This is not at all an argument against creationism, an omnipotent God is not limited by physical laws. If God is bounded by the laws of physics then He is not God. A first mover is necessary to get things started. God is eternal because that is His nature. I have spoken to several professors about the origins of the singularity and they don't even pretend to know where the energy originated from. All we can do is speculate about the origins of the universe based on our observations.
you havent talked to many professors or you've talked to the wrong ones. two "membranes" (planes of universes) collided and as you knoe E=MV therefore energy was created due to the laws of mass-energy conservation....simples...
Hello firthio2, I am a student of physics as well but I also have an interest in biology. As far as evolution is concerned I find it hard to believe that complex life forms originated as a result of spontaneous generation. Also, irreducibly complex biological systems make a strong argument against evolution.
I think the origins of the singularity points to a creator, there must be a first mover. Energy does not come out of nothing that is a clear violation of the laws of physics. One can argue that our universe originated from the collapse of another universe but how did that universe originate. One can argue that the collapse and formation of universes are cyclic events and from this one assumes that the energy is eternal. There is not evidence to prove this event so we choose our belief.
what the hell is he talking about if an infinite amount of monkeys typedrandomly on an infinite number of typewriters there is a probability of 0.999999(reoccurring) that one would type the entire works of shakespear its simple probability
notice how you were rational when gravity was brought up. this is because it doesnt go against your truth book. there is more proof of evolution than of gravity. gravity is a theory comprised of laws, thats how theories work(theories are not hypothesis) just like evolution is a theory comprised of laws such as: Adaptation Genetic drift Gene flow Mutation Natural selection Speciation(these are all proven LAWS!!) im sure this factual information did not change your mind at all
who claim speciation isnt proven?? im not gonna event tell you how easy it is to check that out from a source that doesnt rely on you believing them in order to keep their job.
Show me the missing links..If you are right, they why haven't chimps and apes evolved? Explain to me your thinking, with out swearing and put downs, and I'll explain why I believe in a Loving God who formed man and breathed life into him.
I want to see your "proof" IT's a Theory...not based in fact. It's amazing how "science" comes up with all these pat answers and then has to eat them when they are proven wrong. I want proof, not snide comments, show me! Put downs and snideness only proves you are part the masses that believe we evolved from goo that suddenly decided to form individual cells....out of the blue. Show me YOUR PROOF!!
see what you are doing, you acting like im firing snide insults at you which i havent. i would give you proof but i know what your just gonna blindly deny it being proof and for something to be considered a scientific theory it needs to have more than facts behind it it needs scientific laws the laws of evolution: Adaptation Genetic drift Gene flow Mutation Natural selection Speciation if this is insulting to you then its not my fault
Forgive me if I sounded insulting. I was wanting you to answer me, but not to insult or attack you. Too much of that goes on here at Youtube as it is. I believe in God, hands down, I'm in the medical profession, and see too much of his handy work. Life in general is too wonderful and complex to just have happened. Any mutation in nature always ends up being bad. The animal either dies at birth, or is consumed by predation. God uses survival so the best will breed. God bless!
"Any mutation in nature always ends up being bad. The animal either dies at birth, or is consumed by predation"
why are you lying? lying is a sin
_____
how come you dont write down what his handy work is and send it in for the nobel prize, im sure the extremely educated people who are obsessed with finding things out(their profession)will love to check it out
_________
why are the least religious countries the most successful?
_______
what is it exactly that you see when you see his handy work?
"Any mutation in nature always ends up being bad. The animal either dies at birth, or is consumed by predation"
why are you lying? lying is a sin
_____
how come you dont write down what his handy work is and send it in for the nobel prize, im sure the extremely educated people who are obsessed with finding things out(their profession)will love to check it out
________
why are the least religious countries the most successful?
_______
what is it exactly that you see when you see his handy work?
You want to see His handy work? Just look in the mirror!! My children and grand children are His handy work. It's amazing that we are on the "right" planet, not to close to the sun, and not to far away either, and His amazing worksa are all around us. One just has to open their eyes to see it. The human body is a work of art...so many complex systems that work to form the whole. That's not lying, so it's not a sin.
i looked in the mirror... i noticed that i look like a chimp but a little less hairy, and a little taller. my eyes even look very similar to him.
so because we are close enough to support life, there must be a god?? wow we need you to teach at harvard, scientists never looked at it like that.
yea it wasnt lying because you gave me no evidence, you said "the earth is supporting life" "the human body is nice" "something works it must mean a god"
WHY do people like you just blabber away posting complete and utter rubbish and sneering at scientists in the process?
NOBODY as in NOT A SINGLE SOLITARY BIOLOGIST claims it happened by chance. good grief!!! where in the name of sanity do you start to address such ignorance.
google human chromosome 2. google ERVs google ken miller google the fossil record.
you don't seem to know what a scientific theory is. the atomic theory is not considered proven. it, like evolution, is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.
the notion of goo "deciding" to form cells is beyonf infantile. why not read what actual theories there are for the formation of living cells rather than post this?
ID is not a scientific theory, its a hypothesis. A theory needs evidence, as yet there is none for ID other than that we exist, which could be construed as evidence for many things.
I study physics, chemistry and read alot of genetic biology, and I went to a faith school so have decent scriptural knowledge (church of engalnd btw). Does this qualify me to hear your evidence?
Do you think that each and every creature on this earth could have been formed by chance? I just can't believe that. I think it takes more faith to believe in Evolution than it does to believe God created this universe. There are so many facts out there that prove there is no possible way this universe could have come by chance. Most of them are common sense.
In one way, I agree with you. Complex life forms, even cells, can't spontaneously form from random molecules bouncing off each other. Nor would evolution allow for this, because evolution doesn't and can't take lateral gene transfer into account, which is what most early microbial life apparently did.
right, and I can see how people just can't seem to come to the idea that there is a God out there. I mean, God isn't about proving he exists, but again it comes down to faith and common sense. Looking around at nature and the human body, it just calls for intelligent design.
Abiogenisis happens occasionaly, of course, but to posit that entire multicellular organisms or even prokaryotes just sprang into being is just ridiculous. It's the one thing both biologists and creationists can agree on.
I'm not saying "goddidit." It's likely there were intermediaries like free-floating amino acids, phospholipids, nucleotides etc.
If you know more than me about biochemistry, please, indulge me. I'd like to see exactly how much you know.
little knoledge of chemistry? i'm working on the kinetics of an iodine clock atm and i plan to make several very accurate clocks after a few months...so no, Na isnt all that reactive when you complair it to something like caesium
yea theories like germ theory, and nuclear theory, and the theory of gravity
yes do you even know what a scientific theory is? if you give me the definition of a hypothesis... shame on you
im sure you accept 99.9% of all scientific theories but just a few you dont only and only because it goes against your truth book
every time real scientists find proof of evolution some guy with a phd just uses that proof and leaves out information on it to trick you into believing ingod
and dont you se what they are doing? they never prove god exists they only try to disprove a scientific theory, if they do disprove evolution they would win the nobel prize amung others and be all over the news as the greatest discovery!!!!
but even if they disprove evolution they have an uphill battle to prove god wins
did you ever wonder why its backwoods people,hicks, uneducated, and 3rd world countries are the strongest believers????
Punctuated equilibrium, contrary to Lucan22's assertion does not lie in conflict with Darwin's theory of phyletic graduation. Rather Darwin's theory emphasised gradual change to negate the argument of catastrophism put forward at the same time by Georges Cuvier, which envisioned supernatural creation of new species within the fossil record.
Punctuated evolution argues that evolution occurs fastest in small isolated communities.
Punctuated equilibrium was introduced to interpret the fossil record. Gould and Eldredge noticed two features of the record: Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on Earth. They appear in the fossil record pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once fully formed.
So on the one hand we have is a set of facts, and a theory that did not fully explain them. A new hypothesis is put forward that better explains the data, this hypothesis is used to make predictions, new data is found through those predictions that allows the model to be further refined.
On the other nothing, a dead end that provides no real answers, an 'it is what it is' argument, a 'do as you are told, I know better than you, keep paying the tribute' model that would have us in the dark ages.
With respect to your second point, morphological change, since we cannot observe the environment first hand in which the adaptation was framed we cannot know why certain changes were preferred, any more than we can discern the direction a car is traveling from a single photograph.
Going back to Darwin's finches we can demonstrate that M. C. is not direction-less since we can see the living environment and behavior that makes those changes beneficial.
First, the point I was making with respect to life vs. building construction was to demonstrate the ludicrous concept of equivalence. You will probably never see two houses up sticks, elope and return in two years with a couple of little out-houses in tow.
Reproduction is the key to evolution, environmental factors such as predation, abundance and types of food will lead to significant divergence within a species over very short periods (see peppered moth evolution)
Then you have proven his point; houses are not as complicated as life. Yet the materials of which the house is composed do not determine its design. So the matter of which life is composed does not determine its design. Now, the materials may impose from their structure and purpose some constraint on the design, but they do not bring forth the design. That comes from a designer.
How have I proven his or your point, a house cannot construct itself, cannot reproduce itself it is an inanimate object, as inanimate objects they require designs and a builder. They cannot do the one thing that sets every living organism apart from the rocks around them, reproduce. Within evolution, life does not need a designer because an organism can make copies of itself passing on the traits that made it better fitted to its environment than it's rivals.
Punctuated equilibrium, also known as the hopeful monster theory, merely proposed that large mutational changes occurred in life's history which generated macroevolutionary alterations in organisms. Gould did this to explain why the fossil record contained so few transitional sequences and difficulties accounting for the Cambrian Explosion. He just said that evolution is not gradual but proceeds in large jumps. He offered no explanation for how it happened.
Instead of merely repeating the quote mined excerpts produced by creationists, why do you not go to the original source and find our what the theory really says..
As a starting point try this Wiki. punctuated equilibrium. from there you will find many links providing a wealth of real information about this and other evolution theories.
You will note I have not rated down your comments, I reserve that for whether an argument is good or bad, not because I like or don't like what is said.
Hopefully Creationists, lets drop the pretense over I.D. would accept the notion of selective breeding. Domesticated animals, staple food crops, bananas...
These exist because we have selected traits we find desirable. Take humans out of this equation and substitute the environment and nature selects traits useful for that organism. The key is reproduction. No magic sky fairy, ju-ju beads or mystical incantations, just plain simple sex.
Reproduction is not sufficient to produce complexity. You need to propose a mechanism that is capable of generating new body plans, organs, and information for organic life. Darwinian Evolution, with its focus on natural selection and random mutation, does not do this. We know that it is inadequate as an explanation, so then what did it? The question is open. Further, Gould noticed that the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis was not correct, so he introduced punctuated equilibrium to solve it.
The very first premise of this clip, that evolution can be equated to building a house had me figuratively ROTF-LOL Two bungalows running behind a stand of trees, bricks crashing together then sometime later the patter of cement and a pair of semi-detached houses appearing by magic. In Hollywood or the crazed delusions of a creationist maybe.
Houses do not reproduce, therefore cannot pass on beneficial mutations. They cannot evolve but by the hand of humans.
Are these guys being serious or are they being dishonest?!? Even someone with a basic understanding of evolution knows that its not an entirely random proces. And scientist have examples of organisms becoming more complex via the process of evolution. These men have to know this if they're going to speak publically about this stuff. At least you would think. Ben Stein is either an idiot or incredibly dishonest.
"...Even someone with a basic understanding of evolution knows that its not an entirely random proces."
Evolution isn't entirely random. Mutations ARE random, but the very worst ones are selected against. Most of the rest are information destroying, but with such a slight effect that natural selection cannot remove them. Evolution works a little. It can generate antibiotic resistance or low spec. enzymes. It certainly can't generate cellular machinery. Not enough time. Not enough materials.
"It certainly can't generate cellular machinery. Not enough time. Not enough materials". Who told you that?!?! I think you've been listening to too many ID/creation "scientists". The same mechanism that generates antibiotic resistence or low spec. enzymes CAN generate cellular machinery. Scientist have generated antibiotic resistance in a lab in just a few thousand generations. Which in real time is days to weeks. Take that process and give it a million years and see what happens.
I have to post this again, for bad grammar is a terrible sin. That there were changes in life was observed for many years. That a new life or an original creation was produced from the proposed naturalistic mechanism has not been observed. So, despite your triumphalist tone, the answer has not been discovered for life's innovative complexity. That is why there is a debate on this issue. I am not here to dismiss your view, for I only want a fair consideration of ours.
The there were changes in life was observed for many years. That a new life or an orginal creation was produced from the naturalistic machanism has not been observed. So, despite your triumphalist tone, the answer has not been discovered for life's innovative complexity. That is why there is a debate on this issue.
This guy does not understand cumulative selection nor anything about evolution. It is not chance, it is a blind watchmaker. I agree the evolution he is arguing against is stupid. However, that isn't evolution.
ur exactly right wjverh. i agree with u 100%. the reason why creationist leave out that second part is to make evolution sound flawed. they try and prove intelligent design by trying to make a mockery of evolution. instead of trying to disprove evolution, why dont they try and prove the existance of god?
But Evolutionary Theory is not just about RANDOM CHANCE. It is about RANDOM CHANCE & NATURAL SELECTION. Why do they always leave out the second part.
A million monkeys banging away randomly on a typewriter will produce only the first two lines of Shakespeare. A single monkey banging away randomly (RANDOM CHANCE) at a typewriter that keeps all the correct letters (NATURAL SELECTION) will produce the entire works of Shakespeare.
Wow! How can a maths prof be ignorant of self-organising systems? Snowflakes, ant-foraging behavior, sunspots, the magnetic regions on your hard-disk are all proof that systems with initially randomly arranged parts will become highly structured just by each of the parts of the system interacting with their immediate neighbours according to extremely simple rules. Or perhaps your intelligent designer manually fashions each and every iron crystal during the forging of your cutlery?
Im not an athiest but i dont beleive God is responsible for life on earth. i find it annoying that devout people refuse to accept any other possiblity other than what they have been brainwashed with. i support the idea of evolution but dont dismiss the the fact that it may not explain everything. i consider alternative views. fundamentalist behaviour is typical of scientifically uneducated people who know nothing about the science of life and evolution. do your homework before you start a debate
Intelligent design needs to postulate a being (the designer) that is at least as complex as what it is supposed to explain. The designer therefore doesn't explain anything, as it cant explain itself. Who created the creator. More importantly, where did this information originate that created the designer. The whole idea contradicts itself.
GOD"S EVOLUTION..Gen 1:1In the beginning(einstein's T.o.R stated the universe is expanding)GOD created the heavens(universe)and Earth.Gen 1:2 The earth had no form/void Gen 1:2 God creates the oceans.Gen1:6 God creates the firmament(atmosphere)Gen 1:9 Land appears.Gen1:11 Grass,seeds.Gen1:20 Ocean life,flying creatures.Gen 1:24 Land animals created.Gen1:27 On the 6th day he formed MAN.How could the author of GENESIS know the exact astronomical,geological,evolutionary formations of our existence?
i guess it would be hard to make man and oceans without a planet to put it on... and i guess it would be hard to put a planet somewhere wtihout somewhere (universe) to put it... if you think really hard for just a second, you can sort of understand that right?
Remember, science accepted the creation model before Darwin. Science flourished under creationism. So few people recall this. The theological and philosophical implications of intelligent design may lead to God, but it did not start with the assertions in the Bible. I find the inference to design quite natural, even in biology. I wonder if people dismiss the idea because they do not want God to exist, so they cling to materialism and naturalism as the truth. What if they're not true?
Science also flourished before quantum physics, germ theory, and the periodic table. Does this give us cause to discard these other scientific breakthroughs? The entirety of biology rests on the central tenets of evolution, and to deny the realities of the theory throws the field - and all the beneficial outcomes of its exploration - to the mercy of one's ignorance.
"Remember, science accepted the creation model before Darwin."
Even before Darwin, people knew that the world was older than 6000 years. Some postulated a creation-devastation cycle to account for the fossil record.
"I wonder if people dismiss the idea because they do not want God to exist, so they cling to materialism and naturalism as the truth"
I don't speak for everyone, but for me: no. I'm sure most would agree.
Science accepted creation pre-darwin because there was no other explanation for the diversity of life. Naturalism was around but had no mechanism. Darwin found the mechanism, natural selection and from there the scientific community went crazy. Science discovered life could change over time into different forms. Evolution is founded in evidence. But remember god was only accepted at start because there was no other hypothesis good enough out there. Luckily evolution became a theory.
"Science accepted creation pre-darwin because there was no other explanation for the diversity of life."
Science accepted a kind of intelligent design I guess, but not what most people think of when you say "creationism"; a literal interpretation of Genesis. Scientists already knew that the world was far older than Genesis suggests, and that many different kinds of life had existed before man. They just didn't know how.
So, the discoveries of Hawking and Ptolemy have made the inference to design unscientific. Exactly how did this happen? Furthermore, we use a design filter to discern between things that look designed from the things that are. How does the application of this same idea to biology make the task unscientific? It is science. You seem, however, to repose great faith in the idea that materialism has proven that a watch can indeed be made without the watchmaker. Has science demonstated this for us?
Remember, the movie's main argument is that anyone who tries to propose an alternative( linked to creationist ideas) to the Darwinian theory of origins is removed from his or her job. Let us see the film before we judge too harshly the views being expressed therein. I do not know if intelligent is the right theory; I only think that it should be fairly and scientifically considered. Let us get politics and religion out of this discussion.
It has been fairly and scientifically considered, over the course of the last 2500 years with an emphasis on the last 200. There is nothing to indicate in any text anywhere that ID is anything more than an adaptation of biblical creation at its simplest form. It's ludicrous to consider when actually regarding the discoveries of everyone from Ptolemy to Hawking.
As Nat has stated, the hypotheses presented by ID (assuming there actually are any) have been tested and have proven unfounded. Every instance of supposed "irreducible complexity" proposed by Behe have been debunked by Ken Miller (who, I might point out, is a Catholic). The entirety of ID is an argumentum ad ignorantium.
"Every instance of supposed "irreducible complexity" proposed by Behe have been debunked by Ken Miller......."
Whom I should point out used an entirely different definition of IC, gave no step by step path that did not requires leaps of neutral mutations, and seems to think that building a one piece mousetrap actually means something.
Ken Miller explicitly states Behe's definition and then responds to it whenever he argues against it in a book, article, essay, etc. They use the exact same definition. You may think that because Behe's definition is so vague.
Ken Miller uses the "one piece mousetrap" because that is a direct response to Behe's use of the moustrap as an example of IC (funny that Behe can't even get that right).
I think that we should all be careful of how we conceptualize this problem. Yes, I agree that the environment produces various adaptations amongst organisms, but this is not the generation of beneficial information. Adaptation does not produce the changes needed in species. Many of you have used the word time and surroundings as if they were the key factor in creation, but if this were true, then such would be demonstrable in laboratory conditions.
The main problem with this theory is that a house, the example that is priviledged, is inherently designed to house occupants. The universe is an occurance over much time, and we have adapted to the conditions, as opposed to having it created for us.
"The ocean is a body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills."
The problem with intelligent design theory, as it has been applied to biology, is that the means by which the designer created cannot be examined scientifically; they are supernatural and beyond the scientific method. That is why scientists do not accept this answer; it does not mean, however, that it is not the explanation for life's complexity. Darwinism has a traceable, material mechanism, but it is completely inadequate to explain most of the biological phenomenon on the planet.
I certainly agree that one should not opt for a God of the Gaps argument to explain what is unknown. However, why begin with what we do not know about living systems. We should consider that a great deal has been done to reveal life's inner workings and parts, and from this we can discern whether Darwinism offers a satisfactory explanation.
God should also be beyond time, creating from eternity and existing in a state of transcendence that we cannot even fathom.
Prof. Lennox mentioned that matter, in of itself, does not determine the design the structure will assume. The source of the design comes from outside the system. It is an informational input that requires intelligent causation. Likewise, with the chemical processes of organic life, the design of such things is not determined by the chemicals of which they are composed, for this too requires informational input from outside. The question for Darwinists is: where did this information come from?
So you're basically asking what was the first cause. There might not have been a "first" cause since we don't fully understand the nature of time, or time could be cyclical, or our universe could be the result of various other "inputs" that are not necessarily intelligent. Just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean we should jump to the conclusion that an intelligent being created the universe.
//The question for Darwinists is: where did this information come from?//
Quite simply, the natural environment. Before "life" as we know it, the self-replicating organic compounds best suited to dealing with their surroundings were the ones that "survived," and were allowed to adapt to changing conditions. Over billions of years, with input from the environment, cells have evolved to perform functions necessary to survival. Information is all around us, no intelligence required.
It's quite simple, and it's something astronomers have recently observed in inorganic compounds in space. In short, these compounds undergo natural chemical reactions that allow them to replicate. Those that can't withstand the rigors of their environment break apart. Those that can, continue to undergo these processes, which occasionally vary. These variances can have a positive or negative effect on the compound's ability to replicate. Thus, a non-living, inorganic form of evolution.
Building have no mechanisms for transporting chemicals through their completely solid structure and they can't evolve into existence from simpler things because they don't reproduce, saying that a naturally occurring self developing organism is as plausible as a naturally occurring self developing skyscraper is ridiculous.
"Organisms start as a single cell that contains all the information necessary for a large scale body plan. The illustration is akin to a brick containing all the information necessary for a large scale building."
How can you compare the development of a person to the infeasible idea of a self building structure which using chemical means. Organisms have pathways for transporting mostly liquid chemicals within them while building are solid all the way through.
Ah yes: biochemistry is exactly like a bunch of bricks falling from the sky. Brilliant!
The funny thing is, if you ask real mathematicians and information theorists about the claims these guys make about "information" you're likely to get anything from confusion to dumbfoundedness at how little sense it makes.
Danielgolfspar compared the cell to a skyscraper made of bricks that magically repairs itself when it's damaged with chemical factories.
I hate to tell him this, but chemical factories cannot repair cement solids. If you destroy a part of a brick wall, there are no chemical compounds in the world that you can put inside the hole that will ever restore the bricks by themselves. It's nothing like biological systems, there are no organisms consisting of cement.
Natural selection simply eliminates organisms that are unable to survive. This means it actually eliminates species. The challenge for you is to find a process that creates organisms in the first place, so that natural selection can eliminate the ones that aren't as adept as others.
Give Mankind 4.5 Billion Years, and I am willing to guarantee that we will create something more perfect than the human cell... and if god is so perfect, and if god made man in his own image how will we, in the coming centuries (I don't think we'd even need the next thousand years) outperform him in his own game, creation?
That would be quite a feat to make a brick, for instance, that contained all the information needed to build a skyscraper in itself, and replicated itself billions of times through microscopic chemical factories until the skyscraper was complete. Then, if the building was damaged, it repaired itself through more "brick" replication. And, at any point during the skyscraper construction, it functions as a skyscraper.
Of course even that would be simpler than a living organism...
That wouldn't be simpler than a living organism. ARE YOU COMPLETELY INSANE? You know nothing about biology at all. Producing actual brick from "chemical factories, that's infeasible, living organisms are feasible, therefore simpler. What sort of an imbecile are you anyway? you can't back your opinion with another opinion that's backed on complete nonsense.
Organisms start as a single cell that contains all the information necessary for a large scale body plan. The illustration is akin to a brick containing all the information necessary for a large scale building.
Living organisms are feasible, and designs by humans of rival complexities are not feasible, because we are not as intelligent as our designer.
I apologize if that illustration was difficult to grasp... Perhaps a popup book would illustrate it more clearly for you.
Discussing reality with people whose cranial appendages are firmly implanted 23 inches up their posterioral orifice is like teaching ballet to an elephant
The 'Discovery Institute' in conjunction with those other Morons 'answers in genesis' advocate and expound utter garbage in order to justify their own warped imaginary reality.
"Intelligent Design" is an atrocious lie perpetrated on a gullible American populace...
What are the chances of an All Might Be Magic Man Perpetually existing and waving a wand to create idiots like us ?
Pretty damn near Zero.
As Carl Sagan said: "In the absence of any evidence it is safe to presume it does not exist"
Thank you for those meaningless generalizations, those are very helpful.
"In the absence of any evidence it is safe to presume it does not exist"
Does that mean that all the transitional forms between lizard and giraffes don't exist? Does that mean that all the aliens that SETI spends money looking for don't exist? Carl Sagan believed in aliens; he directed a radio broadcast at the M13 globular cluster on belief in aliens, despite the lack of evidence. An odd double standard indeed.
The burden of proof lies in the assertion - he who asserts MUST provide proof - demanding proof of the negative is nonsense... I say there are 3-headed Onglongitrons living on an asteroid 45.7 light years ahead and 34 light years to the left of the Milky Way ... Prove me wrong !
Consider the evidence, and the probabilities.
'Intelligent' design/creationism is, at best, speculative nonsense.
Apply the same standard to any current theory of abiogenesis and your conclusion won't change. There is no natural theory to account for the information content of living cells. I invite you to cite me the studies demonstrating otherwise.
Abiogenesis is not just a reasonable speculation, it is a plausible and well understood scientific explanation for the origin of life.
Stating that an All Might Be Magic Man with an eternal existence 'created' 'designed' everything is NOT reasonable, NOT plausible, NOT scientific, and, although highly speculative, cannot expect anything more than the contempt such childish notions deserve.
Quote me the science, please. Cite the papers which, in your estimation, plausibly explain the emergence of organized genetic information from unorganized matter.
And who stated anything about a magic man in this thread but you?
Putting words into another's mouth and then refuting those words is typically referred as a 'strawman argument'.
i miss you guys a lot too. and thank you. i am doing pretty well. gods been really helping me through school and he's really taking a load off my shoulders. thanks pk.
does behe still have a job?!
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
This is not at all an argument against creationism, an omnipotent God is not limited by physical laws. If God is bounded by the laws of physics then He is not God. A first mover is necessary to get things started. God is eternal because that is His nature. I have spoken to several professors about the origins of the singularity and they don't even pretend to know where the energy originated from. All we can do is speculate about the origins of the universe based on our observations.
DjinofEnigmata 2 years ago
you havent talked to many professors or you've talked to the wrong ones. two "membranes" (planes of universes) collided and as you knoe E=MV therefore energy was created due to the laws of mass-energy conservation....simples...
lots of equations to support this theory.
LocustsAreSwarming 2 years ago
Hello firthio2, I am a student of physics as well but I also have an interest in biology. As far as evolution is concerned I find it hard to believe that complex life forms originated as a result of spontaneous generation. Also, irreducibly complex biological systems make a strong argument against evolution.
DjinofEnigmata 2 years ago
I think the origins of the singularity points to a creator, there must be a first mover. Energy does not come out of nothing that is a clear violation of the laws of physics. One can argue that our universe originated from the collapse of another universe but how did that universe originate. One can argue that the collapse and formation of universes are cyclic events and from this one assumes that the energy is eternal. There is not evidence to prove this event so we choose our belief.
DjinofEnigmata 2 years ago
'Energy does not come out of nothing that is a clear violation of the laws of physics' This is actually an argument against creationism.
'from this one assumes that the energy is eternal', which conforms with ALL current observations.
'there must be a first mover' Why? All you are doing is delaying the problem. Why can the universe not be eternal but God can be?
firthio2 2 years ago
what the hell is he talking about if an infinite amount of monkeys typedrandomly on an infinite number of typewriters there is a probability of 0.999999(reoccurring) that one would type the entire works of shakespear its simple probability
LocustsAreSwarming 2 years ago
if you dont know what scientific theory means... your definitely religious
ragnar336 3 years ago
Yes, and I know ID is a scientific theory, which you're obviously insolent of.
Never heard of germ or nuclear theory. But as far as gravity goes, from my experience it's a Law, not a theory.
jcrebel18 3 years ago
ragnar336 3 years ago
Speciation isn't proven, and none of the things u listed are laws.
jcrebel18 3 years ago
says who?
ragnar336 3 years ago
Try intellectuals.
jcrebel18 3 years ago
who claim speciation isnt proven?? im not gonna event tell you how easy it is to check that out from a source that doesnt rely on you believing them in order to keep their job.
ragnar336 3 years ago
"Speciation isn't proven, and none of the things u listed are laws"
-jcrebel18
SAYS WHO?
or are you just saying its not true because it makes you feel less dumb?
ragnar336 3 years ago
Show me the missing links..If you are right, they why haven't chimps and apes evolved? Explain to me your thinking, with out swearing and put downs, and I'll explain why I believe in a Loving God who formed man and breathed life into him.
yankeegurl62 3 years ago
"why haven't chimps and apes evolved"
this is one of the most common misconceptions of evolution.
chimps did evolve, millions of years ago there werent any chimps like modern chimps
we came to be because some CHIMP-LIKE creatures left the jungle into the savanas and when a group splits they need different things to survive
we did not come from modern day chimps because they are modern just like us
i suggest learning biology from someone whos job doesnt rely on you believing in god.
ragnar336 3 years ago
I want to see your "proof" IT's a Theory...not based in fact. It's amazing how "science" comes up with all these pat answers and then has to eat them when they are proven wrong. I want proof, not snide comments, show me! Put downs and snideness only proves you are part the masses that believe we evolved from goo that suddenly decided to form individual cells....out of the blue. Show me YOUR PROOF!!
yankeegurl62 3 years ago 2
ragnar336 3 years ago
Forgive me if I sounded insulting. I was wanting you to answer me, but not to insult or attack you. Too much of that goes on here at Youtube as it is. I believe in God, hands down, I'm in the medical profession, and see too much of his handy work. Life in general is too wonderful and complex to just have happened. Any mutation in nature always ends up being bad. The animal either dies at birth, or is consumed by predation. God uses survival so the best will breed. God bless!
yankeegurl62 3 years ago
"Any mutation in nature always ends up being bad. The animal either dies at birth, or is consumed by predation"
why are you lying? lying is a sin
_____
how come you dont write down what his handy work is and send it in for the nobel prize, im sure the extremely educated people who are obsessed with finding things out(their profession)will love to check it out
_________
why are the least religious countries the most successful?
_______
what is it exactly that you see when you see his handy work?
ragnar336 3 years ago
"Any mutation in nature always ends up being bad. The animal either dies at birth, or is consumed by predation"
why are you lying? lying is a sin
_____
how come you dont write down what his handy work is and send it in for the nobel prize, im sure the extremely educated people who are obsessed with finding things out(their profession)will love to check it out
________
why are the least religious countries the most successful?
_______
what is it exactly that you see when you see his handy work?
ragnar336 3 years ago
You want to see His handy work? Just look in the mirror!! My children and grand children are His handy work. It's amazing that we are on the "right" planet, not to close to the sun, and not to far away either, and His amazing worksa are all around us. One just has to open their eyes to see it. The human body is a work of art...so many complex systems that work to form the whole. That's not lying, so it's not a sin.
yankeegurl62 3 years ago
i looked in the mirror... i noticed that i look like a chimp but a little less hairy, and a little taller. my eyes even look very similar to him.
so because we are close enough to support life, there must be a god?? wow we need you to teach at harvard, scientists never looked at it like that.
yea it wasnt lying because you gave me no evidence, you said "the earth is supporting life" "the human body is nice" "something works it must mean a god"
i dont deny a god just your primitive idea of god
ragnar336 3 years ago
Any mutation in nature always ends up being bad
that is simply and demonstrably false.
WHY do people like you just blabber away posting complete and utter rubbish and sneering at scientists in the process?
NOBODY as in NOT A SINGLE SOLITARY BIOLOGIST claims it happened by chance. good grief!!! where in the name of sanity do you start to address such ignorance.
McMonster65 3 years ago
"IT's a Theory"- right! well done.
"not based in fact"- wrong. oh dear.
google human chromosome 2. google ERVs google ken miller google the fossil record.
you don't seem to know what a scientific theory is. the atomic theory is not considered proven. it, like evolution, is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.
the notion of goo "deciding" to form cells is beyonf infantile. why not read what actual theories there are for the formation of living cells rather than post this?
McMonster65 3 years ago
ID is not a scientific theory, its a hypothesis. A theory needs evidence, as yet there is none for ID other than that we exist, which could be construed as evidence for many things.
firthio2 2 years ago
Actually it does have evidence. But nice try.
jcrebel18 2 years ago
Great. Care to suggest any?
firthio2 2 years ago
Depends on your field.
jcrebel18 2 years ago
I study physics, chemistry and read alot of genetic biology, and I went to a faith school so have decent scriptural knowledge (church of engalnd btw). Does this qualify me to hear your evidence?
firthio2 2 years ago
Comment removed
DjinofEnigmata 2 years ago
Try Genesis 1:1, if that doesn't work for you then nothing else will.
WhetherProductions 2 years ago
Let's say that does work, but I'm still on the fence. Anything else? Is that really all you've got?
MaxaminusOne 2 years ago
It is called faith.
Do you think that each and every creature on this earth could have been formed by chance? I just can't believe that. I think it takes more faith to believe in Evolution than it does to believe God created this universe. There are so many facts out there that prove there is no possible way this universe could have come by chance. Most of them are common sense.
WhetherProductions 2 years ago
In one way, I agree with you. Complex life forms, even cells, can't spontaneously form from random molecules bouncing off each other. Nor would evolution allow for this, because evolution doesn't and can't take lateral gene transfer into account, which is what most early microbial life apparently did.
MaxaminusOne 2 years ago
right, and I can see how people just can't seem to come to the idea that there is a God out there. I mean, God isn't about proving he exists, but again it comes down to faith and common sense. Looking around at nature and the human body, it just calls for intelligent design.
WhetherProductions 2 years ago
you clearly dont know much about chemicals
LocustsAreSwarming 2 years ago
Abiogenisis happens occasionaly, of course, but to posit that entire multicellular organisms or even prokaryotes just sprang into being is just ridiculous. It's the one thing both biologists and creationists can agree on.
I'm not saying "goddidit." It's likely there were intermediaries like free-floating amino acids, phospholipids, nucleotides etc.
If you know more than me about biochemistry, please, indulge me. I'd like to see exactly how much you know.
MaxaminusOne 2 years ago
"random molecules bouncing off each other. Nor would evolution allow for this" this claerly show how little you understand chemical reactions....
LocustsAreSwarming 2 years ago
Really? How so?
MaxaminusOne 2 years ago
some chemicals are morelikely to bond with certain chemicals than others.
LocustsAreSwarming 2 years ago
Yup. Have you ever dropped a chunk of molecular sodium into a beaker of water?
MaxaminusOne 2 years ago
wow...lower high school chemistry...impressive
LocustsAreSwarming 2 years ago
I was just asking. Ironically, none of your posts convey any knowledge of chemistry at all. Just disparaging remarks and lousy attitude.
I've got a hunch you're a poser.
MaxaminusOne 2 years ago
little knoledge of chemistry? i'm working on the kinetics of an iodine clock atm and i plan to make several very accurate clocks after a few months...so no, Na isnt all that reactive when you complair it to something like caesium
LocustsAreSwarming 2 years ago
That's pretty cool..
MaxaminusOne 2 years ago
you admitted abiogenisis happens, it only need to happen a few times.
LocustsAreSwarming 2 years ago
You do realize I'm not a creationist, right?
MaxaminusOne 2 years ago
hahahahahahaha houses dont put 23 of their 46 chromosomes one male and one female together to make another house. they need architect.
ragnar336 3 years ago
that was an illustration, in case you didn't get that.
jcrebel18 3 years ago
haha thanks for the heads up.
ragnar336 3 years ago
and it was a horrible illustration because it doesnt have anything to do with life.
this is a horrible argument and only sits well with dumb people who can be swayed to believe something theyve been trained to accept with no questions
ragnar336 3 years ago
Oh you mean a scientific theory like evolution?
jcrebel18 3 years ago
yea theories like germ theory, and nuclear theory, and the theory of gravity
yes do you even know what a scientific theory is? if you give me the definition of a hypothesis... shame on you
im sure you accept 99.9% of all scientific theories but just a few you dont only and only because it goes against your truth book
every time real scientists find proof of evolution some guy with a phd just uses that proof and leaves out information on it to trick you into believing ingod
continued...
ragnar336 3 years ago
...continuing
and dont you se what they are doing? they never prove god exists they only try to disprove a scientific theory, if they do disprove evolution they would win the nobel prize amung others and be all over the news as the greatest discovery!!!!
but even if they disprove evolution they have an uphill battle to prove god wins
did you ever wonder why its backwoods people,hicks, uneducated, and 3rd world countries are the strongest believers????
did you ever once think about that??
ragnar336 3 years ago
Cont...
Punctuated equilibrium, contrary to Lucan22's assertion does not lie in conflict with Darwin's theory of phyletic graduation. Rather Darwin's theory emphasised gradual change to negate the argument of catastrophism put forward at the same time by Georges Cuvier, which envisioned supernatural creation of new species within the fossil record.
Punctuated evolution argues that evolution occurs fastest in small isolated communities.
Tailgunner30 3 years ago
Punctuated equilibrium was introduced to interpret the fossil record. Gould and Eldredge noticed two features of the record: Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on Earth. They appear in the fossil record pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once fully formed.
LUCAN22 3 years ago
So on the one hand we have is a set of facts, and a theory that did not fully explain them. A new hypothesis is put forward that better explains the data, this hypothesis is used to make predictions, new data is found through those predictions that allows the model to be further refined.
On the other nothing, a dead end that provides no real answers, an 'it is what it is' argument, a 'do as you are told, I know better than you, keep paying the tribute' model that would have us in the dark ages.
Tailgunner30 3 years ago
With respect to your second point, morphological change, since we cannot observe the environment first hand in which the adaptation was framed we cannot know why certain changes were preferred, any more than we can discern the direction a car is traveling from a single photograph.
Going back to Darwin's finches we can demonstrate that M. C. is not direction-less since we can see the living environment and behavior that makes those changes beneficial.
Tailgunner30 3 years ago
A response to Lucan22
First, the point I was making with respect to life vs. building construction was to demonstrate the ludicrous concept of equivalence. You will probably never see two houses up sticks, elope and return in two years with a couple of little out-houses in tow.
Reproduction is the key to evolution, environmental factors such as predation, abundance and types of food will lead to significant divergence within a species over very short periods (see peppered moth evolution)
Tailgunner30 3 years ago
Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 50.
Then you have proven his point; houses are not as complicated as life. Yet the materials of which the house is composed do not determine its design. So the matter of which life is composed does not determine its design. Now, the materials may impose from their structure and purpose some constraint on the design, but they do not bring forth the design. That comes from a designer.
LUCAN22 3 years ago
How have I proven his or your point, a house cannot construct itself, cannot reproduce itself it is an inanimate object, as inanimate objects they require designs and a builder. They cannot do the one thing that sets every living organism apart from the rocks around them, reproduce. Within evolution, life does not need a designer because an organism can make copies of itself passing on the traits that made it better fitted to its environment than it's rivals.
Tailgunner30 3 years ago
Punctuated equilibrium, also known as the hopeful monster theory, merely proposed that large mutational changes occurred in life's history which generated macroevolutionary alterations in organisms. Gould did this to explain why the fossil record contained so few transitional sequences and difficulties accounting for the Cambrian Explosion. He just said that evolution is not gradual but proceeds in large jumps. He offered no explanation for how it happened.
LUCAN22 3 years ago
Instead of merely repeating the quote mined excerpts produced by creationists, why do you not go to the original source and find our what the theory really says..
As a starting point try this Wiki. punctuated equilibrium. from there you will find many links providing a wealth of real information about this and other evolution theories.
You will note I have not rated down your comments, I reserve that for whether an argument is good or bad, not because I like or don't like what is said.
Tailgunner30 3 years ago
This is not an argument for creationism/I.D.
Hopefully Creationists, lets drop the pretense over I.D. would accept the notion of selective breeding. Domesticated animals, staple food crops, bananas...
These exist because we have selected traits we find desirable. Take humans out of this equation and substitute the environment and nature selects traits useful for that organism. The key is reproduction. No magic sky fairy, ju-ju beads or mystical incantations, just plain simple sex.
Tailgunner30 3 years ago
Reproduction is not sufficient to produce complexity. You need to propose a mechanism that is capable of generating new body plans, organs, and information for organic life. Darwinian Evolution, with its focus on natural selection and random mutation, does not do this. We know that it is inadequate as an explanation, so then what did it? The question is open. Further, Gould noticed that the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis was not correct, so he introduced punctuated equilibrium to solve it.
LUCAN22 3 years ago
The very first premise of this clip, that evolution can be equated to building a house had me figuratively ROTF-LOL Two bungalows running behind a stand of trees, bricks crashing together then sometime later the patter of cement and a pair of semi-detached houses appearing by magic. In Hollywood or the crazed delusions of a creationist maybe.
Houses do not reproduce, therefore cannot pass on beneficial mutations. They cannot evolve but by the hand of humans.
Tailgunner30 3 years ago
This movie is PROOF there is no god. If religion has to lie and change the facts to make their argument correct, then its obvious religion is wrong.
Christians think that lying to make you believe in their religion is doing a good thing but really its proof that christianity is for stupid people.
cje0 3 years ago
Are these guys being serious or are they being dishonest?!? Even someone with a basic understanding of evolution knows that its not an entirely random proces. And scientist have examples of organisms becoming more complex via the process of evolution. These men have to know this if they're going to speak publically about this stuff. At least you would think. Ben Stein is either an idiot or incredibly dishonest.
Leones44 3 years ago
"...Even someone with a basic understanding of evolution knows that its not an entirely random proces."
Evolution isn't entirely random. Mutations ARE random, but the very worst ones are selected against. Most of the rest are information destroying, but with such a slight effect that natural selection cannot remove them. Evolution works a little. It can generate antibiotic resistance or low spec. enzymes. It certainly can't generate cellular machinery. Not enough time. Not enough materials.
tubewatch59 3 years ago
"It certainly can't generate cellular machinery. Not enough time. Not enough materials". Who told you that?!?! I think you've been listening to too many ID/creation "scientists". The same mechanism that generates antibiotic resistence or low spec. enzymes CAN generate cellular machinery. Scientist have generated antibiotic resistance in a lab in just a few thousand generations. Which in real time is days to weeks. Take that process and give it a million years and see what happens.
Leones44 3 years ago
I have to post this again, for bad grammar is a terrible sin. That there were changes in life was observed for many years. That a new life or an original creation was produced from the proposed naturalistic mechanism has not been observed. So, despite your triumphalist tone, the answer has not been discovered for life's innovative complexity. That is why there is a debate on this issue. I am not here to dismiss your view, for I only want a fair consideration of ours.
LUCAN22 3 years ago
The there were changes in life was observed for many years. That a new life or an orginal creation was produced from the naturalistic machanism has not been observed. So, despite your triumphalist tone, the answer has not been discovered for life's innovative complexity. That is why there is a debate on this issue.
LUCAN22 3 years ago
This guy does not understand cumulative selection nor anything about evolution. It is not chance, it is a blind watchmaker. I agree the evolution he is arguing against is stupid. However, that isn't evolution.
Mrjiggums 3 years ago
ur exactly right wjverh. i agree with u 100%. the reason why creationist leave out that second part is to make evolution sound flawed. they try and prove intelligent design by trying to make a mockery of evolution. instead of trying to disprove evolution, why dont they try and prove the existance of god?
PeppeGuiseppe 3 years ago
I think all of this nonsense is a mockery of mutual respect.
indyattic 3 years ago
Chance cannot get you very far.
Correct.
But Evolutionary Theory is not just about RANDOM CHANCE. It is about RANDOM CHANCE & NATURAL SELECTION. Why do they always leave out the second part.
A million monkeys banging away randomly on a typewriter will produce only the first two lines of Shakespeare. A single monkey banging away randomly (RANDOM CHANCE) at a typewriter that keeps all the correct letters (NATURAL SELECTION) will produce the entire works of Shakespeare.
wjverh 3 years ago
hahah that is exactly wha ti was about to right... good for you
jiujitsuman 3 years ago
Wow! How can a maths prof be ignorant of self-organising systems? Snowflakes, ant-foraging behavior, sunspots, the magnetic regions on your hard-disk are all proof that systems with initially randomly arranged parts will become highly structured just by each of the parts of the system interacting with their immediate neighbours according to extremely simple rules. Or perhaps your intelligent designer manually fashions each and every iron crystal during the forging of your cutlery?
mrpocock 3 years ago
Im not an athiest but i dont beleive God is responsible for life on earth. i find it annoying that devout people refuse to accept any other possiblity other than what they have been brainwashed with. i support the idea of evolution but dont dismiss the the fact that it may not explain everything. i consider alternative views. fundamentalist behaviour is typical of scientifically uneducated people who know nothing about the science of life and evolution. do your homework before you start a debate
PeppeGuiseppe 3 years ago
Intelligent design needs to postulate a being (the designer) that is at least as complex as what it is supposed to explain. The designer therefore doesn't explain anything, as it cant explain itself. Who created the creator. More importantly, where did this information originate that created the designer. The whole idea contradicts itself.
PeppeGuiseppe 3 years ago
GOD"S EVOLUTION..Gen 1:1In the beginning(einstein's T.o.R stated the universe is expanding)GOD created the heavens(universe)and Earth.Gen 1:2 The earth had no form/void Gen 1:2 God creates the oceans.Gen1:6 God creates the firmament(atmosphere)Gen 1:9 Land appears.Gen1:11 Grass,seeds.Gen1:20 Ocean life,flying creatures.Gen 1:24 Land animals created.Gen1:27 On the 6th day he formed MAN.How could the author of GENESIS know the exact astronomical,geological,evolutionary formations of our existence?
buffalobills4eva 3 years ago
"How could the author of GENESIS know the exact astronomical,geological,evolutionary formations of our existence?"
They didn't. For example:
Light was created after the Earth.
The sun and moon were created after plants.
Whales and birds were created before land animals.
StealthDonkey007 3 years ago
i guess it would be hard to make man and oceans without a planet to put it on... and i guess it would be hard to put a planet somewhere wtihout somewhere (universe) to put it... if you think really hard for just a second, you can sort of understand that right?
jiujitsuman 3 years ago
Remember, science accepted the creation model before Darwin. Science flourished under creationism. So few people recall this. The theological and philosophical implications of intelligent design may lead to God, but it did not start with the assertions in the Bible. I find the inference to design quite natural, even in biology. I wonder if people dismiss the idea because they do not want God to exist, so they cling to materialism and naturalism as the truth. What if they're not true?
LUCAN22 3 years ago
Science also flourished before quantum physics, germ theory, and the periodic table. Does this give us cause to discard these other scientific breakthroughs? The entirety of biology rests on the central tenets of evolution, and to deny the realities of the theory throws the field - and all the beneficial outcomes of its exploration - to the mercy of one's ignorance.
bensavoca 3 years ago
"Remember, science accepted the creation model before Darwin."
Even before Darwin, people knew that the world was older than 6000 years. Some postulated a creation-devastation cycle to account for the fossil record.
"I wonder if people dismiss the idea because they do not want God to exist, so they cling to materialism and naturalism as the truth"
I don't speak for everyone, but for me: no. I'm sure most would agree.
"What if they're not true?"
Then they're not true. And?
StealthDonkey007 3 years ago
Science accepted creation pre-darwin because there was no other explanation for the diversity of life. Naturalism was around but had no mechanism. Darwin found the mechanism, natural selection and from there the scientific community went crazy. Science discovered life could change over time into different forms. Evolution is founded in evidence. But remember god was only accepted at start because there was no other hypothesis good enough out there. Luckily evolution became a theory.
Mrjiggums 3 years ago
"Science accepted creation pre-darwin because there was no other explanation for the diversity of life."
Science accepted a kind of intelligent design I guess, but not what most people think of when you say "creationism"; a literal interpretation of Genesis. Scientists already knew that the world was far older than Genesis suggests, and that many different kinds of life had existed before man. They just didn't know how.
StealthDonkey007 3 years ago
So, the discoveries of Hawking and Ptolemy have made the inference to design unscientific. Exactly how did this happen? Furthermore, we use a design filter to discern between things that look designed from the things that are. How does the application of this same idea to biology make the task unscientific? It is science. You seem, however, to repose great faith in the idea that materialism has proven that a watch can indeed be made without the watchmaker. Has science demonstated this for us?
LUCAN22 3 years ago
Remember, the movie's main argument is that anyone who tries to propose an alternative( linked to creationist ideas) to the Darwinian theory of origins is removed from his or her job. Let us see the film before we judge too harshly the views being expressed therein. I do not know if intelligent is the right theory; I only think that it should be fairly and scientifically considered. Let us get politics and religion out of this discussion.
LUCAN22 3 years ago
It has been fairly and scientifically considered, over the course of the last 2500 years with an emphasis on the last 200. There is nothing to indicate in any text anywhere that ID is anything more than an adaptation of biblical creation at its simplest form. It's ludicrous to consider when actually regarding the discoveries of everyone from Ptolemy to Hawking.
Natselected 3 years ago
"There is nothing to indicate in any text anywhere that ID is anything more than an adaptation of biblical creation at its simplest form."
Can you please provide proof that ID is based on any sacred text?
GOPpersona 3 years ago
"Can you please provide proof that ID is based on any sacred text?"
Two words: Cdesign proponentsists.
StealthDonkey007 3 years ago
As Nat has stated, the hypotheses presented by ID (assuming there actually are any) have been tested and have proven unfounded. Every instance of supposed "irreducible complexity" proposed by Behe have been debunked by Ken Miller (who, I might point out, is a Catholic). The entirety of ID is an argumentum ad ignorantium.
bensavoca 3 years ago
"Every instance of supposed "irreducible complexity" proposed by Behe have been debunked by Ken Miller......."
Whom I should point out used an entirely different definition of IC, gave no step by step path that did not requires leaps of neutral mutations, and seems to think that building a one piece mousetrap actually means something.
GOPpersona 3 years ago
Ken Miller explicitly states Behe's definition and then responds to it whenever he argues against it in a book, article, essay, etc. They use the exact same definition. You may think that because Behe's definition is so vague.
Ken Miller uses the "one piece mousetrap" because that is a direct response to Behe's use of the moustrap as an example of IC (funny that Behe can't even get that right).
jbooth002 3 years ago
I think that we should all be careful of how we conceptualize this problem. Yes, I agree that the environment produces various adaptations amongst organisms, but this is not the generation of beneficial information. Adaptation does not produce the changes needed in species. Many of you have used the word time and surroundings as if they were the key factor in creation, but if this were true, then such would be demonstrable in laboratory conditions.
LUCAN22 3 years ago
The main problem with this theory is that a house, the example that is priviledged, is inherently designed to house occupants. The universe is an occurance over much time, and we have adapted to the conditions, as opposed to having it created for us.
"The ocean is a body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills."
-- Ambrose Bierce
drushforth88 3 years ago
"The universe is an occurance over much time, and we have adapted to the conditions, as opposed to having it created for us."
So you're saying life could exist in virtually any conditions? It just generates and adapts?
GOPpersona 3 years ago
The problem with intelligent design theory, as it has been applied to biology, is that the means by which the designer created cannot be examined scientifically; they are supernatural and beyond the scientific method. That is why scientists do not accept this answer; it does not mean, however, that it is not the explanation for life's complexity. Darwinism has a traceable, material mechanism, but it is completely inadequate to explain most of the biological phenomenon on the planet.
LUCAN22 3 years ago
I certainly agree that one should not opt for a God of the Gaps argument to explain what is unknown. However, why begin with what we do not know about living systems. We should consider that a great deal has been done to reveal life's inner workings and parts, and from this we can discern whether Darwinism offers a satisfactory explanation.
God should also be beyond time, creating from eternity and existing in a state of transcendence that we cannot even fathom.
LUCAN22 3 years ago
Prof. Lennox mentioned that matter, in of itself, does not determine the design the structure will assume. The source of the design comes from outside the system. It is an informational input that requires intelligent causation. Likewise, with the chemical processes of organic life, the design of such things is not determined by the chemicals of which they are composed, for this too requires informational input from outside. The question for Darwinists is: where did this information come from?
LUCAN22 3 years ago
So you're basically asking what was the first cause. There might not have been a "first" cause since we don't fully understand the nature of time, or time could be cyclical, or our universe could be the result of various other "inputs" that are not necessarily intelligent. Just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean we should jump to the conclusion that an intelligent being created the universe.
shiggityx2 3 years ago
//The question for Darwinists is: where did this information come from?//
Quite simply, the natural environment. Before "life" as we know it, the self-replicating organic compounds best suited to dealing with their surroundings were the ones that "survived," and were allowed to adapt to changing conditions. Over billions of years, with input from the environment, cells have evolved to perform functions necessary to survival. Information is all around us, no intelligence required.
bensavoca 3 years ago
"Before "life" as we know it, the self-replicating organic compounds best suited to dealing with their surroundings were the ones that "survived,""
How does selection work on non-living matter?
GOPpersona 3 years ago
"Before "life" as we know it, the self-replicating organic compounds best suited to dealing with their surroundings were the ones that "survived,""
How does selection work on non-living matter?
GOPpersona 3 years ago
It's quite simple, and it's something astronomers have recently observed in inorganic compounds in space. In short, these compounds undergo natural chemical reactions that allow them to replicate. Those that can't withstand the rigors of their environment break apart. Those that can, continue to undergo these processes, which occasionally vary. These variances can have a positive or negative effect on the compound's ability to replicate. Thus, a non-living, inorganic form of evolution.
bensavoca 3 years ago
Building have no mechanisms for transporting chemicals through their completely solid structure and they can't evolve into existence from simpler things because they don't reproduce, saying that a naturally occurring self developing organism is as plausible as a naturally occurring self developing skyscraper is ridiculous.
You can't be serious.
HammerSmashedLifer 3 years ago
"Organisms start as a single cell that contains all the information necessary for a large scale body plan. The illustration is akin to a brick containing all the information necessary for a large scale building."
How can you compare the development of a person to the infeasible idea of a self building structure which using chemical means. Organisms have pathways for transporting mostly liquid chemicals within them while building are solid all the way through.
HammerSmashedLifer 3 years ago
Ah yes: biochemistry is exactly like a bunch of bricks falling from the sky. Brilliant!
The funny thing is, if you ask real mathematicians and information theorists about the claims these guys make about "information" you're likely to get anything from confusion to dumbfoundedness at how little sense it makes.
BadIdeaBlog 3 years ago 3
Danielgolfspar compared the cell to a skyscraper made of bricks that magically repairs itself when it's damaged with chemical factories.
I hate to tell him this, but chemical factories cannot repair cement solids. If you destroy a part of a brick wall, there are no chemical compounds in the world that you can put inside the hole that will ever restore the bricks by themselves. It's nothing like biological systems, there are no organisms consisting of cement.
HammerSmashedLifer 3 years ago
My argument isn't based on name calling at all. I had an argument for my name calling, not name calling for my argument.
I see green yet you tell me it's red. It's unbelievable.
HammerSmashedLifer 3 years ago
Chance by itself can't get you very far. Which is irrelevant considering natural selection isn't chance.
HammerSmashedLifer 3 years ago
Natural selection simply eliminates organisms that are unable to survive. This means it actually eliminates species. The challenge for you is to find a process that creates organisms in the first place, so that natural selection can eliminate the ones that aren't as adept as others.
danielgolfspar5 3 years ago
Give Mankind 4.5 Billion Years, and I am willing to guarantee that we will create something more perfect than the human cell... and if god is so perfect, and if god made man in his own image how will we, in the coming centuries (I don't think we'd even need the next thousand years) outperform him in his own game, creation?
Oroborus12 3 years ago
That would be quite a feat to make a brick, for instance, that contained all the information needed to build a skyscraper in itself, and replicated itself billions of times through microscopic chemical factories until the skyscraper was complete. Then, if the building was damaged, it repaired itself through more "brick" replication. And, at any point during the skyscraper construction, it functions as a skyscraper.
Of course even that would be simpler than a living organism...
danielgolfspar5 3 years ago
That wouldn't be simpler than a living organism. ARE YOU COMPLETELY INSANE? You know nothing about biology at all. Producing actual brick from "chemical factories, that's infeasible, living organisms are feasible, therefore simpler. What sort of an imbecile are you anyway? you can't back your opinion with another opinion that's backed on complete nonsense.
HammerSmashedLifer 3 years ago
Organisms start as a single cell that contains all the information necessary for a large scale body plan. The illustration is akin to a brick containing all the information necessary for a large scale building.
Living organisms are feasible, and designs by humans of rival complexities are not feasible, because we are not as intelligent as our designer.
I apologize if that illustration was difficult to grasp... Perhaps a popup book would illustrate it more clearly for you.
danielgolfspar5 3 years ago
ad hominem is not an argument. The bricks are analogous to cells.
dangerousliberty 3 years ago
.
Discussing reality with people whose cranial appendages are firmly implanted 23 inches up their posterioral orifice is like teaching ballet to an elephant
.
tellnet 3 years ago
To the fair minded reader,
Note tellnet has not answered with a citation, but with name calling.
Who is commenting in good-faith and who is blustering and pounding the table?
dangerousliberty 3 years ago
To the fair minded reader,
Note tellnet has not answered with a citation, but with name calling.
Who is commenting in good-faith and who is blustering and pounding the table?
dangerousliberty 3 years ago
Ha hha
Forgive me Dennis...
I did not realise, Dennis, that Dennis was a derogatory term
.
tellnet 3 years ago
The 'Discovery Institute' in conjunction with those other Morons 'answers in genesis' advocate and expound utter garbage in order to justify their own warped imaginary reality.
"Intelligent Design" is an atrocious lie perpetrated on a gullible American populace...
What are the chances of an All Might Be Magic Man Perpetually existing and waving a wand to create idiots like us ?
Pretty damn near Zero.
As Carl Sagan said: "In the absence of any evidence it is safe to presume it does not exist"
tellnet 3 years ago
Thank you for those meaningless generalizations, those are very helpful.
"In the absence of any evidence it is safe to presume it does not exist"
Does that mean that all the transitional forms between lizard and giraffes don't exist? Does that mean that all the aliens that SETI spends money looking for don't exist? Carl Sagan believed in aliens; he directed a radio broadcast at the M13 globular cluster on belief in aliens, despite the lack of evidence. An odd double standard indeed.
danielgolfspar5 3 years ago
Daniel:
Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.
However...
The burden of proof lies in the assertion - he who asserts MUST provide proof - demanding proof of the negative is nonsense... I say there are 3-headed Onglongitrons living on an asteroid 45.7 light years ahead and 34 light years to the left of the Milky Way ... Prove me wrong !
Consider the evidence, and the probabilities.
'Intelligent' design/creationism is, at best, speculative nonsense.
tellnet 3 years ago
LOL. Here are two statements you just posted:
'As Carl Sagan said: "In the absence of any evidence it is safe to presume it does not exist"
and,
"Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence."
Thankfully, Darwinian logic is apparently self contradictory.
danielgolfspar5 3 years ago
.
Daniel:
The fact that you fail to comprehend the logic, and decided to selectively quote-mine
... omitting "Consider the evidence, and the probabilities."... is an issue YOU need to address
.
Man created god ..
...And America patented gullibility, refined moronity, relinquished trust to a delusion and thrives on ignorance
.
tellnet 3 years ago
Again... inaccurate generalizations. If this is all ID has to contend with, it should inevitably succeed.
danielgolfspar5 3 years ago
.
Oh Danny Boy,
What inaccuracy would that be ?
Pray tell
.
tellnet 3 years ago
You dont respond with logic, you just resort to name calling. Like a kindergartner calling someone a booger head, you have no point to debate.
danielgolfspar5 3 years ago
.
I repeat...
Oh Danny Boy,
What inaccuracy would that be ?
Pray tell
.
And please show me where I called you anything other than your name
.
tellnet 3 years ago
Apply the same standard to any current theory of abiogenesis and your conclusion won't change. There is no natural theory to account for the information content of living cells. I invite you to cite me the studies demonstrating otherwise.
dangerousliberty 3 years ago
Dennis :
What, exactly, are you raving on about ?
.
tellnet 3 years ago
Abiogenesis is not just a reasonable speculation, it is a plausible and well understood scientific explanation for the origin of life.
Stating that an All Might Be Magic Man with an eternal existence 'created' 'designed' everything is NOT reasonable, NOT plausible, NOT scientific, and, although highly speculative, cannot expect anything more than the contempt such childish notions deserve.
tellnet 3 years ago
Quote me the science, please. Cite the papers which, in your estimation, plausibly explain the emergence of organized genetic information from unorganized matter.
And who stated anything about a magic man in this thread but you?
Putting words into another's mouth and then refuting those words is typically referred as a 'strawman argument'.
dangerousliberty 3 years ago
tellnet 3 years ago
ad hominem doesn't an argument make.
dangerousliberty 3 years ago
very nice pk. i'm glad youth service is still going good : )
-chris
AvedaPeppymint 3 years ago
we miss seeing you around! hope your doing good.
refugelive 3 years ago
i miss you guys a lot too. and thank you. i am doing pretty well. gods been really helping me through school and he's really taking a load off my shoulders. thanks pk.
AvedaPeppymint 3 years ago