Creationists

[UltimateReality]

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

We are talking about two different videos. The context of your statement seemed to be referring to the cell movie.

 

[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

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.

Show me the population studies, beak measurement data, and observation of food or water gathering habits that support the scientific method to claim the Galapagos finch as an ICON of EVOLUTION. Not the religious dogma that it really is.

 

[daws101]

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.

haven'nt watched that one yet...
but I think your reading in to it ....
as in there's nothing to admit. more likely it's your fevered obsession trying to force square pegs into round holes.

 

[daws101]

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.

it's not what pesuedoscience you've presented.
it's all you've presented is pesuedoscience.
as to the second part no you have not!

 

[daws101]

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.

you really do have comprehension problems
it's fairly obvious that this was the clip I was referring too :

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLd_cPfysrE]Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube[/ame]

asshat

 

[daws101]

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

We are talking about two different videos. The context of your statement seemed to be referring to the cell movie.

wrong! [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLd_cPfysrE]Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube[/ame]

you guys are so busy rationalizing that you can't keep your shit straight

 

[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

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.

As a pejorative term indoctrination implies forcibly or coercively causing people to act and think on the basis of a certain ideology.[3] Some secular critics[who?] maintain that all religions indoctrinate their adherents, as children, and the accusation is made in the case of religious extremism. Sects such as Scientology use personality tests and peer pressures to indoctrinate new members.[4] Some religions have commitment ceremonies for children 13 years and younger, such as Bar Mitzvah, Confirmation, and Shichi-Go-San. In Buddhism Temple boys are encouraged to follow the faith while still very young.[citation needed] Critics of religion, such as Richard Dawkins, maintain that the children of religious parents are often unfairly indoctrinated.[5] The process of subjecting children to complex initiation rituals before they are able to critically assess the event is seen by Dawkins and other critics of religion as cruel

evolution is never taught that way, the information is presented and the students decided for themselves, unlike religion where the the believe this or you're going to hell rule applies.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

it's not what pesuedoscience you've presented.
it's all you've presented is pesuedoscience.
as to the second part no you have not!

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

you really do have comprehension problems
it's fairly obvious that this was the clip I was referring too :

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLd_cPfysrE]Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube[/ame]

asshat

Asshat, you quoted me saying drew was an evolutionist. That is when you went to get the credentials of the man from Texas am which we knew he was an ID proponent. you can't keep up with the conversation daws ? Do you need us to slow down ? I know what you are trying to do,you are trying to spend out of your failure to comprehend our conversation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

We are talking about two different videos. The context of your statement seemed to be referring to the cell movie.

wrong! [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLd_cPfysrE]Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube[/ame]

you guys are so busy rationalizing that you can't keep your shit straight

You are quoting us and responding to our comments genius.

 

[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

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.

As a pejorative term indoctrination implies forcibly or coercively causing people to act and think on the basis of a certain ideology.[3] Some secular critics[who?] maintain that all religions indoctrinate their adherents, as children, and the accusation is made in the case of religious extremism. Sects such as Scientology use personality tests and peer pressures to indoctrinate new members.[4] Some religions have commitment ceremonies for children 13 years and younger, such as Bar Mitzvah, Confirmation, and Shichi-Go-San. In Buddhism Temple boys are encouraged to follow the faith while still very young.[citation needed] Critics of religion, such as Richard Dawkins, maintain that the children of religious parents are often unfairly indoctrinated.[5] The process of subjecting children to complex initiation rituals before they are able to critically assess the event is seen by Dawkins and other critics of religion as cruel

evolution is never taught that way, the information is presented and the students decided for themselves, unlike religion where the the believe this or you're going to hell rule applies.

What do you think the theory of evolution is ? It is forced on children as a fact.

 

[Hollie]

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

We are talking about two different videos. The context of your statement seemed to be referring to the cell movie.

wrong!

you guys are so busy rationalizing that you can't keep your shit straight

You’re not paying attention. There were comments directed to two different videos. Both of those videos carry the same message wherein flailing attempts are made to discredit science with the same irrational, illogical and false conclusion: “the gods did it”.

These silly “canned” videos you and the other creationist post are not just similar in their false claims and manufactured conclusions, they are identical.

What is always missing with the creationist ministry claims is even a middling adherence to some very basic principles. Firstly, creationists are never able or willing to establish a solid theory for the idea of something outside of the "natural" realm, i.e., the "supernatural". Secondly, creationists are never able or willing to establish a theory that relies on established mechanisms and shows a correlation to those mechanisms.

The creationist religious claims are always lacking even the most basic of proofs.

 

[daws101]

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.

As a pejorative term indoctrination implies forcibly or coercively causing people to act and think on the basis of a certain ideology.[3] Some secular critics[who?] maintain that all religions indoctrinate their adherents, as children, and the accusation is made in the case of religious extremism. Sects such as Scientology use personality tests and peer pressures to indoctrinate new members.[4] Some religions have commitment ceremonies for children 13 years and younger, such as Bar Mitzvah, Confirmation, and Shichi-Go-San. In Buddhism Temple boys are encouraged to follow the faith while still very young.[citation needed] Critics of religion, such as Richard Dawkins, maintain that the children of religious parents are often unfairly indoctrinated.[5] The process of subjecting children to complex initiation rituals before they are able to critically assess the event is seen by Dawkins and other critics of religion as cruel

evolution is never taught that way, the information is presented and the students decided for themselves, unlike religion where the the believe this or you're going to hell rule applies.

What do you think the theory of evolution is ? It is forced on children as a fact.

no it's not, it's taught like every other subject .
only in you twisted pov would it be forced.
religion has always been forced.
so my satement stands
show me proof .

 

[Hollie]

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.

As a pejorative term indoctrination implies forcibly or coercively causing people to act and think on the basis of a certain ideology.[3] Some secular critics[who?] maintain that all religions indoctrinate their adherents, as children, and the accusation is made in the case of religious extremism. Sects such as Scientology use personality tests and peer pressures to indoctrinate new members.[4] Some religions have commitment ceremonies for children 13 years and younger, such as Bar Mitzvah, Confirmation, and Shichi-Go-San. In Buddhism Temple boys are encouraged to follow the faith while still very young.[citation needed] Critics of religion, such as Richard Dawkins, maintain that the children of religious parents are often unfairly indoctrinated.[5] The process of subjecting children to complex initiation rituals before they are able to critically assess the event is seen by Dawkins and other critics of religion as cruel

evolution is never taught that way, the information is presented and the students decided for themselves, unlike religion where the the believe this or you're going to hell rule applies.

What do you think the theory of evolution is ? It is forced on children as a fact.

Yet another nonsense claim. The theory and fact of evolutionary science is not forced on anyone.

You discredit yourself with such foolishness.

 

[Youwerecreated]

As a pejorative term indoctrination implies forcibly or coercively causing people to act and think on the basis of a certain ideology.[3] Some secular critics[who?] maintain that all religions indoctrinate their adherents, as children, and the accusation is made in the case of religious extremism. Sects such as Scientology use personality tests and peer pressures to indoctrinate new members.[4] Some religions have commitment ceremonies for children 13 years and younger, such as Bar Mitzvah, Confirmation, and Shichi-Go-San. In Buddhism Temple boys are encouraged to follow the faith while still very young.[citation needed] Critics of religion, such as Richard Dawkins, maintain that the children of religious parents are often unfairly indoctrinated.[5] The process of subjecting children to complex initiation rituals before they are able to critically assess the event is seen by Dawkins and other critics of religion as cruel

evolution is never taught that way, the information is presented and the students decided for themselves, unlike religion where the the believe this or you're going to hell rule applies.

What do you think the theory of evolution is ? It is forced on children as a fact.

no it's not it's taught like every other subject .
only in you twisted pov would it be forced.
religion has always been forced.
so my satement stands
show me proof .

Daws are you gonna deny in front of everyone reading this thread that macroevolution is both theory and a fact according to evolutionist ? Kids don't know any better and are influenced in believing this nonsense.

They don't know theory from fact the way most teachers teach the theory. You yourself said that evolution is a fact.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

[daws101]

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.

you really do have comprehension problems
it's fairly obvious that this was the clip I was referring too :

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLd_cPfysrE]Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube[/ame]

asshat

Asshat, you quoted me saying drew was an evolutionist. That is when you went to get the credentials of the man from Texas am which we knew he was an ID proponent. you can't keep up with the conversation daws ? Do you need us to slow down ? I know what you are trying to do,you are trying to spend out of your failure to comprehend our conversation.

now you're just makin shit up :see post# 6207

Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated
Quote: Originally Posted by daws101
Quote: Originally Posted by UltimateReality
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

this post was not directed at you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you really do have comprehension problems
it's fairly obvious that this was the clip I was referring too :

Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube

asshat

Asshat, you quoted me saying drew was an evolutionist. That is when you went to get the credentials of the man from Texas am which we knew he was an ID proponent. you can't keep up with the conversation daws ? Do you need us to slow down ? I know what you are trying to do,you are trying to spend out of your failure to comprehend our conversation.

now you're just makin shit up :see post# 6207

Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated
Quote: Originally Posted by daws101
Quote: Originally Posted by UltimateReality
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

this post was not directed at you.

Look, you quoted us when we were talking about the evolutionist video. We were not talking about the gentlemen speaking of the universe.

You can't spin your way out of this.

 

[Hollie]

What do you think the theory of evolution is ? It is forced on children as a fact.

no it's not it's taught like every other subject .
only in you twisted pov would it be forced.
religion has always been forced.
so my satement stands
show me proof .

Daws are you gonna deny in front of everyone reading this thread that macroevolution is both theory and a fact according to evolutionist ? Kids don't know any better and are influenced in believing this nonsense.

They don't know theory from fact the way most teachers teach the theory. You yourself said that evolution is a fact.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

I think you're as befuddled as usual. I posted this link previously.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

 

[daws101]

What do you think the theory of evolution is ? It is forced on children as a fact.

no it's not it's taught like every other subject .
only in you twisted pov would it be forced.
religion has always been forced.
so my satement stands
show me proof .

Daws are you gonna deny in front of everyone reading this thread that macroevolution is both theory and a fact according to evolutionist ? Kids don't know any better and are influenced in believing this nonsense.

They don't know theory from fact the way most teachers teach the theory. You yourself said that evolution is a fact.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

what the fuck are you babbling about now?
I could give a flying fuck who's reading what or where.

where do you see me denying anything?
seems like your desperately pulling imaginary shit out of your ass.
evolution for all practical purposes is fact.


kids are forced in to buying you fairytale...you using the word nonsense is ironic.

 

[daws101]

What do you think the theory of evolution is ? It is forced on children as a fact.

no it's not it's taught like every other subject .
only in you twisted pov would it be forced.
religion has always been forced.
so my satement stands
show me proof .

Daws are you gonna deny in front of everyone reading this thread that macroevolution is both theory and a fact according to evolutionist ? Kids don't know any better and are influenced in believing this nonsense.

They don't know theory from fact the way most teachers teach the theory. You yourself said that evolution is a fact.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Asshat, you quoted me saying drew was an evolutionist. That is when you went to get the credentials of the man from Texas am which we knew he was an ID proponent. you can't keep up with the conversation daws ? Do you need us to slow down ? I know what you are trying to do,you are trying to spend out of your failure to comprehend our conversation.

now you're just makin shit up :see post# 6207

Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated
Quote: Originally Posted by daws101
Quote: Originally Posted by UltimateReality
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

this post was not directed at you.

Look, you quoted us when we were talking about the evolutionist video. We were not talking about the gentlemen speaking of the universe.

You can't spin your way out of this.

not trying too.. you're just plain old wrong my comment was about the funding the guy's name you've conveniently forgotten gets it's not me who's trying to bullshit his way out of it ..and failing