Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

When ID theorists speak of it requiring more faith to be a Darwinist, this is what they are talking about. The belief that this intricate network of molecular machines happened by chance or accident, and continued to develop by chance or accident, into the complex factories we find, goes against any intelligent or logical thought. When I watch this, the folks claiming "it just happened" seem to be the real fools. Darwinian thought requires a "suspension of disbelief" because the logical response (especially after watching this video) to the claims randomness produced these tiny factories is a resounding "NO WAY!" Darwinists must suspend their inner disbelief in order to accept the un-scientific, crazy claims of molecular evolution. Even the evolutionist narrator sometimes seems uncomfortable when he sprinkles the Darwin Dogma into the video, like he has not yet reconciled what the actual science should be convincing him of with the materialistic cross he is committed to bear.

Drew Berry - Astonishing Molecular Machines - YouTube

I got the same impression from the speaker.

 

[daws101]

When ID theorists speak of it requiring more faith to be a Darwinist, this is what they are talking about. The belief that this intricate network of molecular machines happened by chance or accident, and continued to develop by chance or accident, into the complex factories we find, goes against any intelligent or logical thought. When I watch this, the folks claiming "it just happened" seem to be the real fools. Darwinian thought requires a "suspension of disbelief" because the logical response (especially after watching this video) to the claims randomness produced these tiny factories is a resounding "NO WAY!" Darwinists must suspend their inner disbelief in order to accept the un-scientific, crazy claims of molecular evolution. Even the evolutionist narrator sometimes seems uncomfortable when he sprinkles the Darwin Dogma into the video, like he has not yet reconciled what the actual science should be convincing him of with the materialistic cross he is committed to bear.

Drew Berry - Astonishing Molecular Machines - YouTube

I got the same impression from the speaker.

is'nt that sweet!

 

[daws101]

YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants.

Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube

so what! people give that amount to cryogenic storage...does not mean that it will bring people back from the dead...then there's the millions for elections.

 

[Youwerecreated]

YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants.

Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube

so what! people give that amount to cryogenic storage...does not mean that it will bring people back from the dead...then there's the millions for elections.

Hmm,no real response as usual.

 

[Youwerecreated]

When ID theorists speak of it requiring more faith to be a Darwinist, this is what they are talking about. The belief that this intricate network of molecular machines happened by chance or accident, and continued to develop by chance or accident, into the complex factories we find, goes against any intelligent or logical thought. When I watch this, the folks claiming "it just happened" seem to be the real fools. Darwinian thought requires a "suspension of disbelief" because the logical response (especially after watching this video) to the claims randomness produced these tiny factories is a resounding "NO WAY!" Darwinists must suspend their inner disbelief in order to accept the un-scientific, crazy claims of molecular evolution. Even the evolutionist narrator sometimes seems uncomfortable when he sprinkles the Darwin Dogma into the video, like he has not yet reconciled what the actual science should be convincing him of with the materialistic cross he is committed to bear.

Drew Berry - Astonishing Molecular Machines - YouTube

I got the same impression from the speaker.

is'nt that sweet!

Same here.

 

[Hollie]

When ID theorists speak of it requiring more faith to be a Darwinist, this is what they are talking about. The belief that this intricate network of molecular machines happened by chance or accident, and continued to develop by chance or accident, into the complex factories we find, goes against any intelligent or logical thought. When I watch this, the folks claiming "it just happened" seem to be the real fools. Darwinian thought requires a "suspension of disbelief" because the logical response (especially after watching this video) to the claims randomness produced these tiny factories is a resounding "NO WAY!" Darwinists must suspend their inner disbelief in order to accept the un-scientific, crazy claims of molecular evolution. Even the evolutionist narrator sometimes seems uncomfortable when he sprinkles the Darwin Dogma into the video, like he has not yet reconciled what the actual science should be convincing him of with the materialistic cross he is committed to bear.

Drew Berry - Astonishing Molecular Machines - YouTube

There is no such thing as ID theory. Religious claims, even when cynically cloaked under a veil of intelligent design are nothing more than religious claim.

It's really comical when adherents to one or more of the creationist ministries attempt to denigrate science with unfounded claims of evolutionary science being dogma. What the fundies fail to understand is that evolutionary science is supported by diverse sciences of biology, archaeology, paleontology and a historical record that is denied only by the most dogmatic of religious zealots.

The theory that Darwin proposed has only gotten better supported since his publication of Origin of Species. As scientific methods of measurement and identification have gotten more precise and more exacting, the creation ministries have fallen further and further out of favor. The religious / creation zealots are now left having to invent falsified "quotes" and denigrating true science as their gods and supernaturalism are shoved aside by science fact.

 

[daws101]

YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants.

Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube

so what! people give that amount to cryogenic storage...does not mean that it will bring people back from the dead...then there's the millions for elections.

Hmm,no real response as usual.

right !since the clip is id and not science ,the only real response was a comment about how people shit loads of money on nonsense.
any one who has ever watched a sermon from a mega church feels the same.
that's the un indoctrinated of course

.

 

[daws101]

I got the same impression from the speaker.

is'nt that sweet!

Same here.

same here what?....

 

[daws101]

CREATION "SCIENCE"



In spite of the evidence, many people (even some scientists) believe that the evolution is barely a hypothesis, and even some persons imagine that it is only a dogmatic opinion (a dogma). This bad science has propitiated the expansion of groups that oppose to the teaching of evolution and scientific cosmogony at schools and the development of pseudosciences established on unrealistic roots, for instance, Creationism, Creation “Science”, Theistic “Evolutionism” and Intelligent Design. For example, the Theistic Evolutionism is a kind of neo-creationism, which approves evolution. These neo-creationists believe that God created the universe, which subsequently evolved by means of the natural laws created also by God. The theistic evolutionists, however, think that evolution is going on devoid of a marvelous intercession.



Cosmology and Biology (specifically, evolution) are sciences that have smashed many religious dogmas. This is why the two scientific specialties have been spotted for persistent attacks from the creationists. We cannot force to science to approve one’s personal beliefs. While scientists are dedicated to study the complex mechanisms of evolution, the creationists are not validating their "creative evolution" by means of the scientific method. It is evident the ambiguity of the label "Creative Evolution" given that the evolution has gone frequently into periodic sceneries of massive extinctions, supernovas, etc.



Creationism in unable to explain the precedent existence of dinosaurs, trilobites. It cannot give details about massive extinctions, congenital deformities, mutations, pathogenesis, parasites, virus, venomous animals and plants, wild man-eaters, etc. If we had an thick mind, we would be able to insist on the belief that Greek fairies and gods have created the cosmos; a belief that, for the case, would direct us to the same structures of the philosophy of the Creation Science, theistic Evolutionism, etc.



In the same way, the intelligent design (ID) scheme suggests that the complexity of the Universe is the irrefutable evidence on favor of a special creation by an Intelligent Designer. Following their way of reasoning we can tell ID adherents that if the Universe reaches a high degree of complexity, then the Intelligent Designer would be forcibly more complex than the thing created by him (or them, as ID implies it). Consequently, the Intelligent Designer forcibly would have been created by a more complex Intelligent Designer, given that nothing complex can come to existence without the intervention of an Intelligent Designer; and so on... until the last (or the first?) Designer would be a being so complex than he could not come to mind. It would be an endless multiplication of superb beings more and more complex on every occurrence.



Concluding, the Creation Science and the Intelligent Designer thoughts are antiscientific schemes. Both proposals struggle against science and the structures of science. However, both disciplines do not make the grade because they reject the truth obtained from the natural world.

Antiscience

 

[Youwerecreated]

so what! people give that amount to cryogenic storage...does not mean that it will bring people back from the dead...then there's the millions for elections.

Hmm,no real response as usual.

right !since the clip is id and not science ,the only real response was a comment about how people shit loads of money on nonsense.
any one who has ever watched a sermon from a mega church feels the same.
that's the un indoctrinated of course

.

That was an evolutionist,thanks for showing you don't really look at the other side and just make ignorant comments.

 

[Youwerecreated]

CREATION "SCIENCE"



In spite of the evidence, many people (even some scientists) believe that the evolution is barely a hypothesis, and even some persons imagine that it is only a dogmatic opinion (a dogma). This bad science has propitiated the expansion of groups that oppose to the teaching of evolution and scientific cosmogony at schools and the development of pseudosciences established on unrealistic roots, for instance, Creationism, Creation “Science”, Theistic “Evolutionism” and Intelligent Design. For example, the Theistic Evolutionism is a kind of neo-creationism, which approves evolution. These neo-creationists believe that God created the universe, which subsequently evolved by means of the natural laws created also by God. The theistic evolutionists, however, think that evolution is going on devoid of a marvelous intercession.



Cosmology and Biology (specifically, evolution) are sciences that have smashed many religious dogmas. This is why the two scientific specialties have been spotted for persistent attacks from the creationists. We cannot force to science to approve one’s personal beliefs. While scientists are dedicated to study the complex mechanisms of evolution, the creationists are not validating their "creative evolution" by means of the scientific method. It is evident the ambiguity of the label "Creative Evolution" given that the evolution has gone frequently into periodic sceneries of massive extinctions, supernovas, etc.



Creationism in unable to explain the precedent existence of dinosaurs, trilobites. It cannot give details about massive extinctions, congenital deformities, mutations, pathogenesis, parasites, virus, venomous animals and plants, wild man-eaters, etc. If we had an thick mind, we would be able to insist on the belief that Greek fairies and gods have created the cosmos; a belief that, for the case, would direct us to the same structures of the philosophy of the Creation Science, theistic Evolutionism, etc.



In the same way, the intelligent design (ID) scheme suggests that the complexity of the Universe is the irrefutable evidence on favor of a special creation by an Intelligent Designer. Following their way of reasoning we can tell ID adherents that if the Universe reaches a high degree of complexity, then the Intelligent Designer would be forcibly more complex than the thing created by him (or them, as ID implies it). Consequently, the Intelligent Designer forcibly would have been created by a more complex Intelligent Designer, given that nothing complex can come to existence without the intervention of an Intelligent Designer; and so on... until the last (or the first?) Designer would be a being so complex than he could not come to mind. It would be an endless multiplication of superb beings more and more complex on every occurrence.



Concluding, the Creation Science and the Intelligent Designer thoughts are antiscientific schemes. Both proposals struggle against science and the structures of science. However, both disciplines do not make the grade because they reject the truth obtained from the natural world.

Antiscience

More rhetoric creationists nor ID proponents are anti real science,however,very anti pesuedoscience.

 

[Hollie]

CREATION "SCIENCE"



In spite of the evidence, many people (even some scientists) believe that the evolution is barely a hypothesis, and even some persons imagine that it is only a dogmatic opinion (a dogma). This bad science has propitiated the expansion of groups that oppose to the teaching of evolution and scientific cosmogony at schools and the development of pseudosciences established on unrealistic roots, for instance, Creationism, Creation “Science”, Theistic “Evolutionism” and Intelligent Design. For example, the Theistic Evolutionism is a kind of neo-creationism, which approves evolution. These neo-creationists believe that God created the universe, which subsequently evolved by means of the natural laws created also by God. The theistic evolutionists, however, think that evolution is going on devoid of a marvelous intercession.



Cosmology and Biology (specifically, evolution) are sciences that have smashed many religious dogmas. This is why the two scientific specialties have been spotted for persistent attacks from the creationists. We cannot force to science to approve one’s personal beliefs. While scientists are dedicated to study the complex mechanisms of evolution, the creationists are not validating their "creative evolution" by means of the scientific method. It is evident the ambiguity of the label "Creative Evolution" given that the evolution has gone frequently into periodic sceneries of massive extinctions, supernovas, etc.



Creationism in unable to explain the precedent existence of dinosaurs, trilobites. It cannot give details about massive extinctions, congenital deformities, mutations, pathogenesis, parasites, virus, venomous animals and plants, wild man-eaters, etc. If we had an thick mind, we would be able to insist on the belief that Greek fairies and gods have created the cosmos; a belief that, for the case, would direct us to the same structures of the philosophy of the Creation Science, theistic Evolutionism, etc.



In the same way, the intelligent design (ID) scheme suggests that the complexity of the Universe is the irrefutable evidence on favor of a special creation by an Intelligent Designer. Following their way of reasoning we can tell ID adherents that if the Universe reaches a high degree of complexity, then the Intelligent Designer would be forcibly more complex than the thing created by him (or them, as ID implies it). Consequently, the Intelligent Designer forcibly would have been created by a more complex Intelligent Designer, given that nothing complex can come to existence without the intervention of an Intelligent Designer; and so on... until the last (or the first?) Designer would be a being so complex than he could not come to mind. It would be an endless multiplication of superb beings more and more complex on every occurrence.



Concluding, the Creation Science and the Intelligent Designer thoughts are antiscientific schemes. Both proposals struggle against science and the structures of science. However, both disciplines do not make the grade because they reject the truth obtained from the natural world.

Antiscience

Good article as it defines the creationist argument as entirely one of promoting the dogma of one single religious faith.



What I've found truly alarming about the creationist / religious arguments is just how frantic and bankrupt they have become.

They entirety of the creationist / religious agenda is managed toward finding some claimed minor discrepancy or some alleged inconsistency in scientific findings and using that as proof of supernaturalism as the cause of existence. Where science will flex and adjust to new evidence and methods of testing, the creation ministries test nothing.

The creation ministries never provide the results of rigorous testing and methodology for peer review because they can't. They never seek to provide positive evidence of their outrageous claims because they can't. Thus, the difference between science and religious claims. Science will test, falsifying and confirm through the process of study and peer review. Creationism only tries and fails to tear down science to promote a claim not available for investigation.

 

[daws101]

Hmm,no real response as usual.

right !since the clip is id and not science ,the only real response was a comment about how people shit loads of money on nonsense.
any one who has ever watched a sermon from a mega church feels the same.
that's the un indoctrinated of course

.

That was an evolutionist,thanks for showing you don't really look at the other side and just make ignorant comments.

bullshit!:He has received 5 research awards at Texas A&M University and 1 national research award. He has also received two teaching awards. He is an Elected Fellow of the American Society for Materials and the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology in the world. He is President elect of the ASA and will serve his term in 2008.



the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology Walter Bradley lectures on whether there is any truth in religion « Wintery Knight

 

[daws101]

Daws ,I got you to admit the mutation rate is much higher for a reason.

since I did not admit anything about the mutation being higher (another lie) ..you did :That is right,evolutionist new that if the mutation rate was to high the mutation rate would not match the evolutionist timeline for life. That is right Geneticist H.J. Muller "evolutionist" quote was in error we know the mutation rate is much higher."ywc

another lie! this:"it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained…

it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection…

it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5…, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.

Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford
Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy "

is not an "evolutionist" quote it's from one of your favorite sites: your source: Nobel Prize winner HJ Muller, unwitting pioneer of genetic entropy theories | Uncommon Descent

grow the **** up...
you've had your ass handed to you again. stop being such a ***** and take it with some grace.

HJ Muller is an atheist and believed in evolution.

Someone who pretends to be well educated in the sciences and are not part of the science community would argue that the mutation rate is much lower then HJ Muller proposed of 0.5 mutations per person per generation that would destroy the human race. Well we know that is not true and the science community have accepted the high mutation rate especially after the Genome project. That junk DNA is not junk after all.

So you are making an attempt to make an old argument from your anti God sites

The science community know that the high mutation rate is a problem for their theory of macro evolution. Now are you ready to answer why ?

really?Hermann Joseph Muller (or H. J. Muller) (December 21, 1890 – April 5, 1967) was an American geneticist, educator, and Nobel laureate best known for his work on the physiological and genetic effects of radiation (X-ray mutagenesis) as well as his outspoken political beliefs.[2] Muller frequently warned of the long-term dangers of radioactive fallout from nuclear war and nuclear testing, helping to raise public awareness in this area.[3] He was also the first to describe what since has become termed "irreducible complexity",[4] which has been used as an argument in favor of "intelligent design" by creationists opposed to the theory of evolution. Muller did not find any contradictions between "irreducible complexity" and evolution, but described the phenomenon as the result of evolution.[5]


"Muller did not find any contradictions between "irreducible complexity" and evolution, but described the phenomenon as the result of evolution.[5]


Muller was born in New York City and excelled in the public schools. As an adolescent, he attended a Unitarian church and considered himself a pantheist; in high school he became an atheist. At 16 he entered Columbia College. From his first semester he was interested in biology; he became an early convert of the Mendelian-chromosome theory of heredity — and the concept of genetic mutations and natural selection as the basis for evolution. He formed a Biology Club and also became a proponent of eugenics; the connections between biology and society would be his perennial concern. Muller earned a B.A. degree in 1910.[


he was also in to eugenics....nuffsaid!

 

[daws101]

CREATION "SCIENCE"



In spite of the evidence, many people (even some scientists) believe that the evolution is barely a hypothesis, and even some persons imagine that it is only a dogmatic opinion (a dogma). This bad science has propitiated the expansion of groups that oppose to the teaching of evolution and scientific cosmogony at schools and the development of pseudosciences established on unrealistic roots, for instance, Creationism, Creation “Science”, Theistic “Evolutionism” and Intelligent Design. For example, the Theistic Evolutionism is a kind of neo-creationism, which approves evolution. These neo-creationists believe that God created the universe, which subsequently evolved by means of the natural laws created also by God. The theistic evolutionists, however, think that evolution is going on devoid of a marvelous intercession.



Cosmology and Biology (specifically, evolution) are sciences that have smashed many religious dogmas. This is why the two scientific specialties have been spotted for persistent attacks from the creationists. We cannot force to science to approve one’s personal beliefs. While scientists are dedicated to study the complex mechanisms of evolution, the creationists are not validating their "creative evolution" by means of the scientific method. It is evident the ambiguity of the label "Creative Evolution" given that the evolution has gone frequently into periodic sceneries of massive extinctions, supernovas, etc.



Creationism in unable to explain the precedent existence of dinosaurs, trilobites. It cannot give details about massive extinctions, congenital deformities, mutations, pathogenesis, parasites, virus, venomous animals and plants, wild man-eaters, etc. If we had an thick mind, we would be able to insist on the belief that Greek fairies and gods have created the cosmos; a belief that, for the case, would direct us to the same structures of the philosophy of the Creation Science, theistic Evolutionism, etc.



In the same way, the intelligent design (ID) scheme suggests that the complexity of the Universe is the irrefutable evidence on favor of a special creation by an Intelligent Designer. Following their way of reasoning we can tell ID adherents that if the Universe reaches a high degree of complexity, then the Intelligent Designer would be forcibly more complex than the thing created by him (or them, as ID implies it). Consequently, the Intelligent Designer forcibly would have been created by a more complex Intelligent Designer, given that nothing complex can come to existence without the intervention of an Intelligent Designer; and so on... until the last (or the first?) Designer would be a being so complex than he could not come to mind. It would be an endless multiplication of superb beings more and more complex on every occurrence.



Concluding, the Creation Science and the Intelligent Designer thoughts are antiscientific schemes. Both proposals struggle against science and the structures of science. However, both disciplines do not make the grade because they reject the truth obtained from the natural world.

Antiscience

More rhetoric creationists nor ID proponents are anti real science,however,very anti pesuedoscience.

since all you present is pseudoscience you are contradicting yourself.

real science:THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD



In general terms, we should follow a systematization to obtain a valid deduction about something. This systematization is summarized in the steps of the Scientific Method.



Steps of Scientific Method



I should say that this explanation is a general description of the scientific method. The procedure does not have to follow exactly the arrangement described below.





The first step in any investigation is OBSERVATION. Observation consists of setting our attention on a portion of the Universe. Through observation we identify specific realities or events from the cosmos by means of our senses.





Once the observation is executed, the researcher elaborates one or more questions, generally ingenerated by the curiosity of the observer. These questions constitute a PROBLEM. The questions MUST MATCH with the observed phenomenon and must adhere to objectivity.



The investigator should always bear in mind that questions that begin with "why" are always very difficult - if not impossible - to answer. The objective investigator prefers to start with questions such as "what", "how", "where", or "when". The question could also be "what is it for".





Through INDUCTIVE REASONING, the observer then tries to give one or more logical answers to these questions. Each answer is a tentative introduction that can serve as a guide for the remainder of the investigation. These preliminary solutions to a question are called HYPOTHESES.



HYPOTHESIS is a tentative statement that can be submitted to experimentation to verify whether it is false or true.



After he has enunciated one or more hypotheses or proposed explanations, the researcher can then elaborate one or more PREDICTIONS, which must be consistent with the observations and hypotheses. To do this, the researcher uses DEDUCTIVE REASONING.





Each hypothesis should be submitted to an exhaustive test called EXPERIMENTATION. The results of experimentation will determine the final character (false or true) of the hypothesis.



Experimentation can be performed in diverse ways, but controlled experimentation is a characteristic of the scientific method, to the extent that other simpler systems are not viable for the purpose of science.



In controlled experimentation we need two groups to test: one group is called the control group or witness group, and the other group is called the experimental group.



Both the control group and the experimental group are submitted to the same conditions, excluding the variable that has been chosen for the study. The control group is not submitted to the change, while the experimental group is.



The results are observed and the differences between both groups are registered.



If the investigator notes a difference between both groups, then an answer can be deduced.



As the investigation advances, false hypotheses are rejected one by one, until only plausible verifications remain of the hypotheses initially presented.







When a hypothesis is proven true, scientists then process a final statement, which, in science, is called a THEORY.



A theory is a partially or totally true statement, proven by means of experimentation or natural and observable evidences, for one time and one place only.





If a theory is verified as true for all times and places, it would then be considered a LAW.



A theory is subject to changes, a law is immutable and permanent. A law is comprobable at any time and place in the Cosmos. However, a theory is truth only for a certain place and a given time.





We should make it clear that in the sciences there are important differences of meaning between the terms: hypothesis, theorem, theory and law.



A scientific HYPOTHESIS is a provisional solution for a question generated through the observation of an event. The hypothesis can be false or true, so each hypothesis must be tested by experimentation. For example, all reports on the origin of AIDS are hypotheses.



A scientific THEOREM is an idea or a proposition which is considered demonstrably true. In mathematics, a theorem is a proposition that has already been proven or can be confirmed by means of unequivocal assumptions. For example, the theory of the Inflationary Universe, which, when released for the first time, was presented as a mathematical model. Now that modern observations of real phenomena in the Universe have confirmed the model, the theorem has been developed into a theory.



A scientific THEORY is a statement that must contain a setting of real evidence. A theory is correct only if it has been able to withstand rigorous testing, and it will only be true if it is in concordance with facts. A theory can be reworked as new evidence is accumulated, but the background truth of a theory can never be altered. Scientific theories are true only for a given time and place. They may not be true in other parts of the Universe. Evolution is a good example of a scientific theory.



A scientific LAW is a statement that is true and valid for all times and all places in the known Universe. A law is true and valid everywhere, for all times. For example, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Laws of Gravity and the Axiom of Biogenesis are good examples of scientific laws. The Axiom of Biogenesis is one of three Biological Laws. The other two are the Intransference of Life and the Irreversibility of Life.



I have noticed a semantic problem in many non-scientific dissertations that taken together point to a generalized mistreatment of the term "theory". The confusion is perhaps attributable to the popular idea that the term "theory" applies to all non-verified perceptions, be they scientific or not.



But in science, there are considerable differences of meaning between the terms hypothesis, theorem and theory. For the scientific community, a theory is a true statement applicable for one time and one place because it is based on evidence and it has been confirmed by testing. For example, the Cell theory, which says that all living beings are constituted from cells.

 

[Youwerecreated]

right !since the clip is id and not science ,the only real response was a comment about how people shit loads of money on nonsense.
any one who has ever watched a sermon from a mega church feels the same.
that's the un indoctrinated of course

.

That was an evolutionist,thanks for showing you don't really look at the other side and just make ignorant comments.

bullshit!:He has received 5 research awards at Texas A&M University and 1 national research award. He has also received two teaching awards. He is an Elected Fellow of the American Society for Materials and the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology in the world. He is President elect of the ASA and will serve his term in 2008.



the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology Walter Bradley lectures on whether there is any truth in religion « Wintery Knight

I guess you can't read,Drew Berry is an evolutionist,in the video at about 9:53 into the video he makes it clear.

The video we were talking about was Drew Berry astonishing molecular machines. He is showing you evidence that had to be designed but he won't admit to it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

CREATION "SCIENCE"



In spite of the evidence, many people (even some scientists) believe that the evolution is barely a hypothesis, and even some persons imagine that it is only a dogmatic opinion (a dogma). This bad science has propitiated the expansion of groups that oppose to the teaching of evolution and scientific cosmogony at schools and the development of pseudosciences established on unrealistic roots, for instance, Creationism, Creation “Science”, Theistic “Evolutionism” and Intelligent Design. For example, the Theistic Evolutionism is a kind of neo-creationism, which approves evolution. These neo-creationists believe that God created the universe, which subsequently evolved by means of the natural laws created also by God. The theistic evolutionists, however, think that evolution is going on devoid of a marvelous intercession.



Cosmology and Biology (specifically, evolution) are sciences that have smashed many religious dogmas. This is why the two scientific specialties have been spotted for persistent attacks from the creationists. We cannot force to science to approve one’s personal beliefs. While scientists are dedicated to study the complex mechanisms of evolution, the creationists are not validating their "creative evolution" by means of the scientific method. It is evident the ambiguity of the label "Creative Evolution" given that the evolution has gone frequently into periodic sceneries of massive extinctions, supernovas, etc.



Creationism in unable to explain the precedent existence of dinosaurs, trilobites. It cannot give details about massive extinctions, congenital deformities, mutations, pathogenesis, parasites, virus, venomous animals and plants, wild man-eaters, etc. If we had an thick mind, we would be able to insist on the belief that Greek fairies and gods have created the cosmos; a belief that, for the case, would direct us to the same structures of the philosophy of the Creation Science, theistic Evolutionism, etc.



In the same way, the intelligent design (ID) scheme suggests that the complexity of the Universe is the irrefutable evidence on favor of a special creation by an Intelligent Designer. Following their way of reasoning we can tell ID adherents that if the Universe reaches a high degree of complexity, then the Intelligent Designer would be forcibly more complex than the thing created by him (or them, as ID implies it). Consequently, the Intelligent Designer forcibly would have been created by a more complex Intelligent Designer, given that nothing complex can come to existence without the intervention of an Intelligent Designer; and so on... until the last (or the first?) Designer would be a being so complex than he could not come to mind. It would be an endless multiplication of superb beings more and more complex on every occurrence.



Concluding, the Creation Science and the Intelligent Designer thoughts are antiscientific schemes. Both proposals struggle against science and the structures of science. However, both disciplines do not make the grade because they reject the truth obtained from the natural world.

Antiscience

More rhetoric creationists nor ID proponents are anti real science,however,very anti pesuedoscience.

since all you present is pseudoscience you are contradicting yourself.

real science:THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD



In general terms, we should follow a systematization to obtain a valid deduction about something. This systematization is summarized in the steps of the Scientific Method.



Steps of Scientific Method



I should say that this explanation is a general description of the scientific method. The procedure does not have to follow exactly the arrangement described below.





The first step in any investigation is OBSERVATION. Observation consists of setting our attention on a portion of the Universe. Through observation we identify specific realities or events from the cosmos by means of our senses.





Once the observation is executed, the researcher elaborates one or more questions, generally ingenerated by the curiosity of the observer. These questions constitute a PROBLEM. The questions MUST MATCH with the observed phenomenon and must adhere to objectivity.



The investigator should always bear in mind that questions that begin with "why" are always very difficult - if not impossible - to answer. The objective investigator prefers to start with questions such as "what", "how", "where", or "when". The question could also be "what is it for".





Through INDUCTIVE REASONING, the observer then tries to give one or more logical answers to these questions. Each answer is a tentative introduction that can serve as a guide for the remainder of the investigation. These preliminary solutions to a question are called HYPOTHESES.



HYPOTHESIS is a tentative statement that can be submitted to experimentation to verify whether it is false or true.



After he has enunciated one or more hypotheses or proposed explanations, the researcher can then elaborate one or more PREDICTIONS, which must be consistent with the observations and hypotheses. To do this, the researcher uses DEDUCTIVE REASONING.





Each hypothesis should be submitted to an exhaustive test called EXPERIMENTATION. The results of experimentation will determine the final character (false or true) of the hypothesis.



Experimentation can be performed in diverse ways, but controlled experimentation is a characteristic of the scientific method, to the extent that other simpler systems are not viable for the purpose of science.



In controlled experimentation we need two groups to test: one group is called the control group or witness group, and the other group is called the experimental group.



Both the control group and the experimental group are submitted to the same conditions, excluding the variable that has been chosen for the study. The control group is not submitted to the change, while the experimental group is.



The results are observed and the differences between both groups are registered.



If the investigator notes a difference between both groups, then an answer can be deduced.



As the investigation advances, false hypotheses are rejected one by one, until only plausible verifications remain of the hypotheses initially presented.







When a hypothesis is proven true, scientists then process a final statement, which, in science, is called a THEORY.



A theory is a partially or totally true statement, proven by means of experimentation or natural and observable evidences, for one time and one place only.





If a theory is verified as true for all times and places, it would then be considered a LAW.



A theory is subject to changes, a law is immutable and permanent. A law is comprobable at any time and place in the Cosmos. However, a theory is truth only for a certain place and a given time.





We should make it clear that in the sciences there are important differences of meaning between the terms: hypothesis, theorem, theory and law.



A scientific HYPOTHESIS is a provisional solution for a question generated through the observation of an event. The hypothesis can be false or true, so each hypothesis must be tested by experimentation. For example, all reports on the origin of AIDS are hypotheses.



A scientific THEOREM is an idea or a proposition which is considered demonstrably true. In mathematics, a theorem is a proposition that has already been proven or can be confirmed by means of unequivocal assumptions. For example, the theory of the Inflationary Universe, which, when released for the first time, was presented as a mathematical model. Now that modern observations of real phenomena in the Universe have confirmed the model, the theorem has been developed into a theory.



A scientific THEORY is a statement that must contain a setting of real evidence. A theory is correct only if it has been able to withstand rigorous testing, and it will only be true if it is in concordance with facts. A theory can be reworked as new evidence is accumulated, but the background truth of a theory can never be altered. Scientific theories are true only for a given time and place. They may not be true in other parts of the Universe. Evolution is a good example of a scientific theory.



A scientific LAW is a statement that is true and valid for all times and all places in the known Universe. A law is true and valid everywhere, for all times. For example, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Laws of Gravity and the Axiom of Biogenesis are good examples of scientific laws. The Axiom of Biogenesis is one of three Biological Laws. The other two are the Intransference of Life and the Irreversibility of Life.



I have noticed a semantic problem in many non-scientific dissertations that taken together point to a generalized mistreatment of the term "theory". The confusion is perhaps attributable to the popular idea that the term "theory" applies to all non-verified perceptions, be they scientific or not.



But in science, there are considerable differences of meaning between the terms hypothesis, theorem and theory. For the scientific community, a theory is a true statement applicable for one time and one place because it is based on evidence and it has been confirmed by testing. For example, the Cell theory, which says that all living beings are constituted from cells.

What pesuedoscience have I presented ? I have pointed out alot of pesuedoscience that your theory teaches.

 

[Hollie]

That was an evolutionist,thanks for showing you don't really look at the other side and just make ignorant comments.

bullshit!:He has received 5 research awards at Texas A&M University and 1 national research award. He has also received two teaching awards. He is an Elected Fellow of the American Society for Materials and the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology in the world. He is President elect of the ASA and will serve his term in 2008.



the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), the largest organization of Christians in Science and Technology Walter Bradley lectures on whether there is any truth in religion « Wintery Knight

I guess you can't read,Drew Berry is an evolutionist,in the video at about 9:53 into the video he makes it clear.

The video we were talking about was Drew Berry astonishing molecular machines. He is showing you evidence that had to be designed.

There was no such thing. What's astonishing about the video is how amateurish and contrived the creation ministeries have become.

Why do you suppose it is that the creationist fundies are reduced to offering goofy yutube vibdeos for the gullible as opposed to having their work publised in peer reviewed science publications?

Exactly right! The creation ministeries appeal to the gullible.

 

[UltimateReality]

CREATION "SCIENCE"



In spite of the evidence, many people (even some scientists) believe that the evolution is barely a hypothesis, and even some persons imagine that it is only a dogmatic opinion (a dogma). This bad science has propitiated the expansion of groups that oppose to the teaching of evolution and scientific cosmogony at schools and the development of pseudosciences established on unrealistic roots, for instance, Creationism, Creation “Science”, Theistic “Evolutionism” and Intelligent Design. For example, the Theistic Evolutionism is a kind of neo-creationism, which approves evolution. These neo-creationists believe that God created the universe, which subsequently evolved by means of the natural laws created also by God. The theistic evolutionists, however, think that evolution is going on devoid of a marvelous intercession.



Cosmology and Biology (specifically, evolution) are sciences that have smashed many religious dogmas. This is why the two scientific specialties have been spotted for persistent attacks from the creationists. We cannot force to science to approve one’s personal beliefs. While scientists are dedicated to study the complex mechanisms of evolution, the creationists are not validating their "creative evolution" by means of the scientific method. It is evident the ambiguity of the label "Creative Evolution" given that the evolution has gone frequently into periodic sceneries of massive extinctions, supernovas, etc.



Creationism in unable to explain the precedent existence of dinosaurs, trilobites. It cannot give details about massive extinctions, congenital deformities, mutations, pathogenesis, parasites, virus, venomous animals and plants, wild man-eaters, etc. If we had an thick mind, we would be able to insist on the belief that Greek fairies and gods have created the cosmos; a belief that, for the case, would direct us to the same structures of the philosophy of the Creation Science, theistic Evolutionism, etc.



In the same way, the intelligent design (ID) scheme suggests that the complexity of the Universe is the irrefutable evidence on favor of a special creation by an Intelligent Designer. Following their way of reasoning we can tell ID adherents that if the Universe reaches a high degree of complexity, then the Intelligent Designer would be forcibly more complex than the thing created by him (or them, as ID implies it). Consequently, the Intelligent Designer forcibly would have been created by a more complex Intelligent Designer, given that nothing complex can come to existence without the intervention of an Intelligent Designer; and so on... until the last (or the first?) Designer would be a being so complex than he could not come to mind. It would be an endless multiplication of superb beings more and more complex on every occurrence.



Concluding, the Creation Science and the Intelligent Designer thoughts are antiscientific schemes. Both proposals struggle against science and the structures of science. However, both disciplines do not make the grade because they reject the truth obtained from the natural world.

Antiscience

Speaking of indoctrinated!!! There is very little science involved in the TOE. I'm not talking about the genetics level stuff but Darwin's stupid theory that is totally baseless in science. There are no tested hypothesis. There is no agreed upon definition of fitness. There is no evidence for gradual change in the fossil record (hundreds of thousands of fossils and counting, a few so so examples at best of transitional fossils). Yet, the quacks call it science and you, Daws, fall for it. Not only that, but you fall for passages like you posted above, basically saying nothing but that some people question the science but we know the TOE is true because it is. Are you really falling for this stuff? The biggest joke is that one of their ICON's is the finch beak story. No proof whatsoever for that story or the conjecture about Giraffe necks but it they call it an Icon??? This makes me like at the mass ignorance that would fall for such fairy tales passed off as science.

 

[UltimateReality]

Hmm,no real response as usual.

right !since the clip is id and not science ,the only real response was a comment about how people shit loads of money on nonsense.
any one who has ever watched a sermon from a mega church feels the same.
that's the un indoctrinated of course

.

That was an evolutionist,thanks for showing you don't really look at the other side and just make ignorant comments.

Ha!! Daws caught again. This was a presentation at TED. If you would have watched it, you would have heard the speaker, a materialist disciple, waver in his Darwinist religion as he espoused the miraculous things going on in the cell.