at least explain what you don't like and debate it. Otherwise don't leave a comment.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
There is nothing to debate. I've watched several of your videos and read some of your "debates" in the comment section. I've come to the conclusion that you are either quite an idiot or you are a normal person trolling as a creationist. I merely hope it is the second.
choupick 2 years ago 5
Then I must inform you that in my annotation and in the comments section I have warned people of the likes of you who spew generic opinions, often just to try and sway people, while they are mindless one star drones who don't actually watch my videos. In other words, if you can't show you've watched my videos, you are to be ignored.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
"explain what you don't like and debate it"
It's only a debate if you respond as well. Rather than accusing others of mindlessness, how bout you respond with a rebuttal of you own?
PatentPending3265 2 years ago 4
DebateCrusher says: "God was preparing his land and his people for the Messiah."
Why do you suppose god was so WRONG in his choice? The jews, afterall, roundly rejected, and continue to reject, jesus as messiah. Thus, it couldn't have mattered what foods jews ate in preparation for the coming of the messiah they so adamantly rejected...
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
You don't know the irony in the words you write, GetmeThere. YOu said, why did God choose the Jews even though they rejected Him? Fact is God chose you including every human being in this world, to have a permanent place in his future world. But you have roundly rejected and continue to resist Jesus as your messiah, Personally, I think he made a good decision and I hope you change your mind.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
Any one can publish a book, but not through Yale or Michigan University.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
Do you know the difference between publishing a book/paper/review on current state of conflicts in the political, educational social-sphere vs publishing "scientific" arguments on creation science?
It is perfectly scientific to examine the causes, effects, impact and current state of social phenomenons. But it proves nothing and says nothing about the validity of creation science. Lol.
eterna2 2 years ago 4
My gosh! God must exist! because I thought those article needed a miracle to get published. I didn't read them all but the first one: probably half of the article is quotation and the guy wrote it in first person... Seriously, I don't know how that thing got published... probably that's why I never heard about that Journal before...
vladimirck 2 years ago 2
What's this? Obscurantism? Making assertions, no reference, then condemnation. Sure, I believe you. That's why you had to use an "EingenFactor" that was devised by a young talkorigin, fight monger.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
I didn't even know what you were talking about when you mentioned "EigenFactor" (I have heard about impact factor). I read the first paper (author: John A. Davison). And that paper is a piece of crap. That's why it's not published in other journal like JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY. Generally, you want to publish in the best journal you can, and that's all what he got. I don't write a detailed analysis because there is no enough space and it's not worthy.
vladimirck 2 years ago
Translated: "it was an article that had ID conclusions, and I hate that. So I discard the evidence. Oh yes, I saw abiogenesis and I believe that chemicals have magic powers. No intelligence us needed to work on chemicals. I believe irrationally for life to pop into existence, and I'm not bright."
I agree with you on that.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
3) I think that ID and evolution doesn't contradict each other. Why that magic man wouldn't create all organisms using evolution as a tool? Science cannot answer that question, but religion can, by just making up some story... and religion is very good at that.
vladimirck 2 years ago
You've demonstrated that it's possible for even scientists to be hacks and shills. Congratulations, but sadly that was already something we knew. If their science was good, it would win consensus. If you doubt this, consider how much longer your lifespan is than your ancestors. Consider how much more comfortable you are than they were. Science can do these amazing things because it's good at finding the truth of reality. We will see if what you claim is true turns out to be with time.
cyxgun 2 years ago
I use science. All the basic laws of science were established by real creationists. However, in the early days of science, Thomas Huxley and many other atheists of the Fabian society, determined to capture all the fields of study, in order to convert people to their socialist, atheistic world view.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
DE is clearly talking about being published in peer reviewed journals and magazines. Published in the way scientists works are published. He is not talking about the popular pulp press.
Peer review is a good thing. If you had a theory as to why Bach quit writing music that had grand flourishes where his arms crossed over each other on the keyboard, an expert in the field would tell you that Bach quit these flourishes because he became to fat to do them. Experts are a good thing.
jhbbunch 2 years ago
got some links to these papers and some links to the jounals there were published in? I would love to see them. You know there are differences in being published in good journals and bad journals.
RavenBlaze 2 years ago 4
Debate Crusher knows he lacks the knowledge to write a paper to prove evolution false
edd77 2 years ago 4
It's not difficult to get a paper *published* if you submit it to enough conferences - eventually it will get accepted and will end up in the follow up "Proceedings of...." book.
It's also fairly easy to get a book published - just submit to enough publishers and don't give up.
However, it's not at all easy to get a paper published in a well respected, peer reviewed journal. Those are the papers which really matter!
Some papers are only fit for wiping your bottom!
mandolinic 2 years ago 4
Pat Condell posted a link that was 137 characters long in his latest video.
How long could your links possibly be?
impiouspuppy 2 years ago 3
I'm curious as to why you didn't post an easy to click on link in the sidebar of all these great examples of published works?
Are you trying to hide something?
impiouspuppy 2 years ago 4
Youtube clips off long web addresses
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
Thunderf00t, DonExoduse2, cdk007, potholer54, dprjones, AronRa etc., the list goes on and on, they can and do list links that support their arguements.
But you can't? Hmmn. Or won't, why? Oh, *your* links would be too long. Sure.
You don't even link to the video of DE2 that you're commenting on. Why? Are you taking something out of context (again)?
impiouspuppy 2 years ago 3
Imp, I'm talking from my experience. I've had troubles with links that get clipped off and don't work. Maybe I'll try again some time.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago