Intelligent Design Creationism

[@badideass]

Creationism - psuedoscience at its best

[@OnSafari247]

Evolution....the funny monkey religion....at its best.

[@badideass]

@@OnSafari247 Evolution doesn't qualify as a religion,... Your ignorance is showing..don't you care about your education?? Obviously not

[@OnSafari247]

@@badideass Evolution is nothing but a religion. Considering there isn't a shred of evidence for it, it's not even a good religion. Without hesitation I would say evolution is the most anti-scientific religion on earth. The spaghetti monster is more scientifically plausible than the funny monkey religion.

[@badideass]

@@OnSafari247 if Evolution was a religion it would be the only religion that's a fact and supported by Science. Unfortunately Evolution is a Scientific fact and does not qualify as a religion. Nice try though, I can tell you "really" tried to understand Evolution

[@badideass]

@@OnSafari247 you should care more about your education

[@madgeordie4290]

Creationism is not science. Science involves putting forward an idea (called a hypothesis) which postulates a cause with an effect. It then amasses evidence and objectively assesses that evidence to see whether it supports the hypothesis or not. If it does, the hypothesis is used to make a prediction which can be further tested. If not, the hypothesis is either rejected or amended for further testing. The key word in all of this is objective. Creationism involves beliefs which are subjective. What is worse, it bowdlerises the scientific method by only looking for evidence that supports its beliefs and ignoring or supressing that which does not. In addition, its supporters continually point to facts for which science (as yet) has no answers as 'proof' of the validity of their ideas. Science does not pretend to have answers for everything. It is an evolving, learning and adaptable way of looking at the universe. That is why it has been so successful over the last three hundred years. The old saying, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is true up to a point but absence of evidence is not proof of presence.

[@loricalass4068]

Those who support evolutionism and atheism too often try to paint a stereotype of creationists as being low I.Q. science illiterates. Such people are smugly sure that THEY ain't religious. (Like me in the past when I called myself an atheist.) But they are. Profoundly so. Why? Because they have great...faith...in what is never seen and is even what is impossible. Yet they flatter themselves that they are way smart, and all about science, while feeling sure that creationists have nothing but an Imaginary Friend. . Let's look at just a few of the imaginary friends and myths from evolutionism and atheism. . First there is the belief in the imaginary time fairy friend. Evolutionists promote the idea that life can come from inorganic matter. (And don't say they do not. It's easily found all over Google and on YT. Who came up with the mythical primal pond theory? Creationists?) When it is pointed out that life only comes from life and life of the same kind they respond "Well, with enough tiiiiime, anything can happen. We have...faith...therefore, that things happened differently in the conveniently unverifiable past." . They have faith, too, in their imaginary crystal ball friend that sees into the unverifiable past. For ex. they will pick up a fossil from a rock and tell you what happened to its invisible and evidenceless descendants for over 100 million Darwin years. They also talk about "missing" links, more of their imaginary friends. Don't bother to ask how you tell missing links from never existed links. They have...faith...that they are just "missing." . Next we see the imaginary Geologic Column friend that "supports" evolution. The real evidence shows the fossils are jumbled. Giant shark fossils are found with dino fossils in Montana, for ex. Whales' fossils are found in wildly improbable places like the Andes mountains, the Sahara and a desert in Chili. Deep sea "Cambrian" fossils are found at every level on the planet, including on most mountain tops, as with the world's highest, the Himalayans. Take a look. www.bing.com/images/search?q=trilobites+on+mountain+tops&qpvt=trilobites+on+mountain+tops&qpvt=trilobites+on+mountain+tops&qpvt=trilobites+on+mountain+tops&FORM=IGRE . Those are the fossils of extinct, ocean bottom dwelling, trilobites. They, and other marine fossils found with them, are often in stunningly well preserved, and beautifully detailed, condition. We are told "plate tectonics" moved those deep sea creatures all over the world, in unbroken, vast sheets of concrete in the billions onto the world's mountain heights in such great shape. That's fine.... If you don't believe in erosion and admit you believe in miracles! . "Cambrian" fossils, like those trilobites, are found in the hills of mid America and countless other places on the planet, high and far, inland. Now why do we see evidence of sea life all over the planet at every level? And, how did all that sea water get everywhere? Hmmmm.... And btw, oceans don't, and can't, create fossils. Fossils are created when life forms are rapidly buried - so that animals can't eat them and natural forces can't erode them and the chemistry of fossilization can take place. There are no fossils anywhere in the oceans, or even after such things as local floods and tsunamis. . Next, there is the imaginary Family-changing fairy friend. Put a Species of any Genus of fish, bird, lizard, tree, bacteria, whatever, under your Darwinian pillow. Voila! Over an evolutionary "night" it will change into the next step up in the Animal or Plant Kingdom, i.e. a different Family. However, in the real world of trillions of life forms, and throughout recorded history, eagles stay eagles, bullfrogs stay bullfrogs, tulips stay tulips, eboli bacteria stay eboli bacteria, chimps stay chimps, fish stay fish, and of course people stay people, no matter how much they change. . We never, ever, see any evidence of a life form transitioning from one Family to another. Since all the evidence shows that never happens all around us with life forms, you just have to have... faith ... that it somehow happened differently in the unverifiable realm of the ancient and conveniently invisible past. . With no evidence of any Family transitioning to be another kind of Family, there is no evidence for evolution. (Not to mention never seeing any transitions from any Order, Class, Phylum or Kingdom.) It's just that simple. . Then there is the supremely imaginary god-friend of nothingness. Richard Dawkins and others tell us that everything came from nothing. This defies the laws of thermodynamics and physics, not to mention common sense. But their imaginary friend, the nothingness god, sells big time to those who want to believe they can be their own, puny, little gods. . Are you willing to take a serious and open minded look outside the box? If nothing else you can hear what the creationists are really saying, not the spin about what they are saying. . On this webpage you can see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other secular scientists - including some world famous evolutionists - admitting there is no evidence for evolution. You can see them calling evolution a kind of religion, something that leads to "anti knowledge", etc. Notice how many of these secular scientists acknowledge evidence for a Creator. freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1435562/posts . Are you aware that more and more blood cells, blood vessels and soft stretchy materials are being found in dino bones? Forensic science and common sense tell us such things could not last for more than a few thousand years. Go to Genesispark to see ancient art depictions of dinos from around the world. My fave is the stegosaurus carved on a 1,000 year old Cambodian temple. That site has lots of info on soft tissues and blood cells being found in dino bones, and historical reports of dino type creatures, including some from the famous historian Herodotus and from Alexander the Great. All information is gleaned from secular sources. www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/ . See Don Patton's The Fossil Record and many others. In this link he uses the fossil record to place evolutionary and creation predictions side by side. You can see for yourself what the real record of the rocks shows: .kzbin.info/www/bejne/bKLTZKKEfreVb5I . Thomas Kindell's vids are great, especially Thermodynamic Evidence For Creation where in the first 10 min. you hear quotes from well known evolutionists like "Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable." kzbin.info/www/bejne/f2LcpaJmYt9lmLM . Wazooloo vids, particularly The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution and So Ya Think Yer A Chimp, and the DNA ones, are full of scientific fact presented in an often humorous way. kzbin.info/www/bejne/o5u0paSdaN6soM0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/b4uro5avbdFsmbc kzbin.info/www/bejne/h6q1mqSFe86Cfpo . Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed shows the politics of Neo Darwinism which harasses and expels those in academia and the media who even hint that there MIGHT be evidence for a Creator. kzbin.info/www/bejne/anmoo6CmarWtp9k . Physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys gives scientific evidences for why people believe in a young, yes young, earth. Check it out and see: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qomclneKg8uEfrs Part 1 And regarding the speed of light "problem", there are many unproven assumptions about light. It was always assumed, for instance, that the speed of light was constant. Since last century, various secular scientists have been saying it is slowing down. However, here is another perspective. We have found that space, as in outer space, is stretchy. Several times in the Bible we are told that the Almighty stretched out the Heavens. This would mean the light from stars got stretched out, too, thus creating a false impression of distant time for light travel. . Answersingenesis.org covers just about everything . You are not a goo through the zoo ape update. You were created in the image and likeness of the Almighty Creator Who loves you. Why are you trading in those astounding truths of who you are for pseudoscience fairy tales and imaginary friends? Rhetorical Q.

[@captaingaza2389]

Answers in genesis Hahahaha i.e. Pull nonsense from the deepst darkest depths of my arse and present it as fact Hahahaha Yes, that pretty much sums up AiG hahahaha

[@netelsg]

If Eve was created by God from Adam rib, was Eve DNA the same as Adam DNA?

[@iainrae6159]

@@loricalass4068 Could you kindly inform us when your 'loving ' God instantly created a) humans An approx date, within a few thousand years is fine. b ) the earth c) dinosaurs d ) the most distant galaxies in the famous Hubble deep field photograph. My daughter is doing s school project on creationism/ intelligent design beliefs . Many thanks

[@boglerun8444]

@@loricalass4068 'You were created in the image and likeness of the Almighty Creator Who loves you.'...that is an incredible claim that requires incredible evidence....& not just some drivel from a scripture verse from a book of dubious origins.

[@caramandunga100]

Many people feel the same: the writer Gerald Schroeder, a former professor of Nuclear Physics, compares the chances of the universe and life have arisen by chance at winning the lottery three times: "Before we can collect the third ticket awarded, we'll go on his way to jail for cheating. The possibility that someone wins three times, are followed or in the course of a lifetime, is so small that it is discarded as insignificant. "

[@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); 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

[@doublejake1]

I absolutely HATE ad hominem arguments.... but while I won't accuse the poster with the username "Angela Pearce" of actually being a fool, he/she is spouting foolish ideas. A moment's thought would give the lie to "intelligent design." As unintelligent as Angela is, he/she might have done a better job of designing the human body than nature did. Were I to have designed the human body, I would had left out wisdom teeth that cause us trouble and have to be removed in adolescence. I would have designed different tonsils that don't infect so easily. I would have left out the appendix that has no purpose except to kill people before surgery was invented. I would have designed heart arteries that wouldn't clog as easily and heart valves that were stronger, less prone to leakage, and in no need of replacement with man-made parts. I would have certainly designed a better nasopharynx -- why on earth would an intelligent designer make it possible for us to choke to death on a morsel of food because our airway crosses the food pathway? ANYone redesigning the body would have two separate and discrete paths so we don't get food in our trachea (or lungs). I would have designed a better method of transmitting heredity than DNA that is subject to random mutation and the cause of congenital anatomic and functional malfunctions. The list goes on and on and on about poor design features, from the shape of our feet (a poor but evolving adaptation to bipedalism) to the way our pancreas works. Evolution explains every poor design feature of every living organism; if the was a designer at all the designer was much less intelligent than Angela, which is saying a lot. "Intelligent design," my aching foot.

[@ibrahiymghany4996]

Ur foolishness is not laughable but sad to say the least

[@marbanak]

This is an old tack. "It's not intelligently designed, because I wouldn't design it that way." With a sufficient knowledge of all the facts, your protests will evaporate. Here's a start: The appendix, which you indict, does have a purpose. You can look it up. Other complaints vanish, when you confess that you are looking at de-evolution. And given mankind's behaviour, you can count on even more de-evolution.

[@vaahtobileet]

@@marbanak googling "de-evolution" immediately reveals it to be a bunch of bullshit. Mankind's historical behavior has pretty much nothing to do with evolution, evolution works on a much larger timescale than what we really know about humanity.

[@ThEjOkErIsWiLd00]

@@marbanak If we were intelligently designed, why do we have earlobes? Why do we have muscles in our head that do nothing but wiggle our ears? Why are some people born with extra tailbone?

[@marbanak]

@@ThEjOkErIsWiLd00 It would be enjoyable to engage you on this, but the online forum is time-consuming, and it doesn't lend itself to lively dialogue. Here's what I can give you for now: I acknowledge the questions you pose are good ones. And for each one I could answer, you will surely have more. Rather like a king-of-the-hill scenario, where my efforts will consistently fall short. The intelligent design thesis is a quest for evidence of design. It cannot, at present, discern the intent of the designer at all points. One approach to your battery of questions, is to assume it is designed, and then see if a purpose can be discovered. We are in for a long ride. I would recommend humility and inquisitiveness to anyone watching this subject unfold. When the human appendix was found to be functional, and when the "junk DNA" was found to have function, those, who were shooting spit wads from the peanut gallery, had to backtrack. There's more to come. Let's stay tuned.

[@ArcanaKnight]

CONT You also still run into the other problems noted earlier: 1) There isn't enough water to cover the world; even if all the ice melted, sea levels would only rise about 60 meters. 2) There is no evidence of a global flood in the ice cores or tree rings. 3) There are no traces of such a flood on the sea floor. 4) Such a flood would have caused the polar ice caps to have floated off their beds and broken up.

[@robertj.simpson354]

Don't forget to remind yourself that the appearance of design is not design. The most exquisite design is not design. Design, no no no no; the appearance of design is not true design. Just keep on reminding yourself of this because it is not possible that what appears to be designed actually is designed - design can't really just be what it is, design!

[@J450b]

+frankos rooni Nope - he is talking about the amazing intricacy of life, the language in DNA, the perfect climate and orbit of the earth, the working of single cell organisms to be able to convert food and use it to reproduce themselves and much much more. Just simple accidents. You know. Definitely not design or anything. Don't you worry they are all mistakes. Nope, even if it looks designed it definitely can't be. That would be too logical.

[@rstevewarmorycom]

Robert J. Simpson You're an uneducated moron. We have WATCHED, in REAL TIME, information being produced by random processes subjected to automatic selection, BOTH in computer simulations of Evolution, AND in animals through only a few dozen generations when we sequenced their genomes. Your supposed creator never showed, did nothing, and doesn't exist. How do we know? When we mathematically analyzed the changes in each generation due to random mutation, we saw that they were ALL EXACTLY RANDOM!!! You're an idiot.

[@Chris-zd8cs]

If God created everything, the snowflake is a result of design.

[@Detson404]

Show your designer. If all humans died today, there’s be plastic shards and radioactive isotopes as evidence we were here, and those would last for millions of years. Find the same for god.

[@jarrettludolph6000]

How can people deny evolution with lectures like this.

[@OnSafari247]

Agreed, clearly such a stellar presentation proves that all life on earth descended from a single common ancestor that spontaneously popped into existence in a puddle of shit 3.8 billion years ago.

[@walkergarya]

@@OnSafari247 Lie.

[@philaypeephilippotter6532]

_Creationists_ refuse to accept logic. It's a disease.

[@walkergarya]

@@philaypeephilippotter6532 Agreed.

[@boglerun8444]

@@OnSafari247 '...puddle of shit...' ..that's organic!

[@ICEDMX1]

Once the "hook" of a con is generally known, the con artist has to reinvent his modus operandi or, move on to another hustle. The meat of religiosity is, at least in this day and time is money and control.

[@b991228]

Teaching the controversy is acceptable. The only requirement that it first become a theory established with years of scientific professional testing and peer review.

[@garywalker447]

there is no controversy. Evolution is FACT, creationism is crap.

[@ozowen5961]

@@garywalker447 However the post has a good point. There could be a controversy if ID did the work to become a Theory. But that would mean testing and challenging their own hypothesis. But they will not do that.

[@garywalker447]

@@ozowen5961 They won't do that because they know their "theory" is pseudoscience.

[@len9505]

Jim Mauch isn't speaking of ID, he's speaking of another truly scientific theory that doesn't yet exist. If there was a theory, that meets his qualifications, then controversy would be reasonable.

[@dcieniuch]

Creationists make it sound like a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night - Isaac Asimov

[@BeauLeeman]

"What are the merits of ID?" I meant it not in the colloquial sense of "Superior quality or worth, excellence," but more the legal definition of: "The factual content of a matter, apart from emotional .. considerations" From USLegal, "Merit is a term subject to various meanings, but in the legal context, merit refers to a claim which has a valid basis, setting forth sufficient facts from which the court could find a valid claim of deprivation of a legal right" So essentially, 'a valid basis'

[@johniec5282]

My " theory" is that most of the individuals and organizations promoting this inanity, as the judge put it, are doing it for the money involved in this religion and creationism business.

[@underdonkey5]

diverging from science for a moment.. I have also been very interested in religion, and involved with many religions. What I see is that many people have spiritual feelings, and organised religions tell you 'if you feel like that, so do we.. but you have to believe all this other stuff too'. The truth is, you don't. We are free to change our mind, reflect on our experience and compare it what we are told.

[@nakedapedude]

@Bereitwilligkeit I love how you quote scientific research that you think backs up your argument while at the same time having absolutely no idea what the scientists are talking about, it's hillarious, every time!

[@Machdude]

Of course no ones said outside factors are not part of the control over a decision. I forgot to mention one key aspect of free will, it is how you choose to see it. In reality, the true act of free will would require you to have complete understanding over the situation. If there were any act that would waver a person to make said choice, they would only be acting on the illusion of free will. If this was to be a viable proof, the circumstances would have had her convert without said depravity.

[@angelapearce8888]

rguing with an atheist is like playing checkers with a crocodile. You can move all of your pieces into the King position, but the crocodile will still knock over the board, attempt to bite your hand, and threaten to kill you.

[@benthemiester]

cont...No one argues that minor variations or adaptations could not occur, only that gradualism is not what we see and punctuated equilibrium raises more questions concerning phenotype than it answers, not to mention that it turns Mendelian recombination genetics on its head.

[@ScientificalnessUSA]

Conjecture is important as one can't revise, invent, innovate, improve upon, or correct without imagination.

[@wildreams]

"This is a battle of the presuppositions by which we may explain the evidence. And it's won by not allowing any opinion but your own." No one says you can't have your own opinion though, but when someone deliberately lies, use false logic and other dishonest means to bring forth their "opinion" that is contrary to evidence, we have a duty to educate the public. In science, u are free to have any opinion, but bad ideas that contradict evidence will just be disregarded and ridiculed.

[@paradigmbuster]

Its also clear that if creation was known to be actually natural history then scientist would say that we dont know the origen of the universe or avoid discussing it all together.

[@ElectrasolAdvanced]

let me say first....I AM a highschool drop out. I AM 28 years old. I AM a father of three. And I know that I was built from the Father of ED. The fact that you can read this comment proves my main point. I can wrap my mind around that. Can you??

[@underdonkey5]

Saying evolution cannot be observed is like saying gravity cannot be observed, only the things gravity acts on.Like gravity (the laws of which are still being investigated by scientists due to inconsistencies)evolution explains an enormous part of the way organisms interact and their forms. Evolution is going on today, but many scientists believe most evolution occurs following large environmental changes or mass extinctions(as new niches in the environment are opened up for species to adapt to)

[@campdon]

Okay. Thanks. I should clarify. I am not a young earth creationist. I am a proponent of intelligent design. So I, too, find evidence for "linear creation" lacking.

[@Seekmosttoprophesy]

You can't argue with observable intelligent design. It will always be there and it will always be observable, the whole three billion digits worth of information that no object or static force can account for.

[@underdonkey5]

ok.. quick course on process of evolution: 1. Within a species there is genetic diversity and occasional mutation (of genes). 2. Species adapt to an environment, because genes that code for characteristics more suited for the environment allow those individuals to reproduce (competition within the species). 3. Members of a species that are separated (e.g. continents seperate, or by isolation due to eg mountain range or islands) adapt to slightly different environment and diverge (genetically)

[@ArcanaKnight]

CONT Besides, not only is it inappropriate to teach ID in science class because ID just isn't science, but high school students don't have the foundational knowledge of biology that would be necessary to evaluate the evidence and determine whether something is valid or not. This is the same reason why its also not left up to high school students to evaluate new ideas in physics, chemistry, or mathematics.

[@underdonkey5]

Well, thanks for the conversation, and thanks PatchesRip too, you had some well presented comments. Happy christmas/winter solstice to everyone :D

[@BeauLeeman]

"Lastly, ID is not investigated, it is hypothesized." I never said it was a theory, nor have I in my last ten years of writing on the subject. ID is a hypothesis based on 'design inferences.' Evolution is a theory, but a complex one, with more than one mechanistic function. Natural selection is also a hypothesis, and its validity rests on what it selects from. Random mutations have NOT been show to produce novelty, and are thus falsified for -macro alterations. Adaptation, yes. Speciation, no.

[@classicalsteve]

Barring the extremist leadership of the Creationist movement, I think that most creationists still miss the point. It is not that Creationism/Intelligent Design can't be taught. They can be taught in a religious history/social studies class in the public schools or in a religious school that can teach whatever religious persuasion it wants to propagate. But public schools cannot and should not favor religious beliefs within a scientific context. It's separation between church and state.

[@Dimitris966]

Intelligent design is so intelligent that children do not posses the mental competency to understand it, and therefore it should not be taught to schools.

[@BeauLeeman]

Thanks for your comment. As you know, the Dover v Kitzmiller ruling was in two parts. Referring to the .pdf doc (Google dover, jones & decision), I'll make a few points. Jones cited prior court cases to show where Creationism violated 'church & state'. He then, via testimony, was able to establish that ID was in fact, Creationism. Not that I agree, since ID entails much more than was presented in its defense, but I'll abide with his decision regarding the Board's actions, (1st part of ruling)

[@sombodysdad]

Judge Jones was fooled by the lies of the plaintiffs. He was also fooled by a literature bluff.

[@johnlewisbrooks]

But one of their biggest industries is commercial fishing. After all, they're right next to a large body of water, which is interesting because Tyre was built this time about 20miles further inland.

[@underdonkey5]

it has been consistently shown that complexity can arise from simple rules e.g. in (self-evolving) software programs and in game theory (behavioural strategies)

[@wildreams]

If you are interested with Darwin's personal philosophical view on evolution, this is what he said, not as a scientist but as a philosopher, not everybody share his view though, but i certainly do: "There is grandeur in this view of life that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

[@frogster777123]

What a great presentation - regardless of which side of the fence you sit on. This guy spoke really well, he's obviously an expert in his field and yet he made his talk very accessible. Very interesting, thank you for posting.

[@Ozzyman200]

The problem for ID is that so far all the evidence so far supports science, and the ID proponents have yet to find any supporting their view. Scientists are constantly asking ID proponents for evidence, yet still nothing. In court they were asked for some and they had nothing to say.

[@danstan76]

you all have it wrong. the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He just created it to look old. this explains everything obviously

[@EricZombie]

And the word shall be truth. I respect a guy that can quote himself to prove himself!

[@Seekmosttoprophesy]

You don't want to see your "biblical error". You attribute your existence to objects and static forces. That is defined as idolatry.

[@campdon]

My point exactly. It is Dr. Pennock who makes the comparison between the mechanisms of evolution (living things) and his computer simulations. I'm glad we agree on this point at least.

[@BeauLeeman]

If you mean Behe, Day 11: " ... as I tried to make clear in my testimony, findings accumulated over 140 years that support the contention that Darwinian processes could explain complex molecular systems total a number of zero." He wasn't denying there were papers, but of the fact that they supported the fact (essentially proved) that Darwinian processes proved macroevolution, to paraphrase. That's not lying, just questioning their content. And NO citations were provided from those docs.

[@ClumsyRoot]

In other words, don't bother people with facts and evidence about their origins--just let them believe whatever cartoonish mythology they find comforting.

[@DeadlyChinchilla]

The pronouncement is not "a creator does not exist." A scientific, realistic statement is "there is no evidence that a creator exists." People may personally adhere to the first statement, but the second is scientific. The problem lies in that you believe these two statements to be freely interchangeable, which they are not. To be specific, there can be no "prejudice" in the scientific statement. Whats more, you refuse to admit to your OWN prejudice, which is blatently obvious.

[@mrbadguysan]

There's actually several possible answers to your verbose question. 1) Taken literally, there shouldn't be one, because an earnest investigation of creationism will reveal it for what it really is: A Philosophy of Ignorance. It would be hard to argue that knowing this wouldn't be a benefit. 2) From what I think you mean to say: Survival is imperative for all evolved creatures. If your perception of the world is flawed, survival is more difficult. Creationism is a flaw in perception.

[@DeadlyChinchilla]

Evolution is also the original "theists against science" approach, and thus required protection via legislation. We are not in the habit of legislating what science is right and wrong, that isn't how scientific theories advance or die. IDers were looking for a case like Dover via the organization that supported the religious intervention. They knew it would happen somewhere, and they planned to use it to get a positive note for ID in classrooms. Then they failed miserably.

[@benthemiester]

In 1980, Paleontologist and Curator at the British Museum in London, Colin Patterson had the horse series removed from the Museums display, and Dr. Raup had eohippus removed from the horse series display at the Field Museum in Chicago. Pressure from dogmatic evolutionists forced Dr. Patterson to reinstate the horse display at the British Museum. Biele 2006

[@underdonkey5]

apologies.. you may have all noticed - I wasn't quite sure how the youtube thread works and I have put some in the wrong place!

[@nickabeta]

@Bereitwilligkeit -side note- Evolution (biology) only refers to life changing over time and not the appearance of life in the first place (ambiogenisis) or the start of the universe (cosmology - big bang) so you´re argument is directed at the wrong theories. That being said… "I’ve designed and seen designed ..." for this argument to be valid requires a demonstrated link between design (human) and nature. This is the subject of discussion so the argument is circular. Dawkins words (cont)

[@jimbrown257]

"Creationism seems a little more on the sane side, unlike evolution" ...Then why is creationism universally rejected by scientists? Why are the only people who believe in creation people who lack even a basic understanding of any kind of science?

[@IaintNoGood]

The "evolutionary scenario," has millions of years to play itself out, which makes perfect sense. The Noah myth however, claims that 8 people repopulated the earth in a mere few thousand years. This is utterly ludicrous.

[@Arc0Arsenal]

lifeNJesus: that argument is like saying "i dont beilve in gravity because there is no conclusive proof that magical aliens from pluto arent behind the whole thing".

[@Ozzyman200]

Well, that's precisely my point. You see DNA is complex, you assume inteligence. You acknowledge that you can't demonstrate this, which, frankly, is very telling. Scientific principles can always be demonstrated. There's simply no necessity of intelligence behind something complex even if it's very complex. If you define information to be from an intelligent source, then you must demonstrate that DNA is information.

[@DeadlyChinchilla]

We do not require "knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe" to understand parts of it and its processes. You migrate to the extreme, requiring "total knowledge" where you realize perfectly well that is unrealistic as a standard. If you can't make an argument based off of the realistic, yet still stringent, standards that even the top scientists work from, then you can't expect to make sense or gain the respect of your fellow debaters. All natural processes can be understood.

[@KaraokeQueenOfficial]

When you say something versus something else, there's a categorical assumption that there is a battle between the two.

[@DeadlyChinchilla]

They failed miserably in the scope of this trial. Obviously people still question, but the simple fact is that it is not a debate. Science is not "to the best debater the spoils." It is not a democracy or popularity contest, and no favortism is handed to theories. It is established by evidence and study via the self-correcting process of the Scientific Method. I never said "Dover was about the kids." Its academic integrity, & a monetary loss is motivation for other schools to behave.

[@Seekmosttoprophesy]

People who spout nonsense make more money because there are more people who believe nonsense than believe the obvious truth of their Creator. Me, I would much rather have a clear conscience knowing and speaking the truth no matter what the the truth is valued at by people who believe nonsense. You can't pay me to speak anything but the truth because having a clear conscience is priceless.

[@Ozzyman200]

If there were any evidence for creationism or to disprove evolution we'd have heard it by now. The science vs. creationism debate was over long ago.

[@underdonkey5]

NB. the contribution Dawkins made to science was popularising the fact that selection really works on GENES rather than individuals i.e. mates select for traits reflecting good genes (good skin, shiny hair, nice teeth.. indicative of health), animals tend to protect members of their family or group first (genetically similar) etc. HOWEVER this doesn't lead to eugenics..

[@benthemiester]

I have been debating people for years on this subject and there is always one reaction that takes place when a person starts to realize that science offers no refuge for unscientific beliefs, and it manifest itself in name calling and reverting back to childhood instincts.

[@Ozzyman200]

Ah well, I think we've reached deadlock here. You still seem to think that complexity means information means an intelligent designer, yet still you haven't been able to demonstrate this, no one has.

[@BeauLeeman]

A correction to a Pennock remark: Pennock cites Wm Dembski quoting the then president of IRAS, which Pennock then labels a 'pro religion group'. Michael Cavanaugh [35:22] "[ID] is totalitarian religious thought." but then adds (misquote), "This is not the kind of religious Christian view that we really want to hold." Cavanaugh now has a site called religiosnaturalism, where two of his 'top ten books' are 'Why Would Anyone Believe in God" and "The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality"

[@BeauLeeman]

You guys are hung up on semantics. I'll rephrase: My central point is that ID is a valid pursuit, is science based, and is evidential based on Irreducible Complexity (which may be redefined), synergy of systems (a new hypothesis), and aesthetics (re: symmetries only). These proposals merit further study. (This time I used 'merit' as a transitive verb, is that OK with you guys?) ID as science is in its infancy, is NOT Creationism, consists of a valid forensic pursuit, and will not go away.

[@Seekmosttoprophesy]

The truth hurts for people who can't face it. They keep hurting themselves on things they refuse to admit exists. People who "walk in darkness have no light." and "They know not at what they stumble". Address the issues.

[@Icix1]

Suffice to say the existence of god causes more questions than answers, more confusion than relief.

[@Ozzyman200]

Fossil records so perfectly fit evolutionary predictions. No one else has provided any other plausible explanation for them. The DNA evidence overwhelmingly shows science was right, not creationism. It shows nothing about intelligence, only nature. How do you explain ERVs then, without Darwinian evolution?

[@KaraokeQueenOfficial]

I say that all creationists are a religion, but not all religions are creationists.

[@DeadlyChinchilla]

The problem lies in the idea that one can legislate reality. The US is *very* legally based, behavioral wise. This leads people to believe that whatever passes through the courts is the "truth." Passing regulations that put "warning stickers" in science books gives them an empty victory, we know that, but it is a victory for the personal beliefs of that group, and not for what is real or scientific. And the courts do not always protect what is right... it often passes what is popular.

[@underdonkey5]

When PatchesRips (who is obviously a scientist) and I talk about science, these are not 'ideas we have had' or 'our interpretation of reality' unless we state so. These are tested and analysed theories that there is enormous evidence for. We are working within a stated logical structure. Your argument is not within a logical structure, so you may as well argue that man and woman were created from trees by Odin (Norse creation myth) and say if we don't believe it, its because we don't understand.

[@benthemiester]

Correction, protoavis 80 million years older which destroys the archeopteryx theory.

[@Seekmosttoprophesy]

Just be glad that our existence is still viable 6,010 years after the initial spoken directives even though our environment has become inhospitable. We are not what we used to be but at least we are still living and that is something to be grateful for. We can't even make a phone that is viable for more than a few years and does not become obsolete.

[@wildreams]

And even if there are certain details that scientist do not have a clear understanding of in our evolutionary history, it doesn't necessarily lead to the collapse of the entire theory. And it also does not discredit the other parts of the theory that were established with greater certainty. Like common decent.

[@Machdude]

By that logic, Killer Whales and Chimpanzees would have a similar chance to us. They just happened to have not done it as quickly. Given the capacity, they too could have grown to adapt to their surroundings given time. The Humans just happened to do it first.

[@AR333]

I disagree with him about science vs religion. Religion comes from a time when we thought the sky was a dome. The only way science DOES NOT conflict with religion is if one labels everything in every book as non-historical and simply metaphorical.

[@BeauLeeman]

The 'Pandas and People' edits (1989 edition) were to comply with 'Edwards v Aguillard', where 'Creationism' was deemed religion, and unteachable. The author felt that 'creation events' were designed events, and that the change in terminology was justified. While I agree that Davis and Kenyon appeared to integrate religious tenets ("various forms began abruptly ... fish with fins" et al), which would correspond to a 'poof scenario', have nothing whatsoever to do with ID in its current synthesis.

[@campdon]

You could do this yourself by checking with wikipedia. Scientists: Kenneth Miller, Francis Crick, Henry Schaefer, John Polkinghorne Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Galileo. In the Arts and literature: T.S. Elliot, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien. Jonathan Edwards, John Adams, Soren Kierkegaard. No statistics, MrUhre, but a pretty good starting list. And some that may surprise you, Kenneth Miller, for example.

[@underdonkey5]

Species has gained some meaning in popular language, but in science a species is defined as not being able to produce reproductive young.. so those 2,900 species cannot inter-breed. 'Mosquito' is an english name we give them, but in science different species will have a different latin name, so we can understand that they are actually different. The importance of not being able to inter-breed, is that if one develops a +ve selective trait (through mutation) it cannot be passed to another species

[@SinHurr]

Doin' it wrong. You don't have enough evidence to disprove that my great aunt's lost teapot is orbiting between Mars and Jupiter, but if I claimed as much I'd likely be laughed off the stage. Similarly, there isn't enough evidence to disprove that all the elementary particles and such were created by a pink unicorn. Or, since I'm there, that god ISN'T a pink, somehow-also invisible, unicorn.

[@nickabeta]

under sized birth canals (humans). Sorry forgot to refer to the bacterium suffering decay in DNA. These species are in isolated habitats (very extreme I believe), and the DNA decay is symptomatic of this

[@Ozzyman200]

If creationists had any evidence to back up anything they say they'd have presented something by now. Scientists on the other hand have mountains of evidence for evolution.

[@RationalThinker1859]

You can't prove there are kings in checkers. In fact I have proof that there aren't any kings in checkers. Yes, proof from science and agriculture. And you have no evidence that shows otherwise. Sorry about that.

[@BeauLeeman]

For those unfamiliar with retinal function, and glial cells in particular, Google "Müller cells: Natures fibreoptics" Now mind you, there is an article by Creation Ministries, which is obviously a religious website, but which does not render the Müller/ glial discussion religious. I would suggest reading all/ most of them for a balanced purview of retinal function. Google 'webvision retina' for more. The 'eye' args for a designer predate the Roman Empire, but are even more viable today.

[@TomFynn]

@TomFynn A) A world wide flood would leave a worldwide sediment. There is none. B) If all species emerged from one point, a migration pattern would be observed. There is none.

[@underdonkey5]

until these two populations are unable to reproduce (with fertile young)... the creation of seperate species. Important points: i. species generally try to AVOID competition (because rather than compete for the same resources, it is more energy efficient to use another resource or live in a different environment). Thus, species numbers have INCREASED over geological time. Species occupy different 'niches' ii. PREADAPTATION is required for most evolutionary processes e.g. feathers were originally

[@stiimuli]

@monitor301 semantics aside, evolution is not in violation of the third law of thermodynamics. Even if it was, given the massive amount of discoveries in the fields of biology, paleantology and genetics that indicate evolution in such detail, such an idea would more likely point to a misunderstanding of the second law than a problem with evo.

[@IDquest]

Intelligent Design is NOT creationism. I wish people would get that in their heads. Here's proofs: watch?v=g4vCxduEGAM, watch?v=aTpunJKJLRQ, and watch?v=14YYS44aAkg

[@benthemiester]

No one ever said the subject was easy.

[@haz020190]

"by claiming that life originated from nonliving matter, when their claim has never been observed in nature" and animals poofing into existence has?

[@HolyRevelation]

You are correct, it's a fact that DNA has limited adaptability. The evolutionists reasons for maintaining the belief in unlimited DNA adaptability, has nothing to do with science or facts but blind faith only.

[@1whitemoon]

I don't usually reply to videos, but here are my thoughts: 1. the human 'tail' is a mutation creating a blob of fat. I've never heard of a case where it was being 'functional' or had muscle /bones. Do correct me if I'm wrong. 2. 'we never find a poodle with dinosaurs in the fossil record'. True, yet you find living Coelacanth today, which is like a living dinosaur. if a fish can live 60 m years without leaving a fossil, why can't humans, birds, poodles..? your 'fossil record' proves useless.

[@benthemiester]

@NoAntecessor You never gave a response to the specific emergent systems I mentioned, instead you gave a strange they answer without specifying what they is. I was speaking of chemicals being able to produce living phospholipids with proteins, not inert dead fatty acids that decay and are simply semi permeable membranes that succumb to entropy. Szostac is very familiar with this problem. You need to be more specific.

[@DarthServo]

This post is such a beautiful description of creationists.

[@SinHurr]

The fact that genes duplicate, as in "copy twice," thus expanding the available sequences which are able to mutate doesn't mean anything, I'm sure.

[@BeauLeeman]

"This is why over 50 peer reviewed materials were placed in front of him." That was utter theatrics, and done for show. There are always going to be peer reviewed papers. So what? None of them were shown (cited) to prove the point of contention, that the immune system evolved by purely natural means. And Matt (Rothchild's assistant) made sure to stack them so Behe had to peer around them. Thusly, they obviously had a 'Comedy Central' effect, and should have been challenged by the defense.

[@ultradevon04]

@1tabligh Basic elements are produced in stars and then heavier element are produced in super nova explosions. With all we know about physics and chemistry, these are the best explanation for the origin of such element. The fact that we have evolved intelligence is irrelevant to the origin of existence. IMO existence has always existed in one way or another. We are just describing the nature of existence or at least the portion that we experience.

[@Hatchyack]

Creationism is a specific type of ID though, and neither one is a methodology because they make no testable hypotheses or predictions.

[@angelapearce8888]

I suppose if I brought you into a gymnasium with fifty robots operating with artificial intelligence, you would claim they all "evolved from a common ancestor"? Yet a honeybee is a much more complex organism than fifty robots designed and programmed by teams of scientists. Just as you would admit that the robots were intelligently designed, built, and programmed to perform certain functions, so I claim that all living things were intelligently designed, built, and programmed by our Creator.

[@BeauLeeman]

The reason I waste time here and on other blogs is not to change the mind of the person I'm debating, but to influence lurkers that may be undecided. Since it costs me in both time and money, I must have an altruistic motive. If you'll remember, my only point was the misuse of the phrase "breathtaking inanity" by Pennock. It was you, my friend, that reasoned " ... then it is not a stretch to make the correlation that ID is breathtaking inanity." I only responded to your 'add on' arguments.

[@IaintNoGood]

of 2006, about 75.1% of the Darwin Dissenters were not trained or working in biological/geological disciplines. This makes the Discovery Institute's numbers even more pathetic, leaving only 175 scientists on their list of dissenters, which actually have the proper education/training and who work in the appropriate disciplines. Of those approximately 175, half have wrote letters stating wanted their name removed from the list because the Discovery Institute's premise was misleading. DI refuses

[@nakedapedude]

you refuse to state your position, our discussion is concluded