Evolution is dead.
This video is very informative. Please take the time to watch it. It proves beyond any doubt that evolution is a scientific fraud.
http://youtu.be/4wCxkBnm3ow
Mr Bombastic wrote:
This video is very informative. Please take the time to watch it. It proves beyond any doubt that evolution is a scientific fraud.
http://youtu.be/4wCxkBnm3owHmmm, 48 sec....WAIT, that not sec. but just over 3/4 of an HOUR!!!! Later guy, , MUCH later.
peter11937 wrote:
Hmmm, 48 sec....WAIT, that not sec. but just over 3/4 of an HOUR!!!! Later guy, , MUCH later.
Will watch it first thing in the morning, like 5 AM so it is in our free time.
no propaganda please wrote:
Will watch it first thing in the morning, like 5 AM so it is in our free time.
Understood. It is pretty long, but it completely demolishes evolution. This has to be the best video of its kind that I've ever watched.
Mr Bombastic wrote:
This video is very informative. Please take the time to watch it. It proves beyond any doubt that evolution is a scientific fraud.
http://youtu.be/4wCxkBnm3owNot sure if there is any point to this debate.
We are here now,and I don't think aliens nor our creator is going to step up to the plate ,like a ringer and knock one out of the park for us.
Created or evolved,makes little difference.
We have to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and fix what's broken.
peter11937 wrote:
Hmmm, 48 sec....WAIT, that not sec. but just over 3/4 of an HOUR!!!! Later guy, , MUCH later.
Well, next time you're bored to death, take a look.
Mr Bombastic wrote:
Well, next time you're bored to death, take a look.
This video is the summation of many Discovery Institute fellows' work, plus some others of impact, such as Richard Dawkins. It is well worth the viewing, and does shake Neo-Darwinism to the core. It is hard not to believe that the big D is on its last legs as a viable theory. Thanks Mr.B for finding this!
Manning345 wrote:
This video is the summation of many Discovery Institute fellows' work, plus some others of impact, such as Richard Dawkins. It is well worth the viewing, and does shake Neo-Darwinism to the core. It is hard not to believe that the big D is on its last legs as a viable theory. Thanks Mr.B for finding this!
Thanks for watching. I wish more people would do so. I know it's long, but it's not boring and it's very informative.
It was a joy to me, as I have been a reader of most of the referenced works, including those of Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Johnson, and others for some years. To see it so well presented was a thrill. Have you ever read J. P. Moreland on the subject of whether ID is science or not?
Manning345 wrote:
It was a joy to me, as I have been a reader of most of the referenced works, including those of Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Johnson, and others for some years. To see it so well presented was a thrill. Have you ever read J. P. Moreland on the subject of whether ID is science or not?
Nope. Got a link for it? I'll check it out.
The piece I read comes from the book "Intelligent Design 101", p. 41, where he addresses the question : is ID science.
Moreland has a website: jpmoreland.com, but I could not find the same piece there. When I have more time, I will copy out the key paragraph or so and post it here.
Manning345 wrote:
The piece I read comes from the book "Intelligent Design 101", p. 41, where he addresses the question : is ID science.
Moreland has a website: jpmoreland.com, but I could not find the same piece there. When I have more time, I will copy out the key paragraph or so and post it here.
OK. Thanks. It's really amazing how anyone can believe in evolution. If you read about gene regulatory networks it is obvious that something like that can't possibly evolve. If just one component is missing, the cell dies. Then the GRN's are part of a larger group of GRN's that exchange information and work together. It is a scientific impossibility that something like that is the result of evolution.
From "Intelligent Design 101" the article "Intelligent Design and the Nature of Science', by J.P Moreland, p. 41.
He writes:
"Now the truth of the matter is that methodological naturalism is simply false. There is no such thing as a definition of science. No line of demarcation applies to and specifies all and only science. Carefully note what I am and am not saying. I am saying that a line of demarcation would consist in a set of necessary and sufficient conditions that set apart something as scientific. They would be necessary in the sense that anyone practicing science would have to adhere to them. They are sufficient in that anyone adhering to these conditions is practicing science. A definition constructed around these necessary and sufficient conditions would clarify whether someone practices science or something other than science, such as religion, art, or politics..."
"There is no set of necessary and sufficient conditions by which to define science..."
"For every necessary condition, there are examples of obvious science that do not fulfill the condition. And, for every sufficient condition, there are examples of non-science that do fulfill the condition."
Moreland goes on to show examples in each case, and ends up with a critique of certain scientists who oppose ID as being non-science. He believes that they are not philosophical scientists and hence are not pontificating within their sphere of competence.
Finally, he concludes with his belief that ID is scientific.
The book is recommended reading! It is on Amazon, in paperback.
From "Intelligent Design 101
Mr Bombastic wrote:
OK. Thanks. It's really amazing how anyone can believe in evolution. If you read about gene regulatory networks it is obvious that something like that can't possibly evolve. If just one component is missing, the cell dies. Then the GRN's are part of a larger group of GRN's that exchange information and work together. It is a scientific impossibility that something like that is the result of evolution.
Mr Bombastic wrote:
OK. Thanks. It's really amazing how anyone can believe in evolution. If you read about gene regulatory networks it is obvious that something like that can't possibly evolve. If just one component is missing, the cell dies. Then the GRN's are part of a larger group of GRN's that exchange information and work together. It is a scientific impossibility that something like that is the result of evolution.
This is yet another example of Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" suggestion. To my knowledge, no one has been able to answer Behe with a valid refutation. The Cambrian explosion supports Irreducibility simply by the multiple creatures that appeared then; they appeared whole, and without precursors.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.