Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Fail again, there's plenty of real evidence. The topic is creationism. I'd hardly be crowing about making statements without evidence, if that's what you believe.

Can a computer program itself ? Who or what could have programmed the brain ?

Was it an intelligent being that programmed the computer or an undirected unintelligent natural process ?

There are no natural processes that could possibly result in a computer. There are processes that can lead to more and more complex molecules and biological systems. I'm afraid your analogy doesn't hold water. Perhaps you should be reading the site below instead of answersgenesis.

Evolution of DNA

I read from both sides sites so I can keep up with what is going on. I am no longer involved in the fields of science,left it a while ago.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That argument is getting pretty tired YWC. Because humans have designed some things, everything must have been designed....it's not a very good argument at all. Or perhaps because humans have designed some complex things, all complex things must have been designed....still not a good argument.

Look at the big picture. Language like the genetic code comes from intelligence. There is no evidence of a language or programming that comes from a natural means.The rea argument as a tired because it is a logical argument. there is no logical argument for a language or something that needed programming in a natural means,only through intelligence.I am not gonna throw solid reasoning for illogical reasoning why do you ?

Are you saying languages developed unnaturally?

Languages were developed by intelligent thinking beings.

 

[UltimateReality]

FAIL! The article doesn't have anything to do with biotic evolution.

The only fail is your lack of understanding of basic grammar. No where in the statement above did I infer the article was about evolution. I said, unlike evolutionists, there are other area's of science where they don't make stuff up when they don't have any REAL evidence.

Fail again, there's plenty of real evidence. The topic is creationism. I'd hardly be crowing about making statements without evidence, if that's what you believe.

I'm still failing to see your point. So now cosmology isn't relevant to ID and Creationism??? I guess I was thinking you were staring as Captain Obvious when you said the article doesn't have anything to do with Biotic Evolution. The response above was my polite one. This is how I should have responded.... NO DUH!

 

[UltimateReality]

Fail again, there's plenty of real evidence. The topic is creationism. I'd hardly be crowing about making statements without evidence, if that's what you believe.

Can a computer program itself ? Who or what could have programmed the brain ?

Was it an intelligent being that programmed the computer or an undirected unintelligent natural process ?

That argument is getting pretty tired YWC. Because humans have designed some things, everything must have been designed....it's not a very good argument at all. Or perhaps because humans have designed some complex things, all complex things must have been designed....still not a good argument.

You still FAIL. ID doesn't propose anything you've stated above. I really think it is pointless for you to keep commenting on what ID theory is when you refuse to actually educate yourself. My response... a snowflake is complex, but once again you completely fail to grasp what the REAL theory is.

 

[UltimateReality]

this question has been answerd everytime you've claimed to ask it.

the answer to this question :"Point out the trait that can be proven it came about through the current mechanism for evolution then prove the trait never existed in the gene pool"

is right here: What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA Documentary) - YouTube

Don't be silly,the original question was a trait in humans. Oh and for your information you need to name the mutation since that is according to your theory is what causes the trait change then natural selection makes it become the norm in the gene pool. Now give me the
Name of the mutation and prove this trait didn't already exist in the gene pool. what is your answer ?

as always deny.
if you fast forward the clip to 1:31 :23 your question Will be answered.
but you won't simply because you really don't want an answer.

I watched the clip. I am very sensitive to assumptive language now that I refuse to no longer be brainwashed like the masses. Here are just a few of the assumptive phrases I heard "The answer MAY have come from a suprising source", "This STEADMAN BELIEVES is the key", "MIGHT HAVE BEEN", etc. All of their hypotheses start by already knowing the answer, which is a huge "no no" in science. Their unscientific belief that humans mutated into their current form drives the results of their beliefs. All of the evidence given after 1:31:23 could just as easily be used to prove something more believeable, something that we do have scientific evidence of, that is, destructive mutations. We can just as easily apply their reasoning and evidence to propose that apes and chimpanzees are the results of destructive mutations acting on Homo Sapiens. Once you open your mind from the blindness that is evolutionary theory you can start to see things in a different light. It is shocking to me that the show a child with a malformed brain, which is the result of a destructive gene. This child is from a Homo Sapien, but due to this destructive gene, his brain will never develop fully. Now these Einsteins use this measurable and scientifically verifiable piece evidence and, here comes the hat trick, they apply it BACKWARDS, stating this is evidence of how small brained primates MAY (noticed I said MAY) have evolved into Humans. Also please notice that they mention nothing of the fact current genetic vidence is shedding more and more light on the fact that there is actually more evidence to prove we didn't come from any of the known primate fossils. Notice that just sneakily infer that humans came from apes or chimpanzees, which isn't based in any modern science.

To borrow from DAWS "People believe in evolutionary theories because the truth "is either too simple or too remote"".

If I just look at the example of the disabled child in the video above without any pre-conceived evolutionary brainwashing, I could correctly conclude that Chimpanzee's must be the evolutionary result of a harmful mutation in humans.

From Wiki..

"Though many human fossils have been found, chimpanzee fossils were not described until 2005[No chimpanzee fossils described until 2005!!!! Wow, see what happens when scientists do their work with the myth of evolution in their heads!!!]. Existing chimpanzee populations in West and Central Africa do not overlap with the major human fossil sites in East Africa. However, chimpanzee fossils have now been reported from Kenya. This would indicate both humans and members of the Pan clade were present in the East African Rift Valley during the Middle Pleistocene.[7]"

Now it seems to me these scientists propose some interesting hypothesese that are testable!!! So we do the same dna experiment on the chimpanzee and find out which gene controls his brain growth. Then we fracture his skull (in a good way) to allow is brain to expand. This seems like a stupidly easy experiment to perform, especially based on how easy they make it look that a chimpanzee turned into a man in just a few easy mutations, you know, because we see this going on all the time in a population of 7 billion people. I'm going to start reading the Enquirer again so I make sure I don't miss the story with the headline "Strange Mutation Causes Child to Grow super Skull and Brain in remote part of Africa. With his super powerful brain is able to resolve the Nuclear Fusion problem so now we all have cheap, clean energy". Is it just me or are you guys so blind to the evolutionary brainwashing that this NOVA program doesn't make you laugh hysterically like it is a comedy with this dumbass scientists come up with this stuff. Are you hearing me?? They are basically inferring in the video that the leap from chimp to human is no longer such a huge mystery because it could have happened with only a few small isolated mutations. Are you guys for real??? Please DAWS, Montrevant, somebody please tell me you don't actually buy into this foolishness??? Maybe you've seen one too many sequels of X MEN!!!!

Finally, the video makes this classic evolutionary blunder which Cornelius so elegantly describes in his blog:

"First, they make the circular claim that “ape-human transitional fossils are discovered at an ever increasing rate.” That, of course, simply begs the question. Every freshman knows you cannot argue for the truth of a proposition by presupposing the proposition in the first place. Yes fossils are discovered. But if you are arguing that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, then you cannot begin with the evolutionary assumption that the fossils are “transitional.” Philosophers call this a “theory-laden” observation.

 

[UltimateReality]

Look at the big picture. Language like the genetic code comes from intelligence. There is no evidence of a language or programming that comes from a natural means.The rea argument as a tired because it is a logical argument. there is no logical argument for a language or something that needed programming in a natural means,only through intelligence.I am not gonna throw solid reasoning for illogical reasoning why do you ?

Are you saying languages developed unnaturally?

Languages were developed by intelligent thinking beings.

Actually, most modern studies are concluding the ability for language is programmed into your dna. The speed at which a child grasps their language, or any language for that matter is proving there are complex programs and processes already in place from the getgo. Their is absolutely no archaelogical or fossil evidence to the contrary.

 

[UltimateReality]

"If you are new to the evolution debate you might wonder why evolutionists do not simply acknowledge the painfully obvious fact that evolution is not a fact. It is not as sure gravity and in fact there are significant questions and problems with evolution. Why don’t evolutionists admit to the truth of how the science bears on their theory?

The answer is that evolution is not about the science. At issue here is not merely the status of another scientific theory. Evolutionists won’t be swayed by the evidence because doing so—and confessing that evolution is not overwhelmingly supported by the evidence—would immediately expose evolutionists to all kinds of possibilities which they simply cannot accept. An evolutionist can no more change his mind than could a cultist. Evolution is underwritten by a religious worldview—it is a metaphysical theory, not a scientific theory. As such it may lose every battle, but it cannot lose the war."

Darwin's God: When I Pointed Out the Evolutionary Tree Has Failed Two Professors Gave Me Pushback

 

[Big Black Dog]

Creationists

I wish some creationist would go to the kitchen and create me a ham and cheese sammich.

 

[UltimateReality]

Creationists

I wish some creationist would go to the kitchen and create me a ham and cheese sammich.

Bravo!! That is the kind of intelligent response we've all come to know and love from the knuckle dragging evolutionists.

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."
- Amos Bronson Alcott (1799-1888) American educator

 

[UltimateReality]

Montrevant,

Description of debate very relevant to your assertions...

From "Evolution News and Views":

"Following Dr. Ayala's opening statement, Dr. Craig commenced his presentation by carefully setting out the definition of ID as the study of legitimate design inferences. Craig stipulated that, were Ayala to attempt to refute the inference to design with respect to biological systems, he would need to do one of two things. Either Ayala would need to directly challenge the legitimacy of the explanatory filter (presumably by demonstrating that it incorporates false positives) or demonstrate that the systems featured in biology do not meet the criteria of the explanatory filter. Setting aside the discussions pertaining to the tenability of universal common ancestry, Craig set about to argue that Ayala's attempts to disqualify ID on scientific grounds were doomed because he had failed to demonstrate, in his published work, that the dual forces of random mutation and natural selection, are causally sufficient to account for macroevolution. He also argued that Ayala's more numerous attempts to disqualify ID on theological grounds are completely irrelevant to the process of drawing a design inference from biological phenomena, because none of the arguments for ID aspire to show that the designer possesses the qualities of omnibenevolence or omnipotence. After all, Craig argued, a design inference is still warranted with respect to a medieval torture rack, regardless of the malevolent purposes of the system's design. Questions pertaining to the nature of the designer are for natural theology, not for the scientific research program of ID. This is what distinguishes the modern concept of ID from the Watchmaker argument of William Paley's Natural Theology.


Amazingly, Dr. Ayala completely avoided the arguments that had been presented and instead opted to construct his case against ID on theological grounds. This approach had a taint of irony, as the theologian attempted to focus the debate on science, while the scientist attempted to focus the debate on theology. Ayala's few scientific points, such as the claim that Behe used the eye as an example of an irreducibly complex system, significantly misconstrued the position of proponents of ID."

Typical Strawman!!!!

 

[Montrovant]

Can a computer program itself ? Who or what could have programmed the brain ?

Was it an intelligent being that programmed the computer or an undirected unintelligent natural process ?

That argument is getting pretty tired YWC. Because humans have designed some things, everything must have been designed....it's not a very good argument at all. Or perhaps because humans have designed some complex things, all complex things must have been designed....still not a good argument.

You still FAIL. ID doesn't propose anything you've stated above. I really think it is pointless for you to keep commenting on what ID theory is when you refuse to actually educate yourself. My response... a snowflake is complex, but once again you completely fail to grasp what the REAL theory is.

The fail here is yours.

As should have been clear from the post I quoted, I wasn't commenting on ID theory but on YWC's statements. I'm not sure how you didn't see that unless you don't bother to read quoted posts.

You seem to be allowing your opinion of my grasp of ID theory to color your reading of all my posts, whether they concern ID or not.

 

[Montrovant]

Montrevant,

Description of debate very relevant to your assertions...

From "Evolution News and Views":

"Following Dr. Ayala's opening statement, Dr. Craig commenced his presentation by carefully setting out the definition of ID as the study of legitimate design inferences. Craig stipulated that, were Ayala to attempt to refute the inference to design with respect to biological systems, he would need to do one of two things. Either Ayala would need to directly challenge the legitimacy of the explanatory filter (presumably by demonstrating that it incorporates false positives) or demonstrate that the systems featured in biology do not meet the criteria of the explanatory filter. Setting aside the discussions pertaining to the tenability of universal common ancestry, Craig set about to argue that Ayala's attempts to disqualify ID on scientific grounds were doomed because he had failed to demonstrate, in his published work, that the dual forces of random mutation and natural selection, are causally sufficient to account for macroevolution. He also argued that Ayala's more numerous attempts to disqualify ID on theological grounds are completely irrelevant to the process of drawing a design inference from biological phenomena, because none of the arguments for ID aspire to show that the designer possesses the qualities of omnibenevolence or omnipotence. After all, Craig argued, a design inference is still warranted with respect to a medieval torture rack, regardless of the malevolent purposes of the system's design. Questions pertaining to the nature of the designer are for natural theology, not for the scientific research program of ID. This is what distinguishes the modern concept of ID from the Watchmaker argument of William Paley's Natural Theology.


Amazingly, Dr. Ayala completely avoided the arguments that had been presented and instead opted to construct his case against ID on theological grounds. This approach had a taint of irony, as the theologian attempted to focus the debate on science, while the scientist attempted to focus the debate on theology. Ayala's few scientific points, such as the claim that Behe used the eye as an example of an irreducibly complex system, significantly misconstrued the position of proponents of ID."

Typical Strawman!!!!

I don't know this Dr. Ayala and certainly haven't claimed to accept any of his/her conclusions about anything.

So, that said, I think the relevant part of what you just posted is the idea of the 'legitimacy of the explanatory filter'. My issue with ID as science is that I have not seen what I consider a legitimate test or filter or meter, etc. to determine if something was created through intelligence. The excerpt you provided does not give the method to determine intelligence used, nor does it provide any of the Dr. Ayala's comments so one might know if the Dr. was unwilling or unable to reasonably question said method, nor does it even tell us what kind of Dr. this Ayala is or why he/she should be able to argue against ID with any authority. Even if Ayala failed utterly to discredit ID it does not provide legitimacy to it as a valid science.

If you can provide a (relatively) simple explanation of the method used to determine if something was designed by intelligence, I'd appreciate it. Being able to make such a determination seems to be the most important, perhaps the only, part of ID 'science'.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Don't be silly,the original question was a trait in humans. Oh and for your information you need to name the mutation since that is according to your theory is what causes the trait change then natural selection makes it become the norm in the gene pool. Now give me the
Name of the mutation and prove this trait didn't already exist in the gene pool. what is your answer ?

as always deny.
if you fast forward the clip to 1:31 :23 your question Will be answered.
but you won't simply because you really don't want an answer.

I watched the clip. I am very sensitive to assumptive language now that I refuse to no longer be brainwashed like the masses. Here are just a few of the assumptive phrases I heard "The answer MAY have come from a suprising source", "This STEADMAN BELIEVES is the key", "MIGHT HAVE BEEN", etc. All of their hypotheses start by already knowing the answer, which is a huge "no no" in science. Their unscientific belief that humans mutated into their current form drives the results of their beliefs. All of the evidence given after 1:31:23 could just as easily be used to prove something more believeable, something that we do have scientific evidence of, that is, destructive mutations. We can just as easily apply their reasoning and evidence to propose that apes and chimpanzees are the results of destructive mutations acting on Homo Sapiens. Once you open your mind from the blindness that is evolutionary theory you can start to see things in a different light. It is shocking to me that the show a child with a malformed brain, which is the result of a destructive gene. This child is from a Homo Sapien, but due to this destructive gene, his brain will never develop fully. Now these Einsteins use this measurable and scientifically verifiable piece evidence and, here comes the hat trick, they apply it BACKWARDS, stating this is evidence of how small brained primates MAY (noticed I said MAY) have evolved into Humans. Also please notice that they mention nothing of the fact current genetic vidence is shedding more and more light on the fact that there is actually more evidence to prove we didn't come from any of the known primate fossils. Notice that just sneakily infer that humans came from apes or chimpanzees, which isn't based in any modern science.

To borrow from DAWS "People believe in evolutionary theories because the truth "is either too simple or too remote"".

If I just look at the example of the disabled child in the video above without any pre-conceived evolutionary brainwashing, I could correctly conclude that Chimpanzee's must be the evolutionary result of a harmful mutation in humans.

From Wiki..

"Though many human fossils have been found, chimpanzee fossils were not described until 2005[No chimpanzee fossils described until 2005!!!! Wow, see what happens when scientists do their work with the myth of evolution in their heads!!!]. Existing chimpanzee populations in West and Central Africa do not overlap with the major human fossil sites in East Africa. However, chimpanzee fossils have now been reported from Kenya. This would indicate both humans and members of the Pan clade were present in the East African Rift Valley during the Middle Pleistocene.[7]"

Now it seems to me these scientists propose some interesting hypothesese that are testable!!! So we do the same dna experiment on the chimpanzee and find out which gene controls his brain growth. Then we fracture his skull (in a good way) to allow is brain to expand. This seems like a stupidly easy experiment to perform, especially based on how easy they make it look that a chimpanzee turned into a man in just a few easy mutations, you know, because we see this going on all the time in a population of 7 billion people. I'm going to start reading the Enquirer again so I make sure I don't miss the story with the headline "Strange Mutation Causes Child to Grow super Skull and Brain in remote part of Africa. With his super powerful brain is able to resolve the Nuclear Fusion problem so now we all have cheap, clean energy". Is it just me or are you guys so blind to the evolutionary brainwashing that this NOVA program doesn't make you laugh hysterically like it is a comedy with this dumbass scientists come up with this stuff. Are you hearing me?? They are basically inferring in the video that the leap from chimp to human is no longer such a huge mystery because it could have happened with only a few small isolated mutations. Are you guys for real??? Please DAWS, Montrevant, somebody please tell me you don't actually buy into this foolishness??? Maybe you've seen one too many sequels of X MEN!!!!

Finally, the video makes this classic evolutionary blunder which Cornelius so elegantly describes in his blog:

"First, they make the circular claim that “ape-human transitional fossils are discovered at an ever increasing rate.” That, of course, simply begs the question. Every freshman knows you cannot argue for the truth of a proposition by presupposing the proposition in the first place. Yes fossils are discovered. But if you are arguing that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, then you cannot begin with the evolutionary assumption that the fossils are “transitional.” Philosophers call this a “theory-laden” observation.

I pointed this out earlier,but a mutation to cause evolutionary change must become the norm in the population. He only thought the video answered the question.

 

[UltimateReality]

Montrevant,

Description of debate very relevant to your assertions...

From "Evolution News and Views":

"Following Dr. Ayala's opening statement, Dr. Craig commenced his presentation by carefully setting out the definition of ID as the study of legitimate design inferences. Craig stipulated that, were Ayala to attempt to refute the inference to design with respect to biological systems, he would need to do one of two things. Either Ayala would need to directly challenge the legitimacy of the explanatory filter (presumably by demonstrating that it incorporates false positives) or demonstrate that the systems featured in biology do not meet the criteria of the explanatory filter. Setting aside the discussions pertaining to the tenability of universal common ancestry, Craig set about to argue that Ayala's attempts to disqualify ID on scientific grounds were doomed because he had failed to demonstrate, in his published work, that the dual forces of random mutation and natural selection, are causally sufficient to account for macroevolution. He also argued that Ayala's more numerous attempts to disqualify ID on theological grounds are completely irrelevant to the process of drawing a design inference from biological phenomena, because none of the arguments for ID aspire to show that the designer possesses the qualities of omnibenevolence or omnipotence. After all, Craig argued, a design inference is still warranted with respect to a medieval torture rack, regardless of the malevolent purposes of the system's design. Questions pertaining to the nature of the designer are for natural theology, not for the scientific research program of ID. This is what distinguishes the modern concept of ID from the Watchmaker argument of William Paley's Natural Theology.


Amazingly, Dr. Ayala completely avoided the arguments that had been presented and instead opted to construct his case against ID on theological grounds. This approach had a taint of irony, as the theologian attempted to focus the debate on science, while the scientist attempted to focus the debate on theology. Ayala's few scientific points, such as the claim that Behe used the eye as an example of an irreducibly complex system, significantly misconstrued the position of proponents of ID."

Typical Strawman!!!!

I don't know this Dr. Ayala and certainly haven't claimed to accept any of his/her conclusions about anything.

So, that said, I think the relevant part of what you just posted is the idea of the 'legitimacy of the explanatory filter'. My issue with ID as science is that I have not seen what I consider a legitimate test or filter or meter, etc. to determine if something was created through intelligence. The excerpt you provided does not give the method to determine intelligence used, nor does it provide any of the Dr. Ayala's comments so one might know if the Dr. was unwilling or unable to reasonably question said method, nor does it even tell us what kind of Dr. this Ayala is or why he/she should be able to argue against ID with any authority. Even if Ayala failed utterly to discredit ID it does not provide legitimacy to it as a valid science.

If you can provide a (relatively) simple explanation of the method used to determine if something was designed by intelligence, I'd appreciate it. Being able to make such a determination seems to be the most important, perhaps the only, part of ID 'science'.

It was contained in the Meyer video you FAILed to watch.

 

[konradv]

Are you saying languages developed unnaturally?

Languages were developed by intelligent thinking beings.

Actually, most modern studies are concluding the ability for language is programmed into your dna. The speed at which a child grasps their language, or any language for that matter is proving there are complex programs and processes already in place from the getgo. Their is absolutely no archaelogical or fossil evidence to the contrary.

No, it's proof that a baby's brain is busily making connections, while in adults not so much. You're looking for the proof in the wrong places.

 

[konradv]

The only fail is your lack of understanding of basic grammar. No where in the statement above did I infer the article was about evolution. I said, unlike evolutionists, there are other area's of science where they don't make stuff up when they don't have any REAL evidence.

Fail again, there's plenty of real evidence. The topic is creationism. I'd hardly be crowing about making statements without evidence, if that's what you believe.

I'm still failing to see your point. So now cosmology isn't relevant to ID and Creationism??? I guess I was thinking you were staring as Captain Obvious when you said the article doesn't have anything to do with Biotic Evolution. The response above was my polite one. This is how I should have responded.... NO DUH!

It doesn't, if you're positing biotic creationism on earth. One doesn't have anything to do with the other. As for ID it's an unprovable theory with no evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Fail again, there's plenty of real evidence. The topic is creationism. I'd hardly be crowing about making statements without evidence, if that's what you believe.

I'm still failing to see your point. So now cosmology isn't relevant to ID and Creationism??? I guess I was thinking you were staring as Captain Obvious when you said the article doesn't have anything to do with Biotic Evolution. The response above was my polite one. This is how I should have responded.... NO DUH!

It doesn't, if you're positing biotic creationism on earth. One doesn't have anything to do with the other. As for ID it's an unprovable theory with no evidence.

No scientific theory is provable. we are arguing opinions that is it which theory better fits the evidence ?

I would bet undirected chaos would remain in chaos and could not produce the order that we can see.

 

[Montrovant]

Montrevant,

Description of debate very relevant to your assertions...

From "Evolution News and Views":

"Following Dr. Ayala's opening statement, Dr. Craig commenced his presentation by carefully setting out the definition of ID as the study of legitimate design inferences. Craig stipulated that, were Ayala to attempt to refute the inference to design with respect to biological systems, he would need to do one of two things. Either Ayala would need to directly challenge the legitimacy of the explanatory filter (presumably by demonstrating that it incorporates false positives) or demonstrate that the systems featured in biology do not meet the criteria of the explanatory filter. Setting aside the discussions pertaining to the tenability of universal common ancestry, Craig set about to argue that Ayala's attempts to disqualify ID on scientific grounds were doomed because he had failed to demonstrate, in his published work, that the dual forces of random mutation and natural selection, are causally sufficient to account for macroevolution. He also argued that Ayala's more numerous attempts to disqualify ID on theological grounds are completely irrelevant to the process of drawing a design inference from biological phenomena, because none of the arguments for ID aspire to show that the designer possesses the qualities of omnibenevolence or omnipotence. After all, Craig argued, a design inference is still warranted with respect to a medieval torture rack, regardless of the malevolent purposes of the system's design. Questions pertaining to the nature of the designer are for natural theology, not for the scientific research program of ID. This is what distinguishes the modern concept of ID from the Watchmaker argument of William Paley's Natural Theology.


Amazingly, Dr. Ayala completely avoided the arguments that had been presented and instead opted to construct his case against ID on theological grounds. This approach had a taint of irony, as the theologian attempted to focus the debate on science, while the scientist attempted to focus the debate on theology. Ayala's few scientific points, such as the claim that Behe used the eye as an example of an irreducibly complex system, significantly misconstrued the position of proponents of ID."

Typical Strawman!!!!

I don't know this Dr. Ayala and certainly haven't claimed to accept any of his/her conclusions about anything.

So, that said, I think the relevant part of what you just posted is the idea of the 'legitimacy of the explanatory filter'. My issue with ID as science is that I have not seen what I consider a legitimate test or filter or meter, etc. to determine if something was created through intelligence. The excerpt you provided does not give the method to determine intelligence used, nor does it provide any of the Dr. Ayala's comments so one might know if the Dr. was unwilling or unable to reasonably question said method, nor does it even tell us what kind of Dr. this Ayala is or why he/she should be able to argue against ID with any authority. Even if Ayala failed utterly to discredit ID it does not provide legitimacy to it as a valid science.

If you can provide a (relatively) simple explanation of the method used to determine if something was designed by intelligence, I'd appreciate it. Being able to make such a determination seems to be the most important, perhaps the only, part of ID 'science'.

It was contained in the Meyer video you FAILed to watch.

And, what, you are unable or unwilling to post a short description? You are only going to post youtube videos more than an hour long and then complain when people don't watch them?

Have fun with that. I'm sure you'll convince many people of the veracity of your belief.

 

[daws101]

as always deny.
if you fast forward the clip to 1:31 :23 your question Will be answered.
but you won't simply because you really don't want an answer.

I watched the clip. I am very sensitive to assumptive language now that I refuse to no longer be brainwashed like the masses. Here are just a few of the assumptive phrases I heard "The answer MAY have come from a suprising source", "This STEADMAN BELIEVES is the key", "MIGHT HAVE BEEN", etc. All of their hypotheses start by already knowing the answer, which is a huge "no no" in science. Their unscientific belief that humans mutated into their current form drives the results of their beliefs. All of the evidence given after 1:31:23 could just as easily be used to prove something more believeable, something that we do have scientific evidence of, that is, destructive mutations. We can just as easily apply their reasoning and evidence to propose that apes and chimpanzees are the results of destructive mutations acting on Homo Sapiens. Once you open your mind from the blindness that is evolutionary theory you can start to see things in a different light. It is shocking to me that the show a child with a malformed brain, which is the result of a destructive gene. This child is from a Homo Sapien, but due to this destructive gene, his brain will never develop fully. Now these Einsteins use this measurable and scientifically verifiable piece evidence and, here comes the hat trick, they apply it BACKWARDS, stating this is evidence of how small brained primates MAY (noticed I said MAY) have evolved into Humans. Also please notice that they mention nothing of the fact current genetic vidence is shedding more and more light on the fact that there is actually more evidence to prove we didn't come from any of the known primate fossils. Notice that just sneakily infer that humans came from apes or chimpanzees, which isn't based in any modern science.

To borrow from DAWS "People believe in evolutionary theories because the truth "is either too simple or too remote"".

If I just look at the example of the disabled child in the video above without any pre-conceived evolutionary brainwashing, I could correctly conclude that Chimpanzee's must be the evolutionary result of a harmful mutation in humans.

From Wiki..

"Though many human fossils have been found, chimpanzee fossils were not described until 2005[No chimpanzee fossils described until 2005!!!! Wow, see what happens when scientists do their work with the myth of evolution in their heads!!!]. Existing chimpanzee populations in West and Central Africa do not overlap with the major human fossil sites in East Africa. However, chimpanzee fossils have now been reported from Kenya. This would indicate both humans and members of the Pan clade were present in the East African Rift Valley during the Middle Pleistocene.[7]"

Now it seems to me these scientists propose some interesting hypothesese that are testable!!! So we do the same dna experiment on the chimpanzee and find out which gene controls his brain growth. Then we fracture his skull (in a good way) to allow is brain to expand. This seems like a stupidly easy experiment to perform, especially based on how easy they make it look that a chimpanzee turned into a man in just a few easy mutations, you know, because we see this going on all the time in a population of 7 billion people. I'm going to start reading the Enquirer again so I make sure I don't miss the story with the headline "Strange Mutation Causes Child to Grow super Skull and Brain in remote part of Africa. With his super powerful brain is able to resolve the Nuclear Fusion problem so now we all have cheap, clean energy". Is it just me or are you guys so blind to the evolutionary brainwashing that this NOVA program doesn't make you laugh hysterically like it is a comedy with this dumbass scientists come up with this stuff. Are you hearing me?? They are basically inferring in the video that the leap from chimp to human is no longer such a huge mystery because it could have happened with only a few small isolated mutations. Are you guys for real??? Please DAWS, Montrevant, somebody please tell me you don't actually buy into this foolishness??? Maybe you've seen one too many sequels of X MEN!!!!

Finally, the video makes this classic evolutionary blunder which Cornelius so elegantly describes in his blog:

"First, they make the circular claim that “ape-human transitional fossils are discovered at an ever increasing rate.” That, of course, simply begs the question. Every freshman knows you cannot argue for the truth of a proposition by presupposing the proposition in the first place. Yes fossils are discovered. But if you are arguing that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, then you cannot begin with the evolutionary assumption that the fossils are “transitional.” Philosophers call this a “theory-laden” observation.

I pointed this out earlier,but a mutation to cause evolutionary change must become the norm in the population. He only thought the video answered the question.

obviously you did not watch the clip .
the mutation found is in every human on earth and is the norm!

 

[daws101]

Don't be silly,the original question was a trait in humans. Oh and for your information you need to name the mutation since that is according to your theory is what causes the trait change then natural selection makes it become the norm in the gene pool. Now give me the
Name of the mutation and prove this trait didn't already exist in the gene pool. what is your answer ?

as always deny.
if you fast forward the clip to 1:31 :23 your question Will be answered.
but you won't simply because you really don't want an answer.

I watched the clip.

edited for massive rationalization...



From Wiki..

"Though many human fossils have been found, chimpanzee fossils were not described until 2005[No chimpanzee fossils described until 2005!!!! Wow, see what happens when scientists do their work with the myth of evolution in their heads!!!]. Existing chimpanzee populations in West and Central Africa do not overlap with the major human fossil sites in East Africa. However, chimpanzee fossils have now been reported from Kenya. This would indicate both humans and members of the Pan clade were present in the East African Rift Valley during the Middle Pleistocene.[7]"

link?