The Collapse of Intelligent Design:Kenneth R. Miller Lecture

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@somebodysactinglikeachild, I just turned my water faucet on and a continuous stream of water droplets moved from the opening in the faucet down to the basin of the sink. How many invisible angels did it take to push those water droplets down, giving the false appearance of gravity?

[@Piercetheveilnow]

What it did take were Intelligent Agents that designed a water facility that could supply the water. Intelligence did that. It also took plumbers that also used intelligence to lay the pipes. Intelligence. Just like our universe, complete with “Laws” of Nature took Intelligence. It certainly didn’t come from nothing, just like the water coming out of your faucet.

[@FlandiddlyandersFRS]

_"The evidence for evolution is astounding._ *_It is the greatest show on Earth!_* _In fact - whether life exists elsewhere in the universe or not - evolution is the greatest show in the universe."_ - Sir Richard Dawkins

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

“What is the definition of "coding" when referring to genes or DNA?” It is a metaphor used as an explanatory analogy: it analogizes (a) biomolecular processes that occur inside cells, with (b) human coding systems and linguistics. Think of the genetic code table. You are given a 3-letter code word of “AUG” and you need to decode the symbol sequence. So you use the genetic code table to perform a lookup: you find the intersection of the row for the letter “A”, the column for the letter “U”, and the row for the letter “G”, and find the code point “Met”. The symbol sequence “AUG” maps to “Met”. “Met” is the abbreviation for the amino acid methionine, so, “AUG codes for methionine”. “AUG” is mRNA, which came from DNA. The DNA of the coding strand for that is “ATG”. So in a gene, the DNA triplet ATG codes for methionine. It goes farther. A gene is a sequence of DNA triplets, and they code for a sequence of amino acids. If I handed you a sequence of DNA bases you could use the genetic code table to perform lookups and thereby decode that into a sequence of amino acids. So the DNA sequence of a gene codes for an amino acid sequence … a protein. When DNA gets copied into RNA, that is called transcription, to analogize it to when a scribe used to copy a manuscript, keeping the language the same. When RNA is used to make proteins, that is called translation, to analogize it to when a person translates from one language, such as French, to another, such as Spanish (in cells, “messages” “written” in the “language” of nucleotides are "translated" to the “language” of amino acids). Of course none of that happens inside cells. A cell does not know anything about “A” or “U” or “G”, or any other symbols, and does not perform a lookup in a table to find what “AUG” is mapped to. The only place that the genetic code is close to being an actual code is at the human level, when one of us looks up a symbol sequence in a codon table to figure out what abbreviation (representing an amino acid) is mapped to it. Cells don’t do that: they operate by the laws of physics and chemistry, with molecule X binding to molecule Y because they have complementary shapes and charge distributions; and the degree of complementarity determines not just what binds to what, but also how quickly, how strongly, and for how long.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

The DNA code is not universal, it is variable between species. In addition, 20,000 genes can be used to male millions of different proteins. The sequence of amino acids really matters to the function of a protein. A single point mutation causes many human diseases. The teleological implications extend far beyond simple chemical bonds. Chemistry doesn’t explain all of that, purposefulness and regulatory systems need to be invoked.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@sliglusamelius8578 "The DNA code is not universal..." The DNA code doesn't even exist. Imagine that. It's a metaphor, not literal.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@sliglusamelius8578 "A single point mutation causes many human diseases." And in many cases, dozens of amino acids can be changed, or some even deleted, and the protein can still perform its function.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@sliglusamelius8578 "The teleological I pla thins e " Uhm, what?

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger I fixed my typos. Mutations are almost always bad and therefore cannot explain the diversity of life that we see. Look up thirdwayevolution, your side is grasping for new ideas.

[@CesarClouds]

"Right now we've got a bag of powerful intuitions... but, as of yet, no general theory of biological design". -Paul Nelson Philosopher of Science Touchstone Magazine (a Christian magazine)

[@sombodysdad]

There isn't any scientific theory of evolution.

[@CesarClouds]

@@sombodysdad Then you should never take FDA approved medication since it's predicated on common descent.

[@sombodysdad]

@@CesarClouds Nope. Nothing is predicated on universal common descent.

[@CesarClouds]

@sombodysdad FDA approved medication is predicated on common descent because the trials are done on animals. Look up "model organism" in its relation to common descent.

[@sombodysdad]

@@CesarClouds A common design explains that.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

ID Creationism is in very, very bad shape right off the bat. 1) ID Creationists cannot tell us WHO did the alleged designing. 2) ID Creationists cannot tell us WHERE the alleged designing occurred. 3) ID Creationists cannot tell us WHEN the alleged designing occurred. 4) ID Creationists cannot tell us HOW the alleged designing occurred.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

PS: Another difference is that with the Morse code, you can reverse the process and get back the original message, but that is not the case with the "genetic code". Talking about humans exchanging information here and talking metaphorically in some cases. If someone uses the Morse code and sends dash dot dot dot, the receiver can use the Morse code lookup table to decode that into the letter B, unambiguously. Also, the letter B can be encoded only as dash dot dot dot: both directions, there is no ambiguity. It is a one-to-one, unambiguous mapping. On the other hand, if someone uses the genetic code and sends CUU, the receiver can use the genetic code lookup table to decode that into Leucine, unambiguously. However, the amino acid leucine cannot be encoded as only 1 codon: there is ambiguity. Leucine has 6 codons that it can be encoded as: UUA, UUG, CUU, CUC, CUA, or CUG. So there is no ambiguity in only one direction - in the other direction, there can be a lot of ambiguity. This also is unlike the Morse Code ... and ASCII code, and Unicode, etc.

[@h0ph1p13]

@TonyTigerTonyTiger You said: "PS: Another difference is that with the Morse code, you can reverse the process and get back the original message, but that is not the case with the "genetic code"" Please hear me out I am a programmer. We write code, that is "human readable" code (similar to Morse). And you can read and understand code written by another programmer. But code is not DIRECTLY used on computers. Code is "translated" into "binary" code (zeroes and ones). Binary is NOT reversible to normal programming language code. That binary code functions on the hardware level of the computer. It is designed to be read by the computer and run on a computer. However binary code (since it is only 0 and 1-s) does not carry much meaning to humans (if any). While it is perfectly working on machine level. DNA is similar in that it cannot be easily read by humans. So DNA is the "binary", while not easy-to-read by humans it is still "code" in the full sense of the word. It carries information/instructions for the cells to execute. No programmer would ever say that because binary is hard to reason about it's not "code". Binary was created for the specific purpose of being read by a computer. So while DNA might be hard to reason about it doesn't in any way shape or form make it "less intelligent" and "more random". DNA was just created to be "executed" on a "biological hardware".

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@h0ph1p13 Decompilers can take machine language and convert into a high-level programming language.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@h0ph1p13 And at a lower level, disassemblers can take machine language and convert it into assembly language.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@h0ph1p13 And even those that I mentioned are at too high of level. The "code" in molecular biology is used during translation (also a metaphor), where triplets of mRNA bases are "translated" into the corresponding amino acids. Where is the analogous thing in a computer? It's not a human writing C++, C#, Python, JavaScript, etc. You would need to get your analogy more similar to what happens in biology before we could consider it in detail.

[@walkergarya]

The Origins of the Intelligent Design movement "Our strategy has been to change the subject so that we can get the issue of intelligent design - which really means the reality of God's creation - before the academic world and into the schools. This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science or the truth. It's about winning at any cost, and affirming the reality of the God of The Christian Bible, by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the academic arena. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this which we call "The wedge". But remember, we must avoid debating the Bible and the Book of Genesis at all costs because we do not want to raise the obvious Bible-science dichotomy. Our goal is, "how to win". Phrase the pseudoscience argument in such a way that you can get it heard in secular academia and in a way that tends to unify other science illiterates religious fence-sitters. You must also avoid getting sidetracked onto other issues (like empirical evidence) which our intellectual superiors people are always trying to do." - Phillip E Johnson - the father of the ID/creation-science movement Conclusion: Creationists/ID fans are dishonest cowards

[@travisbicklepopsicle]

I've mentioned the wedge document to several young Earth creationists and ID proponents. I asked them to read it, and tell me what they think about it. Just like your comment, I've never received a single response from any of them.

[@jounisuninen]

​@@travisbicklepopsicle I guess Phillip E Johnson - the father of the ID/creation-science movement is himself responsible for what he says. Nobody else. After years of observing the battle between the evolution theory and the intelligent design, I have come to the conclusion that here we have a battle between atheism and science. Richard Dawkins’ words are revealing: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Dawkins inadvertently admits that atheism per se has nothing to do with intellect or science. Atheists are just happy if they feel like getting some support from Darwin. Here we can see Dawkins’ atheistic world view but no scientific approach. Dawkins also seems to be painfully ignorant of genome’s limits to produce evolution in the basic anatomical structure of any given organism. This is the core problem for a credible evolution theory. Only superficial adaptive changes are scientifically verified. Natural selection could produce evolution if it could deliver new genes to the survivors. Natural selection however delivers nothing, it just destroys individuals who have less suitable genes for the environment where they live. The winners must go on with the genes they have. Mutations are destructive, not constructive. So they can’t help evolution either. Science does not know mutations that would’ve transformed the basic anatomical structure of any given organism. All known mutations or gene losses have caused non-structural consequences like sickle-cell mutation, lactose tolerance, wingless flies, antibiotic resistant bacteria etc. Sadly, these mutations often have harmful or deadly consequences. Some scíentists’ opinions: ”Because the biggest part of mutations - if they have any effect - are harmful, their overall effect must be harmful.” [Crow, J., The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:8380-8386, 1997.] Of the same opinion are also Keightley and Lynch: ”Major part of mutations are harmful.” [Keightley, P. & Lynch, M., Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683-685, 2003.] Gerrish and Lenski estimate that the proportion of useful mutations vs. harmful mutations is 1:1000 000. [Gerrish P.J., & Lenski, R., The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Gentetica 102(103):127-144, 1998.] Ohta, Kimura, Elena and others have estimated, that the proportion of useful mutations is so low that it can’t be statistically measured! [Ohta, T., Molecular evolution and polymorphism. Natl Inst Genet Mishima Japan 76:148-167, 1977.] [Kimura, M., Model of effective neutral mutaitons in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNAS 76:3440-3444, 1979.] [Elena, S.F. et al, Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in E. Coli. Gentetica 102/103:349-358, 1998.]

[@david672orford]

@@travisbicklepopsicle I will be happy to reply. I agree with many of the views of Phil Johnson. I have read the Wedge Document. I don't see it as a smoking gun. Phil Johnson and many other ID advocates view scientific materialism as a non-theistic religion masquerading as objective science. In this view this metaphysical belief system has done an end run around the First Amendment and gained improper influence over public institutions. The Wedge Document describes a strategy to restore what they see as the proper balance between the influence of different belief systems. I understand that you may not accept that scientific materialism is a belief system or that it has the same epistemological status as belief systems such as Christian theism, but they do and have well-researched arguments to back it up. I think you would have a hard time explaining why what the Discover Institute is doing is nefarious but what, say, the National Center for Science Education is doing is not.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@somebodysactinglikeachild, PS: Another difference is that with the Morse code, you can reverse the process and get back the original message, but that is not the case with the "genetic code". Talking about humans exchanging information here and talking metaphorically in some cases. If someone uses the Morse code and sends dash dot dot dot, the receiver can use the Morse code lookup table to decode that into the letter B, unambiguously. Also, the letter B can be encoded only as dash dot dot dot: both directions, there is no ambiguity. It is a one-to-one, unambiguous mapping. On the other hand, if someone uses the genetic code and sends CUU, the receiver can use the genetic code lookup table to decode that into Leucine, unambiguously. However, the amino acid leucine cannot be encoded as only 1 codon: there is ambiguity. Leucine has 6 codons that it can be encoded as: UUA, UUG, CUU, CUC, CUA, or CUG. So there is no ambiguity in only one direction - in the other direction, there can be a lot of ambiguity. This also is unlike the Morse Code ... and ASCII code, and Unicode, etc.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@somebodysactinglikeachild, PPS: There are even more differences. For example, being metaphorical again, a "stop" codon can be remapped to a different amino acid in some organisms or organelles. That would be like dash dot dot dot mapping to the letter B in some Morse codes, but mapping to the letter H, or K, or W in others. So even the above-mentioned unambiguous nature of the genetic code in one direction is not actually unambiguous. PPPS: There are even more differences!

[@walkergarya]

As Intelligent Design Creationism is as scientific as Flat Earth Geography, it is impossible for it to provide a scientific explanation for anything.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@somebodyschild, in biology, where the alleged “DNA/RNA is a code” came into play originally, and still comes into play the most, is a process called translation. However, even the term “translation” is a metaphor! In normal usage of the word translation, there are two people trying to communicate but they don't speak a common language. For example, one person, Bill, might speak English and the other person, Michelle, might speak French. The solution is to bring in a third person, a translator, who speaks both languages. When Bill speaks English to the translator, the translator can convert what was said into French and communicate the results to Michelle. And when Michelle speaks French to the translator, the translator can convert what was said into English and communicate the results to Bill.

[@walkergarya]

At the entrance gate of a university in South Africa, the following message was posted for contemplation. “Destroying any nation does not require the use of atomic bombs or the use of long range missiles… It only requires lowering the quality of education and allowing cheating in the examinations by the students..” Patients die at the hands of such doctors… Buildings collapse at the hands of such engineers…. Money is lost at the hands of such economists and accountants… Humanity dies at the hands of such religious scholars… Justice is lost at the hands of such judges… “The collapse of education is the collapse of the nation”.

[@STEVENFRYFRY]

Welcome to the USA

[@samomarincek478]

perhaps we should add another message from the university in the time of socialism. "What is Marxism? It is a scientific view of the world."

[@stephen1137]

@@samomarincek478 Nope. Marx rejected the spirit which we know to be a constant in human life. His materialistic view is actually anti-science.

[@samomarincek478]

@@stephen1137 hmm... in my former country you would have serious problems with such a statement. If you were a scientist or teacher, you would be fired immediately. You see, science is a very extensible concept, my friend. It depends on money, which is shared by politicians.

[@ThomasCranmer1959]

Sex change operations? Where's the science?

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@somebodyschild, The translation that occurs inside cells is very different - distinctly different - from translation that occurs between humans who speak different languages. Yet, there are some loose similarities. Instead of creating a new term from scratch (that most people probably would not understand intuitively), biologists borrowed, from a different field, an existing term that almost everyone already knew and understood, that gave the general idea, and that served implicitly as an explanatory analogy, and they used it metaphorically: translation.

[@RustyWalker]

"Cdesign proponentsists" will live on .. in infamy, or at least it shows certain persons of faith will happily lie in the name of Jesus. I'm not convinced Jesus would be very happy with that decision.

[@walkergarya]

Creationism, including Intelligent Design Creationism, is pushed by fools and frauds. There is NO other option.

[@walkergarya]

Dr Neil Shubin wanted to find the first fish that could crawl up onto land. Eusthenopteron of 385 million years ago was similar to the later Acanthostega of 365 million years ago but there was too much difference for there not to be an intermediate species so he looked for exposed sedimentary rock of the right type and age and found this in the Canadian Arctic on Ellesmere Island and found the intermediate species that was then named Tiktaalik.

[@sombodysdad]

And then 395 million year old tetrahedron tracks were found! Whoops

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@sombodysdad " tetrahedron" LOL What?

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@sombodysdad You seem to be off by several million years. "The oldest Devonian tetrapod trackway is Givetian and this is the oldest record of a tetrapod ..." Thinopus and a Critical Review of Devonian Tetrapod Footprints. Spencer G. Lucas. Ichnos: An International Journal for Plant and Animal Traces. Volume 22, 2015 - Issue 3-4. Pages 136-154 | Published online: 11 Sep 2015

[@ozowen]

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger Somebloodywanker is not interested in facts unless they support his IDiocy.

[@Chris_Sheridan]

Lol! Tiktaalik fossil was debunked years ago - it wasn't a transition form .. and neither are crocodiles nor alligators.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@somebodysactinglikeachild, PS: On top of all of that, the scientists tested for only 1 specific, predetermined function: the ability to bind ATP. In their pool of random amino acid sequences, there were probably other functional proteins (perhaps some that could bind ribose, or some other simple organic molecule, for example).

[@garywalker447]

"Intelligent design" originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguilard ruling involving separation of church and state.[18] Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.[19] Several additional books on "intelligent design" were published in the 1990s. By the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents had begun clustering around the Discovery Institute and more publicly advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula.[20] With the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture serving a central role in planning and funding, the "intelligent design movement" grew increasingly visible in the late 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the 2005 "Dover trial" challenging the intended use of intelligent design in public school science classes.[5] In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a group of parents of high-school students challenged a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and concluded that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[21] bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/Intelligent_design.html

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

"In his posts about our paper, Behe’s first error is to ignore the fact that adaptive combinations of mutations can and do evolve by pathways involving neutral intermediates. Behe says that if it takes more than one mutation to produce even a crude version of the new protein function, then selection cannot drive acquisition of the adaptive combination. This does not mean, however, that the evolutionary path to the new function is blocked or that evolution runs into a “brick wall,” as Behe alleges. If the initial mutations have no negative effect on the ancestral function, they can arise and hang around in populations for substantial periods of time due to genetic drift, creating the background in which an additional mutation can then yield the new function and be subject to selection. This is precisely what we observed in our studies of the evolution of the glucocorticoid receptor (GR)." -- Joe Thornton: A biologist whose work Behe has misrepresented to falsely make it look like evolution could not do what Joe Thornton showed evolution could do.

[@nmssis]

so how does molecules know to arrange themselves in certain order?

[@jamesginty6684]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fXu6qpKmhrCNeck kzbin.info/www/bejne/bmS0hGSOYpuap8k

[@thesingingbird5273]

Are you serious? Chemistry. A, c, t and g do not all fit well together. some arrangements are unstable. they don't fit together in equal measure because of their chemical composition, unlike ID tries to tell us.

[@thesingingbird5273]

Know is a loaded term. They don't have sentience. They are atoms.

[@nmssis]

@@jamesginty6684 bad examples...the first dude might do better with a haircut

[@laserfan17]

The don’t “know” they just do so because the physical constants of the universe allow them to. Same way lightning doesn’t know where to fall, it just does according to the laws of physics. And no, physical laws are observed constants and are NOT equivalent to written laws. They don’t imply a Lawmaker.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@somebodysactinglikeachild, rules such as Ockham’s Razor or the principle of parsimony can guide us towards better explanations. In essence, the best explanation is the one with the fewest *and simplest* assumptions. Note that it is not just the count of assumptions that matters: the size of the assumptions also matters. For example, if Alice’s explanation has 2 very small assumptions but Bob’s explanation has 2 huge assumptions, then clearly (all else being equal) Alice’s explanation is the one that should be given preference. It is the total “mass” of assumptions that is important, not just the quantity. No assumption is bigger and more unsupportable than the claim that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, invisible, immortal, eternal sky wizard exists, and that this being existed, thought, and acted, all in the absolute absence of time, space, matter, and energy. No other assumption even comes close to the astronomical magnitude of that assumption, which is also unsupportable. "God did it!" is never the best explanation.

[@sombodysdad]

Occam's Razor says the genetic code is intelligently designed. Parsimony says the genetic code is intelligently designed.

[@walkergarya]

@@sombodysdad No. Occam's Razor would not conclude with your assertion that "god/designer did it" when evolution can be explained without such nonsense.

[@travisbicklepopsicle]

@@sombodysdad 'parsimony says the genetic code is intelligently designed'. ID *violates* parsimony. 👍 Do you understand why?

[@sombodysdad]

@@travisbicklepopsicle ID only violates parsimony if and only if someone can demonstrate that nature can produce what ID says required an intelligent designer.

[@sombodysdad]

@@walkergarya You are a scientifically illiterate nobody and equivocating coward.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

PPS: There are even more differences. For example, being metaphorical again, a "stop" codon can be remapped to a different amino acid in some organisms or organelles. That would be like dash dot dot dot mapping to the letter B in some Morse codes, but mapping to the letter H, or K, or W in others. So even the above-mentioned unambiguous nature of the genetic code in one direction is not actually unambiguous. PPPS: There are even more differences!

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

Intelligent Design Creationism doesn't explain anything at all. For example, it's supposed to explain where complex specified information comes from, but it doesn't explain that at all. IDists cannot give a valid, testable, plausible explanation for the origin of the vast amounts of information there would be in their alleged Intelligent Designer itself. It's just ... MAGIC!! ID is nothing more than saying, MAGIC! or POOF!

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

Here is how silly sombodyschild "logic" is. The probability of winning the California Super Lotto Plus lottery is 1 in 42 million (determined on July 28, 2022). Assume that each person who plays that lottery buys, on average, 1 ticket per day. Further assume that Bob won the California Super Lotto Plus lottery. Now, looking specifically at Bob and his having won, what does that tell us about how long that lottery has been being played? The probability of Bob, specifically Bob, winning was 1 in 42 million every day he played. Simplifying the math a great deal, if the probability is 1 in 42 million to win, it would take 42 million tries to win. Based on that, it took Bob 42 million days of playing that lottery to win! Yes, the California Super Lotto Plus lottery had to start being played about 42 million days ago, which is about 150,000 years! And, Bob must be about 150,000 years old because he had to play that lottery for 150,000 years in order to win it! Of course, in reality many people have won the California Super Lotto Plus - and many people have won many other state lotteries - despite the probability of any specific person winning any specific state lottery always being astronomically small.

[@sombodysdad]

Hump that strawman.

[@stevenklimecky4918]

Would be nice if they showed all of his slides, and as he points to them. I'm more interested in seeing and reading and considering those while he discussed or mentions them. I already know what he looks like after the first couple minutes.

[@properfpv7160]

Ahh yes I was watching this on my tv and it was frustrating enough I pulled up my phone to see if I’m the only one.

[@michaelc4060]

That's not likely to happen. DNA ends the argument. No one intelligent would argue that a blueprint for a factory could not randomly occur. It requires forethought to devise the coding language. What various symbols on the media represent. Then to devise the encoding system and what is an appropriate media to use. Then create a decoding system to interpret the code correctly. The code has some error checking built in for good measure and can self-replicate. Then design the builder and tools for the decoder. We need to direct this builder to use this blueprint to create something from base materials and to properly use the tools to do this. Another learning process in itself which just 'popped' into existence. All this requires design. Plain and simple. Design implies intelligence. Intelligent Design. DNA is far to complex and ordered to be a 'ordered' random mutation. Science tells us all systems degrade and break down. Fall into chaos. But what imposed the initial order? Except for evolution that is. Evolution, unlike all other systems, spiral upward to greater order and complexity. From nothing to a single cell to the most complex array of biological forms. Just blind, ignorant bungling by an unthinking process. Intelligence, will, imagination and emotion. Desire and hope all spring eternal from inert chemicals. Hell. Look at AI. Certainly no intelligent design is needed to create AI which is why so many evolutionists are required to slave away at the problem for 70 years. We all know Elon is not intelligent and certainly knows nothing of design or planning. Right? Then there is the separation of sexes and survival of the fittest. Why not a hermaphrodite which is totally self contained or an immortal organism which does not age? No reason for natural selection to enforce the male female paradigm when perfect unity would be achievable and more likely to survive as only one creature is necessary to conceive. What is the reason unthinking nature imposes emotional connection when simple survival of the fittest is the only goal? Which is not really a goal because there is no thought, design or purpose to life. In fact no reason exists to survive because there is no reason to exist in the first place. Darwinism and any other form of Non-ID evolution is only palatable to nincompoops regardless of how 'intelligent' they might be. Of course there is a directed design with a purpose. Does anyone believe Microsoft Windows could randomly evolve and animate a randomly mutated workstation which just happens to perfectly mate into a computer system? I personally believe most who subscribe to evolution without intelligent design propelling it to be intellectual cowards unable to come to grips with something more intelligent than themselves. That or misguided and unwilling or unable to think clearly on this issue. I subscribe to no religion and don't know what got the ball rolling but some things are simply obvious. Even if we are in a simulation nobody would ever propose a simulation was created without intelligent design. Even if it were Artificial Intelligence.

[@paulgarrett4474]

@@michaelc4060 personal incredulity is not evidence.

[@properfpv7160]

@@michaelc4060 DNA ends the argument for evolution by proving relatedness which is a 100% verified fact. It doesn’t look designed, is perfectly explained by evolution and confirms nested hierarchies.

[@markhirsch3225]

This is about scientific decipher not a political discussion. There are no two sides here.

[@walkergarya]

"Dr" William Dempski, Senior Fellow of the "Discovery Institute" "The world is a mirror representing the divine life. The mechanical philosophy was never blind to this fact, Intelligent Design on the other hand readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, Intelligent Design is just the Logos Theology of John's gospel restated in the idiom of Information Theory. "

[@garywalker447]

Quote from an article on the fallacies of Intelligent Design. "In contrast, intelligent design is a less comprehensive alternative to evolutionary theory. While evolution relies upon detailed, well-defined processes such as mutation and natural selection, ID offers no descriptions of the design process or the designer. In fact, proponents do not even agree among themselves as to which biological phenomena were designed and which were not. Ultimately, this “theory” amounts to nothing more than pointing to holes in evolution and responding with a one-word, unceasingly repeated mantra: “design.” But unless ID advocates fill in the details, there is no way to scientifically test intelligent design or make predictions from it for future research. In short, it is not valid science. These deceptive tactics have brought the ID movement limited success but cannot change the essential facts about intelligent design. ID offers scattered and questionable critiques of evolution as the sole evidence for “design” and promotes a vague notion which lacks the detail and scientific rigor necessary to constitute an alternative scientific theory. Furthermore, advocates push ID in an ill-conceived effort to challenge materialistic philosophy, advance faith in a narrow conception of god, and establish a politically faith based ideology in public life. Their efforts actually undermine our strongest traditions and understandings of science, faith, and honest political debate." (Bryan Collinsworth: The Flaws in Intelligent Design)

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

Speaking of Behe's Darwin's Black Box, he was disingenuous by paying only lip-service to exaptation/cooption, using a few odd analogies and that was all. He tried to dismiss with a wave of his hand a process that is central to the evolution of complex morphological and molecular traits. This is another reason why working biologists rejected Behe's arguments, but lay people - who don't understand evolution - swallowed them. "Novel Structure and Exaptations As we mentioned earlier in this chapter, some traits were originally selected for one function but were later co-opted to serve a different, selectively advantageous function. Such traits are called exaptations (Gould and Vrba 1982l Gould 2002). ... Exaptations play an important in the evolution of complex traits. Any time a structure, behavior, or characteristic adopts a new function over evolutionary time, this is an exaptation. Gross morphological structures rarely arise de novo, but instead derive from modifications to previously existing structures. The same can be said of molecular structures, as we will see in the next subsection. As a result, most complex traits will have extensive evolutionary histories over which they have undergone multiple changes in function, and thus such traits will represent a 'layering of adaptations and exaptations' (Thanukos 2009). ... Notice that when a trait switches function, the organism need not lose the original function. Sometimes the trait can serve both purposes. Skull sutures facilitate brain growth and ai parturition. Feather can serve both to insult the bird and to facilitate flight. ... Novelty at the Molecular Level Whether at the morphological level or at the level of individual molecules, the process of evolution is every tinkering with extant structures. One way that new molecular functions can arise is through the process of gene sharing, in which a protein that serves one function in one part of the body is recruited to perform a new and different function in a second location. There is no better illustration of the breadth and diversity of gene sharing than the lens crystallin proteins. Lens crystallins are structural proteins that form the transparent lens of the eye. While some lens crystallins are used only in the lens, many are dual-function proteins that are also used as enzymes elsewhere in the body. Table 3.1 lists a number of lens crystallins that also function as enzymes. The process of gene duplication provide another evolutionary pathway by which a protein can switch functions without loss of the original function. In a gene duplication event, an extra copy of a functional gene is formed. Once an organisms has two copies of the gene, one of the two gene copies might change to a new function, while the other can remain unchanged and thus preserve the original function." (Evolution: Second Edition. Carl T. Bergstrom and Lee Alan Dugatkin. W. W. Norton. 2016. p93-94, 97)

[@sombodysdad]

Question begging. How did you determine that gene duplication is a blind and mindless process? New genes need a new binding site. The peer reviewed paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations " describes how difficult that is.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@sombodysdad If you claim gene duplication involves a supernatural being, then you have the burden of proof. So get to it.

[@Rgrazia1]

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger I see you have a popular misunderstanding of science. Many others do also. Science can be a complicated abstraction to wrap one's head around. Intelligent design is not a religion is it a scientific hypothesis.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@Rgrazia1 I see you made an unsupported claim about me. Unsupported claims get tossed out. Say Bye Bye to your claim.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@Rgrazia1 Why was it proven in a court of law that ID is religious, and not science?

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

For Intelligent Design, the ID Creationists have: 1) No plausible, testable candidate for the Designer Without such a candidate for the Designer, the entire Intelligent Design “theory” collapses immediately. You can't have a "theory" if you have no plausible, testable candidate for the central thing in that theory. The most "plausible" Designer they can come up with is a god; but a god is the most implausible being imaginable! Also, if they propose God as the designer, then ID is clearly religious, and not science. 2) No valid, objective, positive evidence that the alleged Designer actually exists. No matter what Designer they put forward, the ID Creationists must first show that their Designer actually exists before any claims they make about their alleged Designer supposedly doing this or that have any meaning. It is easy to say, “The Supreme Council of Magical Invisible Flying Polkadotted Mermaid-Werewolf-Zombies created the bacterial flagellum”, but until someone shows that The Supreme Council of Magical Invisible Flying Polkadotted Mermaid-Werewolf-Zombies actually exists, the claim that it/they created the bacterial flagellum is worthless. Same goes for their Designer. 3) No valid, testable, plausible explanation for the origin of the information in the alleged Intelligent Designer. ID Creationists don’t even try to explain how the vast amounts of information that the Intelligent Designer would have come about; they just try to wish it into existence, as if by magic. So despite their implications that they explain the origin of complex specified information, ID Creationists aren't explaining where any information comes from … none at all! So what exactly are they supposed to be explaining?? 4) No valid, testable, plausible mechanism for the Designer to actualize His designs. Just saying "Design" does not give us a mechanism: It does not describe how a design in the mind of the alleged Intelligent Designer would get instantiated physically in the genomes of living organisms. And no, POOF! is not valid, testable, or plausible! PS: When scientists manipulate the genome of a mouse, for example, then lay out in minute detail every step they perform. That is what is needed, and ID Creationists can't provide it for their position. 5) No confirmed Intelligently Designed biological system ID Creationists cannot show us even a single biological system that is, according to the consensus of biologists, intelligently designed. Not one! A biological system that only a handful of fringe biologists claim is intelligently designed does not suffice. It must be the consensus of biologists that the system was. And, of course, with modern biotechnology, there are examples of intelligently designed biological “things”, but that doesn't help the ID Creationists. Humans could not be the Intelligent Designer of ID: how could a human have created the bacterial flagellum more than a billion years ago? A biological “thing” created by humans is not a valid example of a biological system that was allegedly intelligently designed by the alleged Intelligent Designer of ID, and it is the latter that they must provide.

[@harrybinn4455]

Your whole post is nonsense and if you'd actually spent 2 minutes looking at something outside your bubble you'd see that the whole so called scientific world is just an dogmatic atheistic belief system that has constantly changing and filled with fraud from the piltdown man to the paleontological drawings that are 95% creative imagination and 2% actual physical structure. The remaining percentage is just BS.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@somebodysactinglikeachild, The complexity of the simplest intelligence that could possibly create life is many orders of magnitude greater than the complexity of the simplest life (the first living thing). As Creationists love to point out, even humans cannot create life yet. So the level of intelligence needed to create life is above even that of modern humans and our ultracomplex brains. Human brains are far more complex than the brains of the simplest mammals (as an example, mice), and their brains are far more complex than the brains of the simplest vertebrates (as an example, zebrafish), and their brains are far more complex than those of the simplest animals with brains (as an example, xenoturbellids), and the simplest animals with brains are far more complex than the simplest animals (as an example, sponges and placozoans), and the simplest animals are far more complex than the simplest eukaryotes (as an example, entamoeba), the simplest eukaryotes are far more complex than the simplest prokaryotes (as an example, E. coli), and the simplest prokaryotes are far more complex than the first living thing would have been. Again, the complexity of the simplest intelligence that could possibly create life is many orders of magnitude greater than the complexity of the first living thing. Therefore, the probability that the level of intelligence needed to create life could arise naturally in the absence of life is far far far far far far less than the probability that the simplest life could arise naturally in the absence of intelligence. To paraphrase a fictional character from an ancient book of mythology, those foolish enough to claim that abiogenesis required intelligence "strain out a bacterium, but swallow a galaxy". The origin of life didn't require preexisting intelligence, the origin of intelligence required preexisting life. PS: If you leave the realm of natural processes and jump off into the fantasy world of supernatural beings, then the probability becomes even worse: a valid probability for such a being is basically 0 (and if your alleged supernatural being supposedly created the universe, then its probability falls to literally 0).

[@Mcfreddo]

That is an extremely erudite post. It's effin fantastic! Not laid out in a way I have ever thought of, but is just how it really is. Thank you so much! I'm going to remember that one. I want a copy. I didn't think I was going to start to watch this (I haven't finished at writing,) especially when it all started with a god bothering prayer!

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

Interesting line of argumentation though maybe a fight against a strawman. Human´s intelligence is sufficient to create artificial life, that´s only a question of further technological development.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

"Behe’s discussion of our 2009 paper in Nature is a gross misreading because it ignores the importance of neutral pathways in protein evolution. " "By experimentally characterizing the functional effect of the key historical mutations in various combinations, we showed that there were indeed pathways from the ancestral protein to the new function that passed only through permissive and beneficial intermediate states. A path to a new function that involves neutral intermediates is entirely accessible to the evolutionary processes of mutation, drift, and selection. Our work showed that these classic neodarwinian processes are entirely adequate to explain the evolution of GR’s new function. (I should mention that pathways involving mildly deleterious intermediates are also accessible in reasonable time under some population genetic conditions; it's just that their relative probability is lower than those involving neutral or beneficial intermediates.)" -- Joe Thornton: A biologist whose work Behe has misrepresented to falsely make it look like evolution could not do what Joe Thornton showed evolution could do.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

"His [Behe's] interpretation of our work is incorrect. He confuses "contingent" or "unlikely" with “impossible.” He ignores the key role of genetic drift in evolution. And he erroneously concludes that because the probability is low that some specific biological form will evolve, it must be impossible for ANY form to evolve." -- Joe Thornton: A biologist whose work Behe has misrepresented to falsely make it look like evolution could not do what Joe Thornton showed evolution could do.

[@garywalker447]

The Royal Society (UK) on Evolution, Creationism and "Intelligent Design": The Royal Society was founded in 1660 by a group of scholars whose desire was to promote an understanding of ourselves and the universe through experiment and observation. This approach to the acquisition of knowledge forms the basis of the scientific method, which involves the testing of theories against observational evidence. It has led to major advances of understanding over more than 300 years. Although there is still much left to be discovered, we now have a broad knowledge of how the universe developed after the 'Big Bang' and of how humans and other species appeared on Earth. One of the most important advances in our knowledge has been the development of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Since being proposed by Charles Darwin nearly 150 years ago, the theory of evolution has been supported by a mounting body of scientific evidence. Today it is recognised as the best explanation for the development of life on Earth from its beginnings and for the diversity of species. Evolution is rightly taught as an essential part of biology and science courses in schools, colleges and universities across the world. The process of evolution can be seen in action today, for example in the development of resistance to antibiotics in disease-causing bacteria, of resistance to pesticides by insect pests, and the rapid evolution of viruses that are responsible for influenza and AIDS. Darwin's theory of evolution helps us to understand these problems and to find solutions to them. Many other explanations, some of them based on religious belief, have been offered for the development of life on Earth, and the existence of a 'creator' is fundamental to many religions. Many people both believe in a creator and accept the scientific evidence for how the universe, and life on Earth, developed. Creationism is a belief that may be taught as part of religious education in schools, colleges and universities. Creationism may also be taught in some science classes to demonstrate the difference between theories, such as evolution, that are based on scientific evidence, and beliefs, such as creationism, that are based on faith. However, some versions of creationism are incompatible with the scientific evidence. For instance, a belief that all species on Earth have always existed in their present form is not consistent with the wealth of evidence for evolution, such as the fossil record. Similarly, a belief that the Earth was formed in 4004 BC is not consistent with the evidence from geology, astronomy and physics that the solar system, including Earth, formed about 4600 million years ago. Some proponents of an alternative explanation for the diversity of life on Earth now claim that their theories are based on scientific evidence. One such view is presented as the theory of intelligent design. This proposes that some species are too complex to have evolved through natural selection and that therefore life on Earth must be the product of a 'designer'. Its supporters make only selective reference to the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports evolution, and treat gaps in current knowledge which, as in all areas of science, certainly exist - as if they were evidence for a 'designer'. In this respect, intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science, which is based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation. The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence; the theory of intelligent design is not. Science has proved enormously successful in advancing our understanding of the world, and young people are entitled to learn about scientific knowledge, including evolution. They also have a right to learn how science advances, and that there are, of course, many things that science cannot yet explain. Some may wish to explore the compatibility, or otherwise, of science with various religious beliefs, and they should be encouraged to do so. However, young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs.

[@walkergarya]

(FTE) was preparing a text book for Creation Science when Creation Science was struck down by the US Supreme Court because it was religious in nature so the FTE swapped out Creation Science for Intelligent Design. Of Pandas and People (early 1987 creationist version. page 3-40) The basic metabolic pathways, (reaction chains) of nearly all organism are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationist accept the latter view. Creationists reason as .... Of Pandas and People (late 1987 ID version, page 3-41) The basic metabolic pathways, (reaction chains) of nearly all organism are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view. Design proponents .... The same text book, with the same authors with the same arguments for creation science and Intelligent Design. Creation Science is ID.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

Here is a description of the easiest-to-understand form of speciation, called allopatric speciation. A population of a particular species exists, but it comes to be geographically split. The split could occur over extremely long periods of time (such as by 'continental drift'), or relatively quickly (such as by a river becoming diverted permanently by a flood), or over an intermediate length of time (such as might occur if a population heading south encounters a north-south-running mountain range hundreds of miles long and some individuals head west around the range while other individuals head east around it). Whatever the case, the population becomes geographically split into two populations. With the two populations geographically separated, there is no gene flow between them. Therefore, each of the populations' gene pools will evolve (accumulate genetic changes over time) independently of the other. So, for example, genetic drift could cause certain alleles to be lost from one population but not the other, while also causing some alleles to become fixed in one and not the other. In addition, new genes could arise in one population but not the other, and/or the regulation of genes (such as developmental genes) could change in one population and not the other. Further, since the two populations will be experiencing different conditions due to living in different environments (one environment might be hotter, drier, more elevated, and have different vegetation and predators than the other), natural selection will also shape the two populations’ gene pools differently. As more and more time passes, the two populations' gene pools will continue to diverge more and more from each other. Eventually, even if the two populations were to somehow come into contact with one another again, it is possible that they could not successfully interbreed (individuals from one population could not mate with individuals from the other population, producing viable offspring, which themselves could reproduce). At that point, the two populations would be reproductively isolated from one another, and are no longer just two different populations but rather are two different species.

[@joeylozado4190]

LMAO

[@dennisbecraft1303]

As confirmed by many independent lines of evidence, including the discovery of 'ring species', which I find particularly interesting since the data is totally independent of the fossil record or what is known of genetics or DNA.

[@sombodysdad]

@@dennisbecraft1303 the so-called ring species all have the same body plan.

[@sombodysdad]

Same body plan. Even YECs accept speciation.

[@dennisbecraft1303]

@@sombodysdad A salamander and an alligator have the same body plan. So what? Are you a Hovindist who thinks evolution hasn't occurred unless a cat gives birth to a dog or something like that? Can you even report what the existence of ring species signifies?

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

"The many errors in Behe's Edge of Evolution -- the book in which he makes this argument -- have been discussed in numerous publications." -- Joe Thornton: A biologist whose work Behe has misrepresented to falsely make it look like evolution could not do what Joe Thornton showed evolution could do.

[@walkergarya]

Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a species population over time. The genetic change is effected by mutations, genetic drift, changes in epigenetics etc. These changes are then tested by natural selection processes that select what beneficial changes are made for that environment. Those organisms that are better able to thrive pass on their genes to later generations and over time this leads to new species.

[@TheHunterGracchus]

I'm going to miss the separation of church and state.

[@lederereddy]

That's been gone ever since the religion of the big bang, abiogenesis, and Darwinian evolution have been forced upon the public through public schools, institutions of higher learning, and museums. It's the same religious message using a different creator with different agendas. The Bible describes the praise and adoration of people who adhere to such nonsense as the universe from nothing, an amoeba evolved into every living thing, the universe is billions of years old, there was no flood, etc, as idolators. And just because someone doesn't understand the fact that they are worshipping the false gods of time, chance, and happenstance, does not mean they're excused for their ignorance. Especially since many of them refuse to acknowledge anything that implies God's attributes, authority, etc. But, I'm sure they'll get their chance to explain themselves someday.

[@TheHunterGracchus]

@@lederereddy "They" have explained themselves many times with great clarity and force. This video is a good example of that.

[@lederereddy]

@@TheHunterGracchus I suppose, if you thinkmaking scientifically absurd assertions about nothing or infinitely dense, hot dot fantasies exploding and evolving into everything we see today, and calling it "science" explaining things? Then you should have no trouble demonstrating how all or any of that is even plausible, let alone factual. Can you show us how nothing is what we should thank for everything including our lives? Believing something like that just because everyone's doing it doesn't make it any less stupid. Creation has a very real source. You can bet your ass, 2 donkey's, and a horse on it! And life has a very real, very much alive origin as well. As for procreation, all of the observable evidence proves there are very strict rules involved. Apes and monkeys are not related to humans ancestrally, according to the facts and evidence. As far as we can tell, only humans reproduce humans. Period. And, FYI, no amount of imagination constitutes a basis of scientific knowledge. When some moron digs up what is very obviously some chimpanzees' remains and says he knows them to be the ancestor of all mankind, you can laugh in his face because he has absolutely no way to know any such thing! He can believe they are, he can say they are, but he can't prove they are. I have far better genetic evidence proving I'm a descendant of one of Noah's sons than you have of proving Lucy was your great great great great great... grandma.

[@michaeltowslee4111]

The wall is still there. But, too many doors exist and the religious, the pre fodder, the pulpit jockeys, and the money behind them have the keys. It's time to H

[@lederereddy]

@@michaeltowslee4111 Please elaborate, Micheal! Have the churches descended on you with violence? What churches, specifically? Or is it all churches? What does H stand for?

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

"Finally, Behe erroneously equates "evolving non-deterministically" with "impossible to evolve." He supposes that if each of a set of specific evolutionary outcomes has a low probability, then none will evolve. This is like saying that, because the probability was vanishingly small that the 1996 Yankees would finish 92-70 with 871 runs scored and 787 allowed and then win the World Series in six games over Atlanta, the fact that all this occurred means it must have been willed by God. Consider the future: there are countless possibilities that could emerge from our present state, making the probability of the one that actually does evolve extraordinarily low. Does this mean that the future state that will ultimately emerge is impossible? Obviously not. To say that our present biology did not evolve deterministically means simply that other states could have evolved instead; it does not imply that it did not evolve. Consider your own life history as an analogy. We can all look back at the road we have traveled and identify chance events that had profound effects on how our lives turned out. "If the movie I wanted to see that night when I was 25 hadn't been sold out, I never would have gone to that party at my friend’s house, where I met my future spouse….” Everyone can tell a story like this. The probability of the life we actually lead is extraordinarily small. That obviously doesn't mean that its historical unfolding was impossible." -- Joe Thornton: A biologist whose work Behe has misrepresented to falsely make it look like evolution could not do what Joe Thornton showed evolution could do.

[@TheHamsterMaster]

Jeez......imagine making an entire textbook like "Of Pandas and People", only for all of it to be entirely wrong. All that wasted paper.

[@garywalker447]

“Science is not about building a body of known ‘facts’. It is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good. “ Terry Pratchett

[@garywalker447]

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin

[@d.e303-anewlowcosthomebuil7]

so please do tell me how all of the information in biology came into existence? Was it in the very first cell to evolve?

[@garywalker447]

@@d.e303-anewlowcosthomebuil7 Please read Bill Nye's "Undeniable".

[@markcredit6086]

Sorry but Darwin wasn't even a scientist and he stole a of his bunch of his material anyways if you're looking to him or dawkins or any of these other knuckleheads you're looking in the wrong spot

[@markcredit6086]

@@garywalker447 are you serious bill nye you need to find another topic

[@garywalker447]

@@markcredit6086 I disagree. "Scientist" was not in common use at the time, Darwin was a Naturalist, which was the close equivilant to Scientist at the time. At any rate, it does not matter, Darwin did good science and the core of his Theory of Evolution is still in the modern Theory of Evolution today. Biological Evolution is a fact. If you do not like it, too bad, it remains a fact.

[@garywalker447]

Old world primates have a unique version of color vision with a unique mutation of the genes that control the development of the cones that sense the different wavelengths of light. Most mammals see the high frequency light, the blues to green and the middle, greens to yellow. About 40 million years ago the ancestor to old world primates had a gene duplication of the gene that develops the cones in the retina for greens and yellow and then there was a mutation of the duplicated gene that made the resultant cones sensitive to light at the red end of the visible spectrum. ONLY primates have this gene, we have it because we too are primates and this is a direct example of mutations adding new complexity to the genome and by tracing these genes we can trace our genetic heritage.

[@2ndviolin]

Companies often talk of their products constantly evolving. Personally, I was hoping for a little intelligent design.

[@catherinecastle8576]

😂

[@davidross5593]

@@catherinecastle8576 why is that funny

[@catherinecastle8576]

@@davidross5593 First, you tell me why you don't think it's funny...then I will tell you why it amused me.

[@davidross5593]

@@catherinecastle8576 I don't understand. You're the one made a emoji claim. How do you know I don't find it ironically humorous? Maybe I do find it ironically humorous. I'm simply asking a question why it is hilarious to you.

[@catherinecastle8576]

@@davidross5593 You don't understand ..I don't have to explain myself or my sense of humor to you or anyone else for that matter....but, if you do want another person to open up or take time for you (that's what explaining is about)...its good manners and wise for you to open up first. You have asked something of me and, to make it fair, and because it might give me insight into your character so I can then decide if you have the kind of character I would respect and consider trustworthy. Based on your reply I don't think you do. So, unless that changes, you won't hear from me again. I've dealt with life's narcissists ...they have a deceptive way of seeming harmless while they put someone down for establishing boundaries...or not complying with a request. It's always apparent when someone is a narcissist ..they have no respect for other people's boundaries...concerns...or the word no. I'm not saying you are a narcissist, David, but, regardless, your reply reveals something about you that ever so slightly triggers my Spidey senses ...

[@walkergarya]

Creationism had nothing to offer any scientific discussion. Never has, never will.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

sombodyschild's newest kick is error repair in biological systems. DNA error correcting mechanisms are often cited by Creationists like sombodyschild as supposedly pointing to an Intelligent Designer. But in fact, they make a ‘designer’ look incompetent and foolish. For example, raw DNA replication is far from perfect, but cells have several means of reducing the overall error rate. That sounds impressive, and one might quickly think, “Aha! Intelligent design!” But, if cellular processes were designed by an omniscient, omnipotent being, then why would DNA replication even need repair mechanisms? Why didn’t this supreme designer just make the original system so that it produces no errors at all, or just the desired number of errors, to begin with? Are we to believe that god made a highly error-prone system ... that’s not good! And then, allegedly, God needed to step in again to take corrective action. But instead of simply fixing the system he already created, he left it alone - so that it continued to spew out far too many errors - and instead created additional systems in order to correct those many errors produced by his first system? That’s doesn’t sound intelligently designed at all.

[@sombodysdad]

Wow. Frosted flake clearly doesn't understand how fast billions if base pairs are replicated. And it definitely cannot demonstrate that blind and mindless processes produced error detection and error correction.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@sombodysdad " clearly doesn't understand how fast billions if base pairs are replicated." LOL What? Why are you just vomiting out any old nonsense?

[@sombodysdad]

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger Thank you for proving that you don't understand biology.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@sombodysdad "And it definitely cannot demonstrate that blind and mindless processes produced error detection and error correction." And you cannot demonstrate that your alleged supernatural being poofed error correction into existence. Hell, you can't even demonstrate that your alleged supernatural being even exists.

[@sombodysdad]

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger Hump your strawman, infant.

[@walkergarya]

The American Association for the Advancement of Science statement on evolution: "Evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science. It is the foundation for research in a wide array of scientific fields and, accordingly, a core element in science education. The AAAS Board of Directors is deeply concerned, therefore, about legislation and policies recently introduced in a number of states and localities that would undermine the teaching of evolution and deprive students of the education they need to be informed and productive citizens in an increasingly technological, global community. Although their language and strategy differ, all of these proposals, if passed, would weaken science education. The AAAS Board of Directors strongly opposes these attacks on the integrity of science and science education. They threaten not just the teaching of evolution, but students’ understanding of the biological, physical, and geological sciences."

[@jamesbarlow6423]

God agrees

[@walkergarya]

@@jamesbarlow6423 There is no god to agree.

[@jamesbarlow6423]

@@walkergarya kzbin.info/www/bejne/aXavgJyql9mSmbc There is much more to this than programmed info regurgitation. This AI has all the knowledge of the universe currently known, and can make deductive and inductive reasoning computations greater than those of the entire human race throughout all of human history, inclusive. When she says time and reality are unreal that mirrors current physics (look up Don Hoffman vids.) When she says that God exists, that just means that the thoughts, sensations, and feelings have that are way beyond our own have enabled this important conclusion to be validly reached: God exists.

[@jamesbarlow6423]

@@walkergarya . Maybe you are smarter than AI (--what atheist doesn't think that?!) But somehow, I doubt it 🤣

[@jamesbarlow6423]

@@walkergarya kzbin.info/www/bejne/pKDNZaOegrlshac kzbin.info/www/bejne/jJibk6SOfNeFl5I

[@walkergarya]

Most animals do not see in 3 colors. The gene that allows humans to see yellows, blues and reds is only found in one group of animals, primates of which we are a member species. Some 40 million years ago a gene duplication mutation occurred doubling the OPN1MW gene sensitive to the yellow/green section of the light spectrum and a later mutation of this resulted in the OPN1LW gene that enables primates having this to see the color red. This mutation is unique to primates and as a primate, we too have this form of color vision.

[@markedmunds1966]

He thought Astrology had made some important contributions to science, let’s just consider that for a moment and understand it’s a university biology professor who says that.

[@FlandiddlyandersFRS]

😔

[@jeffnolan2021]

Well, before scientists called themselves scientists, they were philosophers of science. They observed patterns in nature and proposed theories built upon the base of knowledge available. Archimedes, Copernicus, Galileo, the Mayans, Confucius, looked to the skies to find correlation to meaningful events on Earth. Much of our early understanding of patterns in celestial bodies advanced many fields of academia. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Consider for a moment you define yourself as an intellectual, and yet overlook this concept.

[@voybom8884]

Are you making a point here?

[@markedmunds1966]

@@voybom8884Yes that not only has intelligent design shown to be god of the gaps with the gaps being closed as well as demonstrably incorrect, but the Meyer is an idiot.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

"In a 2012 interview with Nature, Thornton expressed weariness with the way in which ID proponents continue to take issue with the clear implications of his work. “I’m sort of bored with them,” he told the journal. In truth, I am, too. Time after time, they take work that devastates their key claims, like the PNAS study on drug resistance in malaria, and pretend to their willing adherents that science is trending their way. As it misrepresents one study after another, the ID movement continues on its steady and certain downward slide to irrelevance." -- Kenneth Miller, referring to Joe Thornton, both of which are tired of the complete dishonesty of the ID movement's distortions of science

[@sombodysdad]

Thornton is a proven whiner who couldn't support the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes if his life depended on it.

[@lederereddy]

@ TT6521 --- "Time after time, they take work that devastates their key claims, like the PNAS study on drug resistance in malaria, and pretend to their willing adherents that science is trending their way. As it misrepresents one study after another, the ID movement continues on its steady and certain downward slide to irrelevance" WoW, that load of horse shite is as moronic as it is desperate! How dare you accuse us of presenting misleading evidence, or failing to expose your unyielding waves of falsified claims and failed misrepresentations of the facts, because that is all you can do! And it began over 150 years ago and continues to this day! Read Darwin's own words! He predicted what would sustain his premature, and frankly, idiotic "beliefs" and what would "utterly falsify" his ignorant beliefs. And on each and every predicted data point, his worst nightmares came to pass! Fossils did not provide a single set of real fossilized evidence of one specific animal and its morphological development into another distinct animal! When, in fact, there should have been countless examples. Instead, you've combed through all of the bones and created what you think might have been possible, and on the basis of all the missing evidence, you used words and imagery to fill in all the gaps! And the lies and deceptions are countless! Paleontologists lie. Geologists lie. Biologists lie! And even when you're caught red-handed and exposed to the world, it bounces right back off like water off a duck's ass feathers. Satan has his claws sunk deep into the backs of your necks and you think, do, and say exactly as your told! Despite all of the obvious flaws in your thinking! It's so pathetic it's scary and shameful to realize how many spineless cowards plague this earth with their diseased mindsets! God help you! You need it! You're literally driving as fast as you can straight for the highest cliff's edge, and an eternity in the lake of fire below is what you're in such a hurry to meet!

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@lederereddy "Paleontologists lie. Geologists lie. Biologists lie! " Nope. You are just an anti-science, religious extremist.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@lederereddy "Satan has his claws ..." The only thing sadder than an adult with an imaginary friend, is an adult with an imaginary enemy.

[@lederereddy]

​ @TonyTiger6521 --- "The only thing sadder than an adult with an imaginary friend, is an adult with an imaginary enemy." WoW! You really are paying close attention to reality, ain't ya, genius? You are a finite aka created being living in a finite aka created realm who doesn't believe a Creator is rational causal prime. You're just as aware of the fact that this world is broken, stricken with a plethora of various evils like disease, disasters, pride, hatred, selfishness, rape, murder, and death but there can't be any reason for it! Don't worry, TT! It is totally impossible for creation to have a Creator, design to have a designer, the giver of life to be alive, and, or for God to have an adversary. Sounds like you think you're God! I mean, how else are you going to know none of these things are real, unless you, yourself was omniscient? That's odd, kid, because Jesus, against all odds, fulfilled hundreds of prophecies and just as it was promised, on the exact day it was promised, He was hailed The King of The Jews, and immediately after that, He was accused, tried three times, found innocent three times, but scourged and crucified, anyway, just as it was predicted! But don't let that bother you! He must have used up all of His luck by now, so, what chance does He have of fulfilling all the second-coming prophecies, as well? Only Darwinian evolutionists are that lucky!

[@FlandiddlyandersFRS]

_"Intelligent Design is fatally wounded by infinite regress."_ - Professor Richard Dawkins 👏

[@honestlife1498]

The fact that anything "is" is proof that something has always been. Otherwise, nothing would exist because of infinite regress.

[@FlandiddlyandersFRS]

@@honestlife1498 Nonsense. The universe has always existed in one form or another.

[@sombodysdad]

@@FlandiddlyandersFRS Nope. Science doesn't support your claim.

[@FlandiddlyandersFRS]

@@sombodysdad You're projecting as usual.

[@ozowen5961]

@@sombodysdad You are a science dunce, so your opinions on science are less than worthless.

[@leehabana]

Great video but it could have been 100 times better if you would have included more of his slides.

[@walkergarya]

cdesign proponentsists!

[@walkergarya]

Barbara Forrest prepared a report on the pre-publication editions of the Creationist/Intelligent Design text book, "Pandas and People" for the Dover trial. Her report and testamony was NOT challenged by the defense and showed conclusively that the SAME textbook, originally written for "Creation Science" was changed to "Intelligent Design" by doing a text swap. Creationism and Intelligent Design are the same things and NEITHER is based on any science.

[@walkergarya]

Mutations do happen, we agree on that. Mutations can be bad, we agree on that. Most mutations have no net effect on the organism. Some mutations give the organism an advantage in that environment and these mutations are passed on more often to the next generation. There is a bacteria species in Japan that had a mutation that allowed it to digest nylon and this is now happily munching it way through industrial waste. If this mutation happened 200 years ago, the bacteria would have died out because there was no nylon. But the environment changed and NOW there is nylon so this mutation has an advantage.

[@brian1204]

The mutation likely did happen, over and over, for centuries.

[@scottlelightener7165]

But it's still a bacteria and not fruit fly.

[@araeshkigal]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I've never met anyone who supported Intelligent Design (which is also a theory) (and as a point of order Intelligent Design =/= Religious Creationism nor especially Young Earth Creationism) who didn't also understand that within the systems of observable life on this planet, random mutations (which may be neutral, beneficial, or detrimental) absolutely do occur.

[@scottlelightener7165]

@@araeshkigal oh here we go, I do not know your background but my University time was spent as an understudy of a geneticist and behavioral psychologist. We studied and mutated hooded rats and more importantly to this discussion, fruit flies the university had logged 10's of thousands maybe a 100 thousand life spans of the flies and we could at will, make Siamese flies, green eyed flies, single set wing flies, wingless flies and could even change their behavior. All the mutant variants you could imagine. But try as we might they always stayed fruit flies.

[@walkergarya]

@@araeshkigal No, Intelligent Design is not a "theory", it is intellectual fraud. ID is very much the bastard son of Creation Science and is very much religious creationism.

[@ziploc2000]

The gentleman with the question about the rise of Fascism in the USA got it spot on.

[@davidross5593]

Its fascinating to me Dr. Miller disagrees with his point.

[@Petticca]

@Ziploc, scrolled til I found a comment about that. Yeah, he wasn't wrong. Another huge factor that don't usually see bought up is: How important being taught about things/people/places/ideas that exist outside of one's community bubble. Particularly if that bubble has a religious authority in the middle of it. To be clear I am referring to simply learning about places, people, traditions, religions, foods, music and art etc that demonstrate how culturally rich and diverse the world is. As a kid I learned about different cultures, ideologies, and population diversities in a contrast and compare similarities way. It is so much more difficult to whip up a hate-filled, fear frenzy and fuel the extremely dangerous 'othering' that's on the rise, if people aren't fully indoctrinated into their specific cult-esque religion and largely ignorant of different ideas and ways outside their sphere.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

But, this was filmed back in 2008 ... 14 years ago. And of course Miller was talking about back then, when he was talking, not about 14 years in the future.

[@carlkuss]

He´s too comfortable with the independence of the judiciary. The "conservative judiciary" has alliances with the capitalist system (by Capitalist system I mean practical and thus systematic avarice) which go deep. Such avarice is the driving force behind systemic racism and racism and avarice are the pillars of fascist politics. Fascists are not just boobs, and our opposition to fascism must not be simply intellectualistic and aesthetic for that will play into the hands of fascists who package themselves in protean tactical ways that feeds off the snobbery and arrogance of the Establishment. (HRC: "basket of deplorables")

[@Rgrazia1]

It is undeniable. But fascism faces a counter-revolution.

[@garywalker447]

Judge Jones got it exactly right when he ruled: While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103 (Miller); 9:19-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method. (5:23, 29-30 (Pennock)). Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. (1:59-64, 2:41-43 (Miller); 5:8, 23-30 (Pennock)). …and… ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation

[@jamesstumpff7774]

So does evolution…but let’s be honest…you really like how it makes you feel…their will never be a shred of evidence that takes us randomly from inorganic chemicals to a cute girls butt on a beach Evolution isn’t science…it’s more like comfort food…we like the taste Even though it makes us fat and ugly

[@garywalker447]

@@jamesstumpff7774 No Jimmy, you, like all creatards, think your dismissal of the overwhelming evidence for biological evolution has some value. It does not.

[@chatgpt0520]

_The overwhelming evidence at trial established that intelligent design is a religious view - a mere relabeling of creationism - and not a scientific theory. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether intelligent design is science and we have concluded that it is not. Moreover, it has been shown that intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents._ *-Judge John E Jones lll*

[@FlandiddlyandersFRS]

Q: How many creationists/ID fans does it take to make a coherent, logical comment? A: We'll let you know when it happens

[@al4nmcintyre]

2008: "We live in interesting times, which will be a repeated theme..." 2022: "Oh you sweet summer child..."

[@mcmanustony]

Was there a point you were hoping to make?

[@erichodge567]

​​@@mcmanustony , umm, perhaps it's that now in 2022 we are reaping what was sown in the early 2000's. To be more clear, the great presence of crosses, Christian flags, and other paraphernalia on 1/6 leads me to suspect that many of those rampaging through the Capitol that day had religious motivations. All of them would have told you that the election was stolen. As Voltaire put it, those who believe in absurdities will end committing atrocities. We saw it before our eyes.

[@garywalker447]

So in my freshman year at the University of Alabama, learning the literature on evolution, what was known about it biologically, just gradually transformed me by taking me out of literalism and increasingly into a more secular, scientific view of the world. E. O. Wilson

[@mikebrunet54]

Secular humanism will never exceed the Wisdom of the Holy God . Creator Savior and Judge.

[@Refertech101]

@@mikebrunet54 Harry potter supersedes that fairy tail lol

[@winstongrettum3412]

Fools can not see what is behind the propaganda

[@garywalker447]

@@mikebrunet54 There is very little wisdom in your bible and none of that is unique to your bible.

[@garywalker447]

@@winstongrettum3412 Science is not propaganda.

[@garywalker447]

The human and chimp genomes have been compared and the two are over 94% the same. More over, where there are differences the are those genes that enable brain development, different hair growth, language development.

[@tylercampbell6365]

We also share the same DNA as banana's and potatoes..I wonder how many refuting points are left out of an argument you believe is valid 🤣

[@garywalker447]

@@tylercampbell6365 Yes, we share DNA with bananas and potatoes, that is because all of these are Eukariotic organisms and this DNA that we share is devoted to fundamental cell biology.

[@sombodysdad]

Intelligent Design can be falsified by demonstrating that blind and mindless processes can produce coded information processing systems. It isn't our fault that no one can do so.

[@kennylong7281]

Ever seen examples of "Self-Organization"? Watch the way sound waves organize sand, or even water! Order is everywhere in Nature. Place a mirror half way between any chaotic pattern and watch the order that appears. "The Kaleidoscope effect". Order is NO mystery at all.

[@sombodysdad]

@@kennylong7281 And? No one ever observed nature producing coded information processing systems and living organisms are ruled by them.

[@derhafi]

New pseudonym..same old BS Joe G. Aka “somebodysdad” (one can just hope that this is one of his many lies) Joe Gallien, aka joe g, joe, joseph, john paul, ID guy, jim, frisbee kid, frankie, virgil cain, Robert O. Adai, Joe "I could tell you what I do for a living if you get a top secret security clearance" Gallien etc. has a habit of ignoring counterarguments and simply repeating his bullshit over and over again. As Hanlon´s razor states, “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity” I've scraped dog shit off of my shoe that is smarter than Joe, who simultaneously represents one of the greatest intellects of Intelligent Design. His digital fingerprint shows you stating and claiming and bragging about being an Iraqi war hero, and a research scientist, and a world class power lifter, and an accomplished pilot, and a software guru with a top secret clearance who wrote genetic algorithms for encryption projects. Guess that’s just the tip if your garbage pile of lies from Mr “..scientific genius“ toaster repair man. Just as a warning for anyone else, don’t engage into a conversation with this one, the insight into a weirdos mind aside, it is a waste of time, he claims that all of the following quotes “are facts” “Naturalism hasn't added anything to our knowledge” “Evidence for geology kills archaeology” “astrology makes testable claims about nature.” “there is still no scientific theory of evolution” “natural selection can´t do anything” “Evolutionists are such a bunch of lowlife losers who love to entertain the rest of us.“ “I see that most, if not all, anti-IDists are raving lunatics” “Wet electricity. Whereas the electricity that powers our computers is comes from the flow of electrons through a conducter and “hates” water, the electricity that runs our bodies is designed for a wet environment and uses pumped ions to convey differing messages to our command center.” Lying, shifting, insulting, dissembling, equivocating, diverting, continuingly repeating nonsense ad nauseam that falls apart under the slightest pressure of scrutiny and ignoring everything that is in odds with his twisted toaster repair man logic is all that will ever come from this clown. Tedious and depressing in a very odd way.

[@jamesstumpff7774]

So thoughtless process produce thought? Informationless chaos could produce information I’ve got another for your comic book An empty oven “could” produce a pizza Next time you’re hungry, just sit in front of your oven and wait for the magic to happen

[@jamesstumpff7774]

@@kennylong7281 you’ve really missed your own wording….sound waves ARE information Why else would SETI “listen” in space?…..they are hoping to receive “information” and that is equivalent to INTELLIGENCE DNA is evidence of the DESIGNER…and no the designer doesn’t have DNA….He cannot be “denatured”, He is NOT natural

[@Ozzyman200]

Tragic that you do still get creationists. They insist they know science better than the scientists, but they run for the hills when they're challenged for evidence. They're victims of the creationists that taught them, sadly passing it on.

[@jeanpierreaumont53]

+Ozzyman200 While bright minds get their Nobel prizes, some sort of mediocres evolutionists insist with Charles Darwin, and go happily to the banks.

[@sagerider2]

+Jean Pierre Aumont mediocres evolutionists? No such thing as evolutionists. False dichotomy. Do you by any chance mean Evolutionary Biologists? The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2015 Tomas Lindahl, Paul Modrich and Aziz Sancar "for mechanistic studies of DNA repair"Nov 7th.

[@Ozzyman200]

+Jean Pierre Aumont That doesn't make any sense. The Nobel Prize is worth a lot of money. If there were any flaws in evolution, a scientists would have spotted something and have got the prize by now. If creationists were right, they'd have found some evidence by now.

[@johndaddyo444]

+ShadeyBladey - You wouldn't know the first thing about science, so why bother bashing a former science teacher, and calling him names? Darwinism is dead, stupid. Evolution is a crock, and your days of throwing out sexual slurs will soon come to an end. You can rage against the truth, but it will crush you in the end.

[@sagerider2]

+ShadeyBladey I'm sad to say, that you severely underestimate Hovinds ignorance by a country mile. Not only does he not know history, or science, he also doesn't fucking know the bible. I heard him on one of his idiotic lectures, laugh that scientists think men came from rocks! And the idiots in his audience laughed too! If any of them had read the fucking bible they would know that, that's exactly what the bible says.

[@walkergarya]

At some time after the separation of the human and chimpanzee lineages, two ancestral chromosomes, #12 and #13 in the chimpanzee, fused end-to-end to form a single chromosome, #2, in humans. Chimpanzee chromosome 13 forms the short arm (2p) and part of the long arm (2q) of human chromosome 2, while chimpanzee chromosome 12 forms most of the long arm (2q) of chromosome 2. The primary evidence for this fusion is the comparative genetic content of these chromosomes. That is, most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 13 are found in human 2p, and most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 12 are in human 2q. The chromatin binding patterns line up, the sequence analysis confirms, and there have been some lovely FISH studies that show the correspondence. What has since been done is that a prediction was made that there ought to be fragments of telomeres (the end caps of chromosomes) in the middle of chromosome 2, at the fusion site. Which has been examined. And the prediction has been confirmed.

[@billbrasky12]

As a PHD in Biological Engineering I can safely say you are mistaken.

[@walkergarya]

@@billbrasky12 There are plenty of PhDs in the scientific community that do not think this is mistaken. As their work is published in legitmate scientific journals, I will accept this as the scientific consensus until shown otherwise in those same journals. Somebody claiming a PhD on KZbin chat but denying the scientific consensus does not have the same credibility.

[@FlandiddlyandersFRS]

The "Genetic Code" is metaphorical. Codes do not exist in nature. :) You're welcome.

[@sombodysdad]

Morse code exists in nature. ASCII exists in nature. All computer codes exist in nature. All known codes exist in nature.

[@aneesniazi7918]

Codes do exist is real life. Very much so.

[@walkergarya]

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish.

[@LD-qj2te]

I like that . But I similarly feel your summation is perfect . Religion makes you weak rather than taking responsibility you pray and rather than taking accountability you ask for forgiveness’s

[@jasonkaras530]

Tongue in cheek is great and such a poignant piece for our times !

[@MrDaiseymay]

who's tongue ? whos cheek ?

[@jasonkaras530]

@@MrDaiseymay If you don’t know what I’m talking about then you did not watch this man’s speech.

[@Celtopia]

Just answer the fucking question smart arse

[@dennisbecraft1303]

@@jasonkaras530 Ambiguous 'deepity' as assessed by someone who definitely watched this man's speech.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

Before we use our brains to their fullest and talk science, let's toss them out the window and mutter words to the magical, invisible sky dude.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@Curiouser and Curiouser "the strongest force in the universe is invisible , the electromagnetic force ." Uhm, that's not the strongest force in in the universe. The strong nuclear force is stronger.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@Curiouser and Curiouser We have more than one special sense. You can detect the electromagnetic force in many ways. You can do it yourself, by putting a 9-volt battery to your tongue. That is objective: it works for all people, not only those with a certain belief.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@Curiouser and Curiouser "and it is also objectively true that there needs to be a "YOU" to experience that sensation" And ....???

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@Curiouser and Curiouser "why do you repeat what I just said , are you on the spectrum ?" That's not an answer to my question. So far, I have the last legitimate post above. If you don't address it, then you lose and I win. Have a good day.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@Curiouser and Curiouser "oh dear , clearly you are not well ." Also not a reply to my question. Oh well, you lost.

[@baubljos103]

In his 1997 evolution vs ID debate Miller claimed the "best" example of observed evolution was the butterfly hedilepta, which later turned out to be completely wrong. In this 2008 soliloquy Miller raises cetacean evolution - but that has been disputed because Gingerich had - essentially - created a tail without any bones, and the other so-called "transitional forms" were missing key skeletal features. Miller's claim about the flagella is also hotly contested. And the mere fact that a judge is swayed by the preponderance of evidence does not mean that the ruling is valid. Not long ago 9 US Supreme Court justices ruled that segregation in public schools was legal. Bottom line: this man - Miller - is not reliable.

[@baubljos103]

Soren G. Bla bla bla will evolutards ever abandon their fantasy?

[@baubljos103]

Soren G according to the Defense Intelligence Agency report the federal syndicate headed by Obama created, funded, armed, and supported the growth of IS as an"asset". Obama used IS to topple Middle East dictatorships because"troops on the ground" was no acceptable to US liberals. Obama and his bosses are going after Syria because the want to build an oil pipeline through that nation by Syria's King said No. Wake up.

[@psalm1tree466]

As for the so called defeat of intelligent design in the Dover Trial... If you want to settle science questions, guess where you go? Not to a courtroom with a politically correct, politically appointed, non science trained judge or any other judge. You go to the lab or to the field. The Dover Trial had zero impact on the creation movement. We saw how Kenneth Miller used the strawman logical fallacy to make his points against Behe. That is, he first misrepresented Behe's points, then attacked the misrepresentations. . As for the chromosome 2 argument that Miller seemed so impressed by in his court statements... . The whole chromosome 2 "evidence" for common ancestry is actually a beautiful little example of how evolutionary defense is always based on logical fallacies. Most people - including myself in the past - couldn't tell logical fallacies from a hole in the ground. Thus they are easily confused. . Okay, so if you fuse those two of our chromosomes together you could say there is a superficial match - in number only - with the 48 chromosomes of apes. Uh, tobacco has 48 chromosomes, too. Ever heard of the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy? . Also, other chromosome fusions do occur which are not being mentioned. For example 1 in 1,000 people, who function like others, have an additional fusion, the Robertsonian Translocation. However, no one is claiming it comes from some ape type creature. Cows and some other animals have fusions but no one says that shows they evolved from something else. Ever heard of the Cherry Picking logical fallacy? . Also, the Chromosome 2 fusion is human in every way. There is no ape type info in it. In fact, apes have chromosomes that are larger in size than those of homo sapiens. Ever heard of the Incomplete Comparison logical fallacy? . We have exactly zero data - you know, what real science uses, unlike evolutionism which always presents theories as gawd's truth facts - to show when or how that fusion got there. Yet we are being told as scientific truth that we do know! Is there even a fragment of a toe bone from that murky, mythical, hairy creature that supposedly gave us a fusion? No, there is absolutely zero evidence any such life form ever existed. But you aren't being told maybe it existed. You are being told it DID exist and that it DID give us our chromosome 2 fusion. Ever hear of the Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy? . Every bit of evolutionism is based on logical fallacies, theories presented as evidence, data ignored or spun, and lots and lots of...faith...all stirred well with sophistry. If you truly learn your logical fallacies, and take them seriously - which most evolutionism defenders refuse to do - you will see that they undergird every evolutionary peer review. . As for the touted so called 2% difference between apes and people, that is a perfect example of skewing the data. Get a female ape. Have a hair stylist work on her. Put her in a long, slinky dress. Teach her to wear high heels. Add some makeup and perfume. Then bring her to the Prom. See how many guys ask her to dance. Or... try getting Kongella a blind date. Tell the prospective guy that you can't say much about her, but that she is only 2% different from all the hot chicks he knows. If he is dumb or desperate enough to still go on the date, see how he reacts when he sees her. . Take an ape or chimp to a preschool. Will it perform only 2% differently from the children there in terms of learning the alphabet, standing in line to go potty, drawing, coloring, singing, speaking? Will it have social skills that are only 2% below theirs? And will the children only be 2% different from the beast in terms of strength, hairiness, dentition - well, the list just goes on and on. . Evolutionism teaches you to drop your common sense on the floor as soon as they give you a "science fact.". . And btw I have seen a clip of Ken Miller, on the Colbert show, where he says that as a Roman Catholic he believes "Jesus Christ is the Creator of all that is, seen and unseen." In this exact same time period he was running around the country giving lectures on the so called collapse of intelligent design. So...his Deity is dumb and design free, yet created all that is seen and unseen? Wow. What a miracle! . You are not part ape. You are made in the image and likeness of your Creator, Who loves you and wants you to love Him, too, and to know Him for Who He is, the Father of Mercies. I know because, as a former atheist, He showed so much mercy to me.

[@mcmanustony]

@@psalm1tree466 " politically appointed,"- by George W Bush. The rest of your post is a pack of lies. Why do you people lie so much?

[@edgaraf9411]

Religjous dumbasses keep coping. Plenty of other animals to choose from.

[@walkergarya]

Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday. Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology.

[@rigelmoon9030]

But, we all know that astrology led to astronomy, alchemy led to chemistry, etc. One idea leads to another. That is science until it becomes fact.

[@graemej2599]

@@rigelmoon9030 No, Science is testable. Causation should also be testable. There is no Causation in astrology or alchemy.

[@rigelmoon9030]

@@graemej2599 I agree science is very testable. If you understand the scientific method, you would easily understand that reproduceble date by peer review are necessary to establish fact. Nowhere in theism is this true.

[@itzakehrenberg3449]

Probably untrue; I never trust what materialists tell me w/o verification.

[@BibleResearchTools]

walkergarya wrote, "Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday. Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology." You still pushing that lie, Gary Walker? The lawyer for the plaintiff brought up astrology. This is the part of the transcript in question: Question: Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct? Behe: *Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.* Question: The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct? Behe: That is correct. Question: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct? Behe: Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of *the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can t go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories.* So many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories. Question: Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe? Behe: A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but *certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long, long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.* The sleezey lawyer goes on-and-on trying to twist Behe's words, but he fails. He left it to charlatans like Gary to twist his words. I recommend everyone read the entire transcript so that you, too, will know to never trust an atheist to tell the truth. BTW, Galileo practiced astrology. So did Kepler. Perhaps that is why they became interested in astronomy. Newton, Boyle, and Lavoisier practiced alchemy. They didn't know any better, much like many evolutionists of today don't know any better. Dan

[@mc07]

Just the title makes me laugh now, over a decade later.

[@ConservativeAnthem]

Ahhh, you enjoy fine whines!

[@mcmanustony]

@@ConservativeAnthem The title is accurate. Intelligent Design was a ruse to skirt the law. It failed. Good.

[@mcmanustony]

@@ConservativeAnthem The title is accurate. Intelligent Design was a ruse to skirt the law. It failed. Good.

[@logicalatheist1065]

Intelligent design makes me laugh 🤣😂 what a fictional world view

[@ConservativeAnthem]

@@mcmanustony You're skipping, MacAnus...

[@leoandolino4668]

"The one thing I learned back in 1968, when I first published a paper by myself in Nature, in a field that I had no expertise at all. There are no old wise men up there at the top of science... I would have thought, you know, that if you tried to publish a dumb paper in a journal, like Nature, it won't get published. If you try to publish a good paper in there, like I later tried to publish PCR, the invention of PCR in the same journal. And they didn't take it...The Academy of Sciences is just a bunch of idiots, just like everybody else. You know, the editors of journals, austere journals, even. They are just busy with their little lives and stuff. There are no old wise men up on the top, making sure that we don't do something really dumb." Nobel Prize Recipient for the invention of the PCR test, Biochemist and Surfer Kary Mullis

[@DavidJJJ]

So true

[@SheaSF]

I love how nobody seems to understand the definition of "theory." "Theory, not a fact." Good one.

[@kimberlytross9864]

In layman's terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

[@IIrandhandleII]

Theory is the highest honor in science. More powerful than a law.

[@adamadams7314]

Kimberly Tross that would be a ‘best’ or ‘leading’ theory, not just a theory. A theory is what best describes/explains something.

[@jesusmylife6766]

@@kimberlytross9864 Therefore, are you trying to say that Darwin theory is true, if so how you gather by " religion" promoting panel and at the same time seems like believing the God of the Holy Bible, it's controversial or deliberate hidden agenda. God forgive!

[@Comuniity_]

@@kimberlytross9864 evolution also isn't just any theory it's the most proven one to the point where it is most definitely a fact as well as a theory, evolution is more proven and has more evidence then the theory of gravity for fucks sake

[@drmadjdsadjadi]

I am 100% in favor of the intelligent design of biology courses, which means that intelligent design should never be taught in these courses.

[@jaydelgado1994]

I am 100% in favor of the intelligent design of biology courses, which means that intelligent design should never be taught in these courses." Because it is "Intelligent" to turn people into WannabeApes who think that they SLOWLY evolved from Sea Sponges for no reason Bwahahahahahah

[@drmadjdsadjadi]

@@jaydelgado1994 There is a clear scientific reason why evolution occurs in biology. It is called natural selection whereby those genetic mutations that are best adapted to the environment are the ones who have a greater likelihood of surviving into the future. Put this over a sufficiently large number of individual organisms and time and evolution is proven to be much more consistent with the facts than intelligent design. There is absolutely no need to have an “intelligent” designer to make this work, so biology does not argue for one. A sufficiently large number of monkeys typing on an sufficiently large number of keyboards will eventually create every single great work of literature, which basically proves that your argument lacks merit. In the end, you need to understand that intelligent design CANNOT be science because it is also clear that if some creator were in charge of evolution and was actually directing these changes, then he/she/it is an idiot because the evidence also clearly demonstrates that the pathway of evolution os filled with starts and stops and setbacks. So either you can argue for an idiot god or you can argue for evolution by natural selection through a random mutation process. The choice is up to you but I prefer my god to be above reproach but hey, even Marcion of Sinope, the great 2nd century Christian theologian, believed the “god” of the Old Testament was an evil, stupid god, so if you mean that an evil, stupid god is in charge of evolutionary processes and of creating the world, hey, I won’t argue with you.

[@lizd2943]

@@jaydelgado1994 It would have been intelligent for you to actually learn something instead of coming here to show you hadn't.

[@DoctorShocktor]

@@jaydelgado1994 Idiocracy has your ID badge waiting for you. Why don’t you go get it?

[@tedosmond413]

This is from 2006. Notice how no one is arguing for ID to be taught in schools anymore? Why? Because it was all just a political movement to cause discord, anger and resentment.

[@anthonymaniaci1966]

No its because its true

[@tedosmond413]

@@anthonymaniaci1966 lol....I got the sarcasm even if others didn't!

[@tedosmond413]

@Muzaffar Krylov my analysis is correct.

[@winstongrettum3412]

@@tedosmond413 actually there is no reason to rule out the possibility of a creator because creation overwhelmingly points to a very in depth thinker

[@spragism]

I'm an Atheist, and can listen to this Theist all day.

[@velociraptor938]

Here Here...

[@Comuniity_]

Creationism is pretty much just a US phenomenon, in other developed nations they are fringe groups no one takes seriously, so your prospective might be skewed. Some of the nicest most respectful people I've met were non science denying Christians

[@Comuniity_]

But I agree, honestly Christian biologist are some of my favorites to listen to about evolution because it gives me hope that one day the US will once again embrace science

[@ministryoftruth1451]

@@Comuniity_ Christians embrace science. Science is not a popularity contest as you would like to believe. And since your religion must assume something came to exist from nothing I'd say your 'science' isn't very scientific. Furthermore, that you are only willing to accept someone to be nice or respectful when they agree with your religion speaks volumes.

[@Comuniity_]

@@ministryoftruth1451 nothing in science suggests nothing created anything so try again buddy

[@walkergarya]

Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday. Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology."

[@SebastianSchepis]

Well, astrology will soon rear t's head again as researchers discover that our solar system is a giant electromagnetic circuit, and that this circuit does have the ability to exert a bias on developing biological matter

[@walkergarya]

@@SebastianSchepis You need to up your meds.

[@aljirou29]

Yeah ok. Sure. I don't even need to look it up to know that Behe doesn't considered astrology scientific. I'm sure the presenter asked some contorted question framed in such a way to get that answer.

[@skiphoffenflaven8004]

The clapping for the removal of organic chemistry, even if in jest, really proves too much of the other half of the intellectual problem in the United States.

[@Comuniity_]

Because scientists making jokes to a room full of mostly scientists or science students is a problem

[@tpstrat14]

Well ok but give them a break. The people clapping are the people that are struggling with it. And the guy making the joke is a cell membrane biologist that wrestles with organic chemistry more than 99.9999% of people. It’s like learning another language, but far worse. Organic chemistry employs all these logically arbitrary rules of nomenclature in order to standardize it so that we can talk about it without confusion. Some of the logic is properly “mathematical” but so much of it is totally arbitrary and thus involves piles of rote memorization and so it’s just really damn hard to reconcile those two 🤷‍♂️🤦‍♂️ as a biology student myself, I can’t help but wish organic chemistry would just go away somehow lol

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@tpstrat14 ironic that i don't understand a word of this thread.

[@TinselKoala]

You lost me at "Let us pray".

[@tomthx5804]

Good

[@psalm1tree466]

Russian Robot Learn science. Your philosophical rants will then stop and you will actually have something worthwhile to say.

[@darthtenebra5910]

@@psalm1tree466 How about you unmuting me and facing me like an adult person, that don't behave like a coward?

[@michaelferri6790]

You need to find yourself

[@michaelferri6790]

@@darthtenebra5910 read the Bible

[@Rgrazia1]

The definition of science is "The intellectual discipline to explain and predict the natural or unnatural phenomena that are in some way indicated or observable." I doubt that this man has ever been exposed to the idea. He needs to juxtapose both "theories" based on science and not politics.

[@garywalker447]

You are a fool and liar. Dr Kenneth Miller knows far more about science than you could ever hope to understand.

[@alexandergordon648]

Science has no stake in "unnatural phenomena"

[@garywalker447]

@Fernando Aguilar You need to up your meds.

[@garywalker447]

@Fernando Aguilar I have to keep it simple so the simple minded creationists like you will understand me.

[@lizd2943]

What unnatural phenomena have you observed? I mean, not while you're on shrooms?

[@SanguineSelian]

13 years later and his fear of that wedge is all to true.

[@scottgarriott3884]

but his diagnosis that "Americans know what happened in 1930s Germany and why" proved to be largely wrong. Though it was somewhat off-topic, fascism is a real thing that cannot be ignored in America and it is fomenting among people who create and support their own facts and want to weaken science in favour of believing things they really really like. Dangerous stuff. Teaching kids from a young age to be sceptical and to understand what science is and what it is not is incredibly important.

[@AVspectre]

Yeah, watching from 2022 and the anti-science push is real.

[@mattbatcher802]

All two true dummy

[@aljirou29]

The only ones dividing us are the hateful leftists intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them including Christ and Christians. The communist Democrats and RINO's are aligned with the globalist fascists organized through the UN and the World Economic Forum, and they hate the people of America who don't submit to their tyranny.

[@MrDryqula]

@@mattbatcher802 Seriously? 😂

[@Hollis_has_questions]

Intelligent Design “theory” sprang fully formed in 1987. ETA (2023) - Don’t be so sure of the death of either ID or Creationism, Dr. Miller. You might be relying on the intelligence or critical thinking skills of ordinary voters. Those skills are diminishing rapidly, and their desire to have a religious America is rising just as rapidly. The Behes of our country are like the Terminator: They will not stop until they succeed, at which time all dissent will be shut down.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

it ought to be called gullible design.

[@MossyMozart]

@@HarryNicNicholas - Too true! ^_^

[@Thormp1]

If the god of the bible had been portrayed as a king instead of a God , he would be remembered as the most evil, mass murdering, tyrannical dictator of all time! Christians give the bible god a free pass because, they say, he is god the creator. I don't see the difference whether man or god. If his actions were evil or immoral, as the bible states, then he'd be just as guilty of being evil as any human committing the same deeds

[@NeuroScientician]

what is the alternative for Evolution? Magic? :D

[@mweskamppp]

Exactly. That is what they are fighting for. Magic, aliens or your invisible friend.

[@fringeculture3844]

Nobel prize-winning biochemist, Francis Crick, calculated the probability of a living cell forming by accident from non-living chemicals and found the likelihood to be less than 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. (That’s a 10 with 40,000 zeroes after it!) To put that in perspective consider that the number of atoms in the known universe is only 10 to the 130th power! The alternative to evolution is "NOT evolution". The absence of an alternative theory that is comprehensible to humans does not validate your initial cockamamy explanation of evolution being the mechanism responsible for this initial spontaneous inception of cellular life. The inception of life from "nothing" would HAVE to be a paranormal event inherently. Meaning our feeble little biological brains are never going to be able to grasp it. Its almost criminal that evolution is still taught. Scientists are better off saying they simply don't know what wild processes were in fact responsible for this event. But by now its pretty clear that evolution doesn't explain shit. So yeah, as far as your concerned, it was Magick. And no. No one is "fighting for" any of those things. We are simply pointing out that claiming evolution was somehow responsible for the creation of life is dummy talk. The absence of an alternative doesn't insinuate the initial flawed claims of evolution should still hold true. You don't get to hold onto to a bullshit theory by default via the absence of an acceptable peer reviewed alternative. Evolution is GREAT in explaining how changes in SPECIES take place via mutation within the confines of a particular ecosystem. But it's outrageous to somehow attribute that process to that initial anomalous event that arranged a complex sequence of amino acids into the incredibly complex living machine that is cellular life.

[@NeuroScientician]

@@fringeculture3844 that calculation is a nonsense

[@fringeculture3844]

@@NeuroScientician That's about what I expected for an answer. All I am doing is citing an elite, highly credentialed scientist who obviously has more of a right to assert his opinion on this topic than we do and as you can see not all of them are firmly on the side of defending evolution as you guys like To insinuate most of the top minds are. I'm sure that guy could do a FAR better job explaining why his calculation is in fact accurate than you are able to explain why it's "nonsense". And it's not even as close to as nonsensical as the current "cellular life formed on the backs of ice crystals" theory that is the New explanation to turn to these days amongst Darwinist Dick suckers. But it's still not as nonsensical as those who postulate life saw its inception via a RANDOM, non-intelligent spontaneous event

[@NeuroScientician]

@@fringeculture3844 Well, tht the difference between me and Francis. He was 1970' biologist and I am a present day's Statistican. The actual number you are looking for is 10^24 in about -6^10 diltution. That makes it about a a peptite a year per every km^3. So, pretty much all the time. Why would you even assume that he would know how to get to that number? How would you even end up with 10^40,000? That's such a grotesque number by itself. This really looks like someone equipped with highschool algebra just kept multiplying random stuff together until theyn ended up with "big enoug" number.

[@walkergarya]

If Intelligent Design Creationsm met the definition of science, why did Behe say that the definition of science would have to change to allow for IDC? Conclusion, IDC does not and never has met the basic requirements to be considered science.

[@garywalker447]

"The Bible, a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." Albert Einstein

[@sombodysdad]

Evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is a collection of total bullshit.

[@garywalker447]

@PGH Engineer No loser, we have the fossils. We have the genetics. Just because you are too stupid to acknowledge the evidence does not make you right. As you are a waste of time, food and oxygen, you will get nothing more from me. As engineering is applied science, I would not trust anything you build. You are a fool.

[@aneesniazi7918]

Jewish man hates Bible. Is that really breaking news?

[@logicalatheist1065]

"Science doesnt know everything, Religion doesnt know anything" - Aron Ra

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

"Science speaks of facts without having absolute certainty. Religions speak of absolute certainty without having facts." -- I don't remember the source :-)

[@lwmaynard5180]

The Miller Magilla gorilla complex ? 😨😁 Aron Ra is a BIG FOOT WITH A BIG MOUTH 😲😃 👎🐵🐒 has the ancestry to prove it ? ?

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@lwmaynard5180 Your mom is embarrassed of you.

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@lwmaynard5180 you must be young.

[@jasonwiley798]

And God created evolution

[@FlandiddlyandersFRS]

That's right - Intelligent Design is pseudoscience.

[@WannabeCanadianDev]

"the earth is round" part is a LOT less funny now that flat earthers are more than a minor annoyance.

[@tpstrat14]

It’s very sad that people actually believe it but I think the flat earth movement presents a very positive potential for improvement in science education! We can now see very clearly that we have failed to educate and can use the flat earth movement as a sort of baseline for knowing that we have failed. Failing and knowing that you failed is better than failing and not knowing

[@lewsouth1539]

Are they really, tho? They still seem pretty damn minor to me.

[@bradmarchant7822]

@@lewsouth1539 don’t know what they are now but recently 3% of population was firm in their belief on a flat earth. Not completely insignificant.

[@lewsouth1539]

@@bradmarchant7822 So? That's sad, but it hardly makes them any more annoying. In fact, I don't find them annoying at all, just pathetic.

[@justinturner4681]

Science is all theories. Pure garbage 🗑. Its all lies.

[@TerryUniGeezerPeterson]

Spoiler alert! Evolution is a fact. Get over it.

[@sombodysdad]

Yes, evolution is a fact. There just isn't any scientific theory of evolution.

[@FlandiddlyandersFRS]

@@sombodysdad Liar.

[@ozowen5961]

@@sombodysdad All you have is deceit. That's how solid ID is.

[@garywalker447]

@@sombodysdad "There just isn't any scientific theory of evolution." You are still the lying creatard.

[@sombodysdad]

@@garywalker447 And yet you FAILED to link to any scientific theory of evolution! Loser.

[@walkergarya]

Nothing about Intelligent Design meets the mininum standards to be science.

[@Tony07UK]

@ Gary Walker 'Nothing about Intelligent Design meets the mininum standards to be science.' says Gary Walker .. so where is the science to support what 'Evolutionits' claim - you've had plenty of time to provide it - so where is it? Stop hiding behind the sofa like a child.

[@walkergarya]

@@Tony07UK 1. ERV markers are non coding sequences of DNA inserted into the genome of host organisms by viruses. These markers are inserted at random and are used by the virus to take over the cell and produce more viruses. Humans and chimps share over 200 ERV markes that are in the same locations in both genomes and have the same content. The ONLY feasible way for this to happen is for our species to have a common ancestor that also had these 200+ ERV markers. 2. Almost all mammals produce the Vitamin C they require. Humans have the gene to produce Vitamin C but there is a single bit error in the gene that renders it useless. The only other mammals that have this error are the members of the primate sub-order Haplorhini; Tarsiers, New World Monkeys (Platyrrhini) and Old World Monkeys (Catarrhini) including the family Hominidae (humans and other apes). 3. Most animals do not see in 3 colors. The gene that allows humans to see yellows, blues and reds is only found in one group of animals, primates of which we are a member species. Some 40 million years ago a gene duplication mutation occured doubling the OPN1MW gene sensitive to the yellow/green section of the light spectrum and a later mutation of this resulted in the OPN1LW gene that enables primates having this to see the color red. This mutation is unique to primates and as a primate, we too have this form of color vision. 4. Valid Scientific Theories can be used to make predictions. Darwin noted that the bones in the wings of birds resembled the fused finger bones of other animals so he predicted that fossil bird would be found with unfused finger bones. Less than 5 years later, archaeopteryx was found with feathers, a long bony tail like a dinosaur, teeth and unfused finger bones in the wing. 5. Dr Neil Shubin wanted to find the first fish that could crawl up onto land. Eusthenopteron of 385 million years ago was similar to the later Acanthostega of 365 million years ago but there was too much difference for there not to be an intermediate species so he looked for exposed sedimentary rock of the right type and age and found this in the Canadian Arctic on Ellesmere Island and found the intermediate species that was then named Tiktaalik. 6. The human and chimp genomes have been compared and the two are over 98% the same. More over, where there are differences the are those genes that enable brain development, different hair growth, language development. 7. The fact that new medicines have been tested on animals for side effects and efficacy shows that the underlying biological systems are biologically similar and therefore related however distantly. 8. Embryology hints at the Evolutionary history of species with snakes developing limb buds in the early stages of development that then get reabsorbed. We have the fossils of primitive snake that have vestigial legs that extend beyond the body of the snake and it is a regular "birth defect" in snakes to have non functioning legs. 9 Whales evolved over the past 55 million years from land animals. This is shown through the fossil record that start with Pakicetus that was identified as the precursor to the whale lineage by the presence of an S shaped bone in the skull of Pakicetus that is unique to whales as well as an unusual double tendon arrangement on the limbs of Pakicetus and is still found in the flippers of modern whales. Neither of these features are found in any other animals. It is also noted that by comparing the genomes of many species, the closest living relative of whales is the hippo, another aquatic mammal. 10.Genomes contain non functioning genes called pseudogenes. Mammals, including humans have the gene to produce egg yolk due to the fact that we evolved from egg laying ancestors some 100 million years ago. 11. Birds are descended from and are a living branch of dinosaurs. We have found many dinosaur fossils with the imprints of feathers preserved, even dinos that were too heavy to ever fly. Even the velociraptor of "Jurassic Park" fame has been shown to have the anchor points on the bone of its fore limbs of feathers indistinguishable from the same bumps found in eagles or geese. This case is further reinforced by the fact that chickens still have the DNA for a long bony tail like a dinosaur. 12. Characteristics of animals and plants are strictly divided by phylogeny. Only birds have gullets, feathers and beaks, features that have all been identified in dinosaurs. Only mammals have lactation glands and hair. Only reptiles and snakes of land animals are cold blooded. 13. The creationist's cry that there are no transitional species found is an outright lie. 14. "The story is this. At some time after the separation of the human and chimpanzee lineages, two ancestral chromosomes, #12 and #13 in the chimpanzee, fused end-to-end to form a single chromosome, #2, in humans. Chimpanzee chromosome 13 forms the short arm (2p) and part of the long arm (2q) of human chromosome 2, while chimpanzee chromosome 12 forms most of the long arm (2q) of chromosome 2. The primary evidence for this fusion is the comparative genetic content of these chromosomes. That is, most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 13 are found in human 2p, and most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 12 are in human 2q. The chromatin binding patterns line up, the sequence analysis confirms, and there have been some lovely FISH studies that show the correspondence. What has since been done is that a prediction was made that there ought to be fragments of telomeres (the end caps of chromosomes) in the middle of chromosome 2, at the fusion site. Which has been examined. And the prediction has been confirmed.

[@sombodysdad]

You are ignorant of science and biology

[@Tony07UK]

@@walkergarya .. yet more copy/paste nonsense! Tiktaalik - no matter how many times you try to reference it - it's been debunked. 50% of human genes are shared with bananas. Cars also have many things in common - steering, brakes, headlights, wheels, engine, cooling system, ignition system - doesn't mean they evolved from a single common blueprint or design. Similarity does not equal common descent. DNA is a specific blueprint that prevents offspring changing into a different kind of species. DNA lineage does not come from one primitive 'ancestor' that produced all living things - fish remain fish > they do not 'evolve' into humans. FACT.

[@walkergarya]

@@Tony07UK . yet more copy/paste nonsense! Tiktaalik - no matter how many times you try to reference it - it's been debunked. 50% of human genes are shared with bananas. Cars also have many things in common - steering, brakes, headlights, wheels, engine, cooling system, ignition system - doesn't mean they evolved from a single common blueprint or design. Similarity does not equal common descent. DNA is a specific blueprint that prevents offspring changing into a different kind of species. DNA lineage does not come from one primitive 'ancestor' that produced all living things - fish remain fish > they do not 'evolve' into humans. FACT.

[@walkergarya]

"We can look high or we can look low, in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system." Behe, M.J. Darwin's Black Box: the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Free Press, New York, 1996).

[@sombodysdad]

It doesn't.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@sombodysdad It does.

[@donaldboomer6313]

It seems to me that We identify ID all the time. For instance years ago while I was walking in the plowed field behind my house I recognized many large and small stones freshly turned to the surface. A lot were small irregular pieces of flint until I noticed one that had a shape of a arrowhead. It stood out as deliberately “worked” and identified with thousands found by others down through time and in collections and museums. I immediately recognized that it was “made”, most likely by the area’s indigenous natives (Indians) as soon as I saw it! Why? Why didn’t I think it was just an unusual formation of flint shaped by the forces of nature? Maybe it was because of it’s intelligent design!

[@schmetterling4477]

A Jesus potato? Far out. ;-)

[@donaldboomer6313]

@@schmetterling4477 I think there is a Big difference between seeing a lion or something else in a cloud formation Or a resemblance of a person in a potato than an object that has been crafted by man designed for the purpose. Maybe you Something else by “Jesus potato“. if so explain 🙂

[@schmetterling4477]

@@donaldboomer6313 Lions usually don't eat potatoes. Your Jesus is safe. ;-)

[@donaldboomer6313]

@@schmetterling4477 you probably think you’re being clever but I think you don’t know how to give a coherent and reasonable reply to ideas you disagree with.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@donaldboomer6313 Where is that reasonable idea supposed to have been? All you have shown me, so far, is bullshit. ;-)

[@eatmylogic]

A scientist is delighted to find out he was wrong about something because it gives him an opportunity to discover a new insight, whereas the bunker mentality of a religious fundamentalist will not allow him to shift his thinking in light of new data.

[@velociraptor938]

eatmylogic Exactly. I liked how Ken Miller pointed out that in science we are confronted with revolutionary ideas almost constantly. The entire process is an exercise in trying to prove each other wrong as overturning a dominant theory is considered a pinnacle of achievement. However, it is only valid if your ideas can better explain the natural world or if you have evidence to validate your proposed explanation. If you were to read the trial transcripts of Dr. Behe's testimony it is frightening how many things he has not considered. For instance, not only does he insist that ID takes no stance of the age of the earth, he has not proposed mechanisms for how the Intelligent Designer could design anything. Essentially his answer is "God did it, because he can, and he works in mysterious ways". Not to mention his ideas on Astrology being a scientific theory. Seriously...

[@psalm1tree466]

Let's see how pseudoscience is being used to convince you that you are nothing but a fish update who sprang from some antiscientific primal pond type scenario, and who certainly doesn't have a Heavenly Father Who...loves...you. Then let's look at some real science, a bit outside the box. . We have been told that life came from inorganic matter. Now, science must have observable data to be valid and must not ignore the actual data. The actual data, per the LAW of Biogenesis? Life always comes only from life and life of the same kind. Theories are fine if they don't defy the actual evidence. Even in labs, with intelligent design and high tech equipment, life has never been created. The best they can do is take an already living cell and alter it with genetic engineering, or get a few components of the cell, not nearly all of them at al, which never come close to being alive.. . The needed proteins and other components of a cell are not only not all there, they are not arranged as they need to be arranged - in statistically impossible ways if random chance had put them together. No one has even gotten close to creating life. It should be easy. Just take a simple cell or any life form that has died. There you have all the components needed for life - except life. So why can't anyone do a Dr. Frankenstein on any of them? (And kindly don't say that evolution doesn't "do" abiogenesis. Look. It's in evolution writings and documentaries, and all over the net and YT.) . We have also been told as gawd's truth scientific fact that a 3 foot high ape type creature, an Australopithecus, Lucy, was your great, great etc. granny. Based on? Some minor similarities, namely "similar homology", namely the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy. The fact that she was pretty much like any other ol' Australopithecus was irrelevant to them. Incomplete Comparison logical fallacy. . Since evolutionists are always disagreeing with one another on everything, now some of them say, No, it wasn't Lucy but some other such creature. Some creature with no evidence it existed. Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. . Now how do they know Lucy et al even had a single descendant, much less one significantly different from it, much less one that could turn into you? Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. . Guess for how long any "transitions" are missing between you and Lucy or some other transition du jour? Oh, for just 2 to 5 million Darwin years! The rocks say no transitions exist. The evo spin, their Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy, tells you, again as gawd's truth scientific fact, that they are just "missing." . We've also been told that we came via a fish, Tiktaalik. The story goes that this...fish...was found in just the right place for a "transition". Problem is, it's 100% nothing but a...fish. See Wiki describing it as "an extinct species of lobe finned fish." Google the fossil of Tiktaalik, which is mostly missing. Do those tiny fin fragments look like they could be said to be turning into legs - without the Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy? Yet we see all sorts of fanciful art work of Tik with long, muscular "evolving" legs, bending as the fish transits, supposedly, to land. The real evidence? . In countless billions of fossils and in living examples, all we ever see are 100% fish and 100% tetrapods/four legged animals. (No, mud skippers and "walking" catfish are not transitions. They are using their 100% fins in an unusual way, similar to a flying fish which is no way turning into a bird.) . Evolutionists are constantly picking up fossils like Tiktaalik from the ground and telling you, for up to over a 100 million Darwin years, what happened to their invisible and evidenceless billions of "descendants." Never ask them how to tell missing links from non existent links. And then they accuse Christians of being into "magical thinking." And, as a former atheist, I agreed with that! . You are not a fish update. You are infinitely more than that. Here is some actual, observable and documented evidence, to help you see that: Now in the Bible we are told of a Man Who believed in Adam and Eve and Noah as being actual, historical figures. The Bible says He did miracles and told others to do things like raise the dead and heal the sick. It also describes His death and burial. Is there any actual scientific data to support those stories? . See secular news reports about Val Thomas, dead for 17 hours but now alive and normal after prayers from her family and her Church. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qYGrqpapfsl1Z7s . . See Medical Marvel Beyond Chance, from a secular source, with a pediatrician giving his report. this one attesting to a dying child's healing which cannot be explained by modern medicine, and came after a relative laid hands on her and prayed for her. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jqrOoGBra7N2idk The DNA in every cell in her body was transformed. . See CBN's short vid with Dean Braxton. You'll hear his critical care doctor, rated the best patient care doctor in Washington state, saying "It is a miracle...a miracle..." that Braxton is alive, has no brain damage and is normal in every way. Why? He had no heart beat and no respiration for 1 3/4 hours! His family believed in divine healing and they and others were praying for him. kzbin.info/www/bejne/mWS9m6dup5KbhKM . Also see CBN Dr. Chauncey Crandall Raises A Man From The Dead. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qV6ai56imrGoZ9k Part 1. This video is a bit faded but has the most complete information on this story. . Get Dr. Richard Casdorph's book The Miracles. There he gives medical documentation for miracles, mostly, but not all, from Kathryn Kuhlman's healing services. Casdorph came to Kuhlman's meetings to debunk her but turned into a supporter, as did other doctors. You can see him and other doctors in some of her healing services on YT. (She is now deceased.) Delores Winder is one of the cases documented in his book. You can watch her amazing story on YT with Sid Roth. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eZfHeGiZr8aIjpI The book The Audacity of Prayer by Don Nordin lists medically documented miracles. . On Andrew Wommack's vids you can see doctors talking about "miracles" too. Check out the YT vid with the ophthalmologist who says Yes, Ronald Coyne could see out of an empty eye socket after a faith healer prayed for him. You can see him doing demos. At the end of the book Don't Limit God you see a medical statement by a doctor saying that his patient used to have M.S. and diabetes but is now cured. Do you think that Someone Who can raise the dead and heal people of deadly "incurable" diseases, Someone Who created time, space, matter, energy and you - needed "evolution" to make life forms? No, He created them fully formed and fully functional in 6 days just as Genesis, a Book He always supported, tells you. . Then there is the Shroud of Turin. If you don't know, the Shroud is a linen burial shroud with the faint image of a crucified man on it. If you have heard that the Shroud was proven to be a Medieval fake based on carbon 14 testing, in the documentary Jesus And The Shroud of Turin, you can see the very inventor of carbon 14 testing saying that the sample was invalid due to contamination. . kzbin.info/www/bejne/joXXdZusoMSUrZY . The vid demonstrates many miraculous features such as pollen from Jerusalem and faint images of flowers that are found only in the Jerusalem area during the spring, as at Passover when Messiah was crucified. With modern technology we also see that the Shroud has an x ray quality which even reveals the bones and dentition of the Man on the Shroud. . In the 70s a NASA scientist noticed the Shroud's photographs had inexplicable, unique in the world, qualities. He got up a team of scientists, called STURP, to examine it in person in Italy. (No, the Shroud is not "just a Catholic thing" as the Vatican only came into possession of it fairly recently in history.) They used NASA, and other, high tech equipment, with 100s of thousands of hours of research. Their findings are seen all over the net and were published in respected science journals. . The team was composed of 3 Jews, at least one agnostic and one atheist, and people of various faiths. They all agreed on these things: The Shroud image was not painted on, and they have no clue how it got there. It exactly matches, down to blood stains where a crown of thorns would be, the description of Messiah's death and burial as given in the Bible. The image could not be duplicated with modern technology. . About the Shroud I say "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, maybe it's a duck." . Maybe that Man on the Shroud is your very Best Friend and Savior. I pray you will find that out. You're going to need a miracle some day friend. They are out there in abundance for those who humbly seek them from their Creator, the One Who made all that DNA out there, and Who said, "Whoever comes to Me I will no way cast out."

[@kevinwirth4767]

That's completely false. Evolutionists are quite guilty of the "bunker mentality" since they insist on an evolutionary explanation even when the evidence (fossils, for instance) fail to support it. Fossils show consistent evidence of STASIS, ie, no changes as predicted by evolution. So much for the willingness of evolutionary paleontologists to aceept the clear message of the evidence

[@psalm1tree466]

Kevin Yeal, taking a bunch of science courses doesn't turn you into a saint, or even a savant. Evolutionists are in a fiercely self protective, orthodox, publish the party line or perish, world of Neo Darwinism. Expelled No Intelligence Allowed is a movie on YT that makes that painfully obvious.

[@ja31472]

"ID is definitely not a science ... it is a philosophy ... closer to aesthetics [i.e. beauty and art]" "Science involves a process or procedure, a way of understanding how things work" "ID doesn't address the question of how things work" ----Dr. Imad ad-Dean Ahmad (creationist) kzbin.info/www/bejne/haTNmXmBjqaKos0 "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ---- Steven Weinberg, Ph.D., Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 "Religious truth conveys nothing clear to me at all" -----Albert Einstein (1954) "Science flies you to the moon, religion into skyscrapers." -----Victor Stenger, Ph.D., Physics "Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool." ---- Mark Twain “It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man.” “One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.” "The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion." “The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. ... it is therefore the study of nothing.” "Among the detestable villains that in any period of the world have disgraced the name of man, it is impossible to find a greater than Moses, if this account be true. Here is an order to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers, and debauch the daughters." Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1794) "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." "Don't ask God to cure cancer & world poverty. He's too busy finding you a parking space & fixing the weather for your barbecue." ----- Richard Dawkins, Ph.D. “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” Epicurus "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy." “The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been revealed through this trial.” “This inference to design based upon the appearance of a “purposeful arrangement of parts” is a completely subjective proposition, determined in the eye of each beholder and his/her viewpoint concerning the complexity of a system. Although both Professors Behe and Minnich assert that there is a quantitative aspect to the inference, on cross-examination they admitted that there is no quantitative criteria for determining the degree of complexity or number of parts that bespeak design, rather than a natural process.” --- Judge John E. Jones (god-believer, republican)

[@bkup1332]

A pastor who is also a scientist? I like him already.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

wel, if you watch him in other videos and debates yyou might change your mind, i love this video, i send it to people over and over, but our mr miller is as stupid a theist as any other elsewhere, i was surprised.

[@ryanmathis8286]

@@HarryNicNicholas Can you give me an example?

[@Pi-Mae]

As a resident of Ohio in the year 2022, PLEASE HELP! There is a deadly virus that has spread and affected everyone. It’s called stupidity and complacency.

[@sombodysdad]

Blind watchmaker evolution offers up a plethora of stupidity.

[@DoctorShocktor]

TBH Ohio was infected long ago and is beyond saving. Do you need moving expenses or something?

[@jasonkaras530]

Great lecture. First time seeing this. Standing the test of time.

[@bobsmith8322]

Yes, very impressive. Didn't waste any time, non stop information.

[@wcstrawberryfields8011]

Aged well? Evolution is a failing theory whether you're a biblical creationist or not.

[@moodyrick8503]

@@wcstrawberryfields8011 If evolution was like religion/Christianity, there would be multiple competing versions of it taught in universities & countries all over the world. BTW; If evolution is a "failing theory", you must have a long list of accredited biologists that are speaking out against it. _I'd love to see that list._ Or even a mainstream university that refuses to teach it anymore? *After all you are asserting it's unpopularity* (as a failing theory)

[@grantm6514]

@@wcstrawberryfields8011 How exactly is evolution a 'failing theory'?

[@markcredit6086]

@@grantm6514 because it's a fairy tale with no proof duh

[@walkergarya]

Judge Jones got it exactly right when he ruled: While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103 (Miller); @-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method. (@, 29-30 (Pennock)). Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. (@-64, @-43 (Miller); 5:8, 23-30 (Pennock)). …and… ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation

[@j.c.3800]

We use the so-called "scientific method" all day long, simply even to get out of bed. The "imagination" is more than an "extended metaphor" as is demonstrated in inventions not based on previous "proven" theories. It's not "primitive" to question the home of these things, but rather, "intelligent".

[@BibleResearchTools]

walkergarya wrote, "Judge Jones got it exactly right when he ruled: While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103 (Miller); @-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method." Evolution is not testable, Gary, and it is certainly not natural. In fact, it is so stupid it cannot be intellectually defended. Therefore, the establishment must resort to suppression of opposing hypotheses to prop it up. walkergarya wrote, "ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation" So does the "big bang," the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and the existence of genetic code, to name a few. So did Isaac Newton's Principia: _"[T]he parity of reason must take place in the celestial spaces above the earth's atmosphere; in which spaces, where there is no air to resist their motions, all bodies will move with the greatest freedom; and the planets and comets will constantly pursue their revolutions in orbits given in kind and position, according to the laws above explained; but though these bodies may, indeed, persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws... _*_This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."_*_ [Isaac Newton, "Newton's Principia: the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy." Daniel Adee, 1846, Book III, p.501]_ As you can see, Newton believed in Intelligent Design, and he was pretty smart fellow. How smart? Today, over 300 years later, Newton's understanding rings true. Secular scientists still do not have a clue how the planets and moons were formed, how they were put into their (sometimes bizarre) orbits, nor how they remain in their orbits. Further, astronomers are so mystified by the presence of short-term comets that one scientist felt compelled to theorize an unobservable unknown, called the Oort Cloud, to explain away the existence of those other unknowns. That is not science, but religion. Don't let anyone fool you. Evolution is a faith-based religion, complete with an Inquisition to punish heretics. Dan

[@walkergarya]

@@BibleResearchTools "Judge Jones got it exactly right when he ruled: While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103 (Miller); @-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method." Evolution is not testable, Gary, and it is certainly not natural. In fact, it is so stupid it cannot be intellectually defended. Therefore, the establishment must resort to suppression of opposing hypotheses to prop it up. walkergarya wrote, "ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation" So does the "big bang," the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and the existence of genetic code, to name a few. So did Isaac Newton's Principia: "[T]he parity of reason must take place in the celestial spaces above the earth's atmosphere; in which spaces, where there is no air to resist their motions, all bodies will move with the greatest freedom; and the planets and comets will constantly pursue their revolutions in orbits given in kind and position, according to the laws above explained; but though these bodies may, indeed, persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws... This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." [Isaac Newton, "Newton's Principia: the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy." Daniel Adee, 1846, Book III, p.501] As you can see, Newton believed in Intelligent Design, and he was pretty smart fellow. How smart? Today, over 300 years later, Newton's understanding rings true. Secular scientists still do not have a clue how the planets and moons were formed, how they were put into their (sometimes bizarre) orbits, nor how they remain in their orbits. Further, astronomers are so mystified by the presence of short-term comets that one scientist felt compelled to theorize an unobservable unknown, called the Oort Cloud, to explain away the existence of those other unknowns. That is not science, but religion. Don't let anyone fool you. Evolution is a faith-based religion, complete with an Inquisition to punish heretics. Dan

[@lizd2943]

@@BibleResearchTools Evolution is tested all the time. Crack open a journal some time. "So does the "big bang," the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and the existence of genetic code, to name a few" LOL no, they do not. Why are you telling such a silly lie? "As you can see, Newton believed in Intelligent Design, and he was pretty smart fellow. " But he had no evidence for that belief. "Secular scientists still do not have a clue how the planets and moons were formed, how they were put into their (sometimes bizarre) orbits, nor how they remain in their orbits." Um... yeah they do. It's called "gravity." "Further, astronomers are so mystified by the presence of short-term comets that one scientist felt compelled to theorize an unobservable unknown, called the Oort Cloud, to explain away the existence of those other unknowns. That is not science, but religion." No, short term comets come from the Kuiper Belt. The Oort Cloud is the hypothesized origin of long term comets. Creating hypotheses is science, not religion. Stop fooling yourself.

[@BibleResearchTools]

Liz D wrote, "Evolution is tested all the time." Baloney. All taxpayer-funded research by evolutionists goes to trying to prove Darwin was right: an impossible task, but what has been a perpetual source of funding. Liz D wrote, "Crack open a journal some time." Perhaps you should, but make sure you examine the data rather than the narrative gloss. Otherwise you will be tricked into believing evolution is true. Liz D wrote, "["So does the "big bang," the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and the existence of genetic code, to name a few"] -- "LOL no, they do not. Why are you telling such a silly lie?' How did you ever get to be that ignorant. Were you born that way, or brainwashed by the evolutionism cult? All three of those mentioned confound even the most die-hard anti-creationist. This is an interview with one of those die-hards, Nobel laureate Roger Penrose, on the fine-tuning of the universe: kzbin.info/www/bejne/r3XUn6xtit-siJY Liz D wrote, ["As you can see, Newton believed in Intelligent Design, and he was pretty smart fellow."] -- "But he had no evidence for that belief." He had no evidence to believe otherwise. He was no fool. Liz D wrote, ["Secular scientists still do not have a clue how the planets and moons were formed, how they were put into their (sometimes bizarre) orbits, nor how they remain in their orbits."] -- "Um... yeah they do. It's called "gravity." Perhaps you have been watching too many Neil deGrasse Tyson cartoons. Newton believed there was a non-material cause that sustained gravity, namely God, or more generally, he stated, "In him are all things contained and moved." Liz D wrote, "No, short term comets come from the Kuiper Belt. The Oort Cloud is the hypothesized origin of long term comets. Creating hypotheses is science, not religion. Thanks for bringing that up: _"In time, these observations [of comets] led to the theory that far beyond the sun and planets, there exists a large cloud of icy material and rock where most of these comets come from. This existence of this cloud, which is known as the Oort Cloud (after its principal theoretical founder), remains unproven. But _*_from the many short and long-period comets that are believed to have come from there,_*_ astronomers have learned a great deal about it structure and composition. … Halley-family comets, named for their prototype (Halley's Comet) are unusual in that _*_although they are short in period, they are believed to have originated from the Oort cloud._*_ Based on their orbits, it is suggested they were once long-period comets that were captured by the gravity of a gas giant and sent into the inner solar system." [Matt Williams, "What is the Oort Cloud?". __Phys.org__, Aug 11, 2015]_ The anti-creationists cannot seem to agree on which are the best just-so stories to force-feed the captive audiences of children in the "educational" system. Liz D wrote, "Stop fooling yourself." I stopped doing that 9 or 10 years ago when I dropped evolutionism from what I believed to be science. Perhaps you should stop fooling yourself. Dan

[@walkergarya]

Intelligent Design Creationism is to Biology what the Flat Earth is to Geography.