@thejewishagnostic First off, you are making a faulty appeal to authority/majority. The majority has been wrong before. Secondly, those "scientific" organizations have been shown to be lying. Reusing their statements after you've been informed of their lies means that you are lying as well. Thirdly, these organizations will support evolution no matter where the evidence leads. I have no intention of talking to a liar.
(1) The paper is peer reviewed. Censorship demanded that it be retracted and scripted a trial to ensure it's retraction (violation of Freedom of Press in 1st Amendment).
(2) The paper does talk about ID (even endorsing it) and DOES NOT attack any of the evolutionary theories. It simply uses facts to conclude that Intelligent Design is the most plausible explanation.
(3) Many scientists in the scientific community accept ID over evolution.
I love the idea of trying to get creationism peer reviewed. I'd like to submit my hypothesis on how leprechauns run the world.... lol. It's too stupid to take seriously.
Such a bizarre video. To cut off the important part and to selectively only show this small segment, means you must *know* you're wrong. There must have been a point before you posted this video where you intentionally decided not to post the part that discredits your point.
Evolutionism's corporator Eugenia Scott is a lady in the same vein that the public facility with toilets for women sports the plastic placard: LADIES.
@MrJaredJammer It would be something else if the "evolution skeptics" had any actual evidence for their insane ramblings, as opposed to a presupposition that Darwinian natural selection must be wrong because certain bronze age myths say otherwise and endless ramblings about profoundly unscientific concepts like "irreducible complexity". As it is, they're just intellectual vandals that are rightly kept away from positions where they get government funding, much like flat earthers are.
@MrJaredJammer A person who simply denies algebra might conceivable be right, against all odds, but people hire mathematicians for their skills at practicing established mathematics.(For example teaching, or doing further research) Very few institutions are interested in paying the salary of a clown who is set on disproving the core explanatory mechanisms in a given field. If that's intolerance, it's intolerance for incompetence and useless activities.
@MrJaredJammer "...and spreading intolerance and institutionalized discrimination against evolution skeptics."
The theory of evolution is the current foundation of modern biology as well as various related fields. You simply can not do your job as a biologist if you fail to understand how natural selection works. People are free to be "evolution skeptics" in the same way that they are free to be "mathematical skeptics" but it comes with the price of being incompetent to fill certain positions.
You're the only anti-science intolerant and religiously fundamental person in this conversation. The science is very clear, if you want to ignore it that's your business. But, don't try and pass it off as the truth.
Meyer's article was peer reviewed/published by Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. An independent government investigation found the Journal guilty of misconduct for against Sternberg. Check his website and read the relevant emails for information. Meyer's article is only "unscientific" and badly written because you disagree with its content and conclusion; further, by saying so, you're discrediting the peer review process as a while, thus making the process irrelevant
@ChristianMission Sorry: wrong. Read "Creationism Slips Into a Peer-Reviewed Journal"where you will find this:
"A pair of creationists...attempted to publish some creationist assertions in a peer-reviewed journal. Their effort was nearly successful, mostly because they hid their pseudoscience in the middle of the article, surrounded by legitimate scientific discussion of unrelated topics...they were caught just in time, and it turned out that they were pretty clumsy."
Meyer's article was a literature review article, and contained no new primary scholarship itself on the topic of intelligent design. Sternberg went outside the editorial process to get it into the journal. All you religious fundamentalists are free to practice your religion in your home, and in your church. Quit trying to push your fundamentalism on the rest of society.
@ChristianMission Having passed peer review gives you more credibility than not, but if someone dissects your article and find it doesn't hold up to any kind of scientific standard for quality work. Guess what. That reflects badly on the reviewers in addition to the clown being debunked and it could cause the reviewers to get removed from their positions as well. The scientific process reacts to errors by dealing honestly with them, not by declaring humanity's best effort to be useless.
Again. The content of the paper is rubbish and bad science. That was not what was under review. Just because the journal is guilty of discrimination does not change the fact that he published a bad paper and is thus incompetent or guilty of misconduct.
Hi ID proponents and creationists, STOP QUOTE MINING!!!
You know that is quote mining is a form of dishonesty, don't you?
Funny, you of all people who believe there is a good should fear him and act honestly 24 7. So how come you don't? Maybe deep inside you know that he doesn't exist but just haven't gotten to the point of being ready to deal with it so your fooling yourselves.
Creationists should go to jail for something anti social behavior. They know they're lying and they're using the ignorant people to push their agenda and they keep people ignorant. They should be imprisoned. I don't care about free speech in this case, they harm society and that is not ok
That headline is soo misleading. "PARENTS ARGUING THAT INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY IS ROOTED IN RELIGION". 1) It isn't parents arguing, it is scientists, it is Eugenie Scott. 2) It isn't a theory, not even close. It's not even a hypothesis because I.D. isn't testable.
Given that you accept the accuracy of the papers you've mentioned, it would seem that the burden of proof is on you. Don't condescend when someone doesn't know the details of a paper you happened to have read. I would wager that if someone did that to you where research in evolutionary biology is concerned, you wouldn't fare very well. I asked you some questions out of interest in the research you referenced. Again, perhaps you will answer them for me.
We're back to life origins, which I said was so speculative as to be nearly impossible to verify with much confidence. But, as far as the probabilities you mention go, we have two scenarios: instantaneous creation, which permits one trial (unless the creator was prone to error) in a very minute period of time, and abiogenesis, which likely involved countless trials over billions of years. You tell me which of those two scenarios would be more likely.
@charadester Walter Bradley, Ph.D. materials science, and Charles Thaxton, Ph.D. chemistry,5 calculated that the probability of amino acids forming into a protein is 4.9 x 10-191. This is well beyond the laws of probability (1x10-50). So, mathmatically, your answer is designer as well. More than one mathmatician has changed their view when attempting this calculation.
@gcnengineer What were their assumptions? What is the smallest functional protein? Were there functional polypeptides with lower molecular weights than this first molecule? Is this the Walter Bailey of Baylor? Ever thought he might have a religious motive behind his claims? Who has refuted them and what is your take on their work? These questions are the stuff of good science, not wholesale acceptance of anything that supports a particular view.
@charadester That's why I gave you their names, so you can look these things up. I'm not going to be your research assist, however I will tell you about things you apparently are not aware of. Walter Bailey of Baylor? Is that question meant to say that his math is wrong because the University has historic ties to a religious organization?
@charadester And let's not forget about Sir Frederick Hoyle probably the best known and oldest attempt. He came up with 1 in 10x40,000 in the 70's. Probably another one you'll have to look up. Strange, you have never heard of these? You brought this up, what calculations are you familiar with?
"This is well beyond the laws of probability (1x10-50). So, mathmatically, your answer is designer as well."
Dude!
You seem to not really grasp the concepts of unlimited and eternity.
Something lifted in the 50th potens is a limit of nothing.
Do you know that, mathematically, you can describe something lifted in the n'th degree? - that n is not limited by 50 or any other number you may think is big.
Big is not a factor.
And to jump from 50 to designer is pure ignorance, sry dude
Peer reviewed by who? The article that was written was not peer reviewed. The process was hijacked by the editor in question, who published it WITHOUT peer review. He subsequently lost his post for his lack of professionalism in this and other areas. I'm pretty sure it's the same guy featured in the Visine/Ferris Bueller guy's piece of ID entertainment.
you got it right - an Intelligent Design proponent got himself into the position to get an ID article printed that would never have been printed there if he'd followed the rules - this is the sort of phony-baloney dishonest ploy the ID folks will stoop to, since they can't win an honest debate, simply because ID is religion disguised as science and EVERYBODY knows it - oddly, having been exposed as frauds hasn't stopped them - shows you what kind of people they are
There are what ...tens of thousands of peer reviewed articles documenting evolution? And he's got his token article on ID. Hmmm... intelligent design = religion wishing it could be science.
There is no ID paper that has gone through peer review to date. If one does, as has happened with all the reviews and popular articles, it would fail the process due to lack of concrete data.
@gcnengineer The published information that ID proponents claim supports their 'theory' doesn't directly mention ID. The material is found in books or peer-reviewed papers that deal with information theory and other peripheral topics. The claims are NEVER submitted to explain biological origins, but the materials are parlayed as such. This sidestepping tactic fools the public, but not mainstream researchers and reviewers. This is why the integrity of the ID community becomes suspect.
@gcnengineer The ID position isn't related to science. It has to do with ideology and power. ID proponents say that the scientific community wants that power in their hands. Evolution advocates assert that the ID community desires the same thing. The difference is data. No data, no science. Evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. The data supporting that is overwhelmingly abundant and compelling. ID attempts to refute it, but ID has no data.
@charadester Newton had a theory of gravity. No explanation. Was that science?
ID is classified as historical science. Even Abiogenesis cannot ever tell you with certainty how life formed with certainty. Heck, at this point it can't even tell you it did at all.
@gcnengineer I understand your point. While we don't know how it applies in the most minute of scales or if it applies at all in situations beyond what we can observe or measure, gravity is extremely predictive and verifiable. ID has no data with which to predict anything. It makes assertions, the first phase of scientific inquiry, but then there isn't anything to observe or measure. Thus, nothing can be tested. That's frustrating, but the scientific method requires more than that.
@charadester Here one prediction that ID makes. If there were a designer behind DNA you would expect less "junk" DNA to be found than has been claimed by Darwinism. Scientist began to look closer at this "junk" DNA and found that infact it is not junk at all, but instead has funtionalbilty. As for measurable, I don't think you would tell me that intelligence cannot be measured. There any other concerns about the qualifications of ID as a scientific theory?
@gcnengineer You're correct, but the portions for which a function has been determined is still a small portion of the human genome. There are scores of regions that function in ancestral species but no do so in their descendants. Why is it there? This is clear evidence of evolutionary change. It is historically sound science, and it is highly predictive of future evolution. Regarding intelligence..yes, we can measure it in humans., but who's our subject when it comes to a Creator?
@charadester I have no problem with evolution. Evolution is what happens after you have life. ID is the theory that comes before evolution can occur.
As for the other point. You test the same way you test any mind, the test the product of the mind. If I take a math test you are not testing all of me, you are testing a very specific product of my mind. If I gave radom answers it would be evident.
@gcnengineer Some think that life's origins and life's evolution after the fact are two distinctly different issues. But, the hypothesis is that the probability of a random origin for our biological system improves with increased time. While many will somewhat justifiably balk at that, I'm simply pointing out that with enough time for all possible outcomes to emerge, abiogenesis becomes increasingly plausible. I am bracing myself for your response.
@gcnengineer The probability of abiogenesis is actually actually greater than one of instantaneous creation. The evidence showing the appearance of increasingly complex forms over hundreds of millions of years is inconsistent with a sudden creation. There is massive evidence from the rock record and from molecular clock studies. Both reveal the gradual emergence of more advanced life forms from earlier ones over vast amounts periods of geologic time.
@charadester Couple of things, first you say "probability". To invoke probability mathmatics you need to know two things. Amount of time and number of attempts. Since no one knows how life began, you certainly cannot say how often the attempt was made. So "probability" is not a factor in life origins in that sense. There is why in ID we look at information. Deal with the first issue and we'll move on. (500 words or less remember).
I hope you're joking. Abiogenesis does not mean things started to gradually form. It means life began to work based on a system of chemical contributions over long periods of time.
Why is creation possible while abiogenesis is not?
Your dishonesty is only further evidence against Intelligent Design, CheckmateID. You are a morally bankrupt person with no character, for trying to lie to people like this.
There are no peer-review articles of ID. Please stop lying to the audience by posting this. This is the reason weak minded people feel there is some sort of debate over ID and evolution.
@TheThomaswastaken "Her response was, '...but Stephen, there was nothing about I.D. in your paper. Your paper was an attack on evolution...'" His responce to this was "Yes there was about ID. Dont tell me what I wrote about in my paper!"
The person who posted this, clearly clipped it to make their point, it's so funny how it clearly shows they are not giving the full context and thus have something to hide :)
I wrote a funny, dirty and controversial graffiti on the wall of a public toilet. It was celebrated by many and corrected by others, and it's still there, accepted and improved AND improving. Am I a peer reviewed author now?
Where can I view the full length of this video? Eugenie Scott is the head of a Gestapo organization whose whole purpose is to squash free speech and religion.
lol, this is a quote mine. That is why it the clip is only 22 seconds long. Give a full 3 minute clip and you would see those guys getting pwned.
Also, if this is the article I am thinking of, the editor snuck it in through the backdoor while he was unqualified to review it, and in direct violation of having at minimum two editors review the paper. The guy was featured in expelled.
Just a bit of info about you're comment. Not many people are aware of this but the Biological Society of Washington's (the journal the article was submitted into)own president admitted that there was no wrong doing in Sternbergs review process.
"Not many people are aware of this but the Biological Society of Washington's (the journal the article was submitted into)own president admitted that there was no wrong doing in Sternbergs review process."
certainly, the only reason I didn't put it here is because you can't post links on youtube. For everyone who wants this source (and judging by some of these comments many people should see it) go to the DI's website (or on google) and search for "Casey Luskins response to Michael Shermers Fact Free Attack on Expelled."
"search for 'Casey Luskins response to Michael Shermers Fact Free Attack on Expelled.'"
I'm sorry, but a biased article by a special interest that can do no better than a partisan report filed by an individual with vocal sympathy for the design movement is rather weak tea.
Perhaps if you read more than just the material published by advocacy groups, you might have a more balanced understanding of the issue.
I'm sorry, but a biased article by a special "interest that can do no better than a partisan report filed by an individual with vocal sympathy for the design movement is rather weak tea." Judging by your statement it sounds like you didnt even read the article since it does a lot more than just giving vocal sympathy. Actually it gives some rebuttals to the lies on expelled exposed.
"Actually it gives some rebuttals to the lies on expelled exposed. "
It makes a counter accusation based on a paper filed by the office of a politician that receives contributions from DI and has advocated for them... I not only read your article, but checked all of its sources, read those, checked up on THEIR affiliations and so on... I'm relatively sure I did quite a bit more work than you did in this case, thanks.
"I'm relatively sure I did quite a bit more work than you did in this case, thanks." I have to disagree with you there, I've actually written over a 16 page thesis on some of these cases such as sternbergs. It's true Souder supports ID. If you read my article that you have claimed to, then you would also see that in Shermers attack on expelled (which claims to be objective) nearly all of his information came from the NCSE which is not exactly objective to say the least.
And receives serious donations from the DI. Lets not forget that.
So I shoot down one of your weak sources and you launch another one... this time regarding the critique of a pseudo-documentary.
I'm sorry, but My issue was with your claim that Meyer's paper counts as peer review, and you seem to have a problem backing that claim. If you want to sink to the level of the entertainment industry, feel free, I don't care.
"So I shoot down one of your weak sources and you launch another one." You haven't shot down anything. The bottom line is an official in congress published a statement CONTAINING BOTH STATEMENTS FROM EVOLUTIONISTS AND IDERS that said sternberg did nothing wrong. The statement from the BSW's own president saying sternberg did nothing wrong is from an email that's quoted in the document. the BSW's own president said he did nothing wrong, then whats the problem
"CONTAINING BOTH STATEMENTS FROM EVOLUTIONISTS AND IDERS"
...that are quoted in a highly suspicious manner. I have yet to be able to find a source for the index, but two other sources I found both make the statement that these emails are basically being quote mined, a tactic IDers are (in)famous for.
And the document is specifically NOT official. That you keep saying it is suggests that you do not know what you are talking about, or are lying.
"but two other sources I found both make the statement that these emails are basically being quote mined." Since you ignored this in your last two comments I'll mention it again, the president said in an email that there was nothing wrong with the review process. That's a pretty direct statement so I don't see how that could be taken out of context. When you say the document is not official, the bottom line is the staff of Souder (a congressman) published a document stating what they found
please give me some examples of the statements that are quoted in a suspicious manner and in addition to that please tell me these sources you found. You asked me to site my sources and if you're not using the NCSE to back any of your points please tell me what sources you are using as I would like to study them myself.
"the Sounders report that states how Sternberg was indeed harassed and faced with intolerance."
You mean the partisan receiver of gifts from DI that I already mentioned..? as I said, weak tea when your best source is an unofficial, unrecognized paper written by some office jockey that works for your best paid friend in congress.
"some office jockey that works for your best paid friend in congress." So who am I going to believe a report that comes from congress that actually contains emails and statements from people such as Eugenie Scott, so it's not just one side being heard or should I believe a special interest group like the NCSE? Obviously both groups (DI, NCSE) are promoting their own views but that congressional level report contains information from both sides including the statement about Sternbergs article
"So who am I going to believe a report that comes from congress..."
Did you not read what I just wrote. That report was a pat on the head to the DI... it carried NO weight in congress, was not official in any serious way. It was an opinion from a friend that just happens to have some very impressive stationary so they could use it to give the APPEARANCE of an official source.
"if you want to sink to the level of the entertainment industry, feel free" The documentary explains what really happened to Sternberg and that's why I mentioned it. In addition to that, the NCSE is the organization that claims Sternberg violated the peer review process. You claimed my source was not objective and yet the NCSE is anything but objective. They are the ones incharge of expelled exposed which trys to slander sternberg
"The documentary explains what really happened to Sternberg..."
That mockery of documentary film is a hack job that openly manipulated interview, hid facts, sculpted evidence and took a heavy handed approach to ramming one side of a controversy down your throat. You might as well try to convince me that Micheal Moore is a paragon of honesty and even handedness.
I haven't used anything from the NCSE to defend a point. Their bias is irrelevant so far. Why bring them up? Needing a distraction?
"That mockery of documentary film is a hack job that openly manipulated interview, hid facts, sculpted evidence and took a heavy handed approach to ramming one side of a controversy down your throat." please give me some examples of what expelled did that was dishonest. You said you're not using the NCSE/expelled exposed which seems to be its leading critics so please tell me where you're getting this from all expelled did was show a controversy that truly exists.
actually peer review is all about discrediting and criticising the article.... Thats why we have peer review to make sure the science is flawless to the best of our knowledge.
Funny thing is even christian creationist videos wont allow ratings or unedited comments!
It would be interesting to hear Eugenie Scott's answer. That got cut off I assume becasue she had a good comeback. If she didn't have a good comeback/answer, you would left it on here, that much we know.
How did the pioneers of Quantum Mechanic physicists proofed their revolutionary idea about QM?They proofed it in full scale science,in lab,answering all questions raised and show all evidences.Math equations were derived n the results were used to construct rules that can predict chemical n physical process n properties.How have Darwinists answer their skeptics?Instead of arguing base on the statistical factors(which is their origin of reasoning),they dodged all reasoning and attacked religion.
The funny thing is, a majority of the scientists that are supposedly pointing things out as frauds actually BELIEVE in this "Big invisible sky daddy" that you speak of.
I think that no matter how many "fake" peer reviews there are it just supports what the Bible says, that God sends delusions to those who are ignorant of him, even if these delusions include evidence "disproving" God.
He pretended it was peer reviewed. All the attempts of creationist articles are ripped to pieces because they are so wrong. Meyers pretended the article was properly peer reviewed when it was not. Thats acedemic fraud, thats why he was sacked and rightly so.
For the chance of life to form n evolve, numerous physical constants like k in the eqns of electromagnetic and gravitational interaction have to be exactly as they r.The fact that the net electromagnetic force of our planet is zero(so that our solar system won't collapse),the distances of the sun,earth n moon,the proper amount of light from the sun to the earth- list goes on n on....without all this factors to super coincidentally work together, even a life was form,it wouldn't have lasted long.
actually, he submitted a paper that DIDNT GET PEER REVIEWED, and a friend of his WHO WASNT THE EDITOR put it through and got it published. The publication was pissed, and got rid of the clown that snuck in through, and exposed myer as a douchebag and a liar.
Too bad ID has never gotten anything published in a peer reviewed journal that actually has any relation to the evolutionary concepts. Discovery Institute's own "peer reviewed" is clearly biased because of the bias of the organization. Eugene Scott wasn't lying, she was talking about proper peer-reviewed SCIENTIFIC journals.
You talk the talk but can you people ACTUALLY publish any PROPER papers in any PROPER SCIENTIFIC journals?
she flat out did no such thing and if you had a shred if integrity you'd agree.
myers essay was published FALSELY as original research becasue a corrupt pal BYPASSED the perr review process to get it in. he was severely rebuked and rightly so.
the lair as you and your invisible pal jeeebus know perfectly well is that ill mannered prick stephen myers. what he lacks in professional integrity he also lacks in common decency. his antics in this interview were a disgrace.
"myers essay was published FALSELY as original research becasue a corrupt pal BYPASSED the perr review process to get it in. he was severely rebuked and rightly so."
Was it really?
And what little birdie told you that?
The money-grabbing media? Or the biased and misinformed atheist?
And all of a sudden what you say or read actually counts as fact?
The money-grabbing media? Or the biased and misinformed atheist?
grow up ffs. the information is freely available. meyer is referring to his wee essay on ID and he is simply LYING the article was published and then RETRACTED by proc bio soc Washington because it- READ THIS SLOWLY- was not peer reviewed
your infantile babble about atheism is embarrasing
Something you might want to know if u dont already. The BSW's president (the journal the article was submitted into after it was peer reviewed) stated that Sternberg did nothing wrong in the review process. So if he really did do something wrong the journals own president couldn't find it.
.... it didnt matter what the topic was. It could have been the effects of the effects of external proteins affecting reception cites in the brain, or genetic frequencies in gene crossing, the effect would have been identical. When you cheat, you get in trouble, especially when you put the credibility of others (let alone your boss) at stake.
Dont know where you are getting your info from. This is what really happened. The journal required that all articles be reviewed by AT LEAST 2 other editors, and recommended more if possible. Sternberg didnt do that, he took the article through the backdoor, and published it without any other review. He wasn't even qualified to review the paper let alone publish it, 3 of the editors were experts on the the Cambrian invertebrates in the article. The topic of ID is irrelevant....
cant actually believe you looked. the editor sterberg can be found bleating about persecution on stein's execrable little film. the truth can be found at th centre for science education website, expelled exposed, and many other places.
Meyers did not have the article peer-reviewed so much as he snuck it into the journal, not a single person review that article before it was put into the journal by Steinberg.
Dr. Meyer just smacked that bitch up. Wow! I can't believe Eugenics Scott would lie about something so easily refuted. She's usually a smarter liar than that.
No, it was rejected from the journal because he never had it reviewed by his peers before Steinberg approved it for the journal. He is a complete liar.
You have such a programed view of the Empire Science establishment. The 3 City States that govern this world ensure that money is only forthcoming for those 'peers' that will frame their 'truths' in a way that disempowers the individual at the expense of the state and corporations. Anyone who dares question the compulsory interpretation is purged, with rare exeption e.g. Dr. Francis Collins, Director, National Human Genome Research Institute.
"You have such a programed view of the Empire Science establishment."
Projection.
"The 3 City States that govern this world ensure that money is only forthcoming for those 'peers' that will frame their 'truths' in a way that disempowers the individual at the expense of the state and corporations."
Ah, yes. That old Evil Evolutionist Conspiracy card again. Of course, why didn't I see it earlier? I'm converted.
Your comments are full of anti-reason and anit-humanity. Why don't you do some pertinent research and join the human race instead of stroking your ego by using these fora as the toilet for your ignorance and hatred.
"Your comments are full of anti-reason and anit-humanity."
Projection.
"Why don't you do some pertinent research and join the human race instead of stroking your ego by using these fora as the toilet for your ignorance and hatred."
An unknown intelligent designer did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason? Is that the "scientific model" that Meyer is proposing? Meyer is a joke, a laughing stock of the scientific community.
I have no idea what Koolaid is first of all. We don't have it here. Secondly, American atheists understand the Bible is wrong, who wrote it, why it was written, who benefits from it and how it is used.
The vast majority of the scientific elite are atheists and that is a fact. It indicated clearly my point.
"The vast majority of the scientific elite are atheists and that is a fact. It indicated clearly my point."
There are many elitist in the American scientific community, but most of them choose to be atheist because of a philosophical world view rather than because of an honest assessment of the scientific evidence.
There are many surveys on the net showing that around 70% of scientists believe in God. The fact that you haven't researched what you say proves you are a liar and happy to believe lies that suit you. You are willingly ignorant, a drone brainwashed by collectivist state school.
There are many surveys that can be found that will demonstrate whatever you choose. If you trust a survery that says 70% of scientists believe in God then you should enquire about who conducted it. If you have a survey that says 70% of scientists believe in the Judea-Christian God and believe it then you are extremely misguided.
There are many surveys on the net showing that around 70% of scientists believe in God. The fact that you haven't researched what you say proves you are a liar and happy to believe lies that suit you. You are willingly ignorant, a drone brainwashed by collectivist state school.
If you are replying to me you are a bit mistaken. Yes, there are plenty scientists that have faith in God, and believe the Biblical account of creation. The scientific evidence is advancing and as more people understand science. physics, quantum physics, chemestry, and molecular biology, it is becoming greatly evident that the information and creativeness needed to construct such a detailed universe could not have happened according to the atheist world view. Atheism is a religion.
Natural Evolution is a religion because you have to believe in several religious dogma, at least:
1. The unprovable notion that there is no human soul. Contrary to utterly necessary physics, many NETs even deny the existence of any meta-physics.
2. The unproven notion that life arose naturalistically. The way that evos posit the Miller-Urey attempt as a proof for abiogenesis, rather than the strong evidence against it that it blatantly is, is one eg among legion of evo-religious fanaticism.
Miller-Urey is old news. There have been several experiments since this time, moron. You need to educate yourself on a subject before you try attacking it.
"evo-religious fanaticism. "
More projection. Really, if the only ting you fanatics have is to project your own fundamentalist closed minded fanaticism onto ordinary people then no one is going to take you crazies seriously.
Oops, I think the script goes fhut if I stay on the page, that was meant for FSAthe1st. I agree with your comment. There are so many known frauds that linger in the school books and beyond, so much evidence evos have to distort or ignore.
On the other hand, the doubters have helped to liberate science from the grip of oppressive religions and those that interpret even the New Testament in egotistical and oppressive ways e.g. George Bush and his 'Christian' adherents.
Did that last one get to you Craighill9? I do agree with you. I mean, good grief! Talk about ignoring blatant facts: apart from mountains ALL the continents are covered in deep sediments LAYED DOWN BY WATER, EVERYWHERE. Where are land-animals supposed to have survived while water layed down the sediments?
And ALL whole-skeleton fossils REQUIRE rapid burial i.e. flood, yet this is NEVER mentioned in science education nor popularization...
Actually even the mountains are covered ancient seashells and the fossils of ancient marine organisms. It is the atheist world view of people like Eugenie Scott that pollutes society with misinformation and bogus science based on a distorted world view. The people who espouse the atheist world view are guided by a philosophy. the evidence is greatly against them so they use gestapo tactics to force their ideas rather than allowing the evidence to speak for itself.
Craighill. Atheists use fascist tactics to get people to believe their theories. "If you disagree with us, you're an ignorant religious bastard." I've lost count how many times I have been insulted by that logic.
This sounds abusive to me. Assuming motivations on the part of people you don't even know. Why not address the idea rather than dismiss it by attacking the character of the people positing it?
Actually, I have discussed things with quite a few atheists. And I also discuss the idea and not the character, but if you look at any pro-evolution video on Youtube, Christians are outright slandered. Then look at any pro-christian video(It doesn't even have to do with creation) and it will probably have a 1-2 star rating. I wouldn't say that I'm outright attacking the character of atheists, I believe I'm just pointing out the tactics some use coerce people into their beliefs. Nothing personal
"Actually, I have discussed things with quite a few atheists. And I also discuss the idea and not the character, but if you look at any pro-evolution video on Youtube, Christians are outright slandered"
You're full of shit. I argue on most evolution videos, and my favorite biologist is Ken Miller, a Roman Catholic. You've discussed it with atheists?
You know Evolution =/= atheism, right?
"I've lost count how many times I have been insulted by that logic. "
Ok, not all pro-evolution videos are anti-christian, but the vast majority of anti-Christian videos use Evolution as an argument why Christianity is wrong. Just because your favorite Biologist is Catholic doesn't mean that the theory taught equally by religious and non-religious people. A majority of the ones on Youtube are militant atheists who result to personal attacks to get their point across.
Um right, and all women are nothing more than rib-bitch cunts that I as a man can freely, according to YOUR CHRISTIAN BIBLE, sell into slavery. By the way as I write this I am eating an oyster (a death-worthy sin according to the bible) and am wearing a polyester-cotton shirt (another hell-worthy sin). Fuck you, all you Christian whores. I would gladly nail you to the cunting crosses you love so much.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Not showing the complete video leaves out information. this is how evolutionists operate. they leave out information. They only want you to see part of the picture. this is why I can't trust them. If you are really honest and want to show truth, then show the whole picture. I'm sure there are other things being hidden by evolutionists. I'm sure they are hiding information that will totally debunk their theory. Tell the truth it might hurt but it will make things better for all.
"Actually there are thousands of articles that support ID,"
They are not peer reviewed and they contain plenty of teleological nonsense and logical fallacies. They wield the Anthropic Principle like a hammer.
"there are many more that debunk the 'myths' of talkorigins"
Only if you believe in nonsense. It's like that True.Origin article that accuses TO of deception by omission, when in reality they were guilty of deception by omission themselves.
Don't talk shit on my country, or your going to hear all about your piece of shit failings which are the reasons for you not occupying the top position.
@thejewishagnostic First off, you are making a faulty appeal to authority/majority. The majority has been wrong before. Secondly, those "scientific" organizations have been shown to be lying. Reusing their statements after you've been informed of their lies means that you are lying as well. Thirdly, these organizations will support evolution no matter where the evidence leads. I have no intention of talking to a liar.
TChapman500 1 month ago
@thejewishagnostic You are lying.
(1) The paper is peer reviewed. Censorship demanded that it be retracted and scripted a trial to ensure it's retraction (violation of Freedom of Press in 1st Amendment).
(2) The paper does talk about ID (even endorsing it) and DOES NOT attack any of the evolutionary theories. It simply uses facts to conclude that Intelligent Design is the most plausible explanation.
(3) Many scientists in the scientific community accept ID over evolution.
TChapman500 1 month ago
The article was peer-reviewed! This video [/watch?v=nnj_OtkUK3I] has a link to that article as well as other peer-reviewed article.
TChapman500 1 month ago
I love the idea of trying to get creationism peer reviewed. I'd like to submit my hypothesis on how leprechauns run the world.... lol. It's too stupid to take seriously.
skywize 1 month ago
Another liar for the lake of fire!
mikeeboy1000 2 months ago
Such a bizarre video. To cut off the important part and to selectively only show this small segment, means you must *know* you're wrong. There must have been a point before you posted this video where you intentionally decided not to post the part that discredits your point.
Sinnessa 4 months ago
Evolutionism's corporator Eugenia Scott is a lady in the same vein that the public facility with toilets for women sports the plastic placard: LADIES.
FinallyTheNight 6 months ago
@MrJaredJammer It would be something else if the "evolution skeptics" had any actual evidence for their insane ramblings, as opposed to a presupposition that Darwinian natural selection must be wrong because certain bronze age myths say otherwise and endless ramblings about profoundly unscientific concepts like "irreducible complexity". As it is, they're just intellectual vandals that are rightly kept away from positions where they get government funding, much like flat earthers are.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@MrJaredJammer A person who simply denies algebra might conceivable be right, against all odds, but people hire mathematicians for their skills at practicing established mathematics.(For example teaching, or doing further research) Very few institutions are interested in paying the salary of a clown who is set on disproving the core explanatory mechanisms in a given field. If that's intolerance, it's intolerance for incompetence and useless activities.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@MrJaredJammer "...and spreading intolerance and institutionalized discrimination against evolution skeptics."
The theory of evolution is the current foundation of modern biology as well as various related fields. You simply can not do your job as a biologist if you fail to understand how natural selection works. People are free to be "evolution skeptics" in the same way that they are free to be "mathematical skeptics" but it comes with the price of being incompetent to fill certain positions.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@MrJaredJammer
You're the only anti-science intolerant and religiously fundamental person in this conversation. The science is very clear, if you want to ignore it that's your business. But, don't try and pass it off as the truth.
vatoencabronado 10 months ago
Meyer's article was peer reviewed/published by Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. An independent government investigation found the Journal guilty of misconduct for against Sternberg. Check his website and read the relevant emails for information. Meyer's article is only "unscientific" and badly written because you disagree with its content and conclusion; further, by saying so, you're discrediting the peer review process as a while, thus making the process irrelevant
ChristianMission 1 year ago
@ChristianMission Sorry: wrong. Read "Creationism Slips Into a Peer-Reviewed Journal"where you will find this:
"A pair of creationists...attempted to publish some creationist assertions in a peer-reviewed journal. Their effort was nearly successful, mostly because they hid their pseudoscience in the middle of the article, surrounded by legitimate scientific discussion of unrelated topics...they were caught just in time, and it turned out that they were pretty clumsy."
PaulinaPaulino 10 months ago
@ChristianMission
Meyer's article was a literature review article, and contained no new primary scholarship itself on the topic of intelligent design. Sternberg went outside the editorial process to get it into the journal. All you religious fundamentalists are free to practice your religion in your home, and in your church. Quit trying to push your fundamentalism on the rest of society.
vatoencabronado 10 months ago
@ChristianMission "Meyer's article is only "unscientific" and badly written because you disagree with its content and conclusion"
You seem to think that there are no criteria by which one could dismiss articles as unscientific. Which is simply amusing
"urther, by saying so, you're discrediting the peer review process as a while, thus making the process irrelevant"
Peer review is *a* safeguard that weeds out a lot of idiocy. It is not a perfect mechanism though and everyone knows it.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@ChristianMission Having passed peer review gives you more credibility than not, but if someone dissects your article and find it doesn't hold up to any kind of scientific standard for quality work. Guess what. That reflects badly on the reviewers in addition to the clown being debunked and it could cause the reviewers to get removed from their positions as well. The scientific process reacts to errors by dealing honestly with them, not by declaring humanity's best effort to be useless.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
Again. The content of the paper is rubbish and bad science. That was not what was under review. Just because the journal is guilty of discrimination does not change the fact that he published a bad paper and is thus incompetent or guilty of misconduct.
kelarael 1 year ago
Hi ID proponents and creationists, STOP QUOTE MINING!!!
You know that is quote mining is a form of dishonesty, don't you?
Funny, you of all people who believe there is a good should fear him and act honestly 24 7. So how come you don't? Maybe deep inside you know that he doesn't exist but just haven't gotten to the point of being ready to deal with it so your fooling yourselves.
fassstar 1 year ago
Cut off at the right spot, so we couldn't hear eugenie scott's reply. You creatards are so disingenuous...
CashierHua 1 year ago
@CashierHua And the Meyers reply to her reply!!
jpkfox 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Creation Faith Psychosis=incarcerated Hovindic Logorrhoea
Intelligent Design Brain Infection = LuskinMeyeritis!
kleenex3000 1 year ago
Creationist article gets peer reviewed during the peer review process and they get mad that it was peer reviewed?
verzen 1 year ago
Checkmate - Nice Cherry-picking!
MethodicalMadness 1 year ago
Stpehn Meyer is a liar and a fraud and deserves all the ridicule we can heap on him. And any one who believes his religious ideological tripe.
johnycannuk 1 year ago 4
See the PBS special on NOVA | Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
The government has ruled against ID.
pchtermino 1 year ago 4
Creationists should go to jail for something anti social behavior. They know they're lying and they're using the ignorant people to push their agenda and they keep people ignorant. They should be imprisoned. I don't care about free speech in this case, they harm society and that is not ok
FockerTheLopper 1 year ago
love how you cut off her response, typical lying creationist piece of shit.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
That headline is soo misleading. "PARENTS ARGUING THAT INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY IS ROOTED IN RELIGION". 1) It isn't parents arguing, it is scientists, it is Eugenie Scott. 2) It isn't a theory, not even close. It's not even a hypothesis because I.D. isn't testable.
TheThomaswastaken 1 year ago
I can't bellieve[sic] I misspelled a word in my most liked comment.
TheThomaswastaken 1 year ago
Why didn't you let the whole video play you dishonest charlatan?
freethinker923 1 year ago
Given that you accept the accuracy of the papers you've mentioned, it would seem that the burden of proof is on you. Don't condescend when someone doesn't know the details of a paper you happened to have read. I would wager that if someone did that to you where research in evolutionary biology is concerned, you wouldn't fare very well. I asked you some questions out of interest in the research you referenced. Again, perhaps you will answer them for me.
charadester 1 year ago
We're back to life origins, which I said was so speculative as to be nearly impossible to verify with much confidence. But, as far as the probabilities you mention go, we have two scenarios: instantaneous creation, which permits one trial (unless the creator was prone to error) in a very minute period of time, and abiogenesis, which likely involved countless trials over billions of years. You tell me which of those two scenarios would be more likely.
charadester 1 year ago
@charadester Walter Bradley, Ph.D. materials science, and Charles Thaxton, Ph.D. chemistry,5 calculated that the probability of amino acids forming into a protein is 4.9 x 10-191. This is well beyond the laws of probability (1x10-50). So, mathmatically, your answer is designer as well. More than one mathmatician has changed their view when attempting this calculation.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer What were their assumptions? What is the smallest functional protein? Were there functional polypeptides with lower molecular weights than this first molecule? Is this the Walter Bailey of Baylor? Ever thought he might have a religious motive behind his claims? Who has refuted them and what is your take on their work? These questions are the stuff of good science, not wholesale acceptance of anything that supports a particular view.
charadester 1 year ago
@charadester That's why I gave you their names, so you can look these things up. I'm not going to be your research assist, however I will tell you about things you apparently are not aware of. Walter Bailey of Baylor? Is that question meant to say that his math is wrong because the University has historic ties to a religious organization?
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@charadester And let's not forget about Sir Frederick Hoyle probably the best known and oldest attempt. He came up with 1 in 10x40,000 in the 70's. Probably another one you'll have to look up. Strange, you have never heard of these? You brought this up, what calculations are you familiar with?
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
"This is well beyond the laws of probability (1x10-50). So, mathmatically, your answer is designer as well."
Dude!
You seem to not really grasp the concepts of unlimited and eternity.
Something lifted in the 50th potens is a limit of nothing.
Do you know that, mathematically, you can describe something lifted in the n'th degree? - that n is not limited by 50 or any other number you may think is big.
Big is not a factor.
And to jump from 50 to designer is pure ignorance, sry dude
tdjdk 1 year ago
@tdjdk Dude, you seem to have issues understanding what you read.Try again if you like.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheist choose their beliefs according to their desires. Truth is NOT their goal.
MARK1212WHY 1 year ago
Peer reviewed by who? The article that was written was not peer reviewed. The process was hijacked by the editor in question, who published it WITHOUT peer review. He subsequently lost his post for his lack of professionalism in this and other areas. I'm pretty sure it's the same guy featured in the Visine/Ferris Bueller guy's piece of ID entertainment.
vatoencabronado 2 years ago 27
you got it right - an Intelligent Design proponent got himself into the position to get an ID article printed that would never have been printed there if he'd followed the rules - this is the sort of phony-baloney dishonest ploy the ID folks will stoop to, since they can't win an honest debate, simply because ID is religion disguised as science and EVERYBODY knows it - oddly, having been exposed as frauds hasn't stopped them - shows you what kind of people they are
davis80smusic 1 year ago
lol you are a damn fool. you forgot to add the bit where he gets discredited.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago 3
There are what ...tens of thousands of peer reviewed articles documenting evolution? And he's got his token article on ID. Hmmm... intelligent design = religion wishing it could be science.
rddaos 2 years ago 3
There is no ID paper that has gone through peer review to date. If one does, as has happened with all the reviews and popular articles, it would fail the process due to lack of concrete data.
charadester 2 years ago 2
@charadester Oh brother.....just google "peer reviewed ID papers" and you'll find quite a few. (where do you people come up with this stuff?)
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer The published information that ID proponents claim supports their 'theory' doesn't directly mention ID. The material is found in books or peer-reviewed papers that deal with information theory and other peripheral topics. The claims are NEVER submitted to explain biological origins, but the materials are parlayed as such. This sidestepping tactic fools the public, but not mainstream researchers and reviewers. This is why the integrity of the ID community becomes suspect.
charadester 1 year ago
@gcnengineer The ID position isn't related to science. It has to do with ideology and power. ID proponents say that the scientific community wants that power in their hands. Evolution advocates assert that the ID community desires the same thing. The difference is data. No data, no science. Evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. The data supporting that is overwhelmingly abundant and compelling. ID attempts to refute it, but ID has no data.
charadester 1 year ago
@charadester Newton had a theory of gravity. No explanation. Was that science?
ID is classified as historical science. Even Abiogenesis cannot ever tell you with certainty how life formed with certainty. Heck, at this point it can't even tell you it did at all.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer I understand your point. While we don't know how it applies in the most minute of scales or if it applies at all in situations beyond what we can observe or measure, gravity is extremely predictive and verifiable. ID has no data with which to predict anything. It makes assertions, the first phase of scientific inquiry, but then there isn't anything to observe or measure. Thus, nothing can be tested. That's frustrating, but the scientific method requires more than that.
charadester 1 year ago
@charadester Here one prediction that ID makes. If there were a designer behind DNA you would expect less "junk" DNA to be found than has been claimed by Darwinism. Scientist began to look closer at this "junk" DNA and found that infact it is not junk at all, but instead has funtionalbilty. As for measurable, I don't think you would tell me that intelligence cannot be measured. There any other concerns about the qualifications of ID as a scientific theory?
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer You're correct, but the portions for which a function has been determined is still a small portion of the human genome. There are scores of regions that function in ancestral species but no do so in their descendants. Why is it there? This is clear evidence of evolutionary change. It is historically sound science, and it is highly predictive of future evolution. Regarding intelligence..yes, we can measure it in humans., but who's our subject when it comes to a Creator?
charadester 1 year ago
@charadester I have no problem with evolution. Evolution is what happens after you have life. ID is the theory that comes before evolution can occur.
As for the other point. You test the same way you test any mind, the test the product of the mind. If I take a math test you are not testing all of me, you are testing a very specific product of my mind. If I gave radom answers it would be evident.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer Some think that life's origins and life's evolution after the fact are two distinctly different issues. But, the hypothesis is that the probability of a random origin for our biological system improves with increased time. While many will somewhat justifiably balk at that, I'm simply pointing out that with enough time for all possible outcomes to emerge, abiogenesis becomes increasingly plausible. I am bracing myself for your response.
charadester 1 year ago
@charadester "Time-of-the-Gaps" eh?
Abiogenesis currently has no explanation for it being plausible if you gave it an eternity. There is no working hypothesis in abiogenesis.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer The probability of abiogenesis is actually actually greater than one of instantaneous creation. The evidence showing the appearance of increasingly complex forms over hundreds of millions of years is inconsistent with a sudden creation. There is massive evidence from the rock record and from molecular clock studies. Both reveal the gradual emergence of more advanced life forms from earlier ones over vast amounts periods of geologic time.
charadester 1 year ago
@charadester Couple of things, first you say "probability". To invoke probability mathmatics you need to know two things. Amount of time and number of attempts. Since no one knows how life began, you certainly cannot say how often the attempt was made. So "probability" is not a factor in life origins in that sense. There is why in ID we look at information. Deal with the first issue and we'll move on. (500 words or less remember).
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
Abiogenesis: Things started to gradually form is implausible.
Creation: Things forming out of nothing is totally plausible.
ChaosAngel667 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChaosAngel667 I have no idea what you are trying to say.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@ChaosAngel667 :D
VarykGerai 1 year ago
@ChaosAngel667
I hope you're joking. Abiogenesis does not mean things started to gradually form. It means life began to work based on a system of chemical contributions over long periods of time.
Why is creation possible while abiogenesis is not?
verzen 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@gcnengineer "Scientist began to look closer at this "junk" DNA and found that infact it is not junk at all".
Citation needed.
ChaosAngel667 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Where is the rest of this video, I want more!
MajSmJz 2 years ago
Your dishonesty is only further evidence against Intelligent Design, CheckmateID. You are a morally bankrupt person with no character, for trying to lie to people like this.
Sh0nin 2 years ago 2
mmmm...
Video quote mining...
AND outright lie (from vid info to the right, "He points out there are many..."
Please respond, CheckmateID, with a few of the "many" peer-reviewed articles. Full references, preferably.
TheHatefulDead 2 years ago 2
22 seconds? Why did you cut it so short? End it so abruptly?
See the entire interview here, ppl:
watch?v=FFhMxAsMDvk&feature=channel_page
(Hint:
TheThomaswastaken below is correct)
TheHatefulDead 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what a scam evo is.....pure fairy tale
infinitemika 2 years ago
There is a peer reviewed ID article in some small Italian Journal. The Editor was asked to leave after the article got published.
The guy has probably edited it because the woman would of replyed saying that the Italian Journal is a load of shit.
rgman268 2 years ago
No The Editor allowed the ID acticle to pass, with consent aswell.
Even tho the content of the article is useless
That was why he got removed
But the ID ppl, blow this up to be a conspiration against them... all the need is evidence to prove thier case, which they do not have
C0ldking 2 years ago
There are no peer-review articles of ID. Please stop lying to the audience by posting this. This is the reason weak minded people feel there is some sort of debate over ID and evolution.
aquatix 2 years ago 3
Her response was, '...but Stephen, there was nothing about I.D. in your paper. Your paper was an attack on evolution...'
For those who car to know the truth.
TheThomaswastaken 2 years ago 42
@TheThomaswastaken Thanks for giving me the whole story.
freethinker923 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheThomaswastaken "Her response was, '...but Stephen, there was nothing about I.D. in your paper. Your paper was an attack on evolution...'" His responce to this was "Yes there was about ID. Dont tell me what I wrote about in my paper!"
jpkfox 1 year ago
@TheThomaswastaken To what he replied: "Yes I did mention ID at the end of the paper. Dont tell me what *I* wrote in *my* paper!"
jpkfox 1 year ago
The person who posted this, clearly clipped it to make their point, it's so funny how it clearly shows they are not giving the full context and thus have something to hide :)
MohummedsM8 2 years ago 4
What the fuck is the point of this video? It gives no background info and it ends with the ID whackjob whining, as they always do.
ArranoGris 2 years ago 3
Have you no shame, cdesign proponentsists?
I wrote a funny, dirty and controversial graffiti on the wall of a public toilet. It was celebrated by many and corrected by others, and it's still there, accepted and improved AND improving. Am I a peer reviewed author now?
BohemianBlasphemy 2 years ago 4
la-la-la-lie!
xBuscopanx 2 years ago
even if someone was harassed because they had an opinion that harassment does not mean that the idea has merit
VoteNixon2008 3 years ago
The idea of letting people have Ideas without harassing them does have merit though
allan3141 2 years ago
Where can I view the full length of this video? Eugenie Scott is the head of a Gestapo organization whose whole purpose is to squash free speech and religion.
martidw 3 years ago
"Where can I view the full length of this video?"
I doubt you want to see the whole video, as the only reason to cut it off so short is to give the appearance of victory where none likely exists.
I took courses in film, and I know full well just how easy it is to turn the results of an interview on its head by a little creative cut and paste.
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
lol, this is a quote mine. That is why it the clip is only 22 seconds long. Give a full 3 minute clip and you would see those guys getting pwned.
Also, if this is the article I am thinking of, the editor snuck it in through the backdoor while he was unqualified to review it, and in direct violation of having at minimum two editors review the paper. The guy was featured in expelled.
boonw 3 years ago 3
the sad thing is that the author of the video also cut off his own proponent's comments. Fun times with creationists.
Kevlar1983 3 years ago 2
Just a bit of info about you're comment. Not many people are aware of this but the Biological Society of Washington's (the journal the article was submitted into)own president admitted that there was no wrong doing in Sternbergs review process.
gdunntm 3 years ago
"Not many people are aware of this but the Biological Society of Washington's (the journal the article was submitted into)own president admitted that there was no wrong doing in Sternbergs review process."
Source please.
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
certainly, the only reason I didn't put it here is because you can't post links on youtube. For everyone who wants this source (and judging by some of these comments many people should see it) go to the DI's website (or on google) and search for "Casey Luskins response to Michael Shermers Fact Free Attack on Expelled."
gdunntm 3 years ago
"search for 'Casey Luskins response to Michael Shermers Fact Free Attack on Expelled.'"
I'm sorry, but a biased article by a special interest that can do no better than a partisan report filed by an individual with vocal sympathy for the design movement is rather weak tea.
Perhaps if you read more than just the material published by advocacy groups, you might have a more balanced understanding of the issue.
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
I'm sorry, but a biased article by a special "interest that can do no better than a partisan report filed by an individual with vocal sympathy for the design movement is rather weak tea." Judging by your statement it sounds like you didnt even read the article since it does a lot more than just giving vocal sympathy. Actually it gives some rebuttals to the lies on expelled exposed.
gdunntm 3 years ago
"Actually it gives some rebuttals to the lies on expelled exposed. "
It makes a counter accusation based on a paper filed by the office of a politician that receives contributions from DI and has advocated for them... I not only read your article, but checked all of its sources, read those, checked up on THEIR affiliations and so on... I'm relatively sure I did quite a bit more work than you did in this case, thanks.
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
"I'm relatively sure I did quite a bit more work than you did in this case, thanks." I have to disagree with you there, I've actually written over a 16 page thesis on some of these cases such as sternbergs. It's true Souder supports ID. If you read my article that you have claimed to, then you would also see that in Shermers attack on expelled (which claims to be objective) nearly all of his information came from the NCSE which is not exactly objective to say the least.
gdunntm 3 years ago
"It's true Souder supports ID."
And receives serious donations from the DI. Lets not forget that.
So I shoot down one of your weak sources and you launch another one... this time regarding the critique of a pseudo-documentary.
I'm sorry, but My issue was with your claim that Meyer's paper counts as peer review, and you seem to have a problem backing that claim. If you want to sink to the level of the entertainment industry, feel free, I don't care.
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
"So I shoot down one of your weak sources and you launch another one." You haven't shot down anything. The bottom line is an official in congress published a statement CONTAINING BOTH STATEMENTS FROM EVOLUTIONISTS AND IDERS that said sternberg did nothing wrong. The statement from the BSW's own president saying sternberg did nothing wrong is from an email that's quoted in the document. the BSW's own president said he did nothing wrong, then whats the problem
gdunntm 3 years ago
"CONTAINING BOTH STATEMENTS FROM EVOLUTIONISTS AND IDERS"
...that are quoted in a highly suspicious manner. I have yet to be able to find a source for the index, but two other sources I found both make the statement that these emails are basically being quote mined, a tactic IDers are (in)famous for.
And the document is specifically NOT official. That you keep saying it is suggests that you do not know what you are talking about, or are lying.
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
"but two other sources I found both make the statement that these emails are basically being quote mined." Since you ignored this in your last two comments I'll mention it again, the president said in an email that there was nothing wrong with the review process. That's a pretty direct statement so I don't see how that could be taken out of context. When you say the document is not official, the bottom line is the staff of Souder (a congressman) published a document stating what they found
gdunntm 3 years ago
please give me some examples of the statements that are quoted in a suspicious manner and in addition to that please tell me these sources you found. You asked me to site my sources and if you're not using the NCSE to back any of your points please tell me what sources you are using as I would like to study them myself.
gdunntm 3 years ago
In addition, you should check out the Sounders report that states how Sternberg was indeed harassed and faced with intolerance.
gdunntm 3 years ago
"the Sounders report that states how Sternberg was indeed harassed and faced with intolerance."
You mean the partisan receiver of gifts from DI that I already mentioned..? as I said, weak tea when your best source is an unofficial, unrecognized paper written by some office jockey that works for your best paid friend in congress.
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
"some office jockey that works for your best paid friend in congress." So who am I going to believe a report that comes from congress that actually contains emails and statements from people such as Eugenie Scott, so it's not just one side being heard or should I believe a special interest group like the NCSE? Obviously both groups (DI, NCSE) are promoting their own views but that congressional level report contains information from both sides including the statement about Sternbergs article
gdunntm 3 years ago
"So who am I going to believe a report that comes from congress..."
Did you not read what I just wrote. That report was a pat on the head to the DI... it carried NO weight in congress, was not official in any serious way. It was an opinion from a friend that just happens to have some very impressive stationary so they could use it to give the APPEARANCE of an official source.
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
"if you want to sink to the level of the entertainment industry, feel free" The documentary explains what really happened to Sternberg and that's why I mentioned it. In addition to that, the NCSE is the organization that claims Sternberg violated the peer review process. You claimed my source was not objective and yet the NCSE is anything but objective. They are the ones incharge of expelled exposed which trys to slander sternberg
gdunntm 3 years ago
"The documentary explains what really happened to Sternberg..."
That mockery of documentary film is a hack job that openly manipulated interview, hid facts, sculpted evidence and took a heavy handed approach to ramming one side of a controversy down your throat. You might as well try to convince me that Micheal Moore is a paragon of honesty and even handedness.
I haven't used anything from the NCSE to defend a point. Their bias is irrelevant so far. Why bring them up? Needing a distraction?
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
"That mockery of documentary film is a hack job that openly manipulated interview, hid facts, sculpted evidence and took a heavy handed approach to ramming one side of a controversy down your throat." please give me some examples of what expelled did that was dishonest. You said you're not using the NCSE/expelled exposed which seems to be its leading critics so please tell me where you're getting this from all expelled did was show a controversy that truly exists.
gdunntm 3 years ago
actually peer review is all about discrediting and criticising the article.... Thats why we have peer review to make sure the science is flawless to the best of our knowledge.
Funny thing is even christian creationist videos wont allow ratings or unedited comments!
CCPnoob 3 years ago
It would be interesting to hear Eugenie Scott's answer. That got cut off I assume becasue she had a good comeback. If she didn't have a good comeback/answer, you would left it on here, that much we know.
bigfilmhat 3 years ago
How did the pioneers of Quantum Mechanic physicists proofed their revolutionary idea about QM?They proofed it in full scale science,in lab,answering all questions raised and show all evidences.Math equations were derived n the results were used to construct rules that can predict chemical n physical process n properties.How have Darwinists answer their skeptics?Instead of arguing base on the statistical factors(which is their origin of reasoning),they dodged all reasoning and attacked religion.
maiprue 3 years ago
"For the chance of life to form n evolve"
Alot less than than a big invisable sky daddy doing it all and hiding from everyon, thats your brand of god and the 10,000's of other brands of gods!
StupidCreationists 3 years ago
The funny thing is, a majority of the scientists that are supposedly pointing things out as frauds actually BELIEVE in this "Big invisible sky daddy" that you speak of.
I think that no matter how many "fake" peer reviews there are it just supports what the Bible says, that God sends delusions to those who are ignorant of him, even if these delusions include evidence "disproving" God.
TheColaGoodfellow 3 years ago
Fact - Meyer's article was not properly peer reviewed.
Timbul53525253 3 years ago 5
He pretended it was peer reviewed. All the attempts of creationist articles are ripped to pieces because they are so wrong. Meyers pretended the article was properly peer reviewed when it was not. Thats acedemic fraud, thats why he was sacked and rightly so.
StupidCreationists 3 years ago 3
For the chance of life to form n evolve, numerous physical constants like k in the eqns of electromagnetic and gravitational interaction have to be exactly as they r.The fact that the net electromagnetic force of our planet is zero(so that our solar system won't collapse),the distances of the sun,earth n moon,the proper amount of light from the sun to the earth- list goes on n on....without all this factors to super coincidentally work together, even a life was form,it wouldn't have lasted long.
maiprue 3 years ago
"The fact"
WOW yes evolution happened to meet the situation! just like it says it will!
StupidCreationists 3 years ago
actually, he submitted a paper that DIDNT GET PEER REVIEWED, and a friend of his WHO WASNT THE EDITOR put it through and got it published. The publication was pissed, and got rid of the clown that snuck in through, and exposed myer as a douchebag and a liar.
SupremeChimp 3 years ago 4
There is a big miss understanding. A document is not peer-reviewed until he its aproved. Failed documents are just junk documents.
MasterGhostKnight 3 years ago
Too bad ID has never gotten anything published in a peer reviewed journal that actually has any relation to the evolutionary concepts. Discovery Institute's own "peer reviewed" is clearly biased because of the bias of the organization. Eugene Scott wasn't lying, she was talking about proper peer-reviewed SCIENTIFIC journals.
You talk the talk but can you people ACTUALLY publish any PROPER papers in any PROPER SCIENTIFIC journals?
Spathever 3 years ago
I like how this video has only 1 and a half stars, yet their is no dispute here. Eugenie Scott lied.
kajoodle123 3 years ago
True. She definitely lied. Ofcourse would you expect anything different from a Darwinian Dogmatist? 5*****
broj8s8n79 3 years ago
Not at all, friend. Not at all. There is no denying it, she flat out lied!
kajoodle123 3 years ago
she flat out did no such thing and if you had a shred if integrity you'd agree.
myers essay was published FALSELY as original research becasue a corrupt pal BYPASSED the perr review process to get it in. he was severely rebuked and rightly so.
the lair as you and your invisible pal jeeebus know perfectly well is that ill mannered prick stephen myers. what he lacks in professional integrity he also lacks in common decency. his antics in this interview were a disgrace.
McMonster65 3 years ago 2
"myers essay was published FALSELY as original research becasue a corrupt pal BYPASSED the perr review process to get it in. he was severely rebuked and rightly so."
Was it really?
And what little birdie told you that?
The money-grabbing media? Or the biased and misinformed atheist?
And all of a sudden what you say or read actually counts as fact?
TheColaGoodfellow 3 years ago
And what little birdie told you that?
The money-grabbing media? Or the biased and misinformed atheist?
grow up ffs. the information is freely available. meyer is referring to his wee essay on ID and he is simply LYING the article was published and then RETRACTED by proc bio soc Washington because it- READ THIS SLOWLY- was not peer reviewed
your infantile babble about atheism is embarrasing
McMonster65 3 years ago
Something you might want to know if u dont already. The BSW's president (the journal the article was submitted into after it was peer reviewed) stated that Sternberg did nothing wrong in the review process. So if he really did do something wrong the journals own president couldn't find it.
gdunntm 3 years ago
.... it didnt matter what the topic was. It could have been the effects of the effects of external proteins affecting reception cites in the brain, or genetic frequencies in gene crossing, the effect would have been identical. When you cheat, you get in trouble, especially when you put the credibility of others (let alone your boss) at stake.
boonw 3 years ago 5
Dont know where you are getting your info from. This is what really happened. The journal required that all articles be reviewed by AT LEAST 2 other editors, and recommended more if possible. Sternberg didnt do that, he took the article through the backdoor, and published it without any other review. He wasn't even qualified to review the paper let alone publish it, 3 of the editors were experts on the the Cambrian invertebrates in the article. The topic of ID is irrelevant....
boonw 3 years ago 4
I can't actually find any evidence that what you just said was true, I ought to assume that you're wrong due to lack of evidence.
But because i'm wise, i wont assume you are wrong and I will search HARDER.
TheColaGoodfellow 3 years ago
can't actually find any evidence
cant actually believe you looked. the editor sterberg can be found bleating about persecution on stein's execrable little film. the truth can be found at th centre for science education website, expelled exposed, and many other places.
I don't think you want to find the truth.
McMonster65 3 years ago
And what did Socrates say about those who think themselves to be wise?
trickseyfool 3 years ago
"I like how this video has only 1 and a half stars, yet their is no dispute here. Eugenie Scott lied. "
No, Douche bag lied. The sternberg fiasco was what happened when an article is pushed through WITHOUT peer review.
What, did you have to make a fake account just to bolster support for yourself?
I bet you hardly understand what you're arguing against.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago 2
Meyers did not have the article peer-reviewed so much as he snuck it into the journal, not a single person review that article before it was put into the journal by Steinberg.
sweatytoothmadman 3 years ago
Dr. Meyer just smacked that bitch up. Wow! I can't believe Eugenics Scott would lie about something so easily refuted. She's usually a smarter liar than that.
Another victory for I.D. Current score....
I.D. 658
Darwinism 3
TheJaredJammer 3 years ago
No, it was rejected from the journal because he never had it reviewed by his peers before Steinberg approved it for the journal. He is a complete liar.
sweatytoothmadman 3 years ago
"I.D. 658
Darwinism 3"
Yup... Creationists and their revisionist history.
The actual score is as follows:
Cdesign/ID/'Teach the controversy' (otherwise known as Biblical Creationism - let's call a spade a spade, people): 0
Theories of Evolution, Abiogenesis, Cosmological Big Bang, Plate Tectonis, Gravity, General Relativity etc: 2,106,075 and counting
And as has been mentioned: Steinberg never had his BS approved. It was deeply flawed, so he snuck it in the back door. Dishonest IDers.
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
You have such a programed view of the Empire Science establishment. The 3 City States that govern this world ensure that money is only forthcoming for those 'peers' that will frame their 'truths' in a way that disempowers the individual at the expense of the state and corporations. Anyone who dares question the compulsory interpretation is purged, with rare exeption e.g. Dr. Francis Collins, Director, National Human Genome Research Institute.
stupidtreehugger 3 years ago
"You have such a programed view of the Empire Science establishment."
Projection.
"The 3 City States that govern this world ensure that money is only forthcoming for those 'peers' that will frame their 'truths' in a way that disempowers the individual at the expense of the state and corporations."
Ah, yes. That old Evil Evolutionist Conspiracy card again. Of course, why didn't I see it earlier? I'm converted.
"Anyone who dares question-"
If you want, Mr Conspiracy Theorist.
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
Your comments are full of anti-reason and anit-humanity. Why don't you do some pertinent research and join the human race instead of stroking your ego by using these fora as the toilet for your ignorance and hatred.
stupidtreehugger 3 years ago
"Your comments are full of anti-reason and anit-humanity."
Projection.
"Why don't you do some pertinent research and join the human race instead of stroking your ego by using these fora as the toilet for your ignorance and hatred."
More Projection.
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
An unknown intelligent designer did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason? Is that the "scientific model" that Meyer is proposing? Meyer is a joke, a laughing stock of the scientific community.
BentBlueMetal 3 years ago
There are millions of intelligent Americans however they are unfairly tarnished by two things.
1. An moronic idiot for a president.
2. Millions of religious retards. 3% think the world is flat!
American atheists are the elite of their nation.
bonangusacdc 3 years ago 2
"American atheists are the elite of their nation."
Keep drinking the koolaid
Craighill9 3 years ago
I have no idea what Koolaid is first of all. We don't have it here. Secondly, American atheists understand the Bible is wrong, who wrote it, why it was written, who benefits from it and how it is used.
The vast majority of the scientific elite are atheists and that is a fact. It indicated clearly my point.
bonangusacdc 3 years ago
"The vast majority of the scientific elite are atheists and that is a fact. It indicated clearly my point."
There are many elitist in the American scientific community, but most of them choose to be atheist because of a philosophical world view rather than because of an honest assessment of the scientific evidence.
Craighill9 3 years ago
There are many surveys on the net showing that around 70% of scientists believe in God. The fact that you haven't researched what you say proves you are a liar and happy to believe lies that suit you. You are willingly ignorant, a drone brainwashed by collectivist state school.
stupidtreehugger 3 years ago
There are many surveys that can be found that will demonstrate whatever you choose. If you trust a survery that says 70% of scientists believe in God then you should enquire about who conducted it. If you have a survey that says 70% of scientists believe in the Judea-Christian God and believe it then you are extremely misguided.
bonangusacdc 3 years ago
no bonangusacdc you are the misguided one.
Craighill9 3 years ago
There are many surveys on the net showing that around 70% of scientists believe in God. The fact that you haven't researched what you say proves you are a liar and happy to believe lies that suit you. You are willingly ignorant, a drone brainwashed by collectivist state school.
stupidtreehugger 3 years ago
If you are replying to me you are a bit mistaken. Yes, there are plenty scientists that have faith in God, and believe the Biblical account of creation. The scientific evidence is advancing and as more people understand science. physics, quantum physics, chemestry, and molecular biology, it is becoming greatly evident that the information and creativeness needed to construct such a detailed universe could not have happened according to the atheist world view. Atheism is a religion.
Craighill9 3 years ago
"Atheism is a religion."
Yeah, like bald is a hair colour and health is a disease.
To those of us who are sane, Atheism is the LACK of a religious belief.
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
Natural Evolution is a religion because you have to believe in several religious dogma, at least:
1. The unprovable notion that there is no human soul. Contrary to utterly necessary physics, many NETs even deny the existence of any meta-physics.
2. The unproven notion that life arose naturalistically. The way that evos posit the Miller-Urey attempt as a proof for abiogenesis, rather than the strong evidence against it that it blatantly is, is one eg among legion of evo-religious fanaticism.
stupidtreehugger 3 years ago
"1. The unprovable notion that there is no human soul."
What, as opposed to the unprovable assumption that there IS a human soul, or any other type of soul?
Besides... Natural Selection doesn't deal with this question, moron.
"NETs even deny the existence of any meta-physics."
Metaphysics is not science. It's philosophy.
"2. The unproven notion that life arose naturalistically."
Evolution is not about how life arose, fool. Only a Creationist would try to lump Evolution in with Abiogenesis.
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
"The way that evos posit the Miller-Urey-"
Miller-Urey is old news. There have been several experiments since this time, moron. You need to educate yourself on a subject before you try attacking it.
"evo-religious fanaticism. "
More projection. Really, if the only ting you fanatics have is to project your own fundamentalist closed minded fanaticism onto ordinary people then no one is going to take you crazies seriously.
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
Oops, I think the script goes fhut if I stay on the page, that was meant for FSAthe1st. I agree with your comment. There are so many known frauds that linger in the school books and beyond, so much evidence evos have to distort or ignore.
On the other hand, the doubters have helped to liberate science from the grip of oppressive religions and those that interpret even the New Testament in egotistical and oppressive ways e.g. George Bush and his 'Christian' adherents.
stupidtreehugger 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"liberate science from the grip of oppressive religions"
Yes... I'd really hate to return to the Dark Ages, thank you.
"George Bush and his 'Christian' adherents. "
Funny that. George WW3 Bush and his adherents have Creationist leanings.
"apart from mountains ALL the continents are covered in deep sediments LAYED DOWN BY WATER, EVERYWHERE."
Lying for Jesus now?
Why are there millions of species alive today if the Global Flood happened? Cheetas is a perfect example.
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
Did that last one get to you Craighill9? I do agree with you. I mean, good grief! Talk about ignoring blatant facts: apart from mountains ALL the continents are covered in deep sediments LAYED DOWN BY WATER, EVERYWHERE. Where are land-animals supposed to have survived while water layed down the sediments?
And ALL whole-skeleton fossils REQUIRE rapid burial i.e. flood, yet this is NEVER mentioned in science education nor popularization...
stupidtreehugger 3 years ago 3
"And ALL whole-skeleton fossils REQUIRE rapid burial i.e. flood,"
Or landslides, or other natural events. And floods can be local.
And not all fossilised remains that have been found are whole and complete. I mean... Duh!
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
Actually even the mountains are covered ancient seashells and the fossils of ancient marine organisms. It is the atheist world view of people like Eugenie Scott that pollutes society with misinformation and bogus science based on a distorted world view. The people who espouse the atheist world view are guided by a philosophy. the evidence is greatly against them so they use gestapo tactics to force their ideas rather than allowing the evidence to speak for itself.
Craighill9 3 years ago
Couldn't put better myself,
Craighill. Atheists use fascist tactics to get people to believe their theories. "If you disagree with us, you're an ignorant religious bastard." I've lost count how many times I have been insulted by that logic.
kajoodle123 3 years ago
This sounds abusive to me. Assuming motivations on the part of people you don't even know. Why not address the idea rather than dismiss it by attacking the character of the people positing it?
rotcafarg 3 years ago
Actually, I have discussed things with quite a few atheists. And I also discuss the idea and not the character, but if you look at any pro-evolution video on Youtube, Christians are outright slandered. Then look at any pro-christian video(It doesn't even have to do with creation) and it will probably have a 1-2 star rating. I wouldn't say that I'm outright attacking the character of atheists, I believe I'm just pointing out the tactics some use coerce people into their beliefs. Nothing personal
kajoodle123 3 years ago
"Actually, I have discussed things with quite a few atheists. And I also discuss the idea and not the character, but if you look at any pro-evolution video on Youtube, Christians are outright slandered"
You're full of shit. I argue on most evolution videos, and my favorite biologist is Ken Miller, a Roman Catholic. You've discussed it with atheists?
You know Evolution =/= atheism, right?
"I've lost count how many times I have been insulted by that logic. "
Truth is not a majority vote.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago
Ok, not all pro-evolution videos are anti-christian, but the vast majority of anti-Christian videos use Evolution as an argument why Christianity is wrong. Just because your favorite Biologist is Catholic doesn't mean that the theory taught equally by religious and non-religious people. A majority of the ones on Youtube are militant atheists who result to personal attacks to get their point across.
"Truth is not a majority vote."
I agree, and neither are personal attacks.
kajoodle123 3 years ago
"You are willingly ignorant, a drone brainwashed by collectivist state school. "
Projection.
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
Um right, and all women are nothing more than rib-bitch cunts that I as a man can freely, according to YOUR CHRISTIAN BIBLE, sell into slavery. By the way as I write this I am eating an oyster (a death-worthy sin according to the bible) and am wearing a polyester-cotton shirt (another hell-worthy sin). Fuck you, all you Christian whores. I would gladly nail you to the cunting crosses you love so much.
davemurderbass 3 years ago
"Fuck you, all you Christian whores. I would gladly nail you to the cunting crosses you love so much. "
That's nice. Keep spewing mr klebold
Craighill9 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Not showing the complete video leaves out information. this is how evolutionists operate. they leave out information. They only want you to see part of the picture. this is why I can't trust them. If you are really honest and want to show truth, then show the whole picture. I'm sure there are other things being hidden by evolutionists. I'm sure they are hiding information that will totally debunk their theory. Tell the truth it might hurt but it will make things better for all.
Craighill9 3 years ago
"Not showing the complete video leaves out information. this is how evolutionists operate."
It is someone supporting the ID movement that posted this short piece of junk -_-
So wow a few articels supporting ID, in a few days more Evolution-supporting peer-reviewed articles come in than ID has ever produced lol
Terrencje 3 years ago
"So wow a few articels supporting ID, in a few days more Evolution-supporting peer-reviewed articles come in than ID has ever produced lol "
Actually there are thousands of articles that support ID, and there are many more that debunk the myths of talkorigins
Craighill9 3 years ago
and there are millions that shit all over those combined ^_^
imanatheistbiatch 3 years ago
"Actually there are thousands of articles that support ID,"
They are not peer reviewed and they contain plenty of teleological nonsense and logical fallacies. They wield the Anthropic Principle like a hammer.
"there are many more that debunk the 'myths' of talkorigins"
Only if you believe in nonsense. It's like that True.Origin article that accuses TO of deception by omission, when in reality they were guilty of deception by omission themselves.
watch?v=HgQf2FXeNEg
watch?v=EtPONQP74dQ
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
Don't talk shit on my country, or your going to hear all about your piece of shit failings which are the reasons for you not occupying the top position.
Chuichupachichi 3 years ago