It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it.
Actually no, appeal to authority is still a fallacy even if the authority in question does know what they're talking about, because you're shifting the burden of proof from yourself onto them, and if they're not here to answer for you you're still making a claim and not backing it up, just saying "go ask this other guy, he knows".
I just read the opening paragraph on the Wikipedia entry of that movie & immediately felt like killing myself and everyone in the immediate postcode. In that order.
If I was a film-maker then I'd make a sequel to the Expelled movie.
Because I know of a place where the exact same thing is happening - people are being excluded from their jobs for their beliefs.
In the religious community there is a strong prejudice against hiring atheists as priests in their churches. In fact it is not long ago I herd of a priest who was fired because he said he had become an atheist. It is almost as if there is a berufsverbot for atheists in the religious community...
@itsjustameme I gotta admit your post confused me a little at first since i'd not yet heard about this movie expelled. But after the first 30 seconds of this video i laughed at your post. Very good analogy ID in science class is exactly the same as an atheist priest.
@itsjustameme Man i never thought of it, i'd been denied by over 100 churches and i couldn't figure out why. Little did i know the Christian conspirators were just exerting their discrimination to keep me out. It's bigotry i say i call shenanigans on all churches who's with me
It's funny really. Ben Stein really tries. He uses a whole movie to put forward that single point. And it is so easy to refute that I could do it within the 400 char limit.
I think that sums up the problem with religion right there.
There are a lot of scientist that publish papers on the issues and major problems with the continuity of micro->macro evolution. See (Soléet al., 1999; Erwin, 2000; Carroll, 2001; Plotnick & Sepkoski, 2001, Ward & Signor, 1983 ; Foote, 1993), one that Maynard Smith (1989) Also see Andrew M. Simons Article first published online: 21 AUG 2002 "The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution".
(Gould, 1985) also discusses problems with phenotypic trends over the long-term.
@cctman LOL, Even the abstract of the paper you sited to support your claim states "the evolutionary outcome of major environmental change may be viewed as identical in principle to the outcome of minor environmental fluctuations over the short-term."
Do you often shoot yourself this squarely in the foot?
Looks like we're both being marked spam this time. I wonder if anybody at Youtube's even aware of the staggering amount of "spam" they have on their site lately...
« There are a lot of scientist that publish papers on the issues and major problems with the continuity of micro->macro evolution »
You'll note, if you read through those papers, that NONE of these people doubt that common descent is true and that macro-evolution happens. The thing that they're arguing about is HOW it happens.
"fossil records prove evolution time and again" ... No fossil can ever prove evolution. You can not prove that any bone you dig up even had children in the first place. Second to that no bone you dig up comes with a tag that says "hey I'm 3.2million years old". Your dating methods including Uranium, Pb-208, Rb-Str, and all the rest are based on major assumptions. For one they assume the same environment today was the one that has always existed and we know that is not true.
@cctman how can you possibly rationalise dinosaurs using that reference in job? when job fails to mention any number of the vast variety of different species. does genesis explain how noah got the animals on the arc that only existed on different continents? what about all of them? a better question is why did noah need an arc at all if the god character could just wipe everything clean and start over? what's the point of the flood? and i think you need to check the fossil records again.
@a10miletooth how can I rationalize? Is that a rhetorical question? "He is the chief of the ways of God..." "His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron." He moveth his tail like a cedar" "he eateth grass as an ox" "Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly" ... What do you think the author is talking about here a rabbit??? God needed an arc to save a remnant of his creation from the flood. Still looking for fossils with labels
@cctman haha, that loosly describes a number of animals. it's a good thing the bible is so specific. you still didn't answer what the point of the flood was. why wouldn't god just start over? or just kill all the humans dead and leave the animals where they were? what was the point in doing something so clumsy that could have been thought up by a child? "he needed the arc in order to save his remnant."? are you kidding me? why would "god" need the arc OR the flood? he simply chooses to be nuts?
@a10miletooth just FYI.. the more trolling and condescending you start to be the less likely I'm going to reply with any sincerity. I already addressed your questions. If your just going to ask the same question again then I won't waste my time. However, if you don't like my answer then point one specific reply back and I will be happy to explain.
@cctman How could you ask these questions without being condescending? Am I supposed to pretend it is not absolutely preposterous and nonsensical? If you wish to speak plainly about my tinfoil hat, I will kindly reply, dear sir...You're killing me here.
@rrpostalagain I'm not trying to be condescending... But what I want you to admit is that there are real scientists out there debating these problems and there are real scientists that disagree with the fact that evolution can even occur on a macro level. AIG holds a list of about 200 PHD scientists all living today that believe in creation science. ICR has a pdf list of around 1,000 members all PHDs that signed the descent from Darwinian evolution letter. Maybe you should be asking why?
« there are real scientists that disagree with the fact that evolution can even occur on a macro level »
Yes, there are. About three of them. And none of them have ever published a paper that hypothesises that common descent may be entirely wrong. Not one.
@XGralgrathor You have know idea what your talking about. You sir are officially trolling. Do you know how many scientists actually wrote white papers tackling a great majority of these issues? How much research have you done on this topic so far? Seriously only 3? So Discovery Institute, ICR, AIG, Creation ministries in Germany and Australia and Canada, MCI I guess they are all made up of only 3 published scientists. LOL! Check the links on the creationwiki page for white papers.
« Do you know how many scientists actually wrote white papers tackling a great majority of these issues? »
"White papers"? I don't care about fucking "white papers", whatever they are. I am talking scientific papers. Published in scientific journals. With specific requirements about verification. With public and veriable sources, methods and results.
« AIG holds a list of about 200 PHD scientists all living today that believe in creation science. »
Really? PhD's, all of them?
And in what fields, if I may ask? How many of them are mathematicians, astronomers or physicists, rather than molecular biologists, palaeontologists and geneticists?
@XGralgrathor funny how I keep getting asked this same question over and over again. I need to create my own blog on this one topic. It keeps coming up. Yes! Do a search you will find it. Google "AIG creation scientists bios" first result. Then look up dissentfromdarwin org
Most of them already know the answer to it themselves. They did some research on some of the names, found out about their backgrounds, their expertises, and so on. I did some of those names myself, some time ago. It's a lot of work, and can cost up to hours or even days per name. No wonder then that *you* did *not* do this work, and uncritically accepted that these names represent qualified experts on the things they're commenting on. *IF* indeed they chose to comment at all.
« signed the descent from Darwinian evolution letter »
Ah, "the *dissent* letter". Which states "you have to be critical". Nobody denies you have to be critical, kid. In science, that's a truism. Being critical of something is not the same as rejecting something.
@XGralgrathor Ah, "the *dissent* letter". Which states "you have to be critical". ...
Wrong! The descent letter states more than that it says according to the Jan 2010 publication.
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
« We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life »
That's the same thing, you idiot. Science is ALL ABOUT skepticism. Being skeptic doesn't mean rejecting it: it means examining it critically. And that's what scientists DO FOR A LIVING, numbnuts.
@rrpostalagain I'm not trying to be condescending... But what I want you to admit is that there are real scientists out there debating these problems and there are real scientists that disagree with the fact that evolution can even occur on a macro level. AIG holds a list of about 200 PHD scientists all living today that believe in creation science. ICR has a PDF list of around 1,000 members all PHDs that signed the descent from Darwinian evolution letter. Maybe you should be asking why?
@cctman "You can not prove that any bone you dig up even had children in the first place"- Warning, Kent Hovind alert! I've heard him say this before. It comes down to the difference between "absolute knowledge" (which no scientist would claim) and what can be shown to have happened with all the available evidence. when you conflate the two, it seems it makes your brain into something heavy to hold down the rest of your body.
@rrpostalagain "...and what can be shown to have happened with all the available evidence." Oh good for you now were right back where we started from. And I call this so called available evidence in which you INTERPRET along side your god of random chance and time nothing more than a fairy tale. I'm still waiting for your required precursor to (micro-macro evolution) of chemical evolution. The odds that one single protein could create itself is like 10 60th power in years. IMPOSSIBLE!
Which are interpreted. In manners that are per requirements of scientific methodology independently verifiable.
« random chance »
"Random chance" has nothing to do with it. Science is about explaining what *patterns* there are in nature, and what *mechanisms* are responsible for those patterns. That's the *opposite* of "random chance".
@XGralgrathor ...and to the over all question of how we got here and whether micro to macro evolution can occur, science can provide none of these answers. There is no Mechanism that can be found to push a mutation to work outside its known DNA boundaries. The DNA requires intelligent coding and careful configuration. Back to... we can't even demonstrate a careful arrangement of information to form the first protein required for there to be any micro to macro evolution.
@cctman "There is no Mechanism that can be found to push a mutation to work outside its known DNA boundaries."
Mutations happen. Most often they do nothing. Sometimes they are bad. Sometimes they are good. It depends on the mutation and the context that it occurs in. Something pushing a sequence to be a particular way is what is called intelligent design. We can not verify that the good mutations are only the result of randomness, but the huge # of bad ones suggests it is in fact random.
@ExtantFrodo2 I'm not arguing whether mutations can be good or bad or whether they are random. I'm stating there is no evidence to demonstrate mutations as a mechanism for micro->macro evolution. The Miller experiment was nothing but a colossal failure in this regard. Furthermore before even discussing micro to macro evolution you can't even have that because of the impossibility for chemical evolution (see first protein) in the first place.
@cctman Raising Miller as an example of how bad it gets says more about your understanding than anything else. Miller's experiments are mentioned in text books not as the greatest example of that kind of work, but as the FIRST of it's kind that was tried. He is presented for his daring and breaking the mold and trying new things.
As a firm believer in the RNA world hypothesis (open to other evidence of course) I see no reason for proteins until long after much evolution has already occurred.
1. No such thing. The proper term is CHEMOGENESIS or ABIOGENESIS. Handkerchief, knot, yoghurtboy.
2. Impossibility as determined by whom? You? With your pocket calculator, perhaps?
Kid, THOUSANDS of the cleverest scientists have been trying to get a handle on the mechanisms by which life might have emerged. And you and your pocket calculator succeeded somehow? Yeah, right.
« I'm stating there is no evidence to demonstrate mutations as a mechanism for micro->macro evolution »
You are falsely stating so. The genetic data clearly indicates common descent. That means that there *must* be a mechanism by which diverse descendants can evolve from a common ancestor. All observations in genetics and population dynamics show that recombination, mutation, drift and selection are mechanisms that explain how such diversity can come to exist.
@XGralgrathor "All observations in genetics and population dynamics show that recombination, mutation, drift and selection are mechanisms that explain how such diversity can come to exist." Funny because I'm pretty sure I just gave you several PHD scientist references that offer refutations to that very point.
"The genetic data clearly indicates common descent. " References? And don't show me some research done where an interpretation is required beyond a micro-evolutionary investigation.
If you're talking about "The List", then no: they subscribed to being sceptical. Which is good scientific practice, and does not in any way necessitate rejection of any scientific theory.
If you're talking about the papers on "continuity of micro- and macro-evolution" then again, no: none of these scientists doubt that common descent is true, and that recombination, mutation, drift and selection at least play roles in the process of evolution.
It has already provided parts of the answers you demand, and is working on other parts. You know this: the answers available, and the mechanisms available for testing them, have been explained on this site and others on numerous occasions. I can only conclude that you did not bother to look up those answers and methods before lazily reposting the same question.
« There is no Mechanism that can be found to push a mutation to work outside its known DNA boundaries »
There are no such boundaries known to science. The only boundaries known in genetics are boundaries that limit the *rate* of divergence, but not the *amount* of divergence. To use an analogy, the known limits concern *speed*, but not *distance*.
No it doesn't. That's just your assertion. But not only have ID-ers sofar failed to formulate that assertion in any testable manner; not only have they failed to make a case for the validity for that assertion; you and they also completely ignore the fact that DNA sequences have been and *are* explained quite well by evolutionary theory, genetics and population dynamics.
« required precursor to (micro-macro evolution) of chemical evolution »
No such thing as "chemical evolution". If you want to discuss a subject, use the proper terms in stead of inventing your own. The term here is: abiogenesis.
And before abiogenesis, there would have been the formation of planets. And before the formation of planets the formation of the elements. And before that the formation of particulate matter.
@XGralgrathor No such thing as "chemical evolution".Really? LOL! Last time I did a quick search it is all over hte internet. There are white papers written on this title. There is an organization that does nothing but research on chemical evolution. See centerforchemicalevolution. Is this seriously your rebuttal?
Really. The term, like I said, is "abiogenesis" or "chemogenesis". Nobody but creationists use the phrase "chemical evolution", and they only use it in a desperate attempt to try and link evolutionary theory to abiogenesis.
« The odds that one single protein could create itself »
... Nobody claims proteins "create themselves". The only ones who ever use such words are creationists - who are either not interested in understanding what science hypothesises about proteins, or understand those hypotheses perfectly but have a vested interest in *misrepresenting* them.
@XGralgrathor So are you going to discuss the evidence for this or refute this or are you going to just manipulate the wording? You exactly what I'm talking about.
« So are you going to discuss the evidence for this »
For what exactly? So far all you've done is made the implicit claim that anybody thinks that "proteins created themselves". And again, nobody thinks that "proteins created themselves". So why should anybody want to discuss that claim?
@a10miletooth Since Richard Owen didn't even coin the term dinosaur until 1841 we would have to look for animals that fit the description of dinosaurs in the Bible. In job 40:15-24 we find an example of just that as a description of the Behemoth which was probably the largest of the sauropods. In Genesis we are told that Noah put to of every unclean kind on the ark, so this probably included ALL animals(including yes baby dinosaurs). After the propagation 1,000s of years later we see... cont
Mankind is due for moving to a higher consciousness plane. The same way the suffering of gazelles killed by lions make the species stronger, the suffering of mankind will help us move to the next consciousness level. A greater good comes for the species. The next level is the rejection of greed, materialism and selfishness. Our current capitalist system need to collapse in order to achieve this. If you're not ready spiritually, and doesn't move up, you'll suffer. This is happening now, seek God.
The elitism complaint and discussion reminds me of something similar. I saw Scent of a Woman, and enjoyed it, and expressed that to someone, who sneered at the movie saying "it was nothing more than a vehicle for Al Pacino". I was like: huh?? He was saying it was somehow cheesy and despicable as if they chose Pacino FIRST, then tried to figure out what movie to make. Even if so, so what!!? It didn't dampen my enjoyment of watching Pacino shine in a role that was perfect for him.
i never saw the conflict between science and Christianity. in fact the bible supports science and has knowledge of science concepts we now know are absolute truths. but come on; science does not support macro evolution, because the scientific method rejects it. plain and simple.
yet many people call it science? perhaps because this would contradict the bibles claims, and anything to do against God is a good thing. suppressing the truth will only help the deluded atheists. Jesus is God
@opba93 silly calling something "science" when it fails to pass the "scientific method." Fortunately there are biologists that know this truth! These are not silly biologists!
@gerinja Macro-evolution? No such term in the scientific community. I think you're referring to speciation. Speciation is widely excepted by the scientific community. Why? All of those transitional fossils that Creationists say "don't exist" and records of observed speciation that Creationist tend to ignore.
@MadjetReaper transitional fossils? really? um... call me skeptic on this matter but it is really quite a leap to connect the relationship of fossils with transitional fossils.
please educate me, and explain what makes them transitional? look-alike is good enough for some, but not very conclusive.
The fact that their specific morphological traits are intermediate between morphological traits of known basal clades and those of more derived clades.
@gerinja Hmm. To explain this would take a wall of posts. So instead I'll summarize:
EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil from or towards a species via evolutionary processes. How do we know what's a transitional species of what? Similarities from the ancestor and current species, predicting migratory patterns of said transitional species and finding similar but different fossils, and other ways that won't fit in my comment.
If you want a more detailed comment I have to PM it to you. Sorry.
Well, theoretically, every fossil has the potential of becoming a transitional fossil. However, it is perfectly possible to define the term 'transitional fossil' *without* assuming or referring to evolution or evolutionary theory. All we have to do is show that nested hierarchies exist in life, and that a fossil is intermediate between some basal clade and some derived clade.
@XGralgrathor Now see your comment is exactly how I wanted mine to end up. However my fear of character limit drove me to make my comment to look like a disaster. Well at any rate, I'm happy someone came and cleaned up my post. Thank you.
Macro-evolution follows not only from the matching nested hierarchies in zoology and genomics, and from the diverging progressions of traits in the fossil record; it also follows from the direct observation of speciations that have occurred or are in progress (eg. Rolshausen 2009).
you know your beliefs are bad when you think that if everyone died instantly who didnt believe you did were taken away to be punished but if the same happened to people of similar beliefs... they would be taken somewhere and rewarded.
@asvoth yes they do... especially the evolutionary god of time and random chance. Many years ago children in a galaxy far far away, nothingness created somethingness. True Story!
Respond to this video... Oh that's fairly simple to answer... my answer is of course Biblical. God has always existed and was there in beginning and will be at the end. Matter of fact God created time. So because he is outside of time he is not bound by its laws and rules. I'm very consistent with my theory however, evolutionists aren't. On one hand they claim consistency with natural sciences then they turn right back around and believe in a fairy tale of Big Bang which is outside of science.
@cctman Big Bang is not ouside of science.. You guys are consistent due to the Fact that you guys just listen to a book with set words, while we just look at reality.. Evolutionists aren't As consistent due to the fact that it's nature, shit changes and we adjust to it, i don't see what's wrong with that.. Evolution Has Nothing to do with the big bang so " then they turn right back around and believe in a fairy tale of Big Bang which is outside of science." that quote is complete bullshit.
@OMGITSDRJESUS If Big bang is not out of science as you say you /or somebody/ should be able to demonstrate it /as required by scientific method/ so we can all observe it ,make a few measurements and end the discussion in your favor.Why is it so hard to acknowledge that science has natural limitations and limitations established by its own definition to apply sc.method in scientific matters..we can discuss Big bang and evolution all day long and that's fine but let's name them correctly
@OMGITSDRJESUS I meant putting real factual ingredients in them.Those can not be proven as FACTS /at least at present stage of science/.When they predict weather they calculate % of accuracy which outs at least some level of honesty.Nothing like that for much more complex events in time and space as bigbang and evo-n are.It's just not real.It's inconsistent and fails in all 3 musts in sc.method.Based on same data you can make different theories since there is no check and balance of sc.method.
@VESANG You have a very strange notion of how science works. In science, we build models to explain the things we observe. None of us were present at the Big Bang, but that doesn't mean there's no evidence. We have the cosmic background radiation, redshifts in the light we see from far distant objects, and the relative abundance of light elements against which we can test the Big Bang theory.
@acr08807 So where is the model of the bigbang you are talking about so we can see it. You know that there is no such a model for big bang and evolution. It's just a fact that evolution and bigbang fail in all 3 musts in sc. method. You can observe radiation,redshift but this is about as far as it goes...science its just naturally limited to deal with the question of origin at the moment and many acknowledge it and give it to the hands of philosophers.
@VESANG Do a google search for "big bang model", and you will get it. Google "evolution model", and you will get one. Do you realize that evolution is an observable fact? That it is the basis of modern medicine? That vaccines you get (which are demonstrably effective) are based off of evolution? That the big bang predicted background microwave radiation before we knew it existed?
I feel like you have a very weak grasp on what science is and how it works. You cherry pick what you don't like.
@whatthellman I appreciate your attitude an the fact that you are trying to understand the argument the other side presents.You have been consistent on that.I should have clarified from the beginning and not assume that we are discussing macro evolution not micro evolution which is basically variation within the species. Micro evo is fact,observable measurable ,demonstrable. Macro evo is a religion not science. There are ton's of predictions for intl design.Post the link for BB model
@VESANG The micro vs macro argument is convincing until you realize that it isn't supported by any scientists in the field. The ONLY people who make that distinction are those in the intelligent design movement.
Oh? What predictions for intelligent design? What studies have been conducted? Can you cite a single peer-reviewed study supporting intelligent design?
@VESANG Every line that is drawn between species is arbitrary in it's nature. When is a human not a human? If pygmies were to continue on a separate evolutionary tangent, at what point would you cease to call them human? When is a human not a human? Is there one defining charateristic or are there several indicators? Is it purely when they can;t interbreed with the general human population? Once you understand the point I'm making you'll realise why the micro/macro argument falls apart.
@VESANG Where I'd point you depends on how much math you understand. For a layman, Fritz and Goldsmiths' Understanding Cosmology is a good starting point. For a math or physics undergrad, you could try Susskind's lectures (except the multiverse nonsense) on youtube any basic cosmology textbook. Weinberg's Cosmology is an excellent gradate level text. After you've worked through those, I can point you to the papers in which Big Bang theorists and steady-state theorists debated.
@acr08807 I want to thank you for offering your materials.I graduated college bachelor in economy where we took intensive studies of high level math,statistics and mathematical modeling.But this is beside the point . As i mentioned i am discussing foundational issues here .There are plenty of materials now online and plenty of debates for everybody to get a good idea on major issues both sides of the coin/Atheist v/s intelligent creation/.
@acr08807 Before we investigate any evidence it's nice to find what actually constitutes scientific prove itself. Sc method is the core and a must to establish something as scientific fact.How do we define something to be truth verses lie or scientific fact versus scientific imagination. We can't discuss right and wrong in science unless we determine how do we define right and wrong in science in first place.If something doesn't comply with sc method is it science?
@VESANG All we need to do is examine the evidence and decide for ourselves whether a scientific model is useful. That's what scientists do. And yes, we are limited in our knowledge of the origin of the universe. That's why the standard model of cosmology doesn't address that issue--because nobody has any evidence with which to evaluate different hypotheses. It's really OK to say "we don't know."
What? College professors, instructors, and even high school teachers HAVE been fired for their ideas on creationism. There exists rules based upon curriculum and if you try teaching outside what the curriculum says and someone complains and claims you are teaching from the Bible they will be reprimanded, not offered a promotion or even fired. Don't try and tell me that these are all lies and no-one has ever been fired for trying to teach creation as an alternate theory. Ridiculous!
a horse will accept this and work with man,now the dog,the other day this black Labrador dog came to me with a stick in its mouth and dropped it at my feet wanting me pleading with me to throw the stick as this dog loved this activity ,this dog was made to go into the water in cold water and it will retrieve the hunter's duck or pheasant ,strange about these thing and how they seem to have been planned out by the cloud guy! why is this so hard to see?
have you noticed little things in life like a dog,a cat ,birds like parrots who can learn to repeat words,one of the most extraordinary animals is the horse,the horse allows man to dominate it ,it is perfectly suited for man to ride,the horse will ride into battles with a man on it,it will work cattle for the rancher who uses the horse to work the cattle,the horse will run in derby,s ,you get the point the sky man made the horse designed it to compliment man,next dog
Americans apparently want elitism everywhere they need strength, vision, intelligence, and basically the best people, except possibly in the White House. Why this is I don't know.
The guy is half right... science always SHOULD be open to new ideas and corrections, but scientists may not be. In fact, the history of science is filled with incorrect ideas that got dragged along for too long because it became an established prejudice.
@NUTCASE71733 The scientific method is practiced by humans, and can therefore be manipulated by their prejudices. If you think otherwise, you obviously have no idea of the history of science.
You guys have too much trust in science when it comes to origin and meaning....yea i guess you trust in your politicians as well ...and the media ...When it comes to origin and meaning of life science does not offer anything ,refusing to even put possibility of intelligence, despite of the order,design and information everywhere around us.If they had that sincere attitude and acknowledge that creationism is possibility of explanation it would be credible but for now is just another bios religion
@VESANG what do you mean, order? the universe is in constant chaos. science doesn't need to offer anything for the meaning of life, people give their own lives meaning. and what do politicians and the media have anything to do with the meaning of, or the origins of life? the reason biblical creationism isn't taken seriously is because absolutely nothing points to it even being a possibility. let alone all the errors in whatever religion's god who's supposed to be responsible
@a10miletooth My friend we are trained /incl. trough science ,political system,media,school system/to be bios,lacking critical thinking in order to submit to the powers of the day.Yes there is a chaos / bound to laws as well/ but there is order too and it takes intelligent design to have that in first place.We can argue how God looks like and what is his name but the bottom line is it takes great intelligence for what we observe around us.Scientifically there is no way around it.
@VESANG it does not take design to have any of that. that's like saying 2+2=4 only because god did it, otherwise having two things and then having two more things would never have worked out if a god hadn't invented math first. nothing we observe in the natural universe requires an intelligence to have been behind it. it's not that there's no way around it, it's that the people making the claim have no way of proving it. it's your burden to support your claim, not mine.
@a10miletooth This is well known answer "it's your burden to support your claim, not mine".Isn't it better to think and share thoughts on the subject versus using statements somebody else implanted in our thinking . Many people perceive science as some kind of pure institution where truth is always present and guaranteed.That's an illusion even more when it comes to origin. Scientifically you can't deny the fact of intelligence involved unless science is to depart from common sense.
Common sense has always been useless in science. Common sense says mammals give live birth. Then there's the Platypuss and Echidna. Truth is those two are directly decsended from the anceint mammals from the late cretaceous and thus still layed eggs.
@NUTCASE71733 Hi my friend! Just what they have made you believe.To believe in the unbelievable...If science is not using common sense /as you say/than what's next?Not using the brain ? You have to come up with something better...the main agenda of many institutions is to make us very bios,lacking critical thinking in order to submit to the powers of the day.Science is in their tool box as well.Let's not be naive and believe 100% politicians,media,science and religion.Best wishes to you!
@VESANG you cannot claim it as a fact that life needs to be designed. the burden of proof isn't some argument used by people. the issue is: you make a claim. youre specific claim is that life requires an intelligence to design it, you are required to provide proof of your claim before you can claim it as a fact, it's really a simple concept. there's no evidence for it, therefore no evidence against it. saying, "you cant prove it wrong, therefore its correct." is NOT an arguement.
@a10miletooth I don't need to claim anything.If something is truth it does not matter what i say or think. I am sharing facts.The scientific method requires scientific matters to be observable,measurable and demonstrable. Very good approach if they were applying it all the time. Just pay attention when it comes to origin how many of the scientific claims cover even one of the 3 requirements...This is the inconsistency i am trying to worn you about.Do not trust science 100%.
Abiogenisis or evolution? Evolution has scientific evidence, dna, fossils, observations of the natural world, even if the details are not entirely understood it's pretty much fact at this point. While Abiogenisis the last time I looked is still a young field, they can only speculate a lot at this point. Science is just a methodology, a method of inquiry that has as much practical rational scrutiny as we can apply. Telling us science is unreliable is just inane, you rely on it everyday.
@Chinomareno Thank you for your comment! I know it's a heated subject to discuss with a lot of bios both sides this is why going to the foundation of how you prove something as a fact with the requirements of scientific method is at east fair base for discussion. Evolution is not a fact.It is in the theory realm and has many foundational issues simply because it does not cover even a single one of the 3 requirements.Nobody has observed or demonstrated evolution yet. Continue
@Chinomareno By it's own definition and claims evolution /and so origin/ is out of reach for science since it takes millions-billions years to happen.Science is naturally limited and it can not prove something that it is out of reach for the scientific method which is needed to /legitimately/ establish things as scientific facts.I didn't say"science in unreliable".I said"science when it comes to origin is another bios religion"bcs they would not even consider possibility of intelligent design.
@VESANG Completely untrue. Scientists have and do consider the possibility of intelligent design. The problem is, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Intelligent design is merely a hypothesis that has no weight behind it whatsoever. Evolution is confirmed by genetics alone. it is not "religious" of scientists to believe the theory with huge amounts of evidence over the hypothesis with no evidence.
@whatthellman My friend have you ever seeing that mentioned in curriculum? if no why not ?
I know a lot of scientists believe in intelligent design which itself proves that the same data can be interpreted differently .Sooner or later when it comes to origin science has no choice but / based on natural limitations at least at the pr.stage/ to depart from scientific method and turn into the fields of theories,bios personal interpretations and believes which is fine but let's name them correctly
@VESANG Why would you mention a hypothesis in school curriculums? That's nonsensical. Should we teach astrology alongside astronomy? Should we teach alchemy alongside chemistry? Anyone could come up with anything they wanted and then insist that it be taught in school.
The vast majority of scientists believe in evolution. Modern medicine relies significantly upon evolution (which has produced results). Also, a theory in science means a very specific thing that you clearly do not understand.
@whatthellman My friend I don't think you got my point based on your comment. I understand that scientific theory should be based on facts of observation,measurements and demonstration /if you are to follow the scientific method/ and this is exactly where evolution and big bang depart from it .You can not put those mega events /at least at the moment for sure/ in form required by the scientific method to prove any "theory" when it comes to origin.It goes to the field of believe.
@VESANG If you believe that, you're entirely mistaken. I know an evolutionary geneticist that runs a lab at stanford. They perform rigorous study that is entirely rooted in the scientific method. The big bang follows the scientific method as well. The only reason ANYONE would claim otherwise is if they do not have a clear understanding of how those theories came to be accepted as the most likely.
@whatthellman Just look at your own words my friend" they perform rigorous study"-which means they are in the process of proving something...but not yet.Your first comment was "evolution is pretty much fact..." not 100% again.It is hard to understand the other side of the argument since this is very heated subject and most of us are 100% convinced in what we believe. Many scientists believe in intelligent design.They have access to the same data base to make this conclusion.
@whatthellman Trying to clarify my point..even we agree that the evolution and big bang are 100% fact that still does not address the trace of intelligence all over the place based on design,order of laws and code of information in DNA superior to anything that humans have created.
Was it scientific fact when they estimated the age of the earth within millions of years?They gradually came to about 4.5 bill years for the earth and 20 for the universe.Was it fact back then?is it fact now ?
@VESANG Those arguments are entirely irrelevant. How do you infer design? The only way you can possibly tell if something is designed is by comparing it to something that is not designed. In what way would reality be different if it were not designed? Information in DNA as well as everything you pointed out is sufficiently explained by naturalism.
Scientists changing their mind based upon new evidence is not a demonstration of weakness, but a demonstration of intellectual honesty.
@whatthellman My friend please tell me if understood you correctly.What you are saying is that we can't talk about design since there is nothing to compare it to?
Please don't get me wrong! I realize bios is not just in science.It's everywhere including religion.
Can ask you a question:
If science comes one day with discovery that intelligence /or God/ has just been proven would you believe it than?
I would like to comment on your last post but i want to make sure i understood you correctly
@VESANG I am saying that if you are claiming that everything is designed, I am asking how you know that. In the watchmaker analogy, we can tell the watch is human-designed by comparing it to other things that are not human-designed. If you claim that nature demonstrates design, you must be able to compare it to what you would expect if it was not designed.
If scientific evidence points toward the existence of an intelligence or god, I would believe it.
Do not talk about what is consistent with science and reason then ask us to take Intelligent Design seriously, forget science you need to comprehend formal logic first. Evidence for evolution is not impossible to collect due to it's rate of manifestation, plenty of phenomena take millions of years to manifest for which we have reliable evidence. It's like asking us to believe mountains were made magically long ago just because we don't see them form over a human lifetime.
@Chinomareno I did not say mountains were made magically.
I am guessing when you talk about prove for evolution you think about fossils and dna. First even if evolution is fact /which is not/ you still can not deny intelligence involved simply bcs it's observable,available to demonstrate at any time.No science will stand behind claim that no intelligence is needed for existence of house,computer,watch..so on.Despite of the fact that nature is so much more complex this is exactly what you say.
@VESANG Will you two stop arguing? One of you is hopelessly ignorant and the other is talking to a brick wall. I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which.
@carmium I appreciate your input! I am trying to respect everybody in a world where politics and propaganda have affected a lot the way we think and perceive people.arguments and the world as a whole. You are welcome to share and teach us on the subject ! You sound convinced in what you believe and i if it's not a problem for you i would like to hear about it. Thank you in advance!
@VESANG your saying life requires a designer. that's a claim if you want to call it that or not. saying it's "truth" means absolutely nothing. anybody can say anything and claim it as "truth". i can say that demons are the cause of all cancers in the world and call it truth. so what? it means nothing unless i can prove it. the exact same standard goes for you.
@a10miletooth Point taken and this is exactly where the problem with evolution is: fails in all 3 musts in scientific method: observation,measuring and demonstration.They were smart defining back then the scientific method to prevent exactly what you are talking about "scientific imaginations" as the evolution is and calling them "truth" and "facts".Intelligent design is a fact since there is no design without intelligence and design is present,observable and demonstrable.
@a10miletooth Then why be hypocritical? Why not demand the same standard for macro evolution? Where is your little god time and random chance that creates the vastness of life we see today? Where is your REAL observable demonstrable evidence to show the Big Bang? So it rained millions of years ago and somehow the complexity of life to a human formed from chemical pond scum. Yeah who's theory sounds more ridiculous?
@cctman Congratulations on simultaneously setting up a hilariously ridiculous straw man argument and demonstrating that you clearly have absolutely no understanding of the modern theories on the origins of life that you are attacking. This is even more impressive considering that you accomplished this dual feat of ignorance all in one single sentence, the one that begins 'So it rained...'
@cujagu Oh really? LOL... How many PHD scientists would you like me to show you that believe life started from the Cosmic Evolution from the Big Bang? Straw Man? You obviously don't understand what that term means.
@cctman A straw man is when you set up a fallacious version of what somebody else is saying and then attack that version, exactly what you did. "It rained millions of years ago..." First off it was billions of years ago, so you are wrong on an order of magnitude of about 1000. And your rain idea is completely inconsistent with modern abiogenesis theory, which holds the idea that life formed in ice. 'Chemical pond scum' shows a great misunderstanding of the conditions in which life formed.
@cujagu No technically I'm correct.. I can say millions of years ago and still be correct and I can say billions of years and also be correct. I could say millions of years and it be to the magnitude of X10000 and still be the same calculation as billions to a lesser exponent of course.
"'...a great misunderstanding of the conditions in which life formed"... Oh really and I'm so sorry I forgot you were there to observe all of this my bad. I'm truly sorry I am!
@cctman You weren't there either, yet you claim to know everything about the origin of humanity because a shitty, self-contradictory book of Jewish fairytales concocted by illiterate goat-herders who didn't know what an atom was and thought the sun revolved around the earth has a story about a talking snake and magical fruit. At least evolutionary theory is supported by evidence.
@cujagu Your an idiot! I never claimed to know everything just that the Bible is true when it does speak. Self-contradictory? Try naming a couple verses that are. Doesn't know what an atom is? Excuse me but 90% of the greatest scientific minds in the last 400 years since Galileo had no freekin clue what an atom was either. Where does the Bible say the sun revolves around the earth? Magical fruit? How so? Snake where? Bible says a serpent not a snake. Show me evidence for Big Bang?
@cctman It's true that most scientists that have lived didn't know what an atom was, but science continues to advance while the bible stays the same. That's why science is better than the bible, and the bible limits your knowledge while science expands it. Ecclesiastes 1:5 has been taken to mean that the sun revolves around earth. Magical fruit, and a SNAKE (synonym for serpent) are part of the Eden story. There's plenty of evidence for the big bang, google it.
@cctman Bible isn't truth to anything.. Look up the big bang, evolution, abiogenesis.. An evolutionist doesn't have to believe in the big bang, two completley different theories. Besides you saying, oh since he created all things (time and space and what not..) He is then not bound to those laws thus the possibility of infinite living in or outside the universe. Still doesn't make you anymore right than the people who actually have proof other than a book.
@cctman He was saying evolution has evidence and you ask what's the evidence to the big bang? You obviously dont know the science.. Read a book, you'll see..
@cctman i demand the same standard for everything. you realise it is acceptable to not choose any theory in the face of such unknowns? it may be one or the other, it cannot be both, but it can be none of the above. the fact is we know that life can come from non-life, we know that evolution is a fact, what we don't know is the origins of the universe. why are you trying to loop evolution into the big bang theory when it has nothing to do with it?
@a10miletooth ..."the fact is we know that life can come from non-life" Actually my point is that you do not know this. Are you seriously going to try to use the Miller experiment as evidence for this? What evidence do you have for chemical evolution? Your macro evolution can not even occur without chemical evolution taking place first. I don't even have to discuss micro->macro evolution, you can't even get past first base with chemical evolution.
@VESANG "unless science is to depart from common sense. "
"Common sense" is the reason why some people still think the Earth is flat, and that the entire universe revolves around the Earth. Fortunately, science doesn't rely on common sense, or we may still be living with middle ages level technology.
@419Films Good point and obviously when we talk about common sense we should realize that there is absolute correct logic which takes common sense to it's true meaning.
Science is in self denial when it comes to events out of reach by it's own definition of scientific method. It's facts vs fiction issue.Big bang and evolution are religious propaganda just as preachers claiming they teach scripture just to find out there something more to it.Science is not exception!
@VESANG the big bang and evolution are facts. Just saying they are religious propaganda does not mean they are, any more than me labelling an apple an orange makes it an orange. I'm afraid it's the religious that are in self denial.
@daverowbotham My friend If you let me use your expression:Just saying that Big Bang and macro evolution are facts does not mean they are...this is exactly the core of the discussion if you followed my posts. let's be honest.Science has natural limitations and this is self evident fact. Claiming that Big bang and macro evolution are facts is anti scientific method statement. Can you demonstrate and observe the BB...NO you can't ,nobody can...why argue the obvious...
There weren't just runways, they made straw fetishes of planes to get them to come back, too. The natives thought the soldiers were their dead ancestors who became gods. If you Google for more info, a lot of what you'll find is ancient alien related and while that can be entertaining and at times maybe even interesting, it's not what you're looking for. So keep that in mind. But if you take a few minutes and comb through it you can find some cool stuff. Oh, and watch 'The Gods Must Be Crazy.'
a lot of christians yell, "have faith, believe, just believe. Put your faith in God." Then they get sick, and then they run to the scientific community, and Dr.s. The Dr.s and pharaceutical community cure them, and they go home and claim it was god, because the whole time they were in the hospital they were praying. They forget the science involved, and ignore the fact that a lot of the people who died were praying too.
Ben Stein, the same man that said "Science kills people."
baahhhFATALITY11 2 days ago
Despot: 1)A ruler with absolute power, 2)A person who wields power oppressively; a tyrant. :)
GLANL 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Edmund Way Teale
It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it.
Circle of the Seasons
guwest2 2 weeks ago
Well I didn't mind Expelled, it was a good comedy :)
LOSTKILLERDRAENEI 3 weeks ago 3
@LOSTKILLERDRAENEI I need to keep an eye on my blood pressure these days, I don't dare watch it :P
daverowbotham 2 weeks ago
I could only sit through 3/4ths of the movie. It was too full of shit; I couldn't handle it.
Moshikashitenai 1 month ago 2
@Lennon4ever1 Holy shit. It made you so angry you could not type "retarded." That's a shitty film.
RamoneHoffman 1 month ago
@RamoneHoffman Ben Stein narrates... How could it not be shitty?
OdinLowe 1 month ago
Actually no, appeal to authority is still a fallacy even if the authority in question does know what they're talking about, because you're shifting the burden of proof from yourself onto them, and if they're not here to answer for you you're still making a claim and not backing it up, just saying "go ask this other guy, he knows".
ytmndman 1 month ago
I just read the opening paragraph on the Wikipedia entry of that movie & immediately felt like killing myself and everyone in the immediate postcode. In that order.
Xanatos712 2 months ago
If I was a film-maker then I'd make a sequel to the Expelled movie.
Because I know of a place where the exact same thing is happening - people are being excluded from their jobs for their beliefs.
In the religious community there is a strong prejudice against hiring atheists as priests in their churches. In fact it is not long ago I herd of a priest who was fired because he said he had become an atheist. It is almost as if there is a berufsverbot for atheists in the religious community...
itsjustameme 4 months ago 2
@itsjustameme I gotta admit your post confused me a little at first since i'd not yet heard about this movie expelled. But after the first 30 seconds of this video i laughed at your post. Very good analogy ID in science class is exactly the same as an atheist priest.
youbetzler 4 months ago
@youbetzler
It's a conspiracy I tell you. They are trying to keep us atheists out of their churches. We are being discriminated against I tell you.
itsjustameme 4 months ago
@itsjustameme Man i never thought of it, i'd been denied by over 100 churches and i couldn't figure out why. Little did i know the Christian conspirators were just exerting their discrimination to keep me out. It's bigotry i say i call shenanigans on all churches who's with me
youbetzler 4 months ago
@youbetzler
It's funny really. Ben Stein really tries. He uses a whole movie to put forward that single point. And it is so easy to refute that I could do it within the 400 char limit.
I think that sums up the problem with religion right there.
itsjustameme 4 months ago 2
couldn't watch Expelled in one sitting, far too annoying.
mercilesshamstrslayr 5 months ago 11
There are a lot of scientist that publish papers on the issues and major problems with the continuity of micro->macro evolution. See (Soléet al., 1999; Erwin, 2000; Carroll, 2001; Plotnick & Sepkoski, 2001, Ward & Signor, 1983 ; Foote, 1993), one that Maynard Smith (1989) Also see Andrew M. Simons Article first published online: 21 AUG 2002 "The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution".
(Gould, 1985) also discusses problems with phenotypic trends over the long-term.
cctman 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cctman LOL, Even the abstract of the paper you sited to support your claim states "the evolutionary outcome of major environmental change may be viewed as identical in principle to the outcome of minor environmental fluctuations over the short-term."
Do you often shoot yourself this squarely in the foot?
ExtantFrodo2 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ExtantFrodo2
Looks like we're both being marked spam this time. I wonder if anybody at Youtube's even aware of the staggering amount of "spam" they have on their site lately...
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« There are a lot of scientist that publish papers on the issues and major problems with the continuity of micro->macro evolution »
You'll note, if you read through those papers, that NONE of these people doubt that common descent is true and that macro-evolution happens. The thing that they're arguing about is HOW it happens.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
"fossil records prove evolution time and again" ... No fossil can ever prove evolution. You can not prove that any bone you dig up even had children in the first place. Second to that no bone you dig up comes with a tag that says "hey I'm 3.2million years old". Your dating methods including Uranium, Pb-208, Rb-Str, and all the rest are based on major assumptions. For one they assume the same environment today was the one that has always existed and we know that is not true.
cctman 5 months ago
@cctman how can you possibly rationalise dinosaurs using that reference in job? when job fails to mention any number of the vast variety of different species. does genesis explain how noah got the animals on the arc that only existed on different continents? what about all of them? a better question is why did noah need an arc at all if the god character could just wipe everything clean and start over? what's the point of the flood? and i think you need to check the fossil records again.
a10miletooth 5 months ago
@a10miletooth how can I rationalize? Is that a rhetorical question? "He is the chief of the ways of God..." "His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron." He moveth his tail like a cedar" "he eateth grass as an ox" "Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly" ... What do you think the author is talking about here a rabbit??? God needed an arc to save a remnant of his creation from the flood. Still looking for fossils with labels
cctman 5 months ago
@cctman haha, that loosly describes a number of animals. it's a good thing the bible is so specific. you still didn't answer what the point of the flood was. why wouldn't god just start over? or just kill all the humans dead and leave the animals where they were? what was the point in doing something so clumsy that could have been thought up by a child? "he needed the arc in order to save his remnant."? are you kidding me? why would "god" need the arc OR the flood? he simply chooses to be nuts?
a10miletooth 5 months ago
@a10miletooth just FYI.. the more trolling and condescending you start to be the less likely I'm going to reply with any sincerity. I already addressed your questions. If your just going to ask the same question again then I won't waste my time. However, if you don't like my answer then point one specific reply back and I will be happy to explain.
cctman 5 months ago
@cctman How could you ask these questions without being condescending? Am I supposed to pretend it is not absolutely preposterous and nonsensical? If you wish to speak plainly about my tinfoil hat, I will kindly reply, dear sir...You're killing me here.
rrpostalagain 5 months ago
@rrpostalagain I'm not trying to be condescending... But what I want you to admit is that there are real scientists out there debating these problems and there are real scientists that disagree with the fact that evolution can even occur on a macro level. AIG holds a list of about 200 PHD scientists all living today that believe in creation science. ICR has a pdf list of around 1,000 members all PHDs that signed the descent from Darwinian evolution letter. Maybe you should be asking why?
cctman 5 months ago
« there are real scientists that disagree with the fact that evolution can even occur on a macro level »
Yes, there are. About three of them. And none of them have ever published a paper that hypothesises that common descent may be entirely wrong. Not one.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
@XGralgrathor You have know idea what your talking about. You sir are officially trolling. Do you know how many scientists actually wrote white papers tackling a great majority of these issues? How much research have you done on this topic so far? Seriously only 3? So Discovery Institute, ICR, AIG, Creation ministries in Germany and Australia and Canada, MCI I guess they are all made up of only 3 published scientists. LOL! Check the links on the creationwiki page for white papers.
cctman 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« Do you know how many scientists actually wrote white papers tackling a great majority of these issues? »
"White papers"? I don't care about fucking "white papers", whatever they are. I am talking scientific papers. Published in scientific journals. With specific requirements about verification. With public and veriable sources, methods and results.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
« AIG holds a list of about 200 PHD scientists all living today that believe in creation science. »
Really? PhD's, all of them?
And in what fields, if I may ask? How many of them are mathematicians, astronomers or physicists, rather than molecular biologists, palaeontologists and geneticists?
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
@XGralgrathor funny how I keep getting asked this same question over and over again. I need to create my own blog on this one topic. It keeps coming up. Yes! Do a search you will find it. Google "AIG creation scientists bios" first result. Then look up dissentfromdarwin org
cctman 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« funny »
Most of them already know the answer to it themselves. They did some research on some of the names, found out about their backgrounds, their expertises, and so on. I did some of those names myself, some time ago. It's a lot of work, and can cost up to hours or even days per name. No wonder then that *you* did *not* do this work, and uncritically accepted that these names represent qualified experts on the things they're commenting on. *IF* indeed they chose to comment at all.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
« signed the descent from Darwinian evolution letter »
Ah, "the *dissent* letter". Which states "you have to be critical". Nobody denies you have to be critical, kid. In science, that's a truism. Being critical of something is not the same as rejecting something.
But there are other stories about such lists.
/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
@XGralgrathor Ah, "the *dissent* letter". Which states "you have to be critical". ...
Wrong! The descent letter states more than that it says according to the Jan 2010 publication.
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
cctman 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cctman Again who are these people who are "skeptical ..."? of the 700, only a small fraction are in the life sciences.
ExtantFrodo2 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« according to the Jan 2010 publication »
Wow, they made a new, less weasly and vague version, and *still* got 1000 idiots to sign it?
Show me that link again, I need to see the list.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life »
That's the same thing, you idiot. Science is ALL ABOUT skepticism. Being skeptic doesn't mean rejecting it: it means examining it critically. And that's what scientists DO FOR A LIVING, numbnuts.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
@rrpostalagain I'm not trying to be condescending... But what I want you to admit is that there are real scientists out there debating these problems and there are real scientists that disagree with the fact that evolution can even occur on a macro level. AIG holds a list of about 200 PHD scientists all living today that believe in creation science. ICR has a PDF list of around 1,000 members all PHDs that signed the descent from Darwinian evolution letter. Maybe you should be asking why?
cctman 5 months ago
@cctman "You can not prove that any bone you dig up even had children in the first place"- Warning, Kent Hovind alert! I've heard him say this before. It comes down to the difference between "absolute knowledge" (which no scientist would claim) and what can be shown to have happened with all the available evidence. when you conflate the two, it seems it makes your brain into something heavy to hold down the rest of your body.
rrpostalagain 5 months ago
@rrpostalagain "...and what can be shown to have happened with all the available evidence." Oh good for you now were right back where we started from. And I call this so called available evidence in which you INTERPRET along side your god of random chance and time nothing more than a fairy tale. I'm still waiting for your required precursor to (micro-macro evolution) of chemical evolution. The odds that one single protein could create itself is like 10 60th power in years. IMPOSSIBLE!
cctman 5 months ago
« which you INTERPRET »
Which are interpreted. In manners that are per requirements of scientific methodology independently verifiable.
« random chance »
"Random chance" has nothing to do with it. Science is about explaining what *patterns* there are in nature, and what *mechanisms* are responsible for those patterns. That's the *opposite* of "random chance".
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
@XGralgrathor ...and to the over all question of how we got here and whether micro to macro evolution can occur, science can provide none of these answers. There is no Mechanism that can be found to push a mutation to work outside its known DNA boundaries. The DNA requires intelligent coding and careful configuration. Back to... we can't even demonstrate a careful arrangement of information to form the first protein required for there to be any micro to macro evolution.
cctman 5 months ago
@cctman "There is no Mechanism that can be found to push a mutation to work outside its known DNA boundaries."
Mutations happen. Most often they do nothing. Sometimes they are bad. Sometimes they are good. It depends on the mutation and the context that it occurs in. Something pushing a sequence to be a particular way is what is called intelligent design. We can not verify that the good mutations are only the result of randomness, but the huge # of bad ones suggests it is in fact random.
ExtantFrodo2 5 months ago
@ExtantFrodo2 I'm not arguing whether mutations can be good or bad or whether they are random. I'm stating there is no evidence to demonstrate mutations as a mechanism for micro->macro evolution. The Miller experiment was nothing but a colossal failure in this regard. Furthermore before even discussing micro to macro evolution you can't even have that because of the impossibility for chemical evolution (see first protein) in the first place.
cctman 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cctman Raising Miller as an example of how bad it gets says more about your understanding than anything else. Miller's experiments are mentioned in text books not as the greatest example of that kind of work, but as the FIRST of it's kind that was tried. He is presented for his daring and breaking the mold and trying new things.
As a firm believer in the RNA world hypothesis (open to other evidence of course) I see no reason for proteins until long after much evolution has already occurred.
ExtantFrodo2 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« The Miller experiment »
And why the fuck bring up the Miller-Urey experiment all of a sudden? It has NOTHING to do with evolution, you idiot.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« impossibility for chemical evolution »
1. No such thing. The proper term is CHEMOGENESIS or ABIOGENESIS. Handkerchief, knot, yoghurtboy.
2. Impossibility as determined by whom? You? With your pocket calculator, perhaps?
Kid, THOUSANDS of the cleverest scientists have been trying to get a handle on the mechanisms by which life might have emerged. And you and your pocket calculator succeeded somehow? Yeah, right.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
« I'm stating there is no evidence to demonstrate mutations as a mechanism for micro->macro evolution »
You are falsely stating so. The genetic data clearly indicates common descent. That means that there *must* be a mechanism by which diverse descendants can evolve from a common ancestor. All observations in genetics and population dynamics show that recombination, mutation, drift and selection are mechanisms that explain how such diversity can come to exist.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
@XGralgrathor "All observations in genetics and population dynamics show that recombination, mutation, drift and selection are mechanisms that explain how such diversity can come to exist." Funny because I'm pretty sure I just gave you several PHD scientist references that offer refutations to that very point.
"The genetic data clearly indicates common descent. " References? And don't show me some research done where an interpretation is required beyond a micro-evolutionary investigation.
cctman 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« several PHD scientist »
If you're talking about "The List", then no: they subscribed to being sceptical. Which is good scientific practice, and does not in any way necessitate rejection of any scientific theory.
If you're talking about the papers on "continuity of micro- and macro-evolution" then again, no: none of these scientists doubt that common descent is true, and that recombination, mutation, drift and selection at least play roles in the process of evolution.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« science can provide none of these answers »
It has already provided parts of the answers you demand, and is working on other parts. You know this: the answers available, and the mechanisms available for testing them, have been explained on this site and others on numerous occasions. I can only conclude that you did not bother to look up those answers and methods before lazily reposting the same question.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« There is no Mechanism that can be found to push a mutation to work outside its known DNA boundaries »
There are no such boundaries known to science. The only boundaries known in genetics are boundaries that limit the *rate* of divergence, but not the *amount* of divergence. To use an analogy, the known limits concern *speed*, but not *distance*.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« DNA requires intelligent coding »
No it doesn't. That's just your assertion. But not only have ID-ers sofar failed to formulate that assertion in any testable manner; not only have they failed to make a case for the validity for that assertion; you and they also completely ignore the fact that DNA sequences have been and *are* explained quite well by evolutionary theory, genetics and population dynamics.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
« required precursor to (micro-macro evolution) of chemical evolution »
No such thing as "chemical evolution". If you want to discuss a subject, use the proper terms in stead of inventing your own. The term here is: abiogenesis.
And before abiogenesis, there would have been the formation of planets. And before the formation of planets the formation of the elements. And before that the formation of particulate matter.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
@XGralgrathor No such thing as "chemical evolution".Really? LOL! Last time I did a quick search it is all over hte internet. There are white papers written on this title. There is an organization that does nothing but research on chemical evolution. See centerforchemicalevolution. Is this seriously your rebuttal?
cctman 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« Really? »
Really. The term, like I said, is "abiogenesis" or "chemogenesis". Nobody but creationists use the phrase "chemical evolution", and they only use it in a desperate attempt to try and link evolutionary theory to abiogenesis.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
« The odds that one single protein could create itself »
... Nobody claims proteins "create themselves". The only ones who ever use such words are creationists - who are either not interested in understanding what science hypothesises about proteins, or understand those hypotheses perfectly but have a vested interest in *misrepresenting* them.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
@XGralgrathor So are you going to discuss the evidence for this or refute this or are you going to just manipulate the wording? You exactly what I'm talking about.
cctman 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« So are you going to discuss the evidence for this »
For what exactly? So far all you've done is made the implicit claim that anybody thinks that "proteins created themselves". And again, nobody thinks that "proteins created themselves". So why should anybody want to discuss that claim?
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
Comment removed
cctman 5 months ago
Comment removed
cctman 5 months ago
@a10miletooth Since Richard Owen didn't even coin the term dinosaur until 1841 we would have to look for animals that fit the description of dinosaurs in the Bible. In job 40:15-24 we find an example of just that as a description of the Behemoth which was probably the largest of the sauropods. In Genesis we are told that Noah put to of every unclean kind on the ark, so this probably included ALL animals(including yes baby dinosaurs). After the propagation 1,000s of years later we see... cont
cctman 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mankind is due for moving to a higher consciousness plane. The same way the suffering of gazelles killed by lions make the species stronger, the suffering of mankind will help us move to the next consciousness level. A greater good comes for the species. The next level is the rejection of greed, materialism and selfishness. Our current capitalist system need to collapse in order to achieve this. If you're not ready spiritually, and doesn't move up, you'll suffer. This is happening now, seek God.
dejesusluisx 5 months ago
The elitism complaint and discussion reminds me of something similar. I saw Scent of a Woman, and enjoyed it, and expressed that to someone, who sneered at the movie saying "it was nothing more than a vehicle for Al Pacino". I was like: huh?? He was saying it was somehow cheesy and despicable as if they chose Pacino FIRST, then tried to figure out what movie to make. Even if so, so what!!? It didn't dampen my enjoyment of watching Pacino shine in a role that was perfect for him.
leisulin 5 months ago
i never saw the conflict between science and Christianity. in fact the bible supports science and has knowledge of science concepts we now know are absolute truths. but come on; science does not support macro evolution, because the scientific method rejects it. plain and simple.
yet many people call it science? perhaps because this would contradict the bibles claims, and anything to do against God is a good thing. suppressing the truth will only help the deluded atheists. Jesus is God
gerinja 6 months ago
@gerinja
"science does not support macro evolution"
Hey piece of shit retard, no such thing as macro evolution, only evolution.
mecher3k 6 months ago
@gerinja All those silly biologists, right?
opba93 6 months ago
@opba93 silly calling something "science" when it fails to pass the "scientific method." Fortunately there are biologists that know this truth! These are not silly biologists!
gerinja 6 months ago
@gerinja Macro-evolution? No such term in the scientific community. I think you're referring to speciation. Speciation is widely excepted by the scientific community. Why? All of those transitional fossils that Creationists say "don't exist" and records of observed speciation that Creationist tend to ignore.
MadjetReaper 6 months ago
@MadjetReaper transitional fossils? really? um... call me skeptic on this matter but it is really quite a leap to connect the relationship of fossils with transitional fossils.
please educate me, and explain what makes them transitional? look-alike is good enough for some, but not very conclusive.
gerinja 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« what makes them transitional? »
The fact that their specific morphological traits are intermediate between morphological traits of known basal clades and those of more derived clades.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@gerinja Hmm. To explain this would take a wall of posts. So instead I'll summarize:
EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil from or towards a species via evolutionary processes. How do we know what's a transitional species of what? Similarities from the ancestor and current species, predicting migratory patterns of said transitional species and finding similar but different fossils, and other ways that won't fit in my comment.
If you want a more detailed comment I have to PM it to you. Sorry.
MadjetReaper 6 months ago
« EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil »
Well, theoretically, every fossil has the potential of becoming a transitional fossil. However, it is perfectly possible to define the term 'transitional fossil' *without* assuming or referring to evolution or evolutionary theory. All we have to do is show that nested hierarchies exist in life, and that a fossil is intermediate between some basal clade and some derived clade.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@XGralgrathor Now see your comment is exactly how I wanted mine to end up. However my fear of character limit drove me to make my comment to look like a disaster. Well at any rate, I'm happy someone came and cleaned up my post. Thank you.
MadjetReaper 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« science does not support macro evolution »
Macro-evolution follows not only from the matching nested hierarchies in zoology and genomics, and from the diverging progressions of traits in the fossil record; it also follows from the direct observation of speciations that have occurred or are in progress (eg. Rolshausen 2009).
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CLICK on 2222pauline
ALLOW me to show you --- TRUTH and SALVATION----> for free
2222pauline 6 months ago
you know your beliefs are bad when you think that if everyone died instantly who didnt believe you did were taken away to be punished but if the same happened to people of similar beliefs... they would be taken somewhere and rewarded.
deshaebeasley 6 months ago
People still worship imaginary gods?
asvoth 6 months ago
@asvoth yea people are stupid
henshinman 6 months ago
@asvoth yes they do... especially the evolutionary god of time and random chance. Many years ago children in a galaxy far far away, nothingness created somethingness. True Story!
cctman 6 months ago
Comment removed
rampagejt1 6 months ago
Comment removed
cctman 6 months ago
Comment removed
cctman 6 months ago
Respond to this video... Oh that's fairly simple to answer... my answer is of course Biblical. God has always existed and was there in beginning and will be at the end. Matter of fact God created time. So because he is outside of time he is not bound by its laws and rules. I'm very consistent with my theory however, evolutionists aren't. On one hand they claim consistency with natural sciences then they turn right back around and believe in a fairy tale of Big Bang which is outside of science.
cctman 6 months ago
@cctman Big Bang is not ouside of science.. You guys are consistent due to the Fact that you guys just listen to a book with set words, while we just look at reality.. Evolutionists aren't As consistent due to the fact that it's nature, shit changes and we adjust to it, i don't see what's wrong with that.. Evolution Has Nothing to do with the big bang so " then they turn right back around and believe in a fairy tale of Big Bang which is outside of science." that quote is complete bullshit.
OMGITSDRJESUS 6 months ago
@OMGITSDRJESUS If Big bang is not out of science as you say you /or somebody/ should be able to demonstrate it /as required by scientific method/ so we can all observe it ,make a few measurements and end the discussion in your favor.Why is it so hard to acknowledge that science has natural limitations and limitations established by its own definition to apply sc.method in scientific matters..we can discuss Big bang and evolution all day long and that's fine but let's name them correctly
VESANG 6 months ago
@VESANG Name them correctly? Name what correctly? Nd it's not hard to acknowledge such a thing at all..
OMGITSDRJESUS 6 months ago
@OMGITSDRJESUS I meant putting real factual ingredients in them.Those can not be proven as FACTS /at least at present stage of science/.When they predict weather they calculate % of accuracy which outs at least some level of honesty.Nothing like that for much more complex events in time and space as bigbang and evo-n are.It's just not real.It's inconsistent and fails in all 3 musts in sc.method.Based on same data you can make different theories since there is no check and balance of sc.method.
VESANG 6 months ago
@VESANG You have a very strange notion of how science works. In science, we build models to explain the things we observe. None of us were present at the Big Bang, but that doesn't mean there's no evidence. We have the cosmic background radiation, redshifts in the light we see from far distant objects, and the relative abundance of light elements against which we can test the Big Bang theory.
acr08807 6 months ago
@acr08807 So where is the model of the bigbang you are talking about so we can see it. You know that there is no such a model for big bang and evolution. It's just a fact that evolution and bigbang fail in all 3 musts in sc. method. You can observe radiation,redshift but this is about as far as it goes...science its just naturally limited to deal with the question of origin at the moment and many acknowledge it and give it to the hands of philosophers.
VESANG 6 months ago
@VESANG Do a google search for "big bang model", and you will get it. Google "evolution model", and you will get one. Do you realize that evolution is an observable fact? That it is the basis of modern medicine? That vaccines you get (which are demonstrably effective) are based off of evolution? That the big bang predicted background microwave radiation before we knew it existed?
I feel like you have a very weak grasp on what science is and how it works. You cherry pick what you don't like.
whatthellman 6 months ago
@whatthellman I appreciate your attitude an the fact that you are trying to understand the argument the other side presents.You have been consistent on that.I should have clarified from the beginning and not assume that we are discussing macro evolution not micro evolution which is basically variation within the species. Micro evo is fact,observable measurable ,demonstrable. Macro evo is a religion not science. There are ton's of predictions for intl design.Post the link for BB model
VESANG 6 months ago
@VESANG The micro vs macro argument is convincing until you realize that it isn't supported by any scientists in the field. The ONLY people who make that distinction are those in the intelligent design movement.
Oh? What predictions for intelligent design? What studies have been conducted? Can you cite a single peer-reviewed study supporting intelligent design?
whatthellman 6 months ago
@VESANG Every line that is drawn between species is arbitrary in it's nature. When is a human not a human? If pygmies were to continue on a separate evolutionary tangent, at what point would you cease to call them human? When is a human not a human? Is there one defining charateristic or are there several indicators? Is it purely when they can;t interbreed with the general human population? Once you understand the point I'm making you'll realise why the micro/macro argument falls apart.
burkeyatm 6 months ago
@VESANG Where I'd point you depends on how much math you understand. For a layman, Fritz and Goldsmiths' Understanding Cosmology is a good starting point. For a math or physics undergrad, you could try Susskind's lectures (except the multiverse nonsense) on youtube any basic cosmology textbook. Weinberg's Cosmology is an excellent gradate level text. After you've worked through those, I can point you to the papers in which Big Bang theorists and steady-state theorists debated.
acr08807 6 months ago
Comment removed
VESANG 6 months ago
@acr08807 I want to thank you for offering your materials.I graduated college bachelor in economy where we took intensive studies of high level math,statistics and mathematical modeling.But this is beside the point . As i mentioned i am discussing foundational issues here .There are plenty of materials now online and plenty of debates for everybody to get a good idea on major issues both sides of the coin/Atheist v/s intelligent creation/.
VESANG 6 months ago
@acr08807 Before we investigate any evidence it's nice to find what actually constitutes scientific prove itself. Sc method is the core and a must to establish something as scientific fact.How do we define something to be truth verses lie or scientific fact versus scientific imagination. We can't discuss right and wrong in science unless we determine how do we define right and wrong in science in first place.If something doesn't comply with sc method is it science?
VESANG 6 months ago
@VESANG All we need to do is examine the evidence and decide for ourselves whether a scientific model is useful. That's what scientists do. And yes, we are limited in our knowledge of the origin of the universe. That's why the standard model of cosmology doesn't address that issue--because nobody has any evidence with which to evaluate different hypotheses. It's really OK to say "we don't know."
acr08807 6 months ago
What? College professors, instructors, and even high school teachers HAVE been fired for their ideas on creationism. There exists rules based upon curriculum and if you try teaching outside what the curriculum says and someone complains and claims you are teaching from the Bible they will be reprimanded, not offered a promotion or even fired. Don't try and tell me that these are all lies and no-one has ever been fired for trying to teach creation as an alternate theory. Ridiculous!
cctman 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
a horse will accept this and work with man,now the dog,the other day this black Labrador dog came to me with a stick in its mouth and dropped it at my feet wanting me pleading with me to throw the stick as this dog loved this activity ,this dog was made to go into the water in cold water and it will retrieve the hunter's duck or pheasant ,strange about these thing and how they seem to have been planned out by the cloud guy! why is this so hard to see?
majorl311 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
have you noticed little things in life like a dog,a cat ,birds like parrots who can learn to repeat words,one of the most extraordinary animals is the horse,the horse allows man to dominate it ,it is perfectly suited for man to ride,the horse will ride into battles with a man on it,it will work cattle for the rancher who uses the horse to work the cattle,the horse will run in derby,s ,you get the point the sky man made the horse designed it to compliment man,next dog
majorl311 6 months ago
oh Expelled
Craigipedia 6 months ago
This is the only comment without a blue lettered "@Somebody" retarded internet argument. Yaaay.
CarnifaxMachine 6 months ago
Americans apparently want elitism everywhere they need strength, vision, intelligence, and basically the best people, except possibly in the White House. Why this is I don't know.
ChipArgyle 6 months ago
The guy is half right... science always SHOULD be open to new ideas and corrections, but scientists may not be. In fact, the history of science is filled with incorrect ideas that got dragged along for too long because it became an established prejudice.
stallion4life 6 months ago
@stallion4life
WRONG. the scientific method prevents that level of dishonesty. Go put on your tinfoil hat and go away.
NUTCASE71733 6 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 The scientific method is practiced by humans, and can therefore be manipulated by their prejudices. If you think otherwise, you obviously have no idea of the history of science.
stallion4life 6 months ago
You guys have too much trust in science when it comes to origin and meaning....yea i guess you trust in your politicians as well ...and the media ...When it comes to origin and meaning of life science does not offer anything ,refusing to even put possibility of intelligence, despite of the order,design and information everywhere around us.If they had that sincere attitude and acknowledge that creationism is possibility of explanation it would be credible but for now is just another bios religion
VESANG 6 months ago
@VESANG what do you mean, order? the universe is in constant chaos. science doesn't need to offer anything for the meaning of life, people give their own lives meaning. and what do politicians and the media have anything to do with the meaning of, or the origins of life? the reason biblical creationism isn't taken seriously is because absolutely nothing points to it even being a possibility. let alone all the errors in whatever religion's god who's supposed to be responsible
a10miletooth 6 months ago
@a10miletooth My friend we are trained /incl. trough science ,political system,media,school system/to be bios,lacking critical thinking in order to submit to the powers of the day.Yes there is a chaos / bound to laws as well/ but there is order too and it takes intelligent design to have that in first place.We can argue how God looks like and what is his name but the bottom line is it takes great intelligence for what we observe around us.Scientifically there is no way around it.
VESANG 6 months ago
@VESANG it does not take design to have any of that. that's like saying 2+2=4 only because god did it, otherwise having two things and then having two more things would never have worked out if a god hadn't invented math first. nothing we observe in the natural universe requires an intelligence to have been behind it. it's not that there's no way around it, it's that the people making the claim have no way of proving it. it's your burden to support your claim, not mine.
a10miletooth 6 months ago
@a10miletooth This is well known answer "it's your burden to support your claim, not mine".Isn't it better to think and share thoughts on the subject versus using statements somebody else implanted in our thinking . Many people perceive science as some kind of pure institution where truth is always present and guaranteed.That's an illusion even more when it comes to origin. Scientifically you can't deny the fact of intelligence involved unless science is to depart from common sense.
VESANG 6 months ago
@VESANG
Common sense has always been useless in science. Common sense says mammals give live birth. Then there's the Platypuss and Echidna. Truth is those two are directly decsended from the anceint mammals from the late cretaceous and thus still layed eggs.
NUTCASE71733 6 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 Hi my friend! Just what they have made you believe.To believe in the unbelievable...If science is not using common sense /as you say/than what's next?Not using the brain ? You have to come up with something better...the main agenda of many institutions is to make us very bios,lacking critical thinking in order to submit to the powers of the day.Science is in their tool box as well.Let's not be naive and believe 100% politicians,media,science and religion.Best wishes to you!
VESANG 6 months ago
@VESANG you cannot claim it as a fact that life needs to be designed. the burden of proof isn't some argument used by people. the issue is: you make a claim. youre specific claim is that life requires an intelligence to design it, you are required to provide proof of your claim before you can claim it as a fact, it's really a simple concept. there's no evidence for it, therefore no evidence against it. saying, "you cant prove it wrong, therefore its correct." is NOT an arguement.
a10miletooth 6 months ago
@a10miletooth I don't need to claim anything.If something is truth it does not matter what i say or think. I am sharing facts.The scientific method requires scientific matters to be observable,measurable and demonstrable. Very good approach if they were applying it all the time. Just pay attention when it comes to origin how many of the scientific claims cover even one of the 3 requirements...This is the inconsistency i am trying to worn you about.Do not trust science 100%.
VESANG 6 months ago
@VESANG
Abiogenisis or evolution? Evolution has scientific evidence, dna, fossils, observations of the natural world, even if the details are not entirely understood it's pretty much fact at this point. While Abiogenisis the last time I looked is still a young field, they can only speculate a lot at this point. Science is just a methodology, a method of inquiry that has as much practical rational scrutiny as we can apply. Telling us science is unreliable is just inane, you rely on it everyday.
Chinomareno 6 months ago
@Chinomareno Thank you for your comment! I know it's a heated subject to discuss with a lot of bios both sides this is why going to the foundation of how you prove something as a fact with the requirements of scientific method is at east fair base for discussion. Evolution is not a fact.It is in the theory realm and has many foundational issues simply because it does not cover even a single one of the 3 requirements.Nobody has observed or demonstrated evolution yet. Continue
VESANG 6 months ago
@Chinomareno By it's own definition and claims evolution /and so origin/ is out of reach for science since it takes millions-billions years to happen.Science is naturally limited and it can not prove something that it is out of reach for the scientific method which is needed to /legitimately/ establish things as scientific facts.I didn't say"science in unreliable".I said"science when it comes to origin is another bios religion"bcs they would not even consider possibility of intelligent design.
VESANG 6 months ago
@VESANG Completely untrue. Scientists have and do consider the possibility of intelligent design. The problem is, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Intelligent design is merely a hypothesis that has no weight behind it whatsoever. Evolution is confirmed by genetics alone. it is not "religious" of scientists to believe the theory with huge amounts of evidence over the hypothesis with no evidence.
whatthellman 6 months ago
@whatthellman My friend have you ever seeing that mentioned in curriculum? if no why not ?
I know a lot of scientists believe in intelligent design which itself proves that the same data can be interpreted differently .Sooner or later when it comes to origin science has no choice but / based on natural limitations at least at the pr.stage/ to depart from scientific method and turn into the fields of theories,bios personal interpretations and believes which is fine but let's name them correctly
VESANG 6 months ago
@VESANG Why would you mention a hypothesis in school curriculums? That's nonsensical. Should we teach astrology alongside astronomy? Should we teach alchemy alongside chemistry? Anyone could come up with anything they wanted and then insist that it be taught in school.
The vast majority of scientists believe in evolution. Modern medicine relies significantly upon evolution (which has produced results). Also, a theory in science means a very specific thing that you clearly do not understand.
whatthellman 6 months ago
@whatthellman My friend I don't think you got my point based on your comment. I understand that scientific theory should be based on facts of observation,measurements and demonstration /if you are to follow the scientific method/ and this is exactly where evolution and big bang depart from it .You can not put those mega events /at least at the moment for sure/ in form required by the scientific method to prove any "theory" when it comes to origin.It goes to the field of believe.
VESANG 6 months ago
@VESANG If you believe that, you're entirely mistaken. I know an evolutionary geneticist that runs a lab at stanford. They perform rigorous study that is entirely rooted in the scientific method. The big bang follows the scientific method as well. The only reason ANYONE would claim otherwise is if they do not have a clear understanding of how those theories came to be accepted as the most likely.
whatthellman 6 months ago
@whatthellman Just look at your own words my friend" they perform rigorous study"-which means they are in the process of proving something...but not yet.Your first comment was "evolution is pretty much fact..." not 100% again.It is hard to understand the other side of the argument since this is very heated subject and most of us are 100% convinced in what we believe. Many scientists believe in intelligent design.They have access to the same data base to make this conclusion.
VESANG 6 months ago
@whatthellman Trying to clarify my point..even we agree that the evolution and big bang are 100% fact that still does not address the trace of intelligence all over the place based on design,order of laws and code of information in DNA superior to anything that humans have created.
Was it scientific fact when they estimated the age of the earth within millions of years?They gradually came to about 4.5 bill years for the earth and 20 for the universe.Was it fact back then?is it fact now ?
VESANG 6 months ago
@VESANG Those arguments are entirely irrelevant. How do you infer design? The only way you can possibly tell if something is designed is by comparing it to something that is not designed. In what way would reality be different if it were not designed? Information in DNA as well as everything you pointed out is sufficiently explained by naturalism.
Scientists changing their mind based upon new evidence is not a demonstration of weakness, but a demonstration of intellectual honesty.
whatthellman 6 months ago
Comment removed
VESANG 6 months ago
@whatthellman My friend please tell me if understood you correctly.What you are saying is that we can't talk about design since there is nothing to compare it to?
Please don't get me wrong! I realize bios is not just in science.It's everywhere including religion.
Can ask you a question:
If science comes one day with discovery that intelligence /or God/ has just been proven would you believe it than?
I would like to comment on your last post but i want to make sure i understood you correctly
VESANG 6 months ago
@VESANG I am saying that if you are claiming that everything is designed, I am asking how you know that. In the watchmaker analogy, we can tell the watch is human-designed by comparing it to other things that are not human-designed. If you claim that nature demonstrates design, you must be able to compare it to what you would expect if it was not designed.
If scientific evidence points toward the existence of an intelligence or god, I would believe it.
whatthellman 6 months ago
@VESANG
Do not talk about what is consistent with science and reason then ask us to take Intelligent Design seriously, forget science you need to comprehend formal logic first. Evidence for evolution is not impossible to collect due to it's rate of manifestation, plenty of phenomena take millions of years to manifest for which we have reliable evidence. It's like asking us to believe mountains were made magically long ago just because we don't see them form over a human lifetime.
Chinomareno 6 months ago
@Chinomareno I did not say mountains were made magically.
I am guessing when you talk about prove for evolution you think about fossils and dna. First even if evolution is fact /which is not/ you still can not deny intelligence involved simply bcs it's observable,available to demonstrate at any time.No science will stand behind claim that no intelligence is needed for existence of house,computer,watch..so on.Despite of the fact that nature is so much more complex this is exactly what you say.
VESANG 6 months ago
@VESANG Will you two stop arguing? One of you is hopelessly ignorant and the other is talking to a brick wall. I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which.
carmium 6 months ago
@carmium I appreciate your input! I am trying to respect everybody in a world where politics and propaganda have affected a lot the way we think and perceive people.arguments and the world as a whole. You are welcome to share and teach us on the subject ! You sound convinced in what you believe and i if it's not a problem for you i would like to hear about it. Thank you in advance!
VESANG 6 months ago
@VESANG your saying life requires a designer. that's a claim if you want to call it that or not. saying it's "truth" means absolutely nothing. anybody can say anything and claim it as "truth". i can say that demons are the cause of all cancers in the world and call it truth. so what? it means nothing unless i can prove it. the exact same standard goes for you.
a10miletooth 6 months ago
@a10miletooth Point taken and this is exactly where the problem with evolution is: fails in all 3 musts in scientific method: observation,measuring and demonstration.They were smart defining back then the scientific method to prevent exactly what you are talking about "scientific imaginations" as the evolution is and calling them "truth" and "facts".Intelligent design is a fact since there is no design without intelligence and design is present,observable and demonstrable.
VESANG 6 months ago
@a10miletooth Then why be hypocritical? Why not demand the same standard for macro evolution? Where is your little god time and random chance that creates the vastness of life we see today? Where is your REAL observable demonstrable evidence to show the Big Bang? So it rained millions of years ago and somehow the complexity of life to a human formed from chemical pond scum. Yeah who's theory sounds more ridiculous?
cctman 6 months ago
@cctman Congratulations on simultaneously setting up a hilariously ridiculous straw man argument and demonstrating that you clearly have absolutely no understanding of the modern theories on the origins of life that you are attacking. This is even more impressive considering that you accomplished this dual feat of ignorance all in one single sentence, the one that begins 'So it rained...'
cujagu 6 months ago
@cujagu Oh really? LOL... How many PHD scientists would you like me to show you that believe life started from the Cosmic Evolution from the Big Bang? Straw Man? You obviously don't understand what that term means.
cctman 6 months ago
@cctman A straw man is when you set up a fallacious version of what somebody else is saying and then attack that version, exactly what you did. "It rained millions of years ago..." First off it was billions of years ago, so you are wrong on an order of magnitude of about 1000. And your rain idea is completely inconsistent with modern abiogenesis theory, which holds the idea that life formed in ice. 'Chemical pond scum' shows a great misunderstanding of the conditions in which life formed.
cujagu 6 months ago
@cujagu No technically I'm correct.. I can say millions of years ago and still be correct and I can say billions of years and also be correct. I could say millions of years and it be to the magnitude of X10000 and still be the same calculation as billions to a lesser exponent of course.
"'...a great misunderstanding of the conditions in which life formed"... Oh really and I'm so sorry I forgot you were there to observe all of this my bad. I'm truly sorry I am!
cctman 6 months ago
@cctman You weren't there either, yet you claim to know everything about the origin of humanity because a shitty, self-contradictory book of Jewish fairytales concocted by illiterate goat-herders who didn't know what an atom was and thought the sun revolved around the earth has a story about a talking snake and magical fruit. At least evolutionary theory is supported by evidence.
cujagu 6 months ago
@cujagu Your an idiot! I never claimed to know everything just that the Bible is true when it does speak. Self-contradictory? Try naming a couple verses that are. Doesn't know what an atom is? Excuse me but 90% of the greatest scientific minds in the last 400 years since Galileo had no freekin clue what an atom was either. Where does the Bible say the sun revolves around the earth? Magical fruit? How so? Snake where? Bible says a serpent not a snake. Show me evidence for Big Bang?
cctman 6 months ago
@cctman It's true that most scientists that have lived didn't know what an atom was, but science continues to advance while the bible stays the same. That's why science is better than the bible, and the bible limits your knowledge while science expands it. Ecclesiastes 1:5 has been taken to mean that the sun revolves around earth. Magical fruit, and a SNAKE (synonym for serpent) are part of the Eden story. There's plenty of evidence for the big bang, google it.
cujagu 6 months ago
@cctman Bible isn't truth to anything.. Look up the big bang, evolution, abiogenesis.. An evolutionist doesn't have to believe in the big bang, two completley different theories. Besides you saying, oh since he created all things (time and space and what not..) He is then not bound to those laws thus the possibility of infinite living in or outside the universe. Still doesn't make you anymore right than the people who actually have proof other than a book.
OMGITSDRJESUS 6 months ago
@cctman He was saying evolution has evidence and you ask what's the evidence to the big bang? You obviously dont know the science.. Read a book, you'll see..
OMGITSDRJESUS 6 months ago
@cctman i demand the same standard for everything. you realise it is acceptable to not choose any theory in the face of such unknowns? it may be one or the other, it cannot be both, but it can be none of the above. the fact is we know that life can come from non-life, we know that evolution is a fact, what we don't know is the origins of the universe. why are you trying to loop evolution into the big bang theory when it has nothing to do with it?
a10miletooth 5 months ago
@a10miletooth ..."the fact is we know that life can come from non-life" Actually my point is that you do not know this. Are you seriously going to try to use the Miller experiment as evidence for this? What evidence do you have for chemical evolution? Your macro evolution can not even occur without chemical evolution taking place first. I don't even have to discuss micro->macro evolution, you can't even get past first base with chemical evolution.
cctman 5 months ago
@VESANG "unless science is to depart from common sense. "
"Common sense" is the reason why some people still think the Earth is flat, and that the entire universe revolves around the Earth. Fortunately, science doesn't rely on common sense, or we may still be living with middle ages level technology.
419Films 1 month ago
@419Films Good point and obviously when we talk about common sense we should realize that there is absolute correct logic which takes common sense to it's true meaning.
Science is in self denial when it comes to events out of reach by it's own definition of scientific method. It's facts vs fiction issue.Big bang and evolution are religious propaganda just as preachers claiming they teach scripture just to find out there something more to it.Science is not exception!
VESANG 1 month ago
@VESANG the big bang and evolution are facts. Just saying they are religious propaganda does not mean they are, any more than me labelling an apple an orange makes it an orange. I'm afraid it's the religious that are in self denial.
daverowbotham 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daverowbotham My friend If you let me use your expression:Just saying that Big Bang and macro evolution are facts does not mean they are...this is exactly the core of the discussion if you followed my posts. let's be honest.Science has natural limitations and this is self evident fact. Claiming that Big bang and macro evolution are facts is anti scientific method statement. Can you demonstrate and observe the BB...NO you can't ,nobody can...why argue the obvious...
VESANG 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
419Films 1 month ago
There weren't just runways, they made straw fetishes of planes to get them to come back, too. The natives thought the soldiers were their dead ancestors who became gods. If you Google for more info, a lot of what you'll find is ancient alien related and while that can be entertaining and at times maybe even interesting, it's not what you're looking for. So keep that in mind. But if you take a few minutes and comb through it you can find some cool stuff. Oh, and watch 'The Gods Must Be Crazy.'
xJoeEDangerouslyx 7 months ago
So ,,,Christians, I suggest next time you get sick, you should run into the church.
Have faith, believe, just believe, put your faith in God.....
beastshawnee 7 months ago
a lot of christians yell, "have faith, believe, just believe. Put your faith in God." Then they get sick, and then they run to the scientific community, and Dr.s. The Dr.s and pharaceutical community cure them, and they go home and claim it was god, because the whole time they were in the hospital they were praying. They forget the science involved, and ignore the fact that a lot of the people who died were praying too.
beastshawnee 7 months ago