The Flagellar Motor - By Design or By Chance.wmv

A clear and detailed understanding of the unfathomable complexity of molecular machines, and their close similarity with intelligently designed man-made machines, as revealed by decades of reverse engineering, will render Darwinian "just-so" stories preposterous beyond belief.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Bacterial
• Flagellum
• Flagella
• Intelligent
• Design
• ID
• Darwinian
• evolution
• Darwinism
• Creation
• God
• Atheism
• Science

[cliffordanthonypaiva]

Evolution is a model based NOT on experimental verification and validation, but rather on personal preferences. God is NOT religion; He IS...period. Folks don't like Intelligent Design as this inevitably reduces to THEMSELVES being involved in the equation...that.THEY ARE DESIGNED. Like Ken Miller (pseudo-scientist at Brown University), they will go through ANY lengths to avoid the obvious. TOO BAD...real science CLEARLY indicates the presence of a MASTER DESIGNER...and Father.

[IDtaksovr]

@cliffordanthonypaiva

"Evolution is a model based .... on personal preferences"

Like any devoted religious believers, Darwinists view the world through the lens of THEIR particular faith based assumptions. We need to thanks to Phillip E. Johnson for identifying "philosophical naturalism" as the fundamental dogma that underwrites Darwinian theory, other naturalistic evolutionary theories and materialistic science in general.

[blaisingm]

@IDtaksovr "Like any devoted religious believers, Darwinists"

Wow! You have retreated back to the comfort of your own videos agreeing with your sheep. I'm so disappointed that you won't come back out and argue/debate with us 'Darwinists'. Admittedly, I miss your arguments. Granted, I'm sure it's tough being manhandled by educated people, but why does that stop you now?

[IDtaksovr]

@blaisingm

"why does that stop you now?"

It's more important to inform the next generation about the evidence for intelligent design, than to debate endlessly with those for whom no amount of evidence will make a difference e.g. due to rigid philosophical presuppositions. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of ID, yet it will take generations to change entrenched worldviews

"Science advances one funeral at a time" -- Max Planck

[EJsigstrat]

Evolutionists and atheists are just an enigma to me. I'm amazed how people just assume that Darwinism explains everything. My contention is that it explains nothing. Throw your largest bucket of Legos into a tornado and see what you end up with. Do it 89 trillion times and see what u end up with. It is utter nonsense. Those who deny creationism are weak minded fools, destined for eventual enlightenment that will be embarrassing beyond their comprehension.

[IDtaksovr]

@EJsigstrat

Darwinian theory may seem stupid, if you come at the evidence without any philosophical baggage or preconceptions, but it looks a whole lot better if you have already signed up to the creed of "naturalism". Having sworn allegiance to the faith based notion that the universe is a self enclosed system of cause and effect, with no purposive or intelligently guided forces in operation, something like Darwinian theory quickly becomes the "best" explanation out of a bad bunch.

[IDtaksovr]

@EJsigstrat

If you arbitrarily assume naturalism dogmatically at the outset, and arbitrarily rule out any possibility of intelligent design at the outset, then Darwinian theory is not going to look nearly as bad as it otherwise might. With ID safely ruled out a priori, massive evidential problems with Darwinian theory become "exiting challenges" for generations of eager Darwinians in future. Ruling out the main traditional competitor to a theory is one way to win an argument.

[DebunkingID]

1) No scientist is claiming the flagellum came about by chance.

2) A testable model for the evolution of the flagellum has been developed by Nick Matzke.

3) A quick search on PubMed will reveal many articles that deal with the origin of flagellum.

But hey, don't let facts ruin your day. ;-D

[blaisingm]

@IDtaksovr "to debate endlessly with those for whom"

No replies for my questions last week?? Even when I agree with a few of your points? O.K., I'll leave you alone IDtaksovr. I thought I could squeeze that debate out of you, but I need to start listening to your deafening silence. Apparently, somewhere along the way, you've lost the will to defend ID. Perhaps you should change your Youtube name to IDisovr?

[blaisingm]

@IDtaksovr "It's more important to inform the next generation about the evidence for intelligent design"

Perhaps I'm not being fair...So what should be done? In an ideal IDtaksvr world, what programs should be put into place or what changes should be made to see your vision come to fruition? For example, what would an ID lab exercise look like in a science class? If this is honestly your goal/end game, then you must have SOME ideas. Right?

[blaisingm]

@IDtaksovr "next generation about the evidence for intelligent design"

Is that what your doing?? All I read is patting each other on the back for agreement on: ID = good, evolution = bad intermixed with the occasional: That's not evidence for evolution (no matter what the proposed evidence). Are you or EJsigstrat (or any proponent for ID) actually engaged in ID research? What evidence has your hard work and research unearthed? Unlikely any productivity since ID isn't even a theory.

[blaisingm]

@cliffordanthonypaiva "Evolution is a model based NOT on experimental verification and validation, but rather on personal preferences."

Interesting claim but not uncommon. How familiar are you with the sciences? Could your sentiments toward evolutionary theory be extrapolated to other scientific theories? For example, is plate tectonic theory ALSO devoid of "experimental verification and validation"? Could you apply your claims to atomic theory as well? Why or why not?