Added: 3 years ago
From: HighFlyingDutchman
Views: 860
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (127)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Comment removed

  • This vid is propoganda for religion.

  • @jamespiperca

    thanks for categorizing the video

    so what do you think about its content?

    do you think that Darwin "knew"(ANY SINGLE thing) about life?

    or should we theists just say that

    -his "hypothesises" were propaganda for atheism-

    and ignore his claims ?

    cheers...

  • WHAT NEILS BOHR DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT ATOMZzzz! his atomic model is still used even though we know it's wrong and doesn't work on anything other than hydrogen.

    WHAT MENDELEEV DIDN'T KNOW

    WHAT GALLELIO DIDN'T KNOW

    what Gergor mendel didn't know is that there are actually few mendelian traits, most are polygenic or have a better model.

    THEREFORE; he was wrong about his damn peas.

  • He knew that evolution accounted for the diversity of life, and he was right.

  • I love how science continues to lean towards design and just how upset this is getting the Darwinists. They're in full-blown panic mode as it becomes more and more apparent that blind chance & necessity isn't close to being adequate for explaining nano-technology in biology, consciousness, the genetic code, etc.

    We're witnessing the most important revolution in the history of science, something that will be talked about for centuries. And there's every reason to believe it was planned this way.

  • No scientist is in a "blind panic" about anything. You are fooling yourself, and the ID guys are just making up a lot of shit.

    Blind chance has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution, through natural selection, is the opposite of blind chance.

    Read some real science. Get educated. You'll find that things make more sense.

  • ummm how do you explain the Big bang??? CHANCE was it not?

  • CHance? No. Certainly not chance.

    If you want to understand the big bang, and cosmology in general, go read "A Brief History of Time".

    Once you've read that, come back here and complain if you still have issues.

  • I am sorry; the Big Bang was an accident was it not? "A lucky accident" as Peter Atkins likes to say.

    We are all a result of chance, a one off fluke...Amazing LOL

  • Did you go read "A Brief History of Time" like I asked? If not, why are you back here asking about something which is plainly laid out? What are you, lazy?

    And the big bang has nothing to do with evolution, which is what this thread was discussing.

  • It was a chance, Peter Atkins said so...

  • While the Darwinists are out doing more story-telling and trying desperately to rearrange the fossil record, Behe is actually studying the data of the evolutionary research. And the results aren't pretty, at least if you're a Darwinists. And that is why you hate him so.

    For the record - check my page for a series on the bacterial flagellum by an expert geneticist, which shows how and why it's irreducibly complex, while also exposing Kenny Miller for the 'Liar for Darwin' that he is.

  • Sorry folks, the Dover Trial was a sham led by a judge who wasn't qualified (educated) to make such a ruling. Darwinists knew this and took advantage of it by delivering lie-filled testimony and shallow 'debunkings', knowing that a biased layman like judge Jones would buy into it. The Dover trial is irrelevant and invalid.

    And for the record - it's atheism that's directly linked to astrology. You're the ones who believe that life was created in the cosmos and crashed on Earth via a meteorite.

  • The judge at the dover trial was a christian. Judges don't have to be expert in every field. What they do is observe the cases laid out before them, and decide.

    The ID side had NOTHING. Zippity do dah. You know why? Because it's an empty bag! There's nothing there!

    There were no lies at the dover trial. And if you know of even one, please post it here.

  • No one that know of exhalts Darwin as some sort of all knowing theorist, so trying to prove a point by picking away at what the scientific method had not revealed yet during his time is a waste of time. Let's address the rationality vs. the irrationality of natural selection, shall we? BTW, I can't listen to sound right now, I'm just commenting on the video description.

  • Natrual selection? So is this a 'force' of nature or simply a product OF natrual desire

  • Natural selection a product of natural desire?

    I guess you could put it that way.

    Natural selection encompasses a creature's ability to:

    1. Find food

    2. Not be food

    3. Have offspring

    I would say that a "desire for survival" was underlying all those. Which I guess you could say was a "natural desire".

  • How can you explain the immense sophistication of a mere cell? How does the process of Natural Selection explain micro level biology?

    Please enlighten me...

    Note: If natural selection only explains larger (more evolved) species then be open to theories that encompass more of a variety ...

  • The process of natural selection DOES explain everything.

    Point out a contradiction - where the theory says one thing somewhere, and something opposite somewhere else.

    Or point out where we have observed the theory to be wrong.

    You can't argue from "I don't believe it". That's a stupid argument. Argument from ignorance.

    We have observed so many stages of evolution it's not funny.

    Unless you have EVIDENCE to the contrary, shut up.

  • Thank you for not answering my question

    Can you explain HOW the mechanical process of a simple cell is in harmony with the theory of natural selection? How does survival of fittest, finding food or not being eaten explain the efficient mechanical consciousness of that form the cell?

    Please I ask again, enlighten me.

    Mote: Or more over, have you found transitional stages of a cell? Don't bother trying to find fossils LOL

  • I guess I don't understand your question.

    And what do you mean by "mechanical consciousness"? That is a nonsense phrase.

  • Consciousness...The mechanisms that make up a cell must act upon SOME intelligence to function is such a manner of efficiency. Again I am alluding to intelligent design here, but you don't believe in that.

  • You are making assertions, that the mechanisms must act upon SOME intelligence.

    Support that assertion with some kind of evidence please.

  • Slight and sudden variation's either kills of species or help species reproduce in accordance to abundant provision...The question arises

    How can a change in climate or Ph evolve a being? The answer lies in micro level biology...if you can find transitional elements or stages in a cells mechanical structure (which is impossible) then maybe you can explain the adaptability and survival of larger species but until then the Design of a cell has Evolutionist dumfounded.

    this is common sense

  • Obviously any mutation that killed a creature wouldn't survive to be passed on, so we can disregard those.

    "in accordance to abundant provision" - What?

    Why are transitional stages in a cells mechanical structure impossible?

    There are no biologists "dumbfounded" at all. If you think there are, give me references please.

  • Yes, but do you have evidence of a creature or a biological organism that survived under abnormal situations or varying alterations. Darwin's theory hinges on a 100% successive rate.

    Abundant provision is terms of environment and living conditions. A Lion will die if it put in the Arctic would you agree?

  • What are abnormal situations? Varying alterations? I'm sorry to sound insulting, but is english your second language or something, because I really have trouble understanding what you're trying to say.

    And yes, a lion would PROBABLY die in the arctic. We wouldn't know for sure unless we tried it.

    Bears obviously did ok, and evolved into polar bears.

  • learn english my friend...

  • That's rich, coming from you.

  • Sory is that an expression I am not familiar with?

  • What, the "that's rich"?

    Well, obviously it means that it's pretty funny for you, who obviously doesn't understand or speak English very well, to be giving me (one who DOES speak and understand it well) advice on learning English.

    The fact that you didn't understand my sentence just highlights this.

    I was trying to be polite when I said I thought English wasn't your first language. You then come back with a rude remark.

    Are you ignorant, or just an ass?

  • If I dont understand a silly expression it does not make me foreighn....I WAS BORN IN THE UK

    My mother toung IS ENGLISH, and that was not rude, YOU took it be rude.

  • How is it not rude to tell me to learn English, when I'm simply being honest with you that your english sucks?

    For example, if english was your mother tongue, you would spell it tongue, not toung. And foreign doesn't have an H.

    Anyway, you kept using phrases that made no sense. And would make no sense to any english speaker.

    I think you should go take some remedial english classes or something.

  • You have difficulty in understanding 'abnormal situations' and 'Varying alterations'

    Is that my fault?

    By the way I am 17 and this IS YOUTUBE so I dont have to spell every word correctly

  • Yes. What do you mean by "varying alterations"?

    The two words are almost synonyms for each other.

  • Alterations can vary...I was being very bawd when I said 'Varying alterations'.... I thought you would understand my sumerisation, I guess I was thinking selfishly...

    You see certain things only make sense when you read it out, I guess it's hard to express emotion because certain statements make sense only when you hear it verbally...I find it difficult that's all

    I did not mean to offend you, trust me that was not my intention.

  • Anyway - if you want to learn something about evolution, go watch DonExodus2's videos. He has some excellent ones discussing the principles and evidence for evolution.

    If you would prefer to remain ignorant, then by all means don't bother to learn any more.

  • Everyone is ignorant...we are not all knowing

    We must all gradually advance 'Short and suuure' LOL

    I adhere to Islam

  • Ok, fine.

    Will you go watch DonExodus2's videos though?

  • Okay I will check him out, no problem, by the whay why do you have difficulty understaning simple comments?

  • I don't have difficulty understanding clearly written comments.

    Take this for example:

    'the falsication test is "produce a chapter like it"...'

    First, that's now how falsification works.

    Second, what is this supposed to be a test for?

    That's what I mean. What is this guy trying to say?

  • In the Quran there are several verses that offer humanity to prove that the Quran is false...These kinds of verses are not commonly attributed to the nature of authors. A person who is trying to promote his message or work will not offer a chance to disprove for his opponents to disprove him. Basically the Quran introduces a falsification test for the people who are in doubt...

  • So what's the test?

  • Basically it states, "If this book is not what it claims to be, then all you have to do is this or this or this to prove that it is false."

    Of course, in 1400 years no one has been able to do "This or this or this" and thus it is still considered true and authentic.

  • Whats the test? Okay hold on...

  • Whatever your test is, it would have to be something that could be measured objectively.

    Otherwise it's not a test.

    So, something like "repeat these words, and a flower will appear in mid air". Whatever it is, it has to be something that people can follow instructions to do, and someone else can determine if there was a successful result or not.

  • In Surah Al-Isra chapter 17 verse 88  "Say : "If mankind and the Jinns gathered in order to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like of it, even if they were to each other assistants."

    Is that okay?

  • No, as I said, what you're describing is completely opinion. Someone could simply say "That text you've written is garbage compared to the Quran". And how would we know? Because of opinion.

    Give me something we could scientifically measure, or you don't actually have a falsifiable test.

  • The criteria for producing a surah like the Qur'an are as follows:

    The Qur'an maintain throughout the highest possible standard of in its speech.

    The Language of the Qur'an is most clear, meaningful, intelligible, unsurpassable and miraculous.

    It does not deviate from the truth and still maintains its eloquence, rhythm and style unlike human poetry and literature.

  • Later the falsification test was made easier in Surah Hud chapter 11 verse 13

    "Or do they say, "He invented it?" Say, "Then bring ten Surahs like it that have been invented and call upon (for assistance) whoever you can besides Allah, if you should be truthful."

    Yes...MANY people at the time fo prophet took up this challenge, they gave up...(Just hold on) This challenge involves poetry (because the Quran is also written like poetry)

  • You can't measure poetry. This is not a test.

  • And this is completely a side topic, but wouldn't you say the bible is "like" the quran anyway?

  • The Qur'an repeat several information in difference styles and by passages and narrations of varying sizes, all being of a very high standard that one cannot be preferred to another

    The Qur'an encompasses a vast range of meaning in a surprisingly small number of words without losing its charm and majesty.

    The Ability of the Qur'an to address a multitude of people. The same verse of the Qur'an is appreciated by an intelligent person as well as a common man.

  • You...can't...measure....poetr­y or literature.

    You can't use that as a test.

    Is that the only falsification within the Quran? Because if so, then there are no tests in the quran.

  • OccamKant many Masters of Arabic at the time of prophet (ARABIC was at its ZEAL in the 7, 8 and 9th century) took up the challenge, they failed on their own account. In fact as a result of their failure many gave up and accepted the Quran as a source of the supernatural and their efforts have been recorded in historical books.

  • Listen - a bunch of guys trying to write poetry and failing is about as far as scientific falsification as you can get.

  • Please do research on this, The Quran is not peotry like English poetry...the people at the time of the prophet were amzed at the Quran, they must have took up the challenge in hopes of disproving it...

    Okay moveing on...

  • he Quran also gives a falsification test in Surah Nisa chapter 4 verse 82 which any one in the world can try.

    "Do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from (any) other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction."

    Today if any one wants to prove that the Quran is not the word of God, he just has to point out a single contradiction in the Quran.

  • Go to the skeptic's annotated quran.

    There are a ton of contradictions listed there.

  • hall I go over those alleged contradictions with you here?

    I will go step by step...Very simple

  • Sure, let's start with: Pharaoh drowned?

    17:102-3 I deem thee lost, O Pharaoh. And he wished to scare them from the land, but We drowned him and those with him, all together.

    10:90-92 Pharaoh ... when the (fate of) drowning overtook him, he exclaimed: I believe that there is no God save Him in Whom the Children of Israel believe ... But this day We save thee in thy body that thou mayst be a portent for those after thee.

  • Sorry I don't see the contradiction...

    Take in note: Progressive revelation...Stories and incidents are revealed gradually (The Quran was reveal within a period of 23 years)...with added information to convey the moral behind the incident. Each time a story is told Allah adds certain extra information not known before...Sometimes stories are summarizes and sometimes it adds emphasis for the reader so they can ponder over the past.

  • You don't see the contradiction? One verse said pharaoh was drowned, the other said he was saved.

    It sounds like a contradiction to me.

  • You just said it took years to write harry potter. I don't know how long it took (and I doubt you do either) but now you're saying it took 23 years to write the quran?

    What's the difference?

    Particularly when that's a convenient excuse to have Muhammad write a bit, then he sees that he forgot something, so he writes a bit more to cover up, etc etc.

    As I said - completely unconvincing.

  • You need to seriously learn more about the basics of the Quran...Every time a verse was revealed it was different (eventually forming the complete Quran which is masterpiece of Arabic literature and took the Arabic language to a new level of sophistication). The difference is that the revelation never contradicted...When books are written today it goes through many MANY processes... The Quran was a direct revelation with out the need of drafts OR secondary drafts...

  • First off, I don't care about these claims, because they don't mean anything.

    You're making a ton of unsupported assertions (that today we can't write, but somehow muhammad was able to). These are so boring.

    Do you have EVIDENCE or not? do you have a TEST that I can sit here and perform, or not?

    If you have no evidence or test, then we have nothing to talk about.

  • What claims??? I gave you a falsification test...'find a contradiction' YOU tried bout you failed...

  • Finding a contradiction isn't a falsification. I found one and you twisted the meanings of words to try to change it so it wasn't a contradiction.

    I'm not going to continue with a liar, sorry.

  • Finding a contradiction is a falsification test since every book has contradictions (its inevitable human nature), just read the Bible or other acclaimed scriptures, but the Quran does not have ANY so this makes it unique and superior...At least give it this much credit!

  • Excuse me, HOW DID I TWIST ANYTHING??????

    I TOLD YOU that the verses were not reveled together (hence the different chapters); they were gradually given through time. And even if you were to take it out of the narrative context then the verses STILL remain in perfect harmony.

    An addition does not qualify as a contradiction...Pharaoh died, bother verse attest to this, but the later verse says that his body Is preserved (referring to the mummified state)

  • One verse said he died. The next verse said he was saved.

    To say otherwise is to lie.

    So, are you a liar?

  • I can also give you authentic commentary from classical scholars on the meaning of this verse? (These people knew classical Arabic and were commentating around 100 years after the death of the prophet, what possible motive could they have for changing the meaning to say preserved body instead of saved???)

    So do you want it or not?

  • I don't *CARE* about poetry and verse.

    If your book has something in it that I can test - an experiment I can perform and measure the result, then let's do it.

    If not, then we have nothing to talk about.

  • The Quran was revealed gradually, SIMPLE HISTORY attests to this...Even latest Quranic manuscripts found in Yemen show that the Quran has been preserved 100% without a single alteration of the original letters and sentences. As I said earlier, it was revealed within a period of 23 years...progressive revelation. We have THOUSANDS UPON THOUSAND of narratives and manuscripts describing the events of the Prophet (pbuh) and all are unanimous that the revelations were always new, clear and pristine.

  • The Revelation ended and the Quran was compiled and spread through out the world. Look at the events listed in the Quran, can you find contradictions in the stories? Can you find contradictions in the process of creation in the Quran? Can you find inconsistency in the theology found in the Quran? Can you find unfulfilled prophesies?

  • Moveing on, the Quran takls about the THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE...

    And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47)

  • The word "heaven," as stated in the verse above, is used in various places in the Quran. It is referring to space and the wider universe. Here again, the word is used with this meaning, stating that the universe "expands." The Arabic word "moosiaaoona" in the term "inna lamoosiaaoona," translated into English as "it is We Who are steadily expanding it", comes from the verb "evsea," meaning "to expand."

  • This is how the scientific hypothesis of the Big Crunch is indicated in the Quran:

    That Day We will fold up heaven like folding up the pages of a book. As We originated the first creation so We will regenerate it. It is a promise binding on Us. That is what We will do. (Qur'an, 21:104)

  • "Do those who disbelieve not see that the heavens and the earth were sewn together and then We unstitched them and that We made from water every living thing? So will they not believe?" (Qur'an, 21:30)

    when we think about the first moments of the Big Bang, we see that the entire matter of the universe collected at one single point. In other words, everything-including "the heavens and earth" which were not created yet-were in an interwoven and inseparable condition.

  • Pharaoh drowned...his body is preserved (in the museum) for all to see.

    In fact the latter verse reveals information not known to anyone at that time. How could Mohammed (pbuh) know that Pharaoh would be preserved in body so people can see (in a mummified form)? Any human today can go to the museum and observe the Body of the Pharaoh.

  • It said "save thee in thy body". Doesn't sound like a museum to me.

    It's saying "we saved your life" not "mummified your body"

    If you're going to change the meanings of words around randomly to suit your purpose, then we're done discussing here, because I hate arguing with liars.

  • Sorry nope...the creation story of the earth adn the universe is in complete harmony with modern science. (the only thing that is ambiguous is Adam, Eve, Angels and Jins)

    And where is the contradiction??? Both verses say he died!

    "When the (fate of) drowning overtook him," "We drowned him and those with him, all together."

    "But this day we save thee in thy body" is referring to the mummified state of his body not his living existence.

  • The creation story is in harmony with science? How do you figure?

    First off, the creation story doesn't mention evolution.

    And if your creation story is the same as the biblical one (which means Muhammad just copied it, much easier than inventing his own) then it means that the sun was created on the third day. But light existed before the sun? Nope. And how was the planet not a ball of ice?

    Also the earth was created before the sun? Nope.

    Creation stories are all false.

  • Ummm our story is different... hold on, hold on let me first get back to your first comments about the contradiction thing....

  • Now that we know how the universe, earth and life TRULY began, we could write a nice little poetic story about it that didn't get all the scientific facts wrong.

    But of course books written over a thousand years ago were written by ignorant savages who had no understanding of the way things truly were, so they had to make up stories.

    And now we see those stories for the silly falsehoods they truly are.

  • Yes we all know that the Bible is incorrect in science...I agree now let me get back to you on the science in the Quran....

    The origin of the universe is described in the Qur'an in the following verse:

    "He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth." (Qur'an, 6:101)

  • "(It was said to him): "Ah now!- But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou didst mischief (and violence)! "This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a SIGHN to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!" [Qur'ân 10:90-92]

    Signs in the Quran always refering to somethng to ponder on, the 'saved body' is his mummified state so we Muslims can go and refelct on the sighn of Allah....

  • Where does it specify mummification in the quran?

    Was mummification something practiced by the arabs back then?

  • Mummification was not heard of in the Arab desert of the 7th century... This explains the verse and why it never said mummification!

    Can you imagine if Allah said he was mummified to a person living in a desert in the 7th century! They would be confused as to what it means...however when Allah sya his body will be preserved it makes more sense...

  • Allah is the same god that jews and christians worship. There is controversy in what his name is. Whatever it is, it's divine. What many people from all three religions misunderstand is that they are at war with people who praise him. For example: Fanatics in the U.S (Westboro Baptist Church), Suicide bombers in the middle east. In closing, we are all guilty. One cannot blame just christians or just muslims, for the only true divinity is the creator For ALL Intelligent Creator-based faiths.

  • If the Pharaoh was not preserved in bodily form then we would have nothing to pondour on...noting to reflect upon~

    Yep this is boring

  • Anyway, the falsification point is that there ARE no falsification tests for the Quran, other than you can pray for something and it won't happen.

    Or rather, when you pray for things, they're "answered" at a 50% rate, which is the same as no god and just chance.

  • Plus, you're implying that only Allah can write a contradiction free book.

    Here's a test: Go read Harry Potter (seriously). I read the whole series. There are no contradictions in the whole series, which has more pages than the Quran.

    No contradictions in Lord of the Rings either.

    Both Harry Potter & LoTR are written by humans.

  • Contradiction is a natural result of human nature and this is why 'Harry Potter' was written in notes first...these books take years to produce, even the printing machines make mistakes LOL

    No but seriously...

  • The Quran has been kept intact for over 1400 years and has been memorized from day one...Not a single contradiction, not a single inconsistency or discrepancy in its revelation. The revelation was memorized immediately and as an oral society the preservation couldn't have been better. The prophet kept on going over verse and they were written down just for safe measures...The Quran lists events, theology which can be criticaly observed

  • Sorry, but you're completely unconvincing.

    I'm actually pretty much absolutely unfamiliar with the quran, so I can't really argue it.

    But if it has the same creation story as the bible, of course that whole thing was nonsense.

  • Muslims and non Muslims alike acclaim that best Arabic literature available on the face of the earth is the Glorious Quran. Its language is rich, noble and eloquent. A t the time of the Prophet (pbuh) when the pagans alleged that Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) had committed forgery and thus produced the Quran, the Qur'an immediately challenged them and offered them a falsification test.

  • "best arabic literature" is in no way testable.

    That is completely a matter of opinion.

    You can't measure "best" or "worst". You can measure kilograms, or volts, or degrees, or meters.

    You can't measure poetry.

  • I will give you some more...

    Youc an check the website as well -IRF-

  • There are also snow tigers and snow leopards, so actually you're probably wrong, the lion could quite possibly be fine in the arctic.

  • Intelligent Design (ID) theory makes a claim that certain features exist in the universe that is BEST explained by an intelligent cause (i.e. a cause with a goal or purpose). I believe the bacterial flagellum is one 'irreducibly complex' example in that it can't not be disassembled or gradually mutated and then sorted by Natural selection. The bacterial flagellum has approximately 40 finely matched protein parts that must all be in place for the bacterial flagellum (motor) to work.

  • ID is NOT a theory. Look up the definition of a scientific theory. ID is at best a poorly thought out hypothesis, which is completely untestable (hence, not a theory).

    The bacterial flagellum argument has already been completely destroyed, because it has been shown not only in simpler form, but the components of it have been shown to be used for other functions.

    Do some research please.

  • And if you're going to attempt to answer my question "why do you say that transitional stages in a cell's mechanical structure are impossible" please give me mathematical, chemical or physical reasons why this is impossible.

    Don't just say "I don't see how it could happen, so it's impossible"

  • Behes argument on the "bacterial flagellum" was completely destroyed by Ken Miller in a Dover courtroom where Behe was a witness.

    Miller showed every single intermediate step from Type 3 secretory system to a full "bacterial flagellum". Each step was functional.

    Behe had no response to Millers deconstruction and admitted, under oath, that for Intelligent Design to be accepted as science, the definition of science has to be liberal enough that astrology would also qualify.

  • Lol. In scientific community, Behe is merely a clown.

    And how can he "be right" when he's not making any argument. "This is too complex so God did it" is non-argument. Scientific value is total zero. And Behe has he's own religious agenda and lack scientific credibility.

    Sorry, you have to get yourself a new poster boy.

  • No he said it must have been desined

  • Actually, what ID folks say is "this is too complex to have come about merely by means of darwinian evolution"

    Which could be fine postulate by itself but they fail to give any other explanation. They just credit it to "intelligent desinger" from which they have no evidence whatsoever. So in it current state, ID is totally worthless. They should start to do some work for a change.

  • Yep that is ALSO true...Mere selection can not explain the complexity of this earth. Even a cell is ubber complex.

    This is the handy work of a creator, a magnificent, all mighty inventor.

  • Why can't natural selection explain the complexity of this earth?

    What you're saying is the equivalent of saying "Sure, I can walk from my bedroom to the kitchen, but it's ridiculous to think that I could walk to the store! Preposterous. Someone must always drive you there"

  • natrual selection does not explain micro level...simple mate.

    Science has gaps...God is the Will power.

  • I'm sorry, but you're going to have to be clearer.

    What do you mean by "natural selection does not explain micro level". Micro level of what? Do you even understand ANYTHING about evolution and natural selection?

    There are gaps in our knowledge, but guess what? We're narrowing and closing those gaps every day.

    The bible, on the other hand, is packed with gaps and contradictions.

  • No1: I am a Muslim; therefore I take authority from the Quran. However the Bible is historically man originated.

    No2: Micro level design and competent consciousness can not be explained by Natural selection. Designs of such masterpiece can not function through a period of transitional stages; they must be whole at all times.

    No3: Scientists need to look outside the box...make new theories, don't always stick to Darwin.

  • I'm sure there are plenty of gaps and contradictions in the quran too.

    Prove to me that "micro level design" and "competent consciousness" cannot be explained by natural selection. Show me some experiment that proves natural selection insufficient.

    Scientists are always looking around. Thats why old, unworkable theories get discarded. The fact that Darwinian Evolution has survived for over 150 years is because it's the truth.

  • No1: PLEASE point out a contradiction in the Quran. I beg you...

    No2: You are looking for a falsification test

    The Quran offers a falsification test which if indeed written by man defies human nature:

    "Do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from (any) other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction."

  • Go to skepticsannotatedbible(dot)com and click on the Quran link at the top. The on the right, click on Contradictions. There are tons.

    What falsification test is there in the quran? In other words, and experiment I can perform that will show the quran true or false.

  • the falsication test is "produce a chapter like it", the parameters are the language restrictions of arabic, and the testifiers or judges are arab grammarists and the academic community of arabic literature, not no retard, looking throu a translation and making up shit to put his dumbass american website.

  • Sorry -- can you try that again, but in english this time?

    I have no idea what you were trying to say.

  • dumbass reply from a dumbass, maybe you are just dumb

  • Beacue you dont understadn english? Seriously how old are you?

  • I'm serious. I don't understand what that comment is trying to say.

  • "This is the handy work of a creator, a magnificent, all mighty inventor"

    But you can't present any evidence of that magnificient being. Like who/what it is or when did all the creating happened.

    It's totally pointless to replace a gap in knowledge with God. Because your God will only diminish. People used to think lightning was God's wrath. Now we have natural explanation.

    ID is totally pointless and anti-science so look for something rational if you really want to look for intelligence.

  • Great video.

    Michael Behe is awesome, which is why the Darwinists hate him so damn much. Deep down inside they know he's right, and it really tears them up.

  • Behe is the left outside trying to argue against reality. Maybe 200 years ago he would have a chance.

    His ignorance about genetics used to be a valid argument in the debate.

    But todays science development is leaving him behind in an ever increasing speed.

    With every discovery we move away from astrology, shamanism, faith, etc.

  • Behe is discredited in the scientific community because he won't put his money where his mouth is and actually perform the falsification experiments on his own hypothesis. He admitted this.

    FYI - Darwin is outdated. Like Newton before him we've moved beyond their understanding and progressed to new heights. We respect their contributions and they gave us a good starting point, but we know far more than they ever did, but they saw it first and for the most part, they were right.

  • "Michael Behe is awesome, which is why the Darwinists hate him so damn much. Deep down inside they know he's right, and it really tears them up."

    This would certianly explain why Behe got ripped a new asshole in the Dover trial...

    Idiot

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more