Top Ten Favorite Creationist Arguments, Parts I and II

[CAA Flagship]

Only got to watch the first video, but for putting so much time into a video, he could have done a much better job on points:
2 - Evolution can't be proven. He didn't prove that it could, just said so by quoting Gould who everyone knows believes in evolution.
4 - Irreducible complexity. Showed he didn't understand the concept at all. The point is that the eye cannot function without all it's components and thus, how does an eye gather all the needed components for no reason until it just miraculously forms an eye? Showing different versions could easily show an intelligent agent just as easily as convergent evolution does. Neither can be tested and they currently have no idea on the evolution side how it happens.
5 - Atheism is a religion. Personally don't know much about atheism and really don't care, but he could have used a better explanation than the typical "atheism is a religion, like being bald is a hair color".
6 - Scientist X believes in God. His reply that 93% of scientists don't believe in God. That proves what? I would be that 93% of scientists get their grants from pro evolution sources.
7 - Everything happened by chance. Guy doesn't even know natural selection is increasingly taking a beating as science gets better by looking at the cell and how it all functions.


There. Ya happy Capn. I bit! Didn't get a chance to watch second video. Gotta put my kids to bed, after I teach them how to be more judgmental of others.

Full on dumbass. Cult level, Joltin joe level Jesus robot.

[SeattleGriz]

The retardation of this thread is exactly why I don't post here anymore. All I will say is that evolutionary theory is observed and if anything in science is a "fact" evolution would be it. Evolution is the backbone of modern biology. No, i can't "prove with experiments" that humans have a common ancestor with other apes, but every single shread of scientific evidence points to that fact and there is literally none to the contrary. It's like saying because i didn't observe myself being born to my mother, that that is not a scientific fact that i did so. It may sound defeatest, but I'm not even going to argue evolution with you people because as my past discussions with seagriz have shown, no matter how much i refute successfully and no matter how much evidence i present, some of you will still not listen, and quite frankly it's not worth my time and effort. I know I am right, so there's really no use in trying. Unlike climate change, there is absolutely no
legitimate dissent on this subject.

I would suggest the video series "why people laugh at creationists" and "the fundamental falsehoods of creationism" on Youtube if anyone legitimatelly wants to learn anything about the "debate." also richard Dawkins books on evolution are quite enlightening as well and are not atheistic.

Hey, YT. Don't be so full of yourself that you can't commune with us. Believahs gonna believe. Just keep peckin' at 'em. That's where the fun lies.

Right on Capn.

My point has always been, and I have never hid it in a thread, that there is not any open debate. Evolution is currently the best working theory, but there are some big gaps in it. Gaps that need to be explained, or changes to evolution to help close the gaps. What gets me is the whole, "it's settled science" bullshit. It is hardly settled science.

A good amount of the videos posted in making fun of creationism are there for a reason...because some of those ideas need to be made fun of. But more to the point. Why are these people picking on the goofs? Why not step up and challenge someone who won't be so easily picked apart. Why do you think Dawkins won't debate anyone of substance? Because he knows he can't come up with answers off the cuff. He needs to parrot rehearsed answers or debate someone he simply tears apart.

As soon as the evolution crowd stops cowering and debates differing opinions head on, they are going to keep losing in the court of public opinion. The evolution crowd is just like the global warming crowd. They both say, "I am right and you are wrong - it's settled science".

Is it not odd that there is actually a group to fight discussing debate on the two topics?

http://ncse.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NCSE provides information and advice as the premier institution dedicated to keeping evolution and climate change in the science classroom and to keep out creationism and climate change denial.

[D1B]

Hey, YT. Don't be so full of yourself that you can't commune with us. Believahs gonna believe. Just keep peckin' at 'em. That's where the fun lies.

Right on Capn.

My point has always been, and I have never hid it in a thread, that there is not any open debate. Evolution is currently the best working theory, but there are some big gaps in it. Gaps that need to be explained, or changes to evolution to help close the gaps. What gets me is the whole, "it's settled science" bullshit. It is hardly settled science.

A good amount of the videos posted in making fun of creationism are there for a reason...because some of those ideas need to be made fun of. But more to the point. Why are these people picking on the goofs? Why not step up and challenge someone who won't be so easily picked apart. Why do you think Dawkins won't debate anyone of substance? Because he knows he can't come up with answers off the cuff. He needs to parrot rehearsed answers or debate someone he simply tears apart.

As soon as the evolution crowd stops cowering and debates differing opinions head on, they are going to keep losing in the court of public opinion. The evolution crowd is just like the global warming crowd. They both say, "I am right and you are wrong - it's settled science".

Is it not odd that there is actually a group to fight discussing debate on the two topics?

http://ncse.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NCSE provides information and advice as the premier institution dedicated to keeping evolution and climate change in the science classroom and to keep out creationism and climate change denial.

Go fuck yourself, you troll piece of shit christian.

[kalm]

Hey, YT. Don't be so full of yourself that you can't commune with us. Believahs gonna believe. Just keep peckin' at 'em. That's where the fun lies.

Right on Capn.

My point has always been, and I have never hid it in a thread, that there is not any open debate. Evolution is currently the best working theory, but there are some big gaps in it. Gaps that need to be explained, or changes to evolution to help close the gaps. What gets me is the whole, "it's settled science" bullshit. It is hardly settled science.

A good amount of the videos posted in making fun of creationism are there for a reason...because some of those ideas need to be made fun of. But more to the point. Why are these people picking on the goofs? Why not step up and challenge someone who won't be so easily picked apart. Why do you think Dawkins won't debate anyone of substance? Because he knows he can't come up with answers off the cuff. He needs to parrot rehearsed answers or debate someone he simply tears apart.

As soon as the evolution crowd stops cowering and debates differing opinions head on, they are going to keep losing in the court of public opinion. The evolution crowd is just like the global warming crowd. They both say, "I am right and you are wrong - it's settled science".

[/quote]

Both science and the court of public opinion have been wrong many times but you can't seriously tell me that creationists and GW deniers are the more open minded in these arguments.

[youngterrier]

Hey, YT. Don't be so full of yourself that you can't commune with us. Believahs gonna believe. Just keep peckin' at 'em. That's where the fun lies.

Right on Capn.

My point has always been, and I have never hid it in a thread, that there is not any open debate. Evolution is currently the best working theory, but there are some big gaps in it. Gaps that need to be explained, or changes to evolution to help close the gaps. What gets me is the whole, "it's settled science" bullshit. It is hardly settled science.

A good amount of the videos posted in making fun of creationism are there for a reason...because some of those ideas need to be made fun of. But more to the point. Why are these people picking on the goofs? Why not step up and challenge someone who won't be so easily picked apart. Why do you think Dawkins won't debate anyone of substance? Because he knows he can't come up with answers off the cuff. He needs to parrot rehearsed answers or debate someone he simply tears apart.

As soon as the evolution crowd stops cowering and debates differing opinions head on, they are going to keep losing in the court of public opinion. The evolution crowd is just like the global warming crowd. They both say, "I am right and you are wrong - it's settled science".

Is it not odd that there is actually a group to fight discussing debate on the two topics?

http://ncse.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NCSE provides information and advice as the premier institution dedicated to keeping evolution and climate change in the science classroom and to keep out creationism and climate change denial.

It is settled science. The reason Dawkins won't debate anybody on Creationism vs Evolution is because there is NO ONE of credibility who believes in creationism over evolution.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is. The reality is that it consists of multiple facts that can be falsified (but it is extremely unlikely that that will happen, such as finding a mammal fossil in 500 million year old rock) but are equally fortified with facts, observations, testing, data, etc. The theory of evolution as taught in public schools completely falls in line with all observable reality with no contradiction. The only disputes among evolutionary theorists (not just biologists, but archaeologists as well) are little things such as punctuated equilibrium (which is a form of gradualism) vs gradualism alone.

The fact is that there are literally TENS OF THOUSANDS, if not HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of peer reviewed papers fortifying the theory of evolution whereas there are about a few dozen papers on ID, none of which have any of the attention of peer review for a reason.

You say the evolutionists "won't debate" but the fact is that there are plenty of evolution videos on youtube discussing and explaining evolution and rebutting/debunking creationist/ID myths. Just because you don't have the time to look at them doesn't mean they aren't there and doesn't mean they don't happen. The reason you don't see debates on the legitimacy of evolution in academia is because the debate was over about 150 years ago.

Evolution, like any other theory, is about as high of a scientific ranking of "factualness" as one can get. A theory dictates the function of multiple interactions of a subject, whereas a law only deals with the interaction of one or two, that is the difference.

Scientific theories include Germ theory, atomic theory, big bang theory, theory of relativity, gravity, Cell theory, and plate tectonic theory. For Christ sake, quit fabricated controversy when it isn't there. There is no debate on the fact of evolution, it's as much of a fact as any scientific though we have. You wonder why there isn't debate? It's not because of conspiracy, it's because we don't debate what is considered fact.

You're just extremely ignorant, I'm sorry if that offends you, but you are painfully ignorant, and I'll admit I'm not very persuasive when it comes to AGW, but when it comes to evolution, I know that shit, and it's painful to watch you not put forth the effort to watch the shit I post for you to watch, then come back and spit the same BS over and over again. Yes, I know you probably don't have time, but if someone tells you you probably don't know what you are talking about and recommends reading material, do you think you would have the decency to read that shit before you continue to post the same shtick over and over again? I mean, you even post things from biased sources and quote mine material that in actuality is counter to your argument, but play it off as if it supports your arguments. You did this last time.

If you're willing to stfu and listen, then we can have a dialogue, but every time we do you essentially put your blinders on and fail to comprehend the most obvious of facts and reading comprehension. Your mind is made up, and you admit your own ignorance, yet won't let people educate you. I'll admit we're all like this, and my hands are most certainly not clean, but in this case I know this stuff so well (but not in the same vicinity of as well as someone like BDKJMU) that I know I'm right. To quote Bill Hicks "I deal only in facts, and that's why I'm a cocky fucking bastard."

But really, if you aren't going to listen to facts, there's no sense in me even talking to you or anyone, because I'm not going to waste my time talking to a wall.

So I'd request 1 of 2 things of you A) either don't talk until you've actually watched every video or link involving evolution/creationism/ID or until you are at least much well read in the subject, because at this point you're being more destructive than anything (as that is what the spreading of falsehood does) or B)take off your blinders and actually have a conversation.

PS: If you think because you can find a handful of guys with PhDs in a subject that that lends credence to your argument, even when there is widespread consensus in opposition, just keep in mind that there is a PhD in microbiology that teaches at UC Berkley that firmly denies germ theory ( you know, the basis of modern medicine and vaccination?)

[SeattleGriz]

Right on Capn.

My point has always been, and I have never hid it in a thread, that there is not any open debate. Evolution is currently the best working theory, but there are some big gaps in it. Gaps that need to be explained, or changes to evolution to help close the gaps. What gets me is the whole, "it's settled science" bullshit. It is hardly settled science.

A good amount of the videos posted in making fun of creationism are there for a reason...because some of those ideas need to be made fun of. But more to the point. Why are these people picking on the goofs? Why not step up and challenge someone who won't be so easily picked apart. Why do you think Dawkins won't debate anyone of substance? Because he knows he can't come up with answers off the cuff. He needs to parrot rehearsed answers or debate someone he simply tears apart.

As soon as the evolution crowd stops cowering and debates differing opinions head on, they are going to keep losing in the court of public opinion. The evolution crowd is just like the global warming crowd. They both say, "I am right and you are wrong - it's settled science".

Both science and the court of public opinion have been wrong many times but you can't seriously tell me that creationists and GW deniers are the more open minded in these arguments.[/quote]

If I could change creationist to ID'ers, then yes I believe I can (creationists - no). I base that simply from the fact that they are on the underdog side and have to be more open minded to gain ground. They are looking to prove themselves, and as such, are looking for a sincere exchange of ideas and debate.

Since I started looking into the lack of debate on both topics, it has been very interesting findings on how they (Evo/GW) are looking to stifle debate.

[houndawg]

Both science and the court of public opinion have been wrong many times but you can't seriously tell me that creationists and GW deniers are the more open minded in these arguments.

If I could change creationist to ID'ers, then yes I believe I can (creationists - no). I base that simply from the fact that they are on the underdog side and have to be more open minded to gain ground. They are looking to prove themselves, and as such, are looking for a sincere exchange of ideas and debate.

Since I started looking into the lack of debate on both topics, it has been very interesting findings on how they (Evo/GW) are looking to stifle debate.[/quote]

What is the difference between creationists and IDers?


And name one argument from either of them that doesn't reduce to "there are gaps in evolutionary theory, therefore creationism/ID must be the real story".

[SeattleGriz]

Right on Capn.

My point has always been, and I have never hid it in a thread, that there is not any open debate. Evolution is currently the best working theory, but there are some big gaps in it. Gaps that need to be explained, or changes to evolution to help close the gaps. What gets me is the whole, "it's settled science" bullshit. It is hardly settled science.

A good amount of the videos posted in making fun of creationism are there for a reason...because some of those ideas need to be made fun of. But more to the point. Why are these people picking on the goofs? Why not step up and challenge someone who won't be so easily picked apart. Why do you think Dawkins won't debate anyone of substance? Because he knows he can't come up with answers off the cuff. He needs to parrot rehearsed answers or debate someone he simply tears apart.

As soon as the evolution crowd stops cowering and debates differing opinions head on, they are going to keep losing in the court of public opinion. The evolution crowd is just like the global warming crowd. They both say, "I am right and you are wrong - it's settled science".

Is it not odd that there is actually a group to fight discussing debate on the two topics?

http://ncse.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is settled science. The reason Dawkins won't debate anybody on Creationism vs Evolution is because there is NO ONE of credibility who believes in creationism over evolution.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is. The reality is that it consists of multiple facts that can be falsified (but it is extremely unlikely that that will happen, such as finding a mammal fossil in 500 million year old rock) but are equally fortified with facts, observations, testing, data, etc. The theory of evolution as taught in public schools completely falls in line with all observable reality with no contradiction. The only disputes among evolutionary theorists (not just biologists, but archaeologists as well) are little things such as punctuated equilibrium (which is a form of gradualism) vs gradualism alone.

The fact is that there are literally TENS OF THOUSANDS, if not HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of peer reviewed papers fortifying the theory of evolution whereas there are about a few dozen papers on ID, none of which have any of the attention of peer review for a reason.

You say the evolutionists "won't debate" but the fact is that there are plenty of evolution videos on youtube discussing and explaining evolution and rebutting/debunking creationist/ID myths. Just because you don't have the time to look at them doesn't mean they aren't there and doesn't mean they don't happen. The reason you don't see debates on the legitimacy of evolution in academia is because the debate was over about 150 years ago.

Evolution, like any other theory, is about as high of a scientific ranking of "factualness" as one can get. A theory dictates the function of multiple interactions of a subject, whereas a law only deals with the interaction of one or two, that is the difference.

Scientific theories include Germ theory, atomic theory, big bang theory, theory of relativity, gravity, Cell theory, and plate tectonic theory. For Christ sake, quit fabricated controversy when it isn't there. There is no debate on the fact of evolution, it's as much of a fact as any scientific though we have. You wonder why there isn't debate? It's not because of conspiracy, it's because we don't debate what is considered fact.

You're just extremely ignorant, I'm sorry if that offends you, but you are painfully ignorant, and I'll admit I'm not very persuasive when it comes to AGW, but when it comes to evolution, I know that shit, and it's painful to watch you not put forth the effort to watch the shit I post for you to watch, then come back and spit the same BS over and over again. Yes, I know you probably don't have time, but if someone tells you you probably don't know what you are talking about and recommends reading material, do you think you would have the decency to read that shit before you continue to post the same shtick over and over again? I mean, you even post things from biased sources and quote mine material that in actuality is counter to your argument, but play it off as if it supports your arguments. You did this last time.

If you're willing to stfu and listen, then we can have a dialogue, but every time we do you essentially put your blinders on and fail to comprehend the most obvious of facts and reading comprehension. Your mind is made up, and you admit your own ignorance, yet won't let people educate you. I'll admit we're all like this, and my hands are most certainly not clean, but in this case I know this stuff so well (but not in the same vicinity of as well as someone like BDKJMU) that I know I'm right. To quote Bill Hicks "I deal only in facts, and that's why I'm a cocky fucking bastard."

But really, if you aren't going to listen to facts, there's no sense in me even talking to you or anyone, because I'm not going to waste my time talking to a wall.

So I'd request 1 of 2 things of you A) either don't talk until you've actually watched every video or link involving evolution/creationism/ID or until you are at least much well read in the subject, because at this point you're being more destructive than anything (as that is what the spreading of falsehood does) or B)take off your blinders and actually have a conversation.

PS: If you think because you can find a handful of guys with PhDs in a subject that that lends credence to your argument, even when there is widespread consensus in opposition, just keep in mind that there is a PhD in microbiology that teaches at UC Berkley that firmly denies germ theory ( you know, the basis of modern medicine and vaccination?)

You keep lumping creationism in with ID. I try to argue ID. While I know many feel it is a new version, at least the ID group knows they don't have a chance unless they can provide some papers and serious study. Like I have said, I think the best chance is going to be in system informatics. In all seriousness, do you think there are many grants for those who want to dispel evolution? No, they have to stick with the private funded or keep university research very general.

I think I have a pretty solid understanding of the theory of evolution. In fact, my whole point has been what many scientists are now realizing, especially in light of epigenetics; Darwinian evolution is not enough.

As far as me being ignorant, that is pretty harsh, especially in light of me trying to provide actual journals versus your analogies and typical over simplification videos on Youtube. Start posting some journal articles with your original thought and then we have a real discussion. It's tough and sometimes a person could be wrong, but think for yourself. If you know it well, the learning curve won't be too great for you. You certainly seem to have the passion.

You keep saying you are winning every argument, but you leave me no room. Like junk DNA. Trying to pass off some bullshit video misconstruing the original intent. Or the definition of a species - another bullshit definition of how everything is a new species. Get real. You know what I am saying, but you use evasive crap to not answer the question and claim victory.

[houndawg]

It is settled science. The reason Dawkins won't debate anybody on Creationism vs Evolution is because there is NO ONE of credibility who believes in creationism over evolution.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is. The reality is that it consists of multiple facts that can be falsified (but it is extremely unlikely that that will happen, such as finding a mammal fossil in 500 million year old rock) but are equally fortified with facts, observations, testing, data, etc. The theory of evolution as taught in public schools completely falls in line with all observable reality with no contradiction. The only disputes among evolutionary theorists (not just biologists, but archaeologists as well) are little things such as punctuated equilibrium (which is a form of gradualism) vs gradualism alone.

The fact is that there are literally TENS OF THOUSANDS, if not HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of peer reviewed papers fortifying the theory of evolution whereas there are about a few dozen papers on ID, none of which have any of the attention of peer review for a reason.

You say the evolutionists "won't debate" but the fact is that there are plenty of evolution videos on youtube discussing and explaining evolution and rebutting/debunking creationist/ID myths. Just because you don't have the time to look at them doesn't mean they aren't there and doesn't mean they don't happen. The reason you don't see debates on the legitimacy of evolution in academia is because the debate was over about 150 years ago.

Evolution, like any other theory, is about as high of a scientific ranking of "factualness" as one can get. A theory dictates the function of multiple interactions of a subject, whereas a law only deals with the interaction of one or two, that is the difference.

Scientific theories include Germ theory, atomic theory, big bang theory, theory of relativity, gravity, Cell theory, and plate tectonic theory. For Christ sake, quit fabricated controversy when it isn't there. There is no debate on the fact of evolution, it's as much of a fact as any scientific though we have. You wonder why there isn't debate? It's not because of conspiracy, it's because we don't debate what is considered fact.

You're just extremely ignorant, I'm sorry if that offends you, but you are painfully ignorant, and I'll admit I'm not very persuasive when it comes to AGW, but when it comes to evolution, I know that ****, and it's painful to watch you not put forth the effort to watch the **** I post for you to watch, then come back and spit the same BS over and over again. Yes, I know you probably don't have time, but if someone tells you you probably don't know what you are talking about and recommends reading material, do you think you would have the decency to read that **** before you continue to post the same shtick over and over again? I mean, you even post things from biased sources and quote mine material that in actuality is counter to your argument, but play it off as if it supports your arguments. You did this last time.

If you're willing to stfu and listen, then we can have a dialogue, but every time we do you essentially put your blinders on and fail to comprehend the most obvious of facts and reading comprehension. Your mind is made up, and you admit your own ignorance, yet won't let people educate you. I'll admit we're all like this, and my hands are most certainly not clean, but in this case I know this stuff so well (but not in the same vicinity of as well as someone like BDKJMU) that I know I'm right. To quote Bill Hicks "I deal only in facts, and that's why I'm a cocky **** bastard."

But really, if you aren't going to listen to facts, there's no sense in me even talking to you or anyone, because I'm not going to waste my time talking to a wall.

So I'd request 1 of 2 things of you A) either don't talk until you've actually watched every video or link involving evolution/creationism/ID or until you are at least much well read in the subject, because at this point you're being more destructive than anything (as that is what the spreading of falsehood does) or B)take off your blinders and actually have a conversation.

PS: If you think because you can find a handful of guys with PhDs in a subject that that lends credence to your argument, even when there is widespread consensus in opposition, just keep in mind that there is a PhD in microbiology that teaches at UC Berkley that firmly denies germ theory ( you know, the basis of modern medicine and vaccination?)

You keep lumping creationism in with ID. I try to argue ID. While I know many feel it is a new version, at least the ID group knows they don't have a chance unless they can provide some papers and serious study. Like I have said, I think the best chance is going to be in system informatics. In all seriousness, do you think there are many grants for those who want to dispel evolution? No, they have to stick with the private funded or keep university research very general.

I think I have a pretty solid understanding of the theory of evolution. In fact, my whole point has been what many scientists are now realizing, especially in light of epigenetics; Darwinian evolution is not enough.

As far as me being ignorant, that is pretty harsh, especially in light of me trying to provide actual journals versus your analogies and typical over simplification videos on Youtube. Start posting some journal articles with your original thought and then we have a real discussion. It's tough and sometimes a person could be wrong, but think for yourself. If you know it well, the learning curve won't be too great for you. You certainly seem to have the passion.

You keep saying you are winning every argument, but you leave me no room. Like junk DNA. Trying to pass off some bullshit video misconstruing the original intent. Or the definition of a species - another bullshit definition of how everything is a new species. Get real. You know what I am saying, but you use evasive crap to not answer the question and claim victory.

So coach us up on the difference between creationism and ID, if any.

[houndawg]

You keep lumping creationism in with ID. I try to argue ID. While I know many feel it is a new version, at least the ID group knows they don't have a chance unless they can provide some papers and serious study. Like I have said, I think the best chance is going to be in system informatics. In all seriousness, do you think there are many grants for those who want to dispel evolution? No, they have to stick with the private funded or keep university research very general.

I think I have a pretty solid understanding of the theory of evolution. In fact, my whole point has been what many scientists are now realizing, especially in light of epigenetics; Darwinian evolution is not enough.

As far as me being ignorant, that is pretty harsh, especially in light of me trying to provide actual journals versus your analogies and typical over simplification videos on Youtube. Start posting some journal articles with your original thought and then we have a real discussion. It's tough and sometimes a person could be wrong, but think for yourself. If you know it well, the learning curve won't be too great for you. You certainly seem to have the passion.

You keep saying you are winning every argument, but you leave me no room. Like junk DNA. Trying to pass off some bullshit video misconstruing the original intent. Or the definition of a species - another bullshit definition of how everything is a new species. Get real. You know what I am saying, but you use evasive crap to not answer the question and claim victory.

Speaking of bullshit definitions, could you state the Theory of Intelligent Design for us?

[youngterrier]

It is settled science. The reason Dawkins won't debate anybody on Creationism vs Evolution is because there is NO ONE of credibility who believes in creationism over evolution.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is. The reality is that it consists of multiple facts that can be falsified (but it is extremely unlikely that that will happen, such as finding a mammal fossil in 500 million year old rock) but are equally fortified with facts, observations, testing, data, etc. The theory of evolution as taught in public schools completely falls in line with all observable reality with no contradiction. The only disputes among evolutionary theorists (not just biologists, but archaeologists as well) are little things such as punctuated equilibrium (which is a form of gradualism) vs gradualism alone.

The fact is that there are literally TENS OF THOUSANDS, if not HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of peer reviewed papers fortifying the theory of evolution whereas there are about a few dozen papers on ID, none of which have any of the attention of peer review for a reason.

You say the evolutionists "won't debate" but the fact is that there are plenty of evolution videos on youtube discussing and explaining evolution and rebutting/debunking creationist/ID myths. Just because you don't have the time to look at them doesn't mean they aren't there and doesn't mean they don't happen. The reason you don't see debates on the legitimacy of evolution in academia is because the debate was over about 150 years ago.

Evolution, like any other theory, is about as high of a scientific ranking of "factualness" as one can get. A theory dictates the function of multiple interactions of a subject, whereas a law only deals with the interaction of one or two, that is the difference.

Scientific theories include Germ theory, atomic theory, big bang theory, theory of relativity, gravity, Cell theory, and plate tectonic theory. For Christ sake, quit fabricated controversy when it isn't there. There is no debate on the fact of evolution, it's as much of a fact as any scientific though we have. You wonder why there isn't debate? It's not because of conspiracy, it's because we don't debate what is considered fact.

You're just extremely ignorant, I'm sorry if that offends you, but you are painfully ignorant, and I'll admit I'm not very persuasive when it comes to AGW, but when it comes to evolution, I know that shit, and it's painful to watch you not put forth the effort to watch the shit I post for you to watch, then come back and spit the same BS over and over again. Yes, I know you probably don't have time, but if someone tells you you probably don't know what you are talking about and recommends reading material, do you think you would have the decency to read that shit before you continue to post the same shtick over and over again? I mean, you even post things from biased sources and quote mine material that in actuality is counter to your argument, but play it off as if it supports your arguments. You did this last time.

If you're willing to stfu and listen, then we can have a dialogue, but every time we do you essentially put your blinders on and fail to comprehend the most obvious of facts and reading comprehension. Your mind is made up, and you admit your own ignorance, yet won't let people educate you. I'll admit we're all like this, and my hands are most certainly not clean, but in this case I know this stuff so well (but not in the same vicinity of as well as someone like BDKJMU) that I know I'm right. To quote Bill Hicks "I deal only in facts, and that's why I'm a cocky fucking bastard."

But really, if you aren't going to listen to facts, there's no sense in me even talking to you or anyone, because I'm not going to waste my time talking to a wall.

So I'd request 1 of 2 things of you A) either don't talk until you've actually watched every video or link involving evolution/creationism/ID or until you are at least much well read in the subject, because at this point you're being more destructive than anything (as that is what the spreading of falsehood does) or B)take off your blinders and actually have a conversation.

PS: If you think because you can find a handful of guys with PhDs in a subject that that lends credence to your argument, even when there is widespread consensus in opposition, just keep in mind that there is a PhD in microbiology that teaches at UC Berkley that firmly denies germ theory ( you know, the basis of modern medicine and vaccination?)

You keep lumping creationism in with ID. I try to argue ID. While I know many feel it is a new version, at least the ID group knows they don't have a chance unless they can provide some papers and serious study. Like I have said, I think the best chance is going to be in system informatics. In all seriousness, do you think there are many grants for those who want to dispel evolution? No, they have to stick with the private funded or keep university research very general.

I think I have a pretty solid understanding of the theory of evolution. In fact, my whole point has been what many scientists are now realizing, especially in light of epigenetics; Darwinian evolution is not enough.

As far as me being ignorant, that is pretty harsh, especially in light of me trying to provide actual journals versus your analogies and typical over simplification videos on Youtube. Start posting some journal articles with your original thought and then we have a real discussion. It's tough and sometimes a person could be wrong, but think for yourself. If you know it well, the learning curve won't be too great for you. You certainly seem to have the passion.

You keep saying you are winning every argument, but you leave me no room. Like junk DNA. Trying to pass off some bullshit video misconstruing the original intent. Or the definition of a species - another bullshit definition of how everything is a new species. Get real. You know what I am saying, but you use evasive crap to not answer the question and claim victory.

You seriously are an idiot. You know what ID is? ID basically says everything we don't know about evolution, which biologists acknowledge and are working around the clock to find out (and may in fact have a hypothesis already). On top of that, they LIE about evolutionary facts or postulate something that is already disproven. The discovery institute used to have link to arguments in refutation of their own "for objectivity sake," guess what is no longer on their website because the refutations become so massive and, factually superior?

You misquote journals, I mean our last discussion proves that. The article you sited was anti-ID and you had your blinders on to quote mine it to be pro-ID. You thought the e coli experiment was anti-evolution. From what I can tell, you misunderstand every fact about evolution that is presented and warp it to fit your perspective. You are extremely ignorant.

You also haven't cited a single scientific journal that support your argument, so don't play that with me.

In review, the ID movement is:
-Redundant because it tells biologists what they already know
-counterproductive because it pushes the "irreducable complexity" card when said card has been refuted time and again
-and not helpful, because it hasn't produced a true alternative or superior theory to evolution.

Tell me how ID is more credible?

You don't understand evolution, so quit pretending you do.

And for fuck sake, quit acting like I'm the one who isn't being open-minded. I have absolutely no problem at all with admitting that I'm wrong, but no real evidence has been put forward to prove me wrong. YOU are the one with the blinders on and YOU are the one who refuses to watch videos or listen to perspective that is counter to your own.

You change definitions like what a species is, etc, but everything I've said is in line with scientific fact. Tell me what your definition of a species, speciation, theory, etc, are because you keep changing them for your own faux-argument

[SeattleGriz]

You keep lumping creationism in with ID. I try to argue ID. While I know many feel it is a new version, at least the ID group knows they don't have a chance unless they can provide some papers and serious study. Like I have said, I think the best chance is going to be in system informatics. In all seriousness, do you think there are many grants for those who want to dispel evolution? No, they have to stick with the private funded or keep university research very general.

I think I have a pretty solid understanding of the theory of evolution. In fact, my whole point has been what many scientists are now realizing, especially in light of epigenetics; Darwinian evolution is not enough.

As far as me being ignorant, that is pretty harsh, especially in light of me trying to provide actual journals versus your analogies and typical over simplification videos on Youtube. Start posting some journal articles with your original thought and then we have a real discussion. It's tough and sometimes a person could be wrong, but think for yourself. If you know it well, the learning curve won't be too great for you. You certainly seem to have the passion.

You keep saying you are winning every argument, but you leave me no room. Like junk DNA. Trying to pass off some bullshit video misconstruing the original intent. Or the definition of a species - another bullshit definition of how everything is a new species. Get real. You know what I am saying, but you use evasive crap to not answer the question and claim victory.

So coach us up on the difference between creationism and ID, if any.

First off, as it has been awhile since I have seen you houndawg, I will state as I have in all my threads that I too believe evolution as the best, most worked theory available. That has never been in debate. My point has always been that in light of recent advances in genetics, many are starting to realize that Darwinian Evolution, natural selection and random mutation, do not have the "power" to have driven all that we have today from one common ancestor.

So, if current Darwinian Evolution doesn't have enough "power" to drive all the diversity, then there must be something else to help assist. I obviously don't know, but believe it could be an intelligent force. Maybe that force is some sort of quantum arrangement we haven't discovered that automatically brings life about due to natural attractions, or it could be God. God as the intelligent agent, is where many believe it is a rehashed version of Creationism, with a new facade to sneak it into schools. I don't know if that is true, but can see where people would feel that way.

ID'ers do not believe Evolution and ID are mutually exclusive.

Here is the official definition of Intelligent Design:

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

[youngterrier]

So coach us up on the difference between creationism and ID, if any.

First off, as it has been awhile since I have seen you houndawg, I will state as I have in all my threads that I too believe evolution as the best, most worked theory available. That has never been in debate. My point has always been that in light of recent advances in genetics, many are starting to realize that Darwinian Evolution, natural selection and random mutation, do not have the "power" to have driven all that we have today from one common ancestor.

So, if current Darwinian Evolution doesn't have enough "power" to drive all the diversity, then there must be something else to help assist. I obviously don't know, but believe it could be an intelligent force. Maybe that force is some sort of quantum arrangement we haven't discovered that automatically brings life about due to natural attractions, or it could be God. God as the intelligent agent, is where many believe it is a rehashed version of Creationism, with a new facade to sneak it into schools. I don't know if that is true, but can see where people would feel that way.

ID'ers do not believe Evolution and ID are mutually exclusive.

Here is the official definition of Intelligent Design:

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

That would be a great argument if the premise wasn't false and if the subsequent claims about the nature of microbiology by IDers (including things in the cited article) weren't refuted every time.

[houndawg]

So coach us up on the difference between creationism and ID, if any.

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence.Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

And were these results published in peer-reviewed journals?

[youngterrier]

And were these results published in peer-reviewed journals?

A couple weeks worth of publishing for evolution is more than the entire history of ID. Also, ID is often refuted if scientists ever stop lmaoing at the assertions to acknowledge the actual position and take the time to do so.

[houndawg]

..I think if I'm serious about my ID maybe the best route is to attack the peer-review system itself....

[SeattleGriz]

And were these results published in peer-reviewed journals?

They are trying to get published and have 50 peer reviewed papers under their belts. Like I said, most of them are in informatics. Like how did the DNA get all that information and what does it mean?

There will be the rebuttal that they are reviewing their papers in Pro ID journals, but I simply ask, "where else?" If you have ever read a journal, you know it usually comes down to a conclusion as to where the experiment helps out a theory. There is usually NO WAY to prove many experiments are actually the factual truth, so it ends up being one person's belief and the peers to state it sounds reasonable enough as there are no glaring errors and no better conclusions. So why try to get a pro ID paper published in a pro evolution journal when you won't get anyone to agree with your conclusions?

Take irreducible complexity for example. Evolutionists say it has been debunked, but watch this video of Dr Ken Miller. What I am getting at is that in this video is that Dr Ken Miller first distorts the definition of IC, and then does not propose a competing idea. So you are aware of what I claim is distortion, Dr Miller distorts the definition in his speech when he says ID'ers say that if one protein doesn't work, none of the other 39 work either. That is false. IC says that in order for the flagellum to work, you need all 40 to work together. It's ludicrous for Dr Miller to state an obvious untruth. If the one protein doesn't work, the flagellum won't work, but the 39 other protein still retain their functionality, especially if they are all over the cell.

Secondly, how did the 40 proteins that were all over the bacterium get together and form a flagellum? It's Dr Miller's beliefs against those of Dr Behe (coined the term). Will we ever know how it happened? No.

[youtube][/youtube]

[SeattleGriz]

..I think if I'm serious about my ID maybe the best route is to attack the peer-review system itself....

This obviously is a pro ID site, but read this article and it may shed some light on how ID is treated, even in mathematics.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jo ... 47121.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Witness the brazen censorship earlier this year of an article by University of Texas, El Paso mathematics professor Granville Sewell, author of the book In the Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design. Sewell's article critical of Neo-Darwinism ("A Second Look at the Second Law") was both peer-reviewed and accepted for publication by the journal Applied Mathematics Letters. That is, the article was accepted for publication until a Darwinist blogger who describes himself as an "opinionated computer science geek" wrote the journal editor to denounce the article, and the editor decided to pull Sewell's article in violation of his journal's own professional standards.

Dr. Rodin and his journal now have to issue a public statement providing "their sincere and heartfelt apologies to Dr. Sewell... and welcom[ing] Dr. Sewell's submission of future articles for possible publication." More important than the apology, the journal has to set the record straight by reiterating that "Dr. Sewell's article was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication" and by making clear that his article was not withdrawn because of "any errors or technical problems found by the reviewers or editors."

[houndawg]

And were these results published in peer-reviewed journals?

They are trying to get published and have 50 peer reviewed papers under their belts. Like I said, most of them are in informatics. Like how did the DNA get all that information and what does it mean?

There will be the rebuttal that they are reviewing their papers in Pro ID journals, but I simply ask, "where else?" If you have ever read a journal, you know it usually comes down to a conclusion as to where the experiment helps out a theory. There is usually NO WAY to prove many experiments are actually the factual truth, so it ends up being one person's belief and the peers to state it sounds reasonable enough as there are no glaring errors and no better conclusions. So why try to get a pro ID paper published in a pro evolution journal when you won't get anyone to agree with your conclusions?

Take irreducible complexity for example. Evolutionists say it has been debunked, but watch this video of Dr Ken Miller. What I am getting at is that in this video is that Dr Ken Miller first distorts the definition of IC, and then does not propose a competing idea. So you are aware of what I claim is distortion, Dr Miller distorts the definition in his speech when he says ID'ers say that if one protein doesn't work, none of the other 39 work either. That is false. IC says that in order for the flagellum to work, you need all 40 to work together. It's ludicrous for Dr Miller to state an obvious untruth. If the one protein doesn't work, the flagellum won't work, but the 39 other protein still retain their functionality, especially if they are all over the cell.

Secondly, how did the 40 proteins that were all over the bacterium get together and form a flagellum? It's Dr Miller's beliefs against those of Dr Behe (coined the term). Will we ever know how it happened? No.

[youtube][/youtube]

So what do these fifty peer-reviewed papers offer as evidence of Intelligent Design?

[youngterrier]

And were these results published in peer-reviewed journals?

They are trying to get published and have 50 peer reviewed papers under their belts. Like I said, most of them are in informatics. Like how did the DNA get all that information and what does it mean?

There will be the rebuttal that they are reviewing their papers in Pro ID journals, but I simply ask, "where else?" If you have ever read a journal, you know it usually comes down to a conclusion as to where the experiment helps out a theory. There is usually NO WAY to prove many experiments are actually the factual truth, so it ends up being one person's belief and the peers to state it sounds reasonable enough as there are no glaring errors and no better conclusions. So why try to get a pro ID paper published in a pro evolution journal when you won't get anyone to agree with your conclusions?

Take irreducible complexity for example. Evolutionists say it has been debunked, but watch this video of Dr Ken Miller. What I am getting at is that in this video is that Dr Ken Miller first distorts the definition of IC, and then does not propose a competing idea. So you are aware of what I claim is distortion, Dr Miller distorts the definition in his speech when he says ID'ers say that if one protein doesn't work, none of the other 39 work either. That is false. IC says that in order for the flagellum to work, you need all 40 to work together. It's ludicrous for Dr Miller to state an obvious untruth. If the one protein doesn't work, the flagellum won't work, but the 39 other protein still retain their functionality, especially if they are all over the cell.

Secondly, how did the 40 proteins that were all over the bacterium get together and form a flagellum? It's Dr Miller's beliefs against those of Dr Behe (coined the term). Will we ever know how it happened? No.

[youtube][/youtube]

I'm sorry but science is not a "any hypothesis is better than no hypothesis" deal. The article you posted the last time we discussed ID talked about certain proteins and testing how they arose or could have arose, and that's good stuff in refutation of ID. The fundamental idea of science is not a false dichotomy, it's the quest to find the truth, and there is only one truth. Behe has proposed something and it has been refuted because he basically said that the proteins could not have arisen randomly and said proteins have been demonstrated to do so. It's not about beliefs, it's about evidence, and as now we may or may not know the answer, I don't trust your research as its proven to be sketchy, and I wouldn't doubt if they actually had an answer already, but "it's Behe's beliefs vs Miller's" is complete bullshit.

It's about evidence, not beliefs.

Oh and by the way, you said he misrepresented the argument when in actuality you just repeated what he said. Look at it again:

"For the protein to work, all protein must work together"

"If one protein doesn't work, the other 39 won't work and thus neither will the entire body of bacteria"

I don't see much of a descrepancy. Especially sense the "IC position" is actually probably the same as the evolutionary position. There is no beneficiary purpose for having extra proteins.

[youngterrier]

Oh, and by the way, if you think the flagellum came together randomly one day (all 40 proteins) all at once, you're displaying evolutionary ignorance once again.

[SeattleGriz]

Oh, and by the way, if you think the flagellum came together randomly one day (all 40 proteins) all at once, you're displaying evolutionary ignorance once again.

Them coming together randomly over time is more conceivable? Explain to us how that happened from protein #1 to #40. Don't know? Looks as if it is the same standstill as Miller and Behe have.

As for them coming together in one day, it might be possible, and in my opinion, more believable than slowly building it one protein at a time. My unsubstantiated guess would require a huge influx of DNA information for it to happen. Almost like getting the whole flagella blueprint all at once. Bacteria are known for being able to take in DNA that isn't theirs and incorporating it their own. But then that raises the next question. What had the blueprint in the first place and how did it get to a 40 protein complex?

I don't think we will have an answer for many, many years.

This guy is onto some really interesting thoughts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-s ... 80685.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's talking about DNA's ability of natural genetic engineering. DNA's ability to essentially change our DNA to respond to environmental pressures. This is the sort of stuff that could cause a huge change in a species.

[houndawg]

I'd like to hear what these peer-reviewed papers offer in support of the theory of ID. Something more than "the universe is too complex to have evolved as it has without guidance".

[youngterrier]

This will only take about 15 minutes of your time: Note, the person who makes these videos has a post-grad degree in microbiology. On a side note, I would recommend this youtube user when talking about this flagellum shit.

These are good videos on the background of the Discovery Institute. It's really telling as to what the intentions of these people are.

[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]

[houndawg]

Oh, and by the way, if you think the flagellum came together randomly one day (all 40 proteins) all at once, you're displaying evolutionary ignorance once again.

Them coming together randomly over time is more conceivable? Explain to us how that happened from protein #1 to #40. Don't know? Looks as if it is the same standstill as Miller and Behe have.

As for them coming together in one day, it might be possible, and in my opinion, more believable than slowly building it one protein at a time. My unsubstantiated guess would require a huge influx of DNA information for it to happen. Almost like getting the whole flagella blueprint all at once. Bacteria are known for being able to take in DNA that isn't theirs and incorporating it their own. But then that raises the next question. What had the blueprint in the first place and how did it get to a 40 protein complex?

I don't think we will have an answer for many, many years.

This guy is onto some really interesting thoughts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-s ... 80685.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's talking about DNA's ability of natural genetic engineering. DNA's ability to essentially change our DNA to respond to environmental pressures. This is the sort of stuff that could cause a huge change in a species.

Translation: DNA's ability to evolve.