Deprecated: Function session_register() is deprecated in /home/bestofgo/public_html/login.php on line 4
A War on Science (Intelligent design) - Best of Google Video

Google Videos - Best of Google Video

(also best of YouTube)
Best of google is not sponsored by or affiliated with or .

A War on Science (Intelligent design)

November 9, 2006
Get 2Gb free online storage with Dropbox


asd (guest)  -  November 10, 2006, 12:37
I watched the whole shit, and one of the last sentance stroke me!: "the war is ultimatly going to be won, or lost in the minds and hearts of the AMERICAN peoples" OMG! THE WORLD IS BIGGER THAN AMERICA YOU BLIND FOOLS! fake Down whit Intelligent Design!
dsa (guest)  -  November 10, 2006, 13:20
Yeah, but nowhere else the people are dumb enough to believe in such bullshit with pretty much non-existant scientific proof. So hearts of the American people are where this battle will be fought and there it will (hopefully) stay.
dsa (guest)  -  November 10, 2006, 13:29
Yeah, but nowhere else the people are dumb enough to believe in such bullshit with pretty much non-existant scientific proof. So hearts of the American people are where this battle will be fought and there it will (hopefully) stay.
Maod (guest)  -  November 10, 2006, 14:58
Not true, religious fanatics are all over the globe. For example here in Sweden.
fooshooby (guest)  -  November 11, 2006, 01:57
ignorance can be a bliss. knowledge wont ever be, but it gives you power. limiting your knowledge means limiting your power. make your own decision.
pochemunyet (guest)  -  November 11, 2006, 03:07
Science has no business judging the divine. By definition it is out of its scope. Deal with it.
truthVSfiction (guest)  -  November 11, 2006, 04:36
Truth (guest)  -  November 11, 2006, 07:55
This is so retarded that it's unfathomable. Religious fanatics have lost their hold and now they're getting desperate. I almost feel sorry for them in a way. They know what's coming and they are fighting tooth and nail to stop it. Sorry god warriors, but science will trump in the end. Best these people can do is just accept that the US is a secular nation and religion is nothing but a personal comfort system created by man.
Truth (guest)  -  November 11, 2006, 08:13
@dsa Religion is responsible for a lot of the strife in the world. Middle East anyone? They hate us because we are secular and because we evidently don't live up to their "Christian" view of us. Religion is deeply intertwined with many of the governments in that area. So much so that in some nations, you are required to pay an "Infidel Tax" and are generally looked down upon for being a non-supporter of the current religious party in power. The war, violence, and suffering over there is because of religion - which is why there is no negotiating with people like that. You ask them to compromise their god, and they will kill you. Look at Jordon - they are seriously about to get FUBAR because they won't assimilate into the "Islam Way". Religion is becoming a real problem in the world and it's sad that people get so carried away with it.
Crasy (guest)  -  November 11, 2006, 12:08
Intelligent Design is Crazy and fake !
yeahright (guest)  -  November 11, 2006, 12:31
@truthVSfiction Kent Hovind is mr. fake
sbd (guest)  -  November 11, 2006, 12:54
@Truth -> "Religion is becoming a real problem in the world and it's sad that people get so carried away with it." Well, maybe because this always was a real problem, especially in the Middle East. There is nothing new. The question is...¿is there a good substitute for religion? Not everyone can live "searching for the Truth", all they need is a "divine purpose" (and money, which is, more or less, the same thing). "The only (church | mosque | temple) that enlights me, is the burning one!" XDD
Mr. Me (guest)  -  November 11, 2006, 18:06
religion has been the cause of most of the wars of the world. Yes it is possible for intelligent design, but "evolution explains 99% whearas intelligent design explains presisly 0%." you can say an intelligent creator created everything, but there is NO evidence that he, or she did.
Disciple of Truth (guest)  -  November 11, 2006, 19:57
I prefer intelligent design because your option is untintelligent randomness. One thing no one dealt with in this movie, and to which they admitted, is that both Darwinism and Creationism are "Theories." This debate will not be won or lost ultimately in man's courts, but in the judgement of the last day. You will give an answer to the Designer, what say you then? The Bible predicted that in the last days men would be willingly ignorant on this issue and chose themselves over God. Truth cannot always be measured in a laboratory nor by observation. What is love? decency? integrity? hope? peace? joy? concern? Notscience but existing.
Estel (meaning Hope in Elvish) (guest)  -  November 11, 2006, 22:04
It's quite striking how people fight and struggel over their belives in such a way. I can understand that it's hard to get it into yourself that something-something, ow... let's say christianity(/religion) doesn't have all the answers (which Darwins theory concludes) and that the majority turns away from it. This "Inteligent design" seems to be more of an personel vendetta than an actuall sientific theory, trying to get other innocent spectators on their side, turning the tide from them being wrong to the opposit, but only as an illusion (which seems to satisfy the most with these kind of problems). It's the fundimental scholarship we're dealing with here. I think the supporters of Inteligent design is quite selfish putting the humanity's will to learn in jeopardy only for their own satisfaction, "knowing"(/beliving) that they were right and didn't waste their time. And what do they have to offer? Nothing! Nothing but thoughts and belief, no pale facts, only tvisting words. Now, I'm not saying that any of them is definitly wrong or right, my resources are too limited. What I DO know is that our current system is working. It has the facts and the answers which are credible; Inteligent design don't. Let's hold on to what we ahve and what works, cherish it; untill the opposit can back up it's claims. Or else chaos may occure (at least it should, what is science witout answers?). Love, Estel!
cmooooon (guest)  -  November 12, 2006, 03:57
how can you all seriously believe that just *poof* there was this massive rock and *poof* it exploded, and that lead to life as it is today. YOU BELIEVE IT BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BELIEVE IT, not because you actually believe it. believing that takes away all moral obligation.
a debate (guest)  -  November 12, 2006, 04:06
Niedec (guest)  -  November 12, 2006, 06:07
Yeah, there are a lot of fanatics out there. Like the ones posting here. Seriously, don't you think it's just a little hypocritical to talk about obstinate people when at the same time each of you are calling them names and insulting their beliefs? Sure, science and religion can work really well, but they should be kept seperate in matters like these. Even if they were one and the same, though, I don't think insulting everyone that believes in it should fall under fire for it.
Helios (guest)  -  November 12, 2006, 06:11
Disciple of Truth: "One thing no one dealt with in this movie, and to which they admitted, is that both Darwinism and Creationism are "Theories."" -- Ah, the classic logical fallacy of equivocation. This is of course not true at all. Creationism - in this context, Christian creationism - is dogma. This is a theory only in the loosest sense of the word, that is, a guess. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. This is an entirely different thing; look it up. It is an explanation for observed facts. That evolution has taken place is that fact. It is as much a theory as gravitational fields or subatomic particles are. -- Cmooooon: I trust the word 'cogent' is a new one to you. You are an imbecile for making such an argument; firstly, evolution has little to do with biogenesis. It is about how and why life changes gradually over time to form new species. Secondly, I cannot decipher what in the name of god you're talking about with regards your comment on exploding rocks, let alone how it could relate to the formation of life. I'll hazard a guess that it's some kind of warped straw-man argument and leave it be...
Niedec (guest)  -  November 12, 2006, 06:24
Dogma? How about "belief"? And yes, there's a huge difference. Anyway, evolution, that is, natural selection, is a theory with more than ample grounds for support. The origin of species, however, is still somewhat shaky to many people, some scientists included. It's still hard to prove that half of the changes between monkey and man are vestial. At any rate, it isn't a law yet, and it probably won't be. In fact, I hope it isn't. Not because of my beliefs, but the simple fact that crusaders of any sort are the reason for almost every war or debate. Just accept it, smile and nod, and vote against it whenever possible. Problem solved.
Niedec (guest)  -  November 12, 2006, 06:26
Whoah. Sorry. I had no idea simply refreshing the page would do that. Please don't hold it against me.
Niedec (guest)  -  November 12, 2006, 06:30
Whoah. Sorry. I had no idea simply refreshing the page would do that. Please don't hold it against me.
 Brody  -  November 12, 2006, 23:27
"The only obsticle to the progression of science is the lack of knowledge" - Good quote from dark matter holds good here too....
Snypa (guest)  -  November 13, 2006, 00:39
Niedec i agree with you. I do beleive in a creator, however how he came about making the universe is irelevent to me. To many people think if evolution is right, then religion must be wrong. Its almost as if there are people panicking trying to find a way to disprove religion rather then the other way around.
guess what (guest)  -  November 13, 2006, 03:16
evolution is a religion. it takes faith to believe it.
hey (guest)  -  November 13, 2006, 03:51
Would anyone like to know God better?
bah (guest)  -  November 13, 2006, 17:49
I expect to live for 80 years, in a year we have 365.25 days, so 80 years is 29220 days, or 701280 hours, or 42076800 minutes, or 2524608000 seconds. Spending an hour watching this, reading comments and posting my own has wasted 3600/2524608000 = 0.00014% of my expected life time. Thanks a lot. Believe whatever you want, but taking Genesis literal is taking religion back to the level of the middle age. Genesis is a parable you morons!
Helios (guest)  -  November 13, 2006, 22:49
Guess What: I take it you're joking. But just to say this in advance: Evolution, in the light of modern science, is obvious. It's obvious enough to be generally understood at a highschool level with only a basic knowledge of biology. To simplify: Lifeforms reproduce and pass on their genes, and in doing so, introduce slight changes into the genes of their offspring, since they're a mix of the parent's. Next, those changes are passed on to their children, and so on. This leads to slight changes in the organisms over time. Over extreme periods of time, this gives rise to a large diversity of life. That basic mechanic is basically all that evolution is, as a fact. Natural selection and so on are the theory explaining it; the organisms most suited to their environment (the 'fittest') live to pass on their DNA more often than the less adapted. If the observation of these things requires faith or is a religion, then I am a strawberry-jam tart. It is basic biology and nothing more. There are _real_ debates in the field of biological evolution, and they are focused on the specifics of how, not the if. That it has occured is known and accepted globally in all biological fields of scientific inquiry.---- Niedec: Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. We are both of the order primates, but humans are more closely related to apes than anything else. We are by definition great apes; Hominidae. If I remember correctly, humans and monkeys (of various sorts) developed parallel with us, on different lines. ---- Snypa: Yes, evolution says nothing about gods or religion or whatever - unless they contradict one another. If that is the case then the evidence-backed information must override the unsupported information, at the very least provisionally, just as with anything else. It's basic logic. Beliefs are supposed to reflect reality, and scientific evidence is our best and most reliable mode of inquiry with which to ascertain what that is. A belief not reflecting reality is called a delusion.
hey Helios (guest)  -  November 14, 2006, 09:39
sure evolution can be understood even at high school levels, so can fairy tales. tell me this though, if evolution started by a big bang, Please tell me where the mass of the big ban originated.
and (guest)  -  November 14, 2006, 09:41
Genesis IS literal. God is literal. Jesus dieing on the cross for our sins is literal. It is the greatest gift of all. Jesus said the greatest commandment of all is love. So i say these things in love.
Helios (guest)  -  November 14, 2006, 15:18
The point is not that it can be understood, but that it is obvious. Please explain why, if you understand it, you do not accept it. If you understand and agree with the concept that lifeforms change over long periods of time due to slight genetic changes, you basically understand and agree with evolution. It's difficult to see why you would not, besides religious preference. Anyway, on to your, err, 'less informed' question.---- Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the big bang theory. If big bang theory turned out to be wrong, it would have no impact on evolutionary theory whatsoever, and vice versa. Please at least research the topics before talking about them. You are missing the point on many levels: Evolutionary theory does not set out to explain how life began, only how and why it changes over time. That topic would be abiogenesis. Now onto big bang theory. First of all, like evolutionary theory, the big bang theory doesn't attempt to explain the event that generated the big bang to begin with. Basically speaking, it covers the universe's past back to the point just after universal formation, and no further. I don't know what you mean by asking where the 'mass' of the big bang originated. It wasn't an explosion, that's just the name of the theory. Presumably you meant that to be a sort of 'stumper question'. However, even if I could not answer it, that would not imply that the theory was incorrect. That would be a logical fallacy, an argument from ignorance. ---- As for your claims to Genesis being literal, I would be inclined to agree. The tone of the book to me suggests factuality, not storytelling. If you think that the excuses other religious people make for how a day can mean a year, and so on, then I also agree they are being ridiculous. However, we know that it is not a true account of the formation of our species. It is a scientific fact that humans have evolved like every other creature on Earth. We are great apes by definition, and there is a sizeable collection of fossils that show this lineage. I doubt you will investigate this for yourself, and I doubt you will accept it, so I won't trouble you by saying any more on the subject. Perhaps pointing out the large flaws in the logic of your belief will be more persuasive: The concept of original sin, salvation and Jesus' sacrifice do not logically fit together. They do not make sense. In the Bible, the Christian god creates Adam as full-grown man, meaning he has decided all of his knowledge and behaviour and encoded it ready-made. Note that he is without morality and cannot tell right from wrong. He can not even know to obey the god without that knowledge. Since the Christian god is omniscient (the Bible says so in some psalm, can't remember which), he knows what the man will do since he has designed the man. Just as a human that made a robot would be responsible for it, so too is the god responsible for the actions of the human. The point is that the god knew it would happen, it was his design, so blaming the humans is insanity. Furthermore, blaming humanity for the actions of its two progenitors is a logical fallacy. We, today, have nothing to do with any of it, even if it did actually happen as per the Bible. Then there is Jesus' "sacrifice". Let me start by saying that dying accomplishes no action. If the god had the power to forgive humanity at any point, then he did not need for Jesus to die. Having Jesus die was barbaric and useless. What good is a god anyway if it can't even erase something started by its own creations (sin)? He needs an upgrade... Or an undo button.
Helios (guest)  -  November 14, 2006, 15:25
Ah, sorry for the long response(s). I just find the discussion a rather interesting.
oh boy (guest)  -  November 14, 2006, 20:57
God is not responsible for the actions of man. Man is responsible for the actions of man. If God created man with out free will (which we took advantage of) we would just be robots. I personally am glad God did so, and yes he did know what would happen because he is omniscient. I have had to have major back surgery, which is pretty painful up until this day. But is that God's fault? no! it is man-kinds fault. our fault. And guess what, i'm glad he did give us free will. I know that the decisions i make are mine. I have a soul and i can make choices. Also Jesus did die, but he rose again on the third day. that is what makes Jesus so important. He overcame death for us. For those who believe in him. Romans 8:11 "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you." For Jesus Spirit to dwell in you, simply ask him into your heart (with sincerity) and believe and trust Him. OH and that question i asked earlier, yes that was meant to be a stumper question and it worked didn't it? :) Evolution claims we pass down dna and our offspring make changes over long periods of time. but there are no missing link fossils or evidence of any kind. a dog mates another dog, and it is still a dog. Now, if a large gray dog mates with a small orange dog, you will get a medium size gray/orange dog. this is an immediate change however, and not over millions of years. also, some people in the church claim the 7 days in Genesis are not literally 24 hours but they were. The same word for "day" is used later in the new testament and they only make sense being literal 24 hour periods. My only advise is read the Bible. unlike the koran and other religious books, it is Gods actual word. John 1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Nero  -  November 14, 2006, 22:44
Wish I had something wiser to say but, LOL. and, TLDR
Helios (guest)  -  November 14, 2006, 23:48
I never said anything about free will. It is irrelevant. The point is that, in the story, the god makes the humans as adults and hence they must have all their understanding and properties of their consciousness decided by the god the instant they are created. Their memories and behaviours, their tendencies, personality and demeanour must come from somewhere and the god is the only source (unless they were blank, in which case blaming them for their actions would still be insanity). We may have free will, but free will is not a matter of black and white, on and off. There are varying degrees. They had considerably less. They were mentally crippled without knowledge of right and wrong and could not be expected to make any such decision. Yet, the god does not anticipate this and correct for it beforehand, despite his infinite wisdom. Surely you can see that an omniscient being cannot do anything by accident. Free will is irrelevant to something that knows literally everything. He knew how the humans would ruin everything, he knew every single choice they would make, yet made them the same way regardless. This applies to everything the god creates. He knew that the Tree of Life would be abused were it left unprotected, and he does this also. He made the humans with no moral awareness yet expected them to obey him. That necessitates intention, and the intention is not good. It is clearly inconsistent. ---- I already know the Jesus story. What I asked was to explain how Jesus coming back to life benefits humanity in any real sense. You keep saying that it's a great thing, but nothing in the world perceivably changed. Death was not overcome. People still died and they still die now. If he's so loving then why not just teleport everyone to heaven, where there is allegedly perfect bliss? Nobody is going to complain. Anyway, I think this is getting spammy with the religion-oriented talk now, so on to the stuff that actually matters. ---- No, your question did not work; it was irrelevant and only showed that you do not comprehend the theories in question. I already explained why. I even explained why the question was logically irrelevant. If I have to explain the consquences of logical irrelevence then I may as well debate a brick. I suppose I should have anticipated a complete lack of logical education as well as the obvious lack of biology and astronomy/cosmology education. I'll spare you the condescending smily. ---- No intermediary fossils? Ha ha ha ha! I underestimated your level of ignorance severely. My, you must not have looked very hard for research on this subject. I suppose you didn't bother checking and just believed what you were told. A few for you to look up: Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Ardipithecus amidus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo floresiensis. You will find many scientific research papers about those. There are thousands of others, those are just for human evolution. ---- What is the dog-breeding example supposed to demonstrate? Of course it's an 'immediate change' you giblet. They're dogs breeding over one single generation. Speciation takes thousands of generations. However, there is a rapid-pace evolutionary example I can provide. Bacteria go through generations at an extremely rapid rate due to their rate and quantity of reproductive activity. They are in fact regularly used in many experiments every day, proving that evolution happens. Their evolution has even been featured in the media prominently; ever heard of MRSA? I'll assume not. It is a bacterial strain that has evolved in hospitals to become resistant to some extremely potent drugs. Look it up, it's rather interesting. ---- Don't bother preaching to me or asking me to read the Bible. I've heard it all before and I have already read it, I find it as unconvincing as any other religion. It's just another holy book and you are just another fundamentalist zealot, like many others of many other religions. It's not special. ---- If your final sentence is supposed to indicate the veracity of the Bible, you may want to try harder. I don't suppose you know what begging the question is. It is a logical fallacy in which the arguer (you) assumes what they are supposed to be showing, as support for their claim. Using logical fallacies doesn't make you seem very informed. -------- A note to everyone else: Yes, I know this fruit will never change its flavour. I am responding primarily to show others that such ridiculous claims are easily shown to be false, just in case they don't already know. For those of you unsure, by all means, check the veracity of my claims. Then check my opponent's. From any remotely credible source (ie, essentially all of the scientific community), you will find that my opponent is wrong and that I am correct. Good day.
johnboyee (guest)  -  November 15, 2006, 01:57
Most Americans believe in God... slimy brits like Dawkins can just get over it. His Jesus is darwin.
s (guest)  -  November 15, 2006, 02:26
what's wrong with not knowing? Do they know why "Natural selection" exists, and why does it work the way that it does? This video makes it look like ID is a bully, but anyone who knows Dawkins knows how confrontational, vitriolic, arrogant, and bullyish he is. Evolution is not a victim. They shouldn't be so paranoid.
...well (guest)  -  November 15, 2006, 07:00
Helios, I think you vastly under-estimate God. Just sitting there and stating everything i say is irrelevant doesn't change a thing. All the supposed "missing links" you stated are animal bones, or human bones, nothing in between. You call me a fruit. I call you blind.
here (guest)  -  November 15, 2006, 21:11
Vaca (guest)  -  November 15, 2006, 23:22
Wow... The number of religious nutcases crawling out of the woodwork is plain scary. "evolution is a religion. it takes faith to believe it." Uhh, yeah, kinda like the theory that the sun will rise tomorrow is a religion cause it takes faith to believe it. And just because you don't understand how something work you shouldn't take it as an open invitation for you to fill the hole with whatever fantasy explanation that fits your particular world view the best. And on missing links; it's mostly the really successful versions you will find fossils of. Earlier, and perhaps less successful, versions are bound to be far between and therefor hard to find.
um (guest)  -  November 16, 2006, 05:07
it doesn't take faith to see the sun rise, you've no doubt seen it at least 900 times i'm guessing ;)
Vaca (guest)  -  November 16, 2006, 17:26
Yes, just as you would have seen countless examples of evolution. But you're too busy trying to construct alternative explanations so that the real world don't mess with your religious beliefs. A couple of hundreds of years ago we would have been arguing about whether the circled around the earth or the other way around.
um (guest)  -  November 17, 2006, 16:18
"Yes, just as you would have seen countless examples of evolution." countless? try none.
Vaca (guest)  -  November 17, 2006, 16:45
Yeah, you're right of course. Never mind species evolving right before our eyes on the Galapagos islands and such, it's all really a devious trick set up by the evolutionists. Let's all focus on praying and we might keep away bad thoughts like "Who created the creator", "If the designer is intelligent enough to create all this, why are there so many design flaws?" or "Hmm.. evolution seems to make sense and fits with pretty much everything else we know". Praise Jesus/Allah/Vishnu/Thor/insert_deity_of_choice_here!
Lebowsk1 (guest)  -  November 17, 2006, 17:18
Vaca: If you did some research you'd know the kind of evolution occuring on Galapagos (species variation) is NOT the kind demanded by full neo-Darwinian orthodoxy. ID is science, give it a chance folks.
...vaca (guest)  -  November 18, 2006, 05:52
"Hmm.. evolution seems to make sense and fits with pretty much everything else we know" all of your questions held 0 credibility. everything that has a function has been designed. i've never seen a car randomly evolve on the bottom of the ocean. Every mutation is bad and concurs with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. also, you lump all religions in one boat. there is only one God. so how can there be many religions? Your being lied too, and your loving it.
Niedec (guest)  -  November 18, 2006, 09:22
I don't think you're discussing anymore, Helio. You're ranting. Like I said, you're just as bad as the crusaders you revile, arguing a point to people too set in their beliefs to care. And you left out a very minor detail about evolution: that on a molecular level or smaller, spontaneous generation can occur. I don't believe in the Big Bang, though. We can't even see down the bridge of our noses, and yet we're attempting to explain the existance of things we can't even see or comprehend. Like I said, though, everyone is arguing the wrong thing. Natural selection is the part almost everyone agrees about. The origin of species is what gets everyone riled up. And really, Darwin's finches don't relate to the latter very well. As for vaca...keep doing what you're doing. You're a perfect example of what NOT to do in a religious discussion.
ok (guest)  -  November 18, 2006, 10:14
you stated "And you left out a very minor detail about evolution: that on a molecular level or smaller, spontaneous generation can occur." enough broad statements. explain what your talking about with proof not just broad "ranting" statements. no one can prove cosmic evolution (origin of time/space/matter), chemical evolution, stellar/planetary evolution, organic evolution (from non-living material to living material), and macro evolution (animal changing from one species to another)
Vaca (guest)  -  November 18, 2006, 11:39
Lebowsk1: So are you claiming there's something at the galapagos that doesn't fit the "full neo-Darwinian orthodoxy" or that "full neo-Darwinian orthodoxy" needs more proof than the galapagos alone? If ID was science we wouldn't have to give it a chance and we wouldn't have to believe in it, it would be able to stand on it's own. "there is only one God. so how can there be many religions?" So all the other people with religious ideas that differ from yours are wrong, but you happen to be right? Mkay... Niedec: "of what NOT to do in a religious discussion." Aww.. I'm guessing, by your standards, I would at least need to say something like "Gee, I really respect your faith and all, but..." Well, I really don't. You're hearing voices in your head and you do as they demand. There is nothing I could ever say that could change your mind, because you really want to believe. There is no right or wrong in a religious discussion. Interesting though that you're whining about what not to do in a religious discussion when we should be having a scientific discussion, trying to pose ID as science and all. Yet you don't seem to produce any scientific data. Wierd, huh? "i've never seen a car randomly evolve on the bottom of the ocean." Do you really think it's smart to compare dead machinery with self replicating life if we're discussing something that's ALL about reproduction? "Every mutation is bad and concurs with the 2nd law of thermodynamics." You're completely misinformed about both mutations and thermodynamics. ----- Guys, I know this discussion is absolutely futile and in some respects I'm sorry for being a dick. Helios made the only grownup decision by leaving the discussion, and I would too if I wasn't enjoying it so much. I'm sure many of you normaly are nice and reasonable people and you can believe whatever you want for all I care, but trying to push your religion (and yes, this includes ID) on to others, and especially children, is making you assholes. Also, sorry for my english, not my native tongue.
pushin? (guest)  -  November 19, 2006, 06:11
who is pushing what on who? look at the video
Vaca (guest)  -  November 19, 2006, 13:20
So you're concerned we're pushing scientific thinking on people instead of religious? You think that has been a big problem in the past, too much science and not enough religion? And why not keep religion in religion/philosofy classes rather than trying to pry it into science classes?
bah... (guest)  -  November 20, 2006, 03:14
i'm concerned incorrect "scientific" thinking being pushed on little kids. the fact that some people want to keep ID out of schools and Evolution in schools by way of the court system bothers me. Why not teach both and let the students make up their minds?
Vaca (guest)  -  November 20, 2006, 09:52
Solving hard questions with "Because god built us that way" or "Because god says so" doesn't answer anything and doesn't get us anywhere. And it's definitely not science. Keep questioning evolution and try to find holes in the theory (this IS science and we can learn from it). But stating that you already have found holes is bullshit. You're not letting the children make up their own minds, rather you're lying straight to their faces.
oh please (guest)  -  November 20, 2006, 20:47
Please don't state i'm lying just because you don't believe in my point of view. I see now talking with you is pointless. Lying is public schools keeping old material in school books 40 years after it was already debunked.
Vaca (guest)  -  November 21, 2006, 21:31
A "point of view" is prefering green or insisting the Beatles are better than Metallica. Telling kids you have several examples of creatures/organs/etc that evolution cannot have created because of irreducible complexity when there actually are plenty of logical, evolutionary, explanations that you simply choose to ignore is something completely different. Yeah, old school books sadly are a problem in many places and in more classes than science. Funny you should mention it though, since many in the ID movement seem to choose a nearly 2000 year old book for teaching science over more recent, and much more science oriented, ones.
Gengar003 (guest)  -  November 22, 2006, 06:55
"Helios, I think you vastly under-estimate God. Just sitting there and stating everything i say is irrelevant doesn't change a thing. All the supposed "missing links" you stated are animal bones, or human bones, nothing in between. You call me a fruit. I call you blind." No, but it doesn't change the fact that what you say is irrelevent, either. I'd just like to say I'm an American, and I do not believe in a God, and am not a religious nutcase. Sane Americans do exist, just not as many as we'd like. Helios: I for one, think you've done admirably. With people to whom the scientific process, and the basis of logical, critical thinking are absent, you *cannot* "discuss"... you can only really talk at them, hoping that maybe something will change. And it ends up being a rant. But rant on, lest no one raise their voices against this fallacy.
pre (guest)  -  November 24, 2006, 06:50
"plenty of logical, evolutionary, explanations that you simply choose to ignore" When you say this, do you mean totally random mutations that are passed down over millions of years so they are not visible to observation?
Vaca (guest)  -  November 24, 2006, 13:27
Yes, mutations are random, but natural selection isn't. Current animals and fossils provide lots of research material, but if you're not satisfied with that why not take a look at virus and bacteria. Because of their quick reproduction cycle the process is fast and easily observable. Or do you insist that it's the Designer that's been here to "upgrade" some bacteria strains to become immune to antibiotics?
GMV (guest)  -  November 25, 2006, 23:09
THINK. Evolution can NOT produce even a bird and yet people (many in this dialogue) have bought into it ... lock, stock and barrel - and not ever seeing the glaring conflict with the BIRD. A bird requires three things, totally *unique* to the bird. A very light weight bone structure, very powerful wing muscles, and flight feathers, versus warmth feathers. (Not to mention knowing how to fly!) Even instant presto 2 out of 3 means little birdie is lunch for a predator because it would *not* be able to fly, and a bird hopping along the ground (unable to fly) is NOT an example of "survival of the fittest." (What a laugh.) It's an example of goodbye-birdie. The very concept, minute changes over millions of year, doesn't remotely work for the bird. It's an all or nothing proposition. Don't be an idiot. Evolution has holes in it the size of the Grand Canyon. And everytime you see a flying bird, you can remember that fact. (Small scale evolution that creates changes within species, no problem. Large scale to the point of creating species in the first place - not remotely possible. Ask an opthamologist if the human eye could ever "evolve" over billions of years to be a working eye.)
about the eye (guest)  -  November 26, 2006, 07:37
if the eye evolved over billions/millions/thousands/whatever amount of years, how did all those individual animals with the different eyes survive being blind so long? OH! i got it, that far back, trees had not evolved yet, so all the blind creatures didn't run into the trees and hurt their eyes! put it in the textbooks.
Exausted (guest)  -  November 26, 2006, 18:00
May God Help Us! The layman have been tricked by the serpent to take a bite from the poisoned apple known as ID. Deductive thought hangs by a thread
Not GMV (guest)  -  November 26, 2006, 18:14
Hey GMV do a little research before you comment on something you obviously given little thought to. Think outside the box please. The predator must evolve beside the bird, they drive each others evolution. There are plenty of defendable and recreatable observations that have been written down and recorded in a thing people called a paper to explain your unique bird and eye. Please read them. Though I relize like so many other people who blindly follow ID your pride will keep you from doing that. If you think about it the comment by Exausted has you and serpent going out as drinking buddies making up stories to support your foolish pride.
pre (guest)  -  November 27, 2006, 02:34
"There are plenty of defendable and recreatable observations that have been written down and recorded in a thing people called a paper to explain your unique bird and eye." as always thank you for the vague comments.
pre (guest)  -  November 27, 2006, 06:25
wow this was fantastic
Vaca (guest)  -  November 27, 2006, 14:03
GMV: Are you saying the bird is an example of irreducible complexity? Are you kidding? There are plenty of possible previous designs, some of which still are in use today. You do not need an animal going from ground dwelling to airborn in an instant mutation. Take a look at Pteromys volans (flying squirrel) for example, it uses extra skin between the legs to glide through the air when jumping from tree to tree. It could, and probably will given time, benefit from a mutation giving it a bit lighter bone structure or something else providing a few more decimeters of flight if needed. >>> "Don't be an idiot. Evolution has holes in it the size of the Grand Canyon." --- Then PLEASE tell us which these huge holes are. You can say the bird is impossible until your tongue bleeds, but it won't make it true if you can't produce a reasonable deduction of why it is. The same goes with the eye. Earlier and less complex versions of the eye has been demonstrated plenty of times (google for "evolution of the eye" and you'll find plenty of material and video presentations). Not that an opthamologist would be the best person to ask about evolution, but I bet I can find far more of them that support evolution rather than ID. >>> "And everytime you see a flying bird, you can remember that fact." Wow, evolution is merely a theory, but you have the actual facts, huh? >>> "about the eye" --- What are you talking about? You haven't understood anything about the evolutionary theory, have you? Please give it at least a few minutes of thought and you should be able to answer all those questions yourself. ========= If you ID people are hoping that anyone other than devout believers are to take you seriously you have to acknowledge that several of your old ideas against evolution are thoroughly debunked and find something new. You can't just run around stating "facts" about birds or eyes being evolutionary impossible and not backing it up with more than hot air. At least try to find something new that most people aren't already laughing at. If nothing else it will make this discussion so much more interesting.
hs (guest)  -  November 28, 2006, 11:32
vaca said: "It could, and probably will given time, benefit from a mutation giving it a bit lighter bone structure or something else" --there are no good mutations. "Wow, evolution is merely a theory" --your right! there is a first time for everything! "You haven't understood anything about the evolutionary theory, have you?" --no i haven't 'understood' it. there is nothing credible to understand. "Please give it at least a few minutes of thought and you should be able to answer all those questions yourself." --so if i just start thinking, for just a few moments, i can come up with the answer on my own!? i could be a scientist! like the ones teaching evolution in USA public schools! "acknowledge that several of your old ideas against evolution are thoroughly debunked and find something new." --please don't stop there! tell us more. "You can't just run around stating "facts" about birds or eyes being evolutionary impossible and not backing it up with more than hot air." --the eye is amazing, the bird is amazing, Jesus is amazing. Vaca, i know you think i'm a nut, but i'm just an average guy. i'm not "religious" but i do have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. ultimately, its your mind and heart the makes the decision. that is what is important. God wants your love. we all can make the choice.
Vaca (guest)  -  November 28, 2006, 18:05
hs: That actually didn't make any sense at all to me. Why are you under the impression that there can't be any good mutations? Unless you mean it in a strictly religious sense (as in "all mutations are bad because they stray from what the designer intended") I'm completely clueless of how you could have reached this conclusion. Please fill me in. --- "so if i just start thinking, for just a few moments, i can come up with the answer on my own" Indeed you can! This is called deduction and mankind has pretty much based it's entire progress around it. --- "i'm not 'religious' but i do have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." If that is the case, may I ask for your definition of the word "religious"? This lack of comprehension of words would explain why you insist that ID isn't religion but science though. --- No, I don't think you're a nut. Just very badly informed.
soeasey (guest)  -  November 28, 2006, 21:04
Vaca, you don't know what your talking about. you don't want to believe in god that is the only reason you don't. there are no good mutuations that is why you cant list one. you only speak in general statements and you talk off the top of your head. no science ...
Vaca (guest)  -  November 29, 2006, 10:09
*sigh* This is like trying to reason with a five year old, you just put your hands over your ears and go "la-la-la-la-la-la I can't hear you la-la-la-la-la". Except the five year old could probably grasp the stuff about good mutations. --- As you're doing more harm than good for the ID side in this discussion I'm guessing you're actually a bored kid just trolling for attention, but I'll bite once more. --- "you don't want to believe in god that is the only reason you don't." Didn't think I'd ever say this but: you're right! Just as I don't have any desire or reason to believe in the tooth fairy or santa claus, I choose not to believe in god. You, on the other hand, are doing the exact opposite: you choose to believe in god not because of evidence or science but becuse you want to. And now when we for once are on the same page, why do you keep pulling religion into the discussion when you ID people frantically tries to convince us you're doing science, not religion? --- "there are no good mutuations that is why you cant list one" Not expecting you to answer or understand my questions, but how about bacteria mutating to resist antibiotics as previously mentioned? --- "you only speak in general statements and you talk off the top of your head. no science" Maybe it's the language barrier, but I really don't understand what you're trying to say. What general statements and what isn't science?
again (guest)  -  November 29, 2006, 22:19
list one good mutation...
Stop (guest)  -  November 30, 2006, 02:33
Science dosen't tell us if something is wrong or right, good or bad, it helps point out what is. When science goes bad its because of nuts like ID people who start throwing in their religous beliefs to twist thourghly studied observations into right vs wrong according to their upbringing. Mutations are not good or bad they just are. They exist, they are fact, they are observable, and due to some very hard working individuals at time predictable. If UV light changes some random base pair in a fruit fly, the fly might die, it might have no effect. Is that good or bad? It just is. Natural selection says it might produce a longer protein that turns into a pheramone that attaracts more fruit flys to mate with the mutated fly. Religous freaks say thats a good thing, god said set forth and procreate. I say its bad because now I have to kill more friut flys in my garden. That fruit fly evolved, whether its a good thing depends on how much pesticide I use, not on whether it was a good mutation or a bad one. Tell me how the theory of an ultimate designer helps me explain that sudden change in the friut fly. Then use your argument to predict the next change.
yes (guest)  -  November 30, 2006, 08:34
the fruit fly "evolved" into a worse fly with curved wings so it could barely fly. it was medled with by humans. God made it perfect, man made it flawed.
GWB (guest)  -  November 30, 2006, 11:02
Americas so dumb, I hate America, I hope all americans die zors wtf lol. Shut the fuck up and go have some tea youlittle euro bitches. America would fuck all of your little bitch coutries in the ass if you ever had the fucking balls to step up.
Vaca (guest)  -  November 30, 2006, 13:23
Why do you keep ignoring my statement about bacteria mutating to become immune to antibiotics? That's certainly a "good" mutation for the bacteria.
... (guest)  -  November 30, 2006, 21:20
Vaca, the only reason bacteria becomes immune to antibiotics is because there is a breakDOWN in the genetic code. It is not becoming better, rather worse. The lack of code is the only thing making it immune. 2nd law of thermodynamics. As i have said before, name one good mutation. GWB, quit your pissing and moaning. All countries COMPLAIN when America does something, and the COMPLAIN when America doesn't. Just keep your trap shut.
Vaca (guest)  -  December 1, 2006, 13:37
No. Not accepting this as an example of evolution does not point to a flaw in the evolutionary theory but in your understanding of it. Mutations does NOT need to be loss of code, it can also be a change in, or gain of, code. And the difference in code makes the bacteria more resistant to antibiotics, allowing it to reproduce in environments that would kill the non-evolved strain. IE the strain has evolved and adapted to its surroundings. This is not in any way guesses or groundless theories, it's quite observable. If you would like to contest this you would have to come up with some really extraordinary evidence. ----- I think you're under the assumption that natural selection is nothing more than a filter, simply killing off species or functions that don't match a criteria and leaving a system of lesser complexity whenever this happens. This probably also follows your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics and this is where you go wrong. ----- The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that entropy will always increase IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. Note the last part as it is very important. This means, among other things, that heat by itself can't pass from a cold body to a hotter one UNLESS we put in more energy, making it an open system. This is why a refrigerator can move heat from a colder body (its inside) to a hotter one (the room), but if you switch of the power supply to the fridge it will soon come into equilibrium with the room. --- This equally applies to complex patterns becoming even more complex over time; it would be impossible if energy wasn't put into it. The earth is not a closed system, energy is constantly put in to the system by the sun, allowing for example evolution. ----- I'm not saying there's absolutely no way you'll ever find reasonable evidence contradicting evolution (although it seems very unlikely), however the 2nd law of thermodynamics is certainly not what you're looking for. I urge you to read more about it, because without this basic knowledge I really don't think you're in a position to debate our origins on a scientific level. Keep to the religious/philosophical aspects of it if you wish but don't call it science, because it simply isn't. Otherwise please point to the exact point in my arguments above that you don't think holds up for scrutiny and explain, in as much detail as you think is necessary, why it doesn't. Come on, give me something scientific!
PBD (guest)  -  December 1, 2006, 17:48
I haven't read the replies because I just found the site and there are way too many, but there is a reason why (this is a real number by the way) OVER 99.9% of all the scientists in the relevant fields worldwide accept evolution (source: I can't find a source, but I'd be willing to bet that comparable numbers of scientists believe the earth is flat. Of course, the number of people supporting something has no relevance whatsoever on the validity of it, but these people are scientists, and the reason they accept evolution is because evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence. There is NO scientific evidence for creationism/creation science/intelligent design/any of the other guises in which creationism comes in. They are all either ignoring the evidence, have logical or methodological flaws, are based on misconceptions of the theory of evolution, or are simply lies. The "evidence" for creationism doesn't come from scientists, it comes from priests or other people who are completely ignorant on how science, biology, and evolution works. Try searching for peer reviewed papers supporting creationism et al, and you will have a hard time finding a single one. Try finding papers in support of evolution however, and you'll be overwhelmed by them. What I'm trying to say is that for all those of you who believe in creationism, stop listening to the priests, physicists, politicians, philosophers, news editors, and anyone who doesn't know a thing about biology, what evolution is and how it works, and all the evidence for it and instead start listening to the people who actually DO know something about it. is a great site for this. that is a list of replies to many common creationist claims, and they actually have real references of real peer-reviewed articles published in real journals. And I'll end with a quote by Seth Lloyd (no clue who he is, but it's a good quote)- "Unlike mathematical theorems, scientific results can't be proved. They can only be tested again and again until only a fool would refuse to believe them."
Helo (guest)  -  December 1, 2006, 22:28
All proposed evolution mechanisms simply do not explain how life could develop. Mutations are random mistakes which demonstrably do not add useful information to the DNA molecule. Natural selection can only select that which is already present in an animal's genetic code. And despite enormous efforts in laboratories all over the world, it has never been shown how chemicals could be mixed together and "come alive". Thus, evolution is firmly based on faith in future discoveries not current observations.
Vaca (guest)  -  December 3, 2006, 10:40
"Mutations are random mistakes which demonstrably do not add useful information to the DNA molecule." Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. Where did you read this, who demostrated it, who replicated it and who peer reviewed it? Please read for a quick summary of some of the research that has been done. --- "Thus, evolution is firmly based on faith..." No, faith is when you believe something despite lack of evidence or even with evidence against it. The evolutionary theory on the other hand is based on experiments and observations. Just because science hasn't created life yet you're throwing out the entire theory on how it later on evolved? You might as well say the theory on gravity is faith based because you've yet to master quantum physics fully.
oh (guest)  -  December 4, 2006, 05:53
Vaca, your believing the lie. your too far gone
Vaca (guest)  -  December 4, 2006, 19:01
So after all this, that's your answer? No references to scientific research, no logical deductions or experiments - only you and your determination to refuse any evidence that doesn't match you beliefs. ----- Although I kind of expected this to be the case I think it's a bit sad.
ok (guest)  -  December 5, 2006, 08:04
evidence? all this talk of "scientific research, and evidence" is only you saying the words "scientific research, and evidence. none of your points were real science. just the fantasy of wanting to believe in no god, so you can follow your own lust.
Konsta (guest)  -  December 5, 2006, 19:51
The number of these religious fanatics who claim science is bullshit, but a book containing all sorts of horrifying shit is fact, actually scares me.(See Exodus 21:7 for example. It says it's OK to sell your daughter into slavery.) Where the hell is this world going if this is what other people, leaders of nations, believe in? I feel no extra evidence of evolution is necessary since Vaca has already provided more than enough. What I'd like to see is proof of ID/Creationism, because that has yet to be proven.
fsm (guest)  -  December 6, 2006, 02:40
I belive in intelligent design, even though scientists say we are genetically simmilar to monkeys I think genetics is a lie, there is a god and creator to all things, it's the flying spaghetti monster.
hahahaha (guest)  -  December 6, 2006, 06:40
"Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it." still, not one example included. just a bunch of overly written circular logic.
Vaca (guest)  -  December 6, 2006, 09:09
"so you can follow your own lust." Hehe, yeah that's what it all comes down to, isn't it? Superior christian moral fiber, because every good christian knows atheists are bad (as they don't have to be scared of god when doing these bad things) and that christians pretty much has monopoly on humanities all good traits. We're all badly shaved monkeys, we're not chosen and we're not that bloody special. Get over yourself and learn to live with it. ----- FSM: Yes, if I were to choose a creator to bridle my appearently horrible secular lusts the FSM would be my first choice. RAmen. ----- Also, I wish I could say this has been an interesting discussion or at least a fascinating insight into the believers psyche, but it hasn't even been that. It has only been a long series of you ignoring all examples of evidence while keeping why a secret and providing no evidence yourself. I advise you to watch the Monthy Python sketch "The argument" repeatedly, as you without a doubt will find a soulmate in the character played by John Cleese.
pre (guest)  -  December 7, 2006, 05:50
"It has only been a long series of you ignoring all examples of evidence while keeping why a secret and providing no evidence yourself." You have not provided any proof at all. You continually state nothing. The burden of proof is on you, do not try to switch it over on me. Prove how this existance exploded from an area no bigger than the period of this sentence. You will never prove evolution. I can't even believe people call it science.
Vaca (guest)  -  December 7, 2006, 09:21
Ok, I'll make one last attempt of trying to get this through to you. This is how it usually works: Person A makes a statement which person B says is false BECAUSE OF reason X. Person A might then make the point that X is false BECAUSE OF principle Y. This is called a discussion or an argument. ---- What we have above is Person A making a statement and Person B just saying "no". You see what I'm getting at? Beside giving me some kind of Twilight Zone feeling your posts mean nothing and might as well be produced by a chat-bot. A.L.I.C.E is that you?
Keith (guest)  -  December 14, 2006, 20:50
Wow... I remember I watched this video when it first got posted and there were hardly any real statements made. Now I come back to show my friend the vid and I'll be dammed if I read all this more than I listen to the video. ~Helios & Vaca~ Although I'm pretty sure you both gave up reading this forum as it stands, I just want to say the way you two valiantly attempted to hold onto the sanity of rationalizing these arguments was well beyond anything I've seen so far. I myself am a man of evidence, and so therefor you have both proven to me just now that ID really isn't science in anyway. I see now that saying there is a higher power rather than trying to figure out why is horribly closed minded. pre really didn't argue difinitatively at all about anything except vague concepts, and GMV really went off the deep end trying to explain the bird =P even I wouldn't have said anything that way. I never will look at you Intelligent Designers the same way again... for you truly have not proven anything except how deep the extremity of your faith really is. Is it really so hard to just try and think for yourself rather than what your almighty book says? Seriously, how can anyone have the audacity to say that they're answer is the only answer and there's nothing else. At least science leaves the possibilty for other answers... Simple things for simple minds...
Keith (guest)  -  December 14, 2006, 22:19
Wow... I remember I watched this video when it first got posted and there were hardly any real statements made. Now I come back to show my friend the vid and I'll be dammed if I read all this more than I listen to the video. ~Helios & Vaca~ Although I'm pretty sure you both gave up reading this forum as it stands, I just want to say the way you two valiantly attempted to hold onto the sanity of rationalizing these arguments was well beyond anything I've seen so far. I myself am a man of evidence, and so therefor you have both proven to me just now that ID really isn't science in anyway. I see now that saying there is a higher power rather than trying to figure out why is horribly closed minded. pre really didn't argue difinitatively at all about anything except vague concepts, and GMV really went off the deep end trying to explain the bird =P even I wouldn't have said anything that way. I never will look at you Intelligent Designers the same way again... for you truly have not proven anything except how deep the extremity of your faith really is. Is it really so hard to just try and think for yourself rather than what your almighty book says? Seriously, how can anyone have the audacity to say that they're answer is the only answer and there's nothing else. At least science leaves the possibilty for other answers... Simple things for simple minds...
I agree (guest)  -  December 16, 2006, 04:46
It's true, simple things for simple minds. Unfortunatly there seems to be a lot of simple minds out there, and whats real bad is that these simple minds self perpetuate. Its easier to believe something that dosen't take any thought. Heck if you can get enough people to believe in your story then the story has to be true - right? True scientists will always be battling the simpleten.
Ha (guest)  -  December 16, 2006, 04:49
Its true, simple minds are like zombies. You keep knocking them down, but they keep getting up and doing the same damn thing.
Jon (guest)  -  December 29, 2006, 09:20
The truth is, both extremes are simplistic. Science is a means of discovering the complexity of God's creation. As such, biblical fundamentalists abandon a critical tool for the examination of God when they ignore science. Scientists, on the other hand, should not be preaching the dogma that God is or is not the creator. And don't be fooled into thinking that atheism isn't a religion. Atheism is as much a religion as Christianity. Theology is the domain of priests not scientists or educators. I can barely trust educators to teach my children how to read let alone teaching them religion. So I don't want them attempting to teach Intelligent Design. I'll leave that up to my priest.
Jon (guest)  -  December 29, 2006, 09:24
And by the way, do you know who the first scientists were? Priests.
Vaca (guest)  -  December 30, 2006, 11:16
Cheers Keith! --- Jon: While I appreciate that you're trying to mediate I must object to the old "Atheism is also a religion..." crap. Religion requires belief, atheism does not. And please, none of that "But you BELIEVE there is NO GOD". NOT believing there are little pink pony godesses on the backside of the moon requires nothing, believing in it however requires a great deal of insanity. You see? If you try to force the word religion into also applying to atheism the word looses its meaning. Atheism is a religion like vacuum is a gas. Also, just because there has been some priests doing science it does not imply they were first. Christianity is young, science has been there since we started thinking.
pre (guest)  -  January 11, 2007, 08:26
I gave up talking here because I think that its kind of pointless. You have your point of view, I have mine. "The greatest comandment is love" Jesus said. That being said i don't think that Evolutionists and Scientists are the same thing. Recent scientific and technological breakthroughs have had nothing to do with the earth being billions of years old. If you really look at your argument that evolution is science, i don't think it holds up. Sure science has been around but evolution has only been around (in its pure Darwinian form) for a couple hundred years. It is easy to argue for Evolution as the Theory has no Law, it changes and evolves just like the theory. AND btw, creationists don't suscribe to the point of view that "a miracle happened" and thats all. If you would listen with less stuffy ears you might hear the logic. I listen to evolutionists, I hear what they say, I watch these videos, still I do not agree with the logic. Feel sorry for me, call me stupid, but so far nothing has come close to make me change my mind. Conversation is good though, listen to people who believe your view AND to those that don't! Peace!
Vaca (guest)  -  January 11, 2007, 22:12
"I gave up talking here because I think that its kind of pointless." - Yeah, I get that feeling alot, especially since most of these discussions end with "I doesn't matter what you say, I KNOW my faith is right" (that is; a religious debate instead of a scientific one). Look, I don't care what religion you're into to or what crazy theory you might believe in. All I'm interested in is that you don't lie to kids calling it science. There are strict rules that need to be obided when labeling something science and ID is really, REALLY far from passing that test. Science explains how and religion/philosophy manages why. Let's keep it that way. ----- "If you really look at your argument that evolution is science, i don't think it holds up." - But ID does? Again, I don't think you understand what a scientific theory is at all and I'm pretty sure you're not interested in learning either. I also note that you, as usual, don't bother explaining why or giving any examples. ----- "the Theory has no Law, it changes and evolves just like the theory." Yes, this is what science is all about. Only religion is rigid and resists change when evidence points the other way. And if you're jealous I'm having an easier time arguing for my side perhaps you should ask yourself why it's so hard doing so for yours? ----- "If you would listen with less stuffy ears you might hear the logic." - I might not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I do know logic when I see it and I listen to reason. ID, however, is not based on logic but on belief. I actually spend alot of time browsing ID/creationism information, trying to find anything of interest. But most arguments are on a level that could be disputed by a child and even the few interesting ones have been dismantled and thoroughly explained by science. But if you have better sources (no, the bible doesn't count) please point me towards these, I would gladly read and consider them.
pre (guest)  -  January 12, 2007, 04:47
pre (guest)  -  January 12, 2007, 04:48
i was actually reading this today about the subject of wine.
Vaca (guest)  -  January 15, 2007, 17:56
Having read some of the material about ID vs evolution presented on I'm less than impressed. I don't think there's any way an unbiased person (not implying I am one) could read this and come to the conclusion that ID is a viable scientific theory on par with evolution. Just reading the "General Introduction for Non-Believers" makes one abandon all hope of finding any sound reasoning. The site merely caters to reinforce the convictions of those already convinced. ----- A great deal of the material consists of articles that seem to be written especially to give the impression that they're based on science. They are often full of references to what I believe are real studies and are on a level a layman can't possibly understand. Then, after pages of stuff like "alpha/delta T-cell receptor loci (TCRAC/TCRDC)" a surprisingly easy to grasp conclusion is presented where the author simply states that all the above points to ID without this connection ever being properly explained. The disposition of these heavier articles are quite questionable, which might be one explanation as to why they're not publicized in a scientific setting more likely to recieve the attention of people who actually understand them. Or perhaps it's because the articles actually are complete bullshit, it's hard to tell... Many of these articles are on the subject of "junk DNA" which by the way is old news and does not in any way pose a problem for evolution. ----- Blended in are also more lightweight arguments, often somewhat scornful statements in the like of "Boy, are the evolutionists in trouble now, they're totaly mystified!" after which follows some random fact noone other than creationists seem to be mystified about, least of all evolutionists. ----- Most of the material however is about trying to puncture arguments against ID rather than providing any evidence for it. It often lacks tangible facts, leaning only on the interpretation of the author. ----- The editor doesn't seem to be very active, as much of the scientific material referenced is quite old and outdated. The site is no stranger to quote mining and there are alot of "dupes" making the actual amount of information smaller than it first may seem. Overall the ID part of the site seems void of actual substance and reeks of psuedoscience. ----- Oh well, at least they agree with microevolution and oppose young earth creationism, giving them some kind of credibility. Naturally I haven't read everything and might have missed some really good article, please provide a link if you know of one that you think makes an extraordinarily good argument.
 pre  -  January 20, 2007, 09:43
I'm registered now, :). I only looked at the subject of wine in the bible haha. totally off subject. I knew that wouldn't change your mind as your mind is already made up. oh well!
Me again (guest)  -  January 23, 2007, 00:03
I would like to believe in Intelligent Design (I would change the name thoug, because design is a laaaaaarge word, again VOCABULARY PEOPLE), but give me something to believe in. Dont tell me "yes because the flagela is a machine created by intelligence just like we do blah blah". Remember that we havent created anything, a computer is exactly build as our brain for example. We base ourself n what we see in nature t creat. But that doesnt give me a reason to stop believe in science. I forgot to say that, I was in an AMERICAN CATHOLIC SCHOOL before for quite a few years, and though I wasnt catholic I respected what they thought me about god, jesus, and the creation of men, but we had also science and Darwins THEORY. It was acctually cool, to be able to chose to believe in something instead of having people brain washing our minds. Science is vast, do not condemscience because its answering to questions made for centuries. A question though, do you know why for example ancient greece had tones of gods and "we" only have one? I have the answer, its logical. [email protected]
 pre  -  January 23, 2007, 09:08
hey everybody, I posted this on the front page, and thought i should do so here as well...the earths magnetic field has been observed getting weeker. at this rate 25,000 years ago, the magnetic field would be too strong for life to exist. the earh's population is about 6.6 billion strong. all of us could fit into the city of jacksonville, florida. evolution states that man has been around for 3 million years. if you take the OBSERVED population growth rate and start back 3 million years ago, we would have roughly 140,000 people per square inch!! there is nothing more observable than the laws that govern the universe for example: gravity, boyles law, coles law, centrifugal force, inertia, etc. how about the law of the conservation of angular momentum? this states that an object breaking away from a spinning object will spin the same direction as the object it broak away from. if we all came from the orgin of the big bang, which was a spinning dot, how come planets, moons, galaxies, etc don't all spin in the same observable direction? and how come matter is not evenly distributed? how come laws arent evolving? the moon has been observed to be getting farther away from the earth at about one inch per year. if you reverse this by time, the moon would collide with earth. time is not a magic ingredient to make things possible. everything leads to dis-order. we lived in a cursed world because of our own actions. the good news is Jesus died for us! If you accept him into your heart, He will wash away all the pain, guilt, sin, and sorrow. He is just waiting to do that for us. Here is something interesting, Noah (the man who built the arc with his sons) was thought to be crazy in his time because God told him he was going to destroy the world with a flood. When he told everyone else they laughed at him. The Bible is amazing. Some people will not believe the Bible until it is proven right. I will believe the Bible until it is proven wrong. The Bible talks about "the life of the flesh is in the blood". Scientists were wrong when they used to let blood using slugs. The Bible talks about how the earth is sphereical, even when scientists theorized it was flat. the Bible is correct in its genealogy, archaeology, politics, relationships, family living, and so on! Your going to think i'm crazy here. The bible also teaches Jesus is going to come back for his church. One day "in the blinking of an eye" the church (those who believe in Jesus) will rise to meet him in the air. So one day the earth will witness many people vanish. I guess when you boil it down for me, God makes the only logical sense for this existence. Where did energy come from? where did light come from? sound waves? matter and all that. wow its late, 3:05 am. i hope everything is spelled right and makes sense, until next time...
Vaca (guest)  -  January 23, 2007, 14:52
Uuh. Ok, so when I ask for a site with "good" ID material you give me a reference from just reading an article about christian doctrines concerning wine?!? Gee, thanks for the great info, I guess you're always this thorough, huh? ----- "I knew that wouldn't change your mind as your mind is already made up." - And that's coming from someone who base his/her entire scientific understanding on religious dogma? Hehe, priceless, keep it coming. ----- "at this rate 25,000 years ago, the magnetic field would be too strong for life to exist" - Oh, you have got to be trolling me, or did someone else register and post in your name? You're going for young earth creationism? The kind that even the site ( you posted earlier calls "poor science" and wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole? And the stuff about earths magnetic field, population growth, etc is just too stupid to comment on. ----- "time is not a magic ingredient to make things possible" - No, sorry, you're right. Only god is allowed as magical ingredient, right? ----- "the good news is Jesus died for us!" - Sure, both can play that game... NO, JESUS IS A LIE!! Adopt Norse mythology NOW or you'll never get in to Valhalla! Only Odin can save you now, infidel!!! All hail Audhumla, the life giver! ----- "Your going to think i'm crazy here." You've actually passed that point by far in your last post. I'm sorry, but if you really believe the "logical" reasonings in that post had any logic in them you are a complete moron. No, there's no way around it - you cannot be a thinking, rational and functional adult and still think you can extrapolate the age of mankind from the speed of todays population growth.
 pre  -  January 25, 2007, 04:53
i have always been a young earth creationist. if the does not believe that, i did not realize.
Vaca (guest)  -  January 25, 2007, 12:12
Ok.. So to do a quick recap: You haven't read up on evolution or shown any interest in understanding the concept of the theory you state is untrue. You haven't even read the ID sources you yourself refer to. You haven't actually read anything besides the bible, have you? You're not interested in science or any kind of logic or reasoning. You are not one bit interested in anything other than to promote your own specific version of your own mythology. Pathetic. I think you're doing much more damage to the ID cause in this discussion than I ever could.
 pre  -  January 25, 2007, 20:44
I have read plenty on both topics, and have chosen which one I believe in.
Vaca (guest)  -  January 26, 2007, 10:08
Oh, come on, that's not true and you know it. In fact, I'm still having a hard time accepting that anyone with any kind of reading comprehension could go for crap like those ideas on population growth (and yes, the ones on the magnetic field and the moon were equally craptacular). ----- But on a lighter side, you're entitled to believe whatever wierd idea you want, no one is contesting that right. The only thing you're being asked to do is to keep your very personal convictions out of contexts where we need to address issues in a strict scientific manner, namely science classes. Even you should by now be able to admit to that your ideas on the origin the species has a far bigger base in your religious beliefs than ever in any kind of scientific reasoning. You'll get your turn in the religion class. Why, oh why, is this not enough? ----- As we can also see you belong to a small specific minority (young earth creationist) of ID followers and I'm sure there are countless other fractions with ideas that contradict yours but still consider themselves to be ID. Would you accept sharing equal time in science class for any number of different versions on christian genesis, muslim creationism, scientology, hindu, raelians, norse and a couple of hundred more "theories" with about as much scientific backing as yours - or would you throw a hissy fit about it not being your specific version of ID and that yours would only get about one minute of attention?
Keith (guest)  -  January 27, 2007, 02:12
I think thats checkmate vaca. Pre, If you're so flippin sure you're version of an intelligent designer is correct (I guess its jesus) then what stops me from thinking that the lord of the rings wasn't written by the omnipotent tolkein. No, sir, I do not think there was an omnipotent entity that made our space and filled it with a giant rock and only 2 people for the length of until we pissed him off. I have to ask pre, do you REALLY believe that 'one day' jesus is going to fly you and everyone who thinks like you into the sky? I'm sorry if you're answer is yes, considering how much physics can detest that answer. There is no difference between you and a delusional terrorist who believes when HE dies he'll be met with 70 untouched girls. How do you justify that your answer is the right one? your book? well shit they have a book they think is holier than yours, go destroy them some more like they're destroying us. let the race for death (and hence, god) begin! Just leave me and my classes the hell out of it would you...
 pre  -  February 5, 2007, 18:56
keith, i know you think i'm crazy, but i think it is error to look at all religions the same. for example the muslim and christian religion. if you study them you will find the are polar opposite.
Keith (guest)  -  February 7, 2007, 05:42
But they're DERIVED from the same concept! if you had a literal translation of both the koran, bible, and torah (old testament) you would find that they all hold the same basic premise. Yes, you can squabble over the fact that they emphasize different people, but they do tell the same stories. And it is you pre that is making the error, I know all religions are not the same. L Rond Hubbards' ultimately science-fiction religion is nowhere near the same as the hindus, so don't go assuming I think everyone believes the same thing. Unfortunately, I do believe that those who believe in a god that is fictitious to me are just desperate. You think that our lives are not as important as our after lives, well what if there wasn't an after life? You do not know anymore than I do about this other than what your MAN MADE BOOK tells you. As I said before, I am a man of evidence, and there has been no evidence of god existing. At the same time, there has been no evidence of god NOT existing, but unfortunately the lower part of the ladder does not help christian's say they're right only because darwinism can't prove anymore than they can. I am sorry, sir, but the fact you believe one story more than the other stories that have floated around the world, does not mean you're right. What if you were wrong? What if your god doesn't exist and when you do die your spirit/soul/whatever doesn't go anywhere? All that praying, all that hope that you'd be in heaven forever and ever was just a lie so that you'd fork over money to a currupt church that has proven time and again that they want more people on their side to control than they want to feed the hungry and save the poor. No pre, I don't believe in your god simply because I lost all reason to believe in any. To me believing in god means I believe in the crusades and the kkk and the nazis whom ALL said "in the name of god" just to control what they have no idea about. Believe what you want, but I'll be the one thinking for myself...
pre (guest)  -  February 7, 2007, 19:58
keith, you talk alot, but give no specific examples. the world is believing the lie.
Vaca (guest)  -  February 12, 2007, 17:38
So Pre, only you and a few more know the ultimate truth and the rest of the world is delusioned? The kind of commitment you're showing this grand scheme conspiracy theory is really creepy. I wish you would consider why you're, in a sense, indistinguishable from people like Raelians, Scientologists, moon landing deniers, JFK/911 conspiracy theorists and so disturbingly many more. You know, they too are 100% certain they're ones that know the truth and that the rest of us has fallen for the lie.
htt (guest)  -  February 25, 2007, 20:19
Right, so I'm not going to read all that. In any case, watch the documentary "Jesus Camp." I do believe it sums up the threat against Evolutionism quite nicely, and adds in other stuff as well. Actually, it doesn't even directly address Evolutionism, but it's interesting nonetheless.
alf (guest)  -  March 4, 2007, 11:17
wow... all in all evolution and creationism have a foundation of faith. There is no long term study on evolution also you can't really have long term study on it, it'll have to be done in a couple of generation of scientist to observe evolution. What we can observe now is micro evolution, you can't just go on assuming that that is macroevolution, and define that oh... that bacteria have different sets of gene it is now a different species. unfortunately there are many definition of species;i go by the general rule of thumb that if it can produce a viable offspring it's still one species. It's all faith people. you either believe in a god or science one is going to be a priority over the others, your basic presuposition leads you to interpret the data. oh... please don't ever say evolution is a fact, it is a theory. samething with intelligent design. theory can be proven false if enough evidence warrants for it.
Vaca (guest)  -  March 14, 2007, 13:46
Alf: You don't seem to know what a scientific theory is and I find the the fact that you confuse it with faith disturbing. The first is a method used to aquire new knowledge from observations and experiments and the latter is something you hold on to despite lack of observations and expirements. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that you (like most creationists) haven't really read or tried to understand the evolutionary theory. Instead you gather all your information about it from creationist sources, which leaves you with the same old crackpot arguments that has been debunked a thousand times before. I also predict that you will repeat those arguments in absurdum, no matter what evidence against it might arise. And yes, I myself have read quite much about ID, as tought by its advocates and I haven't been able to find anything remotely credible. --- "theory can be proven false if enough evidence warrants for it." - You don't even need "enough", all you need is one little thing that doesn't fit. However, you ID/Creationists, haven't been able to produce anything that can't be explained by evolution. You're not trying to get rid of the evolutionary theory because of flaws in its logic but because you don't like the implications it has on your religious beliefs. Feel free to keep whatever illusions you like, but keep it in its context and out of science class.
Evolv (guest)  -  July 13, 2007, 19:46
ID/Creationists suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
alf2 (guest)  -  December 4, 2007, 14:14
To the Truth dude above, you call the united states a secular state and then talk about the problem religion causes in the middle east. The Secular US is causing it, not the religion cookie monster, was the same with the English. While people worship the God of Greed and the evolutionary mechanisms of money for their comfort and try to control people such as you and I, you will have strife, Christianity at least, of the "religions" tells one to be content, its the only green faith, its also the only peaceful one, while you guys are preaching evolution (survival of the fittest) "kill your competitor" Jesus teaches love, so get with the facts and reality monkey boy, sounds like you're the one causing the problems, you're certainly brainwashed by someone to have such a dim uninformed view of reality.
Skaspentesk (guest)  -  March 8, 2008, 04:41
buy levitra
adargyirrenny (guest)  -  April 19, 2008, 12:13
The best thing to do is enter one of that sites: [URL=]sexo hispano[/URL] You will find there: amateur lesbiana fotos chicas jovencitas fotos maduras gratis Just check the example: [URL=]Cerditas[/url]
terralee (guest)  -  August 29, 2008, 17:38
So all you evolutionists / athiests are just not intelligent enough to fathom God. You created your own religion because you don't want to be accountable for your actions. WAKE UP!
Dear-Lover (guest)  -  December 27, 2012, 08:57
Find a variety of stylish and affordable club wear and dresses on, wholesale fashion clubwear at cheap price from China.
CatsnamesDog (guest)  -  January 24, 2017, 18:20
I bought the cat didn't know what to call him. Found here full list tortoiseshell cat names of names for cats.
LarryDancy (guest)  -  February 21, 2017, 22:52
You can download 160000 Tracks, high Quality 320kbbs. Beatport, Traxsource and FLAC 14TB. Private FTP All Genre House, Club, Dance, Minimal, Psy-Trance, Dubstep....
Avgustabooff (guest)  -  March 1, 2017, 06:07
После долгой зимы, постоянные болезни утомили меня и я решила подумать о здоровье [img][/img] Урок пилатеса от Марии Шукшиной
mamaeka (guest)  -  March 4, 2017, 20:41
Cara Merawat Rambut Indah, Sehat dan Berkilau sepintas akan nampak kelihatan susah dan yang pasti akan membutuhkan waktu perawatan yang cukup lama. Apalagi rambut merupakan anggota tubuh yang berada di ujung paling atas yang cukup rentan sekali terkena debu ataupun kotoran yang sangat mudah hinggap pada rambut anda. Sehingga sangatlah sulit sekali untuk memiliki rambut yang sesuai dengan keinginan kitaNamun ungkapan tersebut, tentunya dapat kita atasi dengan mudah. Apabila anda sudah memahami dan mengetahui tentang, cara memelihara dan merawat rambut yang benar. Sehingga rambutpun akan nampak lebih indah, bersih dan yang pasti sesuai dengan apa yang anda inginkan. Namun, Apakah hal tersebut sudah anda pahami tentang Cara Merawat Rambut yang baik dan benar ?Nah, Oleh sebab itu kali ini kami akan mengupas tuntas mengenai Cara Merawat Rambut Indah, Sehat dan Berkilau yang tentunya semua orang pasti menginginkannya. Cara Merawat Rambut Indah, Sehat dan Berkilau
onaldhiege (guest)  -  March 15, 2017, 18:59
Сетка сварная оцинкованная 16х48х2, 24х48х2, 24х24х2 для клеток. Сетка сварная оцинкованная для клеток, птичников, звероферм, в строительство 16х48х2, 16х24х2, 24х24х2, 24х48х2, 48х48х2мм, для точного расчета и заказа сетки 16х48, 24х24 и др. Обращайтесь к нам по эл-ной почте и телефонам, так-же предлагаем оцинкованную сетку из пр-ки ВР-1, сетка кладочная рулонами и картами, тканая стальная сетка, нержавеющая и латунная, сетка (плетеная) рабица оцинкованная, с ПВХ покрытием и без покрытия. Наш сайт: тел./факс: (4862)33-74-66, (4862)48-58-05



Please enter the text below

5 random popular videos

91% impressive
Helicopter stunts
Helicopter stunts

100% crazy

84% funny
Microsoft iPod parody
Microsoft iPod parody

100% interesting
Corn starch speaker
Corn starch speaker

78% stupid
Worst hockey fight ever
Worst hockey fight ever