50 Years of Scientific Challenges to Evolution: Remembering The Wistar Symposium

[@nanobandi1120]

“It is difficult to get a man (evolutionist) to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair

[@KingStar-lu9oi]

Damn. Nice quote

[@SSArcher11]

That goes for creationists as well.

[@ForumLight]

Exactly. The bottom line is the topic of the origin of all biological diversity is beyond the scope of science as beliefs, and reasons to believe in it, are all anyone can bring to the table. Here's what *is* science: A.k.a., well documented and published even in evolutionists' own papers (when they happen to include something that's actually observable, repeatable, verifiable biological, scientific fact when they're telling their common descent stories and why they believe in it) that demonstrates common descent from a first life form is anti-science. Science shows that it's observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact that, no matter how many generations go by, no matter how much "change in genetic composition during successive generations", no matter how much "change in allele frequencies", no matter how much "development of new species", no matter how much "natural selection acting on genetic variation among individuals", no matter how much "adaptation", no matter how much "mutation", no matter how much "speciation", no matter how much "migration", no matter how much "genetic drift", no matter how much "insert other claims here" no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish amphibians remain amphibians, canines remain canines, felines remain felines, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses, animals that never had lungs to breath air do not evolve lungs animals that never had hearts to pump blood do not evolve hearts animals that never had eyes to see do not evolve eyes animals that never had brains do not evolve brains animals that never had mouths do not evolve mouths living things that never had a reproductive system do not evolve a reproductive system animals that never had (insert organ here) remain living things without that organ, and so on. There are many more such groups. Science shows that the "common descent from a first life form" evolution (some call Darwinian evolution, some call theory of common descent) is anti-science. Evolutionist can never address these facts - many unfortunately just fall back on ad hominem, showing how they're seem to be really about deception that's contrary to actual science. Here are a few objections/claims they may bring up when they cannot address the above observable, repeatable and verifiable facts: *Evolutionists sometimes try to claim you're against science.* Science is fine and requires no belief. In the entire existence of the human race: Objects drop to the ground. Observable, repeatable, verifiable, no belief required. In the entire existence of the human race: Diseases spread. Observable, repeatable, verifiable, no belief required. In the entire existence of the human race: All populations of: canines remain canines, fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, animals that never had hearts do not evolve hearts, animals that never had digestive systems do not evolve digestive systems (or brains, or eyes, or reproductive systems and many, many more cases like these). Observable, repeatable, verifiable, no belief required. *Evolutionists sometimes try to say they don't claim that populations of 'animals turn into other animals' over generations* Quite the opposite. Evolutionists claim the first life form was a single cell. They claim that it is the ancestor of all living things today. That's "animals turning into other animal" over generations of mythological proportions. They claim humans, apes, rats, banana plants (50% DNA similarity to human beings) are all related - that's again "species turning into other species" of mythological proportions, claiming all life is related. At some point reptiles did not exist in their worldview. That means they claim over generations some populations animals that were never reptiles 'evolved' over generations eventually into reptiles - That's "animals turning into other animals" over generations to mythological degrees. At some point no animals had brains. This means they claim over generations some populations of animals that never had brains 'evolved' brains over generations. Yet when called out on this some evolutionists even try to say "evolution doesn't say species turn into other species", which again is just not honest. It shows they not only know they're wrong, but they show their intent to push this falsehood anyway. *If you point out evolutionists "populations over generations" claims, and some will dishonestly pretend you're claiming evolutionists are saying that one kind of animal 'gives birth' to another kind".* Which again is clearly deception. Science shows *populations over generations* do not do what they claim. *Evolutionists typically imply making up reasons to believe in their common descent from a first life form belief system is the same as "observing" it,* which of course is false and is just circular reasoning. Making up beliefs ABOUT fossils or ABOUT DNA *that never happens* does not then make fossils or DNA 'evidence' or an 'observation of' of the belief you just made up about them. *Evolutionists also typically resort to the crime analogy.* For example, since you cannot "observe" a certain crime, but can look at "evidence" for a crime, that shows we can know things happened without observing it. But what they ignore: the thing called a "crime" is already observable, repeatable, verifiable reality, so now we can look for forensic 'evidence' of some *MORE* possible crimes that no one is left alive to have observed it. By sharp contrast, what evolutionists do would be the same as giving 'evidence' for some strange new crime that's never been observed even once by the human race, and yet claim that's also an observation of this crime that never happens actually happening (for example: a "crime" of turning someone into a tree). *Even some people factually observing something that's never happened is not science if it's not repeatable and also verifiable*. So for example, hundreds of people are witness to the fact Jesus Christ rose from the dead (or that He raised others from death), and they wrote about it. Direct observation. But it's still not science because it's *not repeatable* and not *verifiable.* There's also evidence He rose from the dead, and some have observed Him alive after the fact, but it's STILL not science that people can be raised from the dead, in spite of evidence, and in spite of it also being directly observed - because it's not *repeatable* and not *verifiable.* And so it goes with the belief of common descent from a first life form - not only is it not *repeatable,* not *verifiable,* it's not even *observable* either - which makes the resurrection far more likely to be called science before the belief of common descent from a first life form ever could. But neither of them can be called science of course. *Evolutionists almost always are against Christ but are teaching their religion* that goes along with their belief of common descent from a first life form - the belief of 'nothing did it - it all just happened on it's own, including life - you're just another animal related to all animals - so live how you want and you'll rest in peace when you die". But they also pass this religion off 'you are god' off as science as well. That in mind, I implore people to re-read the gospels and forget what any church or any religion or anyone has claimed they say and sincerely consider yet again for ourselves. Judgment is coming for us all for our lifetime of sinning AND refusing God's offer to forgive and forget in the person of Jesus Christ. But religions also twist God's truth to make people think it's their religion and system of rules that makes them right with God when it's about a person: Jesus Christ, and choosing to have a relationship with Him, having a change of mind about living for ourselves and turning back towards God/ Jesus Christ to live for Him instead. John 3 : 14-21 *_"[Jesus said] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up [i.e., on the cross]: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved [exposed]. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."_* Live forever, friend!

[@TheMickeymental]

@LUCAS BADILLO No it does not

[@zainerest]

@@ForumLight dude when you started talking about the ones who witnessed Jesus peace be upon him I said this guy should read about all the witnesses of Muhammad peace be upon him. If you think the bible was preserved like the Quran you have some homework to do. If you think those witnesses are credible and authentic, you need to read about how the Quran and Hadith were preserved. You’d be seriously surprised if you do the research. You seem like an honest and smart guy, and I implore you to do this for you!

[@greg8598]

It has got to the point where Darwinists declare "We are right and to hell with your logical, reasoned, scientifically sensible questions, you are just going to have to KEEP FAITH in evolutionary theory, because Darwin is our hero !!". Oh, the irony.

[@curvs4me]

So true! I don't know who wrote the code, but it's definitely not random. Darwin thought he had made a grave mistake near the end of his life. They bury his memoirs under the rug. Darwinism is dead, it can be mathematically disproven. Darwinists are now the followers of false prophets.

[@amadubah8931]

Kurt Sumthinorother I know right. At the end of the day the people who will force Darwinism are the egotistical atheists who are not sincere and have a strong dislike for religion. It’s become their own religion now to believe in Darwinism. It’s quite unfortunate.

[@curvs4me]

@@amadubah8931 So true! A religion in and of itself. The insistence that man is lord and master of the universe. Their ego oftentimes can't fathom anything or anyone intellectually superior to them. I say, "Ok Lord Byron, want to impress me? Synthesize an amoeba..." lol.

[@robertecarpenter]

Their God is the Anti-entropic Force. Entropy used to work in every college department except the Biology department. Of course now, Physics has capitulated. It requires religious zeal to stick with Darwinian evolution.

[@amadubah8931]

Benjamin Andersen alright buddy

[@keriwilliams8980]

What disproves evolution to me is the necessity to evolve two separate creatures simultaneously in most species, male and female. Put a number on that.

[@les2997]

This is what kills Darwinism, let me quote Stephen Meyer: "Natural Selection selects for the functional advantage, but the mutational search has to find it within the combinatorial sequence that's being explored...natural selection doesn't work until you have something functional to be selected." Ultimately, Darwinians are unable to respond to the high level of randomness required to create a certain protein before natural selection could begin to choose it.

[@les2997]

+TheHealthPhysicist I don't have a problem with evolution but rather with the Ne-Darwinian model for which there's no evidence. “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject.” James A. Shapiro - Molecular Biologist Shapiro is an advocate of non-Darwinian evolution and is a critic of the modern synthesis.

[@les2997]

+TheHealthPhysicist Committing the fallacy of pointless babbling won't help, either. Give me one piece of evidence supporting Neo-Darwinism. Just one.

[@les2997]

+TheHealthPhysicist So, no evidence?

[@les2997]

+TheHealthPhysicist Talk to my dog. Even my dog knows that things don't create codes. Nobody discovered a code that wasn't designed. Our personal experience tells us information comes only from intelligent sources. ALL codes come from programmers and information comes ONLY from intelligence. There's no known natural law by which matter can originate information!

[@KrisBellemare]

+TheHealthPhysicist That's great. But when asked for evidence, you have yet to provide any. Peer review is part of the process, but doesn't make something science. Science is not done by consensus, or we'd still believe heliocentrism and the theory of universal ether. I will agree, though, that science is done by evidence. Your insults demonstrate that you don't have any and can't refute the claim by facts, so you resort to personal attacks instead. We're used to it, though. Perfect example: "Only an IDiot would post a video trying to convince the public that because non-biologists didn't quite get biology, the biologists are wrong. " Call names, but can't explain how they got it wrong.

[@jesusm.candelario2859]

:My favorite thing about God has always been His sense of humor. Praise The LORD of hosts. Thank God for science, God bless the geeks.

[@GeoCalifornian]

0:45 “Will it work?” ... and of course, we all know evolution doesn’t work. /We also know that evolution has always been a faith-based initiative.

[@KenJackson_US]

_"... evolution has always been a faith-based initiative."_ Yes, _fanatically_ faith based.

[@GeoCalifornian]

Ken Jackson -if only evolutionists were as honest and practical-minded as engineers, after all, intelligent engineering design is the only honest explanation to biological life. / In the Newtonian World

[@francispaulmarottikal1839]

Right✔

[@GeoCalifornian]

@@francispaulmarottikal1839 1:00 The math doesn't cooperate with "evolution" and neither is there enough time for single-celled organisms to "evolve" into humans. /And so it goes...

[@ForumLight]

Indeed. The bottom line is the topic of the origin of all biological diversity is beyond the scope of science as beliefs, and reasons to believe in it, are all anyone can bring to the table. Here's what *is* science: A.k.a., well documented and published even in evolutionists' own papers (when they happen to include something that's actually observable, repeatable, verifiable biological, scientific fact when they're telling their common descent stories and why they believe in it) that demonstrates common descent from a first life form is anti-science. Science shows that it's observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact that, no matter how many generations go by, no matter how much "change in genetic composition during successive generations", no matter how much "change in allele frequencies", no matter how much "development of new species", no matter how much "natural selection acting on genetic variation among individuals", no matter how much "adaptation", no matter how much "mutation", no matter how much "speciation", no matter how much "migration", no matter how much "genetic drift", no matter how much "insert other claims here" no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish amphibians remain amphibians, canines remain canines, felines remain felines, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses, animals that never had lungs to breath air do not evolve lungs animals that never had hearts to pump blood do not evolve hearts animals that never had eyes to see do not evolve eyes animals that never had brains do not evolve brains animals that never had mouths do not evolve mouths living things that never had a reproductive system do not evolve a reproductive system animals that never had (insert organ here) remain living things without that organ, and so on. There are many more such groups. Science shows that the "common descent from a first life form" evolution (some call Darwinian evolution, some call theory of common descent) is anti-science. Evolutionist can never address these facts - many unfortunately just fall back on ad hominem, showing how they're seem to be really about deception that's contrary to actual science. Here are a few objections/claims they may bring up when they cannot address the above observable, repeatable and verifiable facts: *Evolutionists sometimes try to claim you're against science.* Science is fine and requires no belief. In the entire existence of the human race: Objects drop to the ground. Observable, repeatable, verifiable, no belief required. In the entire existence of the human race: Diseases spread. Observable, repeatable, verifiable, no belief required. In the entire existence of the human race: All populations of: canines remain canines, fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, animals that never had hearts do not evolve hearts, animals that never had digestive systems do not evolve digestive systems (or brains, or eyes, or reproductive systems and many, many more cases like these). Observable, repeatable, verifiable, no belief required. *Evolutionists sometimes try to say they don't claim that populations of 'animals turn into other animals' over generations* Quite the opposite. Evolutionists claim the first life form was a single cell. They claim that it is the ancestor of all living things today. That's "animals turning into other animal" over generations of mythological proportions. They claim humans, apes, rats, banana plants (50% DNA similarity to human beings) are all related - that's again "species turning into other species" of mythological proportions, claiming all life is related. At some point reptiles did not exist in their worldview. That means they claim over generations some populations animals that were never reptiles 'evolved' over generations eventually into reptiles - That's "animals turning into other animals" over generations to mythological degrees. At some point no animals had brains. This means they claim over generations some populations of animals that never had brains 'evolved' brains over generations. Yet when called out on this some evolutionists even try to say "evolution doesn't say species turn into other species", which again is just not honest. It shows they not only know they're wrong, but they show their intent to push this falsehood anyway. *If you point out evolutionists "populations over generations" claims, and some will dishonestly pretend you're claiming evolutionists are saying that one kind of animal 'gives birth' to another kind".* Which again is clearly deception. Science shows *populations over generations* do not do what they claim. *Evolutionists typically imply making up reasons to believe in their common descent from a first life form belief system is the same as "observing" it,* which of course is false and is just circular reasoning. Making up beliefs ABOUT fossils or ABOUT DNA *that never happens* does not then make fossils or DNA 'evidence' or an 'observation of' of the belief you just made up about them. *Evolutionists also typically resort to the crime analogy.* For example, since you cannot "observe" a certain crime, but can look at "evidence" for a crime, that shows we can know things happened without observing it. But what they ignore: the thing called a "crime" is already observable, repeatable, verifiable reality, so now we can look for forensic 'evidence' of some *MORE* possible crimes that no one is left alive to have observed it. By sharp contrast, what evolutionists do would be the same as giving 'evidence' for some strange new crime that's never been observed even once by the human race, and yet claim that's also an observation of this crime that never happens actually happening (for example: a "crime" of turning someone into a tree). *Even some people factually observing something that's never happened is not science if it's not repeatable and also verifiable*. So for example, hundreds of people are witness to the fact Jesus Christ rose from the dead (or that He raised others from death), and they wrote about it. Direct observation. But it's still not science because it's *not repeatable* and not *verifiable.* There's also evidence He rose from the dead, and some have observed Him alive after the fact, but it's STILL not science that people can be raised from the dead, in spite of evidence, and in spite of it also being directly observed - because it's not *repeatable* and not *verifiable.* And so it goes with the belief of common descent from a first life form - not only is it not *repeatable,* not *verifiable,* it's not even *observable* either - which makes the resurrection far more likely to be called science before the belief of common descent from a first life form ever could. But neither of them can be called science of course. *Evolutionists almost always are against Christ but are teaching their religion* that goes along with their belief of common descent from a first life form - the belief of 'nothing did it - it all just happened on it's own, including life - you're just another animal related to all animals - so live how you want and you'll rest in peace when you die". But they also pass this religion off 'you are god' off as science as well. That in mind, I implore people to re-read the gospels and forget what any church or any religion or anyone has claimed they say and sincerely consider yet again for ourselves. Judgment is coming for us all for our lifetime of sinning AND refusing God's offer to forgive and forget in the person of Jesus Christ. But religions also twist God's truth to make people think it's their religion and system of rules that makes them right with God when it's about a person: Jesus Christ, and choosing to have a relationship with Him, having a change of mind about living for ourselves and turning back towards God/ Jesus Christ to live for Him instead. John 3 : 14-21 *_"[Jesus said] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up [i.e., on the cross]: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved [exposed]. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."_* Live forever, friend!

[@davidhawley1132]

In operations research we'd call neoDarwinist model 'generate and test', in other words guess randomly (mutation) and then check if the guess was right (natural selection). Even common sense and experience tells how poorly that will perform. The generate step needs to be fixed, either by demonstrating the generation space is much smaller than it appears, or that there is some info being fed into it.Separately to the novelty generation step, it also needs to be shown how natural selection is able to select for mechanisms that appear to far exceed in power and adaptability what would be needed for a particular environment and time. That's not how we design systems despite that intelligent people are 'evolving' them.

[@davidhawley1132]

Gr Ra I accept that you adapted your thought to my comment. I deny that you could come up with a Nobel Prize level novelty by doing so. Even though you are infinitely more intelligent than neo-Darwinism.

[@davidhawley1132]

Gr Ra It only works for minor changes. See ‘The Edge of Evolution: A search for the limits of Darwinism’ for a detailed discussion and a critical review of the evidence.

[@davidhawley1132]

@Gr Ra I recommend going deeper. The book I cited is an excellent resource.

[@davidhawley1132]

Gr Ra Science has a social group and social functions like anything else. Go back to sleep.

[@davidhawley1132]

Gr Ra Attitude is cheap. I gave you a resource. Ignore it.

[@KenJackson_US]

_"Or are you going to have the courage to go beyond that?"_ No, they won't. Even though there's no possible explanation for life by natural processes, they will reject the truth on principle.

[@JV-tg2ne]

Because marxism demands conformity without a Creator

[@JaIch9999]

@@JV-tg2ne And what about capitalism?

[@WienArtist]

So true! "Neo-Darwinism does not work!" You cannot have a random process that eliminates any kind of intelligent foresight using the Darwinian process because foresight demands intelligence, and intelligence does not fit into the world view of Neo-Darwinism; otherwise you cannot therefore claim that the process is random, chance, and unguided.

[@WienArtist]

@@peteconrad2077 That was a real conundrum because all the flaming books were in the mountain of books on evolution - all filled with lies and fallacies. These were the books afire, the flaming books that were impossible to read because they were piled up and set afire. Flaming books therefore cannot be read! :-D

[@geobla6600]

Some of the comments are interesting in that their critical of the evaluations made by Engineers and Physicists in regards to Biology . Mathematics are used daily in research in both biology and chemistry. Math is used to evaluate everything from genetics to medical prognosis and every area of Biology. You could draw very few accurate conclusions in Biology without it. The unfortunate part for what I'm assuming were Biologists that believed in Darwinian Evolution was that many of these equations could be applied then as well as today , which would have showed hundreds , if not thousands of scientific impossibilities that their theory needed to surmount to have any credibility. Unfortunately putting a PHD in front of name doesn't necessarily cause a person to be a critical thinker or to use common sense.

[@Hannodb1961]

How Darwinists defeat the argument: Step 1: Label the Argument. Step 2: Dismiss the argument, because of its label.

[@Hannodb1961]

***** _You do realize that no modern evolutionary biologist is a "Darwinist"_ Red Herring _Unlike religion, as more empirical evidence is discovered, science advances_ Strawman _I see that the Discovery Institute still has no empirical evidence for their claims of creation science_ Projection _have you figured out what empirical evidence actually is yet?_ Yes. It is to observe whether the process you invoke as an explanation is _actually_ capable of producing the effects in question - not just relying on mind experiments and just so stories. Design is uniquely capable of producing functional information and irreducable complexity. After 150 years, Neo-Darwinists have yet start a breeding program that can prove that their mechanism can do the same. Bring me your flying dog which you bred, and we can talk about empirical evidence. PS. Lining up similar animals and then assuming evolution-dun-it, is _not_ empirical evidence for anything.

[@Hannodb1961]

***** I do find it amuzing - this idea of Darwinists that understanding a theory equates the acceptance of that theory. So, do you accept Astrology as true, or do you not understand it? See what I did there?

[@Hannodb1961]

***** Blah blah blah. Excuses excuses excuses. _As a psychopharmacologist I learned evolutionary theory mainly from a molecular point of view. I can "see" the slight changes to molecules in progressively more advanced organisms and how these changes in molecules combine to become changes in genes resulting in differing proteins in various systems in the different organisms._ So - you're basically just comparing different genes, assume evolution dun it, and that is your "empirical evidence". You haven't actually SEEN how a type 3 secretion pump evolved over time into a flaggellum motor, you just assume it, and take the similarities as "evidence" I can see how anything is possible in your imagination, but unless you have a breeding program where you demonstrated something more substantial than a couple of point mutations which happens to give some advantage, you really have nothing.

[@bluejysm2007]

Hannodb1961, Darwinists try to defeat the argument but fail at almost all debates between Evolutionists and ID proponents. Then when they see that they are betting on a dead horse they start to curse and jump and yelling etc. Maybe they need more time to formulate a better answer when debating against ID proponents like Dr. Stephen Meyer, Dr. Behe, and others bright scientists.

[@Hannodb1961]

@@bluejysm2007 Perhaps, if they start the discussion by accepting what ID actually is, rather than insisting it is what they want it to be, that in itself would be a massive improvement in the quality of the dialogue.

[@د.أميرالربيعي]

thanks for.. this video

[@Joh2n]

Love Paul Nelson, he has one KZbin vid that ends evolution. He talks of how genetics of common organisms is so different.

[@GeoCalifornian]

1:55 but, the question is, who, or what, has defined this “particular functional outcome”?? /Evolutionists simply cannot escape Intelligent Engineering Design to biological life!

[@larrytruelove7112]

My prediction is that they will hold steadfastly to the materialist boundary lines and decide that Darwinian evolution happened.

[@ruaidhri777]

50 years? They would have saved so much time by simply reading the first 3 pages of the Bible to see where we all came from.

[@ruaidhri777]

@Gr Ra Exactly. They wasted their time to try convince the deceived that they are deceived with scientific evidence. Has anything changed? No. Therefore they have wasted their time. I'm not calling them idiots, I'm just saying they obviously wasted their time because most people still parrot the evolution story. Can you see what I am saying?

[@henrilemoine3953]

@Gr Ra Lol now I know. What's funny (and a bit sad) is that they don't even realize it.

[@henrilemoine3953]

@Gra Ra5 Yup. :/

[@Ozzyman200]

Fascinating to see all the attempts creationists have had against evolution so far. They're been looking so desperately and they still can't find a flaw that creationism can fix.

[@Wadshammadi]

Wow, its like : "We withstand the challenges by ignoring them scientifically"!

[@LarghettoCantabile]

About that Royal Society meeting that was about to take place at the time of this talk, there's a good debate between Perry Marshall and Stephen Meyer.

[@poliincredible770]

Confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus (our intelligent designer). Believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead and you will be saved! (Romans 10:9) Life with Christ is INCREDIBLE!

[@RD-um9dy]

Jesus Christ is not god, but a prophet. If you actually want to get into heaven you will convert to islam

[@poliincredible770]

RD63 Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) I encourage you to follow Christ. He will fill your heart with love, joy, and peace. He guarantees eternal life!!!

[@hanellen7372]

@@poliincredible770 Who is Jesus from the Bible Jesus says God is GREATER than him (John 14:28) Jesus says he does not know when the Day of Judgment is (Mark 13:32 & Matthew 24:36) Jesus says he CANNOT decide who sits close to him in paradise (Mark 10:40 and Matthew 20:23) God says Jesus is His SERVANT (Matthew 12:18 and Isaiah 42:1) Jesus KEEP calling the Father "My God" on earth (John 20:17) Jesus KEEP calling the Father "My God" after more than 60 years from being lifted to heavens (Revelation 3:12) Jesus KEPT receiving what to say to others from God ! (Revelation 1:1) Jesus teaching does not belong to him, it belong to God who taught him! (John 5:30, John 8:28, John 12:49-50, John 8:40 ) Jesus miracles does not belong to him, it belong to God who sent him! (Acts 2:22) These verses from the Bible shows Jesus as a person who is lack or SELF knowledge and SELF power. Therefore, Jesus CANNOT be GOD or even co-equal to God. Jesus clearly says he is a prophet Matthew 13:57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home." also read John 4:44 Matthew 12:18 "Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations. Also Jesus' disciples says Jesus is a SERVANT of God too Acts 3:26(NKJV) To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.” Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his SERVANT JESUS Stop worshiping Jesus and worship what Jesus was worshiping and praying to while putting his face on the ground *Matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed,... * God bless and guide all of us to the truth Some extras: Jesus said :The father is greater than I ( john 14:28) (A god can not have a god to worship. This means that Jesus is not god since he worships god.) Jesus said :The Lord our God is one Lord ( Mark 12:29) (The trinity is falsified then. This means that Jesus is NOT God.) Jesus said :By myself I can do nothing ( john 5:30) (Jesus is but a human, and not god. He can not do anything himself.) Jesus said :You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only you shall Serve (Matthew 4:10) (Jesus explicitly says that you should NOT worship him) Jesus said :I judge only as I hear ( john 5:30) (Only what he hears, he is not then the all knowing.) Jesus said : if you want to eternal life, obey the commandments, ( Matthew 19:17) (He did not say that you should worship him or believe he was put on the cross to get eternal life in heaven.)

[@hanellen7372]

@@poliincredible770 He's obviously a prophet and a servant of God and NOT God.

[@poliincredible770]

@Han Ellen if God ever came to earth in human form is it possible he would be able to predict future events and speak on behalf of God (prophecy), and therefore be a prophet? If God was to come to earth in human form wouldn’t he be expected to serve God’s purposes and therefore be a servant of God? I’m sure as a person who believes in God you would agree that God’s ways are beyond our understanding and comprehension. I’m sure you would agree that he can do whatever he wants. “Whatever” could even include begetting a Son and sending him to Earth to be our perfect example and the ultimate and final sacrifice for our sins, if that’s what he wants. The cherry-picked scriptures you referenced don’t refute Romans 10:9. Please explain what John 3:16 means if Jesus is not God’s only begotten Son and we shouldn’t believe in/ worship him. The healed leper worshipped Jesus in Matt. 8:2. The disciples worshipped him after he walked on water in Matt. 9:18. The blind man worshipped Jesus in John 9:38. In Revelation chapter 5 he is worshipped in heaven. We who worship Jesus are in good company and stand on solid biblical ground. Accept Christ.

[@robsrob1283]

Wow. Just wow!

[@eddieboggs8306]

Should a dinosaur be found alive today how would they explain it away? Sure they'd come up with something.

[@henrilemoine3953]

Lol there are plenty. Every single bird in the world are descended from dinosaurs, which just shows your complete lack of knowledge and understanding.

[@eddieboggs8306]

@@henrilemoine3953 I heard it said if you tell a lie and keep repeating it eventually it ,though a lie,will be believed asif it were the truth. Evolution is a good example. I quit believing in fairytales when I grew up. Evolution what a joke. Bwahahaga!! Birds aren't descendants of dinosaurs they're birds. As I said they'll make some excuses. Case in point.

[@henrilemoine3953]

@@eddieboggs8306 I mean, is this all you got? You in no way argue my point, and keep saying that I'm dumb/indoctrinated by evil scientists? What about Archaeopteryx's fossils? Like, there is mountains of evidence for this, and if you disagree I recommend researching and arguing properly with evidence yourself!

[@eddieboggs8306]

@@henrilemoine3953 It was a fake. You need to read more. If you're talking about the lizzard with feathers and wings.

[@eddieboggs8306]

@@henrilemoine3953 Dont put words in my mouth i never said you were dumb. I just dont understand how anyone can believe in evolution. Gas out in space whirling around then exploding to create planets. Where did that gas come from?

[@moshemyym4627]

The math doesn't workout for evolution when it comes to biological systems and when it comes to the universe. I especially like the inference this atheist, cosmologist made for an explanation to the fine tuning conditions of the universe. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aJS3Za2Qfq2FadU Leonard Susskind - Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind Notice at 3:10 the talk is about the cosmological constant and how fine-tuned it is. He mentions around 4:40 that physicists have a habit of saying, whoever made the universe but they don't really mean it. This reminds me of Edwin Hubble in "The Observational Approach to Cosmology" who thought that the idea of the earth being in the center of the universe (having physical evidence backing it) was intolerable, unwelcome and must be avoided at all costs to escape the HORROR of a unique position in the universe. At 6 minutes the interviewer says in a nutshell, we have to give an explanation for this fine tuning and Dr. Susskind replies, "basically there are 3 explanations" to which the interviewer asks, "number 1?" and Susskind responds, "God". The second explanation he says is "accident". At 6:38 he says, "not likely to be an accident" then he proceeds to give a fourth reason before he gives the third one. The fourth reason is, "who knows, maybe someday somebody will figure it out." The third reason is, because it is believed that the universe is incredibly vast, maybe there's fine tuning in our neck of the universe but not the case in other places. They go into the multiverse "theory" but he never mentioned that as an option, he prefers a mega-verse instead of a multiverse. Dr. Susskind is an atheist. He may not believe in the Creator but at least he's honest enough to admit that the fine-tuning conditions of the universe is in favor of a FINE TUNER and he stated this as the NUMBER 1 option! The other options are only presented because he's an atheist and he rather search for other reasons to explain the finely tuned conditions of the universe. The point here is, this is a solid argument for the ID. You may have other options but you have nothing better than a Fine Tuner to explain those finely tuned conditions. We're very familiar with intelligence fine tuning things and it is overwhelmingly backed by science but we know of nothing else in the universe that has this ability.

[@terrytannatt2656]

I wish Paul would've have put a little meat on the bones & given us some the astronomical probabilities & time frames required to randomly change animals from one body type to another (like a lizard into a bird). As it turns out, the probabilities are basically impossible & the time frame is longer than the supposed age of the universe. A peek inside the cell tells one that this was not happenstance by atoms bumping into each other.

[@firecloud77]

@@peteconrad2077 What was the genetic mutation and natural selection pathway that invented the cochlea, stapes, incus, malleus tympanic membrane, and auditory nerve? You know, the interdependent parts that make hearing possible. Show me where the neo-Darwinian pathway for any biological system has been documented. Any.

[@CastIronGinger]

i am very interested to know what happened at the world society in london!

[@theinsectmanofwv]

It's a heart, not a head, problem.Even middle school students can grasp the math that refutes evolutionism. See www.insectman.us/testimony/lesson.htm

[@thejim3501]

+CamW30 This could be partly explained by the aliens did it theory. see Richard Dawkins fooled and dipped. The mathematical improbability could be further egnored by the fact that evolution occurred over hundreds of trillions of years. And under condition change , as required. Fact are facts. Math is not science.

[@thejim3501]

***** Can't read the document to sell. I'm using a smart phone. I didn't say the aliens did it . The evolutionist high priest Richard Dawkins did. The emense amount of time to travel can be overlooked with the amount of time required off evolution to self create. Them you can through in interdemintual in and out shit into it. With evolution, anything goes. Aquatic apes , aliens , mermaids. Then you package it together and call it science. If someone has another idea that is blasphemous to your religion , you call them religious nuts ! Very open minded.

[@thejim3501]

***** Put a cotex in it.

[@thejim3501]

***** What ?

[@thejim3501]

***** I think you should forgive your mommy for sending you to Sunday school.

[@ruachadam5227]

....Strange... people who can Not create one grain of sand demand that we all adhere to their view of how reality came to be.

[@theosib]

I'd like to see the people claiming that random chance plus selection isn't enough to talk to the people who have successfully used evolutionary algorithms to solve very difficult problems. To the AI expert, all this talk about things being too improbable is a bit of a head-scratcher, because they've seen it work first-hand. That being said, after billions of years of evolution, you'd expect the evolutionary process itself to evolve, leading to things like programmed DNA modification algorithms. We see those in the form of DNA repair and crossover, but surely there's something more sophisticated going on that we just haven't figured out yet. Programmed mutation algorithms would be decidedly no-random.

[@physchir]

But aren't those algorithms and AI created, at least initiated, by an intelligence?

[@theosib]

physchir Initiated, yes, but all the solutions come from random mutation and selection functions. This demonstrates how random mutation can produce "new information."

[@curvs4me]

Sure that works, but not when you need 6 or 7 specific mutations that offer no benefit before you see any changes in functionality

[@theosib]

@@curvs4me This is why a lot of these innovations come from "junk" copies of genes, so they can mutate freely without deleterious effect. In large populations over long periods of time, the single mutations accumulate. Note that there's really no room to say it's statistically impossible, since we observe this happening all the time in evolutionary algorithms. The same principles apply.

[@curvs4me]

@@theosib I agree with that for sure. However the time required taking chance into the equation and there simply hasn't been enough time to create species as we know them today. It would be an interesting experiment to set up an AI algorithm and let it run until it came up with some semblance us. Using supercomputer processing power to run billions of variations a minute should yield results.

[@ibperson7765]

Actually it has been solved. It has been proven impossible. The functional organic protein space was estimated in 1999, and the Wistar method was applied.

[@AK-gu4jq]

Evolution happened. But Neo Darwinism is dead wrong. I invite you to read 2 to find out why : "Darwin's doubt" by Stephen C Meyer and "Evolution 2.0" by Perry Marshall It's time for a paradigm shift in science and our understanding or our evolutionary past

[@physchir]

could you please reproduce evolution in a lab environment?

[@RD-um9dy]

Evolution has been reproduced in a lab. But that is considered mocrowvolution so creationists dismiss it.

[@GeoCalifornian]

1:07 and neither does Science cooperate with Darwinian evolution. /And so it goes...

[@fabiofaria4243]

Very, very interesting. What the heck...one of these days science will discover that the Bible has always been right afterall...

[@fabiofaria4243]

@Gr Ra Great times ahead of us...

[@KenJackson_US]

Science discovered the evidence for that decades ago, @@fabiofaria4243. The problem is the lack of honesty in analyzing the evidence.

[@fabiofaria4243]

@@KenJackson_US True enough. And this blatant lack of honesty has a lot to do with money, millionaire budgets for universities for research etc. And a bit (if not lots) of fear as well. What if those scientists who spent their whole lives deprecating religion and dismissing men of faith as if they were a bunch of Middle Ages simpletons, then all of a sudden discover that yes, they will have to answer to someone high above for their sins?

[@KenJackson_US]

Some must certainly be motivated as you say, @@fabiofaria4243. But I think a lot just allow the momentum of science history to pull them along. It's easier if you go along to get along. And it's a real shame because the designs of life show breathtaking forethought and cleverness.

[@fabiofaria4243]

@@KenJackson_US Indeed!

[@Hannodb1961]

Is it just me, or did CamW30 disappear into thin air? His comments seemed to have disappeared.

[@Hannodb1961]

@Gr Ra I don't think so. His been commenting on ID video's like its breathing. It would be quite a mission to get rid of all of it. Besides, why remove his comments years after they were written?

[@Hannodb1961]

@Gr Ra That is disappointing. I'm actually on the pro-ID side, and this is the first time I've seen this happen. I don't like that their comments disappear as well, because my replies doesn't make any sense when you can't see what I'm replying to.

[@Hannodb1961]

@Gr Ra What did it say? I see three comments from you after my "I don't think so" comment: "the channel is deleting comments", "I screen shot" and "Im also letting CAMW30 know". Those are also the only notifications I received. It seems like an algorithm is doing the removal, because I don't think a human censor would have allowed this conversation to continue, never mind allowing my initial comment to exist for 10 months.

[@Hannodb1961]

@Gr Ra You should not jump to conclusions: It might be the youtube platform. I've seen in many different settings how youtube sometimes randomly made my posts disappear after I posted them. I'm not quite sure why this happens, but two possible triggers I've identified is when your post is very long, and when it contains hyperlinks. When I say "trigger" - mean that it doesn't happen consistently, but whenever it did happen, one or both of those criteria was present. As a result, I usually type out long posts in notepad first, sometimes breaking them up into smaller parts to try and figure out which part gives the problem, and I'm almost phobic of ever posting a full hyperlink. When referencing a KZbin video, I opt for posting just the bit after the question mark in the url. Ofcause this does not explain the disappearance of CamW30. I do seem to remember that I searched for his channel when I wrote that comment and couldn't find it, so I assumed that he deleted his channel. (It was 10 months ago, so don't quote me on that) However, I did search for his channel now, and found it. So, either it was down and he recreated it, or I did not search properly 10 months ago. I don't know. Be that as it may, I did raise the issue with the DI, expressing my disappointment. I do expect a reply, because I've written to them previous times on various topics and always got a response in the end. I'll let you know if I hear from them.

[@Hannodb1961]

@Gr Ra The DI have replied to my inquiry, and as promised I will share it here. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Hello Hanno Thank you for reaching out to us, for your encouragement regarding our mission, and for your concern that there be constructive dialog around controversial issues such as that of evolution and intelligent design. It also seems you’re pretty familiar with the “straw man” fallacy many Darwinists use in opposing ID. I understand it must have been frustrating to see your comment disappear . As a nonprofit organization funded by individual donors, our main commitment to good stewardship of our donors’ resources is to support new research and provide new materials showcasing the evidence for design. This is where the overwhelming majoring of our effort is focused, and we operate with a relatively small team of paid staff. The short answer to why your comment may have been removed is that KZbin does its own moderation (of comments both old and new) using algorithms that we aren’t able to influence, and our own capacity to moderate tens of thousands of comments old and new is unfortunately but necessarily limited. For a longer explanation, CSC Vice President John West shares the following about our general policy with regard to comments: “We are definitely committed to a robust, serious, and civil exchange of ideas. That includes a clash of differing views. However, it doesn’t include personal abuse, swearing, threats, calling people Nazis and worse, or simply offering personal insults without any substantive criticism. Unfortunately, comment boards across the internet are often swamped by such abuse rather than a rational exchange of ideas. This is especially the case when it comes to controversial issues. For this reason, we do choose to moderate comments on our KZbin videos. “Our purpose is not to eliminate critical views, and you will find many critical views posted. Our purpose is to screen out personal abuse, swearing, insults, etc. KZbin separately segregates comments it flags as potential spam. It is also the case that because of the number of comments we receive (nearly 30,000 thus far), and our limited number of staff, some comments may not get published because we don’t have enough staff to review all comments in a timely manner. As a result, there are a number of reasons particular comments may not be published: 1. They violate the kinds of categories listed above 2. They have been flagged independently by KZbin as spam 3. They have not been able to be reviewed by a staff member and so are still under consideration.” I hope you will find this information helpful, and I hope you and your loved ones have been in health and good spirits during this extended isolation Kind regards Emily ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ This explanation does make sense: The DI does not have the resources to employ a large army of sensors, and from what I've seen from them over the years, they do not seek to sensor any genuine criticisms. Regarding CamW30, considering the constant frequency with which he posted on ID related topics, it is conceivable to me that a youtube algorithm could've interpreted this spam and removed it. With regards to your own comments disappearing, I am in no position to judge, as I haven't seen the content or the context of the comment. It might have been a moderator, it might have been an algorithm, I have no way of knowing.

[@danielcristancho3738]

The numbers are absurd. Macro is truly a faith based religion.

[@daddada2984]

Amazing God.

[@foxlake02]

Your problem is that you seem to think the outcome was predetermined. It wasn't. It could have been a myriad of other possibilities and you would be thinking the same thing about any of those results.

[@rubiks6]

Could it have been something other than living organisms? That's the outcome Neo-Darwinists are looking for, isn't it?

[@poe12]

This is a valid point. The mainstream video on the probability of evolution counts the probability of assembling a working protein out of 150 amino acids is 1/10^150. You argue that you can make many _functional_ proteins out of those 150 amino acids. Good. How many? Maybe you're right and you get a functional protein each time. Then the origin of life comes down to the chemical evolution. Problem solved.

[@foxlake02]

@@poe12 The theory of evolution does not explain the origin of life. You really should study the science more before you try to refute it.

[@poe12]

@@foxlake02 oh. Can you tell me of the origin of species? How do you change from eggs to viviparity? I mean I can understand it's genes and selection and viruses to suppress immune respose but still. All 99.9999999% of mutants with soft eggs died. One with a pouch survived and she became dominant?

[@foxlake02]

@@poe12 How is that hard to understand? Most mutations are neutral, some are deleterious and some are advantageous. The environment determines which ones have an advantage in surviving and reproducing. There are actually lizards alive now that can switch from giving birth to laying eggs depending on their environment. Darwin's book on the origins of species explains the diversity of species and posits that they all come from a common ancestor. If you think it explains the beginnings of life you should try reading it. Sadly, you only look at the misinformation creationists say about the theory though.

[@sillymesilly]

What ever happened to the idea that the simple rules leads to this kind of material engagement and not random chances. I still disagree there is some intelligence direction the evolution.

[@timh.6872]

The problem with simple rules creating biology is the opposite of random chance. Random chance fails because it's not constrained enough and gets lost in a sea of disfunction. Simple rules are instead too constrained to ever produce the highly irregular but precicely arranged information we see in biology. Consider the Fibonacci sequence or the digits of pi or e. They're very simple to describe and generate, but doesn't contain much information because they can be compressed into an algorithm that fits on a page. Biological information is closer to a book than a mathematical sequence. You need essentially the whole text to describe it in full detail.

[@gerardmoloney9979]

The question is who made the rules. They can't make themselves! The only answer is the God of the Bible. And PROPHECY PROVES THAT GOD EXISTS. Only God knows the end from the beginning. Wake up.

[@moshemyym4627]

It's funny how people try to distinguish one consensus from another when all consensus are exactly the same. A consensus says nothing about whether those who are numbered in the consensus are right or wrong. It simply means people are in agreement about something. The 'something' isn't true or false, nor does it become true or false because of someone agreeing with it or not agreeing with it. That 'something' must be true or false in and of itself. Science doesn't change what consensus mean contrary to a few mislead individuals. Now people like Cam and TheHealth would have you believe that scientists will always go where the facts lead them and that they never stray nor could they ever be flawed. They will also have us believe that all scientists are in agreement with the major tenets of the "theory" of evolution. This is just dishonesty on their part. Evolutionary scientists do not agree with the effects of natural selection, they don't all agree with genetic drift, random mutations, genetics, etc. Don't be fooled by people who will blindly follow what's projected from any branch of science without questioning those things. These individuals don't like to think for themselves. Yes, seriously, when one isn't degrading something it's possible they can learn from it. There is some design in astrology. No one said you should follow astrology but to dismiss the statement because you ONLY see it as magic is only telling on your ignorance of the subject. No one has seen nature design a thing. People do hallucinate often when taking drugs. The fact is when we come on the scene, everything is already designed, fully formed, fully functional and ready to reproduce. Adaptation and variation is a natural part of biological systems, not for them to change over some unimaginable period of time into something completely unlike what they were before. This kind of change is nowhere in existence, scientific or otherwise. If DNA is the software of life as Craig Venter has stated and shown, then variation and adaptation are built into the program of all biological systems. Small changes over long periods of time can't be known. Therefore any ideas suggesting certain changes being caused by the accumulation of small changes over long periods of time is based on imagination alone. Glad Cam finally admit that the designs in nature are real. That's one step in the right direction. If only TheHealth can confess the same. Then they can consider which is the likely candidate that brought those designs into existence, evolution or intelligence. Mind vs. mindless. Brilliant vs. stupid. Granted, neither has shown to have made the designs in nature so they are on the same playing field. What one has to do is test, examine, observe, scrutinize and see which one has the ability and capability to make those designs. Based on the evidence INTELLIGENCE alone is the likely candidate. I guess we're done here.

[@antoncordell4490]

MosheMYY M A rather smug conclusion. To infer that something is designed, first requires one to assume that there is a designer. Lets say that an investigator in a murder case will have some preconceived assumptions about what is known, based on their own experience. However if after investigation of all the facts they become aware that they were wrong, they will consider it a success, simply because something was proved, despite the facts being in conflict with their original assumptions. Nothing becomes more true just by the vehemence by which it is proclaimed. (Isaac Asimov) In other words, you can shout as loud as you like but without evidence all you have are words spoken loudly. Scientists often prove themselves wrong, and are glad to do so. Intelligent Design is not science, it is based on an unchanging assumption. In other words it is no more than pseudoscience. No different than telling your future from tea leaves. If you don't know or understand something, you can not just insert the usual "well obviously God did it" routine. It is anathema to science. A few hundred years ago a person was condemned for heresy because they claimed that Butterflies came from Caterpillars. The position of the 'Church' was that "God made every creature perfect in its own form and function", Caterpillars were Caterpillars and Butterflies were Butterflies, they were 'designed' that way by God. The people of the 'Church' used the same book that you do. Are you smarter than those people?

[@moshemyym4627]

It's not a smug conclusion and you should do your own investigating before coming to your conclusions. Your example of a murder case looks over the fact of what it is, a murder case, something that comes along everyday. Of course investigators will come to assumptions whether preconceived or coming from a wealth of knowledge from other murder cases. He/she has plenty to work from. He/she can come to the wrong conclusion, true but they can also come to the right conclusion as well. In any case, it will only add to the wealth of knowledge gathered from murder cases. Scientists are just like you and me. There's nothing in their work that prohibits them from getting things wrong because it is ultimately up to them to determine what their work will mean. You need to stop exalting scientists as if they are above reproach. You can also stop assuming they will be glad or take delight in proving themselves wrong. I just posted elsewhere where scientists will not go where the evidence is leading them because of how they feel about the outcome. Edwin Hubble, in his 1937 work The Observational Approach to Cosmology, on pages 50-51 (maybe a different page number in pdf) *The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.* ............. *Both explanations seem plausible, but neither is permitted by the observations. The apparent departures from uniformity in the World Picture are fully compensated by the minimum possible corrections for redshifts on any interpretation. No margin is left for a thinning out. The true distribution must either be uniform or increase outward, leaving the observer in a unique position. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs. Therefore, we accept the uniform distribution, and assume that space is sensibly transparent. Then the data from the surveys are simply and fully accounted for by the energy corrections alone - without the additional postulate of an expanding universe.* And on pages 58-59 *The departures from uniformity are positive; the numbers of nebulae increase faster than the volume of space through which they are scattered. Thus the density of the nebular distribution increases outwards, symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.* So today, because of what Hubble and other feel (and some scientists are straightfoward enough to tell you how they feel about an idea they don't like) the science is being woven around some philosophical world-view instead of the evidence. Hawkins did the same thing although his excuse was for the reason of being modest. Stephen Hawking in his book, *A Brief History of Time* he says on page 56-57, *Now at first sight, all the evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternative explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was [Russian physicist Alexander] Friedman's second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it on the grounds of modesty; it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around all other points in the universe!* They set the standard for what will be accepted and not accepted in science based on their philosophies and not the scientific evidence. More and more compelling evidence has/is coming forth supporting the earth being in a special place, at the center of the universe. These guys had some evidence indicating the same but refuse to accept it because they didn't like what it indicated. So much for science. As for intelligent design not being science, man, if it wasn't for intelligent design, where would science be? If it wasn't for INTELLIGENCE and making DESIGNS...so that scientific investigation, research, discoveries, experiments, observations, etc., can happen, where would science be? And there's plenty of scientific evidence to support intelligent design, the very existence of science is a testimony to that. But whatever has been designed by intelligence, from the mouse trap to the space shuttle, they are all evidences backing intelligent design. Then we look into biological systems. They are full of highly complex designs and upon investigating them and discovering more information rich systems and exquisite designs, based on our WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE concerning things that have highly complex designs, we only know of one source that is capable of making highly complex designs, similar too the designs we see in biological systems, INTELLIGENCE! Highly complex designs don't make themselves nor have anyone witness a blind, mindless, random process designing a thing. So based on this knowledge and not your strawman, "well obviously God did it" we infer an INTELLIGENCE far greater than our own, is the reason for our existence.

[@antoncordell4490]

MosheMYY M You obviously don't understand what Hubble and Hawking were talking about, to claim that scientists won't do research that takes them in an uncomfortable direction is just taking what was said out of context to suit your own purposes. Then to claim that '(We infer) an Intelligence far greater than our own, is the reason for our existence." Is just wishful thinking. Just like you, I too was brainwashed as a child with religion. Fortunately for me I realised at a young age that I was being lied to, about the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, Jesus, the bible and God. Many of the people that I trusted and respected lied, often without knowing they were just repeating a lie. It led me to a long and continuing study of what makes people perpetuate a lie. I studied many religions and cults to find a common ground. All of it is very political and is about power and control. I also never claimed that science or scientists in particular, are infallible, nor have I exalted anyone. To say that only an intelligence is capable of 'designing' the intricacies of biology is an assumption which automatically violates scientific reason.

[@moshemyym4627]

You must be desperate to avoid the obvious. Let’s just say, all scientists may venture into areas that are uncomfortable to them or at least know those areas enough to decide whether they will venture into it or not. What is it that makes them uncomfortable? It must be their worldview, some belief they’re holding to that they rather not upset or want to leave intact. In this case, both Hubble and Hawkins had evidence that were in opposition to what they believed or what they wanted to believe. There’s nothing being taken out of context here, the plain words of both scientists are very clear! The earth being at the center of the universe is something they don’t like, Hubble expressed this more than Hawkins. If these guys were doing real science then they should put aside their feelings, their worldview and accept the evidence where it leads, this is real science! It’s truly appalling that we’re have people that are more influenced by their worldview, to decide what’s real in science and what isn’t. You’re just delusional, trying to sweep these facts under the rug. As for inferring intelligence far greater than our own for the reason of our existence, that is correct. Science use inference all the time. If it was wishful thinking, put aside your nonsense and give me something better that is capable of making the biotechnological designs we see in nature. Scientists have stated often in so many words that the designs in nature are far superior to ours. You should try to be levelheaded about this. You only bring “religion” into this because intelligence, which is real, has been elevated in the mind of evolutionists such as yourself as referring only to the supernatural. You guys have twisted the matter just enough to not consider the real argument. You also exalt yourselves to the supernatural because also have intelligence but whenever the real argument for intelligence is brought to you, you throw your own intelligence in the garbage can. “Religion” has nothing to do with this scientific reasoning. Your experience with “religions” will not be the same as every and you will see things differently than others. What you can’t do is get rid of facts that are a part of “religion” or more to the point, the facts that substantiate the bible. Not your easter bunny or santa or any of that nonsense. Try reading the book and get some real history concerning it. I will ask again, put aside your nonsense and give me something better that is capable of making the biotechnological designs we see in nature. Only intelligence is capable of making those designs or designs similar to them and this is a SCIENTIFIC FACT, not an assumption at all! At the moment, your last statement hangs on nothing.

[@antoncordell4490]

MosheMYY M If you cant answer a question honestly, stop wasting my time. No matter how many times you repeat a lie, it becomes no truer. You continue to attempt to put words in my mouth, you continue to assume you know what I am thinking, and you continue to base your evidence on one book. I have read the 'Holy Bible', the old testament and the new. I have also read the book of the 'Prophet' Joseph Smith as well as most of the Pentateuch and the book called 'Recitations' which Muslims claim to be the words of the 'Prophet Mohamed'. None of those books have any evidence to support them. They are all books based on superstition, urban legend and myth. If you want to talk about the documented evidence of a person called 'Jesus' from around 2000 years ago, there are as far as I can recall about 135 of them. You continue to deny Evolution without evidence and continue to claim a 'Designer' also without evidence. I have never claimed to prove there is no 'God', any attempt to do so would be nonsense. I can however tell you that the 'God' depicted in religious texts is a psychopath. At the end of the day, the person you are hurting most with your lies is yourself.

[@stephenkaake7016]

no amount of chance mutations could ever produce 'me' a conscious moral, ethical, principled, logical, compassionate and wise person, who can personally Know his Creator, Thru the person of Jesus Christ, if we were the produce of a totally random and nonsensical process, then everything would be 'ok' we are just dust in the wind, a cosmic fart, here today gone tomorrow

[@tigerfan3905]

Adaptation, not mutation

[@rubiks6]

"Adaptation, not mutation." What? you're confused. What is available with which to adapt? - things that come from mutations. You haven't even comprehended the most basic concepts in evolutionary theory.

[@jimr5855]

Poor guy. Hanging on to hope and a prayer.

[@emperor___palpatine]

Poor you. Hanging onto randomness and mathematical uncertainty

[@kumarvishwajeet8419]

R

[@ksmoker27]

Wait, what? This guy's argument rests on a complete misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution actually claims. Darwinian evolution doesn't claim that evolution happens only by chance (like a roulette wheel). The whole point of Darwinism was that evolution *didn't* happen by chance, but was guided by natural selection. This is why the idea of natural selection was so revolutionary--it purported to offer an alternative explanation for how life could evolve *in a non-chance way* without the need for an intelligent agent to direct it; and that's a very different idea from the one the engineers at the symposium were arguing against. Therefore, I'm watching this, thinking, "But, wait, if the symposium and engineers which he's talking about were assuming that Darwinian evolution supposedly happens only by chance, then they certainly would've been quickly and totally disregarded by everyone else as soon as they made their argument, since they clearly failed to acknowledge or understand the key claim of Darwinian evolution--namely, that evolution is *not* happening simply by chance." I kept waiting for Mr. Nelson to explain how these guys were not just totally misunderstanding or misrepresenting what the theory of Darwinian evolution actually claims, how they were not just arguing against a mistaken straw-man version of evolution instead of Darwinism itself, but that part never came. And then it hit me: "Oh, wait, this guy is a creationist / an advocate for intelligent design! Now, I get it--he actually thinks that evolutionists claim that evolution happens only by chance." Man, it's too bad. It's arguments like this that make creationists and intelligent design proponents look really ignorant. As I was taught at the Evangelical college I went to, you really gotta understand the theory you disagree with before you try to refute it, otherwise, like Don Quixote, you can easily just end up spending all your time refuting straw men versions of what your opponents believe (rather than the actual beliefs they hold) and thus making yourself look foolish and getting nowhere.

[@peterkolyglot6581]

+ksmoker27 How can natural selection guide without being aware?

[@jeremylynes5508]

+ksmoker27 the mutations - which are selected according to natural advantages - are created at random

[@ksmoker27]

+Red Jedi That's a great question, and, as I understand it, it's one which really gets at the heart of what made Darwin's proposed theory so radical at the time. As we normally use the words, and as you note, ”selecting" something or “choosing” something kinda imply that there is someone (or some person) doing the selecting, someone making a choice. Darwin, however, only meant to use the word "selection" as a kind of anthropomorphic analogy--according to Darwin, no one is actually doing any conscious "selecting" (say, in the way that a dog breeder might be consciously trying to breed his dogs for certain traits), but still, Darwin claimed, certain traits in certain animals, and under certain conditions, can, nonetheless, if those conditions persist, slowly get "selected" for over time without anyone there to do the selecting. But how could this possibly work (as you astutely ask)? Darwin answered that question this way: Certain traits or some traits in any particular animal (or in any other kind of living organism (plants, bacteria, etc.) or in any population of animals or organisms) are obviously beneficial or helpful to that animal’s (or that organism's) survival (say, like having the ability to quickly run away from a predator or having a thick layer of fur or blubber to protect it from colder weather). Other traits are obviously not so helpful (say, like being unable to run away quickly when you live in a place with lots of cheetahs or like having a thick layer of fur or blubber when you live in the desert). Now, it stands to reason, Darwin argued, that if an animal (or any other organism) happens to have certain traits that help it to survive in its surroundings (say, traits that keep it warm or cool or keep it safe from predators, etc.), then that animal (or organism) will be more likely to live long enough to reproduce (and/or to reproduce often) and thus pass those same traits on to its offspring. Conversely, Darwin said, it only makes sense that any animals (or organisms) that don't have these beneficial traits will be more likely to die or be killed and thus less likely to pass on their traits (including the less beneficial or unhelpful ones) to future generations. There’s nothing really controversial there, of course, but here is where Darwin’s idea started to get really interesting and, in the view of some, more controversial. If what we’ve just said is the case, Darwin argued, then surely it must follow that, over time, if this keeps happening (that is, if the animals or any other organisms which possess certain beneficial traits survive and reproduce more often than those with the unhelpful traits), then, over time, over multiple generations, more and more members of a population will end up with the beneficial traits and fewer will end up with the unhelpful ones. Over time, then, this slow change in the make-up of a population could slowly "push" an entire population or an entire species towards possessing certain traits and away from others. In this way, the helpful traits can get “selected,” while the unhelpful ones can get weeded out. There's no conscious agent doing the directing or the selecting or the pushing, said Darwin, and this process isn't headed toward any particular goal or desired outcome, but it could happen nonetheless. In fact, argued Darwin, not only *could* this happen, we should probably be surprised if this sort of thing actually *didn’t* happen. All this leads to the next logical question: Okay, so while we can see how this sort of natural (or unconscious) selection *could* occur in theory, do you have any evidence, Mr. Darwin, that it actually *does* occur? In order to answer that question, Mr. Darwin wrote his book “On the Origin of Species,” in which he lays out what he thinks are many evidences that natural selection not only could happen, but in fact does happen; and many people have been debating the nature of that evidence ever since!

[@karantica3058]

Please correct my understanding of Natural Selection. I think it kinda works like this: There are companies that make good old cell phones. As technology advanced, Smart Phones came to exist and the market started demanding them. The companies that switched to making the new smart phones kept their share of the market and made a lot of profit. But the companies that didn't fulfill the market needs started to slowly lose their shares and eventually they got extinct because they couldn't keep up with the latest technology advances etc... No one was buying their sh*t products. So these companies just gave up and closed their doors =( Is this a good example of how natural selection works?

[@ksmoker27]

+ Sec Aragon You know, that's probably a very good analogy! Technically, it's actually probably a better analogy for the idea of "survival of the fittest," which is not precisely the same thing as "natural selection" -- technically, survival of the fittest was the *mechanism* (according to Darwin) by which natural selection happens -- but maybe that's splitting hairs. In fact, the famous and highly influential libertarian economist, Herbert Spencer (who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest" and who described the workings of the free market pretty much the same as you just did above), explicitly wrote, after reading Darwin for the first time, that certain parts of his own economic theory were pretty much the economic equivalent of Darwins' idea of natural selection. When Darwin was told this, he actually responded positively to the association and started using Spencer's phrase "survival of the fittest" in later writings of his own. (Spencer also happened to believe in what would come to be called Social Darwinism -- an unfortunate and now disreputed attempt to apply the idea of "survival of the fittest" to social policy or politics -- but that's another matter that deserves an entire thread of it's own).

[@noelmajers6369]

The whole problem I have with so called Intelligent Design is that is barely or not even a theory in it's own right. Any scientific theory should be complete and robust enough to stand (or fall) on it's own merits and it seems to me that the so-called 'merit' of Intelligent Design is mostly and exclusively it's critique of evolution. Unfortunately this makes ID unsustainable in the long run as one day surely the focus must actually shift to what is Intelligent Design theory itself - how did it work, how was the designing done, who or what was the designer and where did this designer come from ? So please, someone on here please be honest enough to explain WITHOUT REFERENCING A CRITIQUE OF EVOLUTION - what is Intelligent Design Theory ?

[@antoncordell4490]

I can tel you in all honesty, 'Intelligent Design' is pseudoscience. There, I did it without a single critique of evolution.

[@moshemyym4627]

Intelligent design theory is the scientific view that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. Just because it isn't backed by the number of scientists that evolution has and just because it doesn't have as much paper work written about it as evolution does, doesn't disqualify it as a scientific theory. It has merit. The designs in nature aren't illusions as Dawkins would suggest but they are real and the science of biomimicry more than proves they are real as it looks to nature, seeking to imitate and copy those designs, seeing them more optimal and efficient. We need to stop playing games here. Things are so obvious and clear. Why do people want to imagine something mindless and without intelligence as the reason for their existence? It is crazy and a headache just to ponder it.

[@noelmajers6369]

That is a total abdication of the scientific method. The notion that scientists need to swan around looking for intelligent causes is beyond absurd. Michael Behe claimed the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and yet we now know conclusively that it evolved as it's components can easily be traced through the bacterial genome and yet time and again we hear the same vacuous argument i.e. that something is so complex it could only be produced by design. Similarly with the cell. Stephen Meyer thinks the living cell is "irreducibly complex" but seems to be blissfully unaware of the whole phylogeny of cells and the fact the any cell consists of multiple pre-evolved components such as, for example, the mitochondrion whose origin can be traced back to cyanobacteria and the development of the cell occurred through symbiogenesis. Now these theories may be wrong but they have evidence and they have merit. By comparison, Intelligent Design is merely vacuous question-begging - it has neither scientific nor spiritual merit as it would even be rejected by most hard-core creationists for not being 'literal' enough (i.e. as in having insufficuent adherence to the biblical account). But I have an open mind - if Intelligent Design is a superior theory to Evolution then possibly you can point me to at least one major scientific breakthrough it has achieved (and I'm talking hard science here, not one of Meyer's relentlessly self-promoting books) in the last 10 years ? And please don't dodge the question - I've had quite enough of evasive and dishonest ID rhetoric.

[@moshemyym4627]

It isn't about scientists looking for intelligent causes, it is about scientists look for the truth of how the world works, the reason for the existence of things. For you to exclude intelligence is unscientific. This has nothing to do with your philosophical world-view and I can see that pretty much expressed in your comment. You know nothing about anything evolving. You believe the bacterial flagellum evolved and that's on you but from where it evolved is nothing but guess work. And no, the bacterial flagellum is stated to be more older than the bacteria you're referring to. As for me, I'm interested in how evolution cause the changes claimed by evolutionary scientists as this information is missing from the scientific data. I read a lot of about evolution doing it but not one demonstrable example as to how it did it. There's nothing about the process to show it has the ability to design anything and we know that the bacteria flagellum is exquisitely designed for a purpose. And yes, if it has a highly complex design, the only thing in the world that fits the criteria to produce it is intelligence, whether you like that or not. Please show me how a blind, mindless process could even have the capability of doing it. I know it doesn't have a will to do it and it knows no direction, no purpose and yet we see information rich systems full of functions to achieve certain goals. You can push evolution on anything you like, just give me one example of how evolution accomplished it. I bet you'll show up to be blissfully empty of one example. ID predicted the so called "junk" DNA would exhibit function and usefulness. No dodging here. Intelligent design is used all the time in science. In fact, without intelligence and intelligently designed things, there would be no science. I am boggled by the notion that you prefer to go against intelligent design for something that has shown nothing in our day and actually makes no sense at all. O HOW DID EVOLUTION DO IT?

[@noelmajers6369]

Question dodged. And scientists look for the truth of how the world works all the time. It is also not unscientific to exclude intelligence especially when the so-called ID movement finds something it thinks was intelligently designed and then the real science community turns around and points out the evolutionary stages that lead to its development. That would not be so bad were it not for the fact that in every single case, the ID movement would have known that something wasn't designed if only they'd read the relevant literature. Despite an immense wastage of trees expended in the almost unrelenting publication of ID-promoting books (all of which can be routinely debunked), I don't think you can even point to one case where the ID movement has specifically debunked a piece of science produced by (use the proper terms !) Evolutionary Biologists. All we get (and your last post was a perfect specimen) is vacuous rhetoric about things like 'worldview'. The science either is or is not correct. It's got nothing to do whatsoever with 'worldview' or, to use Meyer's latest purloined buzzword, 'materialism'.

[@denvan3143]

Evolutionist: …and so, gentlemen, as I said, we reject Intelligent Design… (a being wearing a cape appears from nowhere) Evolutionist: Who are you?! S.H.U.M.: Super Hyper Ultra Man. Could somebody get me a Coke? Never mind, I’ll get it. (a can of Coke materializes in his hand) Evolutionist: You’re not God? S.H.U.M.: (takes a sip from the can) Nope. I formed spontaneously after the Big Bang. With my super hyper ultra intelligence I designed the universe. Didn’t you _see_ the intelligent design? Evolutionist: We…thought it might be God, so we didn’t investigate. S.H.U.M.: What a bunch of wusses. (vanishes)

[@MrWeezer55]

Evolution is a fact. Get over it.

[@antoncordell4490]

I only watched one minute. As soon I I realised he said " A bunch of engineers and physicists decided to look at biology and see if it worked" I knew they were idiots. It's like saying a bunch of footballers and cricketers decided to go and play golf.

[@moshemyym4627]

You are clueless as to how much engineering and physics play a role in biology. If biological scientists can describe parts of a bacteria as having a motor that causes it to moves 60 mph, it seems engineering and physics are already very much a part of biology. Let real science breathe and stop trying to smothering it because you don't like where it can go.

[@lauroneto3360]

Dude you are just a denyer!!

[@antoncordell4490]

MosheMYY M And so yo continue to show your ignorance. When you say 'Motor', are you referring to a supercharged V8? 60 Mph is quite fast for a bacteria. I suspect you mean a mechanism which gives motive force, i.e. 'Motor', and you are referring to it's relative speed. The fastest organism I am aware of, both in actual speed and speed relative to body length, is the Ovobacter Propellens, with a speed of 1000 micro meters per second or 200 body lengths per second. To imply that an organism with motive force was intelligently designed is little more than wishful thinking, there is no evidence to suggest anything of the sort. Anyone with reasonable intelligence, who has read anything I have posted, could not reasonably accuse me of being "clueless" as you so stated.

[@moshemyym4627]

But you are clueless, especially after making this statement, "To imply that an organism with motive force was intelligently designed is little more than wishful thinking, there is no evidence to suggest anything of the sort." I really don't know in which way I should respond to your extremely stupid comment above. I mean, what in the world are you talking about calling it "wishful" thinking to infer the organism with a motor was intelligently designed?! I can't ponder on this for too long, I feel a headache coming on. What force, power, process, whatever you want to call it, have you seen create an organism with a motor or anything similar to it? I want demonstrable evidence of what can do it, not your blind faith in what you believe has done it. I'll be waiting.

[@antoncordell4490]

MosheMYY M Here is where you are making arrogant and increasingly insulting comments, probably out of frustration of not being able to answer any of my questions. It is clear you have no true understanding of science, you assume far too much. Firstly, you assume that I am trying to disprove the existence of 'God', and that I claim to be able to do so. Wrong on both counts. I have stated that the 'Bible' is for the most part fictitious, that is self evident. All religious texts are man made for the purpose of an elite few to control the poorer masses. If Joseph Smith could achieve what he did in such modern times, then it is easy to see what sort of mystical charlatanry could have been achieved further back in history. Secondly, Evolution works with or without the existence of a creator, you seem to be bent on disproving evolution because you can not reconcile it with the way you understand the world and that it doesn't fit with your 'book' of myths, urban legend and superstition. You are on a fruitless endeavour there. There is a great deal of evidence in all sciences to support evolution, evidence that has been gathered over a great number of years by an even greater number of people, yet you are willing to dismiss it all due to one assumption. Are you trying to imply that all those people over all that time were collaborating to disprove god? That is preposterous. Continue to insult me if you like, it makes no difference to me, or for that matter, the truth.