26: Intelligent Design: Is it Real?


The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at AmazonThe URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.

The page begins below.

 

The following is a video I made regarding Intelligent Design:

(Use the lower left arrow.)

]

Here is a highly regarded theoretical physicist discussing how he doesn’t “believe” in intelligent design. Astoundingly, he uses the word “design” numerous times in his discussion.  He doesn’t believe in intelligence but he says everything in nature IS designed. How can such a smart person contradict himself so often? Does he really deep down believe what he is saying? Is he trying the mollify the biology department?  Check his demeanor. To me it’s the demeanor of someone who doesn’t really believe what he is saying.  He innocently mentions  “intelligent” and  “design” at least ten times in this short video. He works so hard at telling his audience that what is designed  isn’t designed.

24 Comments

  1. mafarmerga said,

    Wow. Your whole argument seems to be “I said so, so therefore that is the way it is”

    Can’t you even TRY to be a little creative? Statements like opsin laden light sensitive cells could not be the precursors of vertebrate eyes because “They weren’t even close.” has no modicum of validity other than “I said so”

    You pretend to value the scientific approach to understanding the world.
    How about employing it?

  2. stevebee92653 said,

    Wow. Your whole argument seems to be “I said so, so therefore that is the way it is”

    I’m glad you are so creative. Statements like opsin laden light sensitive cells are the precursors of vertebrate eyes because “They’re so much like eyes.” has total validity because “I said so”

    You value the scientific approach to understanding the world.
    I am certainly glad you employ it.

  3. mafarmerga said,

    Sorry to break it to you but the burden of proof is on you, not me. I am making no claims about how the vertebrate eye evolved, I am simply pointing out that your categorical dismissal of one hypothesis employs not the slightest bit of sophisitication or reasoned thinking.

    In your video you dismiss a hypothesis without offering any credible reasons why. You are the one who stated “They weren’t even close.”

    So here, where you are not limited by either time nor word limts, kindly explain why opsin laden light sensitive cells serving as an early precursor for the modern eye is so illogical.

    The scientific approach requires 1) the generation of a hypothesis, 2) the collection of data to support or refute that hypothesis, and 3) either a rejection or modification of the hypothesis to make it consistent with the data.

    So do it. Tell me the DATA* that leads to you to reject the hypothesis that the complex camera eye (as found in vertebrates and cephalopods) could not have come from a more simple lenseless patch of photosensitive cells.

    *Note the word “data”. This is verifiable and tangible evidence. Not just your “It is too darn hard to imagine” whining.

  4. Alejandro said,

    Music? Can you tell me the band/artist?

  5. CrazyKate said,

    Yes where is the DATA?

  6. stevebee92653 said,

    For what?

  7. LivingDead said,

    Okay, I can’t think of any word that describes this video more appropriately than ‘retarded’.

    First off, the human heart is NOT an electric pump. It’s a mass of cardiac muscle tissue that gets a steady signal from the Medulla Oblongata which controls the involuntary functions of the body such as unconscious breathing, heart rate, and blood pressure. Even in Sesame Street they’ve explained in good detail that the heart is not powered by electricity. The Medulla simply sends a signal that tells to muscle cells to continue their job. As for an energy source, the individual cells all have internal metabolisms and they get their nutrients from the capillaries that run through much of the tissue.
    Yes, it’s made of billions of tiny individual cells, but in terms of mechanical complexity, it’s just a series of contracting chambers with no electrical power source and nowhere near as complex as the electric pump you use in this video. Even grade-school anatomy covers this.

    Next you try to compare the human eye to a digital camera. Um, the human eye is also NOT mechanical in the sense that you’re using nor is it digital. Last I checked the signals that ran through the neurons in our bodies (or synapses as they are properly called) used an analogue chemical signal rather than digital. And if the visual cortex does require “complex code” as you like to call it in one of you other videos, you need to explain what kind of “code” it is and how to measure its bit-rate, assuming it even has a bit-rate.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Sorry, this is really a dumb comment. Full of absurd assumptions. The human heart IS a quad-pump. The eye IS a model for the design of a digital camera. I NEVER said the heart is an electric “motorized” pump, or the eye is a digital camera. Obviously they are thousands of time more complex than man’s attempts to copy. You need serious help with you comprehension and your ability to comprehend examples and parallels.

      • LivingDead said,

        “Sorry, this is really a dumb comment. Full of absurd assumptions.”
        The facts behind my statements are readily available in any up-to-date book on human anatomy. To say that they’re “absurd” is a blatant admission to ignorance on your part.

        “The human heart IS a quad-pump.”
        So what if it is? You still need to explain how it’s more complex than a man-made pump and your video provides no mechanical comparison.

        “The eye IS a model for the design of a digital camera.”
        This is where the Intelligent Design argument runs into some serious trouble. Although it’s true that we humans can model our technology after things we see in nature, to claim that nature must be artificially designed is simply thinking in reverse and it proves nothing. Nature’s been producing complexity for hundreds of millions of years, it just uses proteins, enzymes, and other natural processes instead of some invisible engineer.

        “I NEVER said the heart is an electric “motorized” pump, or the eye is a digital camera.”
        WRONG. At 40 seconds into the video, you call the heart an electric pump and say that it’s more complex than any modern man-made device. When you have to lie about lying, your position hardly seems worth defending.

        “Obviously they are thousands of time more complex than man’s attempts to copy.”
        No, and my previous points had already proven you wrong.

        “You need serious help with you comprehension and your ability to comprehend examples and parallels.”
        And you need some serious help with the level of critical thinking that you put into your videos. Common sense is simply not reliable when discussing issues of the natural world because our intuition doesn’t extend very far.
        Back in the 1960s penicillin was used to wipe out the bacteria Neisseria Conorrhoeae. Now common sense would tell us that the bacteria must have learned its lesson and disappeared for good. Well, guess again. Through the addition of positively selected mutations, nearly all Conorrhoeae bacteria in southeast Asia is completely immune to the aging remedy.
        Sorry, but you just can’t use common sense when dealing with these issues. Science is based on evidence and observation, not personal credulity.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Your heart dissertation may be correct, but proffering that to a person who held and dissected the human heart is nothing but naive.
        My gawd, I have to explain to you how a human heart is more complex than a man made heart? Embarrassing.
        Nature “just uses proteins” to make complex bio-electromechanical devices? The indoctrination sure worked on you. I am always disappointed in reading thinking like this. They really have you. You are brain locked.
        You are not remotely close to comprehending THE POINT of this vid. See if you can figure it out. Your indoctrination has clouded you reasoning skills. Intelligent discussion with you is not possible.

      • DeadLiving said,

        “Sorry, this is really a dumb comment. Full of absurd assumptions.”
        The facts I presented earlier are all readily available in any up-to-date book on human anatomy.

        “The human heart IS a quad-pump.”
        So what if it is? You still need to explain how it’s more mechanically complex than a man-made pump.

        “The eye IS a model for the design of a digital camera.”
        As I said in the message that you probably deleted, Intelligent Design runs into some serious trouble in this area. We humans can model our technology after what we see in nature but assuming that life itself has to be designed is simply thinking in reverse, and it proves nothing. Nature has been producing new and original mechanisms for hundreds of millions of years. It just uses proteins, enzymes, and other natural processes without the aid of some invisible engineer.

        “I NEVER said the heart is an electric “motorized” pump, or the eye is a digital camera.”
        Wrong. At 40 seconds into this ID video, you state very clearly that the heart is an electric pump in the first sentence alone. And you stated in another video that the functional visual system requires “complex code” and you still won’t explain what that “code” is or how to measure it. When you have to lie about lying, your claims hardly seem worth defending.

        “Obviously they are thousands of time more complex than man’s attempts to copy.”
        Hardly. Modern high-definition cameras used in the broadcast industry can produce far more precise imagery at a faster frame-rate than the human eye can. And let’s also not forget the the extreme-precision telescopes used to observe the stars that are millions of light-years away.
        If the human eye is so perfect, then why do so many of us have to wear glasses or contact lenses? And why should we even need telescopes to view the night sky?

        “You need serious help with you comprehension and your ability to comprehend examples and parallels.”
        And you need to improve your sentence structure if you want to be taken seriously. You also need to rely less on common sense if you want your arguments to have any staying-power. Science relies on evidence and observations, not personal experience and intuition.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Your comments aren’t deleted. They have to be approved. Most are. Some are so inane they just take up a lot of space.
        You think the heart isn’t a bio-electromechanical device? Better do some additional study. What would you say doctors use to the get a stopped heart going again?
        Never mind. You don’t get the point of the vid anyway.
        For the visual code try YouTube: EyE *vs* EvolutioN I don’t have time or space to give physio lessons to everybody who comes here. See if you think what is in that vid could invent and assemble itself. I am sure you will. All evolutionauts: “Eyes are easy evolution” “Why do we have to wear glasses?” My gawd. Who told you to say that?
        The complex code is far more complex than anything you could imagine…if you have to ask that question. Obviously you haven’t been educated on the subject. The code moves from the retina up and through the first neuron using that neuron’s biochems. It must then be converted to the chemicals in the following synapse gap almost instantaneously, then it is changed back again to neuron code as it re-enters the next neuron. Over and over until it reaches the cortex. All of this in nanoseconds. Much more than just a “complex code”. I was easy on you evos simply calling it a “complex code” which doesn’t come close to describing what it really is. I am sure the vid won’t impress you. Stay cool, calm, pretend the unbelievably complex and miraculous designs of nature are just everyday shit. That way you can keep your belief system intact.

  8. LivingDead said,

    “Your heart dissertation may be correct, but proffering that to a person who held and dissected the human heart is nothing but naive.”
    If you actually had dissected a human heart or a human eye for that matter you probably wouldn’t be making the hokey claims in this video to begin with.

    “My gawd, I have to explain to you how a human heart is more complex than a man made heart? Embarrassing.”
    Yes, you have to explain how it’s more complex otherwise you have no grounds for asserting that it’s more so than anything man-made.

    “Nature “just uses proteins” to make complex bio-electromechanical devices?”
    Yes, it does use proteins AND enzymes as well as other circumstantial conditions. Why do you find that so hard to comprehend?

    “The indoctrination sure worked on you. I am always disappointed in reading thinking like this. They really have you. You are brain locked.”
    And again we have the utterly pathetic “indoctrination” defense that you constantly use when you’ve been proven wrong on every single point. If you’re going to use a Red Herring fallacy, come up with something original for a change and not something that you obviously scooped off of some creationaut web-page.

    “You are not remotely close to comprehending THE POINT of this vid.”
    The point of the vid was obviously to make a case for ID which was proven years ago to be nothing but creationism trying to pass itself off as science.

    “See if you can figure it out. Your indoctrination has clouded you reasoning skills.”
    Are you ever going to provide a solid hypothetical explanation for naturally occurring systems or are you just going to accuse your critics of being brain-washed? All signs indicate that you’ll choose the later.

    “Intelligent discussion with you is not possible.”
    It is when you actually open your mind to all the possibilities that evolution has to offer and not place restrictions on nature that make now sense. Your never-ending accusation that it’s all fantasy and that biologists are “indoctrinated” limits you quite a bit in all the conversations you’ve had that I read.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Your only option is to make me out to be a liar. (“If I actually had dissected…….?”) I think that is a good strategy for you. Since you cannot figure out THE POINT of the vid. If you were not indoctrinated your first comment would have contained discussion about what that point is. We would be able to discuss intelligently, even though we disagree. But you avoid it like the plague, because it would make your belief system crash. You must pretend it isn’t there. Fix you gaze away. Which destroys any hope of intelligent discussion with you or any indoctrinate. Your notion that a man made pump is more complex than a human heart just is further indication that the indoctrination has worked. Nature must be deemed “SIMPLE” for evolution to have invented and assembled every bio-system in it. You have swallowed the bait big time.

  9. Unreal said,

    “You think the heart isn’t a bio-electromechanical device? Better do some additional study. What would you say doctors use to the get a stopped heart going again?
    Never mind. You don’t get the point of the vid anyway.”
    Doctors use a defibrillator to stimulate the Sinoatrial Node that serves as a natural pacemaker for the heart. All this node does is regulate the heartbeat. How this makes the heart anymore impressive than anything you can come up with is something I’ll leave up to you.
    Here’s a fun little link about where the heart most likely came from.
    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/evolution-of-th-5.html
    Enjoy.

    “For the visual code try YouTube: EyE *vs* EvolutioN I don’t have time or space to give physio lessons to everybody who comes here. See if you think what is in that vid could invent and assemble itself. I am sure you will.”
    Eye *vs* Evolution was produced by Harun Yahya, real name: Adnan Oktar. He’s an Islamic creationist who also supports the idea of a young earth and while christian creationism is built mostly on ignorance, Islamic creationism is based mostly on flat-out lies. Therefor, the video is unacceptable for making any case against eye evolution.
    Right next to it was this video from DonExodus2 which serves as a strong counter-example.

    “All evolutionauts: “Eyes are easy evolution” “Why do we have to wear glasses?” My gawd. Who told you to say that?”
    Nobody. It simply stands to reason the the human eye is far from perfect and any addition that was given to it in past generations that proved beneficial would be carried on to future generations. But even then, eyes that only gets 50-60 vision instead of 20-20, or they’re simply colorblind are still better than having no eyes at all. Just look at dogs and other carnivores. Many of them are colorblind but have other heightened senses to make up for it. Maybe you should do a video about how children who wear glasses should have their eyes removed for meeting your definition of useless.

    “The complex code is far more complex than anything you could imagine…if you have to ask that question.”
    Not really. Analogue signals are pretty easy to envision and if you’re going to give a vague description meant to insult the person on the other end rather than a more precise name, then it doesn’t help you one bit.

    “Obviously you haven’t been educated on the subject. The code moves from the retina up and through the first neuron using that neuron’s biochems. It must then be converted to the chemicals in the following synapse gap almost instantaneously, then it is changed back again to neuron code as it re-enters the next neuron. Over and over until it reaches the cortex.”
    And it’s impossible for any of this to evolve how? CDK007 has this great video that explains the development of synapses far better than I can in this text box.

    “All of this in nanoseconds. Much more than just a “complex code”.”
    A nanosecond is only one billionth of a second and the human brain can only process a quick image at a rate of no more than 25 frames per second. Sorry, but the brain is hardly a gigahertz processor when it can take us over an hour to solve a quantum physics equation while a desktop computer can solve it in before you even blink.

    “I was easy on you evos simply calling it a “complex code” which doesn’t come close to describing what it really is.”
    If you don’t even know what it is then why use “complex code” as a metaphor to begin with?

    “I am sure the vid won’t impress you.”
    No, and I admit that nothing you produce ever will.

    “Stay cool, calm, pretend the unbelievably complex and miraculous designs of nature are just everyday shit. That way you can keep your belief system intact.”
    Evolution already describes how they came about very well so the need for miracles is now considered redundant. Too bad you don’t have the credibility to challenge the whole scientific community. If all you’ve got are claims that a middle-school biology student can shoot down, then our scientific(not belief) system will stand on its own quite nicely.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I am glad you are unimpressed with the human heart. Fits your belief system. By the way, a single human cell is more complex than the space shuttle. So just imagine a heart made of billions of…..never mind.
      Thanks for the URL on where the heart “most likely came from”. I need a new “perhaps, maybe, could have” source.
      Re: EyE *vs* EvolutioN. It’s pure science, not religion. But of course, you must not gaze at anything anti-evo. I spend lots of time looking at pro-evo stuff. But as a non-cult member, I don’t have your problem. I can look at all sides.
      Unimpressed with eyes too? Again, right on schedule. Part of your indoctrination.
      I gave a brief description of the “code” knowing you couldn’t gaze at evo-threatening vids. Still not impressed? Are you impressed by anything in nature other than Darwin? AND….
      CDK. My favorite indoctrinator! I will watch that if I haven’t already. I have a feeling I will see some good cartoons, a key evo-tool used to indoctrinate. You guys really gobble up cartoons.
      Right. The human brain IS unimpressive. Hearts, eyes, and brains. All unimpressive. Gotcha.
      You are not impressed by my stuff. Then why are you here? Very strange. Why?

  10. LivingDead said,

    Here’s the latest vid from the almighty CDK007 which does a beautiful job shooting down ID. Enjoy.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks for the referral. I did watch. I love that guy. He knows all, and y’all bow and worship. Kind of like an evo-Billy Graham. Why don’t you try to analyze his stuff from a skeptical standpoint sometime? That is what amazes me about you evolutionauts. You believers don’t wonder, or EVER play the devils advocate. You never try to figure out why he might be wrong. You just accept, like any religion. Try playing devils advocate sometime and figure why a guy like me might think he is full of bullshit. I realize that’s tough when you’re indoctrinated.
      I responded to your hero:
      Proving “common ancestry” is light years away from what you really need to prove. CA is a smokescreen that blocks out the fact that bio-systems had to be invented on a unicelled earth. When there was no notion what a pump was, evolution had to invent a heart that could pump blood, which also had no notion. Forget your CA evidence. Prove that nothing can invent natural digital cameras, audio systems, flight, bat sonar. You of course can’t, so you use the CA smokescreen and a typographical error.

      Of course there is a lot more I could say about his know-it-all vid, but that is all the room I had.

      • LivingDead said,

        “Thanks for the referral. I did watch. I love that guy. He knows all, and y’all bow and worship. Kind of like an evo-Billy Graham. Why don’t you try to analyze his stuff from a skeptical standpoint sometime?”
        I do, and the fact that he makes references and gives a more logical message then you ever will gives me more reason to trust him. Provide some tangible evidence and not just your words against his and I’ll reconsider.

        “That is what amazes me about you evolutionauts. You believers don’t wonder, or EVER play the devils advocate.”
        We do. Creationauts and pseudo-scientists don’t. Try putting your own claims under real scientific scrutiny and we’ll see who’s right. Remember that the burden of proof is all on you, not us.
        Evolution has survived over 150 years of devil’s advocate tests. Denialism in any form can’t even make it past the untestable fringe-hypothesis stage.

        “You never try to figure out why he might be wrong.”
        You never try to figure out why YOU might be wrong.

        “You just accept, like any religion.”
        As an atheist I accept no religion. Evolution is simply the change in genetic frequencies over time and a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. How that qualifies it as a “religion” is something that I’ll leave up to you.

        “Try playing devils advocate sometime and figure why a guy like me might think he is full of bullshit.”
        You think everyone who openly disagrees with you is full of BS, even when they list their references and especially when they prove you wrong on every point. To me, you accusing a well-educated person of being full of BS is nothing new.

        “I realize that’s tough when you’re indoctrinated.”
        Illiteracy alert: You use the “you’re indoctrinated” defense to the point where I have to conclude that you don’t even know what the word “indoctrinated” means.

        “I responded to your hero:”
        You didn’t even address a single point in his video.

        “Proving “common ancestry” is light years away from what you really need to prove. CA is a smokescreen that blocks out the fact that bio-systems had to be invented on a unicelled earth.”
        Wrong. Common Ancestry is proven when one looks at the features that certain species have in common. For example; all land vertebrates today have a tetrapoidal setup. Therefore we are all descended from a highly basal creature from the late Devonian that has these very features. Ichtyostega is a possible candidate and so is Hynerpeton and Tulerpeton.
        It is also proven when one looks at the percentage of DNA that lifeforms share with one-another. If you actually did watch and listen to the video you would have known that.

        “When there was no notion what a pump was, evolution had to invent a heart that could pump blood, which also had no notion.”
        Non Sequitur Alert: I don’t see how anthropomorphizing a heart will prove anything on your part.

        “Forget your CA evidence.”
        How could I forget my beloved basal Archosaurs like Proterosuchus, Saltoposuchus, and Euparkeria?
        How could I forget those forget such lovely protobirds like Anchiornis, Archeopteryx Lithographica, and Confuciusornis?
        How could I turn my back against the basal primate Proconsul which was a clear transition between the tree-dwelling monkeys and land-dwelling apes?
        And no, I’m not letting go of the DNA evidence either.

        “Prove that nothing can invent natural digital cameras,”
        Earliest eyes were just simple patches of photosensitive cells connected by nerves to a highly basic cerebral ganglion. And synapses are analog signals, not digital, which is far simpler and easier to develop naturally.

        “audio systems,”

        The video also links to an evolution blog that goes into more detail.

        “flight,”
        The current hypothesis is that feathers started off as modified scales that served as insulation for the cold-blooded wearer, then became useful as a courtship display. Larger feathers on the front limbs were naturally selected and became useful for gliding. Archeopteryx was most likely a glider because it couldn’t raise its wings past the horizontal position so powered flight was not possible, not yet at least. Confuciusornis took it another step forward by being able to lift its wings all the way up. Thus, powered flight became a reality.

        “bat sonar.”
        Study of the vocalization gene, FoxP2 was hardly conclusive, but the study of the gene Prestin for hearing is showing some promise.
        Even if the ToE doesn’t yet have an answer for every point just yet, that’s no reason to thrust an untestable hypothesis into the mix.

        “You of course can’t, so you use the CA smokescreen and a typographical error.”
        Illiteracy Alert: Typography is the art and technique of arranging type, type design, and modifying type glyphs. This is used mostly in the field of graphic design, advertising, and has absolutely nothing to do with biology. This level of stupidity is too low to even be classified as a logical fallacy.

        “Of course there is a lot more I could say about his know-it-all vid, but that is all the room I had.”
        There is a lot more you could say but if you stretched your brain too far, you’d get one nasty seizure. Remember that your enemies would have a hard time keeping their credibility if they had to dumb each peer-reviewed article, presentation, and argument down to a level that a creationaut would understand.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        “Message”? Religious message? Some people “trust” in Jesus, you trust in CDK007. You are in a religion. Did you just leave one religion and go to evolution? I would say so from your use of words.
        “We”? again, a religious reference. I would NEVER use “we” for any scientific discussion. I would use “they have evidence…”
        As an atheist, your religion is Evolution. You have miracles, a prophet (Darwin), disciples (Dawkins, Eugenie), a book (Origin), more miracles, just like any other religion.
        Indoctrinated? Sure I know what it means. I was indoctrinated. I lost my skepticism just like you. But I escaped and got it back. You can’t. You are brain locked. Too wired.
        Common ancestry? I could give a shit about CA. Prove invention, design, assembly by NS and RM. CA doesn’t mean a thing, but “they” want you to focus on that so you won’t consider the NS and RM can’t invent. You are doing just what “they” want you to do. You don’t come close to getting my point.
        Listing species? Good job. Means nothing. Typical evo-answer. List a bunch of ancient species. Makes you sound smart in some forums. Not here.
        “Earliest eyes were……” Oops. You are spouting dogma. You don’t know what the earliest eyes were. “Patches” were NOT eyes and didn’t provide vision. You should know that. But you are indoctrinated, so you can’t consider what you are spouting has nothing to do with vision or eyeballs.
        No one knows how hearing evolved. Not one single person who ever lived on the planet earth. Don’t wast my time.
        “Flight”: the current “hypothesis” is a tale. You are spouting a fairy tale.
        If evolution can’t answer, time to give it up and say we don’t know, AND reload and look elsewhere, which is my “hypothesis”. And the only correct one.
        Final paragraph. Good job. A really cute demean. You need that because you have no answers. I would pick that strategy if I were you as well.

  11. AntiCreationaut said,

    ““Message”? Religious message? Some people “trust” in Jesus, you trust in CDK007. You are in a religion. Did you just leave one religion and go to evolution? I would say so from your use of words.”
    Too bad the original text is right above so people who read your reply will know that you’re taking words out of context.

    ““We”? again, a religious reference. I would NEVER use “we” for any scientific discussion. I would use “they have evidence…””
    It’s called ‘Scientific Consensus’ little Stevie, not religious group-think. It’s not the sci-community’s fault that you don’t know the difference, or are too lazy to learn it.

    “As an atheist, your religion is Evolution. You have miracles, a prophet (Darwin), disciples (Dawkins, Eugenie), a book (Origin), more miracles, just like any other religion.”
    I have yet to see a shrine dedicated to any of these people or plans for a future place of worship.

    “Indoctrinated? Sure I know what it means. I was indoctrinated. I lost my skepticism just like you. But I escaped and got it back. You can’t. You are brain locked. Too wired.”
    Congratulations for doubly confirming LivingDead’s illiteracy alert conclusion.

    “Common ancestry? I could give a shit about CA.”
    A nice admission that you want to stay ignorant for the rest of your life.

    “Prove invention, design, assembly by NS and RM.”
    Natural processes refine and develop from base-forms. Humans can imagine and conceptualize but since nature has no ultimate goal in mind, you’re the one who’s stuck.

    “CA doesn’t mean a thing, but “they” want you to focus on that so you won’t consider the NS and RM can’t invent. You are doing just what “they” want you to do.”
    He-he, your paranoid accusations just keep getting more and more pathetic. Now let’s look at the evidence you use to justify making these ridiculous claims in the first place.

    “You don’t come close to getting my point.”
    I’d say he did quite well and it’s kinda sad when creationauts don’t even get their own points.

    “Listing species? Good job. Means nothing. Typical evo-answer. List a bunch of ancient species. Makes you sound smart in some forums. Not here.”
    If only you knew how they were related to modern creatures, then you’d come up with a better response then just pretending that they’re not real. Makes you look like a retard in your own forum.

    ““Earliest eyes were……” Oops. You are spouting dogma. You don’t know what the earliest eyes were. “Patches” were NOT eyes and didn’t provide vision. You should know that. But you are indoctrinated, so you can’t consider what you are spouting has nothing to do with vision or eyeballs.”
    Actually, the current genomic research indicates that the first eyes were simple light-sensitive proteins that enabled bacteria to at least distinguish night from day. Yes, patches WERE eyes and for sight to develop on its own and be genetically passed on to future generations it has to start somewhere.
    You, on the other hand, need to explain why eyes vary so much from one animal grouping to the next. Like why vertebrates all have single eyes, while arthropods have radically different compound eyes and gastropod mollusks are still using primitive eye-spots and pit-eyes.

    “No one knows how hearing evolved. Not one single person who ever lived on the planet earth. Don’t wast my time.”
    Analysis of early proto-mammal sculls from the late Permian show the development of primitive eardrums which are morphologically similar to modern ear setups today. Nice assertion. Too bad it’s utterly baseless.

    ““Flight”: the current “hypothesis” is a tale. You are spouting a fairy tale.”
    I see this as an admission that you don’t even know what a “fairy tale” is. Or at least you don’t know how to distinguish it from historical facts.

    “If evolution can’t answer, time to give it up and say we don’t know, AND reload and look elsewhere, which is my “hypothesis”. And the only correct one.”
    If evolution doesn’t yet have the answer to a made-up hole, or a hole that’s blown way out of proportion by denial-nauts, then it simply means that more research is needed before any reliable conclusion can be made. Presenting an exaggerated hole as grounds for a false dichotomy serves no purpose other than a Red Herring and it totally goes against the founding principles of science.

    “Final paragraph. Good job. A really cute demean. You need that because you have no answers. I would pick that strategy if I were you as well.”
    And it’s all true. Scientists can’t pretty up all their papers and data to appeal to everyone, especially people who constantly refuse to do any ACTUAL research about the subject matter that they’re trying to debase.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      E=MC2 has scientific consensus, but I wouldn’t say “we” have evidence that it’s a valid equation or discuss Einstein’s “message”. You evos are in a cult. You just don’t know it. Like any other cult.
      Species lists are just a way of a commenter trying appear intelligent. Like you are when you back up his list. As if just listing them proves they all evolved one into another.
      Bacteria couldn’t “distinguish” nite from day. And for saying so you get the dummie of the day award. Their biochems react to EMR, not light. And they don’t “see” anything, which “distinguish” infers.
      You and your 100 next generations will be gone before your “more research” can prove evo invented designed and assembled any bio-system, sorry to report. And if they do fill those holes, let me know. I will again become a believer. I promise.

  12. Ronaldinho Gaucho said,

    How can someone thinks the human body`s functioning can be compared with any machine we have built?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Do you see computers, tubes, ball and socket joints, servo motors, wires, digital cameras, microphones systems. No? Then you are an evolutionaut!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: