I always thought that evotarded were retarded, but oh my random mutations, arguing that DNA is not a code just proves that they are uneducated too....what a shame
dude this video completely sucks. not because im pro evolutionist. im open to many ideas, but your attempts to bash the evolutionists is completely ridiculous. Especially the attempt to create an analogy with the newspaper. Utterly, completely, horrible. Im not even gonna watch part three. Too bad, looked somewhat promising.
@onceforgivennowfree Indeed. As far as we know at this time, DNA contains a certain pattern of information that determines or gives predisposition towards certain physical traits and bio-functioning of all living organisms. Where are you going with this though?
Some man is up in the sky making DNA. LMAO It's happens out in space by stars exploding people that is what makes corbon and there is alot of different corbon, about 50 of them go into making up our bodies. I find wonder out in space and imagination, just think of all we could learn by getting off this rock.
There are 4 base pairs in DNA. The order of them grouped into 3 letters 'codes' for the next acid, it tells the cell which amino acid comes next. It is not that hard or complex. It is just Chemistry. No magic or gods required once the forces of nature were created.
@gregrutz "There are 4 base pairs in DNA. The order of them grouped into 3 letters 'codes' for the next acid, it tells the cell which amino acid comes next. It is not that hard or complex. It is just Chemistry."
Show me a system not intelligently created that uses 4 "letter-like" structures to form "words" and chains of instructional blue prints for construction, and you might start getting somewhere. Do you know the odds of any of that happening naturally? It's molecular code.
DNA contains all kinds of "If...Then" statements throughout its nucleotides to regulate how the instructions and information in the DNA are to be used, as well as many other functions similar to computer programming language. It locks out chunks of info to be ignored or used dependent on the overall function and purpose of the cell. The reason why stem cells are so popular is because they don't have the bulk of their genetic code "locked out" or regulated yet. They can still become ANY cell.
DNA contains a LOT more instruction ("code") then just what codes for Proteins, as scientists are discovering more and more every day. At one time it was thought that 97% of DNA was "junk DNA", evolutionary "left overs" and "garbage" that was no longer needed or used. But in the last ten years and with each passing year, scientists are discovering that more and more of the DNA they thought was "junk" is actually very functional and critical to life.
Mathematical probability says that anything with odds of 1 to the 50th power (exponent) or greater is equivalent to being impossible. One average Protein (with no variables in play other than just the right Amino Acids themselves that don't ever break down or combine with anything other than other Amino Acids...) is 20^400 for 1 Protein? Basically it means, "We're evolutionists. We laugh in the face of super impossible odds..."
... The Amino Acid carried by the tRNA attaches to the sequential polypeptide chain being constructed in the Ribosomes. ONLY the right Amino Acid will match the right Codon. Each "slot" of the Protein being constructed (on the back of the information in the mRNA) has its Amino Acid attached to the end of the chain. The polypeptide then moves to the next "slot" along the chain and the next codon in the mRNA that holds the next "slot's" Amino Acid info. It's incredible!
How does a cell produce the Proteins it is meant to? A complex system of functions that involves duplicating the information stored in the format of DNA. Messenger RNA (mRNA) carries the information for a particular Protein's Amino Acid sequence (each codon in the RNA holds the molecular structure of one Amino Acid) from the DNA to the Ribosomes (often called the "Factory" or "Assembly Line" of a cell) where Transfer RNA (tRNA) carries each needed Amino Acid...
Those two guys are agreeing with each other, you're just playing segments out of context to make them sound contradictory. They're both saying that the DNA code (which isn't really a code) would write something even if it were out of order. It's simply that poor arrangements die out, and successful ones pass on. Evolution isn't as hard to understand as you're making it.
Nice try! quote mining, and trying to take shit out of context is a fail attempt. Want me to make a go at how religious people contradict themselves AND the scriptures? Not even people in the same churches agree on the "truth" about God. And for once... Prove the existence of god instead of trying to disprove logic and research. If you want us free thinkers to change sides. That is what you have to do. But there's that one little problem. The existence of something non existent can't be proven.
This is an argument I hear a lot from atheists. They'll demand proof and scientific references to back up your stand point, and then when you give it to them, they accuse you of quote mining. This is what is called a "no win" situation. The atheist has set up a circular argument that can't ever possibly be fought against because the entire thing is pre-destined to "fail". However the "failure" is in the eye of the atheist only.
Wow! I watched this video and after careful consideration, I was convinced to change my perspective completely. I have now accepted Jesus into my heart!
Btw the video is so laughable. Like this inbred yokel could handle a discussion with Dawkins. That's why he resorts to childish editing with no content. It appeals to the simple minded and those who are already drinking the kool aid.
@unyobro "Like this inbred yokel could handle a discussion with Dawkins. That's why he resorts to childish editing with no content. It appeals to the simple minded and those who are already drinking the kool aid."
Yes, not surprising, this is how atheists like to "debate". Insult and demean their opposition like elementary school children. I guess they believe it gives them "cred", or something. Debate is about the issues, NOT who comes up with the most insults.
@TavrenElkair *some athiests, just as some christians do the same thing, since you seem to be genuinly interested look up Taylorx04 he is an athiest thinktank with whom you could have decent debates with not to mention learn more about christianity as a religion.
I will. Thanks for the suggestion. I love reading all the different angles, evidences and opinions on Abiogenesis and Neo-Darwinism. It's fascinating stuff.
More ignorant crap. Notice how this guy doesn't even understand the stuff he's talking about? It's par for the course with the religious nuts, they hate reality and science because it's confusing and scary for them. There's no point in wasting time debating with people like that.
@unyobro "they hate reality and science because it's confusing and scary for them."
Straw man! Generalizations and accusations of "Creationists hate technology and science and... [whatever else you can think of]" is baseless and easily refutable. I personally love science and technology, studying it and using it all the time. My own existence refutes your generalized illogical claim.
but it doesn't show us the "how", which is the part that matters.
And it doesn't even demonstrate the "what" or "how", it just speculates because they can't think of a better answer. And you think that being honest and saying that nobody knows is worse than filling the gap with anything that we can imagine up?
@WitchHunter93 That only assumes that Atheism ( Argument from ignorance I can do that too) is true which I've NEVER heard any explaintion as to why I should. So please share with me, what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct?
No, it doesn't assume that atheism is "true", LOL.
Atheism is a lack of belief in God, lack of belief is justified by lack of evidence for God. As long as there is insufficient evidence presented to back up the God claim, atheism(disbelief) remains as the correct position. Basic rules of logic.
Your entire argument is based off of an equivocation fallacy and an argument from ignorance. Someone has been listening to shock of god xDD
@WitchHunter93 Atheism as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophy reference works, is the denial of the existence of God. If Atheism isn't a philosophy (good luck trying to prove its not) then you might have a solid case but until then you still have to provide proof and evidence. Your entire argument is based off of making a word mean whatever you want it to mean. You should also lay off the ad homenims as well.
That's cute, but it seems you missed 5th grade English where we are taught that words may hold different definitions depending on the context from which the definition of a word is agreed upon. In this context, we're defining atheism as a mere disbelief in god, and that's my position.
If you want to establish the definition of atheism as any form of assertion or claim that there is no God, then I'll simply say that I'm not an atheist in that context. Nice try lol
@WitchHunter93 Well whats the defintion of the word disbelief: the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true. Thiesm means to believe in a god, atheism then by what you state means a refusal to believe in a god. Therefore you're making a claim, which means you need proof and evidence. Second I wasn't the one who was debating you eariler about evoultion, all I said was you were assuming facts, which you never argue about to explain why you weren't. All you did was state..
Inability to believe is not claiming that the belief is wrong, once again 5th grade English fails you. I am incapable of believing in God due to insufficient evidence, but when such evidence is presented then I am capable of accepting the claim that there is a God.
Your arguments are based on mere speculation. Arguments from incredulity, not actual evidence.
@WitchHunter93 "Inability to believe is not claiming that the belief is wrong, once again 5th grade English fails you. I am incapable of believing in God due to insufficient evidence" Contradiction much? You don't accpet it therefore you think its wrong it seems like 1st grade english has failed you.
"Your arguments are based on mere speculation. Arguments from incredulity, not actual evidence." How so? Just stating something doesn't make it right I at least explain why your points were...
@WitchHunter93 conti: argument from ignorance. Last you know very well that can't be explain because we don't have that ability. You're only assuming that naturalism is all there is. Its self refuting. Evolution is the aim of survival is it not? So how can we expect our brains to discover truth then? Patrica Churchland agrees with that one (look her up if you don't know who she is. Roy Clouser admits we can't states: Being able to trust our belief-forming capacities is an assumtion necessary to
"You're only assuming that naturalism is all there is."
No, I'm not. Nice try.
"So how can we expect our brains to discover truth then?"
Because we're dependent on them? Your point is nonsensical. All our brain does is collect information, give us consciousness, and some other miscellaneous functions. If we can use our brains to get repeatable positive results, then they are reliable, simple?
@WitchHunter93 "All our brain does" lol Wow! Does THAT ever sound like an Evolutionistic perception of the human brain. "All our brain does", as if it's no big deal. Astounding.
"If we can use our brains to get repeatable positive results, then they are reliable, simple?"
Interesting. And yet how do you know your brain is at all reliable? Why should it be, if it's purely natural molecules mashed together? Why and how can anything in the universe be understandable then?...
@WitchHunter93 conti: believing in the theory of evolution. Unless we can trust our perceptions and belief-forming capacities to reveal reality, there are no reasons to believe the theory of evolution at all. In fact, if we can’t trust our perceptual beliefs, there is no reason to believe that there are such things as brains or life forms to be explained. The Arguments which you just scoff without any explaintion as to why proves that God does exist and Christianity is the truth.
@WitchHunter93 conti: Sorry I won't accpet blind faith, if you have no proof and evidence towards your beliefs then this conversation is over. At least we have proof and evidence where's yours?
On the contrary, you're presenting blind faith in science right here for everyone to see. Do you believe that science has a currently known answer for every scientific (or otherwise) question in the universe? Do you believe that if it doesn't now, it will one day in the future? Do you trust that science is reliable? All these things are evidence of faith. Your faith in science and Naturalism.
@TavrenElkair we're on the same side. I don't accpet Naturalism. What I was saying was I don't accpet the blind faith of athiesm so you're right to say that just not the right person. A honest mistake.
@WitchHunter93 conti: was state that "No doesn't assume that atheism is '"true"', LOL" That doesn't prove anything. All you did was try to shift the burden of proof on to me and if you looked up Argument from ignorance you'll see that is what your comments to me were. The arguments that we have are cosmological arguments, telogical arguments from fine-tuning, moral argument, ontological argument, and the historal accounts of Jesus, that prove that Christian Theism is the more plausable.
If you want any argument for the existence of an omnipotent being to be plausible, you must first prove that omnipotence is possible. Otherwise, we cannot establish if such an ability is possible or not, you're just assuming that it is so you can use the god of the gaps argument just like humans have done all throughout history.
Your explanation must have explanatory power, so tell me, through what mechanism does God work and how is it possible? prove that :)
If you can't prove that omnipotence is possible, then we cannot establish that it is possible (notice, I'm not saying that it's impossible, just that we haven't established that it is possible yet), and if you can't do so then you cannot pose an omnipotent being as a possible explanation for anything.
LOL @ ontological and moral arguments. I can't believe you brought those two up xD and historical accounts of Jesus don't prove that what he says is true, lol
@WitchHunter93 "LOL @ ontological and moral arguments. I can't believe you brought those two up xD and historical accounts of Jesus don't prove that what he says is true, lol" Are you gonna explain why its false or are you just gonna scoff it? You should look up Dr. Alvin Plantaga on the ontological argument, and then look up Dr William Lane Craig on the moral argument and the historal accounts of Jesus at Reasonable Faith .o.r.g. (take out the periods)
The ontological argument depends on the assumption that an inconceivably infinitely great being is possible, you have not yet proven that such a being's existence is possible for us to give that label to.
There's no evidence that morality is anything more than an abstract concept created by human brains and the time/place. That's why morality today is different from morality 100 years ago.
@WitchHunter93 I'll pm you the arguments since you have no desire to even look at them and since I don't have the space on here to talk about them. You'll see, maybe won't be convince (not that I care) that it is more plausable than your blind faith.
@WitchHunter93 "you have not yet proven that such a being's existence is possible for us to give that label to."
Prove to me that such a being is NOT possible. How about that? Can't do it? Then you argument is double-sided. Prove beyond doubt that any god-like being is not at all possible and maybe you'll have something... Atheists love to use, "If the chances of it happening is 1 in infinity, it's still possible", yet attack this stand in the God question.
The fine-tuning argument depends on the assumption that an omnipotent being is possible, you have not yet proven that such a being's existence is possible.
It also ignores any other conclusion that can be made up using the same argument, I can give you some examples if you want.
Once again, historical accounts for the existence of Jesus do not prove that what Jesus said in the bible is true. Heck, there's magicians today that do more baffling magic tricks.
@WitchHunter93 "That's cute, but it seems you missed 5th grade English where we are taught that words may hold different definitions depending on the context from which the definition of a word is agreed upon. In this context, we're defining atheism as a mere disbelief in god, and that's my position."
Logical fallacy alert! Note that it is logically impossible to debate or dispute a position from when a person refuses to accept anything beyond his own opinion and interpretation.
@TavrenElkair "In this context, we're defining atheism as a mere disbelief in god, and that's my position."
"Opinion" is not a logical standpoint in an evidence or scientific positioned debate. Does Onceforgivennowfree express his opinion along with arguments of evidence? Yes. But to then dispute him on opinion is useless, because it's two different opposing opinions. "My opinion is better than yours because I say it is and believe it is. So there! Hah! I win!"... No, not really.
"Note that it is logically impossible to debate or dispute a position from when a person refuses to accept anything beyond his own opinion and interpretation."
Seems your understanding of logic doesn't extend past 5th grade level either. I am not refusing to accept anything, I am establishing a definition that we can both agree upon. If you even bothered to read what I said AFTERWARDS, you would know that I'm not an atheist by your definition of atheism.
@WitchHunter93 "I am establishing a definition that we can both agree upon."
No, you are establishing a definition that YOU agree on, which isn't even the common or dictionary definition. It's an argument from, "This is my stance, and you have to play within that stance, or else no go." Of course you can HAVE an opinion, as everyone does. Debate would not exist without it. But to argue something based on, "I perceive," is setting up for an ineffective debate.
The important part is that we must be clear on what that meaning is. In my case, I was using the definition from Merriam Webster saying that it is a disbelief in a deity.
But for the sake of this conversation, I'll adopt your definition of atheism and just say that I am not an atheist by that definition. It's not like it weakens my previous point.
@WitchHunter93 "Atheism is a lack of belief in God, lack of belief is justified by lack of evidence for God."
So then you're open to the idea that God MIGHT exist?... By the sounds of things, that doesn't look very likely. Because if you were, you would not reject it out of hand. To be truly "open minded", you have to allow for the possibility of all options and possibilities. The opposite of being open minded is... Well, you get the picture...
A God may exist, but I have no reason to believe one does.
Are you open to the idea that universe-building pixies may exist? Are you rejecting that out of hand? If you want to remain logically consistent, then you must do what I just did and agree that the pixies may exist regardless of how silly you think it sounds, so like me you simply have no reason to believe in them.
Unfortunately, intelligent design doesn't explain how complex DNA formed :) All it does is state that there was someone smart enough to know what was necessary, but it doesn't explain exactly how such a being did it, just that he can and did.
To put it really simply you/they are arguing against an analogy.
Now, if you want a good explanation of why we have dormant genes in our DNA that point towards common ancestry and evolution, I suggest you read up on... evolution :p There is no sence in positing a creator who built in these dormant genes, unless he want's us to arive at the conclusion that we have evolved side by side with other animals.
@mugogrog "There is no sence in positing a creator who built in these dormant genes"
Tell me, when you decorate your house or buy anything for your house, is everything you purchase and every wall painted with the exact same colour? Why would you NOT paint everything the exact same colour? It would save time and effort... The argument that genetic variety is evidence against an Intelligent Designer is not a very sturdy one. God could be creative, an artist! Why wouldn't he be?
If the letters of a newspaper are naturally attracted to each other through intermolocular forces, and they possess a specific protein structure that prevents them from combining in anything other then in very specific ways, and are naturally produced through chemical mechanisms, and were simply left in a primordial soup to come to fruitition, then you have a perfect analogy. Oh.
And every explanation that I have heard does not have a logical answer on HOW it comes together with out higher intelligence....btw Matt love ur vids man your very logical, I have subscribed fav. And commented, looking forward 4 more vids
How should I put this politely... How about: Putting a video about Richard explaining to laymen how DNA can be seen to work and evogen trying to educate how base pairs chemicals interact with each other side by side, while quote mining the hell out of them is, hum, dishonest. Also your analogy with newspaper is spotty at best. Ink on newspapers doesn't replicate, and the chemical that constitute ink does not form chemical bonds by themselves. You spectacularly fail once again. What a surprise..
When "Creation 'Scientists' " do some science......maybe they'll be taken more seriously.
So far, none has been able to estimate the world at 6000 years old except for calculating old stories in a Bible.
What kind of "science" is that??
Dioxyribonucleic Acid....what the heck can't you understand?? What part of amino acids do you not understand?? What part of proteins can't you people understand??
Question evolution...............but don't dare do any experiments to support your own claim.
Yeah....that's the ticket.
This way creationists can form endless questions without presenting anything .......oh, except repeating scripture in a Bible . Yeah, that's "Creation Science"
This is basically Evolutionists tack in a nutshell - it doesn't matter that DNA is so complex that even a small error in the code causes major physical issues, it all happened by 100% chance and doesn't need an intelligent creator. Right... So if this all happened by random chance, where are the thousands of intermediate steps in the evolutionary chain "everywhere"? All we are shown are the POSITIVE intermediate steps that evolutionists point to as "proof" of evolution.
There is no answer to one (which was borrowed from a National Geographic article on Unanswered Scientific Questions), just yet.. but let's try an other "unanswerable" question in science..(again from national g) Are We Alone In the Universe? The mathematical odds say no, but there is no proof..yet. Does that demonstrate any weakness? Not really. It does demonstrate the hateful measure that creationists will take to deceive their ignorant religious followers.
1. Darwin did not know about DNA and still showed how evolution happens.
2. DNA is now the best evidence for evolution. ERVs and the code itself would not be the way it is if evolution was not a fact. DNA shows how all life is related.
@gregrutz "DNA is now the best evidence for evolution."
DNA is great evidence for an Intelligent Designer, a Creator, who planned, designed and implimented the functionality and the system. Evolution says chance and natural selection have created it. When DNA was discovered, it shook the scientific world because it meant that cells were WAY more complicated and intricate than science had previously realized. "You mean there's genetic code!!!???" Uh oh! Who wrote it!? Chance!... Right..
@TavrenElkair Good question. You have all the answers [other than things look complex to you] so Show us who the designer is. Let us see who the Creator is. Allah? Budda?
DNA can copy itself and be copied to make proteins, there is no magic needed. It is all nature.
Darwin did not know about complex cells and had no problem showing how evolution happens.
@gregrutz "Darwin did not know about complex cells and had no problem showing how evolution happens."
By Darwins time they did not know the exact or specific mechanisms of genetics, DNA, and all that, but breeding and such was already established and effectively used for centuries. Darwin helped to unify and explain more of this than most people before him. I don't have to know how the computer hardware does what it does, all the circuits and such, in order to use a computer.
@gregrutz "DNA can copy itself and be copied to make proteins, there is no magic needed. It is all nature."
Ok, and where did that DNA come from? How did it obtain the ability to copy itself and make Proteins? How did it form without intelligent design? Science doesn't know. It has some weak guesses, but nothing anywhere near solid. Why? Because it's just so incredibly complex. DNA functions like programming code and is genetic instruction. That doesn't ever arise naturally.
You also fail at 5th grade science. If a creator designed us, then he is surely a major prankster that purposely wants people to think it was by evolution.
Chickens have genes for teeth, which are dormant, useless, and imply an ancestor who once used those genes.
We have wisdom teeth, which are not only useless, but HARMFUL. Again, evidence for an ancestor with large ape jaws.
Bacteria has DNA, bacteria kills people, what a sense of humor your designer has xD
@WitchHunter93 "Bacteria has DNA, bacteria kills people, what a sense of humor your designer"
Birds can have teeth-like structures. Nothing says they cannot. In fact, some fossilized birds have them, as do a few modern birds. It's part of their makeup. It's just rare that it becomes actualized.
Wisdom teeth cause problems. Very true. The problem is too small mouths.
The vast majority of bacteria is beneficial to life, not pathogenic. Only about 2% is actually harmful.
@WitchHunter93 "then he is surely a major prankster that purposely wants people to think it was by evolution."
And here we get an example of data "interpretation". You believe Darwinism (Evolution) explains the origins of all life. So by your viewpoint, you infer that God must be a prankster. But Evolution is the interpretation of scientific studies and finds. It's how a person reads or translates the actual data. You're effectively showing how worldviews shape perception.
@WitchHunter93 "Bacteria has DNA, bacteria kills people, what a sense of humor your designer has"
Also, from the Biblical standpoint, pathogenic bacteria, as well as genetic degradation over time (see Muller's Ratchet, Mutational Meltdown, Genetic Drift, etc.) all fits very well. If God created everything perfect, without error, but the system has been breaking down over time, decaying, corrupting, what's found in science makes perfect sense. This links to "the sin factor"
@TavrenElkair no, no no and again no. DNA is NOT evidence for intelligent design. For starters how do you explain the shoddy 'design' of the human eye, as a design it really is quite shocking, no intelligent designer would use this design in its most prized creation. However it is nicely explained through evolution: our eyes haven't evolved into a better 'design' because we haven't had a need for them to. Simple.
@golem1180 "For starters how do you explain the shoddy 'design' of the human eye, as a design it really is quite shocking, no intelligent designer would use this design in its most prized creation."
This is a commonly stated "proof of evolution", but the eye is actually designed quite well considering all the input it gets...
@golem1180 At EvolutionNews(dot)org, December 12, 2011
"In 2010, two eye specialists made a remarkable discovery that showed the elegant mechanism found in vertebrate eyes to solve the problem of any blockage of light due to the position of the optic nerve. Special "glial cells" sit over the retina and act like fiber-optic cables to channel light through the optic nerve wires directly onto the photoreceptor cells...
"According to New Scientist, these funnel-shaped cells prevent scattering of light and "act as light filters, keeping images clear."
Ken Miller acknowledges that an intelligent designer "would choose the orientation that produces the highest degree of visual quality." Yet that seems to be exactly what we find in the vertebrate eye...
In fact, the team of scientists who determined the function of glial cells concluded that the "retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images."
ID-theorist William Dembski has observed that "no one has demonstrated how the eye's function might be improved without diminishing its visual speed, sensitivity, and resolution."9 It's therefore unsurprising that optics engineers study the eye to improve camera technology...
"... According to another tech article:"Borrowing one of nature's best designs, U.S. scientists have built an eye-shaped camera using standard sensor materials and say it could improve the performance of digital cameras and enhance imaging of the human body."
It seems that human eyes are so poorly designed that engineers regularly mimic them..."
They eye is actually very well designed considering the jobs it has, so much so that to make better cameras and lenses, engineers study it.
@golem1180 The system of DNA, RNA, Proteins and Ribosomes is a great example of "specified complexity" and an "irreducibly complex" biological system. Evolution still can't explain how those things all arose from non-living chemicals and molecules. Some theories exist, but none of them have been able to adequately demonstrate the processes of the order of evolution, how they evolved, how they came together, what the replacements for the modern versions are, etc. Look into it, it's a total mess.
Very nice job at quote mining. Please post his entire response and you will see he covers all these "rebuttals". Why we call it information when its not really information and why they come together. All you delusional theists can do is use devious false tactics to dance around the fact that YOU have the burden of proof, not science. Where is your proof that god exists?
@TavrenElkair you are pretty ignorant if you summon up scientific theories to just plain rejection of an idea of god. also it didn't begin with natural selection, if you are talking about life on earth since there was nothing to select from...
@golem1180 "also it didn't begin with natural selection, if you are talking about life on earth since there was nothing to select from..."
Correct, Natural Selection is one theory about the origin of life and the first living cell, but many scientists would now agree that the theory doesn't work well (if at all) until you have an already living cell that can reproduce and survive (or die). Other theories for Abiogenesis involve random chance or molecular affinities. They both fail too.
This particular time Dawkins is wrong. DNA is nothing like computer code and if you bother to read what else Dawkins has said about this you will understand why.
But that's all beside the point, the main point is that DNA does not require a creator.
If you took all the ignorance in the world and wrapped it up in slimy stinky quote mines then coated that with a liberal application of 3rd grade logic it would become this video. If your completely unqualified to address the issue and don't have any facts to support your position and reality doesn't fit your world view then you just need to quote an old book that says it's not true and support your fantasies by denying reality even though you haven't got a clue what it is. GOOD JOB!
Rather than try to challenge those facts that disprove your world view (fossil record, biogeography etc etc), I wonder what scientific work (i'm afraid wishful thinking and guesswork is not science) categorically proves a link between DNA and a designer.
Do the right thing and accept the video response? haha sorry that made me laugh. And yes I accepted it.
Im actually suprised that you don't acknowledge that DNA contains information. Even Richard Dawkins understands this, as do many other evolutionists. I have even had evolutionists who are computer programmers tell me that yes, DNA stores information. It is so obvious, that I am getting tired of pointing this out.
@onceforgivennowfree Watch the video response Evogen he made to you. He addresses that adequately. Information is a metaphor, a word of convenience. The actual payload of DNA is not information, but molecular sequences that interact with the cell. IF you can not understand the difference between everyday language and scientific details, its not an argument. If you can not grasp a natural mechanism its not an argument. So find an argument concerning the chemistry of things, not definitions.
@onceforgivennowfree - "So you disagree with Richard Dawkins that DNA stores information?"
Why do creationists have trouble with the concept of metaphor? The "information" stored in DNA is not the same as "information" in a textbook. Dawkins does not state that they are the same.
Quote-mining & using empirical evidence out of context seems to be the only form of argument that the creationist has. I would be astonished if a creationist actually cited empirical evidence FOR their position.
@onceforgivennowfree No I disagree that when Dawkins says "information", he means the same thing with you. You can grab Richard and come to a Greek Island where we can discuss this. To put it simply, chemistry brought together nucleotides, and they continue to evolve due to their natural chemical properties. The word information, or any word is a symbol, a reference node to have discussions. You confuse the symbol with the real thing. The real thing existed before cells and their traits.
@onceforgivennowfree Dawkin's: the analogy, in the video: breaking the analogy, saying that DNA isn't really a code, because the 'code' is an analogy. And of course Dawkin's was using an analogy, because when you explain the specifics to a layman, he won't understand.
With the newspaper thing, go watch some video's on the fallacy of the watchmaker argument, it's been done literally hundred's of times.
@onceforgivennowfree you realize that Dawkins isn't the pope of atheism. atheists don't follow someone they think is infallible...that is you guys...and i didn't know you started making comedy videos...lol
@onceforgivennowfree That's not what ONESPECIES said. ONESPECIES is pointing out that you're misunderstanding words used for common language rather than words to be taken as totally literal. ONESPECIES gave you your answer and you're simply choosing to ignore it and deflect.
I must also add that if you are going to try to answer then special pleading or any other fallacious answer is unacceptable. If you consider creationism a science then you have to at least have a go at giving a scientific answer.
Actually I have a few questions that creationists are never able to answer. Would you be happy to have a crack at them or are you just happy to keep making accusations about people who accept evolution?
So, you seem to be good at ridicule, but never actually refute what the people are saying with FACTUAL information FOR your position. You show no empirical evidence of a designer outside of, "Since it 'looks' designed, there must be a designer."
Please give us some empirical evidence FOR your position; evidence that has not been refuted in the scientific literature. That is all I ask.
I find it amazing that you claim to be versed in evolutionary theory, yet use only ridicule to oppose it.
Smashing together two people who know a bit about evolution together in in a video to make it seem like "they ALWAYS refute themselves" is no different than two people of different or like minded religion(s) not agreeing on everything, it's a misdirect argument.
Pathetic. This is yet another question evolution has no obligation to answer; this is another one related to abiogenesis. Furthermore, you couldn't even refute the explanation, just quote-mined Dawkins and used an analogy that doesn't even work. Books and newspapers aren't alive and don't reproduce, moron.
@DastardlyDawkins Oh, you creationist liars are so stupid. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution; evolution is an explanation of biodiversity, not origins, and it always was. Atomic theory doesn't explain where atoms came from; why aren't you attacking it for that? Besides, abiogenesis has plenty of evidence behind it; much more than "God did it."
When Darwin intentionally chose to name his book ; 'On The Origin Of Species', he understood exactly what impact those particular words would have on any, and all, potential readers.
So either Darwin was completely illiterate, or he's a cheap liar, and illiterates don't use insidious marketing techniques to boost book sales.
'Origin means the beginning, starting-point, cause, or ultimate source, from which a thing is derived or generated.' - Wikipedia
Actually you are wrong as usual. Evolution encompasses the origin of species through Macroevolution, which entails speciation. Abiogenesis does not deal with the origin of species, but with how biological life arose from inorganic matter.
Which does not entail origination of species since you have to first have life, for it to diversify into given species to begin with.
You owe the great Charles Darwin a heartfelt apology.
Not at all, i would say it's the evolutionists who owe the whole world an apology!
In your interpretation, the first lifeforms
A) don't have the ability to diversify,
but perhaps more remarkably,
B) are not even considered a species,
and finally
C) Microevolution is not considered part of evolutionary theory.
This being the case,would you mind asking Prof Dawkins to stop referring to the highly elusive 'Common Ancestor' as the origin of life in Darwin's phylogenetic tree, please? :)
@DastardlyDawkins C'mon, you know better now than to trip up the atheist with origins. They are only concerned about things after life was created. That's not playing fair now. ha ha.
Evolution is so bankrupt, it's a wonder it continues.
@DastardlyDawkins Projecting, are we? If you had any real answers or evidence to back them up, we'd consider it, but so far all you've produced are fallacious arguments and baseless assertions. Do you have evidence of your talking snake, rib-woman, and magic fruit? I've asked so many creationists for evidence, but all they could do was change the subject.
@DastardlyDawkins There you go again; changing the subject and making false accusations when you can't give evidence. Why do all creationists do that? Do they have such little confidence in their beliefs, or do they secretly know they're wrong?
@emptywithoutjesus "They are only concerned about things after life was created...Evolution is so bankrupt"
Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with abiogenesis. You're confusing a couple exclusive concepts. Like any other scientific theory (germ theory, atomic theory), evolutionary theory is a tool used to solve problems and make predictions. You don't believe in evolution, rather you use it to solve problems like your hammer. Can you offer an alternative theory?
@DastardlyDawkins "Origin means the beginning, starting-point, {The Origin of Species}"
Right... and like the title suggests...ORIGIN OF SPECIES... NOT origin of life. Rather than complain about evolutionary theory, perhaps you could offer an alternative theory that accounts for: Homology, phylogenetics, organismal geographic distribution, the fossil record, etc, AND capable of solving problems AND making predictions. Do you have an alternative or is it easier for you to complain?
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU "scientific method demanding and forcing a naturalistic explanation."
Hummm....forcing a naturalistic explanation? Since evolutionary theory can be applied to solving problems and making predictions, it is FAR more than an 'explanation'. But, if you just want a non-naturalistic explanation that doesn't solve problems or make predictions, I can explain lighting and thunder to you. Zeus makes lighting. Or, perhaps you'd rather hear about Thor (Go see the movie!)?
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU "Correlating a non naturalistic explanation with zeus is an attempt at ridicule ."
How is that ridicule? People of Greece believed in Zeus as an explanation for lighting... Just north of Greece, Thor was responsible for lightning. Today, we have enough evidence to confirm lightning's source and cause. The naturalistic science solves problems and we can make predictions concerning lightning. What evidence would have to exist for you to find evolution to be possible?
The christian proposal clearly states that at a point in time all knew there was a God but the Jewish nation was given the task of carrying the truth . All peoples have stories of God and Gods but these stories have been exagerated . By studying the roots of religion in a non bias way you can eliminate these pagan beliefs as the world has . The difference is their religions have no evidence for the argument that they are accurate . Christianity Does
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU "The difference is their religions have no evidence for the argument that they are accurate . Christianity Does"
So, you're saying that all religions are fake EXCEPT christianity BECAUSE christianity is backed by evidence? So, are you saying that evidence, rather than faith, is the reason you are christian? Christian faith is unnecessary because of all the evidence that backs it? O.K.. What evidence exists that validates christianity?
Faith means firmly persuaded . there are some things i dont understand but due to the tons of evidence that I do i accept the few things I dont with a blind faith . There isnt anyone who has a blind faith without having a persuaded faith . You not understanding the argument in its proper context shows you are a victim to athiest propaganda .
Atheist always frame the arguemnt incorrectly so they have the adavantage .
Faith has many definitions, but in the context of religion the following definition is most appropriate: strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence. "firmly persuaded" is not the biblical faith you refer to.
"Exhibit A Israel existing"
This is your evidence? The existence of Israel? Explain how Israel is christian evidence.
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU "What does the bible say about Israel. Did it come to pass. The early wars of israel 1946 .We could stay on israel for a few months"
Are you asking me questions? I'm not sure what some of these sentences are saying. "We could stay on israel for a few months"?
" admit that I blindly accept some things that lack... proof but I do so Because of the proof I have."
At least this is honest. So, let's talk about this evidence. What evidence? Israel is evidence? Explain.
Well do you also admit that you have blind faith that the bacterial flagella evolved because I know you dont have evidence of the bacterial flagella evolving .
Does the bible correctly predict Israels history to this point ?
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU " Does the bible correctly predict Israels history to this point ?
part 3a
I don't know. Does it? Can you reference anything to back your claim assuming that is the claim you are making? I assuming your claim is: The Bible predicted the existence of Israel. You're not coming out and saying anything specific about Israel and the bible OR backing this with any evidence. You keep asking me, and, as far as I know, Israel is not mentioned in the bible
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU "Well do you also admit that you have blind faith that the bacterial flagella evolved "
part 2a
See: Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex (16 April 2008 by Michael Le Page) for details. There is evidence to support that flagellum evolved. Regardless, one shouldn't believe in evolution anyway. It is a tool used to solve problems, just like your hammer. You don't believe in your hammer, you use it to solve problems.
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU "Well do you also admit that you have blind faith that the bacterial flagella evolved "
part 1a
I don't believe things evolved. Evolution is a tool used to solve problems and make predictions. You're example is an appeal to "irreducible complexity"... you're suggesting that the parts (proteins) of a flagella couldn't possibly have evolved and are useless independently. This is simply not the case. Proteins of flagellum appear in other parts of a cell...
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU "The argument for God is more compelling than the argument against ."
Part 3b
This is nothing more than an opinion. It would have been honest and appropriate to have followed this statement up with: TO ME. What makes god so compelling to you?
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU "You have blind faith the plane will not crash due to compelling evidence .That doesnt mean it will not ."
Part 2b
I can agree with your airplane crashing example. Evidence isn't 'truth', but it increases the probability that something is 'true'. An absence of evidence increases the likelihood something is not true. Scientists don't 'blindly' accept anything... they follow the evidence and draw conclusions based on them.
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU "You have blind faith the plane will not crash due to compelling evidence .That doesnt mean it will not ."
Part 1b
Blind faith is defined by an absence of evidence. So, one doesn't have blind faith in an airplane if they have compelling evidence. In our daily life, it is EVIDENCE that drives our suspicions and reasoning about the world around us... not blind faith. Again... I don't accept that flagellum evolved, but I do accept the sound evidence.
There is no empirical evidence for the flagellum evolving there is not even good evidence that it evolved .
because some of the proteins existed before the flagellum the argument is that they must have co opted.
That isnt a strong argument but it does get a pass because there is no other naturalistic explanation .
It is but an argument and if you need to hear Ken Miller tell you with his own mouth because you dont really understand but pretend you do, I can arrange it .
Like ID, stork theory is a poor, poor theory incapable of solving problems or making predictions. The appropriate thing to do is say: I don't know, AND if you're actually curious, try to figure it out. The real question is what drives someone accept something without evidence or logical reason. You never explained Israel as evidence for christianity. Are you going to explain how Israel is evidence?
Comparing newspaper to DNA/RNA. Using the watchmakers argument which have been debunked many times.
TheZachary86 3 days ago
I always thought that evotarded were retarded, but oh my random mutations, arguing that DNA is not a code just proves that they are uneducated too....what a shame
realhomosapiens 1 week ago
dude this video completely sucks. not because im pro evolutionist. im open to many ideas, but your attempts to bash the evolutionists is completely ridiculous. Especially the attempt to create an analogy with the newspaper. Utterly, completely, horrible. Im not even gonna watch part three. Too bad, looked somewhat promising.
actyme 1 week ago
@actyme
Well let's start with the basics then! Do you understand that DNA contains information which codes for biological functions?
onceforgivennowfree 1 week ago
@onceforgivennowfree Indeed. As far as we know at this time, DNA contains a certain pattern of information that determines or gives predisposition towards certain physical traits and bio-functioning of all living organisms. Where are you going with this though?
actyme 1 week ago
I thought you had a point until you started on the book thing. That really just showed that you don't understand the topic.
CrimsonVoid 3 weeks ago
Some man is up in the sky making DNA. LMAO It's happens out in space by stars exploding people that is what makes corbon and there is alot of different corbon, about 50 of them go into making up our bodies. I find wonder out in space and imagination, just think of all we could learn by getting off this rock.
krapptacular 1 month ago
There are 4 base pairs in DNA. The order of them grouped into 3 letters 'codes' for the next acid, it tells the cell which amino acid comes next. It is not that hard or complex. It is just Chemistry. No magic or gods required once the forces of nature were created.
gregrutz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz "There are 4 base pairs in DNA. The order of them grouped into 3 letters 'codes' for the next acid, it tells the cell which amino acid comes next. It is not that hard or complex. It is just Chemistry."
Show me a system not intelligently created that uses 4 "letter-like" structures to form "words" and chains of instructional blue prints for construction, and you might start getting somewhere. Do you know the odds of any of that happening naturally? It's molecular code.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
DNA contains all kinds of "If...Then" statements throughout its nucleotides to regulate how the instructions and information in the DNA are to be used, as well as many other functions similar to computer programming language. It locks out chunks of info to be ignored or used dependent on the overall function and purpose of the cell. The reason why stem cells are so popular is because they don't have the bulk of their genetic code "locked out" or regulated yet. They can still become ANY cell.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
DNA contains a LOT more instruction ("code") then just what codes for Proteins, as scientists are discovering more and more every day. At one time it was thought that 97% of DNA was "junk DNA", evolutionary "left overs" and "garbage" that was no longer needed or used. But in the last ten years and with each passing year, scientists are discovering that more and more of the DNA they thought was "junk" is actually very functional and critical to life.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
Mathematical probability says that anything with odds of 1 to the 50th power (exponent) or greater is equivalent to being impossible. One average Protein (with no variables in play other than just the right Amino Acids themselves that don't ever break down or combine with anything other than other Amino Acids...) is 20^400 for 1 Protein? Basically it means, "We're evolutionists. We laugh in the face of super impossible odds..."
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
... The Amino Acid carried by the tRNA attaches to the sequential polypeptide chain being constructed in the Ribosomes. ONLY the right Amino Acid will match the right Codon. Each "slot" of the Protein being constructed (on the back of the information in the mRNA) has its Amino Acid attached to the end of the chain. The polypeptide then moves to the next "slot" along the chain and the next codon in the mRNA that holds the next "slot's" Amino Acid info. It's incredible!
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
How does a cell produce the Proteins it is meant to? A complex system of functions that involves duplicating the information stored in the format of DNA. Messenger RNA (mRNA) carries the information for a particular Protein's Amino Acid sequence (each codon in the RNA holds the molecular structure of one Amino Acid) from the DNA to the Ribosomes (often called the "Factory" or "Assembly Line" of a cell) where Transfer RNA (tRNA) carries each needed Amino Acid...
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Those two guys are agreeing with each other, you're just playing segments out of context to make them sound contradictory. They're both saying that the DNA code (which isn't really a code) would write something even if it were out of order. It's simply that poor arrangements die out, and successful ones pass on. Evolution isn't as hard to understand as you're making it.
zhalfirim 2 months ago
Nice try! quote mining, and trying to take shit out of context is a fail attempt. Want me to make a go at how religious people contradict themselves AND the scriptures? Not even people in the same churches agree on the "truth" about God. And for once... Prove the existence of god instead of trying to disprove logic and research. If you want us free thinkers to change sides. That is what you have to do. But there's that one little problem. The existence of something non existent can't be proven.
Krappman 2 months ago
@Krappman "Nice try! quote mining"
This is an argument I hear a lot from atheists. They'll demand proof and scientific references to back up your stand point, and then when you give it to them, they accuse you of quote mining. This is what is called a "no win" situation. The atheist has set up a circular argument that can't ever possibly be fought against because the entire thing is pre-destined to "fail". However the "failure" is in the eye of the atheist only.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Wow! I watched this video and after careful consideration, I was convinced to change my perspective completely. I have now accepted Jesus into my heart!
Okay, not really.
pburto 2 months ago
Btw the video is so laughable. Like this inbred yokel could handle a discussion with Dawkins. That's why he resorts to childish editing with no content. It appeals to the simple minded and those who are already drinking the kool aid.
unyobro 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unyobro "Like this inbred yokel could handle a discussion with Dawkins. That's why he resorts to childish editing with no content. It appeals to the simple minded and those who are already drinking the kool aid."
Yes, not surprising, this is how atheists like to "debate". Insult and demean their opposition like elementary school children. I guess they believe it gives them "cred", or something. Debate is about the issues, NOT who comes up with the most insults.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair *some athiests, just as some christians do the same thing, since you seem to be genuinly interested look up Taylorx04 he is an athiest thinktank with whom you could have decent debates with not to mention learn more about christianity as a religion.
golem1180 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@golem1180 "look up Taylorx04"
I will. Thanks for the suggestion. I love reading all the different angles, evidences and opinions on Abiogenesis and Neo-Darwinism. It's fascinating stuff.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
More ignorant crap. Notice how this guy doesn't even understand the stuff he's talking about? It's par for the course with the religious nuts, they hate reality and science because it's confusing and scary for them. There's no point in wasting time debating with people like that.
unyobro 2 months ago
@unyobro "they hate reality and science because it's confusing and scary for them."
Straw man! Generalizations and accusations of "Creationists hate technology and science and... [whatever else you can think of]" is baseless and easily refutable. I personally love science and technology, studying it and using it all the time. My own existence refutes your generalized illogical claim.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
Holy shit, this video series isn't interested in an honest discussion at all. It's just a big word game. Thumbs down for being useless.
thybigballs 2 months ago
It states that "what"
but it doesn't show us the "how", which is the part that matters.
And it doesn't even demonstrate the "what" or "how", it just speculates because they can't think of a better answer. And you think that being honest and saying that nobody knows is worse than filling the gap with anything that we can imagine up?
WitchHunter93 3 months ago
@WitchHunter93 That only assumes that Atheism ( Argument from ignorance I can do that too) is true which I've NEVER heard any explaintion as to why I should. So please share with me, what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct?
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@FamousDave2186
No, it doesn't assume that atheism is "true", LOL.
Atheism is a lack of belief in God, lack of belief is justified by lack of evidence for God. As long as there is insufficient evidence presented to back up the God claim, atheism(disbelief) remains as the correct position. Basic rules of logic.
Your entire argument is based off of an equivocation fallacy and an argument from ignorance. Someone has been listening to shock of god xDD
nice try though (not really)
WitchHunter93 2 months ago
@WitchHunter93 Atheism as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophy reference works, is the denial of the existence of God. If Atheism isn't a philosophy (good luck trying to prove its not) then you might have a solid case but until then you still have to provide proof and evidence. Your entire argument is based off of making a word mean whatever you want it to mean. You should also lay off the ad homenims as well.
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@FamousDave2186
That's cute, but it seems you missed 5th grade English where we are taught that words may hold different definitions depending on the context from which the definition of a word is agreed upon. In this context, we're defining atheism as a mere disbelief in god, and that's my position.
If you want to establish the definition of atheism as any form of assertion or claim that there is no God, then I'll simply say that I'm not an atheist in that context. Nice try lol
WitchHunter93 2 months ago
@WitchHunter93 Well whats the defintion of the word disbelief: the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true. Thiesm means to believe in a god, atheism then by what you state means a refusal to believe in a god. Therefore you're making a claim, which means you need proof and evidence. Second I wasn't the one who was debating you eariler about evoultion, all I said was you were assuming facts, which you never argue about to explain why you weren't. All you did was state..
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@FamousDave2186
Inability to believe is not claiming that the belief is wrong, once again 5th grade English fails you. I am incapable of believing in God due to insufficient evidence, but when such evidence is presented then I am capable of accepting the claim that there is a God.
Your arguments are based on mere speculation. Arguments from incredulity, not actual evidence.
WitchHunter93 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WitchHunter93 "Inability to believe is not claiming that the belief is wrong, once again 5th grade English fails you. I am incapable of believing in God due to insufficient evidence" Contradiction much? You don't accpet it therefore you think its wrong it seems like 1st grade english has failed you.
"Your arguments are based on mere speculation. Arguments from incredulity, not actual evidence." How so? Just stating something doesn't make it right I at least explain why your points were...
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@WitchHunter93 conti: argument from ignorance. Last you know very well that can't be explain because we don't have that ability. You're only assuming that naturalism is all there is. Its self refuting. Evolution is the aim of survival is it not? So how can we expect our brains to discover truth then? Patrica Churchland agrees with that one (look her up if you don't know who she is. Roy Clouser admits we can't states: Being able to trust our belief-forming capacities is an assumtion necessary to
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@FamousDave2186
"You're only assuming that naturalism is all there is."
No, I'm not. Nice try.
"So how can we expect our brains to discover truth then?"
Because we're dependent on them? Your point is nonsensical. All our brain does is collect information, give us consciousness, and some other miscellaneous functions. If we can use our brains to get repeatable positive results, then they are reliable, simple?
WitchHunter93 2 months ago
@WitchHunter93 "All our brain does" lol Wow! Does THAT ever sound like an Evolutionistic perception of the human brain. "All our brain does", as if it's no big deal. Astounding.
"If we can use our brains to get repeatable positive results, then they are reliable, simple?"
Interesting. And yet how do you know your brain is at all reliable? Why should it be, if it's purely natural molecules mashed together? Why and how can anything in the universe be understandable then?...
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@WitchHunter93 conti: believing in the theory of evolution. Unless we can trust our perceptions and belief-forming capacities to reveal reality, there are no reasons to believe the theory of evolution at all. In fact, if we can’t trust our perceptual beliefs, there is no reason to believe that there are such things as brains or life forms to be explained. The Arguments which you just scoff without any explaintion as to why proves that God does exist and Christianity is the truth.
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FamousDave2186
I don't have to prove God does not exist. I haven't claimed that God doesn't exist.
"if you have no proof and evidence towards your beliefs.."
I have posed disbeliefs, and beliefs and disbelief do not require evidence, only claims. I have not made a claim, so the burden of proof isn't on me.
"At least we have proof and evidence"
I already explained why it's not "proof and evidence", it's speculation and faith. Keep trying.
WitchHunter93 2 months ago
@WitchHunter93 conti: Sorry I won't accpet blind faith, if you have no proof and evidence towards your beliefs then this conversation is over. At least we have proof and evidence where's yours?
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@FamousDave2186 "Sorry I won't accpet blind faith"
On the contrary, you're presenting blind faith in science right here for everyone to see. Do you believe that science has a currently known answer for every scientific (or otherwise) question in the universe? Do you believe that if it doesn't now, it will one day in the future? Do you trust that science is reliable? All these things are evidence of faith. Your faith in science and Naturalism.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@TavrenElkair we're on the same side. I don't accpet Naturalism. What I was saying was I don't accpet the blind faith of athiesm so you're right to say that just not the right person. A honest mistake.
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 Ah, sorry for the mix up. Thanks for the reply. Yeah for being on the same side! :-)
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@WitchHunter93 conti: was state that "No doesn't assume that atheism is '"true"', LOL" That doesn't prove anything. All you did was try to shift the burden of proof on to me and if you looked up Argument from ignorance you'll see that is what your comments to me were. The arguments that we have are cosmological arguments, telogical arguments from fine-tuning, moral argument, ontological argument, and the historal accounts of Jesus, that prove that Christian Theism is the more plausable.
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@FamousDave2186
If you want any argument for the existence of an omnipotent being to be plausible, you must first prove that omnipotence is possible. Otherwise, we cannot establish if such an ability is possible or not, you're just assuming that it is so you can use the god of the gaps argument just like humans have done all throughout history.
Your explanation must have explanatory power, so tell me, through what mechanism does God work and how is it possible? prove that :)
WitchHunter93 2 months ago
@FamousDave2186
If you can't prove that omnipotence is possible, then we cannot establish that it is possible (notice, I'm not saying that it's impossible, just that we haven't established that it is possible yet), and if you can't do so then you cannot pose an omnipotent being as a possible explanation for anything.
LOL @ ontological and moral arguments. I can't believe you brought those two up xD and historical accounts of Jesus don't prove that what he says is true, lol
WitchHunter93 2 months ago
@WitchHunter93 "LOL @ ontological and moral arguments. I can't believe you brought those two up xD and historical accounts of Jesus don't prove that what he says is true, lol" Are you gonna explain why its false or are you just gonna scoff it? You should look up Dr. Alvin Plantaga on the ontological argument, and then look up Dr William Lane Craig on the moral argument and the historal accounts of Jesus at Reasonable Faith .o.r.g. (take out the periods)
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@FamousDave2186
The ontological argument depends on the assumption that an inconceivably infinitely great being is possible, you have not yet proven that such a being's existence is possible for us to give that label to.
There's no evidence that morality is anything more than an abstract concept created by human brains and the time/place. That's why morality today is different from morality 100 years ago.
WitchHunter93 2 months ago
@WitchHunter93 I'll pm you the arguments since you have no desire to even look at them and since I don't have the space on here to talk about them. You'll see, maybe won't be convince (not that I care) that it is more plausable than your blind faith.
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WitchHunter93 "you have not yet proven that such a being's existence is possible for us to give that label to."
Prove to me that such a being is NOT possible. How about that? Can't do it? Then you argument is double-sided. Prove beyond doubt that any god-like being is not at all possible and maybe you'll have something... Atheists love to use, "If the chances of it happening is 1 in infinity, it's still possible", yet attack this stand in the God question.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@FamousDave2186
The fine-tuning argument depends on the assumption that an omnipotent being is possible, you have not yet proven that such a being's existence is possible.
It also ignores any other conclusion that can be made up using the same argument, I can give you some examples if you want.
Once again, historical accounts for the existence of Jesus do not prove that what Jesus said in the bible is true. Heck, there's magicians today that do more baffling magic tricks.
WitchHunter93 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WitchHunter93 "That's cute, but it seems you missed 5th grade English where we are taught that words may hold different definitions depending on the context from which the definition of a word is agreed upon. In this context, we're defining atheism as a mere disbelief in god, and that's my position."
Logical fallacy alert! Note that it is logically impossible to debate or dispute a position from when a person refuses to accept anything beyond his own opinion and interpretation.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair "In this context, we're defining atheism as a mere disbelief in god, and that's my position."
"Opinion" is not a logical standpoint in an evidence or scientific positioned debate. Does Onceforgivennowfree express his opinion along with arguments of evidence? Yes. But to then dispute him on opinion is useless, because it's two different opposing opinions. "My opinion is better than yours because I say it is and believe it is. So there! Hah! I win!"... No, not really.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@TavrenElkair
"Note that it is logically impossible to debate or dispute a position from when a person refuses to accept anything beyond his own opinion and interpretation."
Seems your understanding of logic doesn't extend past 5th grade level either. I am not refusing to accept anything, I am establishing a definition that we can both agree upon. If you even bothered to read what I said AFTERWARDS, you would know that I'm not an atheist by your definition of atheism.
WitchHunter93 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WitchHunter93 "I am establishing a definition that we can both agree upon."
No, you are establishing a definition that YOU agree on, which isn't even the common or dictionary definition. It's an argument from, "This is my stance, and you have to play within that stance, or else no go." Of course you can HAVE an opinion, as everyone does. Debate would not exist without it. But to argue something based on, "I perceive," is setting up for an ineffective debate.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@FamousDave2186
The important part is that we must be clear on what that meaning is. In my case, I was using the definition from Merriam Webster saying that it is a disbelief in a deity.
But for the sake of this conversation, I'll adopt your definition of atheism and just say that I am not an atheist by that definition. It's not like it weakens my previous point.
You didn't even address my point at all xD
WitchHunter93 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FamousDave2186 "If Atheism isn't a philosophy (good luck trying to prove its not) then you might have a solid case"
Good point! And yes, Atheism is most definitely a philosophy, as is scientific naturalism.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@WitchHunter93 "Atheism is a lack of belief in God, lack of belief is justified by lack of evidence for God."
So then you're open to the idea that God MIGHT exist?... By the sounds of things, that doesn't look very likely. Because if you were, you would not reject it out of hand. To be truly "open minded", you have to allow for the possibility of all options and possibilities. The opposite of being open minded is... Well, you get the picture...
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair
A God may exist, but I have no reason to believe one does.
Are you open to the idea that universe-building pixies may exist? Are you rejecting that out of hand? If you want to remain logically consistent, then you must do what I just did and agree that the pixies may exist regardless of how silly you think it sounds, so like me you simply have no reason to believe in them.
WitchHunter93 1 month ago
Unfortunately, intelligent design doesn't explain how complex DNA formed :) All it does is state that there was someone smart enough to know what was necessary, but it doesn't explain exactly how such a being did it, just that he can and did.
Argument from incredulity
WitchHunter93 3 months ago
To put it really simply you/they are arguing against an analogy.
Now, if you want a good explanation of why we have dormant genes in our DNA that point towards common ancestry and evolution, I suggest you read up on... evolution :p There is no sence in positing a creator who built in these dormant genes, unless he want's us to arive at the conclusion that we have evolved side by side with other animals.
mugogrog 3 months ago
@mugogrog "There is no sence in positing a creator who built in these dormant genes"
Tell me, when you decorate your house or buy anything for your house, is everything you purchase and every wall painted with the exact same colour? Why would you NOT paint everything the exact same colour? It would save time and effort... The argument that genetic variety is evidence against an Intelligent Designer is not a very sturdy one. God could be creative, an artist! Why wouldn't he be?
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
If the letters of a newspaper are naturally attracted to each other through intermolocular forces, and they possess a specific protein structure that prevents them from combining in anything other then in very specific ways, and are naturally produced through chemical mechanisms, and were simply left in a primordial soup to come to fruitition, then you have a perfect analogy. Oh.
nozero1 3 months ago in playlist 15 questions evolutionists still can't answer
And every explanation that I have heard does not have a logical answer on HOW it comes together with out higher intelligence....btw Matt love ur vids man your very logical, I have subscribed fav. And commented, looking forward 4 more vids
melodiesband 3 months ago
No matter what evolutionists say, DNA is not a code and even if it was, it cannot "just come together" with out authority of intelligence, ma
melodiesband 3 months ago
How should I put this politely... How about: Putting a video about Richard explaining to laymen how DNA can be seen to work and evogen trying to educate how base pairs chemicals interact with each other side by side, while quote mining the hell out of them is, hum, dishonest. Also your analogy with newspaper is spotty at best. Ink on newspapers doesn't replicate, and the chemical that constitute ink does not form chemical bonds by themselves. You spectacularly fail once again. What a surprise..
assalane 4 months ago
When "Creation 'Scientists' " do some science......maybe they'll be taken more seriously.
So far, none has been able to estimate the world at 6000 years old except for calculating old stories in a Bible.
What kind of "science" is that??
Dioxyribonucleic Acid....what the heck can't you understand?? What part of amino acids do you not understand?? What part of proteins can't you people understand??
Go back to school!!
BrightStaroftheDawn 4 months ago
Question evolution...............but don't dare do any experiments to support your own claim.
Yeah....that's the ticket.
This way creationists can form endless questions without presenting anything .......oh, except repeating scripture in a Bible . Yeah, that's "Creation Science"
BrightStaroftheDawn 4 months ago
This is basically Evolutionists tack in a nutshell - it doesn't matter that DNA is so complex that even a small error in the code causes major physical issues, it all happened by 100% chance and doesn't need an intelligent creator. Right... So if this all happened by random chance, where are the thousands of intermediate steps in the evolutionary chain "everywhere"? All we are shown are the POSITIVE intermediate steps that evolutionists point to as "proof" of evolution.
cpkruschke 5 months ago in playlist More videos from onceforgivennowfree
@cpkruschke
"So if this all happened by random chance.."
Strawman.
What part of how DNA is passed along is "random"?
None of the facts back your opinions.....
odinata 5 months ago
There is no answer to one (which was borrowed from a National Geographic article on Unanswered Scientific Questions), just yet.. but let's try an other "unanswerable" question in science..(again from national g) Are We Alone In the Universe? The mathematical odds say no, but there is no proof..yet. Does that demonstrate any weakness? Not really. It does demonstrate the hateful measure that creationists will take to deceive their ignorant religious followers.
daNDayati 5 months ago
Funny how
1. Darwin did not know about DNA and still showed how evolution happens.
2. DNA is now the best evidence for evolution. ERVs and the code itself would not be the way it is if evolution was not a fact. DNA shows how all life is related.
gregrutz 5 months ago in playlist More videos from onceforgivennowfree
@gregrutz "DNA is now the best evidence for evolution."
DNA is great evidence for an Intelligent Designer, a Creator, who planned, designed and implimented the functionality and the system. Evolution says chance and natural selection have created it. When DNA was discovered, it shook the scientific world because it meant that cells were WAY more complicated and intricate than science had previously realized. "You mean there's genetic code!!!???" Uh oh! Who wrote it!? Chance!... Right..
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair Good question. You have all the answers [other than things look complex to you] so Show us who the designer is. Let us see who the Creator is. Allah? Budda?
DNA can copy itself and be copied to make proteins, there is no magic needed. It is all nature.
Darwin did not know about complex cells and had no problem showing how evolution happens.
gregrutz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz "Darwin did not know about complex cells and had no problem showing how evolution happens."
By Darwins time they did not know the exact or specific mechanisms of genetics, DNA, and all that, but breeding and such was already established and effectively used for centuries. Darwin helped to unify and explain more of this than most people before him. I don't have to know how the computer hardware does what it does, all the circuits and such, in order to use a computer.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz "DNA can copy itself and be copied to make proteins, there is no magic needed. It is all nature."
Ok, and where did that DNA come from? How did it obtain the ability to copy itself and make Proteins? How did it form without intelligent design? Science doesn't know. It has some weak guesses, but nothing anywhere near solid. Why? Because it's just so incredibly complex. DNA functions like programming code and is genetic instruction. That doesn't ever arise naturally.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@TavrenElkair
You also fail at 5th grade science. If a creator designed us, then he is surely a major prankster that purposely wants people to think it was by evolution.
Chickens have genes for teeth, which are dormant, useless, and imply an ancestor who once used those genes.
We have wisdom teeth, which are not only useless, but HARMFUL. Again, evidence for an ancestor with large ape jaws.
Bacteria has DNA, bacteria kills people, what a sense of humor your designer has xD
WitchHunter93 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WitchHunter93 "Bacteria has DNA, bacteria kills people, what a sense of humor your designer"
Birds can have teeth-like structures. Nothing says they cannot. In fact, some fossilized birds have them, as do a few modern birds. It's part of their makeup. It's just rare that it becomes actualized.
Wisdom teeth cause problems. Very true. The problem is too small mouths.
The vast majority of bacteria is beneficial to life, not pathogenic. Only about 2% is actually harmful.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
@WitchHunter93 "then he is surely a major prankster that purposely wants people to think it was by evolution."
And here we get an example of data "interpretation". You believe Darwinism (Evolution) explains the origins of all life. So by your viewpoint, you infer that God must be a prankster. But Evolution is the interpretation of scientific studies and finds. It's how a person reads or translates the actual data. You're effectively showing how worldviews shape perception.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
@WitchHunter93 "Bacteria has DNA, bacteria kills people, what a sense of humor your designer has"
Also, from the Biblical standpoint, pathogenic bacteria, as well as genetic degradation over time (see Muller's Ratchet, Mutational Meltdown, Genetic Drift, etc.) all fits very well. If God created everything perfect, without error, but the system has been breaking down over time, decaying, corrupting, what's found in science makes perfect sense. This links to "the sin factor"
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@TavrenElkair no, no no and again no. DNA is NOT evidence for intelligent design. For starters how do you explain the shoddy 'design' of the human eye, as a design it really is quite shocking, no intelligent designer would use this design in its most prized creation. However it is nicely explained through evolution: our eyes haven't evolved into a better 'design' because we haven't had a need for them to. Simple.
golem1180 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@golem1180 "For starters how do you explain the shoddy 'design' of the human eye, as a design it really is quite shocking, no intelligent designer would use this design in its most prized creation."
This is a commonly stated "proof of evolution", but the eye is actually designed quite well considering all the input it gets...
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
@golem1180 At EvolutionNews(dot)org, December 12, 2011
"In 2010, two eye specialists made a remarkable discovery that showed the elegant mechanism found in vertebrate eyes to solve the problem of any blockage of light due to the position of the optic nerve. Special "glial cells" sit over the retina and act like fiber-optic cables to channel light through the optic nerve wires directly onto the photoreceptor cells...
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
@golem1180
"According to New Scientist, these funnel-shaped cells prevent scattering of light and "act as light filters, keeping images clear."
Ken Miller acknowledges that an intelligent designer "would choose the orientation that produces the highest degree of visual quality." Yet that seems to be exactly what we find in the vertebrate eye...
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
@golem1180
In fact, the team of scientists who determined the function of glial cells concluded that the "retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images."
ID-theorist William Dembski has observed that "no one has demonstrated how the eye's function might be improved without diminishing its visual speed, sensitivity, and resolution."9 It's therefore unsurprising that optics engineers study the eye to improve camera technology...
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
@golem1180
"... According to another tech article:"Borrowing one of nature's best designs, U.S. scientists have built an eye-shaped camera using standard sensor materials and say it could improve the performance of digital cameras and enhance imaging of the human body."
It seems that human eyes are so poorly designed that engineers regularly mimic them..."
They eye is actually very well designed considering the jobs it has, so much so that to make better cameras and lenses, engineers study it.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@TavrenElkair and incase you couldn't read inbetween the lines, the DNA evolved, thus allowing for us as human beings to.
golem1180 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@golem1180 The system of DNA, RNA, Proteins and Ribosomes is a great example of "specified complexity" and an "irreducibly complex" biological system. Evolution still can't explain how those things all arose from non-living chemicals and molecules. Some theories exist, but none of them have been able to adequately demonstrate the processes of the order of evolution, how they evolved, how they came together, what the replacements for the modern versions are, etc. Look into it, it's a total mess.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Very nice job at quote mining. Please post his entire response and you will see he covers all these "rebuttals". Why we call it information when its not really information and why they come together. All you delusional theists can do is use devious false tactics to dance around the fact that YOU have the burden of proof, not science. Where is your proof that god exists?
Maggot1750 5 months ago
As opposed to "god did it" that is not a valid explaination for anything.
X exists, I don't know how, therefore god did it.
God exists, my proof is that he had to exist in order for X to exist.
And the day you'll realize what "circular logic" is, will never be too late.
ChristianIce 5 months ago
@ChristianIce @ChristianIce My interpretation of the argument (in summary) from Signature in the Cell (as it relates to what you write) is as follows.
X=Coded information that translates into specific operations
X is found in DNA
Intelligent agents are known to produce X
Non-intelligent agents are not known to produce X
Therefore Intelligence best explains instances of X
I hope this helps.
weseeinpart 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@weseeinpart
"Non-intelligent agents are not known to produce X"
Argument from ignorance.
It rains, I don't know how or why, best explenation is an intelligence behind, god did it... that's just the same old crap, nothing new.
Anyway it doesn't matter.
There is a scientific arena, if anybody has anything to say about creationism, just compile a paper and publish it.
ChristianIce 5 months ago
@ChristianIce "X exists, I don't know how, therefore god did it.
God exists, my proof is that he had to exist in order for X to exist."
You've summed up a common atheistic argument quite nicely, thank you.
"Life exists, therefore, naturalism caused it, because we don't accept the concept of God."
"Natural selection and genetic variety exists, therefore these and scientific laws enable it to be so."
How did it all begin? "Natural selection." That too, is circular.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TavrenElkair
"because we don't accept the concept of God."
I don't have any reason to think that there is a god, a 2000 yrs old book of mithology means nothing to me.
"How did it all begin?"
I don't know what was "before" the big bang, and I am perfectly comfortable accepting that I don't know, instead of making up stupid stories.
ChristianIce 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair you are pretty ignorant if you summon up scientific theories to just plain rejection of an idea of god. also it didn't begin with natural selection, if you are talking about life on earth since there was nothing to select from...
golem1180 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@golem1180 "also it didn't begin with natural selection, if you are talking about life on earth since there was nothing to select from..."
Correct, Natural Selection is one theory about the origin of life and the first living cell, but many scientists would now agree that the theory doesn't work well (if at all) until you have an already living cell that can reproduce and survive (or die). Other theories for Abiogenesis involve random chance or molecular affinities. They both fail too.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS!!!!!!!
Lol, sorry I'm just kidding. I know this to be untrue because well, I'm fucking LITERATE.
geragna 6 months ago
@schizotypalgrasp he might actually do it...lol
MobileThinker 6 months ago
This particular time Dawkins is wrong. DNA is nothing like computer code and if you bother to read what else Dawkins has said about this you will understand why.
But that's all beside the point, the main point is that DNA does not require a creator.
FredricF 6 months ago
All we ask for is empirical evidence, not opinion, FOR your position. I haven't seen any from creationists.
There is absolutely no evidence of the supernatural besides unfounded conjecture.
CamW30 6 months ago
If you took all the ignorance in the world and wrapped it up in slimy stinky quote mines then coated that with a liberal application of 3rd grade logic it would become this video. If your completely unqualified to address the issue and don't have any facts to support your position and reality doesn't fit your world view then you just need to quote an old book that says it's not true and support your fantasies by denying reality even though you haven't got a clue what it is. GOOD JOB!
milkman5547 6 months ago
Rather than try to challenge those facts that disprove your world view (fossil record, biogeography etc etc), I wonder what scientific work (i'm afraid wishful thinking and guesswork is not science) categorically proves a link between DNA and a designer.
Just asking.
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
Wow.... This is so, so bad. And hey, nice quote mining there, dude. I'm pretty sure that counts as lying, and thus is a one way ticket to your hell.
tyrongkojy 7 months ago
I posted a response that should cover your queries. Now do the right thing and accept the video response.
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
@ONESPECIES
Do the right thing and accept the video response? haha sorry that made me laugh. And yes I accepted it.
Im actually suprised that you don't acknowledge that DNA contains information. Even Richard Dawkins understands this, as do many other evolutionists. I have even had evolutionists who are computer programmers tell me that yes, DNA stores information. It is so obvious, that I am getting tired of pointing this out.
onceforgivennowfree 7 months ago
@onceforgivennowfree Watch the video response Evogen he made to you. He addresses that adequately. Information is a metaphor, a word of convenience. The actual payload of DNA is not information, but molecular sequences that interact with the cell. IF you can not understand the difference between everyday language and scientific details, its not an argument. If you can not grasp a natural mechanism its not an argument. So find an argument concerning the chemistry of things, not definitions.
ONESPECIES 7 months ago 3
@ONESPECIES
So you disagree with Richard Dawkins that DNA stores information?
Check out my video "intelligent design for Dummies Part 7" on the origin of life. I explain how DNA stores information in pretty simple terms. :P
onceforgivennowfree 7 months ago
@onceforgivennowfree - "So you disagree with Richard Dawkins that DNA stores information?"
Why do creationists have trouble with the concept of metaphor? The "information" stored in DNA is not the same as "information" in a textbook. Dawkins does not state that they are the same.
Quote-mining & using empirical evidence out of context seems to be the only form of argument that the creationist has. I would be astonished if a creationist actually cited empirical evidence FOR their position.
CamW30 6 months ago
@onceforgivennowfree No I disagree that when Dawkins says "information", he means the same thing with you. You can grab Richard and come to a Greek Island where we can discuss this. To put it simply, chemistry brought together nucleotides, and they continue to evolve due to their natural chemical properties. The word information, or any word is a symbol, a reference node to have discussions. You confuse the symbol with the real thing. The real thing existed before cells and their traits.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago 4
@onceforgivennowfree Dawkin's: the analogy, in the video: breaking the analogy, saying that DNA isn't really a code, because the 'code' is an analogy. And of course Dawkin's was using an analogy, because when you explain the specifics to a layman, he won't understand.
With the newspaper thing, go watch some video's on the fallacy of the watchmaker argument, it's been done literally hundred's of times.
Xentecks 6 months ago
@onceforgivennowfree you realize that Dawkins isn't the pope of atheism. atheists don't follow someone they think is infallible...that is you guys...and i didn't know you started making comedy videos...lol
MobileThinker 6 months ago
@onceforgivennowfree That's not what ONESPECIES said. ONESPECIES is pointing out that you're misunderstanding words used for common language rather than words to be taken as totally literal. ONESPECIES gave you your answer and you're simply choosing to ignore it and deflect.
kainedamo 5 months ago
I must also add that if you are going to try to answer then special pleading or any other fallacious answer is unacceptable. If you consider creationism a science then you have to at least have a go at giving a scientific answer.
ptango101 7 months ago
Actually I have a few questions that creationists are never able to answer. Would you be happy to have a crack at them or are you just happy to keep making accusations about people who accept evolution?
ptango101 7 months ago
Is this a psudo-science campaign or an adopt a homeless monkey campaign I can't tell with the pictures.
helllspell 7 months ago
So, you seem to be good at ridicule, but never actually refute what the people are saying with FACTUAL information FOR your position. You show no empirical evidence of a designer outside of, "Since it 'looks' designed, there must be a designer."
Please give us some empirical evidence FOR your position; evidence that has not been refuted in the scientific literature. That is all I ask.
I find it amazing that you claim to be versed in evolutionary theory, yet use only ridicule to oppose it.
CamW30 7 months ago
Another excellent video brother! God bless!!
Nobleeagle100 7 months ago
That was absolutely hilarious bro.
hugenex2000 7 months ago
Smashing together two people who know a bit about evolution together in in a video to make it seem like "they ALWAYS refute themselves" is no different than two people of different or like minded religion(s) not agreeing on everything, it's a misdirect argument.
MidnightSundowns 7 months ago
Nice one, Matt.
WhiteVV01F 7 months ago
Analogy fail at the end. I am not sure if you are just ignorant of genetics or you were trying to make a horrible analogy in order to be a joke.
jebus6kryst 7 months ago
Awesome!
emptywithoutjesus 7 months ago
That was absolutely hilarious!.....silly evolutionists
walshybhoy1 7 months ago
Pathetic. This is yet another question evolution has no obligation to answer; this is another one related to abiogenesis. Furthermore, you couldn't even refute the explanation, just quote-mined Dawkins and used an analogy that doesn't even work. Books and newspapers aren't alive and don't reproduce, moron.
MrMaster90 7 months ago
@MrMaster90
Abiogenesis....that's the unsuccessful arm of Evolutionary theory which failed in it's attempts to predict how life got started, isn't it?
So it was cast adrift, separated from Darwin's theory, and left to whither alone on the vine, so as not to bring down the whole kit and kaboodle!
Now, had it been successful in it's endeavours....
:)
DastardlyDawkins 7 months ago
@DastardlyDawkins Oh, you creationist liars are so stupid. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution; evolution is an explanation of biodiversity, not origins, and it always was. Atomic theory doesn't explain where atoms came from; why aren't you attacking it for that? Besides, abiogenesis has plenty of evidence behind it; much more than "God did it."
MrMaster90 7 months ago
@MrMaster90
Nope, i'm not having it, sorry!
When Darwin intentionally chose to name his book ; 'On The Origin Of Species', he understood exactly what impact those particular words would have on any, and all, potential readers.
So either Darwin was completely illiterate, or he's a cheap liar, and illiterates don't use insidious marketing techniques to boost book sales.
'Origin means the beginning, starting-point, cause, or ultimate source, from which a thing is derived or generated.' - Wikipedia
DastardlyDawkins 7 months ago
@DastardlyDawkins
Actually you are wrong as usual. Evolution encompasses the origin of species through Macroevolution, which entails speciation. Abiogenesis does not deal with the origin of species, but with how biological life arose from inorganic matter.
Which does not entail origination of species since you have to first have life, for it to diversify into given species to begin with.
You owe the great Charles Darwin a heartfelt apology.
Dhorpatan 7 months ago
@Dhorpatan
Not at all, i would say it's the evolutionists who owe the whole world an apology!
In your interpretation, the first lifeforms
A) don't have the ability to diversify,
but perhaps more remarkably,
B) are not even considered a species,
and finally
C) Microevolution is not considered part of evolutionary theory.
This being the case,would you mind asking Prof Dawkins to stop referring to the highly elusive 'Common Ancestor' as the origin of life in Darwin's phylogenetic tree, please? :)
DastardlyDawkins 7 months ago
@DastardlyDawkins C'mon, you know better now than to trip up the atheist with origins. They are only concerned about things after life was created. That's not playing fair now. ha ha.
Evolution is so bankrupt, it's a wonder it continues.
emptywithoutjesus 7 months ago
@emptywithoutjesus
I know, no matter what we say or do, we're always wrong, regardless! :)
And they do this despite being the first to freely admit they have no real answers....
so they obviously don't want you to have any answers either, that thought frightens them :)
DastardlyDawkins 7 months ago
@DastardlyDawkins Projecting, are we? If you had any real answers or evidence to back them up, we'd consider it, but so far all you've produced are fallacious arguments and baseless assertions. Do you have evidence of your talking snake, rib-woman, and magic fruit? I've asked so many creationists for evidence, but all they could do was change the subject.
MrMaster90 7 months ago
@MrMaster90
"but all they could do was change the subject." - You're projecting! :)
DastardlyDawkins 7 months ago
@DastardlyDawkins There you go again; changing the subject and making false accusations when you can't give evidence. Why do all creationists do that? Do they have such little confidence in their beliefs, or do they secretly know they're wrong?
MrMaster90 7 months ago
@emptywithoutjesus "They are only concerned about things after life was created...Evolution is so bankrupt"
Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with abiogenesis. You're confusing a couple exclusive concepts. Like any other scientific theory (germ theory, atomic theory), evolutionary theory is a tool used to solve problems and make predictions. You don't believe in evolution, rather you use it to solve problems like your hammer. Can you offer an alternative theory?
blaisingm 7 months ago
@DastardlyDawkins "Origin means the beginning, starting-point, {The Origin of Species}"
Right... and like the title suggests...ORIGIN OF SPECIES... NOT origin of life. Rather than complain about evolutionary theory, perhaps you could offer an alternative theory that accounts for: Homology, phylogenetics, organismal geographic distribution, the fossil record, etc, AND capable of solving problems AND making predictions. Do you have an alternative or is it easier for you to complain?
blaisingm 7 months ago
@blaisingm
To prove to me that the theory of evolution isnt a forced conclusion , (Circular reasoning)
You give me an alternate naturalistic explanation for all the bio diversity we observe other than "things just changed into everything man "
You see it isnt a grand idea it is merely the explanation forced upon us by the scientific method demanding and forcing a naturalistic explanation.
Nothing spectacular at all .
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 7 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU "scientific method demanding and forcing a naturalistic explanation."
Hummm....forcing a naturalistic explanation? Since evolutionary theory can be applied to solving problems and making predictions, it is FAR more than an 'explanation'. But, if you just want a non-naturalistic explanation that doesn't solve problems or make predictions, I can explain lighting and thunder to you. Zeus makes lighting. Or, perhaps you'd rather hear about Thor (Go see the movie!)?
blaisingm 7 months ago
@blaisingm
Correlating a non naturalistic explanation with zeus is an attempt at ridicule .
Only idiots propose supernatural ideas like
"A methodology confined can deive all truth ." O wait thats your proposal isnt it ????
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 7 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU "Correlating a non naturalistic explanation with zeus is an attempt at ridicule ."
How is that ridicule? People of Greece believed in Zeus as an explanation for lighting... Just north of Greece, Thor was responsible for lightning. Today, we have enough evidence to confirm lightning's source and cause. The naturalistic science solves problems and we can make predictions concerning lightning. What evidence would have to exist for you to find evolution to be possible?
blaisingm 7 months ago
@blaisingm
The christian proposal clearly states that at a point in time all knew there was a God but the Jewish nation was given the task of carrying the truth . All peoples have stories of God and Gods but these stories have been exagerated . By studying the roots of religion in a non bias way you can eliminate these pagan beliefs as the world has . The difference is their religions have no evidence for the argument that they are accurate . Christianity Does
Cont :
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 7 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU "The difference is their religions have no evidence for the argument that they are accurate . Christianity Does"
So, you're saying that all religions are fake EXCEPT christianity BECAUSE christianity is backed by evidence? So, are you saying that evidence, rather than faith, is the reason you are christian? Christian faith is unnecessary because of all the evidence that backs it? O.K.. What evidence exists that validates christianity?
blaisingm 7 months ago
@blaisingm
Faith means firmly persuaded . there are some things i dont understand but due to the tons of evidence that I do i accept the few things I dont with a blind faith . There isnt anyone who has a blind faith without having a persuaded faith . You not understanding the argument in its proper context shows you are a victim to athiest propaganda .
Atheist always frame the arguemnt incorrectly so they have the adavantage .
Exhibit A Israel existing
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 7 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU "Faith means firmly persuaded ."
Faith has many definitions, but in the context of religion the following definition is most appropriate: strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence. "firmly persuaded" is not the biblical faith you refer to.
"Exhibit A Israel existing"
This is your evidence? The existence of Israel? Explain how Israel is christian evidence.
"at a point in time all knew there was a God"
Did the aztecs know of biblical god?
blaisingm 7 months ago
@blaisingm
Atheist have tampered with definitions in their attempt to argue against what they "LACK belief in ".
This is the same . I hope I have explained to you what faith really means .
I do admit that I blindly accept some things that lack adequate proof but I do so Because of the proof I have that everything else is the truth .
What does the bible say about Israel. Did it come to pass. The early wars of israel 1946 .
We could stay on israel for a few months
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 7 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU "What does the bible say about Israel. Did it come to pass. The early wars of israel 1946 .We could stay on israel for a few months"
Are you asking me questions? I'm not sure what some of these sentences are saying. "We could stay on israel for a few months"?
" admit that I blindly accept some things that lack... proof but I do so Because of the proof I have."
At least this is honest. So, let's talk about this evidence. What evidence? Israel is evidence? Explain.
blaisingm 7 months ago
@blaisingm
Well do you also admit that you have blind faith that the bacterial flagella evolved because I know you dont have evidence of the bacterial flagella evolving .
Does the bible correctly predict Israels history to this point ?
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 7 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU " Does the bible correctly predict Israels history to this point ?
part 3a
I don't know. Does it? Can you reference anything to back your claim assuming that is the claim you are making? I assuming your claim is: The Bible predicted the existence of Israel. You're not coming out and saying anything specific about Israel and the bible OR backing this with any evidence. You keep asking me, and, as far as I know, Israel is not mentioned in the bible
end a
blaisingm 7 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU "Well do you also admit that you have blind faith that the bacterial flagella evolved "
part 2a
See: Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex (16 April 2008 by Michael Le Page) for details. There is evidence to support that flagellum evolved. Regardless, one shouldn't believe in evolution anyway. It is a tool used to solve problems, just like your hammer. You don't believe in your hammer, you use it to solve problems.
Continued to Part 3a
blaisingm 7 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU "Well do you also admit that you have blind faith that the bacterial flagella evolved "
part 1a
I don't believe things evolved. Evolution is a tool used to solve problems and make predictions. You're example is an appeal to "irreducible complexity"... you're suggesting that the parts (proteins) of a flagella couldn't possibly have evolved and are useless independently. This is simply not the case. Proteins of flagellum appear in other parts of a cell...
Contin pt 2a
blaisingm 7 months ago
@blaisingm
I am not suggesting anything other than it is the norm to have blind faith if you have become convinced.
You have blind faith the plane will not crash due to compelling evidence .That doesnt mean it will not .
The co-option of proteins cannot be repeated nor observed but you blindly accept that it happened .
The argument for God is more compelling than the argument against . You should find out for yourself.
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 7 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU "The argument for God is more compelling than the argument against ."
Part 3b
This is nothing more than an opinion. It would have been honest and appropriate to have followed this statement up with: TO ME. What makes god so compelling to you?
end b
blaisingm 7 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU "You have blind faith the plane will not crash due to compelling evidence .That doesnt mean it will not ."
Part 2b
I can agree with your airplane crashing example. Evidence isn't 'truth', but it increases the probability that something is 'true'. An absence of evidence increases the likelihood something is not true. Scientists don't 'blindly' accept anything... they follow the evidence and draw conclusions based on them.
Continue to part 3b
blaisingm 7 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU "You have blind faith the plane will not crash due to compelling evidence .That doesnt mean it will not ."
Part 1b
Blind faith is defined by an absence of evidence. So, one doesn't have blind faith in an airplane if they have compelling evidence. In our daily life, it is EVIDENCE that drives our suspicions and reasoning about the world around us... not blind faith. Again... I don't accept that flagellum evolved, but I do accept the sound evidence.
Continue 2b
blaisingm 7 months ago
@blaisingm
There is no empirical evidence for the flagellum evolving there is not even good evidence that it evolved .
because some of the proteins existed before the flagellum the argument is that they must have co opted.
That isnt a strong argument but it does get a pass because there is no other naturalistic explanation .
It is but an argument and if you need to hear Ken Miller tell you with his own mouth because you dont really understand but pretend you do, I can arrange it .
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 7 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU "there is no other naturalistic explanation ."
Part 4c
Like ID, stork theory is a poor, poor theory incapable of solving problems or making predictions. The appropriate thing to do is say: I don't know, AND if you're actually curious, try to figure it out. The real question is what drives someone accept something without evidence or logical reason. You never explained Israel as evidence for christianity. Are you going to explain how Israel is evidence?
end c
blaisingm 7 months ago