DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[CDF47]

If you truly have then you wouldn't think he sucks.  He wins every debate he is in hands down.

I have and he loses on facts every time

No way.  He crushes it every time out, hands down easy victories.

---

At work.

If you truly have then you wouldn't think he sucks.  He wins every debate he is in hands down.

Hahahaha! That needs the James Johnah Jameson gif to accompany the laughter for that post.

Please, oh dispenser of wisdom, offer up some Googltube links that we may partake of Mr Meyer or Mr Dembski's amazing wisdom.

If you are going to watch videos start with the videos in my signature.  Then watch "Expelled" on Youtube.  Then search Youtube for Dr. Stephen C. Meyer debates.

[Amarok]

No way.  He crushes it every time out, hands down easy victories.

Nope you must be watching another debate

---

If you are going to watch videos start with the videos in my signature.  Then watch "Expelled" on Youtube.  Then search Youtube for Dr. Stephen C. Meyer debates

And then ready the barf bag

[Gwaithmir]

If you are going to watch videos start with the videos in my signature.  Then watch "Expelled" on Youtube.  Then search Youtube for Dr. Stephen C. Meyer debates.

Yeah, and then read the follow-up article in THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. Be sure to follow the links.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...u-to-know/

[Angrboda]

If you are going to watch videos start with the videos in my signature.  Then watch "Expelled" on Youtube.  Then search Youtube for Dr. Stephen C. Meyer debates.

"Expelled" Ahahaha! You really are an amateur.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

If you are going to watch videos start with the videos in my signature.  Then watch "Expelled" on Youtube.  Then search Youtube for Dr. Stephen C. Meyer debates.

Yeah, and then read the follow-up article in THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. Be sure to follow the links.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...u-to-know/

I like Scientific American, but whoever wrote that didn't do a very good job.  Point #4 might have something to it, but the others are either irrelevant or don't appear to be completely accurate.  For example, we know Darwin's work impacted the Holocaust, even though it was indirectly and not all the ideas were applied. I think it would be fair the say it was an "awful misinterpretation", but it just shows how information can be used an abused.  As far as the scientists thinking they were filming for a different movie, I don't see why it would matter.  If they say something they believe for one movie, why wouldn't those same statements be just as valid in something else?  Unless it was assume they were supposed to be saying something they didn't believe, but did it for a fictional piece.  The members in the auditorium are highly irrelevant. Even if every one of them was intentional, evaluation would be on what was being stated, and not the crowd, especially if it's in a video.  The last two points are neither here nor there.  No religion, including atheism, is a prerequisite to scientific study and the adherence to any of them doesn't require an interest in science.

[Amarok]

  For example, we know Darwin's work impacted the Holocaust, even though it was indirectly and not all the ideas were applied. I think it would be fair the say it was an "awful misinterpretation", but it just shows how information can be used an abused. 

Nope Darwin nowhere even suggested what the Nazi did if you want the basis for Nazism's social Darwinism you will have look too Herbert Spencer who clearly got his more inspiration from Larmarck then Darwin and Hitler didn't even accept evolution he believed in created kinds and Darwin rejected Social Darwinism

Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been what he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They've occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey — assuming that this transformation really took place.[5]

This urge for the maintenance of the unmixed breed, which is a phenomenon that prevails throughout the whole of the natural world, results not only in the sharply defined outward distinction between one species and another but also in the internal similarity of characteristic qualities which are peculiar to each breed or species. The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed.[6]

 As far as the scientists thinking they were filming for a different movie, I don't see why it would matter.  If they say something they believe for one movie, why wouldn't those same statements be just as valid in something else? Unless it was assume they were supposed to be saying something they didn't believe, but did it for a fictional piece.  The  members in the auditorium are highly irrelevant. Even if every one of them was intentional, evaluation would be on what was being stated, and not the crowd, especially if it's in a video.

They lied to the people their interviewing and asked them deceptive questions and edited their answers you clearly have no clue what your talking about 

  The last two points are neither here nor there.  No religion, including atheism, is a prerequisite to scientific study and the adherence to any of them doesn't require an interest in science.

Atheism isn't a religion and Intelligent design is religion with a science veneer

[CDF47]

Wrong, I learned a great deal from listening to him speak.

---

I have heard it summarized.  I never read the book.

---

No, actually I believe we landed on the moon. I believe in real conspiracies like CIA MK Ultra, FBI Cointelpro,...

---

He has biologists and geneticists on his team.

---

No, I have a Bachelors of Science in Mechanical Engineering.  I would go back to get a Masters but I am on disability now after 15 years in the field and 5 years at the university.

---

LOL

Still bullshitting.  Well, I suppose everybody needs a hobby, Mr Inquisition.

No bullshit!

[Amarok]

Still bullshitting.  Well, I suppose everybody needs a hobby, Mr Inquisition.

No bullshit!

You have done nothing but

[T0 Th3 M4X]

  For example, we know Darwin's work impacted the Holocaust, even though it was indirectly and not all the ideas were applied. I think it would be fair the say it was an "awful misinterpretation", but it just shows how information can be used an abused. 

Nope Darwin nowhere even suggested what the Nazi did if you want the basis for Nazism's social Darwinism   you will have look too Herbert Spencer  who clearly got his more inspiration from Larmarck  then Darwin and Hitler didn't even accept evolution he believed in created kinds and Darwin rejected Social Darwinism

Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been what he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They've occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey — assuming that this transformation really took place.[5]

This urge for the maintenance of the unmixed breed, which is a phenomenon that prevails throughout the whole of the natural world, results not only in the sharply defined outward distinction between one species and another but also in the internal similarity of characteristic qualities which are peculiar to each breed or species. The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed.[6]

 As far as the scientists thinking they were filming for a different movie, I don't see why it would matter.  If they say something they believe for one movie, why wouldn't those same statements be just as valid in something else? Unless it was assume they were supposed to be saying something they didn't believe, but did it for a fictional piece.  The  members in the auditorium are highly irrelevant. Even if every one of them was intentional, evaluation would be on what was being stated, and not the crowd, especially if it's in a video.

They lied to the people their interviewing and asked them deceptive questions and edited their answers you clearly have no clue what your talking about 

  The last two points are neither here nor there.  No religion, including atheism, is a prerequisite to scientific study and the adherence to any of them doesn't require an interest in science.

Atheism isn't a religion and Intelligent design is religion with a science veneer

Atheism is a religion in the United States.  If you live somewhere else, you may not refer to it as such.  Of course it was the atheist that demanded it, and wanted religious protections.  Throw in the atheist mega churches, hymns, and whatever else and "practicing atheism" is a full blown religion.  If you beg for it and get it, you should own it.  The rest also apparently went over your head.  Darwin impacted it indirectly because the concepts were misinterpreted and applied in a different manner, but it was clearly a driving force due to the ideology.  I don't think it would be fair for anybody to blame Darwin, no more than saying television makes someone kill someone, but we can still pick up ideas from such things.

[downbeatplumb]

Atheism is a religion in the United States.  If you live somewhere else, you may not refer to it as such.  Of course it was the atheist that demanded it, and wanted religious protections.  Throw in the atheist mega churches, hymns, and whatever else and "practicing atheism" is a full blown religion.  If you beg for it and get it, you should own it.  The rest also apparently went over your head.  Darwin impacted it indirectly because the concepts were misinterpreted and applied in a different manner, but it was clearly a driving force due to the ideology.  I don't think it would be fair for anybody to blame Darwin, no more than saying television makes someone kill someone, but we can still pick up ideas from such things.

What part of atheism is the religion?

I can see how using religious laws to protect our lack of belief is smart but then companies in the US  legally  have the same rights as people, do you think companies are people?