@MecMachinic There are no such thing as "micro" and "macro" evolution. You are talking about adaptation and speciation. Look up documented cases of speciation before making your next comment. Dont state things as if they were true when you are clearly lacking knowledge to even engage in a discussion as this.
@drServutis Hey robbie why don't you ask out that nice mexican garbageman i saw you kissing last week in the alley? He seems like a very nice man and he likes you too. I know you prefer the "dark meat" as you like to call it, but you need to be more open to others robbie. There are a lot of homosexuals out there that are very nice.But i would be honest with them robbie. Tell them about you being HIV positive, and your past as a homosexual prostitute.But i would not tell him about you and the dog
@drServutis Oh robbie i know being dumped by your Nigerian pizza delivery boy was rough on you. But now saying that you love me and want my "man goo" all to yourself? And now calling yourself drServutis on YT and being mean to people so you can have me all to yourself? Well robertjohnson487 (robbie) I don't mind.I am flattered by all the attention you are giving me.I do love you robbie, but like a brother. You have been a great friend of mine for years and friends stick together robbie.
@stimpsonjcathoek *EVERY* tribe in the world,no matter how isolated, had some sort of religion (and that they believed in completely different things), implies that there was an evolutionary advantage to tribal people having religion - such as it meant that a wise man could tell the tribe what to do rather than simply the greatest warrior.
.
Evolutionists simply realise that religion is a similar instinctive reaction the unknown as violence is an instinctive reaction to anger.
Creationism as in the wrong fairy tale in the bible id NOT true, If you want to keep chipping away alot of the bible, you might want to ask, why believe in the magic man since the bible is so wrong on everything else?
@stimpsonjcathoek 'No other argument matters in the realm of ID vs evolution.' Great! So I can give you the answer. The big bang was not an effect, it was a cause. It's a bit like gravity, which is not an effect either. Nothing causes gravity, it's one of the fundamental forces in the universe, it's just there, and it causes many other things to happen. (I freely admit to having taken this explanation from the work of Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century.)
Science can be no more than Man's perspective on the physical world. When it reaches beyond that it delves into the purview of religion. Darwinism has done this: it's taken the Sumerian postulations of species' gradation {filtered through the plagiarist Charles Darwin} and created a church.
There are not innumerable human ancestral relics to float Darwin's extrapolations. There are shards & bone dust. Thanks to the artisans of stucco & clay we have races of proto-humans. Human evolutionary THEORY relies on bluff and the pig-ignorance of its believers.
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.
This "common ancestor," of evolutionary THEORY that links Man to simian, just happened to be covered in course hair, to possess a tail & a small brain pan. ["Atheists" neither read, nor own, books.]
I wonder, you claim atheists don't read or own books, have you actually done a survey for every atheist and asked whether they own or read books? Oh wait, excuse me, that was just a baseless insult you were making to boost your own insecure ego.
Let me ask you, what books do you read? Hopefully something besides your pocket bible.
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery. --- March 14, 1861
What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races. --- 7-17-1858, fr. a speech delivered in Springfield, Ill.
I am not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, or of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. --- September 15, 1858
doc, are you "projecting"? Just because you can fuck your god dawkins in his gaping asshole doesn't mean we all can fuck our gods in the ass. You know like you atheists can.
Oops... I accidentally clicked "spam" instead of "reply" on your comment Megamacdeth, my apologies.
I don't think that any "conclusions" you can draw about unobservable things based on observable things would be valid because you cannot test the unobserveable. That what science is about, being able to test your claims. We can test quantum mechanics even though we cannot see the individual atoms/quarks/what have you. We cannot test "design".
I don't quite get it. If conclusions about unobservable things based on what is observable are not valid, how can conclusions about things you cannot see (e.g. atoms and quarks) be valid?
Because you can TEST atoms and quarks. You may not be able to see them, but you can conduct tests that give predictable, consistent results. You cannot test design/creation because it is supernatural and the supernatural is not testable by definition.
Well, then the problem with a designer is not that the designer is not observable.
You can infer design in the historical sciences. Design is not supernatural, it is part of the natural world. (Whether or not the designer if supernatural does not change that the design is part of the natural world.) And if it is part of biology, you may be able to infer design from biology too.
No, design cannot be inferred. We must determine something about the design process in order to infer design. We do this by observing the design in process or by comparing with the results of known designs. The only example of known intelligent design we have is human design. Life does not look man-made.
So even if it actually is designed, we may never find out? All we have to say is that man did not create life, therefore it must have been natural processes that started life?
"So, science is not a quest for truth, but applied naturalism?"
Naturalism is necessary for this quest for truth. We always assume everything must have a natural cause, then we look for it. Supernatural explanations are not verifiable or testable, and halt this progress.
Now quit talking in circles. Intelligent Design is not necessary, helpful, reasonable, or anything more than the human mind anthropomorphizing nature.
Naturalism is several philosophies. Simply saying "naturalism" doesn't carry much weight.
As methodological naturalism is the process relevant to the discussion, I assumed that it was the type of naturalism to which he referred--rather than, say, literary naturalism or ethical naturalism. I suppose he could have been discussing metaphysical naturalism, but if so, he really needs to be more specific.
Why doesn't Ken Miller tell the truth? This is what Discovery Institute says:
"As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community."
Regardless of the Discovery Institute's stance, there are communities all over the country that are going to school boards demanding that the "theory" of Intelligent Design be taught in their local schools. It may not be the Discovery Institute itself demanding it, but the Intstitute is still failing to produce any research or peer-reviewed articles on ID.
Well, yes, but then they turn around and say, "Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science...We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula."
That is ALSO what the Discovery Institute says. They oppose forcing the teaching of I.D...right now.
In time, when they have made more publications and when the movement has matured, they want to "pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula". But Miller says that they want to do it the other order. First include ID in school and only later (if ever) focus on research. Can't you see that's simply not true?
I'd be a bit more inclined to accept that portrayal if any actual research was forthcoming. Thus far, it hasn't been. They're focusing their efforts on PR and political lobbying.
As to the claim that they're "producing peer-reviewed articles," take a closer look at that page. The very first thing they do is try to deemphasize peer-reviewed articles as not being very important.
Look at their "Complete List" of peer-reviewed materials. Four books. Seven articles. And most of the articles are "supportive of intelligent design" only by the most generous stretch of the imagination, ie "It questions an aspect of Darwinism, therefore it supports Intelligent Design."
Whether or not peer-reviewed articles are important does not alter the fact that the ID movement are producing peer-reviewed material.
Two (because of lack of space) examples of what the material argues:
"Meyer contends that intelligent design provides a better explanation than competing chemical evolutionary models for the origin of the information ..."
Behe "concludes that intelligent design provides a better explanation...".
That is relevant stuff that you just dismiss. Come on!
Well, no. I don't dismiss it. In fact, as it so happens, I believe there IS a designer. However...and this is important...their arguments are not testable and generate no useful predictions. Consequently, they aren't scientific.
This is why Behe and Meyer and Dembski self-publish; they aren't offering any actual hypotheses. In particular, Dembski's work has been ripped apart by other mathematicians.
If you have two mutually exclusive theories, how can one be testable and not the other? One says that the origin of species is not directed by an intelligence, the other says that it is. Either both are untestable or both are testable. Or to put it another way: Can you test whether or not there is design in nature? If not, the neo-darwinian hypotheses (that everything has evolved without design) is untestable. If you can, design is testable.
You can't test the idea that a designer made everything because the designer is a supernatural force. SUPERnatural, meaning ouside of the natural world. We can't observe and test things outside of the natural world.
You can look at the natural world and observe animal populations and how their genes change over time (i.e. how they evolve), but you can't observe creation/design.
You can draw conclusions about things you cannot observe, from what you observe. Quantum physics deal with unobservables, many designers we infer from history (e.g. from petroglyphs) may be unidentifiable etc. But such theories are built on the evidence, and that's what counts.
"One says that the origin of species is not directed by an intelligence, the other says that it is."
There's your problem. Right there. You've bought into Creationist strawmen.
The theory of evolution doesn't say that the origin of species is not directed by an intelligence. The theory of evolution says nothing at all about the presence or absence of a guiding intelligence.
Because, you see, that can't be tested, and is thus outside the realm of scientific theory.
Evolution and design are not mutually exclusive. Neo-darwinism and design are. Michael Behe believes in evolution (common descent), but he does not believe that random mutations and natural selection can account for it. You sound like you might agree with Behe.
Do Neo-Darwinists claim that evolution is undirected? Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker", is subtitled: "Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design". Is Dawkins a straw man, or is he representative?
"Evolution and design are not mutually exclusive. Neo-darwinism and design are. Michael Behe believes in evolution (common descent), but he does not believe that random mutations and natural selection can account for it. You sound like you might agree with Behe."
In some respects, I do. I'd be considered a "theistic evolutionist."
"Is Dawkins a straw man, or is he representative?"
He's a militant atheist--an "antitheist," to use Christopher Hitchens' term.
I guess there are three ways to be an evolutionist. You can say with Dawkins that there is no sign of design, because there is no designer. Or you can say with Miller that Dawkins description is correct (there is no sign of design), but his conclusion does not follow (which, strictly speaking, is true). Or you can say with Behe that there are signs of design. Miller and Dawkins agree that *it looks like* random mutations and natural selection can explain evolution. Behe disagrees.
Dawkins argument is at least based on methodological naturalism. Of course, you can apply methodological naturalism in some areas of life without being an atheist, but why should a theist presuppose methodological naturalism in the question of our origins?
...because science simply doesn't work without methodological naturalism. We can't test the supernatural, by definition. If we don't confine ourselves to that which is testable, we wind up in the realm of pure speculation.
Sure it does. We don't have to assume neither that God did it nor that God didn't do it. Right? We can look at the evidence and draw conclusions. And if it looks like design it may well be design.
"We don't have to assume neither that God did it nor that God didn't do it."
...and methodological naturalism doesn't. Some people may CONCLUDE that God didn't do it, but the scientific method itself does not. It's simply a question that is beyond the scope of science.
"And if it looks like design it may well be design."
But what does "design" look like? Paley's watchmaker argument is fundamentally flawed, in that it assumes that any human being is going to immediately recognize a watch as a manmade object. We know that isn't the case; we have documented cases of pre-industrial tribes confronted with advanced technology concluding the opposite--that the technology is NOT manmade, because it's outside the scope of what they recognize as "design."
I can tell from your text that there is an intelligence behind it, although I have not seen you writing it. But it contains words in logical sequences, it contains both complexity and order. If something exhibits an independent pattern (the pattern is meaningful, even if we did not have the object), is too complex to arise by natural laws, and it is too unlikeley that it arises by chance, then we may infer design.
"I can tell from your text that there is an intelligence behind it, although I have not seen you writing it."
...because you are already familiar with text.
It's not because you have some inherent ability to detect intelligence.
Suppose we encountered a species that communicates through sophisticated pheromones. Would you recognize it as language because of its "complexity and order?" Doubtful in the extreme--you'd notice a smell, and nothing more.
Before they could dichipher some of the hieroglyphs they knew that it was langauge, although they did not know what they said. Because they recognized the structure of language.
Though Paley may be wrong that not "any human being" would recognize a watch as manmade, that does not make recognizing a watch as designed arbitrary. I'm sure the pre-industrial tribes would not immedediately recognize the truth of every scientific theory, but that does not make the theory unscientific.
The ID movement are not using Paley's argument from design when they are inferring design. Behe is quite explicit about that, and points out some of the differences. Have you read Behe?
I have. However, I'll point out that Behe is hardly the archetypical ID advocate. He accepts common descent, for one thing--in fact, in many of his arguments he's indistinguishable from a theistic evolutionist.
The problem is that, while Behe claims that ID has moved beyond Paley, there's really not much evidence of that. Certainly, the trappings are more sophisticated, but the basic arguments still amount to "This looks designed, therefore it is designed."
Irreducible complexity has never been demonstrated, just for instance; I still routinely hear ID advocates bring up the bacterial flagellum, despite the fact that not only can functional structures missing one or more of the components be imagined--they actually exist.
Irreducible complexity is often misunderstood. It does not mean that if you remove a part, you have no function it means that if you remove a part of the irreducible structure, you lose the specific function you had. You may still have other functions. (For example, you can lay a broken mouse trap on your papers so they don't blow away - it still has a function, but not as a mouse trap.)
"It does not mean that if you remove a part, you have no function it means that if you remove a part of the irreducible structure, you lose the specific function you had. You may still have other functions."
The problem is that that's a meaningless claim, even if true, and does nothing to call into question the postulates of modern evolutionary synthesis. One of the key understandings of MES is that structures can and do adapt to new functions.
Methodological naturalism (MN) says that the answer must be compatible with naturalism. For example, in the question of origins, the answer must be that what looks like random mutations and natural selection explains how everything developed (or some similar explanation). The question whether natural factors are sufficient doesn't even arise, so MN is never tested.
So the living beings may have been created in a way that is not compatible with neo-darwinism? Science cannot test that, but it may still be true? Is that what you are saying?
Anything's possible. It's possible that we're not living beings at all, but part of an artificial-reality simulation so complex that the components believe themselves to be real.
In fact, given certain assumptions, that's not only possible, but extremely likely.
However--the evidence we have available, as measured by the best tools we have available, says that the actual development probably took place pretty much as modern evolutionary synthesis says. (continued)
There are, of course, other possibilities. There are always other possibilities. The evidence could be deceptive. Every single tool we've gathered to measure information could be in error.
It's possible; it just isn't very likely.
As to WHY it happened that way, that's something science can't measure or test--and that's where questions of faith come in.
If you look at what I was responing to, the burden of proof is not on me.
I asked: "So the living beings may have been created in a way that is not compatible with neo-darwinism?" And the response was: "It's possible; it just isn't very likely."
Will you take on the burden of proof and tell me why it is unlikely?
How can one, even in principle, show empirically that everything has evolved through random mutations and natural selection? If you cannot answer that question, maybe you shold lower your claims.
@drServitus Hello Mr Chimp, my name is Mr Human Being !! I would like to have a talking monkey as a pet, do you want to be my pet ? I like the jokes evolutionists make... simply hilarious !!!
@buschmann69 How about this joke: A child killer (see Passover, the flood, ect...) is the ultimate source of love in the universe.You are mentaly ill. Seek help.
@drServitus Worst than that, evolution does not exclude god.It does exclude some ways of understanding the genesis but that not my problem.
Also, intelligence design exclude the possibility that natural selection could be intelligent! Intelligent is an umbrella term...Under Sternberg's definition it does fit: if intelligence is to have a goal-directed adaptive behavior, therefor survive is a goal therefor adapting the way we act in order to be the best fit and survive constitute intelligence.
Thankfully our level of techonolgies has allowed to track mutations (in a chromosonal level) in organisms. And we have seen evidence to back up the claim of evolution. Also Discovery Magazine had a great article on the current evolutionary path of mankind.
I don't see on what grounds you exclude design from science. Other than begging the question. We can recognize language, art, tools etc., which are all sub-species of design. So we can recognize design.
The theories of evolution (properly, there are many theories gathered together under the loose label of modern evolutionary synthesis) simply say "Life developed over time, and here's how the evidence indicates it developed."
That's it. They don't even touch on "why." Science is all about "how," not "why." That's the realm of philosophy.
Seriously--please, find me one published, peer-reviewed article on evolutionary biology that claims there's no designer.
The constant attempts to link evolution to atheism are a particularly cynical and dishonest Creationist ploy. They know that if it's a choice between Biblical literalism and science, they're likely to lose--so they're trying really hard to pretend that it's a choice between "Religion with God" and "Religion with no God."
It's why I have no respect for the Creationist movement as a whole; it's dishonest, Machiavellian, and not particularly Christian.
Squirrels & possums share many similarities: habitat, diet, digits, etc. They also possess extraordinary differences as the opossum is a marsupial. So? Let us extrapolate & fantasize & focus upon the original "oposquirrel."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Things exist beyond human detection. Certainly we cannot see, hear & feel all. The physical laws of the universe are interpreted/translated by us, not transliterated.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Conjecture is philosophy. It's disingenuous to demean religious philosophy in support of "scientific" philosophy. Evolutionists, in their desire to impress themselves and the world, mandate that their "Genesis" story be taught as FACT.
Evolution itself is a fact, just as gravity is a fact (both are directly observable). The theory exists to explain the process by which it occurs and the impact it has on the diversity of life. Life changes with every generation, that cannot be denied.
Evolution is not a story of genesis, it is a story of change after genesis(abiogenesis).
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
evolution can never be argued as a scientific view, since there is nothing scientific at all in it! it's all religious. evolutionism religion, that is.
evolutionism faith is is the popular side satanism, communism, atheism, lie-ism, fake-ism, ridiculism, foolism, stupidism, fantasism, dreamism, astrologism, make-believism, twistism, ....
yu get my drift? the day they humble themselves in the presence of the All-knowing God, that will be the day God will open their eyes to the Truth.
Just because you add "ism" as a suffix to the name of a scientific theory doesn't mean it's automatically religion, asshole.
Evolutionism is much like gravitationalism, mathematicalism, chemistrism, or physicism. ASshole.
Just because you continue to assert that something that isn't supported by empirical evidence is "the Truth," it doesn't mean that it is you creationist fucktard. Choke and die, already.
WHAHAHAHA! How to shut up an ignorant evolutionist: It´s true that apes have 48 chromosomes. True that humans have 46 and they even might have had 48 long time ago.. wouldn´t change the human into an ape plus: AMOEBA ALSO HAVE 48 CHROMOSOMES!!! SIMILARITY IS COMON DESIGNER! NOT COMON ANCESTOR! lol Go study some real science you morons. xD I LOL at you all the time. So funny.
amoeba have 2900000000000 base pairs compared to 2900000000 for human, not to mention that humans and amoeba belong in different eukaryan supergroups (thats higher than kingdom level)why dont YOU go and study some real science
It's not the similarities in chromosone numbers that tell us we're related, it's the genetic similarity. Please people will it hurt you so much to learn about the REAL scientific method?
err... no, sorry, it was toward LightOfTruth777's stupid comment about amoebas having 48 chromosones having anything to do with chimps' relationship to humans.
Transsexuality is a biological question for a person who suffers from any number of anatomical conditions that renders their gender ambiguous. Human evolutionary theory is a false science akin to phrenology (look it up). Relegate your children to cages as this is what the sci-fi religion of evolutionary theory demands. {A theory is not a fact, ergo it is a theory. A fact is irrefutable. A theory is speculative. Please, those of you with piercings & tattoos: BORROW, don't steal, A DICTIONARY!!!}
"It's not Yasgur's Farm, but what happens at the Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria this July promises to be far more transforming for the world than Woodstock. What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature -- let's call them "the Altenberg 16" -- who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence."
9- The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10- and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish , because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11- And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12- that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
"Design" advocates seek to use... 01:36....okay so advocates want to skip that part but that doesn't mean the scientists are skipping anything....last time I checked they are still working on the data/experiments etc. it's a brand new theory what did you expect???
God science cannot be prejudiced. Religion can. This 'scientist/educator' is deluded. He cannot follow christian teachings and then be scientific. to be taken seriously, he needs to drop the god stuff. I'm sure if he believed in Zeus or Thor or the FSM, he would be laughed off the stage. At the start of this diatribe, they were led in prayer by a reverend. Need I say more. The University that hosted this should be ashamed.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
>>>no one could possibly call him agnostic or atheist or naturalist! he often talked of the 'creator' of the world-.-
Hitler dedicated the second volume of Mein Kampf to Dietrick Eckart. His spiritual mentor and the greatest occultist in Germany. Hitler also quoted entire passages of Lanz Von Liebenfels writings. The famous psychic and satanist of Germany. Can't deny recorded history. well, most normal people cant.
Do I have to bring up quotes showing Hitler saying he was doing the will of God? Scientifically it means nothing, but you're still an asshole. Asshole.
Hilter repeatedly quote the Old Testament. Hitler also was in close relations with the head of the church. Hitler was by no means an Atheist, but such arguments have NOTHING to do with science or science education. Science is based on facts no emotionality or wishful thinking.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
>>>Hilter repeatedly quote the Old Testament.
so did Jim Jones, David Koresh, and the devil himself..... but
Hitler dedicated the second volume of Mein Kampf to Dietrick Eckart,(greatest occultist in Germany at that time) and also named the Waldbühne in Berlin "Dietrich-Eckart-Bühne" when it was first opened for the 1936 Summer Olympics. Hitler was openly satanist.
what bugs me most about this 'arguement' is that it is to stereotypical, there are MANY examples of religious peop,le killing for religious reasons, look at the crusaders, 9/11.
i tend not to use those arguements after seeing the huge flaws in them
YOU CANNOT JUDGE SOMEONE BY SOMEONE ELSES ACTIONS! is it fair that i should compare you to a crusader just cause you are both christians? i dont think so, so how is it any fairer you comparing me and any other atheist to stalin?
Whether or not Hitler was an atheist, he certainly didn't do the atrocities he did for atheistic reasons. Plus, the Nazi party was mostly made up of Protestant Christians and Hitler utilized that.
lol, hitler was religious, he just didnt agree with conventional reilion, he was extremly supersticious, he surrounded himself in pagan symbols, he even alked about jesus as a warrior against the jews...... no one could possibly call him agnostic or atheist or naturalist! he often talked of the 'creator' of the world-.-
>>>darwinian evolution is the theory whereby organisms change and over time become more complex through the mechanism of change which is natral selection
organisms can adapt to their environment, but are limited in scope and appearance. to believe that scum turned into a 75 trillion cell human being is science fiction.
yeah, sounds about the same to me, someone tried to convince me hell exsisted cause they could describe hat it looked like and if it was endo or exothermic
i just said, well i can descrbe what gandla looks lik, nd tell you whether he is good or evil, so that must be evidence that he exsists, you an compare creationit arguements to stupd things like thatxD
'organisms can adapt to their environment, but are limited'
wrong, life is not limited by your beleifs, its amazing what nature can do in afew billion years without the need of the 'divine' (well the god of the OT claims to be divine, i dont think he is, he seems more self obsessed to me) biologists are not yet totally sure to what lifee can do and they deal with data every day! you cant just say life is limited in appearance when you hve 0 evidence and 0 data
ha, religion is the conspiracy of the age! only now is it coming out as a conspiracy, religion is fallin apart, and will eventually no longer be apart of our society, it may not happen inmy lifetime, but nevermind, why do you think there is such an ooutroar by religions around the world, its gong out screaming and kicking!
The exact causes of the chromosomal rearrangement and primary prevention of Down syndrome are currently unknown, in spite of what the news media tells you, you monkey you.
evidence: with the rate at with dost on the moon increases Neal Armstrong's one small step would have put him in over his head.
- ...missing links....
-most fossil records discovered appear to have had very violent deaths.
- the fact that no 7 processes inside the cell could survive even if they developed concurrently without the other hundreds of processes.
-micro-evolution may work just fine but macro evolution has yet to have a single proven and documented case.
MecMachinic 1 year ago
@MecMachinic There are no such thing as "micro" and "macro" evolution. You are talking about adaptation and speciation. Look up documented cases of speciation before making your next comment. Dont state things as if they were true when you are clearly lacking knowledge to even engage in a discussion as this.
N3CR1S 1 year ago
@MecMachinic There is no difference between micro and macro, except for the time scale.
Creationists create a false dichotomy between them so that they can only deny half of the facts instead of all of them.
ChaseKittens 1 year ago 4
@drServutis Hey robbie why don't you ask out that nice mexican garbageman i saw you kissing last week in the alley? He seems like a very nice man and he likes you too. I know you prefer the "dark meat" as you like to call it, but you need to be more open to others robbie. There are a lot of homosexuals out there that are very nice.But i would be honest with them robbie. Tell them about you being HIV positive, and your past as a homosexual prostitute.But i would not tell him about you and the dog
drServitus 1 year ago
@drServutis Oh robbie i know being dumped by your Nigerian pizza delivery boy was rough on you. But now saying that you love me and want my "man goo" all to yourself? And now calling yourself drServutis on YT and being mean to people so you can have me all to yourself? Well robertjohnson487 (robbie) I don't mind.I am flattered by all the attention you are giving me.I do love you robbie, but like a brother. You have been a great friend of mine for years and friends stick together robbie.
drServitus 1 year ago
Maybe we don't need to debate biology or anything else. Maybe we only need for you to tell us what or who initiated the big bang.
Creationism and evolution are NOT incompatible. Maybe evolution and religion butt heads, but that doesn't even have to be so.
Here is an irrefutable law of science - ever effect has a cause.
So, then before time and space even existed, what or who or why or whatever - what CAUSED the big bang.
No other argument matters in the realm of ID vs evolution.
stimpsonjcathoek 1 year ago
@stimpsonjcathoek *EVERY* tribe in the world,no matter how isolated, had some sort of religion (and that they believed in completely different things), implies that there was an evolutionary advantage to tribal people having religion - such as it meant that a wise man could tell the tribe what to do rather than simply the greatest warrior.
.
Evolutionists simply realise that religion is a similar instinctive reaction the unknown as violence is an instinctive reaction to anger.
neverfearchrisishere 1 year ago
@stimpsonjcathoek
Creationism as in the wrong fairy tale in the bible id NOT true, If you want to keep chipping away alot of the bible, you might want to ask, why believe in the magic man since the bible is so wrong on everything else?
gorilla199uncensored 1 year ago
@stimpsonjcathoek 'No other argument matters in the realm of ID vs evolution.' Great! So I can give you the answer. The big bang was not an effect, it was a cause. It's a bit like gravity, which is not an effect either. Nothing causes gravity, it's one of the fundamental forces in the universe, it's just there, and it causes many other things to happen. (I freely admit to having taken this explanation from the work of Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century.)
lexo30 1 year ago
@FlyingNinjaLizard
The results of the studies that you have mentioned may have concluded with that correlation...but correlation doesn't mean causation.
dummy
LDWeyermann 2 years ago
@FlyingNinjaLizard
That doesn't mean you are one of the "educated ones"....
XD
LDWeyermann 2 years ago
Forsake your religion & step into the light.
EasingDifficulties 2 years ago
Theories come & go. The Great Pyramid at Giza defies institutionalized Western "science," as does Michael Cremo's book: "Forbidden Architecture."
EasingDifficulties 2 years ago
My error, Michael Cremo's book
is: "Forbidden Archeology."
EasingDifficulties 2 years ago
Reading makes no one intelligent.
Reading makes one knowledgeable.
EasingDifficulties 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Science can be no more than Man's perspective on the physical world. When it reaches beyond that it delves into the purview of religion. Darwinism has done this: it's taken the Sumerian postulations of species' gradation {filtered through the plagiarist Charles Darwin} and created a church.
OneDollarBook 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think the best way to explain the diversities of life is Interrelation Theory. See here...
w3 interrelation-theory com
interrelation 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There are not innumerable human ancestral relics to float Darwin's extrapolations. There are shards & bone dust. Thanks to the artisans of stucco & clay we have races of proto-humans. Human evolutionary THEORY relies on bluff and the pig-ignorance of its believers.
ThingsTerrestrial 2 years ago
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
This "common ancestor," of evolutionary THEORY that links Man to simian, just happened to be covered in course hair, to possess a tail & a small brain pan. ["Atheists" neither read, nor own, books.]
EasingDifficulties 2 years ago
I wonder, you claim atheists don't read or own books, have you actually done a survey for every atheist and asked whether they own or read books? Oh wait, excuse me, that was just a baseless insult you were making to boost your own insecure ego.
Let me ask you, what books do you read? Hopefully something besides your pocket bible.
rba718 2 years ago
I'm an atheist and I'm sure I read more books than you.
IainEmslie 2 years ago
Let us rejoice in the moment!
EasingDifficulties 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Lincoln on Slavery:
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery. --- March 14, 1861
What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races. --- 7-17-1858, fr. a speech delivered in Springfield, Ill.
I am not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, or of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. --- September 15, 1858
EasingDifficulties 2 years ago
When you atheists normally suck a dick, do you grab it with both hands and whack it against your foreheads? Because that would explain so much.
mallthe00 2 years ago
Ordinarily, when richard dawkins gets "STUMPED" it's usually down at the bath house by a fella named Pegleg Pete.
mallthe00 2 years ago
Intellegent design proponents are not interested in science, the scientific method, rational thinking, logical deductions or independant thought.
There is no evidence of intellegent design.Its all smoke and mirrors.
drServitus 2 years ago
I thought you atheists were all about cocks and assholes? What's all this talk about smoke and mirrors?
Oh, I get it! You blow smoke up your boyfriends asshole and watch it in the mirror. Now it makes sense.
mallthe00 2 years ago
why don't you take gods dick out of your mouth, it's kinda hard to understand you when your gobbling the cock, you fucking piece of shit.
fuck you
and fuck your piece of shit god too.
drServitus 2 years ago
doc, are you "projecting"? Just because you can fuck your god dawkins in his gaping asshole doesn't mean we all can fuck our gods in the ass. You know like you atheists can.
mallthe00 2 years ago
sheeple
baaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaa
drServitus 2 years ago
Oops... I accidentally clicked "spam" instead of "reply" on your comment Megamacdeth, my apologies.
I don't think that any "conclusions" you can draw about unobservable things based on observable things would be valid because you cannot test the unobserveable. That what science is about, being able to test your claims. We can test quantum mechanics even though we cannot see the individual atoms/quarks/what have you. We cannot test "design".
dianwei32 2 years ago
I don't quite get it. If conclusions about unobservable things based on what is observable are not valid, how can conclusions about things you cannot see (e.g. atoms and quarks) be valid?
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
Because you can TEST atoms and quarks. You may not be able to see them, but you can conduct tests that give predictable, consistent results. You cannot test design/creation because it is supernatural and the supernatural is not testable by definition.
dianwei32 2 years ago
Well, then the problem with a designer is not that the designer is not observable.
You can infer design in the historical sciences. Design is not supernatural, it is part of the natural world. (Whether or not the designer if supernatural does not change that the design is part of the natural world.) And if it is part of biology, you may be able to infer design from biology too.
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
No, design cannot be inferred. We must determine something about the design process in order to infer design. We do this by observing the design in process or by comparing with the results of known designs. The only example of known intelligent design we have is human design. Life does not look man-made.
MassDeicide 2 years ago
So even if it actually is designed, we may never find out? All we have to say is that man did not create life, therefore it must have been natural processes that started life?
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
"So even if it actually is designed, we may never find out?"
Yes.
"All we have to say is that man did not create life, therefore it must have been natural processes that started life? "
Unless we know otherwise, naturalism must always be assumed. Science cannot work without this assumption.
MassDeicide 2 years ago
So, science is not a quest for truth, but applied naturalism?
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
"So, science is not a quest for truth, but applied naturalism?"
Naturalism is necessary for this quest for truth. We always assume everything must have a natural cause, then we look for it. Supernatural explanations are not verifiable or testable, and halt this progress.
Now quit talking in circles. Intelligent Design is not necessary, helpful, reasonable, or anything more than the human mind anthropomorphizing nature.
MassDeicide 2 years ago
But naturalism may be false? Right?
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
"But naturalism may be false? Right?"
Wrong. Methodological naturalism is a process. It is not (despite propaganda to the contrary) a belief system.
A process may be properly applied or misapplied, but it is not "right" or "wrong."
brpierce 2 years ago
Naturalism is a philosophy. MassDecide did not write "methodological naturalism" but "naturalism".
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
Naturalism is several philosophies. Simply saying "naturalism" doesn't carry much weight.
As methodological naturalism is the process relevant to the discussion, I assumed that it was the type of naturalism to which he referred--rather than, say, literary naturalism or ethical naturalism. I suppose he could have been discussing metaphysical naturalism, but if so, he really needs to be more specific.
brpierce 2 years ago
Why doesn't Ken Miller tell the truth? This is what Discovery Institute says:
"As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community."
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
Regardless of the Discovery Institute's stance, there are communities all over the country that are going to school boards demanding that the "theory" of Intelligent Design be taught in their local schools. It may not be the Discovery Institute itself demanding it, but the Intstitute is still failing to produce any research or peer-reviewed articles on ID.
dianwei32 2 years ago
They are producing peer-reviewed articles. Google on "discovery institute peer review" and you will find a list.
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
Well, yes, but then they turn around and say, "Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science...We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula."
That is ALSO what the Discovery Institute says. They oppose forcing the teaching of I.D...right now.
brpierce 2 years ago
In time, when they have made more publications and when the movement has matured, they want to "pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula". But Miller says that they want to do it the other order. First include ID in school and only later (if ever) focus on research. Can't you see that's simply not true?
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
I'd be a bit more inclined to accept that portrayal if any actual research was forthcoming. Thus far, it hasn't been. They're focusing their efforts on PR and political lobbying.
(continued)
brpierce 2 years ago
As to the claim that they're "producing peer-reviewed articles," take a closer look at that page. The very first thing they do is try to deemphasize peer-reviewed articles as not being very important.
Look at their "Complete List" of peer-reviewed materials. Four books. Seven articles. And most of the articles are "supportive of intelligent design" only by the most generous stretch of the imagination, ie "It questions an aspect of Darwinism, therefore it supports Intelligent Design."
brpierce 2 years ago
Whether or not peer-reviewed articles are important does not alter the fact that the ID movement are producing peer-reviewed material.
Two (because of lack of space) examples of what the material argues:
"Meyer contends that intelligent design provides a better explanation than competing chemical evolutionary models for the origin of the information ..."
Behe "concludes that intelligent design provides a better explanation...".
That is relevant stuff that you just dismiss. Come on!
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
Well, no. I don't dismiss it. In fact, as it so happens, I believe there IS a designer. However...and this is important...their arguments are not testable and generate no useful predictions. Consequently, they aren't scientific.
This is why Behe and Meyer and Dembski self-publish; they aren't offering any actual hypotheses. In particular, Dembski's work has been ripped apart by other mathematicians.
brpierce 2 years ago
If you have two mutually exclusive theories, how can one be testable and not the other? One says that the origin of species is not directed by an intelligence, the other says that it is. Either both are untestable or both are testable. Or to put it another way: Can you test whether or not there is design in nature? If not, the neo-darwinian hypotheses (that everything has evolved without design) is untestable. If you can, design is testable.
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
You can't test the idea that a designer made everything because the designer is a supernatural force. SUPERnatural, meaning ouside of the natural world. We can't observe and test things outside of the natural world.
You can look at the natural world and observe animal populations and how their genes change over time (i.e. how they evolve), but you can't observe creation/design.
dianwei32 2 years ago
dianwei32,
You can draw conclusions about things you cannot observe, from what you observe. Quantum physics deal with unobservables, many designers we infer from history (e.g. from petroglyphs) may be unidentifiable etc. But such theories are built on the evidence, and that's what counts.
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
"One says that the origin of species is not directed by an intelligence, the other says that it is."
There's your problem. Right there. You've bought into Creationist strawmen.
The theory of evolution doesn't say that the origin of species is not directed by an intelligence. The theory of evolution says nothing at all about the presence or absence of a guiding intelligence.
Because, you see, that can't be tested, and is thus outside the realm of scientific theory.
brpierce 2 years ago
brpierce,
Evolution and design are not mutually exclusive. Neo-darwinism and design are. Michael Behe believes in evolution (common descent), but he does not believe that random mutations and natural selection can account for it. You sound like you might agree with Behe.
Do Neo-Darwinists claim that evolution is undirected? Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker", is subtitled: "Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design". Is Dawkins a straw man, or is he representative?
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
"Evolution and design are not mutually exclusive. Neo-darwinism and design are. Michael Behe believes in evolution (common descent), but he does not believe that random mutations and natural selection can account for it. You sound like you might agree with Behe."
In some respects, I do. I'd be considered a "theistic evolutionist."
"Is Dawkins a straw man, or is he representative?"
He's a militant atheist--an "antitheist," to use Christopher Hitchens' term.
brpierce 2 years ago
I guess there are three ways to be an evolutionist. You can say with Dawkins that there is no sign of design, because there is no designer. Or you can say with Miller that Dawkins description is correct (there is no sign of design), but his conclusion does not follow (which, strictly speaking, is true). Or you can say with Behe that there are signs of design. Miller and Dawkins agree that *it looks like* random mutations and natural selection can explain evolution. Behe disagrees.
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
I would argue that his atheism is independent of his understanding of modern evolutionary synthesis; one does not presuppose the other.
brpierce 2 years ago
Dawkins argument is at least based on methodological naturalism. Of course, you can apply methodological naturalism in some areas of life without being an atheist, but why should a theist presuppose methodological naturalism in the question of our origins?
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
...because science simply doesn't work without methodological naturalism. We can't test the supernatural, by definition. If we don't confine ourselves to that which is testable, we wind up in the realm of pure speculation.
brpierce 2 years ago
Sure it does. We don't have to assume neither that God did it nor that God didn't do it. Right? We can look at the evidence and draw conclusions. And if it looks like design it may well be design.
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
"We don't have to assume neither that God did it nor that God didn't do it."
...and methodological naturalism doesn't. Some people may CONCLUDE that God didn't do it, but the scientific method itself does not. It's simply a question that is beyond the scope of science.
brpierce 2 years ago
"And if it looks like design it may well be design."
But what does "design" look like? Paley's watchmaker argument is fundamentally flawed, in that it assumes that any human being is going to immediately recognize a watch as a manmade object. We know that isn't the case; we have documented cases of pre-industrial tribes confronted with advanced technology concluding the opposite--that the technology is NOT manmade, because it's outside the scope of what they recognize as "design."
brpierce 2 years ago
I can tell from your text that there is an intelligence behind it, although I have not seen you writing it. But it contains words in logical sequences, it contains both complexity and order. If something exhibits an independent pattern (the pattern is meaningful, even if we did not have the object), is too complex to arise by natural laws, and it is too unlikeley that it arises by chance, then we may infer design.
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
"I can tell from your text that there is an intelligence behind it, although I have not seen you writing it."
...because you are already familiar with text.
It's not because you have some inherent ability to detect intelligence.
Suppose we encountered a species that communicates through sophisticated pheromones. Would you recognize it as language because of its "complexity and order?" Doubtful in the extreme--you'd notice a smell, and nothing more.
brpierce 2 years ago
Before they could dichipher some of the hieroglyphs they knew that it was langauge, although they did not know what they said. Because they recognized the structure of language.
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
Though Paley may be wrong that not "any human being" would recognize a watch as manmade, that does not make recognizing a watch as designed arbitrary. I'm sure the pre-industrial tribes would not immedediately recognize the truth of every scientific theory, but that does not make the theory unscientific.
The ID movement are not using Paley's argument from design when they are inferring design. Behe is quite explicit about that, and points out some of the differences. Have you read Behe?
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
I have. However, I'll point out that Behe is hardly the archetypical ID advocate. He accepts common descent, for one thing--in fact, in many of his arguments he's indistinguishable from a theistic evolutionist.
The problem is that, while Behe claims that ID has moved beyond Paley, there's really not much evidence of that. Certainly, the trappings are more sophisticated, but the basic arguments still amount to "This looks designed, therefore it is designed."
brpierce 2 years ago
Irreducible complexity has never been demonstrated, just for instance; I still routinely hear ID advocates bring up the bacterial flagellum, despite the fact that not only can functional structures missing one or more of the components be imagined--they actually exist.
brpierce 2 years ago
Irreducible complexity is often misunderstood. It does not mean that if you remove a part, you have no function it means that if you remove a part of the irreducible structure, you lose the specific function you had. You may still have other functions. (For example, you can lay a broken mouse trap on your papers so they don't blow away - it still has a function, but not as a mouse trap.)
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
"It does not mean that if you remove a part, you have no function it means that if you remove a part of the irreducible structure, you lose the specific function you had. You may still have other functions."
The problem is that that's a meaningless claim, even if true, and does nothing to call into question the postulates of modern evolutionary synthesis. One of the key understandings of MES is that structures can and do adapt to new functions.
brpierce 2 years ago
I suggest that you re-read Behe, and you will see that it is something quite significant.
Thanks for the discussion. Maybe we will cross swords again. But maybe youtbube is not really meant for these kinds of discussions.
Anyway, it's been interesting. Thanks.
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
"But maybe youtbube is not really meant for these kinds of discussions."
Now on that, we're in complete agreement. :)
Take care.
brpierce 2 years ago
In short: how will you test "design?" "This looks like it was designed" isn't reliable.
brpierce 2 years ago
Methodological naturalism (MN) says that the answer must be compatible with naturalism. For example, in the question of origins, the answer must be that what looks like random mutations and natural selection explains how everything developed (or some similar explanation). The question whether natural factors are sufficient doesn't even arise, so MN is never tested.
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
"Methodological naturalism (MN) says that the answer must be compatible with naturalism."
No. Methodological naturalism confines itself to seeking answers within its parameters. That's something significantly different.
brpierce 2 years ago
Every answer that you find when using MN is compatible with naturalism. But why confine yourself to only those answers?
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
"Every answer that you find when using MN is compatible with naturalism. But why confine yourself to only those answers?"
Personally, I don't. But I don't pretend that the answers I find outside of MN are testable or verifiable.
In short, I don't pretend that my faith is science. I think both my faith and my respect for the scientific method are stronger as a result.
brpierce 2 years ago
So the living beings may have been created in a way that is not compatible with neo-darwinism? Science cannot test that, but it may still be true? Is that what you are saying?
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
Anything's possible. It's possible that we're not living beings at all, but part of an artificial-reality simulation so complex that the components believe themselves to be real.
In fact, given certain assumptions, that's not only possible, but extremely likely.
However--the evidence we have available, as measured by the best tools we have available, says that the actual development probably took place pretty much as modern evolutionary synthesis says. (continued)
brpierce 2 years ago
There are, of course, other possibilities. There are always other possibilities. The evidence could be deceptive. Every single tool we've gathered to measure information could be in error.
It's possible; it just isn't very likely.
As to WHY it happened that way, that's something science can't measure or test--and that's where questions of faith come in.
brpierce 2 years ago
What evidence do you have that everything that is now living has evolved only by seemingly random mutations and natural selection?
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
what evidence do you have to the contrary?
drServitus 2 years ago
If you look at what I was responing to, the burden of proof is not on me.
I asked: "So the living beings may have been created in a way that is not compatible with neo-darwinism?" And the response was: "It's possible; it just isn't very likely."
Will you take on the burden of proof and tell me why it is unlikely?
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
Every bit of evidence points toward evolution.There is NO substantial evidence that gives any credit to id.
What science is saying is (AND IS WHAT SCIENCE ALLWAYS SAYS, IN FACT THIS IS WHAT SCIENCE IS) that all the evidence points toward evolution.
Every bit of evidnce that has been proposed to denounce evolution has been disproven.
Scientist will be glad to change their mind, you have to give us proof first.
The burden of proof is on id to prove its case due to the evidence.
drServitus 2 years ago 20
How can one, even in principle, show empirically that everything has evolved through random mutations and natural selection? If you cannot answer that question, maybe you shold lower your claims.
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
@drServitus Hello Mr Chimp, my name is Mr Human Being !! I would like to have a talking monkey as a pet, do you want to be my pet ? I like the jokes evolutionists make... simply hilarious !!!
buschmann69 1 year ago
@buschmann69 How about this joke: A child killer (see Passover, the flood, ect...) is the ultimate source of love in the universe.You are mentaly ill. Seek help.
drServitus 1 year ago
@drServitus Worst than that, evolution does not exclude god.It does exclude some ways of understanding the genesis but that not my problem.
Also, intelligence design exclude the possibility that natural selection could be intelligent! Intelligent is an umbrella term...Under Sternberg's definition it does fit: if intelligence is to have a goal-directed adaptive behavior, therefor survive is a goal therefor adapting the way we act in order to be the best fit and survive constitute intelligence.
therrydicule 1 year ago
In science it is not what you believe, but WHY you believe it.
drServitus 2 years ago
It is unlikely because ALL evidence leads towards evolution at this time
drServitus 2 years ago
What evidence is there that everything has evolved through random mutations and natural selection? Do you see it in the fossils, or what?
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
Thankfully our level of techonolgies has allowed to track mutations (in a chromosonal level) in organisms. And we have seen evidence to back up the claim of evolution. Also Discovery Magazine had a great article on the current evolutionary path of mankind.
Mapleship 2 years ago
I don't see on what grounds you exclude design from science. Other than begging the question. We can recognize language, art, tools etc., which are all sub-species of design. So we can recognize design.
Megamacdeth 2 years ago
The theories of evolution (properly, there are many theories gathered together under the loose label of modern evolutionary synthesis) simply say "Life developed over time, and here's how the evidence indicates it developed."
That's it. They don't even touch on "why." Science is all about "how," not "why." That's the realm of philosophy.
Seriously--please, find me one published, peer-reviewed article on evolutionary biology that claims there's no designer.
I very much doubt you can.
brpierce 2 years ago
The constant attempts to link evolution to atheism are a particularly cynical and dishonest Creationist ploy. They know that if it's a choice between Biblical literalism and science, they're likely to lose--so they're trying really hard to pretend that it's a choice between "Religion with God" and "Religion with no God."
It's why I have no respect for the Creationist movement as a whole; it's dishonest, Machiavellian, and not particularly Christian.
brpierce 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Squirrels & possums share many similarities: habitat, diet, digits, etc. They also possess extraordinary differences as the opossum is a marsupial. So? Let us extrapolate & fantasize & focus upon the original "oposquirrel."
procommenter 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Things exist beyond human detection. Certainly we cannot see, hear & feel all. The physical laws of the universe are interpreted/translated by us, not transliterated.
procommenter 3 years ago
for crying out loud please go to school dude
edgalor 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Conjecture is philosophy. It's disingenuous to demean religious philosophy in support of "scientific" philosophy. Evolutionists, in their desire to impress themselves and the world, mandate that their "Genesis" story be taught as FACT.
procommenter 3 years ago
And you're a fucking moron.
DeadFishFactory 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What gas station's men's room
will you be haunting tonight?
procommenter 3 years ago
'What gas station's men's room
will you be haunting tonight? '
such bigotry is vile, antisocial and counterproductive to modern democracy. you are a bully and a nazi.
TheProf1988 3 years ago 3
Evolution itself is a fact, just as gravity is a fact (both are directly observable). The theory exists to explain the process by which it occurs and the impact it has on the diversity of life. Life changes with every generation, that cannot be denied.
Evolution is not a story of genesis, it is a story of change after genesis(abiogenesis).
Kurpalac 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
evolution can never be argued as a scientific view, since there is nothing scientific at all in it! it's all religious. evolutionism religion, that is.
evolutionism faith is is the popular side satanism, communism, atheism, lie-ism, fake-ism, ridiculism, foolism, stupidism, fantasism, dreamism, astrologism, make-believism, twistism, ....
yu get my drift? the day they humble themselves in the presence of the All-knowing God, that will be the day God will open their eyes to the Truth.
sthcrox 3 years ago
Just because you add "ism" as a suffix to the name of a scientific theory doesn't mean it's automatically religion, asshole.
Evolutionism is much like gravitationalism, mathematicalism, chemistrism, or physicism. ASshole.
Just because you continue to assert that something that isn't supported by empirical evidence is "the Truth," it doesn't mean that it is you creationist fucktard. Choke and die, already.
DeadFishFactory 3 years ago
why is it that i already know an evolutionist will jump and start swearing his head off in habitual profanity? because that is their best ammo.
why would yu choke yoself? beats me!
sthcrox 3 years ago
adding 'ism' to somthing doesnt make is a religion, ofcourse unless you believe journalism is a religion:p
Erech01 3 years ago
'evolutionism faith is is the popular side satanism'
satan isnt real
'communism'
communism was founded many many years before darwin.
'atheism'
no its not.
' lie-ism, fake-ism, ridiculism, foolism, stupidism, fantasism, dreamism, astrologism, make-believism, twistism'
all made up and found in the feilds of creationism
Erech01 3 years ago 2
Ohio...shame on you!
TheDrunkenAtheist 3 years ago
The dream of Darwin's congregation is the consecration of civil authority above all else.
procommenter 3 years ago
WHAHAHAHA! How to shut up an ignorant evolutionist: It´s true that apes have 48 chromosomes. True that humans have 46 and they even might have had 48 long time ago.. wouldn´t change the human into an ape plus: AMOEBA ALSO HAVE 48 CHROMOSOMES!!! SIMILARITY IS COMON DESIGNER! NOT COMON ANCESTOR! lol Go study some real science you morons. xD I LOL at you all the time. So funny.
LightOfTruth777 3 years ago
amoeba have 2900000000000 base pairs compared to 2900000000 for human, not to mention that humans and amoeba belong in different eukaryan supergroups (thats higher than kingdom level)why dont YOU go and study some real science
TheProf1988 3 years ago
It's not the similarities in chromosone numbers that tell us we're related, it's the genetic similarity. Please people will it hurt you so much to learn about the REAL scientific method?
steevmac 3 years ago
'Please people will it hurt you so much to learn about the REAL scientific method? '
did you actually mean to send this comment to me?
TheProf1988 3 years ago
err... no, sorry, it was toward LightOfTruth777's stupid comment about amoebas having 48 chromosones having anything to do with chimps' relationship to humans.
steevmac 3 years ago
hehe, no probs
TheProf1988 3 years ago
lol ownd
"SIMILARITY IS COMON DESIGNER! NOT COMON ANCESTOR!"
lol i mean.. lol cmon man
danielyeh 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Transsexuality is a biological question for a person who suffers from any number of anatomical conditions that renders their gender ambiguous. Human evolutionary theory is a false science akin to phrenology (look it up). Relegate your children to cages as this is what the sci-fi religion of evolutionary theory demands. {A theory is not a fact, ergo it is a theory. A fact is irrefutable. A theory is speculative. Please, those of you with piercings & tattoos: BORROW, don't steal, A DICTIONARY!!!}
procommenter 3 years ago
lol perhaps you should look up what a scientific theory is then. NOOB
danielyeh 3 years ago
Aren't you embarrassed by
your poorly-written comments?
procommenter 3 years ago
aren't you embarrassed by your idiocy?
danielyeh 3 years ago
Yours is not a proper sentence.
procommenter 3 years ago
at least my sentence isn't devoid of sense.
danielyeh 3 years ago
Many branches are.
procommenter 3 years ago
Good video. Not sure why this video has such low ratings.
Faustuss1 3 years ago
well, it probably has a lot to do with creationists not liking it and rating it low.
littlegreenjason 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BYE-BYE BOGUS THEORY
"It's not Yasgur's Farm, but what happens at the Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria this July promises to be far more transforming for the world than Woodstock. What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature -- let's call them "the Altenberg 16" -- who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence."
owensphil 3 years ago
GBS990 name which dissenting scientist(s) you say were blacklisted and direct us the the papers you refer to.
max2right 3 years ago
Considering dissenting scientists get black listed if they TRY and get a peer review for publication, is anyone shocked there are no papers published?
It's a good 'ol boys network.
GBS990 3 years ago
They get black listed because every argument they present for intelligent design gets refuted.
If someone came up with irrefutable proof of intelligent design which went through the academic arena they would win the Nobel prize.
bluecode320 3 years ago
Well, technically ID was not refuted because it was never contested in the scientific community.
Stitchman3875 3 years ago
if we don t have a designer than why do we design
d2mech 3 years ago
That's not even a coherent question.
DeadFishFactory 3 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
2 THESSALONIANS 2:9-12
9- The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10- and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish , because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11- And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12- that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Uaz31 3 years ago
I have books that say Santa Claus exists. If I don't believe that he exists, I'll get coal for christmas.
Nice demonstration of brainwaashing, idiot.
runevirage 3 years ago 2
"Design" advocates seek to use... 01:36....okay so advocates want to skip that part but that doesn't mean the scientists are skipping anything....last time I checked they are still working on the data/experiments etc. it's a brand new theory what did you expect???
WolfSyndrome 3 years ago
God science cannot be prejudiced. Religion can. This 'scientist/educator' is deluded. He cannot follow christian teachings and then be scientific. to be taken seriously, he needs to drop the god stuff. I'm sure if he believed in Zeus or Thor or the FSM, he would be laughed off the stage. At the start of this diatribe, they were led in prayer by a reverend. Need I say more. The University that hosted this should be ashamed.
saxmanchiro 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
>>>no one could possibly call him agnostic or atheist or naturalist! he often talked of the 'creator' of the world-.-
Hitler dedicated the second volume of Mein Kampf to Dietrick Eckart. His spiritual mentor and the greatest occultist in Germany. Hitler also quoted entire passages of Lanz Von Liebenfels writings. The famous psychic and satanist of Germany. Can't deny recorded history. well, most normal people cant.
PROCLAIMEROFTRUTH 4 years ago
Do I have to bring up quotes showing Hitler saying he was doing the will of God? Scientifically it means nothing, but you're still an asshole. Asshole.
DeadFishFactory 4 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
sniff.
PROCLAIMEROFTRUTH 4 years ago
Hilter repeatedly quote the Old Testament. Hitler also was in close relations with the head of the church. Hitler was by no means an Atheist, but such arguments have NOTHING to do with science or science education. Science is based on facts no emotionality or wishful thinking.
Kurpalac 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
>>>Hilter repeatedly quote the Old Testament.
so did Jim Jones, David Koresh, and the devil himself..... but
Hitler dedicated the second volume of Mein Kampf to Dietrick Eckart,(greatest occultist in Germany at that time) and also named the Waldbühne in Berlin "Dietrich-Eckart-Bühne" when it was first opened for the 1936 Summer Olympics. Hitler was openly satanist.
PROCLAIMEROFTRUTH 4 years ago
what bugs me most about this 'arguement' is that it is to stereotypical, there are MANY examples of religious peop,le killing for religious reasons, look at the crusaders, 9/11.
i tend not to use those arguements after seeing the huge flaws in them
YOU CANNOT JUDGE SOMEONE BY SOMEONE ELSES ACTIONS! is it fair that i should compare you to a crusader just cause you are both christians? i dont think so, so how is it any fairer you comparing me and any other atheist to stalin?
Erech01 3 years ago
please argument is old every atheist has awncerd it in a meaningful maner DROP IT
albanian4 4 years ago 2
Hitler was Roman Catholic and is in heaven now, enjoying the rewards for believeing in jesus
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
Whether or not Hitler was an atheist, he certainly didn't do the atrocities he did for atheistic reasons. Plus, the Nazi party was mostly made up of Protestant Christians and Hitler utilized that.
lesbowalker 3 years ago
>>>its gong out screaming and kicking!
yea, it did in pre-war Nazi Germany.
PROCLAIMEROFTRUTH 4 years ago
lol, hitler was religious, he just didnt agree with conventional reilion, he was extremly supersticious, he surrounded himself in pagan symbols, he even alked about jesus as a warrior against the jews...... no one could possibly call him agnostic or atheist or naturalist! he often talked of the 'creator' of the world-.-
Erech01 4 years ago 2
Enough of the Nazi stuff. We know about your collection of nazi junk and your fixation on hitler already.
LoraSinger 4 years ago 2
Ive tried to post this a couple of times but don't see it, pro, so here we go again.
adultthought(dot)ucsd(dot)edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban(dot)html
The are all your good buddies - which is your very favorite?
LoraSinger 4 years ago
>>>darwinian evolution is the theory whereby organisms change and over time become more complex through the mechanism of change which is natral selection
organisms can adapt to their environment, but are limited in scope and appearance. to believe that scum turned into a 75 trillion cell human being is science fiction.
PROCLAIMEROFTRUTH 4 years ago
so is dinosaurs living with humans
my evidence, jurrasic park...
Erech01 4 years ago
Someone also used the example of Santa's workshp being evidence that elves co-existed with humans - pretty much the same argument.
LoraSinger 4 years ago
yeah, sounds about the same to me, someone tried to convince me hell exsisted cause they could describe hat it looked like and if it was endo or exothermic
i just said, well i can descrbe what gandla looks lik, nd tell you whether he is good or evil, so that must be evidence that he exsists, you an compare creationit arguements to stupd things like thatxD
Erech01 4 years ago
And a "creator" breathing life into a piece of dirt and lo, a fully developed man appears, is credible to you.
LoraSinger 4 years ago
'organisms can adapt to their environment, but are limited'
wrong, life is not limited by your beleifs, its amazing what nature can do in afew billion years without the need of the 'divine' (well the god of the OT claims to be divine, i dont think he is, he seems more self obsessed to me) biologists are not yet totally sure to what lifee can do and they deal with data every day! you cant just say life is limited in appearance when you hve 0 evidence and 0 data
Erech01 4 years ago
'Evolution is the lie of the Century.'
ha, religion is the conspiracy of the age! only now is it coming out as a conspiracy, religion is fallin apart, and will eventually no longer be apart of our society, it may not happen inmy lifetime, but nevermind, why do you think there is such an ooutroar by religions around the world, its gong out screaming and kicking!
Erech01 4 years ago 3
where does the geological column exist in the real world, except in books?
PROCLAIMEROFTRUTH 4 years ago
under your feet...
Erech01 4 years ago
under your feet...
now thats funny rat thar... I dont care who you are, thats funny.
PROCLAIMEROFTRUTH 4 years ago
which is the correct reading for the Basalt flows in Grand Canyon?
(a) 516±30 million years (the potassium-argon isochron age)
* (b) 1,111±81 million years (the rubidium-strontium isochron age)
* (c) 1,588±170 million years (the samarium-neodymium isochron age)
* (d) None of the above
PROCLAIMEROFTRUTH 4 years ago
Straight out of AIG, right, or is it the Discovery Institute?
LoraSinger 4 years ago
What about the halos of polonium and uranium? How did they form and when? What about fission tracks?
PROCLAIMEROFTRUTH 4 years ago
Do nuclear decay rates change — is it theoretically possible?
PROCLAIMEROFTRUTH 4 years ago
Can accelerated decay explain the abundance of daughter products?
PROCLAIMEROFTRUTH 4 years ago
Where did all the decay-produced helium go — did it escape to the atmosphere or is it still trapped in the rocks?
PROCLAIMEROFTRUTH 4 years ago
What about the lead found in rocks — did it all come from uranium?
PROCLAIMEROFTRUTH 4 years ago
The exact causes of the chromosomal rearrangement and primary prevention of Down syndrome are currently unknown, in spite of what the news media tells you, you monkey you.
PROCLAIMEROFTRUTH 4 years ago