Comments by "Jackie Wu" (@jwu1950) on "Richard Dawkins: 'Somebody as intelligent as Jesus would have been an atheist'" video.

  1. Agnostic about God the creator, the intelligent designer, and the law giver is not an acceptable position in view of the overwhelming evidence and logical proof for God and the absence of any contrary evidence.  It is not acceptable to be an agnostic about gravity, life, and time for the same reason.  And it is just as unacceptable to be an agnostic about the godless evolution by the process of natural selection.  There is zero evidence for evolution and natural selection is absurd unless by nature we mean God and by natural we mean God made or God designed.  Evolutionists like Dawkins are irrational, illogical, and delusional.
    3
  2. milesmcstylez I never denied any quantum, physics, biology, or any science  You are a LIAR.  Evolution is not science, liar. " The quantum realm is probabilistic, not deterministic."  I am not sure if that is scientific what you just said.  But I'd go along with that as a believer of God.  What you are saying is our physical universe as well as our metaphysical universe is all a function of the unknown, correct ? "the "law of cause and effect" is something religious people pulled out of their asses ...." So you are saying we can throw away all scientific theories now for they are all full of shit ?  I am not too sure about that.  I think I'll wait. You said, "Gravity is a field. Under QFT, fields are physical"  So gravity is a fictitious force ?  It doesn't actually exit ?  I am not sure but I'd go along with that as a believer of God.  Our physical universe and everything in it are all fictitious,  mind tricks when we look at shadows on the wall, illusions.  The big unknown, God, is the only reality that actual exist. "Nobody has managed to measure god's activity "  I know all measurements are fictitious.  But we do measure the effects of God everyday, we use clock to measure time, weight scale to measure mass, speedometer to measure speed, odometer to measure distance, and counting to measure population size. "The "law of cause and effect" HAS failed..... So by your own standards, the god test has failed and god doesn't exist."  I think I'll wait.  You think you have refuted one natural law but you may be wrong.  What if God is the cause of these probabilistic uncertainty and unknown of yours and God is metaphysical and unknowable ?  I'm just saying.  You should try harder to find the cause for quantum physics and we'll sit tight with our God the first cause that caused the big bang billions of years ago.
    2
  3. L.Ron Dow  You live in fantasyland and watch little animals popping out of rocks and later vanished from time to time.  May be you should get you head examined. P.S.  Multiverse only serve as more confirmation for God the first cause.
    2
  4. milesmcstylez  Falsifiability is required in scientific theorisation.  God is not a scientific theory.  God is a fact supported by overwhelming evidence and logical proofs with zero contrary evidence.  Zeus is a fact.  Zeus is in fact a real fictional character. Per Wiki, "For most applications, gravity is well approximated by Newton's law of universal gravitation, which postulates that the gravitational force of two bodies of mass is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."  Gravity is not an explanation   It is a law, a confirmed repeatable observations.  The theory of relativity hypothetically explains or rather dismiss gravity but it is not proven because it cannot answer questions at the quantum level. Over and over you have been quoting observations on the varieties within species and zero observation of any speciation or any bullshit evolution.  e coli is still e coli, lizards still lizards, and birds are still birds.  Let me remind you so you won't go astray with theevolution conspiracy promoted by white supremacists,  white humans are of the same specie as black humans, not a superior specie, okay ?
    2
  5. milesmcstylez  Re. evolution,  Scientific findings are great.  Evidence speaks volume. There are plenty of evidence for mutations and genetics which are scientific findings that explain the workings of intelligent design.  However, there is zero evidence of abiogenesis or speciation.  No life has ever been observed that popped out of non life material, no new specie has ever been observed in human history whether created by God or popped out of other species.  So it is very simple, no new specie means no speciation.  No speciation and no abiogenesis means no evolution, end of story.  Good night.
    2
  6. milesmcstylez  If mutation, physics, genetics, and chemistry are the theories and science you are referring to, none of these says anything about speciation, natural selection, or evolution, period.  End of story. Per Wiki, " The theory of relativity, or simply relativity in physics, usually encompasses two theories by Albert Einstein: special relativity and general relativity"  Sorry, evolution is not mentioned there or in any physics. What part of common similarities in design is not "common descent", and the science of mutations and genetics says nothing about speciation, natural selection, or evolution that you don't understand ? What part of facts are repeatable observations whereas theories are explanations, and facts are not theories and theories are not facts, that you don't understand ?  What is so difficult to understand that evolution is neither a fact nor a single theory ?  Man !  Did Darwinism indoctrination do so much damage to your brain ? I would challenge Gould any time on his assertion, "Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution."  Evolution is a fantasy and Darwin or anybody has never established it as a fact because there has been zero observation of evolution in human history.    Natural selection is an unsubstantiated fabrication because there is zero evidence to suggest such a hypothesis and overwhelming contrary evidence to dismiss such an opinion.  All living organisms are physical and contain intelligence which mean they were designed and created or caused into existence by some designer and first cause.  This is the law of cause and effect.  That gives rise to all these contrary evidence against the concept of natural selection.  No intervention is necessary because all were already designed at the time of creation.
    2
  7. L.Ron Dow  Have your mother not taught you to use you words ?  Explain.
    1
  8. L.Ron Dow  The overwhelming evidence for God includes the birds and the bees, the flowers and the trees, the fish in the seas, the far galaxies, the food that we eat, the air that we breathe, everything comprehensible and all that is incomprehensible to you and to me.  The logic proof is all these were created by God, according to the law of cause and effect that points to a first cause.  We call the first cause God the creator. Per Webster, Agnostic   : a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not : a person who does not believe or is unsure of something. There is no bull shit.  Everything I said is based on truth and verifiable facts.  May the truth be with you.
    1
  9. L.Ron Dow "We call the first cause God the creator." This says nothing about the nature of the 'first cause' "  That's correct.  But logic tells us the first cause exist before anything physical was caused to exist, therefor the first cause must be metaphysical and not physical like some sort of pixies. What is metaphysical is unknowable to humans, we know this much.    I said we call the first cause God the creator, but no one can stop you from calling the first cause by any other name like FSM, Zeus, Giant unicorn, etc. as long as you mean the first cause. No one here is trying " to extrapolate the principle that all things within the universe are caused to the sum of everything (ie the universe)" as far as I know.  It's just your imagination. Nuts and bolts, etc. do not become an aeroplane without human intelligent design, and nut and bolts themselves are all human intelligent designs, not created by some bull shit evolution or some baloney selection process.  No one should be agnostic about this fact.  That's exactly my point. The conclusion that the universe has to have a cause is proved, by the law of cause and effect.  Everything that exist is caused to exist.  The law does not allow random chance and accidents to exist in real life yet those are the bull shits the evolution fairy tales is entirely based on.  GOD DID IT.  Our physical universe did not pop out of nothing and nowhere, at least there is no observable evidence for that fantasy. It doesn't matter how well you can play with words, the truth remains "Agnostic about God the creator, the intelligent designer, and the law giver is not an acceptable position in view of the overwhelming evidence and logical proofs for God and the absence of any contrary evidence." and "Evolutionists like Dawkins are irrational, illogical, and delusional."  Delusional per Wiki, "A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary." There is zero evidence for evolution.  You can't name one single observation or any kind of evidence for evolution. You asked, "Ok, now prove to me that birds were created by a god.  What are the verifiable facts?"  The birds and the bees are the verifiable facts, the evidence of the effects caused by God.  They are not evidence of God.  They are evidence for God.  And the logical proof for God is the law of cause and effect.  Evolutionists on the other hand have zero evidence that life and species come from nowhere or popped out of rocks which is what their nature is by some sort of baloney selection or by random chance and by accidents which do not exist in real life. May the truth be with you.
    1
  10. L.Ron Dow  You were the one who brought up space pixies, so why ask me ?  Ask yourself.  You can do better than this - if not, just say 'goodbye. I don't know why you would want to refer the physical universe as the universe.  The physical reality is only a subset of the metaphysical reality which is the reality of the metaphysical universe.   The law of cause and effect is a "logical truth".   The existence of logical truths has been put forward by rationalist philosophers as an objection to empiricism because they hold that it is impossible to account for our knowledge of logical truths on empiricist grounds.   Empirical evidence is not proof.  Scientific proof does not exist.  Proofs only exist in logic and mathematics.  Logic and mathematics are metaphysical.  1+1=2 is only valid as a metaphysical concept.  There is no empirical evidence for 1+1=2.  Empirical evidence actually indicate 1+1=2 is invalid in physical terms. You asked, "Can you even show that the universe began?"  Referring to the physical universe, yes, the big bang hypothesis.  Referring to the metaphysical universe, no, it is believed to be eternal, always existed. The birds and the bees are verifiable facts because they can be repeatedly observed.  They are evidence for God the first cause in the logical truth of the law of cause and effect that logically points to a first cause that caused the existence of the physical universe.
    1
  11. L.Ron Dow    Yes I have already given you the evidence of existence.  The law of cause and effect says everything that exist is caused to exist.  The law of cause and effect can be repeated observed.  The metaphysical universe is eternal, always exist, no observation of its coming into existence is necessary or possible. Cause/Creator/God' is unknowable but they are known to exist.  That is why agnostic is unacceptable. You said, "We just do not know enough about universes to be able to say that our physical universe had a beginning or even if it did, a cause was needed."  Why are you repeating exactly what I said, that what's metaphysical is unknowable to humans ?  Whether our physical universe is pre-existent or not is another subject matter.  Some scientists called the big bang a theory.  I prefer calling it "hypothesis" because even though it has been mathematically and logically proven to be true, there is no observation available, at least not yet.  1+1=2 is a hypothesis, not a theory nor a fact which most people, even scientists believed it is, because there is no observation available, ever. Re. Our physical universe pre-exist.  My actual belief is our physical universe not only pre-exist as a metaphysical entity, it is still a metaphysical entity.  What we see is not real.  What is real we cannot see.  An apple is not really an apple.  What we believe is physical is only an illusion.  But for communication purposes I have to use the language that is commonly used and not the language of the truth.  Yin Yang, for example, is the truth about reality known to the Chinese for millenniums, but there is no English word for it. Correction, random co-incidence of chemical and physical conditions only seemed random to you.  The conditions are in reality designed and caused.  The law of cause and effect does not allow random chance and accidents to exist.  They don't exist in real life.  Only naïve and superstitious folks believe in random chance and accidents (like what evolution is entirely based on). You said, "most of your arguments are patently circular by virtue of the fact that they contain terminology that are intrinsically dependent upon divine elements. "  That is true if God the creator, the first cause is some sort of unknown physical elements.  The truth is they are not elements but unknowable metaphysical entities.  We humans cannot know God.  We can only choose to believe or not to believe based on logic applied towards our observation of the EFFECTS of God, not the entity God which is unobservable. Who gives a shit about Craig or Genesis for that matter ?  I thought you said we are talking cosmology.  Straw man much ? 
    1
  12. milesmcstylez  Your credulity is astounding.  Which scientific theory is not explanations of cause and effect ?  Which scientific theory is not in essence metaphysical.  Science without metaphysics is not science.  It is materialism.  Materialism is empty and meaningless. Per Wiki, "radioactive decay. (rā'dē-ō-āk'tĭv) The spontaneous transformation of an unstable atomic nucleus into a lighter one, in which radiation is released in the form of alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, and other particles."  Can there be radioactive decay without unstable atomic nucleus ?  Are unstable atomic nucleus results of any spontaneous existence or are they like other substances designed and caused into existence ?  How is it then radioactive decay not holding up the law of cause and effect ?
    1
  13. milesmcstylez  Causes have always been prerequisites for any event to occur.  That's not news.  Quantum fluctuations ?  Are you referring to it as a cause or as an effect ?  Quantum fluctuations are metaphysical like gravity, life, and time, these are metaphysical.  These metaphysical entities gives out physical and metaphysical effects.  They are causes of these effects and they are unknowable to humans because what is metaphysical are unknowable to humans.  We have no way of determining if quantum fluctuations as a cause are themselves caused, the same way we can't determine if God, gravity, life, and time were caused, though other than God the rest probably were but we humans can't know. Don't get me wrong.  I am fully supportive of science.  However, in a way nothing much has advanced in physics since Newton.  Einstein could not explain gravity, and neither can any quantum mechanics scientists.   There has been much advances in applied science but not much in pure science.
    1
  14. milesmcstylez   You said, "They are when matter and antimatter pop into and out of existence spontaneously."  So they are effects.  The question scientists should ask then is what caused that effect rather than credulously believe that there is no cause.  May be the causes are metaphysical and is unknowable to humans.  It is absurd that something that exist can temporarily vanished.  Vanished into what is the question scientists should be looking for.  There is no "nothing".  The "nothing" that idiots like Krauss and Hawking are referring to is obviously not "nothing" though it may be something metaphysical and unknowable to humans.  It is the scientists job to find out, and their expertise is in science which Krauss and Hawking are failures, not theology.  These hate mongering bigots are filling their own pockets with our tax money at the expense of science.  No. I won't support shits like that. No one says and no one should assume God is scientific.  The truth is science is not the only route to the truth.  Science is just a branch of philosophy.  And evolution is not science at all. You said, "Science hasn't conclusively explained gravity, but we've at least proven it exists,"  Exactly.  We have proven God exist the same way we proved gravity exist, by applying logic towards our observations of the effects of gravity but not of the entity we called gravity because gravity is metaphysical and what is metaphysical is unknowable to humans.  This is so simple and yet a lot of scientists don't understand this.
    1
  15. milesmcstylez   Lacking direct preceding causation does not mean no cause at all, does it now ? "not deterministic" means you haven't yet found the cause for some quantum phenomena ?  So ?  We all knew that.  You think the Bible is quantum physics ? And you don't think someone wrote the Bible ?  I didn't know you were religious and believed that the Bible is literally the word of God.  LOL. " Trying to figure out "where they went" is, once again, a nonsensical question."  So, peek-a-pooh, that's it ? So "let there be light" means God has no time to play peek-a-pooh ? You said, "On gravity, it wasn't proven by trying to define it into existence, it was proven to exist with evidence."  What evidence if you are not talking about the effects of gravity like "an attractive force".  BTW force is also a metaphysical concept, not physical.  We have no evidence of force, just evidence of the effects of force.  You can't point at a physical object and say that's gravity or that is a force.  Some of the effects of God is the earth the sun.  The earth and the sun are the effects of  God the first cause. So Einstein, that's it, no more quantum physics, we now know what gravity is ? If the law of cause and effect or any natural (meaning God given) law failed, God the law giver would fail with it.  So, there, proof for God has not failed and may never fail.  That's what's known as falsifiability.  The effects of God has been tested, and repeatedly tested to be true and accurate to a point that is beyond any reasonable doubt. Are you saying science is not a la carte because science is a conspiracy ?  I don't disagree with you but I don't believe science is a conspiracy.  Evolution is though, but evolution is not science, just a conspiracy.
    1
  16. L.Ron Dow  Which one, fantasyland or multiverse ? 
    1
  17. emanuel e  Forgive them.  The only tool they have is a hammer.  So they'll hammering in the morning, hammer in the evening, and hammer all the time.  If they learn to appreciate God our creator, they'll have the whole world to enjoy.  May the love and peace of Jesus be with you. 
    1
  18. milesmcstylez  I'm sorry. You are so full of shit it's not even funny ! Computers are designed and manufactured by human intelligence that was designed and created into each and every human by God the first cause.  They did not pop out of nothing, and that is why you were wrong. Quantum physics is a modern term, but the idea is millenniums old.  Pre-Socrates Greek scholars were already fluent with metaphysis which is the eternal, no cause, reality which caused our so believed physical reality to exist.  In fact metaphysics is the foundation of physics.  All scientific theories, including quantum physics, is in essence metaphysical. We all know God is metaphysical. There is no "what if" about God.  God "is", period.  I use "what if" referring to your fantasy of a "probabilistic" world of illusions.  There is no doubt FSM exist and is real, a real fictional character in some story book, like natural selection is in the fairy tale of evolution.  FSM is not probabilistic and there is no "what if" about it. You said, "fact that you can't name any specific test or measurement for god proves my point ...."  Can you read ?  Did I not say  "we use clock to measure time, weight scale to measure mass, speedometer to measure speed, odometer to measure distance, and counting to measure population".  Human population and animal population are effects of God.  So is time, mass, speed, and distance.  They are all effects of God.  Our measurements are fictitious but all these we are measuring are real effects of the real world. "So gravity is a fictitious force"  I did not invent it.  You insist gravity is a field.  Per Wiki, "In a field model, rather than two particles attracting each other, the particles distort spacetime via their mass, and this distortion is what is perceived and measured as a "force". In such a model one states that matter moves in certain ways in response to the curvature of spacetime,[1] and that there is either no gravitational force,[2] or that gravity is a fictitious force."  But of course that's only a theory. Per Wiki, "Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.[6] They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy).  Probabilistic cannot be scientific because it is not falsifiable.  If probabilistic is true, all scientific theories are garbage because it would be meaningless to talk about causality. Per Wiki, "Causality is the relationship between causes and effects.[1][2] It is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics." You are denying physics, I'm not.  I'm not denying biology either because biology is not evolution, and evolution is not science. Let me give you a word of advice.  The law of cause and effect does not allow random chance and accidents to exist in real life.  The capsule carrying Armstrong landed on the moon not as a result of random chance and accidents.  It was designed and caused to land on the moon.  It could not have landed on Mars or on Jupiter by random chance or by accident because it was not designed and caused to land on Mars or Jupiter.  Only naïve and superstitious people believe in probabilistic luck, random chance, and accidents.  Real scientists don't.
    1
  19. milesmcstylez  All right.  It is like this.  Evolution is neither a fact nor a single theory.  There is not a single theory to be tested by the scientific method.  Therefore evolution cannot be science.  I didn't make this up.  I'll quote you an evolutionary biologists who explained this fact.  Per Wiki, "Evolutionary biologist Kirk J. Fitzhugh[39] wrote, "'Evolution' cannot be both a theory and a fact. Theories are concepts stating cause–effect relations...One might argue that it is conceivable to speak of 'evolution' as a fact by way of it being the subject of reference in explanatory hypotheses...In the strictest sense then, 'evolution' cannot be regarded as a fact even in the context of hypotheses since the causal points of reference continue to be organisms, and no amount of confirming instances for those hypotheses will transform them into facts...While evolution is not a fact, it is also not a single theory, but a set of theories applied to a variety of causal questions...An emphasis on associating 'evolution' with 'fact' presents the misguided connotation that science seeks certainty.  Observer effect ?  LMAO You mean checking tire pressure is your empirical evidence for probabilistic reality ? If gravitational force is not fictitious, then it doesn't exist.  In a field model, ....one states that matter moves in certain ways in response to the curvature of spacetime,[1] and that there is either no gravitational force,[2] or that gravity is a fictitious force." Funny now you are talking spirits rather than science, you said, "QFT interaction terms are similar in spirit to those between charges with electric and magnetic fields.  We believers in God certainly believe in spirits, but we never expect spirits to be a part of science. Occam's razor, Parsimony, GOD DID IT, that;s the simplest with the fewest assumption.  There is not need to first go through Zeus before going to God. I'm not sure you know what the term metaphysics means either, but I have a dictionary.  There is absolutely no doubt that Santa exist, is a real fictional character, and is metaphysical.  It is somewhat like gravity is to you.  Gravity exist, is a real fictitious force, and is metaphysical. May the truth set you free.
    1
  20. milesmcstylez  Zeus is science ? Wow !   You are crazier than I think. Some humans may find it complex but believers of God know that what we might find complex is very simple.  For example, a computer may be complex but we can buy one at the store, that's simple.  Raising a cow is complex but you don't have to raise a cow to drink milk, do you ? Fossil records only proved species died out in the past but not new species being created by God or by any baloney selection process.  Common decent only proved the multiple varieties with each specie as designed and created by the creator, not some bullshit evolution.  No new specie has ever been observed whether created or popped out of another specie.  There are plenty of evidence for mutations and genetics.  These are evidence for intelligent design and not evidence for evolution because no speciation has ever been demonstrated. Double slit.  So matters are not solid but are in fact waves.  Plato knew that 2500 years ago.  What else is new ?  You are right, spirits actually and factually exist and their effects can be observed, whereas fields are still just theories, not even scientific theories, and they can be one day proven wrong and Newton resurrected to rule Physics. No.  You are still very confused.  Santa and Dragons are fictional characters.  You can Google it.  God is not.  You can Google it too.  Santa and Dragons are metaphysical because they are thought to exits by some people but cannot be seen or otherwise detected, just like gravity, life, and time.  They gives out effects too, some children love Santa and they are scared of Dragons.  These children are usually okay when they grow up and are able to distinguish facts and fictions..  Too bad evolutionists never grow up.  God is a fact because we can observe the effects God created every day and every moment of our lives. God bless.
    1
  21. oadnrtyo  Read Wiki's quote more carefully.  Fitzhugh explained evolution cannot be a fact and that it is not a single theory. What Fitzhugh said in his entire article is that ID is a theory but it is not a scientific theory.  That we all know because God cannot be falsified.  I would not support ID to be taught in school as a science either because it is not.  He also said evolution is neither a fact nor a single theory, which clearly means he was saying there is no scientific debate of evolution vs. ID, for they are both not science.  So he clearly stated ID is a theory but not scientific, and evolution is not a single theory and is not scientific.  How the hell you conclude from that as "So it is obvious that he DOES believe evolution is a theory, which is much more than just a fact, but explains all the facts for something." Learn this.  Facts are repeatable observations.  Theories explains facts.  A fact cannot be a theory, and a theory cannot be a fact.  Facts like the law of gravity are not explained by theory.  When it is explained, it will become the theory of gravity, but that has not happened as of today and may never happen.  Evolution is not a law because there is no repeatable observation, and because all the observation is based on organisms as the causal point of reference, no amount of these instances can transform them into facts for the purpose of hypothesis.  That is because each organism is designed and created with intelligence that make each and every one of them unique.
    1
  22. milesmcstylez  " You've taken probably the worst stab at the demarcation problem I've ever seen."  If truth is popular vote like the crowned queen of a beauty pageant, we'd all be posting our nude pictures here. :) God cannot be falsified, and God is a fact, not a scientific theory. Gravity, like God, is also a fact.  That is why it's called the law of gravity.  Laws are undeniable facts that has not been explained.  Gravity is not a scientific theory because no explanation has yet been found regarding gravity.  All natural laws are God made laws.  That is the meaning of natural, God made, God designed, or God created.  No.  It is by your twisted standard of no cause is needed that all scientific theories are garbage, not by my standard.  I accept and support all science. No e coli strain is evolved.  All e coli strains are designed, period.  "That strain of bacteria evolved" is not a fact.  It is a fantasy.  No  lizard and bird species is evolved, has evolved , or will ever be evolved because evolution does not exist in real life.  Get it ?
    1
  23. L.Ron Dow  Only superstitious, naïve, and ignorant people believe in random chance and accidents.  Everything that exist is caused to exist.  This is the law.  The law does not allow random chance and accidents to exist in real life.  Photocopiers obviously malfunction sometimes and the malfunction is caused, not some kind of bullshit selection or evolution, understand ? 
    1
  24. L.Ron Dow   You asked, "And what is "the law" going to do about it when "the law" is broken."  That's the point, natural laws has never been broken and can never be broken because they are God given laws.  Don't bullshit us, Newton's law of gravity has never been broken or successfully explained. Truth carries the authority of being the truth.  You can bullshit all you want but you can't change the truth to suite your bullshit. You can bullshit all you want about photocopier malfunction and random chance and accidents all day long but it does nothing to made random chance and accidents happen.  Everything that exist is caused to exit, period.  Owls are owls, Ravens are ravens.  Herons are herons.  Varieties within species is a part of the design.  No new specie has ever been observed regardless if it is created by God or popped out of some other species by some bullshit selection process, period. You need to stop living in your fantasyland. May the truth set you free.
    1
  25. milesmcstylez   You are delusional if you think God is a real fictional character.  There is overwhelming evidence and logical proofs for God and there is zero contrary evidence.  To believe that there is no God is clearly irrational, illogical, and delusional. You lied when you said, " If no classical theories qualify as science by your standards,...."  I never said such a thing, liar.  Gravity is a law according to Newton's law of  gravitation.  A law is a fact, not a theory.  Laws are unexplained observations that has been repeatedly observed so many times that, though unexplained, is never challenged.  Germ theory and atomic theory are theories because they explain germs and atoms.  There is no theory that explain gravity.  Einstein's theory of relativity is currently the most accepted theory that attempt to explain gravity as non existent, however Einstein's theory does not work at the quantum level.  You lied again when you said, "So, you've now gone from saying evolution doesn't happen to saying it only happens a little bit,"  I never said such thing.  I said evolution does not exist in real life, that it is an unsubstantiated story, a fairy tale.  Tyson can believe whatever he wants to believe.  He is not an evolutionary biologists anyway.  I don't think he believe himself as belonging to an inferior race because he insists he is not an atheist.   But Dawkins may be trying to slowly convince him to so believe. :)
    1
  26. oadnrtyo  I said Fitzhugh explained evolution is neither a fact nor a single theory.  I said there is no single theory to be scientifically tested and therefore evolution cannot be a science.  There is a theory of intelligent design that explains the varieties in species as well as within species.  But intelligent design is not a scientific theory because God is assumed and God is a fact that cannot be falsified. A theory cannot be a law, and a law cannot be a theory.  A law is an unchallenged observation whereas a theory is an explanation of our observations.  "There is no theory that explain gravity." There is no doubt whatsoever fairies and leprechauns exist and they are real, real fictional characters.  You can Google it if you don't believe me.  The law of cause and effect has never been debunked.  Science is totally dependent on this law.  Per Wiki, "Causality is the relationship between causes and effects.[1][2] It is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics. 
    1
  27. milesmcstylez We call the creator, the first cause God.  You can call the creator by any other name you like, no one can stop you. You are lying again.  I never said relativity is not a scientific theory.  I said it is the currently most acceptable explanation for gravity and it actually dismiss gravity as nonexistent or a fictitious force.  Please stop lying, okay ? You said, "You didn't even try to deny that the lizards, birds, and e coli I cited evolved new characteristics."  I didn't have to, I already said evolution does not exist in real life.  Nothing evolve, small scale or large.  Some people accept micro evolution, but I don't.  There is no evolution, period.  Varieties within species is a part of intelligent design.
    1
  28. milesmcstylez  Yes, I will. But before I start, you have zero empirical evidence for evolution.  Mutations and genetics says nothing of evolution.  No abiogenesis or speciation has ever been observed.  Evolution is neither a fact nor a single theory.  Without a single theory, evolution cannot be scientifically tested.  Therefore evolution is not science.  I have other reasons to conclude evolution does not exist in real life.  But since no one can provide a single piece of evidence for evolution, we can simply dismiss it for lack of supporting evidence. Space/time curvature in Einstein's theory of relativity may explain gravity, but is inadequate because his theory doesn't work in quantum levels. Now, 1)  Big bang hypothesis is currently the most accepted explanation that our physical universe (not THE universe) is not eternal but has a beginning and will have an end.  We call the cause of the big bang the first cause and we call the first cause God the creator.  We know so little about quantum physics and no one will use it to replace classical physics at this time.  Most likely quantum physics will eventually prove the metaphysical unknowable God or again confirm the law of cause and effect.  So far we practically don't know shit. 2)  The law of cause and effect does not permit random chance and accidents to exist.  Existence is deterministic, not probabilistic, as proven by the law of cause and effect.  Radioactive decay obviously has the unstable nucleus as part of the causes, and quantum fluctuation in modern science is nothing more than weather fluctuation to ancient scholars.  We don't have to do the same thing, writing it off as an act of God, but we might as well if what the so called scientists is going to throw up their hands and say, "It's random, that's it, no cause".  3)  Since the first cause exist before it caused our physical universe to come into existence, the first cause God the creator must be metaphysical.  What is metaphysical can logically be believed as unknowable to humans.  There is no natural law or intentions that can describe the first cause.  Natural means God made or God given.  It cannot be used to explain God other than to be used as an evidence that God exist.  Intention is what is generally known as the Will of God.  It is logical to believe no one knows the Will of God, not even Jesus.  This is evident by Jesus praying the night before his arrest by saying, "Father, it is not my wish to drink from this bitter cup, but it is Your Will that is to be done, not mine."  It is further evidenced by Jesus yelling while dying on the cross, "Father, why have you forsaken me ?"  Don't get me wrong.  I believe in Jesus as a man, not as God, the only Son of God, or Christ the Messiah.  Jesus is not Christ for he never claimed that he was.  I am not deviating from truth and verifiable facts or from science, no such intention at all. 4)  I am not claiming any "intentional deterministic" God.  My assertion is that God is metaphysical and what is metaphysical is unknowable to humans.  We humans can only choose to believe or not to believe in God based on our logic applied towards our observation of the effects of God, and not on the entity God.  This is the same way we get to believe in gravity, life, time, logic and mathematics, and all metaphysical entities.  I further assert that God means different thing to different people at different time, these are all parts of the One and the same God.  God has infinite parts. Falsifiability is only required in scientific theorization.  God is not a theory.  God is a fact and is not falsifiable.  And God  is not meant to be scientific.  Science does not have a monopoly on truth.  In fact quantum physical as you describe it, as probabilistic, is starting to dismiss classical science as untrue.  Do you think carbon decay and quantum fluctuation are falsifiable ?
    1
  29. milesmcstylez 1)  I never ever said gravity is a theory.  I said specifically gravity is a law and a law is an undeniable fact or observations  that has not been explained,  observations  that has been so well confirmed that it cannot be challenged.     There is no need to argue about this really, you can just look it up what a fact and a law is, and what a theory is.  Right now you are very confused and you are trying to hide your confusion by insulting me for no reason. 2)  Germ theory is a theory, not a fact, and has nothing to do with quantum physics.  You are confusing the theory of relativity with the law of gravity.  I never said the theory of relativity is not a scientific theory.  It is just that it doesn't work in quantum physics and you knew it. 3)  The evidence you provided are not evidence for evolution or speciation.  That's the problem.  Mutation and genetics say nothing about speciation or evolution by the process of natural selection, period. 4)  No problem.  You can call the first cause by any other name you like, and no one can stop you, just as long as you are referring to the first cause we called God the creator. 5)  Fine then.  So don't accuse me of rejecting science. 6)  We'll see.  But I think your peers will laugh at you for suggesting quantum physics has anything to do with Zeus and evolution. 7)  I made it very clear that God is unknowable to humans because God is metaphysical.  We don't know God.  We believe in God based on our logic applied towards our observations of the Effects of God.  We believe a) God exist because our physical universe exist, b) God created our physical universe as explained by the big bang and the law of cause and effect,. c) That God has effects, the law of cause and effect, the cause being God the first cause, the effect being our physical universe and everything in it, like you and me. d) That god has Will but is unknowable to humans.  It is actually the same as saying God may or may not have Will, we simple can't know. e) that God is metaphysical because God exist before anything physical had been caused to exist, f) God is not falsifiable because we have no reason to believe he is, and God is a fact, not a theory, like gravity is a fact, not a theory. g) that Jesus is not God because Jesus is a man, and men are physical, not metaphysical, h) God has infinite parts for whatever infinity is, but infinity is a metaphysical concept.  No one knows what is infinity other than that it exist for we can always add 1 to what we have already counted.   So, again you are very confused for I have not flip flop once. 8)  I never said God has intent.  I said God is unknowable to human.  Whether God has a Will or not is unknowable to humans, even to Jesus.  No flip flop there. 9)  If you say so.  I just don't understand how they are, and I'm not sure you know either. 10)  A fact is a repeatable observation or the logical deduction of our repeatable observations.  God is a fact because of our logical deduction of a creator being responsible for all that we can repeatedly observe as being existing, like the birds and the bees, the stars and the galaxies, etc. etc. 11)    You said, "....we've figured out there are no causes "  Final answer ?  Are you sure ?  Are you sure you were not just saying the causes are unknowable to humans ?
    1
  30. milesmcstylez  Well, everything you said in your last comment is a lie. 1)  I have not used any circular reasoning.  You accusation is false or your are lying. 2)  I have not denied any science.  I was just asking you if you are sure there is no cause and that if we should chuck all our classical science.  You seemed to pretend you know what gravity is. Also, you have not presented one single piece of evidence for evolution and yet you claim evolution is a scientific fact, after I have explained why evolution is neither a fact nor a single theory. 3)  I never said, "God is a fact because I say so".   That is an outright lie of yours, liar. 4)  No quote mining.  I have only quoted Fitzhugh because you asked for scientific quotation.  I was explaining it very well that evolution is neither a fact nor a single theory, but you seemed to be so indoctrinated that no truth can ever get through to you. Please stop lying and may be you can learn something.
    1
  31. milesmcstylez 1)   Gravitation is the attractive force existing between any two objects that have mass. The force of gravitation pulls objects together. Gravity is the gravitational force that occurs between the earth and other bodies. Gravity is the force acting to pull objects toward the earth. Since gravitational force is happening to all matter (objects) in the universe, from the largest galaxies down to the smallest atoms, it is often called universal gravitation. Sir Isaac Newton was the first to fully recognize that the force holding any object to the earth is the same as the force holding the moon, the planets, and other heavenly bodies in their orbits. According to Newton's law of universal gravitation any two masses in the universe attract each other with a gravitational pull. 2)  Evolution is not a law because it has never been observed, let alone repeatedly observed. 3)  I never said, "a theory has to apply at the quantum level to be scientific".  Check where you found such a statement. 4)  Mutation says nothing about evolution, period.  Spreading of mutation is still mutation, not speciation and not evolution. 5)  That's your wish.  It is called wishful thinking.  God is not a wish.  God just "is". 6)  I do not deny evolution.  Fitzhugh and I explained how evolution is neither a fact nor a single theory.  Without a single theory, evolution is just an unsubstantiated concept.  I fully endorse Jackie Wu's E/IALO, the scientific theory of evolution by the process of intelligent adaptation of living organisms.  I do not deny probabilistic quantum mechanics.  I just am not sure about it.  I don't think you are either, since I can see the way you were being so very defensive of it.  I never deny the validity of relativity.  I said it is a scientific theory although scientists said it does not work in quantum mechanics.  Your accusations are baseless.  That is the point. 7)  I don't really have any peers, only the truth.  People laugh at the truth all the time.  Some even crucify the speaker of truth.  God is not a religion.  GOD DID IT is a theory but it is not a scientific theory.  It is a philosophical theory.  All scientific theories are in essence metaphysical.  Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy and so is science.  I do not believe the earth is 6000 years old.  8)  You said, "If god is unknowable, then you don't even know if he exists,"  That is not true.  We can't know God.  We can only choose to believe God exist by our logic, the law of cause and effect, applied towards our observations, the birds and the gees, the stars and the galaxies, etc.  We believe God is metaphysical and unknowable to humans because of our logically deduction that anything that exist before the beginning of anything physical must be not physical but metaphysical.  The law of cause and effect is a law and it is still a law as long as it has not been refuted. Patiently and respectfully waiting for you to continue, ....
    1
  32. L.Ron Dow  You said, " E/IALO is what we call Genetic Engineering ..."  Not.  Genetic engineering refers to artificial alteration or re-designing of DNA intelligence.  E/IALO is referring to the workings of the original design which is not artificial but created by the intelligent designer we called God. Per Wiki, "Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise." Evolution : Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. Mutation and genetic drift has occurred, no disagreement there.  But there is no evolution by the process of natural selection which is speciation, not mutation and not genetic drift. Speciation has never been observed in human history whether created by God or popped out of other species by some bullshit selection process. "Newton's Law makes no attempt to become a theory by explaining what gravity actually is."  I agree more than 100%.  The truth is laws describe whereas theories explain.  A law is not a theory and a theory is not a law.  Laws are observations.  Theories are logical explanations.  Observations are not logic, and logic cannot be observed.  Logic, like God, gravity, and time, are metaphysical entities.  They are unknowable by humans.  We can only choose to believe or not to believe in these entities by applying our logic towards our observation of the effects of these entities but not of the entities themselves.
    1
  33. milesmcstylez  First of all I never said relativity is an invalid theory.  Please don't lie., okay ? You said, "Long story short, cause and effect is not something you can apply to the beginning of our universe, which makes it useless when trying to prove your god exists." You seemed to think you know what is useful and what is useless by just you saying so.  So who am I to argue with ?  Let's use quantum fluctuation then,   God is the nothing you seemed to think everything temporarily comes from and disappears to.  That okay now ?  You happy ?
    1
  34. milesmcstylez Your arguments are illogical, 1) Evolution is neither a fact nor a single theory.  It is illogical to call it a scientific theory. 2)  There is no such thing as "common decent".  There is just common similarities in design. 3)  common decent and evolution is not like gravity and gravitation because common decent and evolution are both unsubstantiated by any observation whereas universal gravitation is a law of repeatable observations. You posted three more examples of intelligent design and varieties within species.  These has nothing to do with evolution by the process of natural selection.  Read Fitzhugh again, ".... evolution' cannot be regarded as a fact even in the context of hypotheses since the causal points of reference continue to be organisms, and no amount of confirming instances for those hypotheses will transform them into facts..."  Each and every living organism is designed and created to be unique. 
    1
  35. milesmcstylez Facts or theories, both mutation and genetics are scientific and neither of them says anything about speciation or evolution.  Evolution is irrelevant in these scientific studies. I am getting tired of these childish game play about relativity.  You know damn well Einstein's relativity started with one theory, and later he added another theory to complement the first.  Einstein's relativity has never been an opinion based on a collection of other theories.  Evolution, however, is just a story based on a collection of theories that don't even say anything about evolution.  So throw away your red herring, kid. I don't know why you keep on proving design for us.  There is no "common descent", only common similarities in designs.  Your quantum fluctuation red herring is not working either.
    1
  36. L.Ron Dow  My pleasure.  I don't see any problem  in this NIH definition of Genetic Mutation?  They describe how marvellous is intelligence designed into each and every living organisms that enables varieties within the human specie.  Evolutionists should read this and understand mutations do not turn the human specie into some other species as suggested by the bullshit evolution fairy tale.
    1
  37. emanuel e  Forgive him,  he is just confused.  He didn't know it was the opposite : information processes fire burning. 
    1
  38. milesmcstylez  Common descent does not exist in real life just as evolution does not exist in real life.  No one creates any false evidence except evolutionists. Both theories of Einstein's relativity are stand alone theories.  There is not a single theory of evolution.  There are theories in mutations, physics, genetics, chemistry, etc. but they says nothing about evolution.  A bunch of animals is not an animal but a zoo.  Evolution is neither an animal nor a zoo.  It is at best an unsubstantiated opinion, and at worst a lie and a conspiracy, with plenty of synthesized story telling in the middle.
    1
  39. milesmcstylez  Yeah, right ! Don't dumb it down, smarten it up.  Replace "common descent" with "common similarities in design" and you'll get the right focus. 
    1
  40. milesmcstylez  We don't know what the intent of the designer was what imagination is involved that made you think anything looks like common descent.  There is no "common descent", period. You said, "There really is no other reason to "design" different species with the same errors in their genes,....."  Well, there is no reason why all living organisms are designed to die either, even crocodiles don't get to live forever.  But that doesn't mean shit, does it now ?
    1
  41. L.Ron Dow  You got the idea.  There is no mistake.  It appears as a mistake to the observer but everything that exist is caused to exist, there can be no randomness, accidents, or mistakes, period. Everybody use shorthand.  It is good that you finally learned something though.  
    1
  42. L.Ron Dow  You are good.  You got most of the basics right.  But what you missed is the Will of God which no human knows, not even Jesus.  God the first cause is metaphysical.  What is metaphysical is unknowable by humans.  Whether or not God has any Will is unknowable to humans.  A lot of people believe God has a Will.  Some even pretend that they know what God's Will is.  Not me, I don't pretend that I know if God has or has not any Will, and certainly I don't pretend to know God's Will if God indeed has any.  That said, my understanding of our existence does not include FREE WILL and neither does it exclude FREE WILL.  It is entirely up to God if and when Divine Intervention is to take place.  Divine Intervention (may be that's what Darwin mean by natural selection) may be very rare or may be it is some of the routine causes of everyday life in say conception of life, insights, human ingenuity, child birth, and quantum fluctuation, we humans just cannot know. That brings up the importance of prayers.  Through prayers we are focusing our wills and that's the time we are ready for Divine Intervention.  Jesus prayed the night before his arrest when he prayed, "Father, it is not my wish to drink from this bitter cup, but it is Your Will that is to be done, not mine."  That shows Jesus did not know the Will of God but ready and in fact wished to submit himself to God.  When he was dying on the cross he yelled, "Father, why have you forsaken me ?".  That show us again that Jesus didn't know what's going to happen next, but he asked God to intervene and God did, Jesus died shortly after, and his spirit is still alive today 2000 years after his death. You called me sad, or sick.  I forgive you.  You seemed to have a problem reconciling the evil of God to the good of God.  I think you can resolve that dilemma by learning Yin Yang.  Have faith in the truth.  The truth is always in control, and the truth will prevail.  May the truth set you free.  And may the love and the peace of Jesus be with you.
    1
  43. L.Ron Dow  You said, " A designer, by definition (Design:noun: Purpose or planning that exists behind an action, fact, or object. OED), is willfully creating something to fulfill some purpose." A lot of people believe that but a lot of people are not pretending that they know the designer has a Will or if the designer do in fact has a Will that this Will is in any way knowable to humans. You asked, "Can you create Laws and give them unless you have the Will to do so?"  may be, may be not.  What do you think ?  I made a lot of laws at home with my kids and never have any will to enforce them.  You don't really want to spank your kids for breaking your house law.  You just wish your kids follow them.  But I'm just saying this for the humour and the truth of what happened in my house.  The real answer to your question is  "It is unknowable", final answer. You said, "When you refer to God as an intelligent designer, creating design and creating & giving Laws, it is clear that you do believe he has Intention and Will even if those are a mystery."  Unknowable, not mystery  and not we don't know.  I can't say your statement there is wrong.  But I do feel that it is rather stupid. PARDON ME !  When the fuck did I " start to quote christian scripture as though it is already proven that Yahweh exists."  When the fuck did I mention anything about sin, Adam, or disobedience ?  And what has Jesus got to do with Christian scripture ?  Who the fuck said Jesus is Christ ?  I am telling you right now : Jesus is not Christ, not God, not the only Son of God, and not even a prophet for he never prophecies because to prophecies is to undermine, marginalise, and misrepresent God, and he never claimed what he is not.  These are all verifiable facts.  I never said anything that is not based on truth and verifiable facts.  I am not a liar like you.  And frankly, I don't understanding why you have to lie.  We are seekers of truth here, are we not ? This is what I said, "I don't pretend that I know if God has or has not any Will, and certainly I don't pretend to know God's Will if God indeed has any.  That said, my understanding of our existence does not include FREE WILL and neither does it exclude FREE WILL.  It is entirely up to God if and when Divine Intervention is to take place.  Divine Intervention (may be that's what Darwin mean by natural selection) may be very rare or may be it is some of the routine causes of everyday life in say conception of life, insights, human ingenuity, child birth, and quantum fluctuation, we humans just cannot know." What part of that is pretentious or inconsistent with everything else I have said ?  And what part of "we humans just cannot know" you don't understand ?  I have never talked about FREE WILL until you brought it up and challenged me on it, and so I tried to explain it the best I can.  You somehow just want to put words in my mouth.  Is that the normal way you deal with people or did the truth shocked the good sense out of you ?  Calm down.  We are just sharing and enjoying the beauty of life here, no one is going to lose a job or flunk an exam on YT. :)  May the love and the peace of Jesus be with you.
    1
  44. milesmcstylez  I am not sure I understand exactly what you mean by your hypothetical inheritable scare tissues analogy.  It seems to me what you referred to as common descent is nothing more than common similarities in design as we can see even between humans and corn.  And there is still nothing to suggest humans giving birth to corn or vice versa except in fairy tales.  When you said, "(And If you're wondering why I'm using the terminology of invisible man in the sky, it's because there's no reason to think a metaphysical, undefinable first cause is capable of or interested in building genomes from scratch. You're anthropomorphizing the living shit out of your idea of god, whether you care to admit it or not)", are you saying you know the reason of creation and the capability of the creator, and you are the judge of both?  Or are you just bullshitting to avoid having to provide evidence which you don't have ?
    1
  45. emanuel e  They are not philosophers.  They are blind followers.  The blind leads the blind and how can they not both fall into the pit.  Write these words in your heart. 
    1
  46. L.Ron Dow  What part of  "God is unknowable to humans.  We humans can only choose to believe or not to believe in God based on our logic applied towards our observations of the effects of God and not of God" you don't understand ?  Do you believe in Free Will ?  And why ?  " Yet, to be an intelligent designer and a Law giver requires intent. "  Bullshit ! "Even, to create Laws for a universe, in which nothing can happen by accident or at random, is illogical."  Not.  Your statement is illogical. Why are you quoting from the Bible ?  Who gives a shit about the Bible ?   You ? "You accuse me of being a liar - tell me what lies I have written..."  You lied about me quoting Christian scripture. "In both cases you are using the events in the quotes as authority for your argument "  What authority are you talking about.  I was giving an example for my assertion that no human knows the Will of God, not even Jesus.  If you don't like this example because you don't believe in Jesus, that's okay, I'll give you another example, MLK.  Not even MLK knows the Will of God even though he believed he was going to be assassinated the next day and he accepted it and didn't run away because of his faith in God. So you believe in "the lake of everlasting fire." ?  Well, I don't.  I believe in having fun and saving a few souls while I am at it.  I am saving your soul from the evil of Darwinism and/or atheism.  You know that ? May the love and the peace of Jesus be with you.
    1
  47. emanuel e  Sorry, I disagree.  I think philosophers are not blind, they are.  Lack of philosophical understanding is the cause, blindness is the effect 
    1
  48. emanuel e  As for me, lacking the understanding of philosophy and logic is blindness,  For example, L.Ron Dow is one. Philosophers can be physically blind and still be able to see better than seeing persons. 
    1
  49. L.Ron Dow  Per Webster, "agnostic ,  : a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not : a person who does not believe or is unsure of something. That kind of agnostic is not acceptable in view of the overwhelming evidence.  You are right to point out the other kind of agnostic which I agree is acceptable. Good you believe in FREE WILL.  As for me, I am agnostic. You asked, "What, you believe that you can intelligently-design something without intending to?"  We human can't, but all our evidence logically points to God being just "is", and unknowable to human as to Intent and as to Will.  To pretend we know more than that is lying to ourselves or being superstitious. You asked, " What would be the point of inventing laws for entities to obey if their every property and behavior was completely pre-determined?"  Our logical tells us that these are pre-determined but that is not considering the Will of God.  That's the point I was making. You jump into the conclusion of FREE WILL without evidence but the evidence I can see is that God's Will is unknowable.  And it is God's Will that determine if we have Free Will or not.  It is not our choice like you said.  So asking what would be the point is being illogical. Okay.  So you give a shit about the Bible, to the point of quoting it here as an argument that the Bible is full of shit.  So what's the point of this circular reasoning ?  I don't have to know much about the Bible  to understand anyone quoting the Bible is trying to misrepresent some higher authority. You were lying because I was just describing an event of what Jesus said.  I did not quote any book or any verses like you were doing.  So I did not quote scripture, I quoted common knowledge and common understanding, or rather misunderstanding that Jesus knew the Will of God or that Jesus is God.  I quoted what Jesus didn't say also, like he never said he is Crist, but that is not quoting from the Gospel.  It is rather a statement of fact that can be verified by checking it in the Gospel You asked, " Who are you that you claim to know the mind of Jesus (else how could you know that He didn't know the Will of God)".  Logic applied towards evidence as usually.  I believe, I never said I know.  The mind of anyone, not just Jesus, is unknowable to humans.  May be not even knowable to the person himself or herself.  We can only believe or not believe based on our logic applied towards our observation of the effects of these minds and not of these minds themselves. You asked, " How would knowing God's Will have changed anything?" Nothing in the case of MLK.  But the point is he is a human and humans cannot know the Will of God.  He could only submit himself to God when he chose not to escape the assassination which he could have.  Had he known the Will of God, that won't have changed anything because with the benefit of hind sight we now can see his wishes came true and he seemed to know they will come true even though he was not going to live to see it, and that's because of his great faith in God.  We are talking about the way of non violent resistance here, not so much the political victory.  And is that Divine Intervention in action or free will in action ?  Your guess is as good as mine. Do you believe the Muslims got it right and that's why you are threatening me with hellfire ? Do you really believe crap is pretty ?  And why are you wishing such awful thing on anyone to be burnt by long time sun. God bless.
    1
  50. L.Ron Dow  LMAO.  An ignorant physicist pretending he knows biology and what gravity is saying TRUTH has no power and no threat to his little superstitious existence.  No wonder they say ignorance is bliss. May God have mercy on you.
    1
  51. *****  The Pope is FOS but that doesn't mean you have to be FOS. What part of there is zero evidence for Darwin's evolution that you don't understand ?  And what part of Darwin's evolution is not science, not a fact, and not a single theory that you don't understand ? Read all my comments before you ask stupid questions like those again, okay ? 
    1
  52. milesmcstylez  Evolution is neither a fact nor a single theory.  It is a collection of theories applied to a variety of causal questions.  It cannot be science because natural selection cannot be scientifically tested since it is meaningless and void unless it means Divine Intervention which is then excluded from science.  The two theories of Einstein's relativity are two related theories each can stand alone and neither one is a collection of other theories.  Get the facts straight before you keep embarrassing yourself here, okay, child ?  Genetic scarring is evidence for design involving living organisms, not some bullshit selection by Darwin or some god like intelligence, okay, kid ?
    1
  53. milesmcstylez  What part of there is zero evidence for evolution you don't understand ?  Put up the evidence if you can and stop bullshitting about evolutionary this and evolutionary that as if Darwin's evolution bullshit is anything more than bullshit.  Theory of relativities are scientific theories but there is not even a single theory of evolution, scientific or otherwise.  Calling physics and chemistry "evolutionary theories" is simply nut if not intellectually dishonest as well. Design is design, regardless of how and what you decide the appearance of design means to idiots like you.  You are too self centered to be a science student. Exactly, no one is selecting anything.
    1
  54. milesmcstylez  Not and not.  All these observations involved living organisms and the intelligence designed into each and every living organism to enable living organisms to survive, reproduce, adapt, and die, thus completing the circle of life,  These are therefore evidence for designs, nothing to do with any bullshit selection, speciation, or imaginary evolution.  Learn the facts before you post and make a fool of yourself, okay, kid.
    1
  55. milesmcstylez  I am surprised you didn't object my calling you a kid.  No worries.  You can call me a kid too if I ever started to make ridiculous comments. Intelligent Adaptation of Living Organisms begin with intelligence which can be scientifically tested and E/IALO only used the word "Evolution" to describe changes in appearance, not design and no speciation assumed or implied for that can only come from Divine Intervention which is not science.  Darwin's Evolution by the process of Natural Selection is not science because "Natural Selection" is an imaginary term void  and meaningless if it is not referring to Divine Intervention.  Darwin's evolution involve speciation where there is zero supporting evidence.  Varieties within species is not speciation and not evolution even though people continue to call it micro-evolution.  Varieties within species is a part of design.  The science of mutation and genetics explained these varieties, and these science says nothing about speciation or evolution.  "Random mutation + Selective Pressure + Time = Biological changes. " is in total error. 1)  Random mutation:  Mutation is caused, not random.  The law of cause and effect does not allow randomness to exist in real life.  Everything that exist is caused to exist.  This is the Law. Example : you can only roll 1,2,3,4,5, or 6 by rolling a single standard dice.  You cannot roll a 7 or 8 by random chance or by accident.  You can try this at home if you don't believe me. :) 2)  Selective Pressure:  No such thing exists in real life.  Pressure from the environment, yes, but "Selective", no.  No one is doing any selection and the inanimate environment has no intelligence to enable it to act, choose and select.  It has always been the intelligence designed and created in each and every living organism that enables the living organism to survive, reproduce, adapt, and die, thus completing their circle of life.  This intelligence allowed the living organisms to act, choose, select, and otherwise manipulate their natural (God given) environment and never the other way around.  It has always been living organisms that change in appearance, not rocks and dust.  Example : human, monkeys, and plant has now lived in space. 3)  Time :  Time works against the evolution bullshit.  The longer the time the least likely is evolution.  Time has always been observed to reduce order and complexity to chaos and simplicity and never the other way around. Example: the ruins of Egypt. 4)  Biological change:  Biological change in shapes and forms of living organism is a part of design.  There is no biological change in original design and no speciation ever been observed whether they are caused by Divine Intervention or any bullshit selection. Example:  Chameleons lizards changes colour for the purpose of camouflage as originally designed. You asked, " why you're not a theistic evolutionist, of the "god designed life with the capacity to evolve" variety."  The reason is speciation and evolution by some bullshit selection do not exist in real life.  There is no such thing as micro-evolution, there is only designed varieties within species.  I am not ruling out Divine Intervention.  I am just saying it has never been observed.  I suppose I can be wrong in the sense that each child birth is evidence of Divine Intervention, which I would gladly accept.
    1
  56. milesmcstylez You can define evolution, speciation, randomness, natural, selection, scientific laws, and time any way you want to suit your bullshit, the fact remains Darwin's evolution is at best an unsubstantiated concept and at worst a lie and a conspiracy, with plenty of synthesized story telling in between.  There is not a single theory of evolution, and there is zero evidence for evolution.  So bullshits remain as bullshits, and science remain as science.  End of story.
    1
  57. milesmcstylez  Not a single theory that can be scientifically tested, not a single piece of supporting evidence, Darwin's evolution is a fairy tale, period. 
    1
  58. milesmcstylez  That is a very good experiment you described, and it served to confirm intelligent adaptations of living organisms.  Pay special attention to step one.  Make sure they are live bacteria and not plastic ones, otherwise you won't get the desired result because plastic bacteria don't have intelligence. 
    1
  59. milesmcstylez  We are talking about Darwin's bullshit evolution by the process of natural selection, not your concept of "evolution just means change".  Speciation is required in Darwin's evolution, and speciation has never been observed.  Varieties within species is not micro evolution.  It is a part of design.  Learn these basics, okay ?
    1
  60. milesmcstylez  I told you earlier, you can keep inventing new definitions to suit your own bullshit, but there is no theory of evolution and no observation of speciation, evolution, natural selection as is described in Darwin's bullshit concept of evolution. Your point 4) violates your latest example of so called speciation.   Not that it matters or mean anything, for they are all bullshit anyways, just pointing it out to you, that's all.
    1
  61. milesmcstylez  ".... the definitions used in mainstream science," LOL.  And WTF is that ?  There is not a single theory of evolution.  The only mainstream opinion of biologists' is Darwin's evolution bullshit which includes speciation. "Seeing as I said speciation doesn't require evolution,...." I told you that long time ago.  Speciation does not involve any bullshit evolution or any baloney selection.  Living organisms were designed and created by the creator with the intelligence that enables living organisms to survive, mutate, adapt, reproduce, and die, thus completing the circle of life.  Spices were created long time ago.  No speciation has ever been observed since the beginning of mankind, period. Print this truth in your heart.
    1
  62. emanuel e  Peer review papers on evolution are based on an unsubstantiated concept, a lie, and a conspiracy.  They even have what's called "modern evolutionary synthesis".  Trying to fabricate a synthetic story is the work of conspirators who do not have a real scientific theory to work with, so they synthesize one.  LOL 
    1
  63. emanuel e  They have been stuffing youth with this garbage for decades now, ever since Hitler bought into Darwin's evolution bullshit.  Lies and propagandas in schools, in universities, in the media, they are very powerful and lots of money is involved.  Imagine, 99% of biologists confirmed they believed in this shit !  What a shame ! 
    1
  64. emanuel e  Ah, yes, YHWH, the One that cannot be named, the Alpha and the Omega.  God means different thing to different people at different time, these are parts of the One and the same God.  God has infinite parts.  Communism as in Marxism is a socialistic ideology that has nothing to do with religion.  In Communist China today, all kinds of religion is freely practised.  Christianity is booming in China, and so is Buddhism.  In view of the overwhelming evidence and logical proofs for God and the lack of any contrary evidence, believing in God is an evidenced based logical choice.  To not believe in God is being irrational and illogical.  To believe that there is no God is outright delusional. No worries, the truth is always in control and the truth will prevail.  These blind followers of Darwin's evolution will eventually come to terms with reality and dismiss this lie and conspiracy.
    1
  65. milesmcstylez  There is no e word in real life.  Natural Selection does not exist in real life.  Species were designed and created.  That's God's speciation or Divine Intervention which happened God knows when but no observation of it has ever been made.  Nothing is contradictory about this.  It is only contradictory to Darwin's evolution which includes speciation as a result of the natural selection bullshits.  
    1
  66. emanuel e  Yin Yang.  There you'll find the answer to your dilemma.  Yin Yang is one of the oldest if not the oldest wisdom in human history and it is reconciliatory, complementary, inter-related, and interdependent in nature which is what the West is just beginning to recognise in our ecological system which the colonial west has been destroying faster than it can be re-built. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with you.
    1
  67. milesmcstylez  Bacteria adapt and becoming resistant to antibiotics as their normal designed defense mechanism, no speciation involved there. You kept quoting design and called it evolution.   How is that going to help you learn the truth ?  You must forget about Darwin's evolution and start learning some science.  Use my E/IALO if you want to understand the truth, okay, kid ?
    1
  68. milesmcstylez  " Doesn't really make sense to call it a defense mechanism if they didn't have it until after they started needing it." WTF are you talking about that they didn't have it.  Who gave it to them, if it was not already a part of the intelligence designed and created in each and everyone of the living organisms ? Engines, tires, wheels, windshield wipers, steering columns, seats, air conditioning, radios, air bags are all components of an automobile, but we don't call a junk yard full of these parts new species of automobiles.  May be you do, but we don't.  We say you are FOS. I started this thread talking about science and how Darwin's bullshit evolution is not science.  No parsimony is applicable in science or any of our discussions here.  Everything I said is based on truth and verifiable facts, parsimony or not. May the truth be with you.
    1
  69. milesmcstylez  Mutation involve intelligence, and the intelligence were designed and created in each and every living organism that undergone mutation.  That is why I said adaptation is a defense mechanism. The bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics never "evolved".  They adapted. Please stop lying.  I have never said God is a verifiable fact.  I said God is unknowable to humans, only believable.  I also said God is not falsifiable and God is not science.  Science is incapable of validating or falsifying God because God is metaphysical and is therefore unknowable to humans. Cars do not reproduce.  That is a verifiable fact.  Living organisms reproduce and they never reproduce a new specie.  That also is a verifiable fact.  Your fantasies have limits when it comes to reality.  Speciation is Darwin's fantasy, and it does not exist in real life, period. May the truth be with you.
    1
  70. milesmcstylez  I told you earlier that you can keep inventing new definitions for evolution and speciation, the truth remains Darwin's bullshit evolution is not science and there is zero evidence for it.  End of story. You don't need "approximations", fabrication, or conspired synthesis, you have Jackie Wu's E/IALO as your scientific theory.
    1
  71. milesmcstylez  Wow !  You are crazier than I thought.  Celestial objects are relatives of each other ?  Which one is the uncle and which one is the niece ?  Giving them names doesn't mean they are human, you know ? It is you who doesn't know what these terms mean and keep inventing new meanings to suite the bullshit. WTF is evolutionary theory when there is no evolution to begin with.  Your presumption does not exist in real life, only in fairy tales.  End of story.
    1
  72. milesmcstylez  You keep saying Darwin's evolution is accepted by the science community, but as what ?  Scientists would view Darwin's evolution as an unsubstantiated concept since it is neither a fact nor a single theory.  That is the best they can do with it.  In a worst case scenario, they'll have to treat it as a lie and a conspiracy.  In any case Darwin's evolution is not science and there is zero evidence.  It is nothing more than a fairy tale.  End of story.
    1
  73. milesmcstylez  Evolution is neither a fact nor a single theory.  There is no theory of evolution, period.  There are two theories of relativity, and quantum mechanics is a field of scientific study, not a theory or a collection of theories.  Darwin's evolution is nothing but a fairy tale.  End of discussion.  Exactly, "Science focuses on (i) observing the natural world and (ii) formulating testable and refutable hypotheses to derive deeper explanations for observable phenomena."  Darwin's bullshit evolution is not science and it can be dismissed for lack of any observable or testable evidence.  Notice Darwin was not mentioned in your quote ? The only logical explanation of all these scientific observations is my scientific theory of Evolution by the process of Intelligent Adaptation of Living Organisms, E/IALO.  The buck stops at intelligence and not dragging meaningless terms like natural selection into a theory which is intended to be a scientific theory and not a godless fairy tale.  Leave the real God and Darwin's imaginary god of baloney selection outside the science classroom please.
    1
  74. milesmcstylez  " The evolution of bacteria, both in and outside of the lab, has been observable, testable evidence, and the predictive power of evolutionary is one of the strongest in all of science. The incontrovertible evidence for common descent seals the deal, but honestly isn't even necessary at this point." All you are referring to there is design and the intelligent adaptation of living organisms, not Darwin's evolution by the process of natural selection.  Why you would be in favour of adopting the meaningless term of "natural selection" rather than the obviously meaningful and scientific term of "intelligent adaptation of living organisms" is beyond me. I think your bias is the effect of "The king's new clothes".  You and all those lammings who called themselves scientists and biologists, and also some of the religious fucktarts, are just too scared of not belonging. Let the truth set you free.
    1
  75. milesmcstylez  Why are you such a habitual liar ? I said in my E/IALO, the buck stops at intelligence, nothing else beyond that, no God, no designer, no bullshit selection, and no "natural" bullshit.  Intelligent design as well as natural selection is a separate topic that is not being brought into the science classroom because neither of them is scientific. "Also, just because you can't wrap your hear around the meaning of natural selection doesn't make it meaningless. Your entire argument against evolution boils down to "I don't understand it, therefore it's false" Even Darwin himself confessed that natural selection is absurd to the highest degree.  So is absurd better than meaningless to you ?  And are you saying you understand what is the meaning of "natural selection" other than "Divine Intervention" ?
    1
  76. milesmcstylez  "....  biology is no more dependent on intelligence than thunderstorms, snowflakes, sunsets, or crystal formation." Biology, may be, but changes of varieties within species is totally dependent on intelligence, and intelligent adaptation of living organisms.  Also you should notice that all these God made orders and complexity are reduced back to chaos in a rather short period of time.  Only the living organisms can remain orderly and complex because of the intelligence within them.  Only intelligence can work against the law of increasing randomness.  For example human intelligence can make space stations orbit in space and Elvis' singing decades after his death. "Actually, Darwin said it was counter-intuitive, and therefore seems absurd at first glance." Exactly.  It is so obvious that it doesn't required a second glace.  But second and many more glances biologists have done, and there is still zero evidence of Darwin's evolution by the process of natural selection.  Natural selection is still as absurd as it was at first glance.    Darwin even said that the planets orbiting the sun seemed absurd at first glace, but how stupid could that be ?  It is the sun orbiting the planets that is absurd, and it is not only absurd at first glace, it has always been absurd.  He should have said that it is like water shooting upward like in a fountain that may seemed absurd at first glance, but how does that explain his bullshit evolution ?  That water shoots upwards because of some bullshit selection rather than human intelligent design as in fountains and God made design as in natural springs ?  He might as well say God created our physical universe seemed absurd at first glance. "The rate of change will vary depending on how much flux you're seeing in the environment, but it's never going to completely flatline unless you eliminate variation or reproduction rates hit 100%." Exactly.  What you were describing there is intelligent adaptation of living organisms. Try to learn the truth, okay ?
    1
  77. milesmcstylez  " Not sure why you think "intelligent adaptation of living organisms" sounds any better than "theistic evolution",......" Well, to begin with there is nothing theistic about intelligence in living organisms.  They are stored and operated through their DNA.  We have been doing DNA research for years, and there is even DNA engineering where humans are tinkering with the intelligence that was originally in the living organisms.  Secondly, the "evolution" in E/IALO is only referring to changing in appearance like varieties within species, and does not include any speciation.  Thirdly, theism and atheism is a separate topic and issues that is not scientific.  These issues deals with the truth, and you need to understand that science does not hold a monopoly on truth.  The truth is atheists are blind faith believers whereas believers in God based their belief on overwhelming evidence and logical proofs for God and on the fact that there is zero contrary evidence. May the truth open you eyes so you can see.
    1
  78. milesmcstylez  I can see you are not addressing your comments any more.  So let me assumed you hope for me to read it and comment.  So I'll fulfill your wish.  The first thing you need to learn is science does not hold a monopoly on truth.  The truth of the matter is science can never prove or disprove the existence of God.  Metaphysics is the foundation of science.  All scientific theories are in essence metaphysical.  God is metaphysical, and what is metaphysical is unknowable to humans.  We humans can only choose to believe or not to believe in metaphysical entities like God, gravity, time, space, and life, by applying logic to our observations of the effects of these metaphysical entities but not of the entities themselves for they are unobservable and unknowable to humans.  In view of the overwhelming evidence and logical proofs for God and the absence of any contrary evidence, it is rational and logical to believe in God, and it is irrational and illogical to disbelieve in God, not to mention that to believe that there is no God is outright delusional. Write this truth in your heart for it may save your soul one day.
    1
  79. milesmcstylez  " The fact that you can't prove/disprove god is as relevant as the fact you can't prove/disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster." Wrong.  FSM is a proven fact and that it exist and is real, a real fictional character.  Google it and you can read when it was first developed as a fictional character. "If god is unknowable and unprovable, you don't even get to say you know he exists." No.  The truth is "since God is unknowable to humans, you don't even get to say you know God does not exist.   I never said I know God exist.  I said we believers of God believe God exist and our beliefs are evidence based, rational and logical, and there is zero contrary evidence. May the truth open you eyes so you may start to see.
    1
  80. milesmcstylez  God cannot be a fictional character because God is a metaphysical concept like what gravity, time, space, and life is, not some sort of person or personalised characters.  I do agree though that the god of Abraham is a fictional character out of the fiction we called the bible. Before you ask me for evidence for God you must first of all understand the difference between evidence and proof.  I'll teach you.  There are scientific evidence but there is no such thing called scientific proof.  Proofs only exist in logic and mathematics.  Everything can be evidence for God because the assumption we used in our hypothesis that God exist is that God is the creator of our physical universe.  The logical proof is the law of cause and effect that states everything that exist is caused to exist.  We call the first cause God the creator. Re. your two caveats, 1)  God is not falsifiable.  That does not mean everything cannot be evidence for God.  Falsifiability is only required in scientific theorization.  God is not science.  God is the creator of science.  None of the metaphysical entities like gravity, time, space, and life is falsifiable either, but they are facts used in science and God is too without being explicit. 2)  Evolution is not evidence of anything because evolution does not even exist in real life.  The bullshit evolution proposed by Darwin and Wallace is an unsubstantiated concept at best and a lie and conspiracy at worst, with plenty of synthesized story telling in between. Your missing pizza can be evidence for extraterrestrials.  It is just that your logical proof is contradicted by other evidence and logical proofs.  There is however zero contrary evidence or contrary proof for God the creator of our physical universe and everything that is in it.  The only logical proof is the law of cause and effect that points to a metaphysical first cause. May the truth be with you.
    1
  81. emanuel e  Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.   What truth did you think I was talking about ?
    1
  82. milesmcstylez  You are not intelligent.  Who says a blender is not intelligent ?  Show me one unintelligent blender which can process DNA please. 
    1
  83. emanuel e  His theory is, like natural selection, given enough time his blender will create a better novel than Shakespeare's with just the blending of the ink.  It is so funny!  LMAO.
    1
  84. Erik Graul You said, " For example, before the chair existed, wood, lacquer, and nails existed." Wrong.  Before the chair exist, the metaphysical form of a chair must exist in the mind of the carpenter before he set out to gather the material for building the chair.  A chair is an intelligent design, with human being the intelligent designer.  All living organisms are intelligent designs, with God being the intelligent designer.  Our physical universe was designed and created.  This is the law, the law of cause and effect.  We called the first cause God the creator. You said, "For example, the moon causes gravity, that causes tides in our oceans." Wrong.  No one knows what causes gravity, and no one knows what gravity is.  It is gravity that causes tides in our oceans, the moon is just a part of the effects of gravity that we can observe.  Gravity itself is metaphysical, and what is metaphysical is unknowable and unobservable to humans. You can categorize the cause of the existence of our physical universe by any way you want, categorising does not change the fact that our physical universe was caused to exist.  This is the law, the law of cause and effect.
    1
  85. emanuel e  I agree, living organisms are not only intelligent designs, but also possess intelligence, as evidenced by the DNA.  A doll is a human intelligent design with no DNA, whereas a human is a God made intelligent design with DNA and the consciousness that allowed humans to design dolls, computers, and space stations.  Beavers can build dams for the same reason, whereas toy beavers can't.
    1
  86. Erik Graul  " Newton's law of universal gravitation ....." We all know Newton's law of gravity.  A law is an repeatable observation, not an explanation.  There is no theory of gravity 300 years after Newton.  No one knows what gravity is.  We just believed in gravity.  With the same logic, we believed in God. "So logically, if the material universe exist. Then there has to be some previously existing material that it came from." Wrong.  The big bang hypothesis mathematically proved that our material universe had a beginning.  Before the big band there was no physical universe, no material, period.  Your belief in materialism is not grounded. "All the painter did, was rearrange and use to his advantage previously existing stuff." Wrong.  The idea of the painting must have existed in the painter's mind before he or she can set out to gather the material to put his idea into an observable form, the painting.  The pre-existing material is meaningless before the painter used it to express an idea, a meaning, a design.  Intelligence is essential, no painting can exist by randomness, regardless of how many trillion of years is involved.  That is the essence of the law of cause and effect. " I make a comment about cause and effect. " Yes you did, and I explained to you how you comment was rubbish.  One thing you need to understand, while effects can often be materialistic, causes are never materialistic.
    1
  87. Erik Graul  The definition you quoted is not scientific.  In science, LAWS DESCRIBE repeated observations that has never been contradicted, THEORIES EXPLAIN what we observed as facts.  Newton's law of gravity describes but does not explain, and that is why it is called a law and not a theory.  No one knows what gravity is.  You said, "We actually don't know what was before."  That is a logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance.  The truth is we do know.  We know by logic that everything that exists is caused to exist, and that includes our physical universe.  This is the law.
    1
  88. Erik Graul   Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is a theory of relativity, not a theory of gravity.  In fact, according to this theory, gravity either does not exist or is a fictitious force.  No one knows what gravity is.  Newton's law of gravity remained unexplained after 300 years.
    1
  89. Erik Graul  Per Wiki, " In a field model, rather than two particles attracting each other, the particles distort spacetime via their mass, and this distortion is what is perceived and measured as a "force". In such a model one states that matter moves in certain ways in response to the curvature of spacetime,[2] and that there is either no gravitational force,[3] or that gravity is a fictitious force." Either way, Einstein's theory of general relativity is not a theory of gravity but a theory of non-gravity space/time curvature.
    1