By the way, the description of the participants in the debate and supplemental background info is incredibly skewed. You should be ashamed of yourself if you have any regard for objectivity or truth. Then again I'm sure you're cut from the same cloth as Eugenie Scott.
I think it's clear Peter Ward must have had his Biology 300 students come in and comment on these videos and bring down the ratings, lol. Ward was thoroughly trounced.
@odinata he's calling the qualities of the cells as machine-like. but much more complex. He's making a parallel between the qualities of a machine and the qualities of cells in that they are complex and therefore must have been created with intelligence. And he's using the same scientific process any scientist would use to come to this conclusion of ID.
Why would it matter if the code is digital or analog. It's as if Meyer keeps using the term digital code because it evokes the idea of an invention some how.
ID is clearly the las resort of american creationism.... just standing in a very few strands of pseudo scientist.... can not wait... Mr Ward sweep the dabate so far
@Jesrael1986M to the cave men that created this religion we would look supernatural. Intelligence is just a sly way for these creationists to overtly push there dogma with out alerting us its religion.
There is a huge difference between intelligence and wisdom, and atheists are impoverished on the latter count. The point of the car analogy is not to demonstrate that the universe was created by God. The point is to demonstrate that INTELLIGENCE IS NOT SUPERNATURAL. By invoking intelligence as an explanation I am not thereby invoking some terribly mysterious and paranormal phenomenon. You are intelligent. I am intelligent. It is a perfectly natural kind of explanation.
The car analogy is bad, I concede that an intelligence created a car, and yes the intelligence behind designing and making a car is not supernatural. But in the context of our discussion of the video,Implying that a car is intelligently designed leads the way to make a huge assumption the universe was intelligently designed,and therefore by a designer, aka your god.
Good job proving cars are designed, we already knew that.
You don't tell me what my point was, I tell you what my point was.
The context of this discussion is not the origin of the universe, it is the origin of life, pursuant to the topic of the above debate. Invoking intelligence to explain life is perfectly scientific, because intelligence is not supernatural.
Nothing you said was the least bit coherent. First, you just agreed with what I said earlier, that intelligence is not supernatural. Then you parrot a talking point from a bunch of atheist polemicists that also happens to be a blatant lie. Sometimes the evidence leads to intelligent causes, as in the case of a car. There is an infinite number of similar examples which totally falsify the claim that invoking intelligence is dogmatic.
You said "Invoking intelligence to explain life is perfectly scientific, because intelligence is not supernatural." 1.
There is nothing scientific about invoking Intelligence to explain life. ID and creationists are not following the scientific method and they want to be taken seriously in the scientific community, no they want special treatment as well, so they can just push an idea as a "theory" and get it taught in public schools again.
Why is it not scientific to invoke intelligence to explain life? If invoking intelligence as an explanation is INHERENTLY unscientific, then it is also unscientific to invoke intelligence to explain the origin of cars. In other words, you must give an actual REASON why life is a SPECIAL CASE where intelligence is not a legitimate mode of explanation.
@SnoopyDaniels "ID seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations, a viewpoint known as theistic science." Now all your silly little arguments have been defeated.
My first comment to you was 100% accurate, thank you for dragging that out.
you claimed:"The point of the car analogy is not to demonstrate that the universe was created by God."
which was a lie.
"Invoking intelligence to explain life is perfectly scientific" , which i proved to be false. 1
Most creationists believe that the earth is only 6000 years old. ID scientists see the evidence and agree that the earth and the universe are 4 billion and 15 billion years old respectively. Most creationists believe man lived with dinosaurs. ID scientists reject this notion. Creationists attempt to prove not only creation, but the specific events following creation recounted in the Bible, such as the fall of man and Noah's flood. ID scientists don't even address these subjects.
The most important difference between the conclusions of creationists and ID scientists is that creationists think that virtually every feature of the natural and biological world was designed. ID scientists accept that gradualistic/naturalistic mechanisms have played a huge role in shaping earth and life as we know them today. Some ID scientists even believe in common decent, whereas NO creationist believes in common decent. A true creationist would BALK at the ideas of ID.
How is the car analogy misleading? You have still not given a single reason to think that, and simply stating that cars are made by people is not a reason. If we were aliens visiting earth and found a car, we would still be justified in invoking an intelligent cause for the care EVEN IF WE WERE NOT AWARE OF HUMANS. That an intelligent cause is not known does not mean that there was no intelligent cause. That's a classic attempt to prove a negative.
"The watchmaker analogy, or watchmaker argument, is a teleological argument for the existence of God. By way of an analogy, the argument states that design implies a designer. The analogy has played a prominent role in natural theology and the "argument from design," where it was used to support arguments for the existence of God and for the intelligent design of the universe."
Dr. Meyer already explained how Intelligent Design DOES follow the scientific method in the series of videos above. You have failed to provide a single reason why it does not, just as Peter Ward failed to do in this debate.
@SnoopyDaniels This is getting old fast. I'm not interested in arguing with someone who is ignorant of the scientific method.ID does not practice science, they practice religion and manufacturing dissent.
Science follows the evidence in a logical way, ID leads the evidence and lies to help promote there cause.
If you don't follow the scientific process, your papers wont be published and reviewed by peers,Therefore ID is just a silly idea from a religion. Meyer was destroyed in this debate.
@SnoopyDaniels Sad tact,I think this conversation is over, there is no point talking to someone who doesn't value reason or logic. ID is not science, it has been ruled in court.
ID doesn't follow scientific methods for publishing or testing.
Any papers published are not on the subject of Creationism.
The DI lists many things like the list of dissent which is blatantly false and inaccurate.
Meyer himself stepped over the line of Intellectual morality to have his paper published.
There you go again resorting to personal attacks. It's ironic hearing someone who has yet to provide a single logical argument to support his view accuse ME of not valuing logic or reason.
1. I have just given you examples of ID scientists following scientific methods and publishing and testing.
2. You're right. Those papers AREN'T on the subject of Creationism because ID scientists are not creationists.
3. What website are you copying and pasting these false statements from?
@SnoopyDaniels Look Im done arguing with you, I am a honest person, and If you look you would see DI is very dishonest. Nothing creationists do is intellectually honest, and they do not follow the scientific method.
"the universe looks designed therefore there must be a designer!"
"lets test this hypothesis?" "naw it says so in the bible,Lets LIE and teach it as science in public schools."
@SnoopyDaniels 700 creationists and not one paper on ID. Enjoy the "win".
The irony of the last statement is beautiful, when its clear you are the one brainwashed. You didn't know ID was called Creationism before they lost in the supreme courts, Where it was ruled that ID is NOT science but rather religion is disguise.
Meyer couldn't even get a paper published so he bribed someone, which it was later retracted and an apology issued.
@SnoopyDaniels ID is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".
" It avoids specifying that the hypothesized intelligent designer is God Its leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,and believe the designer to be the Christian God" Exactly what you did with the car analogy. Try your bullshit with someone else.You are not that stupid so you are just being deceitful, You don't work for DI do you?
@SnoopyDaniels and 911 nuts have tones of papers too so what? give me one reference number to a paper outside there deceiving circle that hasn't been retracted.
None of the things you copied and pasted from evolutionist propaganda websites defeat any of my arguments, because the things you copied and pasted are not arguments. They are ASSERTIONS. Just because an evolutionist website SAYS that Intelligent Design is creationism doesn't mean it's creationism. Think for yourself for a change.
Here is another lesson in logic for you. Even if ID and creationism were similar (and you still haven't given one piece of evidence for that idea) the mere similarity between one idea and another does not discredit the former idea. If the former idea differs in just the ways that render it scientific then the fact that the latter idea is unscientific (in this case young-earth creationism) is PERFECTLY IRRELEVANT.
Creationism was not "relabeled" intelligent design. They are two totally different ways of thinking, and you will find no evidence of any intellectual cross-pollination. Creationism begins with a sacred text and attempts to make scientific evidence fit a particular interpretation of that text. ID begins with scientific observations and draws conclusions based on those observations. These two approaches result in totally different conclusions.
@SnoopyDaniels okay done, your just trolling , i proved creation was ID.You haven't proved anything but made assertions yourself. Everything i pasted for you was the truth, most from the Dover trial, some from wiki.
If you do not value the scientific method , why argue with it at all? I am sick of your dishonesty.
The scientific consensus agrees with evolution, gravity and nuclear physics, why single out evolution if its not directly against your religious texts aka genesis.
I provided you with a long list of peer-reviewed scientific articles supporting ID. This refutes your claim that ID is not scientific. It's that simple.
@SnoopyDaniels The overwhelming evidence at the Dover trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.
why should I take your word on this over supreme court ruling?
Having thus educated you on how ID and creationism are NOT the same, I will now provide you with PEER-REVIEWED, PEER-EDITED articles and publications written by ID scientists:
Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285.
@pandorachildHaving thus educated you on how ID and creationism are NOT the same, I will now provide you with PEER-REVIEWED, PEER-EDITED articles and publications written by ID scientists:
Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285.
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, Vol. 39 (5):1051-1061 (September, 2009
Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119.
Jonathan Wells, "Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, "Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).
W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996).
Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Philosophical Library, 1984, Lewis & Stanley, 4th ed., 1992).
John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer, Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003)
Del Ratzsch, Nature, Design, and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science (State University of New York Press, 2001).
@pandorachild None of the articles I posted have been "discredited." Do you have any clue what you are talking about? I feel like I'm arguing with a well-trained parrot.
I'm sure I have already pointed this out, but since you refuse to actually read an evaluate my arguments I will repeat it, very slowly.
Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.
David L. Abel & Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models," Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).
M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, "Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues," Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.
D. A. Axe, "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds," Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295-1315.
W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, "Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements," Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.
M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) "The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law," Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002)
D. A. Axe, "Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors," Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.
Nelson, P. & J. Wells, Homology in biology: Problem for naturalistic science and prospect for intelligent design, DDPE, Pp. 303-322.
Granville Sewell, "A Mathematician's View of Evolution," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000).
Are you starting to get the idea that everything you have been told about ID not being scientific is pure propaganda? That's what comes of blindly following a bunch if ideologically motivated evolutionists.
@SnoopyDaniels 1 "Biblical literalists who campaigned successfully against the teaching of evolution and began calling themselves Creationists in the 1920s. When teaching of evolution was reintroduced into public schools in the 1960s they adopted what they called creation science which had a central concept of design in similar terms to Paley's argument. "
@SnoopyDaniels 2 "That idea (Creationism) was then relabelled intelligent design, which presents the same analogy as an argument against evolution by natural selection without explicitly stating that the "intelligent designer" was God."
Intelligent design is christianity wishing it could be science. Keep evolution in the biology classroom and in the research laboratory, and keep superstition in the church.
4. What is inaccurate about the list of dissent? Give me ONE example. This is not tough. If you're ever going to go to college you will need to be able to give examples to support your arguments.
5. What is "intellectual morality?" Who decides what is "intellectually immoral" and what is not? What did Dr. Meyer do to violate this invisible, unwritten magical code you have suddenly invented?
5. First, the list in the video you provided is not from the Discovery Institute. The ACTUAL list can be found at their website. You can see for yourself that the format of the list shown in the video is totally different from the format of the actual list. Third, the statement on the list SAYS NOTHING ABOUT COMMON DECENT. Fourth, MANY ID PROPONENTS ACCEPT COMMON DECENT. So try again.
6. Putting forth a caricature of the ID argument and refuting it is not an argument.
@SnoopyDaniels On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.On 7 September, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement retracting the article as not having met its scientific standards and not peer reviewed. 1of 2
@SnoopyDaniels The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID.
3. Cont. The Discovery Institute maintains a list of full citations of many of these publications at on their website.
4. In inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the retraction of Dr. Meyer's article and the subsequent
dismissal of the publication's editor found wrong-doing on the part of the Biological Society. It was a politically/philosophically motivated act of bigotry.
5. The opinions of a bunch of evolutionists at the AAS is totally irrelevant.
5. Cont. The AAS is made up of a bunch of evolutionists. OF COURSE they are going to say that there is no evidence supporting ID. Only an idiot would believe what the Republican party says about the Democrat party (and vice versa) without further independent investigation. It is equally stupid to listen to what evolutionists say about ID proponents.
6. You don't have to admit that ID is TRUE in order to admit that it is SCIENTIFIC. There are plenty of false scientific theories.
Right of the bat Meyer did not or could not answer the question. so far Ward in the lead.
Ps reminds of a quote from Kurt Wise " if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."
I take it you're not a programmer. I am. The idea that digital code in any form could organize itself into something as elegant and sophisticated as, well, life as we know it, is simply preposterous. Programming control structures, for example, requires foresight (for reasons you will discover if you spend any time actually working with code). Natural selection and random mutation do not have foresight. On that basis alone one must reject a pure Darwinian picture of life.
"It's preposterous to think my wife is cheating on me ...even though dna testing shows male dna inside her vagina." <--- You DO realize that's your argument, don't you? And if men with nipples, and newborns with erections = "elegant", then I'm the queen of England.
first you argue your wife didnt cheat on you because it's "unthinkable" in your mind, even though science proved that she did, now you argue that if a scientist makes an important discovery, his polytheistic superstitions and any other unfounded beliefs he holds are somehow scientific. i dont expect you to comprehend what i just said to you. you should just stick to your invisible sky fairy and leave logic and science to people like me who understand it
@SnoopyDaniels It could be argued that "complexity" is an entirely humanistic thought in the first place. It's an abstraction. And even if it could be quantified on a consistent and universal basis, it wouldn't at all advance the intelligent design argument. What predictions are given by intelligent design, with regard to the succession of living organisms? None.
@byteresistor Even an atheist as hardcore as Richard Dawkins admits the truth of this statement. He writes, "One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises" (p. 157, God Delusion). I meant fact from the vantage point of something all parties concede, if you don't, you stand alone. The question isn't the appearance of design, it is whether intelligence is responsible for it.
It is remarkable to me how little intelligent response there is to Meyer's ideas. Very few comments written here engage the substance of the debate. It frustrates me that even Peter Ward refuses to respond with any substantive content. What evidence does he have of the random development of complexity and design?
It is remarkable to me how little intelligent response there is to Meyer's ideas. Very few comments written here engage the substance of the debate. It frustrates me that even Peter Ward refuses to respond with any substantive content. What evidence does he have of the random development of complexity and design.\?
@pamja1 Natural selection is the opposite of random. Evolution is not just about random mutations, and not all mutations are random, some are "guided" by natural selection.
@byteresistor This "guidance" is precisely what is at issue. At a genetic level, there is nothing in place to guide mutations so they will be beneficial. The genetic direction is only seen after the fact by the ability of certain mutative changes to have superior survival and reproductive capacity. The fact that there does seem to be some intelligence guiding this process is exactly the observation Meyer is making.
@pamja1 That's why I used quotation marks, so you wouldn't get confused. Apparently I wasn't succesful.
"The fact that there does seem to be some intelligence guiding this process"
Fact? I think you should double check what the word means. Stick to an hypothesis, after you have verified it by evidence (which would be impossible in this case, since we're talking about some invisible supernatural force) then you can start talking about facts.
Homochirality proves evolution is a lie,evolutionists would rather believe in some chemistry unknown to science than intelligence..wow really pathetic..this is why Miller failed to make life or even make building blocks of life..evolutionists have some faith in science in some imaginary evolution process that has never happened or been observed
Funny how he can say "we need to lok to presently acting causes" in DEFENCE of a supernatural god entity...
"We shouldn't invent exotic causes of the sort we have never seen in operation" - dosnt that sound suspiciously like the god concept?
Also if digital code = intelligence, and we need to look to presently acting causes - I guess that means man created man since we are the only ones who can create digital information? Such fallacious logic it baffles the mind.
No, not enough said. I find Meyer to have very reasonable ideas. Not that Ward is an idiot, but you cannot dismiss Meyer so easily. All he says is that intelligence is a proven cause of complexity. Who can deny that?
@timothy51886 He destroyed Michael Shermer. Your atheism is useless. Its astounding, no matter how you look at it, you've fastened yourself in the losers seatbelt.
@timothy51886 U need life to start it dummy if u want to separate it from evolution. cause u have no explanation.that is not science and not an answer.... Meyer is brilliant!!..evolutionists have assumptions..with ZERO testable chemistry on these "so called primitive cells".. RNA some how self assembling..is laughable and not science..chirality destroys abiogenesis,and evolution..meyer destroys this moron
@Seigu007 .... Meyer is brilliant!!..evolutionists have assumptions..with ZERO testable chemistry on these "so called primitive cells".. RNA some how self assembling..is laughable and not science..chirality destroys abiogenesis,and evolution..meyer destroys this moron
@bpbusstop what about the bacterial flagellum, which is arguably the most efficient machine in the universe, a marvel of engineering that puts a F1 car engine to shame
@flapjackboy In other words, bad design = "what kind of an incompetent moron would design that - it must have evolved", good design = "isn't it great what evolution can do!"
@bpbusstop Of all of the idiotic and oversimplified arguments I've heard on this subject yours is the shining example of blockheadedness. Every biologist who ever studied the human body will concede that it is highly complex. And though there are "flaws" as you argue, that doesn't annul the idea of a designer any more than concluding that a Ford F-150 though filled with flaws must then be the function of random evolutionary mechanisms.
@bozez1 That makes no sense. The F-150 was designed by fallible humans. The argument by Intelligent Design is design by an IN-fallible being. That being the case, why are there any flaws at all? Why would an all-knowing, all-powerful being have ANY design flaws? Further, even though there are some design flaws, mankind has produces some extraordinary designs. The most able among us produce the best designs. Therefore, everything designed by your version of God should be perfect. It is not.
@jkmorris101 Did I at anytime give you "my version of God"? No so don't presuppose that I have one. Intelligent Design does not presuppose a specific God, that is left up to the individual. Your point is philosophical and can be answered by any number of religions views. Ultimately why do bad things happen, why do people get sick, why do bodies fall apart. All religions have their version of an answer. Does not take away from the clear facts, crack open a biochem book. See for yourself.
@leeroynaggins No he designed a process by which complex snowflakes can be caused to exist by physical forces. Snowflakes also don't contain trillions of units of data that are intricately arranged.
even if you prove that there is a god, that does not mean its the same racists (only spoke to the Jews), murderous (killed the first borns in Egypt and entire nations in the name of Israel), invisible (yet demands all worship him), sexist in the Bible, if anything human complexity, along with math and physics in my opinion speak to a far greater more intelligent god than one thats sending billions of people to hell to burn for all eternity
in grade 9 (catholic school) in Canada I was taught both its just left for us to interpret Not debate he wouldnt let us talk ....I liked that route it was a little nazi but it worked.
Darwin came up with the PROCESS of Natural Selection."
From that statement it seems clear that you ARE saying that Darwin didn't favor "undirected processes." Now, call me crazy, but I think the only other option is a DIRECTED process. May not be what you meant, but it is how it came across.
"The IDiot in the video says, 'Darwins idea is an undirected process'
That is a creationist set up."
So, he's an "IDiot" for saying that, but you YOURSELF just said, "Natural Selection is undirected."
It seems you are angry and frustrated about the whole notion that what he is saying IS TRUE! Natural selection is a process occuring in nature -- as you said -- and is UNDIRECTED -- as we've all agreed.
Now, wherever one chooses to take that is their choice, but nevertheless IT'S A FACT.
Here's the truth: all evolutionary THEORY is NOT A FACT.
...wait...before you lose your mind, read on...
The FACTS of evolution are FACTS. Huh? What are the facts of evolution?
Oh, just things like natural selection, mutation, variation, descent with modification, etc.
Then what about evolutionary theory is NOT a fact?
Oh, just claims like LIFE STARTED FROM A POOL OF GOO on earth billions of years ago. That is philosophy, unsubstantiated and vain speculation, and frankly RELIGION.
@gregrutz "Evolutionary theory is not a ''fact'', it is a theory. It [attempts to explain] how the [diversity of life on earth came to be], and it did [come to be.] The theory [is based upon observable processes such as] natural selection, variation, descent, etc.
The facts it explains are the fossil record, DNA and [the genetic similiarities shared between various species, such as humans and] apes."
Okay, so you technically are correct: evolution and abiogenesis are distinct fields of scientific inquiry, and evolutionary theory says little, and hasn't need to say much, about ultimate origins. Fair enough?
Nevertheless, Darwin himself did propose the whole "pool of goo" idea in "Origin of the Species."
Incidentally, when Darwin talks about the "Species" he is, in fact, talking about all "lifeforms" generally, and therefore LIFE ITSELF.
@rationalmuscle Yes. But not because "goo" is, in my mind, is less of a building block for life than dust, but because the goo was non-life that somehow became alive on it's own. That is just nonsense.
@elijah5791 I would suggest looking up the RNA base pairs created last year using basic materials from the early earth. Abiogenesis took a huge step forward this week as well with Venter et. al's creation of synthetic self-replicating cells.
It's only a matter of time before we can prove self-replicating cells could have formed on their own.
Now, an eternal spaceless, timeless deity that revealed himself to desert tribesmen in the Middle East 4600 years ago? That sounds like nonsense to me.
@rationalmuscle OH, YEAH! Miller/ Urey the Sequel! Wow! I'm so excited!
"It's only a matter of time before we can prove self-replicating cells could have formed on their own."
Or before until we all die!
"Now, an eternal spaceless, timeless deity that revealed himself to desert tribesmen in the Middle East 4600 years ago? That sounds like nonsense to me."
That's because you're perishing, a fool, and blinded by your pride. It's really not surprising.
@elijah5791 Again and again, it's the Christians that start in with the personal insults. You guys just have no sense of respect. I suppose 'that' is not surprising given the tribal war god you worship.
Nonetheless, Venter's research is in a league of its own. Not sure what you mean by "before we all die", unless it's the tired canard of "end of the world" or "science will kill us."
My lack of belief has nothing to do with pride; it has to do w
The reason that Stephen doesn't use science is that the science doesn't support him--and he's not a scientist.
Hes a philosopher.
He started out as a lobbyist for the Oil Industry, and now he's a lobbyist for the Evangelical Industry.
odinata 4 days ago
anyone who believe in intelligent design is an idiot.
timfosho 1 week ago
@timfosho why?
majilis2nd 4 days ago
@timfosho Because the idea of intelligent design is not a result of reason and logic and facts.
timfosho 4 days ago
By the way, the description of the participants in the debate and supplemental background info is incredibly skewed. You should be ashamed of yourself if you have any regard for objectivity or truth. Then again I'm sure you're cut from the same cloth as Eugenie Scott.
realtick 1 month ago
I think it's clear Peter Ward must have had his Biology 300 students come in and comment on these videos and bring down the ratings, lol. Ward was thoroughly trounced.
realtick 1 month ago
Undirected process???? Natural Selection is VERY directed
OptimalElement 2 months ago
Meyer calls them machines--but they aren't machines.
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata he's calling the qualities of the cells as machine-like. but much more complex. He's making a parallel between the qualities of a machine and the qualities of cells in that they are complex and therefore must have been created with intelligence. And he's using the same scientific process any scientist would use to come to this conclusion of ID.
majilis2nd 4 days ago
@majilis2nd
He's not using any science.
He's using his own opinions to compare cells to machines.
Cells aren't machines.
odinata 4 days ago
Meyer dodges the question of what finding would falsify ID.
estragon9 5 months ago in playlist Meyer and ward
@estragon9 Ward dodges questions with opinions. Opinions and philosophy is NOT SCIENCE.
chris7777777777777 2 months ago
@chris7777777777777 What would be your answer to the question: What would falsify ID?
estragon9 2 months ago
Why would it matter if the code is digital or analog. It's as if Meyer keeps using the term digital code because it evokes the idea of an invention some how.
estragon9 5 months ago in playlist Meyer and ward
Less then 9 mins and the fact that Steve is a moronic douche is confirmed.
alianchild 5 months ago
Sad to see Americans making themselves the laughing stock of the world with this creationist crap that should have died out years ago.
grundgemonster 7 months ago
ID is clearly the las resort of american creationism.... just standing in a very few strands of pseudo scientist.... can not wait... Mr Ward sweep the dabate so far
MrLuiS3rd 8 months ago
We don't want to be confronted with the truth. Let's keep living in our fantasy world of our own making, hiding behind blinders.
OysterLava 9 months ago
Once again I'll say this. Youtube, home to the most idiotic comments on the web.
lateralaus 10 months ago 3
It looks like the critics of ID are not able to distinguish between the words "intelligence" and "supernatural".
Jesrael1986M 10 months ago 4
@Jesrael1986M to the cave men that created this religion we would look supernatural. Intelligence is just a sly way for these creationists to overtly push there dogma with out alerting us its religion.
pandorachild 7 months ago
@pandorachild
So when I say that a car is intelligently designed, am I a creationist wacko?
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels I would have to say yes, because you are indirectly inferring that there was a creator to the universe, when there clearly isn't.
"We know cars are made and Designed by people,we have seen it done."
"We dont KNOW how the universe was created, and cannot suggest a designer."
There is a huge deference between belief and knowledge, theist's make this mistake often.
pandorachild 6 months ago
@pandorachild
There is a huge difference between intelligence and wisdom, and atheists are impoverished on the latter count. The point of the car analogy is not to demonstrate that the universe was created by God. The point is to demonstrate that INTELLIGENCE IS NOT SUPERNATURAL. By invoking intelligence as an explanation I am not thereby invoking some terribly mysterious and paranormal phenomenon. You are intelligent. I am intelligent. It is a perfectly natural kind of explanation.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels I think you missed the point.
The car analogy is bad, I concede that an intelligence created a car, and yes the intelligence behind designing and making a car is not supernatural. But in the context of our discussion of the video,Implying that a car is intelligently designed leads the way to make a huge assumption the universe was intelligently designed,and therefore by a designer, aka your god.
Good job proving cars are designed, we already knew that.
pandorachild 6 months ago
@pandorachild
You don't tell me what my point was, I tell you what my point was.
The context of this discussion is not the origin of the universe, it is the origin of life, pursuant to the topic of the above debate. Invoking intelligence to explain life is perfectly scientific, because intelligence is not supernatural.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels bullshit. human intelligence is not supernatural, there are no other kinds of "intelligence".
Invoking intelligence to explain life is dogmatic, not scientific. Science follows the evidence , not leads it.
Twist words all you want, you are apparent.
pandorachild 6 months ago
@pandorachild
Nothing you said was the least bit coherent. First, you just agreed with what I said earlier, that intelligence is not supernatural. Then you parrot a talking point from a bunch of atheist polemicists that also happens to be a blatant lie. Sometimes the evidence leads to intelligent causes, as in the case of a car. There is an infinite number of similar examples which totally falsify the claim that invoking intelligence is dogmatic.
What does "you are apparent" even mean?
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels lets clarify before we continue, okay?
You said "Invoking intelligence to explain life is perfectly scientific, because intelligence is not supernatural." 1.
There is nothing scientific about invoking Intelligence to explain life. ID and creationists are not following the scientific method and they want to be taken seriously in the scientific community, no they want special treatment as well, so they can just push an idea as a "theory" and get it taught in public schools again.
pandorachild 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels cont 2 you said "Sometimes the evidence leads to intelligent causes, as in the case of a car."
The car analogy is Misleading, and is based on a false presupposition.
Cars are made by people, universe is unknown.
I think theists need to learn to differentiate between knowledge and belief .
pandorachild 6 months ago
@pandorachild
Why is it not scientific to invoke intelligence to explain life? If invoking intelligence as an explanation is INHERENTLY unscientific, then it is also unscientific to invoke intelligence to explain the origin of cars. In other words, you must give an actual REASON why life is a SPECIAL CASE where intelligence is not a legitimate mode of explanation.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels "ID seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations, a viewpoint known as theistic science." Now all your silly little arguments have been defeated.
My first comment to you was 100% accurate, thank you for dragging that out.
you claimed:"The point of the car analogy is not to demonstrate that the universe was created by God."
which was a lie.
"Invoking intelligence to explain life is perfectly scientific" , which i proved to be false. 1
pandorachild 6 months ago
@pandorachild
Most creationists believe that the earth is only 6000 years old. ID scientists see the evidence and agree that the earth and the universe are 4 billion and 15 billion years old respectively. Most creationists believe man lived with dinosaurs. ID scientists reject this notion. Creationists attempt to prove not only creation, but the specific events following creation recounted in the Bible, such as the fall of man and Noah's flood. ID scientists don't even address these subjects.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@pandorachild
The most important difference between the conclusions of creationists and ID scientists is that creationists think that virtually every feature of the natural and biological world was designed. ID scientists accept that gradualistic/naturalistic mechanisms have played a huge role in shaping earth and life as we know them today. Some ID scientists even believe in common decent, whereas NO creationist believes in common decent. A true creationist would BALK at the ideas of ID.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels enough, you lose.
pandorachild 6 months ago
@pandorachild
How is the car analogy misleading? You have still not given a single reason to think that, and simply stating that cars are made by people is not a reason. If we were aliens visiting earth and found a car, we would still be justified in invoking an intelligent cause for the care EVEN IF WE WERE NOT AWARE OF HUMANS. That an intelligent cause is not known does not mean that there was no intelligent cause. That's a classic attempt to prove a negative.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels Who made your maker.
"The watchmaker analogy, or watchmaker argument, is a teleological argument for the existence of God. By way of an analogy, the argument states that design implies a designer. The analogy has played a prominent role in natural theology and the "argument from design," where it was used to support arguments for the existence of God and for the intelligent design of the universe."
pandorachild 6 months ago
@pandorachild
Dr. Meyer already explained how Intelligent Design DOES follow the scientific method in the series of videos above. You have failed to provide a single reason why it does not, just as Peter Ward failed to do in this debate.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels This is getting old fast. I'm not interested in arguing with someone who is ignorant of the scientific method.ID does not practice science, they practice religion and manufacturing dissent.
Science follows the evidence in a logical way, ID leads the evidence and lies to help promote there cause.
If you don't follow the scientific process, your papers wont be published and reviewed by peers,Therefore ID is just a silly idea from a religion. Meyer was destroyed in this debate.
pandorachild 6 months ago
@pandorachild
1. It's so easy to start attacking your opponent when you start losing. I know the scientific method just as well as you you.
2. You still have not given a single example of how ID "leads the evidence" much less an example of how ID "lies" to help promote its cause.
3. Discovery Institute fellows have published a number of peer-reviewed publications, so that totally shoots down your argument.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels Sad tact,I think this conversation is over, there is no point talking to someone who doesn't value reason or logic. ID is not science, it has been ruled in court.
ID doesn't follow scientific methods for publishing or testing.
Any papers published are not on the subject of Creationism.
The DI lists many things like the list of dissent which is blatantly false and inaccurate.
Meyer himself stepped over the line of Intellectual morality to have his paper published.
pandorachild 6 months ago
@pandorachild
There you go again resorting to personal attacks. It's ironic hearing someone who has yet to provide a single logical argument to support his view accuse ME of not valuing logic or reason.
1. I have just given you examples of ID scientists following scientific methods and publishing and testing.
2. You're right. Those papers AREN'T on the subject of Creationism because ID scientists are not creationists.
3. What website are you copying and pasting these false statements from?
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels Look Im done arguing with you, I am a honest person, and If you look you would see DI is very dishonest. Nothing creationists do is intellectually honest, and they do not follow the scientific method.
"the universe looks designed therefore there must be a designer!"
"lets test this hypothesis?" "naw it says so in the bible,Lets LIE and teach it as science in public schools."
"isn't that against the first amendment?"
"that's why we are disguising it as science"
pandorachild 6 months ago
@pandorachild
You keep talking about creationism. This has nothing to do with creationism.
You have failed to provide any arguments demonstrating how ID fails to use the scientific method.
You have failed to explain how ID and creationism are similar.
In fact, you have failed to provide any legitimate evidence or arguments to support any of your claims.
I don't know that you are intellectually dishonest, but you have clearly been brainwashed by atheism.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels have a nice life.
pandorachild 6 months ago
@pandorachild
Score one for Intelligent Design.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels 700 creationists and not one paper on ID. Enjoy the "win".
The irony of the last statement is beautiful, when its clear you are the one brainwashed. You didn't know ID was called Creationism before they lost in the supreme courts, Where it was ruled that ID is NOT science but rather religion is disguise.
Meyer couldn't even get a paper published so he bribed someone, which it was later retracted and an apology issued.
but why bother you already won.
pandorachild 6 months ago
@pandorachild
I just told you earlier that the Discovery Institute has a list of SCORES of papers on ID. Do your homework.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels ID is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".
pandorachild 6 months ago
@pandorachild cont
" It avoids specifying that the hypothesized intelligent designer is God Its leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,and believe the designer to be the Christian God" Exactly what you did with the car analogy. Try your bullshit with someone else.You are not that stupid so you are just being deceitful, You don't work for DI do you?
pandorachild 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels and 911 nuts have tones of papers too so what? give me one reference number to a paper outside there deceiving circle that hasn't been retracted.
pandorachild 6 months ago
@pandorachild
None of the things you copied and pasted from evolutionist propaganda websites defeat any of my arguments, because the things you copied and pasted are not arguments. They are ASSERTIONS. Just because an evolutionist website SAYS that Intelligent Design is creationism doesn't mean it's creationism. Think for yourself for a change.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@pandorachild
Here is another lesson in logic for you. Even if ID and creationism were similar (and you still haven't given one piece of evidence for that idea) the mere similarity between one idea and another does not discredit the former idea. If the former idea differs in just the ways that render it scientific then the fact that the latter idea is unscientific (in this case young-earth creationism) is PERFECTLY IRRELEVANT.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@pandorachild
Creationism was not "relabeled" intelligent design. They are two totally different ways of thinking, and you will find no evidence of any intellectual cross-pollination. Creationism begins with a sacred text and attempts to make scientific evidence fit a particular interpretation of that text. ID begins with scientific observations and draws conclusions based on those observations. These two approaches result in totally different conclusions.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels okay done, your just trolling , i proved creation was ID.You haven't proved anything but made assertions yourself. Everything i pasted for you was the truth, most from the Dover trial, some from wiki.
If you do not value the scientific method , why argue with it at all? I am sick of your dishonesty.
The scientific consensus agrees with evolution, gravity and nuclear physics, why single out evolution if its not directly against your religious texts aka genesis.
pandorachild 6 months ago
@pandorachild
I provided you with a long list of peer-reviewed scientific articles supporting ID. This refutes your claim that ID is not scientific. It's that simple.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels The overwhelming evidence at the Dover trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.
why should I take your word on this over supreme court ruling?
/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision
pandorachild 6 months ago
Having thus educated you on how ID and creationism are NOT the same, I will now provide you with PEER-REVIEWED, PEER-EDITED articles and publications written by ID scientists:
Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels what part of discredited don't you understand?
pandorachild 6 months ago
Comment removed
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@pandorachildHaving thus educated you on how ID and creationism are NOT the same, I will now provide you with PEER-REVIEWED, PEER-EDITED articles and publications written by ID scientists:
Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@pandorachild
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, Vol. 39 (5):1051-1061 (September, 2009
Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119.
Jonathan Wells, "Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@pandorachild
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, "Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).
W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996).
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@pandorachild
Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Philosophical Library, 1984, Lewis & Stanley, 4th ed., 1992).
John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer, Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003)
Del Ratzsch, Nature, Design, and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science (State University of New York Press, 2001).
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels LMFAO! seriously discredited, The guy who wrote of pandas and men? are you fucking serious?
THEY LOST DOVER, "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism."
pandorachild 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pandorachild None of the articles I posted have been "discredited." Do you have any clue what you are talking about? I feel like I'm arguing with a well-trained parrot.
I'm sure I have already pointed this out, but since you refuse to actually read an evaluate my arguments I will repeat it, very slowly.
SINCE...WHEN...IS...SCIENCE...DECIDED...BY...A...JUDGE...IN...PENNSYLVANIA?
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@pandorachild
Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.
David L. Abel & Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models," Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).
M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, "Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues," Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@pandorachild
D. A. Axe, "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds," Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295-1315.
W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, "Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements," Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.
M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) "The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law," Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002)
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@pandorachild
D. A. Axe, "Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors," Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.
Nelson, P. & J. Wells, Homology in biology: Problem for naturalistic science and prospect for intelligent design, DDPE, Pp. 303-322.
Granville Sewell, "A Mathematician's View of Evolution," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000).
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@pandorachild
Are you starting to get the idea that everything you have been told about ID not being scientific is pure propaganda? That's what comes of blindly following a bunch if ideologically motivated evolutionists.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels 1 "Biblical literalists who campaigned successfully against the teaching of evolution and began calling themselves Creationists in the 1920s. When teaching of evolution was reintroduced into public schools in the 1960s they adopted what they called creation science which had a central concept of design in similar terms to Paley's argument. "
pandorachild 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels 2 "That idea (Creationism) was then relabelled intelligent design, which presents the same analogy as an argument against evolution by natural selection without explicitly stating that the "intelligent designer" was God."
pandorachild 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels
Intelligent design is christianity wishing it could be science. Keep evolution in the biology classroom and in the research laboratory, and keep superstition in the church.
robocong7420 6 months ago
@robocong7420
Wow, that was a completely ignorant and unsophisticated analysis.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@pandorachild
4. What is inaccurate about the list of dissent? Give me ONE example. This is not tough. If you're ever going to go to college you will need to be able to give examples to support your arguments.
5. What is "intellectual morality?" Who decides what is "intellectually immoral" and what is not? What did Dr. Meyer do to violate this invisible, unwritten magical code you have suddenly invented?
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@pandorachild
The great thing about this conversation is that we both know you're wrong and you're just too embarrassed to admit it.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels You can lie all you want doesn't make it true with faith.
You haven't given ONE ex of ID following scientific in anything related to creationism.
ID is Creationism therefore creationists, who are you trying to fool with this?
Name one false statement,and prove its false.
The list of dissent actually has people on it who never gave there permission
(/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM&feature=player_embedded)
As for Meyer, he skipped the whole peer review process and got his paper published.
pandorachild 6 months ago
@pandorachild
1. I never said that faith makes a lie truth.
2. I just gave you a list of peer-reviewed publications supporting intelligent design. You have failed to explain why these are illegitimate examples.
3. How is Intelligent Design the same as creationism? Do you even know what Creationism is?
4. "Name one false statement and prove it's false." What does that have to do with what we're talking about?
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@pandorachild
5. First, the list in the video you provided is not from the Discovery Institute. The ACTUAL list can be found at their website. You can see for yourself that the format of the list shown in the video is totally different from the format of the actual list. Third, the statement on the list SAYS NOTHING ABOUT COMMON DECENT. Fourth, MANY ID PROPONENTS ACCEPT COMMON DECENT. So try again.
6. Putting forth a caricature of the ID argument and refuting it is not an argument.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.On 7 September, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement retracting the article as not having met its scientific standards and not peer reviewed. 1of 2
pandorachild 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID.
pandorachild 6 months ago
@pandorachild @pandorachild
3. Cont. The Discovery Institute maintains a list of full citations of many of these publications at on their website.
4. In inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the retraction of Dr. Meyer's article and the subsequent
dismissal of the publication's editor found wrong-doing on the part of the Biological Society. It was a politically/philosophically motivated act of bigotry.
5. The opinions of a bunch of evolutionists at the AAS is totally irrelevant.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@pandorachild
5. Cont. The AAS is made up of a bunch of evolutionists. OF COURSE they are going to say that there is no evidence supporting ID. Only an idiot would believe what the Republican party says about the Democrat party (and vice versa) without further independent investigation. It is equally stupid to listen to what evolutionists say about ID proponents.
6. You don't have to admit that ID is TRUE in order to admit that it is SCIENTIFIC. There are plenty of false scientific theories.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels Prove ID is scientific. worth a laugh.
pandorachild 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels Meyer is discredited.
pandorachild 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels i was right about the bullshit point u were trying to fabricate.
pandorachild 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels lie.
pandorachild 6 months ago
Right of the bat Meyer did not or could not answer the question. so far Ward in the lead.
Ps reminds of a quote from Kurt Wise " if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."
pandorachild 7 months ago
@pandorachild
And which question was that? Are you even watching the same debate as the rest of us?
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@Jesrael1986M
Spot on!
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@Jesrael1986M
"inteligence" = Yahweh. and ID = christianity wishing it could be science.
robocong7420 6 months ago
refer to dna as "digital code" enough times and it'll convince me the magic man is involved lolz
robocong7420 6 months ago
@robocong7420
I take it you're not a programmer. I am. The idea that digital code in any form could organize itself into something as elegant and sophisticated as, well, life as we know it, is simply preposterous. Programming control structures, for example, requires foresight (for reasons you will discover if you spend any time actually working with code). Natural selection and random mutation do not have foresight. On that basis alone one must reject a pure Darwinian picture of life.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels
"It's preposterous to think my wife is cheating on me ...even though dna testing shows male dna inside her vagina." <--- You DO realize that's your argument, don't you? And if men with nipples, and newborns with erections = "elegant", then I'm the queen of England.
robocong7420 6 months ago
@robocong7420
Have another go at the analogy. That would get you a flunking grade in a philosophy class.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels
i think i'll stick with dna testing and evolution science, and you can stick with your first corinthians and wishful thinking
robocong7420 6 months ago
@robocong7420
Descartes, Newton, Gallileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Bacon, Plato, Aristotle, Washington, Jefferson, etc. were all ID proponents, so I'm in good company.
SnoopyDaniels 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels
first you argue your wife didnt cheat on you because it's "unthinkable" in your mind, even though science proved that she did, now you argue that if a scientist makes an important discovery, his polytheistic superstitions and any other unfounded beliefs he holds are somehow scientific. i dont expect you to comprehend what i just said to you. you should just stick to your invisible sky fairy and leave logic and science to people like me who understand it
robocong7420 6 months ago
@robocong7420 Are you saying that because my sons DNA isn't linked to mine, my wife may not have had sex with god...??? Uncanny!
wondergundy 5 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels Oh? They were all creationists...so you're saying ID is creationism....interesting...
BigLundi 6 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels It could be argued that "complexity" is an entirely humanistic thought in the first place. It's an abstraction. And even if it could be quantified on a consistent and universal basis, it wouldn't at all advance the intelligent design argument. What predictions are given by intelligent design, with regard to the succession of living organisms? None.
IllegalAmigo07 3 months ago
@SnoopyDaniels its a good thing then that dna is not actually a programming language or 'digital code" but rather a template.
SqueakerAlpha 4 months ago
One word, ERV.
baldurus1 1 year ago
When he cites Bill Gates he loses, I do not need to watch the rest of this debate.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
143 are going straight to hell :)
Seigu007 1 year ago
@byteresistor Even an atheist as hardcore as Richard Dawkins admits the truth of this statement. He writes, "One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises" (p. 157, God Delusion). I meant fact from the vantage point of something all parties concede, if you don't, you stand alone. The question isn't the appearance of design, it is whether intelligence is responsible for it.
pamja1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ID is a political dogma, not science, there's no question about that.
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is remarkable to me how little intelligent response there is to Meyer's ideas. Very few comments written here engage the substance of the debate. It frustrates me that even Peter Ward refuses to respond with any substantive content. What evidence does he have of the random development of complexity and design?
pamja1 1 year ago
It is remarkable to me how little intelligent response there is to Meyer's ideas. Very few comments written here engage the substance of the debate. It frustrates me that even Peter Ward refuses to respond with any substantive content. What evidence does he have of the random development of complexity and design.\?
pamja1 1 year ago
@pamja1 Natural selection is the opposite of random. Evolution is not just about random mutations, and not all mutations are random, some are "guided" by natural selection.
byteresistor 1 year ago
@byteresistor This "guidance" is precisely what is at issue. At a genetic level, there is nothing in place to guide mutations so they will be beneficial. The genetic direction is only seen after the fact by the ability of certain mutative changes to have superior survival and reproductive capacity. The fact that there does seem to be some intelligence guiding this process is exactly the observation Meyer is making.
pamja1 1 year ago
@pamja1 That's why I used quotation marks, so you wouldn't get confused. Apparently I wasn't succesful.
"The fact that there does seem to be some intelligence guiding this process"
Fact? I think you should double check what the word means. Stick to an hypothesis, after you have verified it by evidence (which would be impossible in this case, since we're talking about some invisible supernatural force) then you can start talking about facts.
byteresistor 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homochirality proves evolution is a lie,evolutionists would rather believe in some chemistry unknown to science than intelligence..wow really pathetic..this is why Miller failed to make life or even make building blocks of life..evolutionists have some faith in science in some imaginary evolution process that has never happened or been observed
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
Is God Irreducible complex?And if he is, Does god need a designer?
mrgetrealpeople 1 year ago
My next door neighbor is a disigner, maybe she did it.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Funny how he can say "we need to lok to presently acting causes" in DEFENCE of a supernatural god entity...
"We shouldn't invent exotic causes of the sort we have never seen in operation" - dosnt that sound suspiciously like the god concept?
Also if digital code = intelligence, and we need to look to presently acting causes - I guess that means man created man since we are the only ones who can create digital information? Such fallacious logic it baffles the mind.
TheStigma 1 year ago
GEORGE BUSH IS A TWAT!
BabySatch1 1 year ago
Stephen Meyers is so full of fail right from the start.
FallenAngel0fDoom 1 year ago
Peter Ward is the symbol of stupidity, he could not even articulate what ID is about.
mirando100 1 year ago
@mirando100 No one knows what ID is, it is not science or a theory. It is an argument for God. You can't prove the supernatural.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This guy is from the Discovery Institute. Enough said.
timothy51886 1 year ago
@timothy51886
No, not enough said. I find Meyer to have very reasonable ideas. Not that Ward is an idiot, but you cannot dismiss Meyer so easily. All he says is that intelligence is a proven cause of complexity. Who can deny that?
travster7 1 year ago
@timothy51886 He destroyed Michael Shermer. Your atheism is useless. Its astounding, no matter how you look at it, you've fastened yourself in the losers seatbelt.
Seigu007 1 year ago
@timothy51886 U need life to start it dummy if u want to separate it from evolution. cause u have no explanation.that is not science and not an answer.... Meyer is brilliant!!..evolutionists have assumptions..with ZERO testable chemistry on these "so called primitive cells".. RNA some how self assembling..is laughable and not science..chirality destroys abiogenesis,and evolution..meyer destroys this moron
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
From a fool's mind the human body is very complex. From a engineering stand point the human body is full flaws.
bpbusstop 1 year ago 2
@bpbusstop
Full of flaws? Absolutely ridiculous statement. What has been engineered that can reproduce itself the way the human body does?
travster7 1 year ago
@bpbusstop
Complexity and proficiency are two different things. The biology of human beings is amazingly complex, with that said it also has many many flaws.
Blazen1212 1 year ago
@bpbusstop Awww, somebody was born ugly. Cry me a river.
Seigu007 1 year ago
@Seigu007 .... Meyer is brilliant!!..evolutionists have assumptions..with ZERO testable chemistry on these "so called primitive cells".. RNA some how self assembling..is laughable and not science..chirality destroys abiogenesis,and evolution..meyer destroys this moron
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@bpbusstop what about the bacterial flagellum, which is arguably the most efficient machine in the universe, a marvel of engineering that puts a F1 car engine to shame
Jesrael1986M 1 year ago
@Jesrael1986M The bacterial flagellum evolved from simpler structures, it was not 'designed'.
flapjackboy 1 year ago
@flapjackboy In other words, bad design = "what kind of an incompetent moron would design that - it must have evolved", good design = "isn't it great what evolution can do!"
Welcome to evolutionary logic.
Jesrael1986M 1 year ago
@Jesrael1986M No, not at all. I'm saying there was no 'design' at all, good or bad.
flapjackboy 1 year ago
@bpbusstop Of all of the idiotic and oversimplified arguments I've heard on this subject yours is the shining example of blockheadedness. Every biologist who ever studied the human body will concede that it is highly complex. And though there are "flaws" as you argue, that doesn't annul the idea of a designer any more than concluding that a Ford F-150 though filled with flaws must then be the function of random evolutionary mechanisms.
bozez1 10 months ago
@bozez1 That makes no sense. The F-150 was designed by fallible humans. The argument by Intelligent Design is design by an IN-fallible being. That being the case, why are there any flaws at all? Why would an all-knowing, all-powerful being have ANY design flaws? Further, even though there are some design flaws, mankind has produces some extraordinary designs. The most able among us produce the best designs. Therefore, everything designed by your version of God should be perfect. It is not.
jkmorris101 10 months ago
@jkmorris101 Did I at anytime give you "my version of God"? No so don't presuppose that I have one. Intelligent Design does not presuppose a specific God, that is left up to the individual. Your point is philosophical and can be answered by any number of religions views. Ultimately why do bad things happen, why do people get sick, why do bodies fall apart. All religions have their version of an answer. Does not take away from the clear facts, crack open a biochem book. See for yourself.
bozez1 10 months ago
Poor Peter Ward, he thought his days of being beat up at school were all over with.
bozez1 10 months ago
@bpbusstop nonsense, you've obviously never studied the physiology of a cell. A single cell is more complex than anything man has ever devised.
micah1116 8 months ago
@bpbusstop From an engineering stand point you should know the trade-offs that go into design. Design does not mean optimal design.
mgundy 7 months ago
meyer, your full of shit
Seano71 1 year ago
A snowflake is complex information...
Does the Designer design each and every snowflake....
leeroynaggins 1 year ago
@leeroynaggins No he designed a process by which complex snowflakes can be caused to exist by physical forces. Snowflakes also don't contain trillions of units of data that are intricately arranged.
Trojanman21c 1 year ago
even if you prove that there is a god, that does not mean its the same racists (only spoke to the Jews), murderous (killed the first borns in Egypt and entire nations in the name of Israel), invisible (yet demands all worship him), sexist in the Bible, if anything human complexity, along with math and physics in my opinion speak to a far greater more intelligent god than one thats sending billions of people to hell to burn for all eternity
TeamFortressKilla 1 year ago
in grade 9 (catholic school) in Canada I was taught both its just left for us to interpret Not debate he wouldnt let us talk ....I liked that route it was a little nazi but it worked.
xmrwaffles2 1 year ago
My next door neighbor is a designer. Does he think she made the universe?
Or maybe it has to be a god? But no god in school, lets leave him out.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Darwinian Idea... undirected process, WRONG.
Darwin came up with the process of Natural Selection.
gregrutz 1 year ago
"Darwinian Idea... undirected process, WRONG.
Darwin came up with the process of Natural Selection."
So, then you're now claiming Natural Selection is directed?
elijah5791 1 year ago
@elijah5791 I did not say that ass hole.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I did not say that ass hole."
Okay, here is what you said:
"Darwinian Idea... UNDIRECTED process, WRONG.
Darwin came up with the PROCESS of Natural Selection."
From that statement it seems clear that you ARE saying that Darwin didn't favor "undirected processes." Now, call me crazy, but I think the only other option is a DIRECTED process. May not be what you meant, but it is how it came across.
elijah5791 1 year ago
@elijah5791
Natural Selection is a process occurring in nature. Much like gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces and electromagnetism.
IDisnotscience 1 year ago
@elijah5791 The IDiot in the video says, ''Darwins idea is an undirected process"
That is a creationist set up.
If you agree, then evolution is just 'Chance', can't work.
If you disagree, then evolution is directed by an ID.
I say WRONG! Natural Selection is a natural process that produces complex life forms, naturally, with the laws of nature.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The IDiot in the video says, 'Darwins idea is an undirected process'
That is a creationist set up."
So, he's an "IDiot" for saying that, but you YOURSELF just said, "Natural Selection is undirected."
It seems you are angry and frustrated about the whole notion that what he is saying IS TRUE! Natural selection is a process occuring in nature -- as you said -- and is UNDIRECTED -- as we've all agreed.
Now, wherever one chooses to take that is their choice, but nevertheless IT'S A FACT.
elijah5791 1 year ago
Here's the truth: all evolutionary THEORY is NOT A FACT.
...wait...before you lose your mind, read on...
The FACTS of evolution are FACTS. Huh? What are the facts of evolution?
Oh, just things like natural selection, mutation, variation, descent with modification, etc.
Then what about evolutionary theory is NOT a fact?
Oh, just claims like LIFE STARTED FROM A POOL OF GOO on earth billions of years ago. That is philosophy, unsubstantiated and vain speculation, and frankly RELIGION.
elijah5791 1 year ago
@elijah5791 Evolutionary theory is not a ''fact'', it is a theory. It shows how the process of evolution happened, and it did happen.
The theory is about natural selection, vairation, descent, etc.
The facts it explains are the fossil record, DNA and the fact that we are apes.
The theory is not about how life started, Darwin wrote, 'Origin o Species,
Not origin of life. You seen a little confused, try reading a science book.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz "Evolutionary theory is not a ''fact'', it is a theory. It [attempts to explain] how the [diversity of life on earth came to be], and it did [come to be.] The theory [is based upon observable processes such as] natural selection, variation, descent, etc.
The facts it explains are the fossil record, DNA and [the genetic similiarities shared between various species, such as humans and] apes."
...Fixed it. ;)
elijah5791 1 year ago
Haha. You're a retarded dork! ;)
Okay, so you technically are correct: evolution and abiogenesis are distinct fields of scientific inquiry, and evolutionary theory says little, and hasn't need to say much, about ultimate origins. Fair enough?
Nevertheless, Darwin himself did propose the whole "pool of goo" idea in "Origin of the Species."
Incidentally, when Darwin talks about the "Species" he is, in fact, talking about all "lifeforms" generally, and therefore LIFE ITSELF.
elijah5791 1 year ago
@elijah5791 And what part of evolution or abiogenisis don't you understand? From your comments you don't understand either one.
. You're a retarded dork! ;)
Okay, you are correct
.
IDiot.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@elijah5791 I'm curious: the "pool of goo" as you state; is this somehow less appealing than the dust used in Genesis?
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
@rationalmuscle Yes. But not because "goo" is, in my mind, is less of a building block for life than dust, but because the goo was non-life that somehow became alive on it's own. That is just nonsense.
elijah5791 1 year ago
@elijah5791 I would suggest looking up the RNA base pairs created last year using basic materials from the early earth. Abiogenesis took a huge step forward this week as well with Venter et. al's creation of synthetic self-replicating cells.
It's only a matter of time before we can prove self-replicating cells could have formed on their own.
Now, an eternal spaceless, timeless deity that revealed himself to desert tribesmen in the Middle East 4600 years ago? That sounds like nonsense to me.
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
@rationalmuscle OH, YEAH! Miller/ Urey the Sequel! Wow! I'm so excited!
"It's only a matter of time before we can prove self-replicating cells could have formed on their own."
Or before until we all die!
"Now, an eternal spaceless, timeless deity that revealed himself to desert tribesmen in the Middle East 4600 years ago? That sounds like nonsense to me."
That's because you're perishing, a fool, and blinded by your pride. It's really not surprising.
elijah5791 1 year ago
Correction:
"Or, until we all die!"
(Long hours with no sleep will fuck up your grammar skills.)
elijah5791 1 year ago
@elijah5791 Again and again, it's the Christians that start in with the personal insults. You guys just have no sense of respect. I suppose 'that' is not surprising given the tribal war god you worship.
Nonetheless, Venter's research is in a league of its own. Not sure what you mean by "before we all die", unless it's the tired canard of "end of the world" or "science will kill us."
My lack of belief has nothing to do with pride; it has to do w